Agreed. It is. I've one caveat though, I'm not sure how important MLS is in improving US soccer specifically. One, largely overlooked, point made in the post-game rending of garments and gnashing of teeth, is that MLS has also raised the level of other CONCACAF nations (except possibly Mexico) as their best players also play in the league. Kids from Hondurus, Costa Rica, Panama have perhaps benefited more than US players as they can be recruited at an earlier age, and, unlike Europe, MLS is an achievable goal for them, rather than an expectation or stepping stone as it might be for talented North Americans.
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
World Cup qualification: CONCACAF
Collapse
X
-
Anyway, between moping about the result and getting angry about tedious American leftists on social media who never show any interest in soccer until they get to gloat about US failure, as if the USSF is a branch of the armed forces, I've been reading various articles about how the US men's team should begin to turn things around. Best-sounding suggestions I read are hiring a technical director AND a new coach (two different people, with DT over coach) and using some of the $100 million or so the Federation is sitting on to get rid of (or at least provide an alternative to) the pay-to-play "system" that prevails in the U.S. (Unfortunately there's a lot of money being made from pay-to-play, so it will be hard to kill. Barcelona opened an "escola" here in Austin, and at first I was excited, but it seems to be a complete cash cow, charging high tuition that insures only middle-class and above players, mostly white, will receive instruction there while talented but poorer kids, mostly Hispanic, will continue to play in smaller and cheaper leagues with wildly varying coaching quality.
I have no idea how likely or possible either of these things are, but I'm hoping Gulati is booted out in the next election. He too often seems to have believed in the typically American "savior" myth, that a certain coach or a certain star player was going to push us to the next level and drag everybody else up with him, and that otherwise the vast number of athletes in the U.S. would keep us competitive. But the much more obvious approach, that to raise the level of play at our highest level we need to raise the level of play at all levels, is more likely to succeed. As it has for Germany and for much less likely World Cup qualifiers, like Iceland. But that costs more money and requires more organization. And unfortunately one thing standing in the way of this is that we charge waay more money for coaching certifications than do places like Spain and Germany, so the USSF is actually profiting from something that's also holding our players back. (I think the Class A licensing course is like $4,000-$5,000 here, and around $600-$800 in other countries. Plus you probably have to travel to take the courses.)
A big shit show and I hope it shakes things up for good. Even though it came at our expense, it's cool to see Panamá going to the World Cup for the first time.Last edited by Renart; 11-10-2017, 20:02.
Comment
-
Originally posted by ursus arctos View PostThat's a terrific post, Reed.
Anyway, between moping about the result and getting angry about tedious American leftists on social media who never show any interest in soccer until they get to gloat about US failure, as if the USSF is a branch of the armed forces, I've been reading various articles about how the US men's team should begin to turn things around. Best-sounding suggestions I read are hiring a technical director AND a new coach (two different people, with DT over coach) and using some of the $100 million or so the Federation is sitting on to get rid of (or at least provide an alternative to) the pay-to-play "system" that prevails in the U.S. (Unfortunately there's a lot of money being made from pay-to-play, so it will be hard to kill. Barcelona opened an "escola" here in Austin, and at first I was excited, but it seems to be a complete cash cow, charging high tuition that insures only middle-class and above players, mostly white, will receive instruction there while talented but poorer kids, mostly Hispanic, will continue to play in smaller and cheaper leagues with wildly varying coaching quality.
I have no idea how likely or possible either of these things are, but I'm hoping Gulati is booted out in the next election. He too often seems to have believed in the typically American "savior" myth, that a certain coach or a certain star player was going to push us to the next level and drag everybody else up with him, and that otherwise the sheer size and vast number of athletes in the U.S. would keep us competitive. But the much more obvious approach, that to raise the level of play at our highest level we need to raise the level of play at all levels, is more likely to succeed. As it has for Germany and for much less likely World Cup qualifiers, like Iceland. But that costs more money and requires more organization. And unfortunately one thing standing in the way of this is that we charge waay more money for coaching certifications than do places like Spain and Germany, so the USSF is actually profiting from something that's also holding our players back. (I think the Class A licensing course is like $4,000-$5,000 here, and around $600-$800 in other countries. Plus you probably have to travel to take the courses.)
A big shit show and I hope it shakes things up for good. Even though it came at our expense, it's cool to see Panamá going to the World Cup for the first time.
I didn't know that about the licensing. I don't really know what the licenses do or what coaches learn in the courses, either, but it sounds like that should be cheaper or, at least, scholarships should be widely available.
Are we the only country with pay-to-play? Or is it just that we're the only one where the pay-to-play organizations got established and stuck in before there was any money for a more egalitarian approach? I hope that MLS academies or other free organizations can put many of the pay-to-play organizations out of business. If the coaches there are really that good, they'll get jobs with the academies. Otherwise, find a new job. But these big organizations are well-established "brands" and have clout within USSF, I suppose, so it will be a fight.
Like I said, I suspect the prestige of being part of a team that's officially associated with a pro team and feeds directly into that team would be the most attractive option for a player, everything else being equal, especially if it's free. But an inherent problem is that the US is just so big and spread out that it's inevitable that a lot of people are not going to live within an easy commute of an academy team or coaching course. Trying to make it otherwise would just spread the resources too thin. Given our paucity of inter-city train routs, that's going to make it hard for a lot of kids to play at a high level. I know, for example, that a number of kids in my area eventually play on soccer and hockey teams based in Philadelphia or Pittsburgh. That's four and three hours away, respectively. Not a lot of parents can shuttle a kid that far a few times a week and sending them away to live, like at Union's academy, is a hard thing for a lot of kids and parents to handle.
We have boarding schools in America and kids leave home young to be actors or to play junior hockey or whatever, but it's not very many and it's not really part of the culture. I don't know if it's really "part of the culture" anywhere else either, though.Last edited by Hot Pepsi; 11-10-2017, 20:15.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Hot Pepsi View Post“I don’t think it’s systematic racism,” says Nick Lusson, the director of NorCal Premier Soccer Foundation an organization to grow soccer in California’s underserved communities. “It’s just a system that has been built with blinders to equality.”
"A system that has been built with blinders to equality" is probably the best description of systematic racism I've ever heard.
Yes, the system in other countries is rife with rent-seeking vampires looking to get rich and yet they manage to at least qualify for the World Cup, so that's not necessarily a barrier to success.
Being that they didn't have the funds for a hotel room for the regionals, they asked the state federation for some funds. Not only did the state not give the funds, they made a law stating that no team would ever receive funds and would be permanently banned if they could not play.
I'm at peace with this as much as Trump's getting-too-close-to-win an election. The entrenched corruption and leeching off of our youth and seeing them as nothing more than paychecks has finally bit us in the ass. Panama came so close for years. They never gave up. Not after getting trounced 4-0 in that amazing Orlando atmosphere.
We also didn't need this one. Like Flynnie said, the embarrassment of not making 90 would have been crushing.
Winning that Colombia game in '94 helped the game immensely, and crashing out in the first round would've been a massive stain on whatever the new league would be called.
We had to make it in '98, because we needed the MLS to survive.
We had to make it in '02, because the MLS was failing.
We had to make it in '06. because the MLS was failing.
We had to make it in '10, because we bombed out in '06 and needed to build on the momentum that the MLS was gathering.
We had to make it in '14, because we made the 2nd round and had most of our team back and the MLS was really starting to light on fire.
Now the MLS is permanent. We have a permanent supporter culture. That crowd in Orlando, with Army Airborne flags flying next to Gay Pride flags never made me more proud to be an American. Our national team linking arms with Mexico never made me more proud to be an American.
Many great and wonderful things are happening here with the game. Just not with the World Cup. Luckily, we didn't need it.
And quite frankly, after the Mueller indictments come down, it's probably for the best.
Comment
-
The Guardian article that Imp linked was spot-on in its indictment of the pay-to-play system.
I've been in the U.S. for a decade-and-a-half and spent several years as a sports writer, covering a fair amount of youth soccer. What always struck me was the baffling mediocrity of all these "elite" / "development" / "academy" teams and players from the pay-to-play model. I'd hear hype about so-and-so being a standout performer with colleges lining up to offer him scholarships, and I'd see him play and think, "So what?" They were all cut from the same cloth: "athletes" first, soccer players a distant second. They could run all day and were technically good at everything, I suppose... but there was never any flair or creativity. No expressiveness, no spark. Just robot clones. You could watch 100 games back to back and never see anything that surprised or exhilarated you.
There were the odd exceptions. Like the team from a small New Jersey high school packed full of immigrants from Central America. They'd face off against all these these big, athletic teams, with their discipline and their rigid systems, and they'd tear them to pieces. Won the state championship, and it was glorious. But, like I said, that's the exception.
How to change it? Hot Pepsi is right that the free academies run by most (all?) of the MLS sides now is the first step in challenging the culture. Although this European-style model creates its own problems...
Comment
-
Originally posted by Limey View PostThe Guardian article that Imp linked was spot-on in its indictment of the pay-to-play system.
I've been in the U.S. for a decade-and-a-half and spent several years as a sports writer, covering a fair amount of youth soccer. What always struck me was the baffling mediocrity of all these "elite" / "development" / "academy" teams and players from the pay-to-play model. I'd hear hype about so-and-so being a standout performer with colleges lining up to offer him scholarships, and I'd see him play and think, "So what?" They were all cut from the same cloth: "athletes" first, soccer players a distant second. They could run all day and were technically good at everything, I suppose... but there was never any flair or creativity. No expressiveness, no spark. Just robot clones. You could watch 100 games back to back and never see anything that surprised or exhilarated you.
There were the odd exceptions. Like the team from a small New Jersey high school packed full of immigrants from Central America. They'd face off against all these these big, athletic teams, with their discipline and their rigid systems, and they'd tear them to pieces. Won the state championship, and it was glorious. But, like I said, that's the exception.
How to change it? Hot Pepsi is right that the free academies run by most (all?) of the MLS sides now is the first step in challenging the culture. Although this European-style model creates its own problems...
That is the upside of our sports system. By funneling most sports through high schools and universities, there's more incentive for the players to pay attention to their studies. Yeah, the NCAA is bullshit and there are cheating scandals and stories about basketball players who stay in college for years without being able to read, but overall, athletes do better in college than non-athletes and those numbers are even better if you set aside men's basketball and football.
Comment
-
I believe all the MLS clubs have free academies now. (Correct me if I'm wrong, anyone who knows better.) I know that Houston Dynamo and FC Dallas, the ones nearest to me, do.
Lowering the price of coaching certification/licenses and then having youth leagues that insist on coaches being certified at a certain level from maybe U6 or U7 up, rather than being "elite" or "select" or whatever, would help, too.
And maybe most of all, if I were in charge of US Soccer, I'd put money into making lots of places to play and giving away soccer balls. I know my son's game has improved as much or more from playing soccer with friends in the neighborhood in the parks and alleys than it has from his weekly league matches.
Comment
-
- Mar 2008
- 7491
- Off the purple line
- I'm slutty: Roma (on haitus until Jose is fired), Liverpool, and Dortmund
- Del Taco
I posted last night about Sunil. I'll add that the other major issue for me is MLS. The league has been good for soccer in the US but I don't know how good it is for US Soccer. It needs to be a site for players to begin their careers but it can't be the location for the mainstays on the national team. I wrote this before 2014 that I thought we would suffer in that competition with Dempsey, Bradley, and Altidore (I think he returned) to MLS. We did ok in that WC, although backed our way in rather than winning our way in when we pissed away points to Portugal in the last minute. But I stand by that general assessment. The competition in MLS is not good enough to prepare players for top competitions and clearly not good enough to prepare players to beat T&T away.
I get that some players are stunted by being on the bench in Europe, but when that happens they should move to a smaller club in the same league.
I know MLS was discussed above and I think the point about MLS being good for CONCACAF nations makes sense; it just hasn't been good for the USMNT when players could play elsewhere (even LigaMX--which consistently holds the last 3 or 4 spots in the CONCACAF CL).
Comment
-
This team was bad, but they still underachieved. They should have been good enough to beat T&T. Why the men’s program has failed to progress in the last eight years (we missed the last two Olympics too) and why this particular line-up shit the bed in the critical moment last night are two separate, albeit related, issues.
The point about playing on a smaller club in a big league is interesting. It stands to reason that getting your ass kicked a bit is better training than playing in a league where you’re one of the best players. That’s true in all endeavors.
And it’s certainly better than riding the pine anywhere, no matter how much you’re getting paid.
But wouldn’t a guy like Bradley make less money playing for, say, Freiburg than as an MLS DP? I’m not sure. Certainly, it seems like there’d be less stability there and less opportunity to develop endorsement and other businesses off the pitch.
I’m not sure how US Soccer can compel guys to skip MLS to toil in relative obscurity overseas. I agree it would probably help. I’m just not sure how they can force it. Sure, you could tell them “go to Newcastle or you won’t play for the US” but a guy like Bradley, for example, is still probably the best choice regardless of where he’s playing club football so that’s would be taking a short term risk for an uncertain long-term game.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Renart View PostI believe all the MLS clubs have free academies now. (Correct me if I'm wrong, anyone who knows better.) I know that Houston Dynamo and FC Dallas, the ones nearest to me, do.
Lowering the price of coaching certification/licenses and then having youth leagues that insist on coaches being certified at a certain level from maybe U6 or U7 up, rather than being "elite" or "select" or whatever, would help, too.
And maybe most of all, if I were in charge of US Soccer, I'd put money into making lots of places to play and giving away soccer balls. I know my son's game has improved as much or more from playing soccer with friends in the neighborhood in the parks and alleys than it has from his weekly league matches.
Overall, however, we’ve really fucked up as a country when it comes to suburban development and our playing fields are part of that.
When I was growing up, we had little league baseball and soccer practice in small parks all over town as there are lots of neighborhood parks around with e backstop and some grass and they’d put up some half-size soccer goals in the fall.
And we played a lot of pick-up games in the parks or, as the case may be, in whatever gym we could sneak into on campus.
For actual league games there are a couple of bigger spaces around with full sized fields - mostly around the high school - and they’re mostly fairly close to the center of town. And where my mom and dad grew up in Cincinnati is like that too. Lots of small parks or school yards scattered throughout residential areas with maybe just one or two basketball courts and some green space. Maybe a softball field. But there are lots of them so everyone can walk to one.
But putting adequate playing fields or courts in neighborhood parks seems to have gone out of style. Instead, our sprawl plan seems to be to put all of fields of a certain kind - and sometimes all the fields of all kinds - in one massive complex on the outer sprawl. The Germantown Soccerplex is like that. It’s nice, but it’s far away from where most people in Montgomery County actually live. There are other fields around, but not enough. And some of these facilities, like the one in Cooperstown, attract teams from all over the world. It’s a tourist draw.
I don’t know if there just aren’t any other places to play or if parents just think that you can’t even practice unless the pitch is ideal, but either way it seems that even just going to a practice is now a big deal for the kids and their parents. It’s so far from home that they can’t just drop them off and come back later or let the kids ride their bikes. It all becomes a huge undertaking. Even if the parents can afford it, it teaches kids that sports are only worth doing if there’s a coach and full personalized uniforms and kit and and referees/umpires. It’s amazing how many kids playing organized youth sports now have never played a pick-up game in their sport (or maybe any) and how few parents and coaches value that kind of unstructured play, both for what it does for their skills but, more importantly, what it does for their ability to learn how to get along with other people without appealing to the ref or their parents every time something goes wrong.
I agree that coaches should know what they’re doing. Certainly if you’re charging real money to coach or do a clinic, you should have a proper license. And a shit-ton of background checks.
But I know in hockey, for example, insisting on licenses pushes some volunteer coaches to just quit because they don’t have the time (and/or the money, perhaps) to do the course. They played when they were young and want to help their kids team, but that’s all they have time for.
So there’s a kind of price-elasticity curve with both the cost and time-commitment and for every level, the organization has to figure that out so it knows exactly how much limiting the coaching pool is worth versus the added quality for the coaches that do qualify. And if you can’t rely on as many volunteers, then figure out how to pay the coaches at least something for their time.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Limey View PostHow to change it? Hot Pepsi is right that the free academies run by most (all?) of the MLS sides now is the first step in challenging the culture. Although this European-style model creates its own problems...
Thank Christ indoor starts in 2 weeks.
Comment
-
Well, they should be more profitable with the new stadium. Maybe that will help. Apparently, DCU’s
Academy and maybe Portland’s are the only ones that still charge a fee.
More info, possibly dated:
https://www.si.com/planet-futbol/2016/02/11/mls-us-soccer-youth-development-academies-coaching
https://www.blackandredunited.com/youth-development/2015/8/5/9096055/dc-united-most-expensive-mls-academy
http://www.soccerwire.com/blog-posts/mls-vs-non-mls-can-the-development-academy-keep-itself-together/Last edited by Hot Pepsi; 12-10-2017, 03:56.
Comment
-
- Mar 2008
- 7491
- Off the purple line
- I'm slutty: Roma (on haitus until Jose is fired), Liverpool, and Dortmund
- Del Taco
Again, my timeline for Altidore might be off but my recollection is that Alttidore, Bradley, and Dempsey all returned to MLS at the same time.
Altidore was doing great in the Netherlands but each transfer to England failed. He seemed to be in baseball parlance a 4-A player: not good enough for MLB but too good for AAA.
Bradley had one or two excellent seasons at Chievo Verona, a yo-yo club. He was sold to Roma, who I follow so I got to see him a lot. He did well with Roma but was very similar to Danille de Rossi, who is a Roma legend and a much better passer at that time. Then Garcia came in (or maybe it was when Luis Enrique came in) and Nainggolan was bought. So now there were 3 players basically for the same position. Bradley was told he could or should leave. BTW Nainggolan has turned out to be amazing for Roma so Roma made the right decision with this one. And Nainggolan is way more flexible in terms of playing further up or playing deep. As we saw with Bradley in 2014 he isn't good that far up; he's not a #10. I have no idea what Bradley's options were at that time, but he was playing well for Roma which is not a small club. He should have been able to move to another decent sized club in Italy (maybe UA would know more about that because he pays attention to transfers in Serie A) or Spain or Germany. He wasn't going to Juve or Real or Bayern but I'd have to think a club like Schalke or Udinese or Valencia might have been interested: all were at least Europa League clubs at that time. I can't blame him for wanting to be back in North America if that's where he wanted to be to be closer to family. But I'd be surprised if the money was a lot better in MLS. Maybe I'm wrong about that last part. Still, he was at a high point in his career and he went back to a league that was a major step down from Serie A. If we were talking about Bradely now versus 2013 going to MLS would make sense but in 2013 or 2014 he needed to stay in Europe because he was talented enough to do a job there.
Dempsey was out of contract with Spurs if I remember correctly. There was a lot of talk about him going to Liverpool. That could have been American owner = purchase American player rumors. Dempsey wasn't a star at Spurs but he certainly wasn't a bust. Here, though, I think the money in Seattle was probably better than what he would have got elsewhere since outside of Liverpool he was probably looking to lower down the table. And, again, maybe he wanted to be home. I can't fault guys for wanting to be home. But I also think that such a mentality also affects one's ability to travel come tournament time. This might have a lot to do with England's failures, where players just don't leave because the money is good and they're home. Whereas Germans, Italians, Spanish, and especially French players seem to travel. They get used to being away from home so the tournament is no different. Anyway, that's a bit of a tangent but my point is that 3 players who have been central to US soccer during this qualifying period chose a weaker league against weaker talent at a time when all 3 were still good players. Because they chose a weaker league I think their skills deteriorated quicker in terms of international play.
Look at it this way, Pulicic is 19 years old. Last year his dad had to drive him to his prom because he was too young to get a German driver's license. And this was the guy who was looked to to carry the national team during this past calendar year. He was the difference maker. And that difference maker is playing week in and week out against top talent in the CL and the Bundesliga while the three guys I mentioned above are playing against Brazilians who couldn't play in Brazil's C league (whatever it's called) and against guys whose names matter but whose quality of play has been cooked for 5+ years (e.g., Kaka and David Silva). That is not a recipe for success. So for me MLS is good for soccer in the US but it is not good for US Soccer if the main guys on the NT are MLS players.
Comment
-
My knowledge of the US system is zero. I do heartily endorse both Reed and Jason though when they point out the World Cup is not and should not be the be all and end all.
This is football's cultural cringe in countries where it not the main sport. There seems to be a manic desire to get validation from other sports and this comes with qualifying for the big show every four years.
The bandwagon-hoppers jump on, spout rubbish (including a few compulsory articles on why is there offside/there are no goals/this is boring/not Australian enough/it'll never catch on) and then as soon as the team is knocked out they debunk, allowing the ordinary fans to get their game back.
A successful league and a proper club culture in a setting of a "minority" sport is far more important than world cup qualification. Australia's business model of football being dependant on World Cup qualification is doomed to fail. You can't make it every time. Other countries are good at this game and in most it is THE sport. Change every aspect to boost the national team and you will still fail now and again and at the same time undermine the truly important aspects of the game.
Diversion ahead: There might well be a case for promotion and relegation in a broad sense (makes no difference whatsoever to the national team), but I suspect that, as in Australia, the chasm between the top level and the one immediately below is far too wide, both standard wise and in financial terms for it to ever work properly.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Uncle Ethan View PostMy knowledge of the US system is zero. I do heartily endorse both Reed and Jason though when they point out the World Cup is not and should not be the be all and end all.
This is football's cultural cringe in countries where it not the main sport. There seems to be a manic desire to get validation from other sports and this comes with qualifying for the big show every four years.
The bandwagon-hoppers jump on, spout rubbish (including a few compulsory articles on why is there offside/there are no goals/this is boring/not Australian enough/it'll never catch on) and then as soon as the team is knocked out they debunk, allowing the ordinary fans to get their game back.
A successful league and a proper club culture in a setting of a "minority" sport is far more important than world cup qualification. Australia's business model of football being dependant on World Cup qualification is doomed to fail. You can't make it every time. Other countries are good at this game and in most it is THE sport. Change every aspect to boost the national team and you will still fail now and again and at the same time undermine the truly important aspects of the game.
Diversion ahead: There might well be a case for promotion and relegation in a broad sense (makes no difference whatsoever to the national team), but I suspect that, as in Australia, the chasm between the top level and the one immediately below is far too wide, both standard wise and in financial terms for it to ever work properly.
Did they change the qualification rules for Oceania? I thought Australia was pretty much a lock every time, especially with the 48-team
format they’re going to.
I think for the US it’s the gulf in finances that makes pro/rel untenable right now. There aren’t enough good stadiums and enough TV money to make it work without alienating investors and cities willing to pay for stadiums. But maybe someday. Especially if MLS ends up with 32 teams like the NFL, they could split it into two leagues. And as it is, there may be enough USL/NASL teams to split that level in two (or four, if they also split it east/west). And right now, MLS seems to like having its farm teams in USL.
I don’t think it can ever be all the way down the ladder. For one, the PDL players maintain their amateur status for the purposes of NCAA eligibility, so that would be an issue.
Comment
-
Originally posted by danielmak View PostBradley had one or two excellent seasons at Chievo Verona, a yo-yo club. He was sold to Roma, who I follow so I got to see him a lot. He did well with Roma but was very similar to Danille de Rossi, who is a Roma legend and a much better passer at that time. Then Garcia came in (or maybe it was when Luis Enrique came in) and Nainggolan was bought. So now there were 3 players basically for the same position. Bradley was told he could or should leave. BTW Nainggolan has turned out to be amazing for Roma so Roma made the right decision with this one. And Nainggolan is way more flexible in terms of playing further up or playing deep. As we saw with Bradley in 2014 he isn't good that far up; he's not a #10. I have no idea what Bradley's options were at that time, but he was playing well for Roma which is not a small club. He should have been able to move to another decent sized club in Italy (maybe UA would know more about that because he pays attention to transfers in Serie A) or Spain or Germany. He wasn't going to Juve or Real or Bayern but I'd have to think a club like Schalke or Udinese or Valencia might have been interested: all were at least Europa League clubs at that time. I can't blame him for wanting to be back in North America if that's where he wanted to be to be closer to family. But I'd be surprised if the money was a lot better in MLS. Maybe I'm wrong about that last part. Still, he was at a high point in his career and he went back to a league that was a major step down from Serie A. If we were talking about Bradely now versus 2013 going to MLS would make sense but in 2013 or 2014 he needed to stay in Europe because he was talented enough to do a job there.
He came back for what amounted, IIRC, to $40 million-$10 to Roma as a fee, the rest in wages spread over a few years. Which is a ton more than he would have gotten anywhere in Europe then, which is why he came back, along with wanting the responsibility of being the man at TFC, which also wouldn't have happened in Europe.
Comment
-
Originally posted by danielmak View PostAgain, my timeline for Altidore might be off but my recollection is that Alttidore, Bradley, and Dempsey all returned to MLS at the same time.
Many good posts here. The only thing I'd add is that Canada is largely free of what I understand to be the US pay-to-play model (my son spent one year in the closest thing we have to it, the Toronto-centered "academy system" but a) it wasn't *crazy* expensive b) value for money was pretty good, I thought, certainly a much higher technical coaching and c) it really isn't the dominant model of elite youth soccer). And we still suck. I think it's mostly down to the style and culture of youth coaching. And that takes decades to change.Last edited by Anton Gramscescu; 12-10-2017, 08:41.
Comment
-
The academy system, you mean? Or youth soccer generally?
Most soccer is club soccer. a game a week, practice once or twice a week. $500 per season, so $1k/year (outdoor/indoor). Coaches volunteer, fees mostly go for field rentals plus the cost of a tournament or two. Increasingly, clubs will pay for a technical director and maybe a head coach or two whose job it is to support the volunteer coaches. Pitches are of hugely variable quality. In the burbs they are immaculate, or at least as immaculate as they can get in our weather. Downtown we play on any patch of grass available and many fields are shite. As a result, by about age 12, if you haven't migrated to a team in the burbs you won't make it in soccer here (this was something we learned too late).
Academy soccer is 3x-4x as expensive, IIRC (or at least the one Ben was at was about that - there's one "powerhouse" academy in town called Sigma which is pretty regularly churning out professionals - Cyle Larin went through there for instance - and they may well be more expensive). But the coaching is better and practice is 4x/week.
The academy and club leagues are totally separate. the two shall not meet. There's been talk of allowing academies into cup competitions, but it doesn't seem imminent.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Hot Pepsi View PostDid they change the qualification rules for Oceania? I thought Australia was pretty much a lock every time, especially with the 48-team
format they’re going to.
IIRC, Australia leaving OFC predates the announcement of the 48-team format. Now OFC will have a full spot, so New Zealand will invariably qualify for World Cups. To be fair, I don't see Australia dropping out of the top-eight in the AFC qualification process, so they'll be at World Cups too.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Hot Pepsi View PostAustralia’s situation is similar to that of the US and Canada, I suppose, but smaller.
Did they change the qualification rules for Oceania? I thought Australia was pretty much a lock every time, especially with the 48-team
format they’re going to.
I think for the US it’s the gulf in finances that makes pro/rel untenable right now. There aren’t enough good stadiums and enough TV money to make it work without alienating investors and cities willing to pay for stadiums. But maybe someday. Especially if MLS ends up with 32 teams like the NFL, they could split it into two leagues. And as it is, there may be enough USL/NASL teams to split that level in two (or four, if they also split it east/west). And right now, MLS seems to like having its farm teams in USL.
I don’t think it can ever be all the way down the ladder. For one, the PDL players maintain their amateur status for the purposes of NCAA eligibility, so that would be an issue.
Comment
-
FIFA has done Australia a favour by giving the 4th Asian team a play off versus CONCACAF rather than South America. I think it was the reverse in the year NZ qualified.
To make it meritocratic, give South America the full 5 places and put the remaining Asia/CONCACAF/NZ place into a group of 3 playoff. NZ might moan but they have a better chance of beating Australia and Honduras than they do Peru IMHO, and certainly would if Argentina had filled that spot.
Comment
Comment