Youth soccer article from SF Chronicle site

Welcome to America. If we can make a buck out of it somehow, we will. To heck with everything else.

 

All right, it's expensive. Any sport at the top level in the US costs $$$.

But pray tell, how is it done in Europe? How does that top 10%, 5%, 1% of the players, cream of the crop, improve? Who pays for all their training and travel? The professional clubs. If you're that good, you play for a youth team at Newcastle, Bayern or Barca. The club picks up a good bit of the tab, I believe.

In the States you don't have that. MLS youth teams? Are you kidding? MLS teams don't even pay many of their players an amount that would cover an elite kid's club, training and travel expenses.

So who pays? The parents. Until there are professional clubs who can afford to develop kids in this country, the parents will foot the bill.

 

I'm sorry but this continues to be wrong. MLS can afford youth teams for all of its clubs rather easily. Phil Anschutz could foot the bill all by himself without a major issue.

The issue is getting the return on investment, and I think that's where MLS and US Soccer are both out to lunch. Neither (nor does apparently anyone except me) seems to believe that the increase in the quality of the professional American player will be substantial enough to make the financial investment worthwhile. I disagree, and I find it appalling that back in 1994 and 1995 this specific need wasn't addressed with the World Cup money.

The fait accompli that we have to do things this way I think is pretty bogus. There's more options available than Manchester United style youth development or soaking parents for every penny they got. US Soccer has been grossly negligent in exploring them.

 

That's just plain wrong.

 

Doesn't NE have a youth team that is a source of income and not a drain on parents?

BTW, there are other countries that have similar systems in which the middle and upper class dominant both club and country. I've heard Costa Rica is like that, but I don't know for sure.

And it's not just the $$, but the time. In suburban America where a car is needed to get anywhere, it's up to the parents to maneuver this. That proves difficult for parents working 2 jobs. It can be done, but the article truly highlights the gap between the social classes.

In almost all my conversations w/ footie fans abroad, they universally point to the need to have ALL social classes represented, primarily the lower class. These are the guys who are hungriest.

 

undefined

As the single parent of the UNC Goalie mentioned in the article, I know up close and personal the $$ the soccer beast devours. Having it devour over 1/3 of my yearly income for the 10 years my daughter progressed through the various stages of development, I wondered how we would make it.
Of course, my biggest beef with the program was the lack of qualified, available training for the position of keeper within the system, (most coaching unfortunately was geared toward field players at this time), which increased my expenses by having to find and personally pay for outside training.
I did find that there seemed to be more "scholarship" or "assistance" money available to parents in the earlier stages of development than in the last years nearing college age. Or at least more advertised. Definately not in perportion to the increasing expense of high school aged participation.
Please don't misunderstand, this is not directed entirely at the DVSC program, but having participated in MVAL, FYSL, and SR Tsunami league as well, the problem permiates the youth programs through out the bay area. In fact, DVSC seemed the most inclined to "assist" and understand the need, than most. I feel that these programs are geared towards the upper incomes as a way of entertainment for their children, rather than the lower incomes as a way out and towards higher education. And in these economic times with academic scholarships being harder to come by, athletic scholarships may be the only way alot of kids will get to college. All levels of US Soccer needs to update their programs of "assistance" to accomodate the growing need of talented player participation, no matter what the household income level is.

 

ACN, I certainly don't mean to disparage your daughter (especially since I'm a keeper coach!), but part of the problem is the whole college system. The idea that one has to play college ball, with all the restrictions it entails, is a drag on the US development system if the goal is to get professional and international level players. Look at your own post... soccer is a way to pay for school, not the other way around. That's backwards if you want to develop top-level players.

There are plenty of kids out there who are good, and might want to play after HS and club ball, but don't want to or don't have the academics to go to college. Their options run out in the US once they hit 18. A few might find spots on A-League or PDL teams, but there's no good route to the pros. That is changing somewhat, with stuff like Project 40, but slowly.

And of course, there have been whole threads already about now playing college ball does (or doesn't) stunt the development of players, with the practice restrictions, ridiculously compressed seasons, plus the demands of school and staying academically eligible.

 

Hey, I agree with your stated options. Unfortunately, the doors outside of college ball are rapidly closing for female athletes, since they don't have a pro league. And excuse my ignorance, but isn't project 40 attached only to MLS? Other threads have also noted the inequity of that. The only consistant exposure they can get is thru the college programs, after college only random exposure thru the w-leagues, which were fairly unheard of until they became the training camps for WNT when not in residency. Heck, my daughter was asked to join the blackhawks as a freshman in HS, but turned it down 'cuz she didn't really know what type of team it was. Local programs practically drop off the face of the earth after U-16. So where can they go if not to college ball, if they want to excel?

 

Where do they go, if not to college? Good question.

But to turn things back to the original topic, sooo many parents shell out the big bucks, traipse all over the country, etc. chasing that scholarship. The athletic scholarship that very few will ever get. I don't know if they're looking for payback for all the time and money invested, or justification for it, or what. But for the vast majority of players it's the wrong goal, IMHO.

Too many go into it not understanding what it's all about, and either getting, sending or at least perpetuating the myth that it's all about "getting to the next level". Every player should strive to do their best, but it's as much about life lessons, friendships and self-discovery as grabbing scholarship $$ or making the ODP team.

From the article: "Frankly, some of the parents weren't completely clear on what they were getting themselves into.

'This is a traveling team?'' Linda Sue Tanner says she asked when her 9-year-old daughter, Kera, decided to try out for the Lamorinda Soccer Club in Moraga. They'll get the idea soon enough."

At the other end of the spectrum are parents who pretty much expect a free ride to college for all the money they've spent. They go in with their kid at U11 knowing he or she is God's gift to soccer and will pay whatever it takes to whoever promises them the result. Those are the ones who can drive up the price for everyone else.

And I fail to see why soccer always bears the brunt of articles like this. The same thing applies at the top level of all youth sports--and in comparison to some, soccer is still relatively inexpensive. Ever price gym time for volleyball or gymnastics? Buy hockey equipment or rent rink time lately? I guess it's because there are enough college soccer programs, with team sizes large enough, that everyone figures they have a shot. Not nearly as many are going after gymnastics or hockey scholarships.

 

Excellent point. There is no youth development that is tied into MLS. I live in So. Cal and all the travelling/AAU teams that comprise the totality(or at least so it seems) of the talent pool from which Colleges/MLS pick are made up of suburban middle, and upper middle class kids. I play in East LA, LaHabra, etc. and there are plenty of kids with skills who just fall through the cracks. Why? because their parents are too busy making a living and don't have the extra dough to foot the bill for Junior's Futbol dream.

 

Well, I do know about Volleyball, having been involved with a club for a couple of yrs, and personally it's just as expensive and a whole lot more time consuming, not just a a couple of hrs a wkend, but a possible 12 hrs both days! Which is why it was dropped as an alternate sport, along with basketball in school.

But I certainly didn't sign my kid up for the CO-Ed indoor soccer program at the local YMCA at the age of 5, thinking this was the ticket to college!! And at the age of 10, her dream wasn't paying for college but to be the first female goalie on the MNT team (only becuz there wasnt a WNT team yet) The rule was always, when its no longer "fun" its no longer worth the time and $$, college or no. I personally feel that the development coaches are the ones who bring in the college card, as an incentive for continuing in the programs for exposure. Yes, many kids don't get past HS ball, but not only becuz of the lack of $$, but becuz they are burned out.
From JR HI through HS, its a push for that exposure in front of the college crowds...WAGS San Diego, NO v So ODP. What parent wouldn't sell an organ, to pay for the opportunity for their kid to go to Europe for the exposure if it was want the player wanted? If the Pros and maybe even Semi Pro leagues funded developmental programs for the kids, college ball wouldn't be the only option for many in order to continue to do what these players love...play ball, without the stress of turning in that term paper while on the road 2000 miles away!!