City Improvements Karl - I don't really get your welfare argument. There is a system in competitive youth soccer, of sorts. It does miss city kids. The only way to deny this is to believe that city kids have about 10% of the soccer potential & interest of suburban kids. That strikes me as a very unlikely assumption. But whatever, I'm more interested in following up the "alternatives to Bradenton" thought process. Or, more to the point, "extensions to Bradenton" -- because I believe that Bradenton is fulfilling a valuable role as is. The extension I am envisioning is not a full-scale boarding academy, which is an expensive endeavor, but rather funding Sockers/Magic like programs in the cities. Areas with high population density but lacking readily accessible, organized, high-level soccer programs. Let's plop 3 of them in Chicago, one on the North Side, one on the West Side, one on the South Side. That should satisfy most transportation concerns. Let's run these just like the Sockers would -- a cost of, say, $20,000 per team. Let's treat this like Ivy League schools, where admission is need blind and financial aid is awarded on a case by case basis. A reasonable assumption might be that half the families of those kids who are accepted can pay and half cannot. Meaning that the funding gap per team is $10K. OK, $10K per team, 10 teams per site (U10 through U19), 3 sites -- $300,000 annual expense. With $2 million, you could cover quite a number of the major cities (because they wouldn't all need 3 sites). With $5 million, you'd pretty much have the urban development thing done. Of course, if there were suburban areas that seemed to meet the same criteria as the cities -- decent population density and for whatever reason a lack of top-level club soccer -- they too would be eligible for this program. OK, money isn't floating around. But in the grand scheme of funding ideas, $2 million to $5 million per year isn't enormous. This idea would be a nice complement to Bradenton, by giving John Ellinger et al a larger and deeper player pool from which to select from.
That's _over_stating it because to be a major improvement over what we have, you don't need nearly that many players right away. Here's my idea: A grand total of 12 academy teams, each located in each of the MLS cities. Teams will generally consist of players from their ubran area, but players from outside these areas are free to try out for an academy. The academy would consist of two teams consisting of maybe 12 players per age group (IE 24 players per team). That's 576 players total all of which chosen by merit (and desire to participate) alone. Each club will receive sponsorship from an individual MLS club (for now the club from the same city as the academy). Sponsorship includes use of the team's name, uniforms, copyrights and so forth, as well as coaching and facilities. How you want to work the schedule is flexible. As one example, you could separate the MLS clubs into three groups of 4 based on geography, and play 24 "league" games. Add a cold weather tournament at LA (or maybe Dallas in November) once a year for a few more games. The sides also would enter into tournaments like the Dallas cup and others to fill out their fixtures. Players retain their amateur status and are not paid nor are they tied to an MLS pro contract in the future. They can later go to college or sign with a non-MLS club if they so choose. However, if the player _does_ sign with MLS, the club who sponsored that player's academy has a one-time option on retaining the player's services. All non-academy signing with the league will be distributed as they are now. This is the club's individual motivation for providing the training for the players as it allows the clubs to get "dibs" on the best young talent with regards to MLS. Program will be funded by a variety of sources. Some money going to Bradenton will go to the program. The program will do its best to generate funding through corporate sponsorships (using many of the corporate sponsors of MLS as possible sources). More funding can come from a system where a sizeable percentage of future transfer fees for academy trained players will go back into the academy. A much smaller percentage of any transfer can also go into the academy program. theremay be an insignificant amount of money netted from the yearly tournament. The balance of the money would come from an MLS sponsorship. Running these academies have financial benefits for MLS because: 1. An increase in the quality of training for American players, would likely result in a substantial increase in the overall quality of American players, which would result (in several ways) in an increase in the transfer fees MLS could get from American players who signed with the league from the Amateur ranks. 2. This increase in American talent would cause an increase in the quality of play in the league, which has positive short-term and long-term financial benefits. 3. The academy program would work as a high profile advertisement for the league in their local communities. Again there's likely going to be some short-term and long-term gain in popularity locally for the MLS clubs. 4. Exposing young talent to MLS coaches and facilities will likely result in some level to an increase in attractiveness of MLS as the "next step" of academy players, causing the league to "lose" less players to foreign clubs, and likely increasing the player's likelihood of going pro instead of college. 5. Most importantly, this sort of program can't help but improve the quality of the National Team both for the senior side and the olympics. The effects success has at this level has on MLS is open for debate, but not debateable is that success of the national team can't help but result in an increase in interest in MLS. How much we can argue, but it isn't zero. ... Will the program pay for itself in the short term? No, of course not. But the program can be limited enough, and funded enough to where the short-term investment in the program for MLS will be small enough (the goal would be to get MLS' bite under 10 million a year) where the long term benefits such a program would bring would make it an attractive investment. The club system as it exists now, could continue as it currently does with an insignificant number of players leaving the system for MLS academies. A fair number of MLS players would still come from this system, and they'd still send a large portion of their players to college on scholarships. It's up to the clubs on how they want to play it. They can co-operate with the MLS academy to everyone's benefit, or they can throw a tantrum. MLS can play it either way. The system isn't designed to replace these clubs, but to supplement what they're doing.
\ OK, thanks for the response. First, I don't see any need to have room and board, even if that is how an academy works overseas. All you need to do is provide enough funds (maybe a transportation allowance included) to provide a facility, coaching and a professional environment for kids within the metropolitan area of the "academy." How many of these could be funded with the Brandeton money, I don't know. But it would have to be a multiple of those included in residency, probably in a better environment. You might even be able to make the money go farther to restructure MLS to allow some benefit from developing players -- maybe not enough to allow unsubsidized "academies" but enough to allow some contribution by pro clubs. IMHO, I can't see a reason to prefer the current residency system or giving the money to elite clubs to allow them to waive fees for some or all of their players.
If you did not have a full time residency program -- room board, etc., especially for the older kids -- then I think you do not have an environment that replicates a professional academy overseas. I believe that it is a key differentiating factor, a critical difference maker in the development of elite players.
Given your scaled back proposal, and assuming you want an academy environment -- room, board, etc. daily training -- at $15k per head, that amounts to $9 million annually. Still a lot of money. I honestly don't think a single MLS team would, at this stage in the league's history, ante up a part, and certainly not all, of the money for such an enterprise. The cost-benefit just isn't there right now.
I just highlighted the cost-benefit angle. Some of the cost can be covered immediately, some of the cost would eventially be covered by increased growth because of the program. It's an investment and a rather modest one, I think considering the potential benefits. And if an MLS team decides not to participate, they shouldn't spend a lot of time grousing when most of the top talent coming into the league heads elsewhere because they were developed by the Wizards or DC United Academy.
You could probably find a way of placing out-of-area players with host families, as in junior hockey.
JG - I think this is a more likely scenario. Under my idea, probably most of the players will not need residency per se. Even overseas a lot of the 15-18 year olds will live at home if its possible. I don't think living in a dorm is ever preferred, if its not necessary -and as you say staying with a family is better than a dorm as well. But you do need to make arrangements for some players. Now you have kids like Kevin Vandenberg traveling 2 1/2 hours ONE WAY for practice just to play at a high level (it's not just inner city kids that have a hard time making - why no thread asking about the lack of farmers playing the game? . voros - i think the main difference between us is that you think MLS would recognize the attractiveness of this model - I don't. When clubs start to do it and people see results, then MLS will start to get interested and want to partner with it, but not before.
Youth Development Are donations to the USSF tax deductible? If so academies that happen to be in MLS cities would be good ways of enriching lives through soccer. What about charter schools or school vouchers? It will probably be extremely hard to get a school district to agree to a soccer specific school but with corporations, MLS, and USSF doing a large part of the funding that could help. I think that all states that have MLS teams also have charter school programs. I do not know if this is also true for school voucher programs. Using school voucher money for a soccer academy would be easier though. If a USSF/MLS soccer charter school could be developed this would solve a lot of problems. The players could retain their amateur status but the select few who show great promise can be signed early. If the school proves to be effective in sending players to college and successful pro careers this would be a great marketing tool for MLS and soccer. If the school starts with players when they are 11 while also having less intensive programs for younger players there should be no undue suburban bias. In a perfect system only talent will affect participation. I think that the talent produced would eventually be on average better than the talent produced in European or South American academies, as long as similar funding and quality coaching can be found. When the academies start, scouting will miss a lot of young talent but this will eventually get better. The competition among European and South American academies divides talent much more than 11 American academies with 20 million players to choose from will. So assuming that top player production rates are universal is asinine, no offense. Young homegrown talent is cost effective in the long run. One good young American player sold a year can cover an entire team's player salary. With a youth program quality cheap players can fill the roles of young departed starters. I think this makes the most economical sense in the near future, 5-8 years, for MLS. So having an affiliated youth academy will be a small short-term economic boon. Eventually MLS will want to produce a few good and one great player a year, and the best way to do this is by creating team and league affiliated youth teams. Once reliable funding is feasible MLS and the USSF must try to establish a system that provides the best training environment for the 1000 most talented kids.
But if you don't think MLS can come up with the money, how are the clubs going to do so? All you have to do to get MLS to jump on board is make it so that the investment asked of them is at the level where they would have no problem rolling the dice. I think it may be possible to run the academies as an NFP, and it may be further possible for MLS sponsorship to have some tax benefits as well. I'm not advocating MLS _running_ the academies per se, but rather providing resources through a sponsorship agreement. The distinction would be largely structural, and may or may not help the cause, but I certainly think that it's worth examining ways in which the setup can be organized to minimize costs while providing equal benefit.
Well I can't prove otherwise, but I think that whether they get in a van and go home to sleep or hang out with their buds in some kind of dormitory has very little impact on their development on the field. I am skeptical. Here are the three weaknesses, which my proposal would address: (1)residency focuses on too few players; (2) elite club participation is based on paying fees; and (3) elite coaches are not professional coaches but glorified recruiters. If my proposal addresses these three issues, the development system will work better even without the boys hanging out together in a dorm. Voros: It should be obvious that MLS is not going to pay for youth academies unsubsidized because it simply does not make economic sense -- at least in the judgement of those who have put their own money at risk. Efforts to convince MLS otherwise are a waste of time.
I agree with you Martin. Also I think there is one aspect that is missing from this desire for "pro" development. That is the idea of using "B teams" as a motivator. One of the best motivators a coach can have is sending a player down to play with the (relative) scrubs. That swift kick in the pants is very useful. For instance let's say your defenders are constantly clearing the ball even when they are under no pressure. The coach wants them to stop. It's a mental thing, a bad habit that the player has to want to change. If the coach had a B team he could tell the defender once, tell him twice then the third time send the kid down to the B team to wise up. With the amatuer residency system it's a big deal for a player to be taken in or sent home. It's too big a hammer for the coach to use. Plus, since the kid isn't under contract, he can transfer to another club and still play at a high level. It's all "lose" for the residency program if they kick a kid out. The difference between amatuer and pro is that in pro the kid can't make his own decisions. In pro, with a well written contract, the club has the final say.
I'm on page one of the thread. I don't know if anyone has mentioned this elsewhere, apologies if they have. I've mentioned a licensing system for clubs, in another context. We were discussing the way so many clubs emphasize winning instead of talent identification and development. I suggested a licensing system, whereby some clubs are geared toward developing pros and the absolute elite college soccer players, and others are geared toward winning, and as a showcase for your run-of-the-mill collegians. Perhaps MLS could administer the licensing system, and give a stipend to the clubs that make the grade. But I think the money MLS would pay wouldn't cover everything Robert is talking about. Still, a more prestigious level, licensed by MLS, might open up other sources of revenue. Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated.
I've made this point before when this comes up. That sounds great, but there's a real inequity for the portion of the country that doesn't live near an MLS team. There were 2 CASL kids at Bradenton this last go-round. I wonder whether either would have moved to DC, in order to play in a less-elite program, with less chance of making the U-17s. The one great thing about Bradenton, compared to the idea of MLS doing it, is that each region of the country is treated the same. Don't forget that. Your suggestion is a moral and political issue, and both would need to be resolved.
Well, depending on the money, it could be expanded to A-League cities over time. To me this is completely irrelevant. Any USSF money spent on Brandenton should have only one goal -- to help the US win the World Cup one day. Any other issues, especially some type of social welfare program, should have no impact on the subject. It's not an entitlement for the kids but a tool to improve the US's world cup chances. Of course, the USSF is a political organization and I have no doubt that silly arguments like this will have weight. I am just proposing how to improve development in this country, not about whether the USSF will do something intelligent or something political. We can all pretty much guess the answer there.
All Raleigh has is a PDL team, so that won't cut it either. What about the Miami area? I don't think Houston has an A-League team. The one great thing about Bradenton, compared to the idea of MLS doing it, is that each region of the country is treated the same. Don't forget that. Your suggestion is a moral and political issue, and both would need to be resolved. That's your assertion. Your moral assertion. I don't accept it. Alot of people won't.
Well a lot of people would be wrong then. Look, if you want the USSF to run a social welfare program giving every kid an equal chance to make the Under 17 team, then fine, come out and say I want to spend $2 million a year to give every American kid an equal chance to play in the Under 17 World Cup. Don't use winning the real World Cup as a smoke screen to garner support for such a program though.
That's your assertion. Your moral assertion. I don't accept it. Alot of people won't. Take a stance, superdave. What are you trying to say? USSF is now a social welfare program? Here is the choice for those who don't accept the moral position that Bradenton and any other proposed subsequent developmental program's purpose has nothing to do with ensuring "each region of the country is treated the same." Get lost. No, the primary purpose of Bradenton, and the only reason that the USSF partners with Nike to fund a development system is to help the US compete for a world cup. That's it. If research were to prove that money is better spent "not treating each region the same," but that more players would be better developed in a few key cities, they can and should go that route. And those who have moral issues with it can take a hike.
Social Welfare? I understand superdave's point and since USSF is supposed to represent all of America, not just certain socioeconomic subgroups, he probably has a point. But ... we don't have to get political here. More players in the pool means a better youth team, and presumably a better senior World Cup team over time. I don't see any hope of cost effectively tapping into rural youth. No population density there. But 50,000 or 100,000 or 250,000 young males in dozens of large cities, a good argument can be made there. I don't live in the city. I'm not trying to get any special breaks. I just want to win the damn World Cup. Expanding the player pool seems like a useful step in that process.
When my kids get old enough that they can play youth soccer, I'm gonna have to pay, right? Is any of that money going to the USSF? And in anticipation...the money is fungible. Nutmeg...IIRC, you're pretty conservative politically, right? For most conservatives (probably but not necessarily you), one of their main reasons for being conservative is that they oppose redistributive policies, and dismiss out of hand any utilitarian arguments in favor of them. So just give it up. You're being a hypocrite. NOTE: If I'm wrong about your politics, Nutmeg, please forgive. PS...I reject the idea that just giving the money to MLS teams is the best approach, because a) you'll be missing too many talented players and b) you'll be creating tensions that will undermine everything else you're trying to accomplish. PPS...um, where the hell is "social welfare" coming into this? I'm clearly talking about geography, not social class!
Of course it is. If it is worth it to you to pay the money, then pay it. If not, don't. IF the idea was that the USSF was going to return the money to everyone who paid it, then they wouldn't bother to collect it, would they. The USSF is an organization with one of its purposes to improve the chance of the US winning the World Cup. Therefore it can spend money in any manner that it thinks wil help it achieve this authorized goal. The two things have nothing to do with each other. With respect to point a, I don't know if MLS is the "best" approach. However, it is better than Brandenton, because you will involve a lot more kids in a MEANINGFUL way -- because more kids will get long-term training than under Brandeton, even if every kid in America is theoretically eligible for Brandenton while some would find a MLS "academy" impractical -- and it will be superior to elite clubs because it will involve real coaches and not require the payment of fees. As for creating tensions, choosing the path of least resistance is not always the best way to accomplish a goal. You have to break some eggs to make a souffle, a leader leads, doesn't follow etc. A "social welfare" program is one which imposes social goals on a program designed to achieve some other goal. What you are proposing is a "social welfare" program because within the context of achieving the main goal -- winning the world cup -- you want to impose a side goal that the USSF do so in a manner that is equitable to every kid regardless of their physical location. It's a bad idea if your idea is really to achieve the main goal.
It's also important to note that kids travel abroad for high school all the time. In lots of different disciplines (most academic, but some entertainment based) kids will dorm for high school in order to learn and train in a specialized program offering the best level of training in their discipline the country can offer. I think to an extent, it's important to compare any plan, not to some theoretical perfect plan, but rather to what we currently have in place. My problem with involving Elite Club Teams in this is that I'm afraid the end result would end being to spend a bunch of money to wind up with what we already have.
I was just going to say that the MLS model you like voros, is definitely better than what we have. I'm sorry you don't see mine as such, but that is what makes the world go around. I do think there are enough people in youth soccer, truly committed to development to make this much better than the current system. And it's not like the Fed and U17 National Coach wouldn't have somethign to say about who does the developing. The fact that it's underwritten (theoretically/hypothetically) should pretty much assure it can be better than the current system, where the love of money serves as the chief underminder. I just wanted to say to all of you, voros, JohnR, Nutmeg, Attacking, Karl, Martin, superdave, that you are all wrong and I'm right. No, sorry, I wanted to say to all of you thanks for some of the most substantive discussion I've had on Big Soccer or anywhere else about the game in this country.
If we've got any team at all, at any professional level (MLS, A-League, PDL, PSL, am I missing any?), it doesn't make the papers. There was a D-III team here a year or three ago, I remember going to one of their games.