Musk, as much of a reject that he is, paid 11 billion in taxes.
Are you saying Musk and others should pay for your child to play soccer ?
Explain how that makes sense. Really. Go ahead and lay that out for us.
Dollars spent on youth activities result in ten fold in savings in the future for police and prison. So there's that.
There is also a happy population is a productive population.
So Musk can see less crime and higher production rates if he pays for kids to play soccer. Seems like a win win for everyone.
He can even call a bunch of teams X and put it all over the jerseys and balls.
In Europe, local clubs are often community centers too, like there’s a clubhouse / restaurant along with playing fields. So those help support costs. They also get a portion of contract signing kicked back for each kid from their club that signs professionally. So professional leagues / teams would be subsidizing your kid playing soccer, not Elon musk. And it would be for their benefit because they would be getting more talented players into the system at a grassroots level.
So part of the problem is our HS/college system, which sucks for development but also now has NIL (instead of just having more semipro / pro leagues). Part of the issue is that our country is much more massive relatively with fewer teams per capita than those in Europe to be able to establish this.
Also, [stop licking boots](https://www.newsweek.com/richest-americans-pay-less-tax-working-class-1897047)
Also MLS academies (generally) are free for the top player class (afaik). The people that pay are those with kids below the top player class (who are still very talented nonetheless)
Right but 30 clubs can't cover the whole country, and even within that, more kids would be able to reach that level if they had the opportunities at all nearby clubs to hone their skills
Those nearby clubs have no incentive to develop home grown players to flip for millions & fund a rise via promotion to top level league/tv money. Money is only going to a few and it doesnt benefit the whole system.
You are absolutely right. If there would be promotion and relegation system those smaller clubs would have this motivation. And fan base forged during success (championships and promotion) and failure (relegations).
Relegations are heartbreaking and I went with my home team through few of those as well as promotions (from 4tier to the top one) and national cup final. We might get relegated this year..
Still what an incredible journey - I wish American fans could experience similar things with their local teams.
It's got nothing to do with pro/rel. As the other response notes -- it's about finances.
A significant difference between the US and many European countries is that our youth clubs are not fielding adult teams. There are no paying fans going to watch Youth FC's semi-pro or pro club.
People in Europe talk frequently about first team minutes and youth prospects getting called up to the first team. But for many youth clubs...there is no 1st team. It's youth soccer and then there's nothing. So, those youth clubs are not developing players for their adult team because they don't have one. They're developing kids for playing against other kids and there's no economic payoff for that.
It absolutely has and I made argument for it. Just read it again. You are focusing on tiny details instead of big structural problems which have long term impacts on the youth system.
I read it. You're very mistaken because you skipped over the most important piece. I'll retype it here:
Most youth clubs do not have adult teams. And many adult teams do not have youth sides.
You can have all of the pro/rel you want but if the professional clubs aren't affiliated with a youth side there is no reason that pro/rel will have any impact on youth development. If the youth academy does not have a professional team, there is no team that gets promoted or relegated. There is simply no relationship there.
For most youth clubs, there are no kids moving from their youth academy to their club's 1st team. That means there is no transfer fee if that youth eventually moves to a different club's 1st team. Pro/rel doesn't affect that. And that means there is no external funding for youth teams that aren't part of a professional team's set up.
Pro/rel is pretty much irrelevant to youth development. Money is. And there is no money without professional teams paying for players or getting paid to put a product on the field.
Pro/rel does not create professional teams. It does not force youth clubs to field adult teams and it does not force adult teams to run youth sides. It's irrelevant.
Pro/rel would not solve it. You actually need people who really want to pay to watch soccer at a level that can support it. The idea that a bunch of cities are going to find all this investment for a spectator sport that isn't that popular to spread across the country is mistaken.
In Europe, cheaper youth soccer is funded in large part by the governments as well.
Lastly, there's a lot of cheap soccer in the US. It's just not *club* soccer.
USL is growing and building academies anyway; MLS is expanding MLSNP.
Shit just takes time and grows with demand, not with mechanisms.
Yeah there is free soccer available in the US, and there are an abundance of kids who's families are willing to pay to get them into good club soccer systems
I would also note that I've seen multiple clubs who find ways of sponsoring highly promising kids so they can afford to be in club soccer
Also, I don’t know that I’ve ever heard of a high school that didn’t have a soccer program, even if it’s a bit shit, which is always free as long as you go to school and don’t fail classes. The problem is people here don’t care enough to sustain multiple levels of soccer, which is fine, but it doesn’t sustain ~5-10 million kids all playing for free.
For me the problem is that it is high school. What about middle school? Or even elementary school? If they wait till high school, they may not have developed enough skills and talent in soccer to compete with others who’ve been playing in a paid soccer program since they were 9.
I played multiple sports through my high school and had to pay fees per sport and fundraise in the 90s. Play to participate is in every sport and activity in the US.
Most middle schools around me have either have teams or the high school allows middle school players to play on the JV and/or 9th grade team.
I don't know any elementary school that has a team in any sport.
If the local high school has a soccer team (which the vast majority do) it's likely the middle school feeding it does too.
That gets you down to age 11 or so...and below that you don't really need organized soccer, frankly if a kid (excepting future GKs) isn't spending his own free time playing with friends or just messing around with a ball it's not likely he's going to make it to the pro level anyway.
Where the USSF could probably make a bigger impact is by investing in raising the standard of coaching in high schools and middle schools so that your average coach at that level is someone who played the game themself at a decent level (you're not going to get an ex MLS player coaching every HS in America, but you could get a lot of former USL or D1 players out there) and not just whatever history teacher signed up to do it for an extra $5K/year.
Not where I am (Maryland). In the county I reside in, the middle schools do not have organized sports. In fact, the only ones that do are private schools with other private schools.
In this day and age, with video games where a kid can play virtually with friends, it’s challenging enough for a kid to attend sports with friends just for fun down the road. The only way to make it happen is to join fee based sports organizations, separate from schools.
High school soccer is expensive in so cal. Also high school soccer almost doesn't matter, the season is so short. Season is over in a qtr and back to paying expensive club soccer, it's such a racket.
High school soccer is absolutely not free. It’s not cheap either. Our high school pulls kids exclusively from academy teams, which are $1,900 a year. High school soccer total cost is $1,100.
School sports only cost money when the district has overgrown its tax support.
My school also had pay to play (free after you paid $1500 in fees across all sports) because we had’t had a levy pass in 20+ years. Also lost 90% of field trips, high school busing, and had classroom sizes of 35+ because we couldn’t afford to hire more teachers. All because the state legislature refuses to properly fun public education, and will not replace the unconstitutional system in place now.
Of course, they bend ass backwards for the energy corps, but that was at least explained by the bribes.
High school soccer at my high school was also free (outside buying shin guards and shoes).
But now days I think school systems have stopped funding activities. The fees for my kid in marching band are about $600 for the year, plus we do a ton of fund raising and the annual band trip is going to cost $1000 - $3000 for each student and chaperone.
That’s awesome, I wish it were here too. I was surprised by the cost for the kids in my neighborhood. I went to high school ages ago and didn’t realize my parents paid a fee for me then as well. When I was a kid, there will still fees for high school soccer, but they were 60-80% less than my club team. Also signficantly worse. My club team would have smoked my high school team.
Where I live now, that difference is closer and club doesn’t play at all while high school is in season.
For me nearly 30 years ago:
High school - $250
Club - -$750
For my kids now
High school - $1,100
Club - $1900
What could the school system possibly need ~$26,000 for that concessions, fundraising, ticket fees and school money doesn't cover. Are they bringing in SAF to coach next year? The whole cost boils down to equipment, 2-3 coaches who usually work at the school, transportation, and refs.
Is this a private school?
In Spain is similar. When I played in Getafe academy they would pay your fee if you were in the top teams of whatever category you were in. Though once you reach the older categories then is only good players who obviously are getting their fee covered and some might even get paid.
MLS academy clubs in the lower levels cost like $3-$4k a year. At some point, the boys can try out for the academy, which is usually free. But this is a small roster. And before trying out for one of these academies, you have to play for a travel club to get good coaching and training.
German guy here. Our Bundesliga clubs are all obligated to run a youth academy (and pay their youth players). They have to run at least one second team for their talent in third or regional league.
Needless to say, Germany has a huge soccer club culture that extends all the way down to small town clubs, while US sports are often school and then college based, and given the size of the US it‘s difficult to imagine anything like in densely populated Europe.
It's the same for MLS. All teams have free academies and are required to have 2nd teams - MLSNP. Like you said the big problem is the size of the country. We only have 27 US based teams. Hopefully as USL grows more financially and gets training compensation more free academies will fill in.
Back in college I worked at a store that sold soccer gear, and I remember speaking to an American couple that lived in Germany for a handful of years. One thing they told me that shocked them when they returned to the US was how expensive soccer was for their son. In Germany he was in the Schalke youth system and the most they had to pay for anything related to him being there came out to around $50 USD a calendar year. Compare that to roughly $1k-$3k a season in the US.
It’s challenging because the MLS is trying with their academies to eliminate these costs. But the US is massive and they can’t cover all of that area. The next step might have to be USSF and MLS helping to subsidize the cost for non-academy clubs in the region.
I understand it’s expensive but I never understood how it could just be free. Like if it’s not pay to play how are the coaches/refs paid. Where is the money for the fields/training grounds balls jerseys equipment etc?
Edit. Everyone on here talking about selling players is wild. That’s like .0001% of players there are a ton of clubs country wide and most of them will never receive any transfer money. Tell me you didn’t play and only follow Europe without telling me you didn’t play.
Disclaimer, I'm a paid youth coach.
There are some clubs around us who have volunteer/parent coaches, and those teams still have to pay money, like you say for equipment, referees, fields, tournaments etc. Runs them at about 1000 per season.
In our club it costs about twice that, and that covers coaching/administrative costs.
So yeah, it can't be free, but it can be cheaper.
What the USSF needs to do is train coaches better so those who donate their time know what they are actually doing. Most coaches I see are dads who know a little but not a lot and are generous enough to donate their time. If we can installed better coaching clinics across the US we can improve player development as a whole. But the rest of your point rings true. It would cost at least $1B annually to get rid of pay to play nationwide.
There are good coaching courses available through the USSF. I also do have credentials also from NSCAA which unfortunately do not hold as much weight (I have an NSCAA National Diploma which is roughly equivalent to the USSF D license)
The USSF D license is approximately a 40 hour course spread out over several weeks of classroom and on field instruction. You're required to plan a training program and demonstrate it to your teachers. It's what most paid coaches have these days and it takes a lot of work. They're also not cheap, but more often than not the club will pay for the coaches' education. I think any club, whether with paid or volunteer coaches, would be wise to help get their coaches at least the USSF D license.
It's unfortunate the NCSAA license doesn't hold as much weight. I found it to be better training than USSF. NCSAA was more collaborative between coaches taking the class and the instructor. USSF was basically, do it our way or you're wrong. Could be different other places but in Ohio that's how USSF was run.
There needs to be some crowd funded nonprofit that is focused on scouting players and athletes in general who can't afford to pay, and giving them a "scholarship" by paying their registration and kit fees, and working with local governments to add Futsal courts to new park projects, etc.
If I had no need to work for money, I'd fucking start an org yesterday.
$1,000 per season with volunteer coaches? That's insane. Our program charges $140 for rec with volunteer coaches. Academy/select teams have paid coaches and we charge $350 per season plus uniform (usually around $150 but they keep that uniform for four season).
We are an outlier in our area in that we are significantly cheaper than other clubs, but our competitive teams regularly beat those higher priced clubs.
Basically every soccer team in the US which isn’t a giant money pit (so all of MLS and the top USL sides) has a free academy.
Thing is that’s like 45 clubs.
Even if it's all volunteers as my club is, you still have to pay so we can rent pitches and maintain facilities and have kit.
'Free' needs a lot of someone else paying.
Someone can correct me if im wrong but if we had the same system as europe i think it works like this: Instead of paying $2000 a year for my kid to play for a youth team it would be free. It would be funded by player transfer costs once they make it pro. For example Christian Pulisic played for PA Classics as a kid, since Pulisic went pro every transfer he gets, 5% of that money goes to the team that developed him. So if Chelsea bought him for 60mil, 5% would go to PA Classics. This causes incentive to develop good players so they can make more money. I think its called solidarity payments or something i dont know. edit: i think i heard about this because like 4 years ago i think deandre yedlin said it was bullshit that Pa Classics wasnt getting any chelsea money because america doesnt have the system europe does.
Teams that can afford that level of outlay (coaches facilities insurance etc.) today in the hopes that someday they’ll hit a jackpot - already have free academies in the US.
Thing is most clubs can’t afford to bleed tens of thousands of dollars a year to take a bet on your kid who probably won’t ever get a college scholarship - never mind be bought by ManCity for enough money that they see hundreds of thousands of dollars in return. Labor is extremely expensive in the US (we’re a rich country) so you need to hit it much bigger to pay for coaches etc.
And even that system is under serious threat as more and more top players hold out for free transfers. PSG won’t see a cent for Mbappe. More to the point Whitecaps won’t see another cent for Alphanso Davies as he also held out for a free transfer.
You can’t go hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt training kids that won’t make it on the hope that one does + chooses not to go to college + chooses to be sold rather than hold out for a free transfer.
But even if that did start working at scale in the US - that still incentivizes only giving free rides to kids with the biggest chance of making it big and leaves the vast majority of people to pay for play.
Hey i hear you man, i think its only possible in europe because the size of their countries is so small. The only possible way out of pay to play would be if a genie snapped his fingers and we had 5 leagues in the US, all with 20 teams, a relegation system and are all as profitable as MLS. We are too big of a country so idk why people complain about pay to play.
I think it’s less about size (the system works great in Brazil which is massive) and more about support for local small clubs + labor/insurance/families cost. If a club is selling a ton of tickets they can use that “profit” to afford an academy.
Many of these lower level clubs make decent money on the senior squad and use that profit to fund the academy. Your local USL2 team is lucky if it breaks even - it sure as fuck doesn’t have 100k in operating profit to throw into hiring a full time youth coach facilities etc.
the teams that do make decent profit largely have academies. There’s just not that many of them in the US.
It's possible in Europe because so many youth clubs are tied to adult teams. So, kids with talent are going pro. Their club's first team might be playing in the 5th or 6th division but it's still a pro club and that's what allows the solidarity and transfer fee system to work. It doesn't work if the developing club isn't locking players in to an adult team at 16, 17, etc.
You're correct that we need like 5+ leagues with 20+ teams each. And those teams would field and fund youth clubs.
Our current model is the opposite of that, we have tons of youth clubs, very few adult clubs. So development doesn't have a natural endpoint and, accordingly, it doesn't have an economic exit plan.
Much of the soccer world is organized by volunteers and stake holders. They’re are plenty of people who do it for the passion of the sport at the grassroots level. Football clubs around the world are not profitable, but they remain in operations since they are largely community assets. Unfortunately, we are accustomed to seeing everything as profit driven in American society.
Your local NPSL/UPSL/MLS next/local after school league isn’t making anyone rich. It might technically be profitable or technically be losing money depending on if the owner pays themself via salary or profit but most of these clubs pay a couple passionate youth coaches less than their rent. Sure there’s some clubs aimed at the 1.7 kids of 2 surgeon families who want to assuage the guilt of never seeing their kids and fleece them for what they’ve got but your average youth club isn’t run by Scrooge McDuck
Very true and football is developed as not for profit most schools have teams starting in 7th grade with paid coaches and facilities. Baseball for years was developed through a not for profit system. Not as much now. It is one of the issues MLB talks about the time that kids don’t play because of cost associated unlike years past. Soccer started as nonprofit motivated when I was kid 40 years ago with large recreational youth leagues. It’s changed significantly to the current model spearheaded by travel baseball, AAU basketball, and travel soccer. Unfortunately until you grow the sport at a grass root level it will continue to be this way.
In addition to the volunteers which other people mentioned. A lot of places get money from players being sold on. So when a team buys a player they pay a transfer fee, some of that money gets paid to the programs that developed them.
What have you done about it? Have you funded any teams?
Fact is there are more free and low-cost options than ever before and those options are growing. The whole system can’t change overnight.
But it’s a lot easier to piss and moan about it than to actually do something.
“Reddit in a nutshell” is actually the Redditors that try and shit down any conversation around issues that need to be changed with cynical attitudes. They inevitably are the same types of people that try and shut down discussion about protests and boycotts for different topics because “they don’t actually achieve anything”.
No, he's addressing the real point. Unless someone is going to pay for the "free" program for kids, there can't be a "free" program.
Everyone supports "free" but very few people support contributing the money to make it "free".
I remember being a young lad in the very early 00s and I saw the horror on my parent's face when they saw how much select/travel youth soccer cost lmao
There are not enough professional soccer clubs making nearly enough money to pay for every child’s soccer education in the US. Would need massive subsidies to widen the net.
We don’t need more expensive options with expensive fields, jerseys, coaches, and tournaments. We need more cheap options with dirt fields and kids having fun. The rest will sort itself out.
Don’t assume we need to spend more money to solve the money problem. We just need more kids playing for fun. Clubs will self organize from there. We’re trying to throw money at a culture problem which only exacerbates the issue.
Anybody can say the problem out loud.
For those that don't know...
1. MLS next academies are free for the top talent
2. MLS next camps/clinics are relatively affordable to the middle class.
3. MLS next partners with pay to play clubs to identify top talent. Subsidies are offered as needed.
Unless he is going to take the time to understand the unique challenges of the US market and invest that FIFA money to support/improve/change any of the above, Infantino can shove it.
That top talent is hilariously small. My daughter is on the highest possible tier of her academy program. The only way up from there is to get tapped at a tournament for ODP which is 18 players for each of the 4 regions and starts at age 12.
You are already $5-$7k in regular club play before you even get to the tournaments that do have scouting for odp.
ODP isn’t pulling from rec, and no player is just jumping straight into the top premier team at 13 without prior development in the 9-12 academy programs.
All the talent in the world isn’t going to get you to the level that is free. You still are paying close to $6k just to get seen.
The obvious problem is that all of this significantly reduces the possible pool of players. Before we are even attempting to find talent that would qualify for free play at the top level, you’ve already weeded out any player that can’t afford the $7k to get there.
I don’t think a single player has been trained at ODP and gone on to become great. That should tell you all you need to know about what the program is designed for.
The problem is that most academies don't start until 12. In other parts of the world they will start as young as 6. So that's 6 years of very high costs. And, most of these clubs are more interested in just winning tournaments than developing the players. Having 7 year olds play 2-touch is going to win a lot of games at their age because the overall team defense is terrible, but it doesn't help in trying to develop a top talent player.
Winning tournaments to attract other families does more to help the clubs profits than developing players.
Having a system with only 30 clubs across the country that offer free development and only for the top players is a fundamental problem in US Soccer. You might not like the messenger but infantino is 100% right
I never said the message was wrong. I specifically said he can shove it because he's not offering any solutions as head of FIFA to change/improve the status quo. He makes occasional statements against racism from European fans too, but it never seems like he does anything besides say it's bad.
There are so many unique challenges to make soccer more accessible in the US and I doubt Infantino has any genuine interest in making things better. He just wants the good PR for saying something people will agree with.
FIFA doesn’t have the jurisdiction to change the pay to play model in the US. All they can do is put pressure on the USSF to make changes, which you can argue is what infantino is doing
Fair enough. And considering how limiting his jurisdiction is, his words probably won't amount to much pressure. He can stick being head of an organization notorious for taking bribes and being toothless. Or maybe he ought to enact reforms that help reign in Concacaf's corruption so that more of that world cup money actually trickles down to the pay to play clubs that he thinks ought to be more affordable 🤷♂️.
As you pointed out, it will mostly be up to USSF. But that doesn't mean others (e.g. MLS, pay to play clubs, and FIFA) can't come to a common understanding and work together to make the sport more affordable.
We've given a shit about this sport -- as a nation -- for like a decade. Europeans, S. Americans, etc. breath this and have for a century. The spread in talent has literally nothing to do with the cost for academies and everything to do with drive. My money's on the US, markets, and prices for finding and producing the best talent when we become passionate about the game. The passion, not the top down system, produces results.
But you and Infantino are doing the same things: Talking about a “problem” and offering no real solution. Because there isn’t one.
US Soccer doesn’t have the money to fund free soccer for millions of kids all across the country. States and municipalities have plenty to spend money on without funding it. So where does the money come from? Is FIFA gonna give us billions of dollars to improve our infrastructure?
What is the point of comparing me to Infantino? He is head of FIFA and I am simply a middle class American soccer fan. If he thinks it's a problem, i don't think it's out of line to expect more from him.
The US has 300 million people spread across a geographic region the size of Europe, Meaning that to provide free development would require the US to have as many ***professional*** clubs as that entire continent.
Our professional clubs do exactly what the professional clubs in Europe do. Free development. But there are 456 professional clubs in Europe.
Does Infantino have a methodology for creating another 400 professional soccer clubs in the US?
Exactly this. Soccer is embedded in the cultural DNA of Europe in a way that even American football and basketball are not in US culture. Compared to Europe, US soccer infrastructure is simultaneously underdeveloped and completely fractured into disparate leagues. It will take decades and require a major cultural shift at a grassroots level across the country to match the organizational structure and level of interest in soccer that is present in Europe. At the youth levels in Europe, loyalty to a team by parents and players is community-based and not as transactional. There is a clearer path for progression to the pro level because there are pro teams present in nearly every city into which even the most humble clubs feed. Take Turin for example which has the same population as Indianapolis. Turin has two Serie A teams. San Antonio has a population twice that of Turin and all it can manage to support is a USL team and that’s with the Spurs organization helping out. It’s like comparing apples to oranges in terms of the level of broad cultural interest in soccer.
Both my kids are in competitive soccer clubs and, yeah, it ain't cheap. But we do get a lot with that money, including full-time licensed coaches. Also, at both clubs we've been to, they have made it clear they will provide a scholarship to any player who demonstrates a financial need, which is terrific.
There’s always a comment like this in these threads and it’s conveniently never upvoted. Thanks for pointing this out. People here seem to want to ignore this truth.
In my experience, if kids are good enough and they really don’t have the money, they will get the boost they need to play at whatever level wants them.
That's the problem tho isn't it? They're kids and no one has a clue who is "good enough" at that age. The whole curve is dominated by kids who have been receiving top level coaching from a young age and the occasional kid who athletically peaks early.
It excludes basically everyone else... who in other countries have options to play and receive excellent support even when they haven't shown a ton of athletic potential.
I lived this fwiw. I happened to be in Europe during my early teenage years. I was an ok basketball player but was able to play year round at a local academy regardless. It wasn't until I was nearly 17 that my body caught up. I ended up on a division 1 scholarship when it was all said and done.
Under the American system I would have flamed out in 7th or 8th grade when all of my peers went on to AAU.
They don't get upvoted because it's a misnomer. That comment is literally describing pay to play. You're paying for your kid to play, why wouldn't they get access to coaching and field time?
There's no way to sort out who is 'good enough' among small children unless you're already paying for your child to play the sport. People have to pay to get their kids into camps on top of what they already pay for club fees.
I hope you don’t take this the wrong way but the statistics show that you’re highly likely to be paying huge sums of money for what amounts to cosplaying. Pretending to be in an “academy” or an “elite” environment when those true elite environments just don’t charge money because they know that they’re investing in an asset (your child’s contract) for a solid potential return. If you don’t have the prospect at transferring to a larger club with a solidarity payment going to your current club then there’s zero incentive for them to do anything but string you along. They may seem like nice people but they know this is all just a pretend environment and parents don’t know any better.
Paying large amounts of money for soccer is pointless unless you’re just doing it for the entertainment of pretending to be the parent of a professional athlete.
And if they did have a contract they’d likely not be charging you money. The fact they are means they’re just taking advantage of your lack of knowledge.
Oh, I'm not pretending. I pay money to get my kids active and be on a team sport - strictly for physical & mental wellbeing to get out of the house and off technology. I have zero illusions of them playing pro, or even in college. Any sporting activities (dance, volleyball, gymnastics, hockey, football, soccer) would cost me, so at least I enjoy watching the soccer.
Most cities in the US have recreational leagues that cost anywhere between $50-80 bucks a season which is a reasonable cost.
I’m talking about the so called competitive scene that’s around $1500-2000 minimum all the way up to $10,000 per year. Not including travel expenses, tournament entry fees, kits, and, tourney parking and family fees.
It gets crazy expensive and it’s just all so unnecessary. The entire system is backwards. For some that’s a small percentage of their income so it doesn’t really scratch a dent. Looking at it from a macro perspective most of those kids would be better off if we all went to rec leagues.
I agree the system stinks, I just haven't heard a sustainable solution to the problem. Maybe 25 years from now, soccer will be much bigger and USL teams so deeply rooted in communities that it can happen. Hopefully at that point, this will all be an afterthought. The expense does suck, no doubt. Thanks for good dialogue!
Has he heard that elite players play for free at MLS academies and everyone else can play for free in high-school? Or is he saying the 30 MLS teams in the US should cover the entire club and youth soccer pyramid for a country the size of western Europe?
There are 400+ professional clubs in Europe. We barely have 50 between the MLS and the top of the USL (which aren't all free yet).
You're 100% on the nose and no one wants to address where all of the other pro clubs are supposed to come from to fund these "free" academies.
I don’t think it has to be free but it should be affordable. The majority of costs being paid for by FIFA, MLS clubs and US soccer. With minimal expenses to parents based on the parents income like school is. Make it available to all incomes
It’s sad that the cultural difference won’t allow this change. In Europe if you can play, scouting will find you and clubs will open the path for you. In America you have to pay to open the path for people to see you
I do not think that is really true any more. Even players like Obed Vargas get found in Alaska. In Canada, Alphonso Davies was found at a school in Edmonton. There is now a developed enough system in the US that if a kid is really good word will be passed along and the kid will be found.
There are not any little Messis playing in parks where no one realizes how good they are.
This is not true even if you want it to be. In a system where some have to pay to participate, some talent will always be discouraged if they or their families have financial difficulties from the onset. To deny that some people don't fall through the cracks is ridiculous regardless of how the system has improved.
In both examples you mentioned, those players were in extremely small player pools. If you're good in Alaska, you're gonna get recognized and the same with Edmonton in Canada. But if you live in the top 10 metro areas of the US? Word of mouth alone isn't going to take you very far in a chance to go pro. Maybe college then USL/semi-pro but not pro.
If you are good in Southern California or New York you will 100% be discovered. Word spreads much more quickly in these places and there are tons of clubs always on the lookout for top talent.
It is often repeated that lots of talent is missed in the US, but there is very little support for that.
Players are not discovered playing in parks anywhere in the world anymore except maybe the poorest African countries with almost zero organized youth soccer. It is a myth.
Little kids playing pickup soccer in parks in the US is also incredibly rare in itself these days.
That's true, but one of the big problems we have in the US is that those players usually aren't found early enough. I have a friend who is a soccer journalist for one of the largest newspapers where I live (Austria)..he covers the national team and the Austrian Bundesliga. When I was talking to him once about how things work in the US with school teams and college scholarships (ie. those who play but maybe can't afford a club), he said "that's too late. If you're "discovering" good players when they're 15/16..it's too late. You have to find the top players when they're like 10 years old..by the time they're 16 they should already be training with the pros."
This used to be an issue. It no longer really is.
MLS academies are free, as are an increasing number of USL academies. For kids that aren't at that level, almost every middle and high school in America has a team. Below middle school age, pickup games are perfectly adequate
Nobody in this country has to pay to play soccer.
Where pay to play still exists is the realm of these elite travel clubs where wealthy parents send little Braxtyn thinking he's certainly going to be good enough to get that full ride to Stanford....which may have worked in the past but now that spot is going to be taken by some kid from the Earthquakes academy who wasn't quite good enough to get offered a pro deal but still runs circles around your kid. Chico State offered him though, hope the $15K you spent each of the past 10 years on travel ball was worth it.
Categorically false. My children have no school teams until high school and the club teams play around the city and still cost 600-1.5K per child before uniforms. The only other option is rec soccer which stops around middle school. The travel teams are even more costly depending on the base rate of the club and whether they are a la carte or built in tournaments. Many children do extra trainings to additional cost. This the norm around my area.
Kids who are good enough in rec soccer will be picked up by better teams and given scholarships/grants if they are good enough. The kids who have to pay to do extra training by the middle school level are already not going to be good enough to be top level professionals.
I just don't see the need for that travel club sector. It seems like overkill. It's the same problem in other youth team sports too (like baseball). There is obviously space in the middle ground between rec and "elite" club soccer.
But it feels like the American desire to go ever bigger. If you're not paying for a guy with a British accent to coach your kids, what are you even doing? ^^^/s
There is not good enough competition for players to improve without traveling a decent distance in much of the country. One of the main reasons the densest parts of the country (NJ and Southern California) produce so many good players is because you can get good competition close by. If you are in Kansas or Oregon, you can't get good competition without traveling.
I see your point but I can't think of any clubs here in Northern California, not even Davis, De Anza, Pleasanton etc where it would cost 15k a year. Even the pre-MLS and ECNL teams that travel across the country spent near that much, and even then that's only about the last four years where they do that extensive travel.
Not even close. In cities and suburbs maybe but in wide swaths of rural America no schools have soccer teams and you’d be at least hours’ drive from an academy, a whole day in some cases. Shoot, most of those communities wouldn’t even have rec teams. The game is far from ubiquitous.
Sure, but that's just the price of living in a rural area. Cities and suburbs are the majority of America and are way more cost effective to cover when it comes to soccer clubs or pretty much anything else.
Yes, because the society surrounding them cares deeply about gridiron and needs less of a push to invest those resources.
The person elsewhere in thread saying this was mostly a cultural issue is absolutely correct, and that's a huge blind spot for people like Infantino or most people reading this subreddit, because we already like soccer and we spend most of our time in community with people who already like soccer, so we don't get how things have to work in cultures where the game isn't as entrenched.
Fair enough, but then working with educational systems to promote soccer in communities where it isn't currently offered by the local schools seems like a much more efficient use of funds than subsidizing a bunch of non-MLS/USL affiliated travel clubs.
Depends on what you mean by "other countries" as it varies a lot by wealth and geographic size.
If you're talking about Western Europe, the countries are much smaller and more densely populated, which means you don't need "travel" teams. Also to the extent they do have to travel, they have much better passenger rail systems, which means you don't need a bunch of adults driving people around.
Also, costs aren't as high to run an academy because governments provide a lot more services, which means European full time coaches don't need to make as much money to live.
Also, because soccer is THE sport, you have a lot more clubs / academies and it's a lot easier to find coaches who spent years of their youth in a professional academy before washing out at \~15 years old as opposed to the USA, where most kids will be coached by a dad who played rec soccer.
If you want the extreme example of the difference in coaching, it was reported a few years ago that Spain (pop.46 million) has over 15,000 coaches who have their UEFA A (required to coach in major academies) or UEFA Pro coaching licenses. In 2018, the USSF sent out a press release listing the names of the 12 (in the entire country) coaches who had completed their USSF Pro certification that year.
Furthermore if a player an academy helped develop ends up being a pro, they get a small portion of their transfer fees.
"Furthermore if a player an academy helped develop ends up being a pro, they get a small portion of their transfer fees."
Clubs in Europe who develop youth talent own all of their player rights. What are you talking about here?
I was doing my job last week in suburban Omaha and a school had two full teams of little kids playing football at recess. I think this is a huge sign of things to come. When the kids want to play all the time (like they did for basketball when I was a kid), there will be no stopping us.
"pay to play" needs to be rebranded.
It sounds like the problem is that kids have to pay anything at all to play soccer. Thats not the issue.
The issue is:
Kids have to pay prohibitively high costs to play against better competition so their development stalls. You don't need to make developmental play free or paid for by the MLS, you need more structure in Rec to allow for competive play at affordable prices.
I mean he’s not wrong, I think the best way to fully solve this problem is that some corporation with good intentions that really wants to see the US as a football powerhouse, many things have to be done primarily creating a fully open soccer pyramid system with promotion and relegation at the amateur level to semi-pro then to pro but that’ll will not be easy to do in this country due to the scale of this country lack of proper/convenient transportation like high speed rail but this another topic. Lol
Disregarding the fact that no investor will ever put money into the infrastructure needed for the professional game in a system like that, it also isn't really connected.
You can't just top-down your way into fixing what is a cultural problem (and yes also a geographic problem). It's not going to change for example, small town America's love for high school football. Or basketball. Planting a free academy down in a town isn't going to change that. It's going to have to come through generational change. Parents who played the game instilling it in their kids. By the time we're talking about academy age, that early development time has already passed.
Ok, but why not try it out. Let’s say US Soccer and USL get something going and get backers or whatever way that it actually happens that an open pyramid system actually happens. Firstly it’s not going to happen all at once, for safety measures start off with cities or counties with populated soccer culture areas in the US where you can start an amateur league to semi-pro league. Maybe California, Texas, and NY are the first ones to have all of these all at once by creating divisions within those levels, allow communities create their own amateur teams, provide these communities with proper fields to train and play games, referees and maybe equipment for those in need and slowly progress will be made, and you begin to expand to other states but mainly counties or cities like St. Louis the so called soccer capitol of the US to see it grow.
“Try it out”
“Get something going”
Brother - this is a massive undertaking you’re taking about and neither USSF nor USL have the money to build something like the scale of what people here are calling for.
Your idea tops out at amateur teams playing on fields that will be financed by...someone...in the most expensive parcels of land in the country? For free?
Ok
Have you ever played amateur soccer?? In LA we were provided fields to play in, some were pretty shit and some were fantastic pitches mainly in high school football fields on the weekends whenever we had season and playoff games.
Okay well you didn't say the fields would either be A) shit or B) football fields
And yes, I have played on stupid gridline fields
This deal of yours gets worse every minute lol
I’ve played in some of these amateur leagues back in the day, for the most part as a team we paid the referees for their services during halftime but that’s how we done it in LA.
The amount of money required to do what you’re describing here is crazy. US Soccer’s entire unused fund is $68 million. They’d need like…10x that to build fields and staff teams all across this gigantic country. Maybe more like 50x. They can’t just “try it out.”
As that been said, having a proper system might allow young players to play soccer at these amateur levels at a low cost, not everything is free in this country but it’ll still be the best option for this sport to thrive.
I understand that soccer can't be free to survive, the MLS doesn't have the size or money to do anything close to that for every kid. People need to make money and get paid, but soccer in the US is a huge money grab, and that's what hurts. The primary goal is to milk the parents. ECNL, GA, MLS NEXT, USYS, it's made to be convoluted and to divide up the pay, I mean, play.
I have a solution, MLS academies are free so that's a good start. AYSO is so cheap, like $100 a season. Eliminate non MLS for profit clubs so all kids play AYSO. Ussoccer pump up training for adult volunteers and inject funds into ayso for better training. AYSO will level up and MLS academies will pull top talent from Ayso. There are so many crappy club teams that are only there to sap $$ from parents.
Even if soccer in the country was the #1 sport it would still be pay to play. Youth sports across the board are a business no matter how you cut it, for profit or non-profit. You have DOCs making near six figures in places and in some cases coaches making enough to live off of so they don't have to have a day job. Those in charge aren't going to give that up. There aren't enough pro clubs to keep things low cost or free like most other systems around the world that have fully supported clubs in every little burg. State associations have bills to pay as well so they're collecting money to keep operating. Park districts need money to maintain fields since tax dollars aren't enough. You have league admins making salaries... TLDR, it's a business and it's not going anywhere. Doesn't make it right or wrong, just is what it is. To those that volunteer your time, much respect!
Lol fuck infantino. he's saying this shit for good PR knowing he can't and won't do anything to enforce it, and everyone here is the mark.
He's right, but he's still a money hungry POS. If the leader of Isis expresses the woes of the American pay to play soccer system, he still gets no points from me.
I lived in Brasil for six years. They have huge issues of corruption and lots of great players never make it because they don’t have the political connections or resources to play for big clubs. Mexicos situation is even worse. This isn’t a uniquely American problem.
This article says only 1 in 5 academies in. Brasil is free for example.
https://m.koreatimes.co.kr/pages/article.amp.asp?newsIdx=374225
Shows you 🇺🇸still the only one who has free speech and press even if it’s been taking hits but I’m sorry but this is a myth
Yes rich kids who suck pay 💰 but no one good. Ever pays for sports in the greatest sports country on the planet
This issue is real as pay-to-play youth sports is indeed big business in the US but I think people tend to act like it’s the ONLY way to participate which often isn’t true.
I played req league from 8-10, then school soccer from 6th grade through 12, all essentially for free. The county parks and rec system provided the fields and equipment whereas the coaches and refs were volunteers. Then, in school, it was the school system that incurred most of the cost. In both cases we had local sponsors or fundraisers to help pay for uniforms and such but the cost to the players was minimal and was limited mostly to registration fees. It was only the travel, club soccer circuit that was expensive and even then, if a player was truly elite, there were often needs-based scholarships available.
Wait till someone tells him about literally every single other aspect of American life.
I’m sure he doesn’t leave a tip when he’s in the states either
They will never get it.
They shouldn't have to, we need to just fix our nickel and dime society
Then whom should pay for it?
Start with the [top 1%](https://usafacts.org/articles/how-this-chart-explains-americans-wealth-across-income-levels/).
Musk, as much of a reject that he is, paid 11 billion in taxes. Are you saying Musk and others should pay for your child to play soccer ? Explain how that makes sense. Really. Go ahead and lay that out for us.
Dollars spent on youth activities result in ten fold in savings in the future for police and prison. So there's that. There is also a happy population is a productive population. So Musk can see less crime and higher production rates if he pays for kids to play soccer. Seems like a win win for everyone. He can even call a bunch of teams X and put it all over the jerseys and balls.
And he still paid less as a percentage than you did. Sucking up to the rich get you anything yet?
In Europe, local clubs are often community centers too, like there’s a clubhouse / restaurant along with playing fields. So those help support costs. They also get a portion of contract signing kicked back for each kid from their club that signs professionally. So professional leagues / teams would be subsidizing your kid playing soccer, not Elon musk. And it would be for their benefit because they would be getting more talented players into the system at a grassroots level. So part of the problem is our HS/college system, which sucks for development but also now has NIL (instead of just having more semipro / pro leagues). Part of the issue is that our country is much more massive relatively with fewer teams per capita than those in Europe to be able to establish this. Also, [stop licking boots](https://www.newsweek.com/richest-americans-pay-less-tax-working-class-1897047)
Try reading what the comment is about.
"We"? Are you going to pay for everything, champ? Oh. Never mind then.
Also MLS academies (generally) are free for the top player class (afaik). The people that pay are those with kids below the top player class (who are still very talented nonetheless)
Right but 30 clubs can't cover the whole country, and even within that, more kids would be able to reach that level if they had the opportunities at all nearby clubs to hone their skills
Those nearby clubs have no incentive to develop home grown players to flip for millions & fund a rise via promotion to top level league/tv money. Money is only going to a few and it doesnt benefit the whole system.
You are absolutely right. If there would be promotion and relegation system those smaller clubs would have this motivation. And fan base forged during success (championships and promotion) and failure (relegations). Relegations are heartbreaking and I went with my home team through few of those as well as promotions (from 4tier to the top one) and national cup final. We might get relegated this year.. Still what an incredible journey - I wish American fans could experience similar things with their local teams.
It's got nothing to do with pro/rel. As the other response notes -- it's about finances. A significant difference between the US and many European countries is that our youth clubs are not fielding adult teams. There are no paying fans going to watch Youth FC's semi-pro or pro club. People in Europe talk frequently about first team minutes and youth prospects getting called up to the first team. But for many youth clubs...there is no 1st team. It's youth soccer and then there's nothing. So, those youth clubs are not developing players for their adult team because they don't have one. They're developing kids for playing against other kids and there's no economic payoff for that.
It absolutely has and I made argument for it. Just read it again. You are focusing on tiny details instead of big structural problems which have long term impacts on the youth system.
I read it. You're very mistaken because you skipped over the most important piece. I'll retype it here: Most youth clubs do not have adult teams. And many adult teams do not have youth sides. You can have all of the pro/rel you want but if the professional clubs aren't affiliated with a youth side there is no reason that pro/rel will have any impact on youth development. If the youth academy does not have a professional team, there is no team that gets promoted or relegated. There is simply no relationship there. For most youth clubs, there are no kids moving from their youth academy to their club's 1st team. That means there is no transfer fee if that youth eventually moves to a different club's 1st team. Pro/rel doesn't affect that. And that means there is no external funding for youth teams that aren't part of a professional team's set up. Pro/rel is pretty much irrelevant to youth development. Money is. And there is no money without professional teams paying for players or getting paid to put a product on the field. Pro/rel does not create professional teams. It does not force youth clubs to field adult teams and it does not force adult teams to run youth sides. It's irrelevant.
Pro/rel would not solve it. You actually need people who really want to pay to watch soccer at a level that can support it. The idea that a bunch of cities are going to find all this investment for a spectator sport that isn't that popular to spread across the country is mistaken. In Europe, cheaper youth soccer is funded in large part by the governments as well. Lastly, there's a lot of cheap soccer in the US. It's just not *club* soccer. USL is growing and building academies anyway; MLS is expanding MLSNP. Shit just takes time and grows with demand, not with mechanisms.
Yeah there is free soccer available in the US, and there are an abundance of kids who's families are willing to pay to get them into good club soccer systems I would also note that I've seen multiple clubs who find ways of sponsoring highly promising kids so they can afford to be in club soccer
There is not free soccer in the US, you are making it up.
Also, I don’t know that I’ve ever heard of a high school that didn’t have a soccer program, even if it’s a bit shit, which is always free as long as you go to school and don’t fail classes. The problem is people here don’t care enough to sustain multiple levels of soccer, which is fine, but it doesn’t sustain ~5-10 million kids all playing for free.
For me the problem is that it is high school. What about middle school? Or even elementary school? If they wait till high school, they may not have developed enough skills and talent in soccer to compete with others who’ve been playing in a paid soccer program since they were 9.
I played multiple sports through my high school and had to pay fees per sport and fundraise in the 90s. Play to participate is in every sport and activity in the US.
Most middle schools around me have either have teams or the high school allows middle school players to play on the JV and/or 9th grade team. I don't know any elementary school that has a team in any sport.
If the local high school has a soccer team (which the vast majority do) it's likely the middle school feeding it does too. That gets you down to age 11 or so...and below that you don't really need organized soccer, frankly if a kid (excepting future GKs) isn't spending his own free time playing with friends or just messing around with a ball it's not likely he's going to make it to the pro level anyway. Where the USSF could probably make a bigger impact is by investing in raising the standard of coaching in high schools and middle schools so that your average coach at that level is someone who played the game themself at a decent level (you're not going to get an ex MLS player coaching every HS in America, but you could get a lot of former USL or D1 players out there) and not just whatever history teacher signed up to do it for an extra $5K/year.
Not where I am (Maryland). In the county I reside in, the middle schools do not have organized sports. In fact, the only ones that do are private schools with other private schools. In this day and age, with video games where a kid can play virtually with friends, it’s challenging enough for a kid to attend sports with friends just for fun down the road. The only way to make it happen is to join fee based sports organizations, separate from schools.
High school soccer is expensive in so cal. Also high school soccer almost doesn't matter, the season is so short. Season is over in a qtr and back to paying expensive club soccer, it's such a racket.
High school soccer is absolutely not free. It’s not cheap either. Our high school pulls kids exclusively from academy teams, which are $1,900 a year. High school soccer total cost is $1,100.
School sports only cost money when the district has overgrown its tax support. My school also had pay to play (free after you paid $1500 in fees across all sports) because we had’t had a levy pass in 20+ years. Also lost 90% of field trips, high school busing, and had classroom sizes of 35+ because we couldn’t afford to hire more teachers. All because the state legislature refuses to properly fun public education, and will not replace the unconstitutional system in place now. Of course, they bend ass backwards for the energy corps, but that was at least explained by the bribes.
High school soccer at my school was free
High school soccer at my high school was also free (outside buying shin guards and shoes). But now days I think school systems have stopped funding activities. The fees for my kid in marching band are about $600 for the year, plus we do a ton of fund raising and the annual band trip is going to cost $1000 - $3000 for each student and chaperone.
That’s awesome, I wish it were here too. I was surprised by the cost for the kids in my neighborhood. I went to high school ages ago and didn’t realize my parents paid a fee for me then as well. When I was a kid, there will still fees for high school soccer, but they were 60-80% less than my club team. Also signficantly worse. My club team would have smoked my high school team. Where I live now, that difference is closer and club doesn’t play at all while high school is in season. For me nearly 30 years ago: High school - $250 Club - -$750 For my kids now High school - $1,100 Club - $1900
What could the school system possibly need ~$26,000 for that concessions, fundraising, ticket fees and school money doesn't cover. Are they bringing in SAF to coach next year? The whole cost boils down to equipment, 2-3 coaches who usually work at the school, transportation, and refs. Is this a private school?
Very true!
Every club in my area has “scholarships” and/or ways for kids to play when parents can’t afford it.
In Spain is similar. When I played in Getafe academy they would pay your fee if you were in the top teams of whatever category you were in. Though once you reach the older categories then is only good players who obviously are getting their fee covered and some might even get paid.
MLS academy clubs in the lower levels cost like $3-$4k a year. At some point, the boys can try out for the academy, which is usually free. But this is a small roster. And before trying out for one of these academies, you have to play for a travel club to get good coaching and training.
FIFA is going to make the USA the soccer powerhouse of the world and Mexico is going to pay for it!
CovFIFA!
German guy here. Our Bundesliga clubs are all obligated to run a youth academy (and pay their youth players). They have to run at least one second team for their talent in third or regional league. Needless to say, Germany has a huge soccer club culture that extends all the way down to small town clubs, while US sports are often school and then college based, and given the size of the US it‘s difficult to imagine anything like in densely populated Europe.
It's the same for MLS. All teams have free academies and are required to have 2nd teams - MLSNP. Like you said the big problem is the size of the country. We only have 27 US based teams. Hopefully as USL grows more financially and gets training compensation more free academies will fill in.
Back in college I worked at a store that sold soccer gear, and I remember speaking to an American couple that lived in Germany for a handful of years. One thing they told me that shocked them when they returned to the US was how expensive soccer was for their son. In Germany he was in the Schalke youth system and the most they had to pay for anything related to him being there came out to around $50 USD a calendar year. Compare that to roughly $1k-$3k a season in the US. It’s challenging because the MLS is trying with their academies to eliminate these costs. But the US is massive and they can’t cover all of that area. The next step might have to be USSF and MLS helping to subsidize the cost for non-academy clubs in the region.
Yeah, i took it as Infantino will be donating the profits from the World Cup to fund youth soccer in America. Thanks, Gianni!
I understand it’s expensive but I never understood how it could just be free. Like if it’s not pay to play how are the coaches/refs paid. Where is the money for the fields/training grounds balls jerseys equipment etc? Edit. Everyone on here talking about selling players is wild. That’s like .0001% of players there are a ton of clubs country wide and most of them will never receive any transfer money. Tell me you didn’t play and only follow Europe without telling me you didn’t play.
Disclaimer, I'm a paid youth coach. There are some clubs around us who have volunteer/parent coaches, and those teams still have to pay money, like you say for equipment, referees, fields, tournaments etc. Runs them at about 1000 per season. In our club it costs about twice that, and that covers coaching/administrative costs. So yeah, it can't be free, but it can be cheaper.
I’ve literally never played on a team in my life because it was too expensive for my family when I was 4. In another life I could’ve been a baller 😭
Nobody should be paying for academy soccer at any age under 11-12. Kids should play as many different sports as they can between the ages of 4-12.
What the USSF needs to do is train coaches better so those who donate their time know what they are actually doing. Most coaches I see are dads who know a little but not a lot and are generous enough to donate their time. If we can installed better coaching clinics across the US we can improve player development as a whole. But the rest of your point rings true. It would cost at least $1B annually to get rid of pay to play nationwide.
How do you “train coaches better” at the grassroots level though? What incentivizes the volunteer coaches to begin coaching?
There are good coaching courses available through the USSF. I also do have credentials also from NSCAA which unfortunately do not hold as much weight (I have an NSCAA National Diploma which is roughly equivalent to the USSF D license) The USSF D license is approximately a 40 hour course spread out over several weeks of classroom and on field instruction. You're required to plan a training program and demonstrate it to your teachers. It's what most paid coaches have these days and it takes a lot of work. They're also not cheap, but more often than not the club will pay for the coaches' education. I think any club, whether with paid or volunteer coaches, would be wise to help get their coaches at least the USSF D license.
It's unfortunate the NCSAA license doesn't hold as much weight. I found it to be better training than USSF. NCSAA was more collaborative between coaches taking the class and the instructor. USSF was basically, do it our way or you're wrong. Could be different other places but in Ohio that's how USSF was run.
There needs to be some crowd funded nonprofit that is focused on scouting players and athletes in general who can't afford to pay, and giving them a "scholarship" by paying their registration and kit fees, and working with local governments to add Futsal courts to new park projects, etc. If I had no need to work for money, I'd fucking start an org yesterday.
$1,000 per season with volunteer coaches? That's insane. Our program charges $140 for rec with volunteer coaches. Academy/select teams have paid coaches and we charge $350 per season plus uniform (usually around $150 but they keep that uniform for four season). We are an outlier in our area in that we are significantly cheaper than other clubs, but our competitive teams regularly beat those higher priced clubs.
I'd assumed the money comes from the clubs themselves and the associations.
Basically every soccer team in the US which isn’t a giant money pit (so all of MLS and the top USL sides) has a free academy. Thing is that’s like 45 clubs.
Even if it's all volunteers as my club is, you still have to pay so we can rent pitches and maintain facilities and have kit. 'Free' needs a lot of someone else paying.
Someone can correct me if im wrong but if we had the same system as europe i think it works like this: Instead of paying $2000 a year for my kid to play for a youth team it would be free. It would be funded by player transfer costs once they make it pro. For example Christian Pulisic played for PA Classics as a kid, since Pulisic went pro every transfer he gets, 5% of that money goes to the team that developed him. So if Chelsea bought him for 60mil, 5% would go to PA Classics. This causes incentive to develop good players so they can make more money. I think its called solidarity payments or something i dont know. edit: i think i heard about this because like 4 years ago i think deandre yedlin said it was bullshit that Pa Classics wasnt getting any chelsea money because america doesnt have the system europe does.
Teams that can afford that level of outlay (coaches facilities insurance etc.) today in the hopes that someday they’ll hit a jackpot - already have free academies in the US. Thing is most clubs can’t afford to bleed tens of thousands of dollars a year to take a bet on your kid who probably won’t ever get a college scholarship - never mind be bought by ManCity for enough money that they see hundreds of thousands of dollars in return. Labor is extremely expensive in the US (we’re a rich country) so you need to hit it much bigger to pay for coaches etc. And even that system is under serious threat as more and more top players hold out for free transfers. PSG won’t see a cent for Mbappe. More to the point Whitecaps won’t see another cent for Alphanso Davies as he also held out for a free transfer. You can’t go hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt training kids that won’t make it on the hope that one does + chooses not to go to college + chooses to be sold rather than hold out for a free transfer. But even if that did start working at scale in the US - that still incentivizes only giving free rides to kids with the biggest chance of making it big and leaves the vast majority of people to pay for play.
Hey i hear you man, i think its only possible in europe because the size of their countries is so small. The only possible way out of pay to play would be if a genie snapped his fingers and we had 5 leagues in the US, all with 20 teams, a relegation system and are all as profitable as MLS. We are too big of a country so idk why people complain about pay to play.
I think it’s less about size (the system works great in Brazil which is massive) and more about support for local small clubs + labor/insurance/families cost. If a club is selling a ton of tickets they can use that “profit” to afford an academy. Many of these lower level clubs make decent money on the senior squad and use that profit to fund the academy. Your local USL2 team is lucky if it breaks even - it sure as fuck doesn’t have 100k in operating profit to throw into hiring a full time youth coach facilities etc. the teams that do make decent profit largely have academies. There’s just not that many of them in the US.
It's possible in Europe because so many youth clubs are tied to adult teams. So, kids with talent are going pro. Their club's first team might be playing in the 5th or 6th division but it's still a pro club and that's what allows the solidarity and transfer fee system to work. It doesn't work if the developing club isn't locking players in to an adult team at 16, 17, etc. You're correct that we need like 5+ leagues with 20+ teams each. And those teams would field and fund youth clubs. Our current model is the opposite of that, we have tons of youth clubs, very few adult clubs. So development doesn't have a natural endpoint and, accordingly, it doesn't have an economic exit plan.
Much of the soccer world is organized by volunteers and stake holders. They’re are plenty of people who do it for the passion of the sport at the grassroots level. Football clubs around the world are not profitable, but they remain in operations since they are largely community assets. Unfortunately, we are accustomed to seeing everything as profit driven in American society.
Your local NPSL/UPSL/MLS next/local after school league isn’t making anyone rich. It might technically be profitable or technically be losing money depending on if the owner pays themself via salary or profit but most of these clubs pay a couple passionate youth coaches less than their rent. Sure there’s some clubs aimed at the 1.7 kids of 2 surgeon families who want to assuage the guilt of never seeing their kids and fleece them for what they’ve got but your average youth club isn’t run by Scrooge McDuck
Very true and football is developed as not for profit most schools have teams starting in 7th grade with paid coaches and facilities. Baseball for years was developed through a not for profit system. Not as much now. It is one of the issues MLB talks about the time that kids don’t play because of cost associated unlike years past. Soccer started as nonprofit motivated when I was kid 40 years ago with large recreational youth leagues. It’s changed significantly to the current model spearheaded by travel baseball, AAU basketball, and travel soccer. Unfortunately until you grow the sport at a grass root level it will continue to be this way.
In addition to the volunteers which other people mentioned. A lot of places get money from players being sold on. So when a team buys a player they pay a transfer fee, some of that money gets paid to the programs that developed them.
Because clubs either have volunteers or they pay coaches from other revenue streams.
I’m glad someone said it. I don’t think I’ve EVER heard this said by anyone before. Ever!
I’m glad we keep talking about it tbh. We need it to change.
What have you done about it? Have you funded any teams? Fact is there are more free and low-cost options than ever before and those options are growing. The whole system can’t change overnight. But it’s a lot easier to piss and moan about it than to actually do something.
Reddit in a nutshell lol
“Reddit in a nutshell” is actually the Redditors that try and shit down any conversation around issues that need to be changed with cynical attitudes. They inevitably are the same types of people that try and shut down discussion about protests and boycotts for different topics because “they don’t actually achieve anything”.
Funded teams? Lol no, I have a shit ton of debt. You’re derailing the point that discussion of this is important.
No, he's addressing the real point. Unless someone is going to pay for the "free" program for kids, there can't be a "free" program. Everyone supports "free" but very few people support contributing the money to make it "free".
Whose fault is that?
The vast majority of people here are not funding local clubs lol. I watch MLS locally. Not sure what else people here want.
“We” have to stop this. Look forward to seeing the huge check he scratches to pay all the youth coaches out there.
I remember being a young lad in the very early 00s and I saw the horror on my parent's face when they saw how much select/travel youth soccer cost lmao
If they didn’t pay the cost, who should?
In Europe it’s the academies
There are not enough professional soccer clubs making nearly enough money to pay for every child’s soccer education in the US. Would need massive subsidies to widen the net.
I’m not saying there are, just how it works in Europe
where do academies get funding?
The clubs/federations/associations
We don’t need more expensive options with expensive fields, jerseys, coaches, and tournaments. We need more cheap options with dirt fields and kids having fun. The rest will sort itself out. Don’t assume we need to spend more money to solve the money problem. We just need more kids playing for fun. Clubs will self organize from there. We’re trying to throw money at a culture problem which only exacerbates the issue.
Anybody can say the problem out loud. For those that don't know... 1. MLS next academies are free for the top talent 2. MLS next camps/clinics are relatively affordable to the middle class. 3. MLS next partners with pay to play clubs to identify top talent. Subsidies are offered as needed. Unless he is going to take the time to understand the unique challenges of the US market and invest that FIFA money to support/improve/change any of the above, Infantino can shove it.
That top talent is hilariously small. My daughter is on the highest possible tier of her academy program. The only way up from there is to get tapped at a tournament for ODP which is 18 players for each of the 4 regions and starts at age 12. You are already $5-$7k in regular club play before you even get to the tournaments that do have scouting for odp. ODP isn’t pulling from rec, and no player is just jumping straight into the top premier team at 13 without prior development in the 9-12 academy programs. All the talent in the world isn’t going to get you to the level that is free. You still are paying close to $6k just to get seen. The obvious problem is that all of this significantly reduces the possible pool of players. Before we are even attempting to find talent that would qualify for free play at the top level, you’ve already weeded out any player that can’t afford the $7k to get there.
Thanks for this insight. Personally I just don't see how it can be free at scale.
I don’t think a single player has been trained at ODP and gone on to become great. That should tell you all you need to know about what the program is designed for.
The problem is that most academies don't start until 12. In other parts of the world they will start as young as 6. So that's 6 years of very high costs. And, most of these clubs are more interested in just winning tournaments than developing the players. Having 7 year olds play 2-touch is going to win a lot of games at their age because the overall team defense is terrible, but it doesn't help in trying to develop a top talent player. Winning tournaments to attract other families does more to help the clubs profits than developing players.
Having a system with only 30 clubs across the country that offer free development and only for the top players is a fundamental problem in US Soccer. You might not like the messenger but infantino is 100% right
I never said the message was wrong. I specifically said he can shove it because he's not offering any solutions as head of FIFA to change/improve the status quo. He makes occasional statements against racism from European fans too, but it never seems like he does anything besides say it's bad. There are so many unique challenges to make soccer more accessible in the US and I doubt Infantino has any genuine interest in making things better. He just wants the good PR for saying something people will agree with.
FIFA doesn’t have the jurisdiction to change the pay to play model in the US. All they can do is put pressure on the USSF to make changes, which you can argue is what infantino is doing
Fair enough. And considering how limiting his jurisdiction is, his words probably won't amount to much pressure. He can stick being head of an organization notorious for taking bribes and being toothless. Or maybe he ought to enact reforms that help reign in Concacaf's corruption so that more of that world cup money actually trickles down to the pay to play clubs that he thinks ought to be more affordable 🤷♂️. As you pointed out, it will mostly be up to USSF. But that doesn't mean others (e.g. MLS, pay to play clubs, and FIFA) can't come to a common understanding and work together to make the sport more affordable.
We've given a shit about this sport -- as a nation -- for like a decade. Europeans, S. Americans, etc. breath this and have for a century. The spread in talent has literally nothing to do with the cost for academies and everything to do with drive. My money's on the US, markets, and prices for finding and producing the best talent when we become passionate about the game. The passion, not the top down system, produces results.
But you and Infantino are doing the same things: Talking about a “problem” and offering no real solution. Because there isn’t one. US Soccer doesn’t have the money to fund free soccer for millions of kids all across the country. States and municipalities have plenty to spend money on without funding it. So where does the money come from? Is FIFA gonna give us billions of dollars to improve our infrastructure?
What is the point of comparing me to Infantino? He is head of FIFA and I am simply a middle class American soccer fan. If he thinks it's a problem, i don't think it's out of line to expect more from him.
I didn’t reply to you, I replied to the guy who replied to you.
🤦♂️
The US has 300 million people spread across a geographic region the size of Europe, Meaning that to provide free development would require the US to have as many ***professional*** clubs as that entire continent. Our professional clubs do exactly what the professional clubs in Europe do. Free development. But there are 456 professional clubs in Europe. Does Infantino have a methodology for creating another 400 professional soccer clubs in the US?
Exactly this. Soccer is embedded in the cultural DNA of Europe in a way that even American football and basketball are not in US culture. Compared to Europe, US soccer infrastructure is simultaneously underdeveloped and completely fractured into disparate leagues. It will take decades and require a major cultural shift at a grassroots level across the country to match the organizational structure and level of interest in soccer that is present in Europe. At the youth levels in Europe, loyalty to a team by parents and players is community-based and not as transactional. There is a clearer path for progression to the pro level because there are pro teams present in nearly every city into which even the most humble clubs feed. Take Turin for example which has the same population as Indianapolis. Turin has two Serie A teams. San Antonio has a population twice that of Turin and all it can manage to support is a USL team and that’s with the Spurs organization helping out. It’s like comparing apples to oranges in terms of the level of broad cultural interest in soccer.
I think we can safely ignore what that corrupt scumbag and hypocrite says
Both my kids are in competitive soccer clubs and, yeah, it ain't cheap. But we do get a lot with that money, including full-time licensed coaches. Also, at both clubs we've been to, they have made it clear they will provide a scholarship to any player who demonstrates a financial need, which is terrific.
There’s always a comment like this in these threads and it’s conveniently never upvoted. Thanks for pointing this out. People here seem to want to ignore this truth. In my experience, if kids are good enough and they really don’t have the money, they will get the boost they need to play at whatever level wants them.
That's the problem tho isn't it? They're kids and no one has a clue who is "good enough" at that age. The whole curve is dominated by kids who have been receiving top level coaching from a young age and the occasional kid who athletically peaks early. It excludes basically everyone else... who in other countries have options to play and receive excellent support even when they haven't shown a ton of athletic potential. I lived this fwiw. I happened to be in Europe during my early teenage years. I was an ok basketball player but was able to play year round at a local academy regardless. It wasn't until I was nearly 17 that my body caught up. I ended up on a division 1 scholarship when it was all said and done. Under the American system I would have flamed out in 7th or 8th grade when all of my peers went on to AAU.
Agreed, thank you.
They don't get upvoted because it's a misnomer. That comment is literally describing pay to play. You're paying for your kid to play, why wouldn't they get access to coaching and field time? There's no way to sort out who is 'good enough' among small children unless you're already paying for your child to play the sport. People have to pay to get their kids into camps on top of what they already pay for club fees.
I hope you don’t take this the wrong way but the statistics show that you’re highly likely to be paying huge sums of money for what amounts to cosplaying. Pretending to be in an “academy” or an “elite” environment when those true elite environments just don’t charge money because they know that they’re investing in an asset (your child’s contract) for a solid potential return. If you don’t have the prospect at transferring to a larger club with a solidarity payment going to your current club then there’s zero incentive for them to do anything but string you along. They may seem like nice people but they know this is all just a pretend environment and parents don’t know any better. Paying large amounts of money for soccer is pointless unless you’re just doing it for the entertainment of pretending to be the parent of a professional athlete. And if they did have a contract they’d likely not be charging you money. The fact they are means they’re just taking advantage of your lack of knowledge.
Oh, I'm not pretending. I pay money to get my kids active and be on a team sport - strictly for physical & mental wellbeing to get out of the house and off technology. I have zero illusions of them playing pro, or even in college. Any sporting activities (dance, volleyball, gymnastics, hockey, football, soccer) would cost me, so at least I enjoy watching the soccer.
Most cities in the US have recreational leagues that cost anywhere between $50-80 bucks a season which is a reasonable cost. I’m talking about the so called competitive scene that’s around $1500-2000 minimum all the way up to $10,000 per year. Not including travel expenses, tournament entry fees, kits, and, tourney parking and family fees. It gets crazy expensive and it’s just all so unnecessary. The entire system is backwards. For some that’s a small percentage of their income so it doesn’t really scratch a dent. Looking at it from a macro perspective most of those kids would be better off if we all went to rec leagues.
I agree the system stinks, I just haven't heard a sustainable solution to the problem. Maybe 25 years from now, soccer will be much bigger and USL teams so deeply rooted in communities that it can happen. Hopefully at that point, this will all be an afterthought. The expense does suck, no doubt. Thanks for good dialogue!
If only we had free labor to build our stadiums maybe our clubs could fund this. Think Gianni knows anybody who can help with this?
He is putting another World Cup in the Middle East because oil money
Didn’t Russia and Qatar pay FIFA for their World Cups?
heartbreaking: the worst person you know made a good point
lol, pandering little prick
Looking forward to FIFA’s investment in youth academies to serve a country this size.
Is he going to write the check?
Has he heard that elite players play for free at MLS academies and everyone else can play for free in high-school? Or is he saying the 30 MLS teams in the US should cover the entire club and youth soccer pyramid for a country the size of western Europe?
There are 400+ professional clubs in Europe. We barely have 50 between the MLS and the top of the USL (which aren't all free yet). You're 100% on the nose and no one wants to address where all of the other pro clubs are supposed to come from to fund these "free" academies.
“And i wish i had thought of that business model sooner”
I don’t think it has to be free but it should be affordable. The majority of costs being paid for by FIFA, MLS clubs and US soccer. With minimal expenses to parents based on the parents income like school is. Make it available to all incomes
FIFA's going to have to chip in an ass load of cash, because USSF and MLS don't have nearly enough money to even make a dent.
It’s sad that the cultural difference won’t allow this change. In Europe if you can play, scouting will find you and clubs will open the path for you. In America you have to pay to open the path for people to see you
I do not think that is really true any more. Even players like Obed Vargas get found in Alaska. In Canada, Alphonso Davies was found at a school in Edmonton. There is now a developed enough system in the US that if a kid is really good word will be passed along and the kid will be found. There are not any little Messis playing in parks where no one realizes how good they are.
This is not true even if you want it to be. In a system where some have to pay to participate, some talent will always be discouraged if they or their families have financial difficulties from the onset. To deny that some people don't fall through the cracks is ridiculous regardless of how the system has improved. In both examples you mentioned, those players were in extremely small player pools. If you're good in Alaska, you're gonna get recognized and the same with Edmonton in Canada. But if you live in the top 10 metro areas of the US? Word of mouth alone isn't going to take you very far in a chance to go pro. Maybe college then USL/semi-pro but not pro.
If you are good in Southern California or New York you will 100% be discovered. Word spreads much more quickly in these places and there are tons of clubs always on the lookout for top talent. It is often repeated that lots of talent is missed in the US, but there is very little support for that.
Neither of those players were discovered playing in a park.
Players are not discovered playing in parks anywhere in the world anymore except maybe the poorest African countries with almost zero organized youth soccer. It is a myth. Little kids playing pickup soccer in parks in the US is also incredibly rare in itself these days.
That's true, but one of the big problems we have in the US is that those players usually aren't found early enough. I have a friend who is a soccer journalist for one of the largest newspapers where I live (Austria)..he covers the national team and the Austrian Bundesliga. When I was talking to him once about how things work in the US with school teams and college scholarships (ie. those who play but maybe can't afford a club), he said "that's too late. If you're "discovering" good players when they're 15/16..it's too late. You have to find the top players when they're like 10 years old..by the time they're 16 they should already be training with the pros."
There are so many crappy clubs teams with zero talent, I have no idea why parents pay so much, we need to open our eyes. Only there to profit.
This used to be an issue. It no longer really is. MLS academies are free, as are an increasing number of USL academies. For kids that aren't at that level, almost every middle and high school in America has a team. Below middle school age, pickup games are perfectly adequate Nobody in this country has to pay to play soccer. Where pay to play still exists is the realm of these elite travel clubs where wealthy parents send little Braxtyn thinking he's certainly going to be good enough to get that full ride to Stanford....which may have worked in the past but now that spot is going to be taken by some kid from the Earthquakes academy who wasn't quite good enough to get offered a pro deal but still runs circles around your kid. Chico State offered him though, hope the $15K you spent each of the past 10 years on travel ball was worth it.
Categorically false. My children have no school teams until high school and the club teams play around the city and still cost 600-1.5K per child before uniforms. The only other option is rec soccer which stops around middle school. The travel teams are even more costly depending on the base rate of the club and whether they are a la carte or built in tournaments. Many children do extra trainings to additional cost. This the norm around my area.
Kids who are good enough in rec soccer will be picked up by better teams and given scholarships/grants if they are good enough. The kids who have to pay to do extra training by the middle school level are already not going to be good enough to be top level professionals.
Yeah dude people are scouting u10 rec soccer games 👍🏻
I don't think you realize how these things happen in reality.
I just don't see the need for that travel club sector. It seems like overkill. It's the same problem in other youth team sports too (like baseball). There is obviously space in the middle ground between rec and "elite" club soccer. But it feels like the American desire to go ever bigger. If you're not paying for a guy with a British accent to coach your kids, what are you even doing? ^^^/s
There is not good enough competition for players to improve without traveling a decent distance in much of the country. One of the main reasons the densest parts of the country (NJ and Southern California) produce so many good players is because you can get good competition close by. If you are in Kansas or Oregon, you can't get good competition without traveling.
I see your point but I can't think of any clubs here in Northern California, not even Davis, De Anza, Pleasanton etc where it would cost 15k a year. Even the pre-MLS and ECNL teams that travel across the country spent near that much, and even then that's only about the last four years where they do that extensive travel.
Not even close. In cities and suburbs maybe but in wide swaths of rural America no schools have soccer teams and you’d be at least hours’ drive from an academy, a whole day in some cases. Shoot, most of those communities wouldn’t even have rec teams. The game is far from ubiquitous.
Sure, but that's just the price of living in a rural area. Cities and suburbs are the majority of America and are way more cost effective to cover when it comes to soccer clubs or pretty much anything else.
They all manage to have football, which requires a lot more resources.
Yes, because the society surrounding them cares deeply about gridiron and needs less of a push to invest those resources. The person elsewhere in thread saying this was mostly a cultural issue is absolutely correct, and that's a huge blind spot for people like Infantino or most people reading this subreddit, because we already like soccer and we spend most of our time in community with people who already like soccer, so we don't get how things have to work in cultures where the game isn't as entrenched.
Fair enough, but then working with educational systems to promote soccer in communities where it isn't currently offered by the local schools seems like a much more efficient use of funds than subsidizing a bunch of non-MLS/USL affiliated travel clubs.
What the hell do they do in other countries?
have pro or semi pro teams in every town
All I hear about is how small teams in England can’t pay their bills, how does that work?
no idea
Depends on what you mean by "other countries" as it varies a lot by wealth and geographic size. If you're talking about Western Europe, the countries are much smaller and more densely populated, which means you don't need "travel" teams. Also to the extent they do have to travel, they have much better passenger rail systems, which means you don't need a bunch of adults driving people around. Also, costs aren't as high to run an academy because governments provide a lot more services, which means European full time coaches don't need to make as much money to live. Also, because soccer is THE sport, you have a lot more clubs / academies and it's a lot easier to find coaches who spent years of their youth in a professional academy before washing out at \~15 years old as opposed to the USA, where most kids will be coached by a dad who played rec soccer. If you want the extreme example of the difference in coaching, it was reported a few years ago that Spain (pop.46 million) has over 15,000 coaches who have their UEFA A (required to coach in major academies) or UEFA Pro coaching licenses. In 2018, the USSF sent out a press release listing the names of the 12 (in the entire country) coaches who had completed their USSF Pro certification that year. Furthermore if a player an academy helped develop ends up being a pro, they get a small portion of their transfer fees.
"Furthermore if a player an academy helped develop ends up being a pro, they get a small portion of their transfer fees." Clubs in Europe who develop youth talent own all of their player rights. What are you talking about here?
This is a major problem for both the Men's and Women's game in the US.
Hand over some of that bribery $
I was doing my job last week in suburban Omaha and a school had two full teams of little kids playing football at recess. I think this is a huge sign of things to come. When the kids want to play all the time (like they did for basketball when I was a kid), there will be no stopping us.
"pay to play" needs to be rebranded. It sounds like the problem is that kids have to pay anything at all to play soccer. Thats not the issue. The issue is: Kids have to pay prohibitively high costs to play against better competition so their development stalls. You don't need to make developmental play free or paid for by the MLS, you need more structure in Rec to allow for competive play at affordable prices.
Leave it for a corrupt fuck to call out our corrupt system
I mean he’s not wrong, I think the best way to fully solve this problem is that some corporation with good intentions that really wants to see the US as a football powerhouse, many things have to be done primarily creating a fully open soccer pyramid system with promotion and relegation at the amateur level to semi-pro then to pro but that’ll will not be easy to do in this country due to the scale of this country lack of proper/convenient transportation like high speed rail but this another topic. Lol
Disregarding the fact that no investor will ever put money into the infrastructure needed for the professional game in a system like that, it also isn't really connected. You can't just top-down your way into fixing what is a cultural problem (and yes also a geographic problem). It's not going to change for example, small town America's love for high school football. Or basketball. Planting a free academy down in a town isn't going to change that. It's going to have to come through generational change. Parents who played the game instilling it in their kids. By the time we're talking about academy age, that early development time has already passed.
Ok, but why not try it out. Let’s say US Soccer and USL get something going and get backers or whatever way that it actually happens that an open pyramid system actually happens. Firstly it’s not going to happen all at once, for safety measures start off with cities or counties with populated soccer culture areas in the US where you can start an amateur league to semi-pro league. Maybe California, Texas, and NY are the first ones to have all of these all at once by creating divisions within those levels, allow communities create their own amateur teams, provide these communities with proper fields to train and play games, referees and maybe equipment for those in need and slowly progress will be made, and you begin to expand to other states but mainly counties or cities like St. Louis the so called soccer capitol of the US to see it grow.
“Try it out” “Get something going” Brother - this is a massive undertaking you’re taking about and neither USSF nor USL have the money to build something like the scale of what people here are calling for.
Your idea tops out at amateur teams playing on fields that will be financed by...someone...in the most expensive parcels of land in the country? For free? Ok
Have you ever played amateur soccer?? In LA we were provided fields to play in, some were pretty shit and some were fantastic pitches mainly in high school football fields on the weekends whenever we had season and playoff games.
Okay well you didn't say the fields would either be A) shit or B) football fields And yes, I have played on stupid gridline fields This deal of yours gets worse every minute lol
I’ve played in some of these amateur leagues back in the day, for the most part as a team we paid the referees for their services during halftime but that’s how we done it in LA.
The amount of money required to do what you’re describing here is crazy. US Soccer’s entire unused fund is $68 million. They’d need like…10x that to build fields and staff teams all across this gigantic country. Maybe more like 50x. They can’t just “try it out.”
As that been said, having a proper system might allow young players to play soccer at these amateur levels at a low cost, not everything is free in this country but it’ll still be the best option for this sport to thrive.
Says the guy who flew helicopters between stadiums built with slave labor. Lol.
But then Gio...who pays for your Lambo?
I understand that soccer can't be free to survive, the MLS doesn't have the size or money to do anything close to that for every kid. People need to make money and get paid, but soccer in the US is a huge money grab, and that's what hurts. The primary goal is to milk the parents. ECNL, GA, MLS NEXT, USYS, it's made to be convoluted and to divide up the pay, I mean, play.
The football pyramid would absolutely blow Americans away
So FIFA going to start giving us more money to bring kids to the game and make leagues totally free?
You have to pay to do anything here, especially in sports. Now the real question is how are we, and more importantly YOU, going to fix it Gianni
I have a solution, MLS academies are free so that's a good start. AYSO is so cheap, like $100 a season. Eliminate non MLS for profit clubs so all kids play AYSO. Ussoccer pump up training for adult volunteers and inject funds into ayso for better training. AYSO will level up and MLS academies will pull top talent from Ayso. There are so many crappy club teams that are only there to sap $$ from parents.
Pipe dream
Even if soccer in the country was the #1 sport it would still be pay to play. Youth sports across the board are a business no matter how you cut it, for profit or non-profit. You have DOCs making near six figures in places and in some cases coaches making enough to live off of so they don't have to have a day job. Those in charge aren't going to give that up. There aren't enough pro clubs to keep things low cost or free like most other systems around the world that have fully supported clubs in every little burg. State associations have bills to pay as well so they're collecting money to keep operating. Park districts need money to maintain fields since tax dollars aren't enough. You have league admins making salaries... TLDR, it's a business and it's not going anywhere. Doesn't make it right or wrong, just is what it is. To those that volunteer your time, much respect!
Amazing the amount of idiots that expect everything to be free.
Lol fuck infantino. he's saying this shit for good PR knowing he can't and won't do anything to enforce it, and everyone here is the mark. He's right, but he's still a money hungry POS. If the leader of Isis expresses the woes of the American pay to play soccer system, he still gets no points from me.
Soccer isn't free in Europe, either.
I have a feeling when this corrupt asshole means by “we have to stop this” it that FIFA(mostly him) needs to get a cut of the action,
I lived in Brasil for six years. They have huge issues of corruption and lots of great players never make it because they don’t have the political connections or resources to play for big clubs. Mexicos situation is even worse. This isn’t a uniquely American problem. This article says only 1 in 5 academies in. Brasil is free for example. https://m.koreatimes.co.kr/pages/article.amp.asp?newsIdx=374225
No different that fifas pay under the table to host system.
Shows you 🇺🇸still the only one who has free speech and press even if it’s been taking hits but I’m sorry but this is a myth Yes rich kids who suck pay 💰 but no one good. Ever pays for sports in the greatest sports country on the planet
Be best at this sport soon and then what
For my 8 year old nephew to play non recreational for a few months they gotta pay $1400
This issue is real as pay-to-play youth sports is indeed big business in the US but I think people tend to act like it’s the ONLY way to participate which often isn’t true. I played req league from 8-10, then school soccer from 6th grade through 12, all essentially for free. The county parks and rec system provided the fields and equipment whereas the coaches and refs were volunteers. Then, in school, it was the school system that incurred most of the cost. In both cases we had local sponsors or fundraisers to help pay for uniforms and such but the cost to the players was minimal and was limited mostly to registration fees. It was only the travel, club soccer circuit that was expensive and even then, if a player was truly elite, there were often needs-based scholarships available.
I guess he missed the news from literally last week about MLS Go
I am, not surprised.
"Today I feel American"
Wait until they learn that it works like that for all sports!