The world is starting to chime in...Youth Soccer Changes

A while back I began arguing a point that few seemed to care about.
How the changes to youth soccer are marginalizing huge swaths of players and programs.
Players with high potential but moderate skills can't afford Academy dues so they move on to other sports.
   You and I both know that scholarships are given out to players who can perform now.
High School programs, and now even College programs, are becoming second class arenas instead of being used as support programs for world class soccer.
Well check out the latest article about the topic...

http://www.theguardian.com/football/blog/2015/oct/13/the-slow-death-of-high-school-soccer-and-why-it-could-cost-jurgen-klinsmann

IMO, we should be building soccer using all of the tools we have and not alienating our LARGEST pool of potential soccer players and programs.
Some folks need to stop being myopic...

Your post title is a little dramatic ~ article is written for the US edition by a former NY High School coach. The world is not involved.

Everyone has choices. There is absolutely nothing wrong with kids having to make hard decisions and possible sacrifices. Kids have been doing it for sports for along time.

Wow...you pretty much proved my point.
Didn't see that coming.

The articles proves more that just our little North Texas community is concerned about the changes.
And yes, the Guardian does have different online editions but the viewership crosses the pond.

US Youth Soccer can only see the clubs.
It can't see anything beyond what it feels it can control.
Because of that, it's de facto treatment of anything out of it purview is to pretend it doesn't exist.
Myopic.

Why create a system where the kids are forced to give up playing with their friends in order to achieve?
Why create a system that creates animosity between the very people trying to help our kids succeed?

Instead of including High School and College programs in a way to build the Clubs, to build the "brand" of soccer, to increase participation in the sport, they've created unhealthy competition where the losers are the kids.

How can I say that?
Well, you actually did..."There is absolutely nothing wrong with kids having to make hard decisions and possible sacrifices."

I'm pretty sure that "hard decisions" and "sacrifices" are not synonyms of "playing" and "fun".

Ozymandias.EBON wrote:Wow...you pretty much proved my point.
Didn't see that coming.

The articles proves more that just our little North Texas community is concerned about the changes.
And yes, the Guardian does have different online editions but the viewership crosses the pond.

US Youth Soccer can only see the clubs.
It can't see anything beyond what it feels it can control.
Because of that, it's de facto treatment of anything out of it purview is to pretend it doesn't exist.
Myopic.

Why create a system where the kids are forced to give up playing with their friends in order to achieve?
Why create a system that creates animosity between the very people trying to help our kids succeed?

Instead of including High School and College programs in a way to build the Clubs, to build the "brand" of soccer, to increase participation in the sport, they've created unhealthy competition where the losers are the kids.

How can I say that?  
Well, you actually did..."There is absolutely nothing wrong with kids having to make hard decisions and possible sacrifices."

I'm pretty sure that "hard decisions" and "sacrifices" are not synonyms of "playing" and "fun".

world class soccer is also not a synonym of "playing" and "fun". Dream all you want but highschool and college soccer will never be bastions of soccer development. The US will be better off when they can finally accept that they will not change how soccer is developed around the world and that soccer is not FOOTBALL

Oh my...the myopia is contagious!

Quick question....name the top 3 sports in the US by popularity.
Football, Baseball, Basketball.

How do each of these sports build top players in the US?
High Schools and College.

Now here's the important question....why?

Each of the sports sees the value of leveraging the largest pool of potential players, the largest pool of coaches, and the largest fully-funded organizations (schools) to do it.
These sports see the importance of inclusion as the lifeblood of the sport.
They generate excitement in the sport by opening up competition to everyone...no matter the age, demographic, geography, or even gender.
Public school equals public opportunity and access to the sport.
You don't have to belong to a special "club".

They've created a cycle of popularity that bears fruit each and every year.
Think of Apple in the 80's and how they flooded schools with computers.
Why didn't they just go after the computer clubs or businesses like US Soccer is doing?
Here's why...Apple bet that young kids who loved to play on their computers would want their products as they grew older.
Fast forward a couple of decades and now what is the most valuable company in the world?
Apple....I guess their bet paid off.

Are high school programs the same caliber as clubs today?
Absolutely not...but why can't they be?
Or a better questions is, why shouldn't they be?

US Soccer, in their grand myopic judgement, has decided to ignore the lessons from American football, baseball, and basketball and are trying to be a TRS-80.

My son played 7th grade basketball at school in Plano last year. His team had two excellent club basketball players who carried the team. Every middle school had their star players. And guess what....they all knew each other because.....they all played CLUB basketball.

It didn't take long to work out that you would need to be a very good club player to stand a chance of getting anywhere near the basketball court at high school in Plano.

I'm pretty sure that "hard decisions" and "sacrifices" are not synonyms of "playing" and "fun"

That's just silly.

davito wrote:My son played 7th grade basketball at school in Plano last year. His team had two excellent club basketball players who carried the team. Every middle school had their star players. And guess what....they all knew each other because.....they all played CLUB basketball.

It didn't take long to work out that you would need to be a very good club player to stand a chance of getting anywhere near the basketball court at high school in Plano.

You get it!!
Clubs and Schools work hand-in-hand to help the kids and the sport.
Schools give opportunities to players who would not otherwise have the exposure to the sport.
The players see the benefits of club sports and reach out, therefore increasing the membership and quality of the sport.
All this because the club players were able to play with their peers.

Now I understand what US Soccer is trying to say.
More time with higher quality coaching with higher quality players will produce higher quality product overall.
Sounds great but the consequence is lack of diversity....inbreeding.

If you can remember back when your athlete was just starting out, probably on a rec team with a volunteer coach who knew very little about the sport.
How many really good players came from homes that could barely afford the rec league fees?
As a coach for 6 years, there are quite a few I could remember.
Every season I'd float their fees for a few weeks or let them make payments.
Many times I had to eat the cost.
Would these families ever be able to pay club fees? Nope.
These players will have to wait until their public school offers organized soccer.
And hopefully even then they get a coach who knows the sport and not a history teacher trying to fill the classes he has open.

If US Soccer were to focus their energy into integrating with schools, increasing the quality of coaching at the school level, and even creating programs designed specifically for school athletes and families, then you would see the popularity of soccer increase.
Offer programs where US Soccer will sponsor school teams at a young age.
Offer real incentives (like not having to pay for classes or recerts) for coaches who volunteer their time to rec teams or school teams.

I hate to bring politics into the discussion but elections are not won or lost at the top.
They are won or lost at the grassroots level.
The same is true for the popularity of sports.
Soccer has a strong grassroots movement going.
With the changes US Soccer is making, only focusing on the top, they will end up losing overall.

allen04 wrote:

I'm pretty sure that "hard decisions" and "sacrifices" are not synonyms of "playing" and "fun"

That's just silly.

I get where you are coming from but I'm hoping you'll expand your horizon just a bit to see outside the walls of club soccer.
The more fun we can inject into the sport, the more participants we get, and the end result the quality will be much higher.

Think of it like a pyramid.
A pyramid's height is directly proportional to it's base.
If you have a bigger base, the higher you can build the pyramid.

What US Soccer has taken the capstone (club soccer), which should be supported by a large strong foundation (rec, schools, colleges, etc), and placed it apart from that very foundation.
It is no longer one sport...there is club soccer, and everything else.

Sure, most of us on these forums are in the club system and we can pat ourselves on the back for being the top X% of the US Soccer ecosystem.
The problem I see is that the recent changes are doing more harm than good.
We'll get a short term uptick (5 - 6 years) from those players on the end side of their club careers but after that the pickings will be slim.
Instead of having a larger pool of players to promote to the highest level, we'll have only a few.

What we need is more players, more competition, more raw talent and a way to get it into a system that works no matter the demographics.
Right now, only the affluent families can break into the higher levels of the sport.

[[/quote]

Right now, only the affluent families can break into the higher levels of the sport.
[/quote]


Is that really true? I have known many a player to get a scholarship to play in Classic League for big clubs, medium clubs and small clubs. If you have some ability, you can find a place to play in the club structure that will not cost you much. You hear the argument club soccer eliminates lower income folks, but I don't see that as an absolute.

But, if you are not very good or are one of the small, undeveloped, maybe has potential for the future players, you may have a harder time finding a scholarship or place to play, but even then, if you look hard there are teams available.

I like your idea of making school soccer more of an avenue for kids at the young age, but we have had school soccer forever and there has been no change. It's still the job of the offseason football coach in many smaller districts and it gets very little attention. You can't give money to soccer when you have to build 13 million dollar football stadiums. I doubt US Soccer has enough money to fund enough districts in the entire country to make a difference.

The larger districts do seem have to some very good soccer coaches and spend a little more time on it but the level of play pales in comparison to club soccer. Until you can make the level close to or near the same, kids that have ability and want to play in college will forego HS sports for DA and college showcases with their clubs.

Both have valid points, but in the end it really doesn't matter because neither middle school/high school or Clubs teach advanced skills. The main reason the USA is not competitive in the world stage. Do yo think Brazilian or Argentine kids learn skills in school or clubs? Nope, they learn on the streets playing against older kids day after day year after year, same way NBA players develop when they are young. On the streets playing pickup.

I think we have it totally wrong with this Select soccer model of two practices a week.

This is totally inadequate for developing all aspects of a player so coaches have to skip stuff. Seems like most focus on tactics and fitness during those 2 practices. What gets neglected most often is skills and touch.

So players are on their own for skills and touch. Sure a few put in the individual work by juggling, finding a wall, etc. Some have parents who seek out the private skills coaches or Paradigm, City Futsal, Ferdie etc. But for the most part it is neglected.

If we are to improve we need to change the model of Select soccer. The clubs need to offer skills sessions 6 days a week. With the expectation of players being that they attend 2 practices plus at least 1 or 2 skills sessions per week.

The skills sessions don't need to be costly to provide. The point is to facilitate touching the ball. The ratio of players to coaches could be 100:1. Or have the older players run the skill sessions for the younger players. Require scholarship kids to coach the skills. Whatever.

My younger son is a club swimmer. The club provides 6 practices per week and teaches him everything. Stroke technique, fitness, starts, turns, pacing, drills, dry land training, etc. They do not put on 2 practices per week and tell him to go to the rec center the rest of the week.

Maybe this is the reason the US is No1 in swimming and can't beat Costa Rica in soccer.

davito wrote:I think we have it totally wrong with this Select soccer model of two practices a week.

This is totally inadequate for developing all aspects of a player so coaches have to skip stuff. Seems like most focus on tactics and fitness during those 2 practices. What gets neglected most often is skills and touch.

So players are on their own for skills and touch. Sure a few put in the individual work by juggling, finding a wall, etc. Some have parents who seek out the private skills coaches or Paradigm, City Futsal, Ferdie etc. But for the most part it is neglected.

If we are to improve we need to change the model of Select soccer. The clubs need to offer skills sessions 6 days a week. With the expectation of players being that they attend 2 practices plus at least 1 or 2 skills sessions per week.

The skills sessions don't need to be costly to provide. The point is to facilitate touching the ball. The ratio of players to coaches could be 100:1. Or have the older players run the skill sessions for the younger players. Require scholarship kids to coach the skills. Whatever.

My younger son is a club swimmer. The club provides 6 practices per week and teaches him everything. Stroke technique, fitness, starts, turns, pacing, drills, dry land training, etc. They do not put on 2 practices per week and tell him to go to the rec center the rest of the week.

Maybe this is the reason the US is No1 in swimming and can't beat Costa Rica in soccer.

I agree you are not going to get enough from your two a week practices...you need to train more...either privately or attend another coaches practice at your club....

But we should not have to seek out these arrangements. Our club should just provide it already.

sukiakiman wrote:

davito wrote:I think we have it totally wrong with this Select soccer model of two practices a week.

This is totally inadequate for developing all aspects of a player so coaches have to skip stuff. Seems like most focus on tactics and fitness during those 2 practices. What gets neglected most often is skills and touch.

So players are on their own for skills and touch. Sure a few put in the individual work by juggling, finding a wall, etc. Some have parents who seek out the private skills coaches or Paradigm, City Futsal, Ferdie etc. But for the most part it is neglected.

If we are to improve we need to change the model of Select soccer. The clubs need to offer skills sessions 6 days a week. With the expectation of players being that they attend 2 practices plus at least 1 or 2 skills sessions per week.

The skills sessions don't need to be costly to provide. The point is to facilitate touching the ball. The ratio of players to coaches could be 100:1. Or have the older players run the skill sessions for the younger players. Require scholarship kids to coach the skills. Whatever.

My younger son is a club swimmer. The club provides 6 practices per week and teaches him everything. Stroke technique, fitness, starts, turns, pacing, drills, dry land training, etc. They do not put on 2 practices per week and tell him to go to the rec center the rest of the week.

Maybe this is the reason the US is No1 in swimming and can't beat Costa Rica in soccer.

I agree you are not going to get enough from your two a week practices...you need to train more...either privately or attend another coaches practice at your club....

Exactly! SKILLS is what we are missing, 1v1's should be what midfielders and forwards live for. It seems that too many NTX coaches suck the creativity out of a team/player by just going over strategies and tactics during practices. I rather see SKILLS being taught, at least for 20-30 minutes during a practice or have a skills practice per week as Davito mentioned. Select soccer is expensive enough so private skills training is not an option for many.

I find it ironic that when my son was in pre-select the club offered "Open Skills" on Wednesday and finishing skills on Friday in addition to team practice. But once they go Select it is just 2 team practices per week. Oh and double the cost.....

Hello Davito!
Many clubs have a silent rule that an athlete, once part of a club, can train with other coaches within the same club to get extra touches.
The reason why the rule is silent is that many coaches would prefer their kids to not train with other coaches (conversely have other kids invade their practices every week).
Many different reasons will be cited (cohesion, detract from the kids who are on the other team, different playing styles from coach a to coach b, etc.).
All of the reasons are valid but ultimately the kids need the touches.
Preferably some sort of organized touches but in the end all touches are touches.

It would be great if, on the off days, if your athlete could maybe train with his schoolmates :-)

Rec soccer is what needs to be changed.  It should be integrated/managed by the school systems, kids should have the opportunity to play for their schools starting in elementary and continuing in middle school.  A much larger group of kids will get exposed to the sport this way, and the ones that are standouts can be identified and given scholarships to play for clubs, where they can get the specialized training they need. Don't be naive and think they can get it in a public high school.  This does not work for ANY sport except maybe football because it is the #1 sport in the U.S. and has the potential to make schools a lot of money.  There is only so much "public funding" to support such "public programs",  a truth that is often lost by socialists and others that perhaps have simply drank a few too many:)  

And yes...2 days of training is a joke for "highest level".

winkipop77 wrote:Rec soccer is what needs to be changed.  It should be integrated/managed by the school systems, kids should have the opportunity to play for their schools starting in elementary and continuing in middle school.  A much larger group of kids will get exposed to the sport this way,

Every now and then someone makes a statement on here that can actually help our cause. You sir, are a genius. This is EXCATLY what needs to happen!

Such a system could formalize things a bit. The clubs could develop non-exclusive relationships with the various schools that are located within a certain mile radius of where they offer training. This might just be as simple as the clubs getting placed on a list after meeting some standardized criteria. They could communicate to the schools how many scholarships they have available, and what costs are for kids who either do not qualify or for which scholarships are not available. There could even be "club" nights held at the schools where clubs "pitch" their programs alongside other clubs. They'd share expectations of players etc which is another area that needs to be improved. Far too many players sign up for select soccer but don't really realize the level of commitment that there needs to be in order to be successful.

winkipop77 wrote:Rec soccer is what needs to be changed.  It should be integrated/managed by the school systems, kids should have the opportunity to play for their schools starting in elementary and continuing in middle school.  A much larger group of kids will get exposed to the sport this way, and the ones that are standouts can be identified and given scholarships to play for clubs, where they can get the specialized training they need. Don't be naive and think they can get it in a public high school.  This does not work for ANY sport except maybe football because it is the #1 sport in the U.S. and has the potential to make schools a lot of money.  There is only so much "public funding" to support such "public programs",  a truth that is often lost by socialists and others that perhaps have simply drank a few too many:)  

And yes...2 days of training is a joke for "highest level".

This is BRILLIANT .... I wish I would have thought of it first LOL!!!! There are plenty of Elementary and Middle Schools within a short distance of each other (busing them with their Teachers/PE Coaches shouldn't be too terribly difficult).

What if PE Class was broken up into (FALL = Soccer and Flag Football) (WINTER = Basketball and Plyometrics) (SPRING = Baseball and Track) .... this way the kids can focus on specific sports each season, without having to specialize in a singular sport. Maybe Mr. Baseball finds that he has great aptitude to play soccer and starts to love soccer (when ordinarily he would have never considered trying the sport).

An additional Soccer Benefit would be the lower-income areas have additional avenues to play soccer outside of the local Rec leagues. Identification of the talent "should" become a little easier when they are centralized within their School leagues. --> It's all hypothetical, I guess?

Based on whats going on in Baseball, 28% foreign born, and basketball which is about 22% and climbing every year. One could argue that we have the model wrong in all our sports or we just aren't producing top talent like we used to. Other countries just have a better model based on the fact that their clubs and communities develop talent to represent their club and community. The US is primarily looking to make money from the development which doesn't net the same result. Just a thought. I think we are the only country that tries to develop a national soccer team. Meaning we take the folks seen as the top talent, appoint them so and and wisk them off to IMG for training. No other country I know of does that. They all allow the local clubs to continue to develop players and the cream rises to the top and then they harvest the cream. We just have our goals wrong.

The problem is not necessarily 2 practices per week. Actually most European Academies including La Masia only practice 2 days a week through U10 anyways. The difference is the kids only play soccer on the other days, in recess, after school etc... Plus they only watch soccer and they see week in and week out the highest level and emulate that when they get on the pitch.

The answer is a fundamental shift in professional soccer here in the US. We need promotion/demotion free market system like all of Europe. Only then will youth academies flourish like those in Europe. This article is posted on 3four3's website (they run LA Galaxy's youth academy) has a great explanation of whats wrong and what needs to change
http://blog.3four3.com/2015/10/08/jurgen-klinsmann-and-leadership-lets-get-raw-real/

+1 winkipop77!!
+1 Arsenal1984!!

I thought that was the Clairefontaine Academy in Paris - but maybe that was just for Paris and it's surrounding suburbs ... I'm too lazy to google and pretend to sound smart haha!

Agree with what you are saying Striker6 --> I think the "communal" process is slowly leveling the playing field in Baseball/Basketball over the USA's "monetary" process of identifying talent