(09-06-2017 09:07 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(09-06-2017 08:35 AM)BearcatMan Wrote:  

(09-06-2017 08:21 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(09-06-2017 07:33 AM)BearcatMan Wrote:  

(09-06-2017 06:53 AM)DexterDevil Wrote:  It's highly anti-competitive, doesn't allow for much interest beyond the MLS clubs themselves which in turn doesn't allow for a soccer culture to grow. Soccer culture would bolster academies and eventually make them either affordable or free so soccer isn't pay to play as it is now. When only rich kids, that also have parents that are into soccer instead of football or baseball, are able to attend these academies it is highly restrictive to the potential our national team could have.

That is by far the biggest thing that's holding our country back soccer-wise. When I was in grade school through high school I played on one area club team (Pacesetter FC) which was about $300/season and we won two Ohio North State cups against $1000 teams pretty easily, including the Crew's "Academy" team that was basically for rich kids to tell their friends about (hell 6 of us ended up playing in college BECAUSE of the team we were on and the opportunity a few of them had which otherwise wouldn't have been there). Back then there were already families who couldn't afford that...now the same club is $1500/season with tournaments that need additional pay. That doesn't even include the crazy upper level clubs that are around $2000-$3000/season. In Europe, clubs/academies are FREE...here the organizations try to profit off of it all...oddly enough, the organizations and federations that allow greater access tend to toast us in open competition.

The saddest thing is, the athletic potential and overall population of this country SHOULD make us one of the better sides in the world, however, the way the MLS is set up (pay for access, limited support sides, far too many general barriers for entry, and far too few good coaches who care about developing players over W/L record at ages 8-13), we'll never get there. It would require a complete shift in the entire mentality of the Federation from the ground up...and they're making too much money to do that. The only thing that would make soccer better is if USSF were run as a non-profit like most of the other federations are.

I agree with the expense issue; however, the college system is also, IMO, holding back US soccer. While 14+ year old prospects in other nations are joining academies, US players are deciding which college to attend. Not saying that's terrible, but it's not great for US soccer development.

Oh absolutely, unfortunately I doubt we'll ever get out from underneath that shadow though. Of those 6 that I mentioned, only one of us wanted to actually play professionally, the rest were just using it for college tuition. Sadly, the fabricated reliance on a college degree that our society has (and I work at a friggin University, so you know how bad it has gotten for me to admit it), would make 16-18 year olds completely writing off college as damn near impossible. The primary reason is that there just aren't enough good paying opportunities....I mean, in England alone there are 4 divisions with 20-24 teams in each that pay their players at least £500/week (~$30,000/year). That's good money for 17/18 year olds anywhere, and they have 1/5th the population that we do while still offering nearly quadruple the opportunities for decent living wages playing the sport professionally.

Sadly, none of that will change...we just have to have more people head over there to take of advantage of it at 18, rather than go to college and waste 4 more years of development. IMO the biggest contributor to our lack of development of the sport is the pay for play and the over-reliance on wins in the young levels (8-13) rather than skill development. College is cursory, because at that point those players are already off the path.

Yeah, my son is 9 and has been playing since he was 6. We are still doing recreational even though some coaches have asked my son to try out for travel ball. At 9 years old I just don't see the need to play travel, maybe when he is 12 and if he's still into soccer we'll give it ago. The expense jumps astronomically to play travel and even though we could do it, IMO, it just doesn't make sense to do so. Heck, my son's recreational team could whip some of these travel teams I've seen.

Exactly...and that's the crux of it all. Those recreational teams die out around 10-12 most of the time, and most of those players are just as good if not better than the kids whose parents are paying $1000 at age 9 for soccer. The best player on our team that made it to the National Y-League finals back in 2005, who played with me at Cincinnati, and who is still playing professionally in Sweden at age 29 was a guy who played on a local rec team until age 15. He just fooled around and developed everything on that team because the coaches were way more open to kids getting a feel for the sport and allowed everyone to get the same instructional time. Half the kids on my teams growing up barely touched a ball in game action, and that killed not only their interest, but any potential development. If I ever coach a team when my kids are growing up, I'm going to tell all of the parents straight up that I'm way more worried about making their kids better players than seeing them win every game with half the team not getting a chance.