Clubs Seeking Compensation for Players they Develop

Saw this Article today on Sports Illustrated's website. In a nutshell, Clubs like Texans have started to petition FIFA for "Training Compensation" for players transfered to big professional Clubs... i.e. Dempsey to Fulham, Yedlin to Tottenham etc.


More U.S. youth clubs, including Dempsey's, join compensation fight

Crossfire Premier isn’t the only American youth soccer club chasing solidarity payments. After Crossfire sent an official complaint to FIFA in hopes of receiving money for DeAndre Yedlin’s transfer to Tottenham, others joined the quest, including Clint Dempsey’s former club in Texas.

http://www.si.com/planet-futbol/2015/07/15/us-youth-clubs-training-compensation-yedlin-crossfire-dallas-texans-dempsey?xid=nl_siextra

Seems odd to me that they would persue this in an environment where the parents paid for the training. In Europe, it is understandable...in the new Academy system i can see the argument...in the legacy environment (where most of the kids today and previously are trainined) i dont see the basis for their ask...

I think that the Texans paid for Dempsey through their club scholarship program. The Texans have sponsored many players over the years and Clint Dempsey is one of the beneficiaries of this sponsorship.

Yes, but doesn't the scholarship program drill down to the team level? Every parent on the team pays for the scholarships. I don't know the specifics of how Dempsey's dues were paid, but regarding Omar Gonzales, I believe one particular family paid his club fees.

If these clubs get money from FIFA, the parents should also get a slice of that pie. ie. lower dues.

If the club had a family pay the dues then I would say that the club doesn't deserve to collect because they didn't actually bear the financial burden. If what you say applies to both of these players I would say that the club has no claim whatsoever.

"Training compensation is designed to reimburse clubs for their expenses in a player's training, while solidarity is meant to reward clubs for that development, regardless of who paid the fees." also the $4 million Texans are going after dwarfs his "training compensation lol.......
from article link in previous comment..."One such group is Dallas Texans SC, which sought solidarity following Dempsey’s transfer to Fulham in 2007 for a reported $4 million."

U.S. Soccer answers to Senate over youth club compensation dispute

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CB8QqQIwAGoVChMI39uTxYfxxwIVT3uSCh0TzgGC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.si.com%2Fplanet-futbol%2F2015%2F09%2F10%2Fus-soccer-senate-youth-club-compensation-solidarity&usg=AFQjCNF3Glnbswn3bkOKAZx_krJbMAtFHA&bvm=bv.102537793,d.aWw

soccerdadrandy wrote:"Training compensation is designed to reimburse clubs for their expenses in a player's training, while solidarity is meant to reward clubs for that development, regardless of who paid the fees." also the $4 million Texans are going after dwarfs his "training compensation lol.......
from article link in previous comment..."One such group is Dallas Texans SC, which sought solidarity following Dempsey’s transfer to Fulham in 2007 for a reported $4 million."

they don't get training compensation. "reimburse" is they key work. You can't be reimbursed for something you have already been paid for. Seems like a lawsuit waiting to happen. Parents pay for the training and then the party who was paid for the training is reimbursed.

go99 wrote:

soccerdadrandy wrote:"Training compensation is designed to reimburse clubs for their expenses in a player's training, while solidarity is meant to reward clubs for that development, regardless of who paid the fees." also the $4 million Texans are going after dwarfs his "training compensation lol.......
from article link in previous comment..."One such group is Dallas Texans SC, which sought solidarity following Dempsey’s transfer to Fulham in 2007 for a reported $4 million."

they don't get training compensation.  "reimburse" is they key work.  You can't be reimbursed for something you have already been paid for.  Seems like a lawsuit waiting to happen.  Parents pay for the training and then the party who was paid for the training is reimbursed.

The solidarity payment is separate and apart from training comp.

Solidarity payment for what?

Spin it any way you want but parents haven't signed a contract or anything giving you permission to exploit their children for money. The club was paid for a service and if clubs start sucking blood from peoples kids they will find themselves in a lawsuit. You want solidarity payment then pick up the cost

go99 wrote:Spin it any way you want but parents haven't signed a contract or anything giving you permission to exploit their children for money. The club was paid for a service and if clubs start sucking blood from peoples kids they will find themselves in a lawsuit. You want solidarity payment then pick up the cost

I'm not spinning anything. Obviously you are not well versed on the difference between solidarity payments rewarding clubs for developing great players and reimbursement payments for training of players. Two different payments. There is a lawsuit between the clubs mentioned in the the article and USSF. I'm not arguing with your wishes that club not be reimbursed for training if parents paid. I pointing out that "Solidarity" has ZERO TO DO WITH WHETHER OR NOT SOMEONE PAID FOR TEAINING OR NOT

Solidarity payments have not come out of a pay for system. I understand solidarity payments and my understanding is that clubs here are not entitled to them which is why they are not paid them. And i am also pointing out how it then opens the club up for a lawsuit from parents as nothing we signed agreed to future earnings and could also bring into question the non profit status of the youth club.

But solidarity payments are connected to training compensation and is covered under the same FIFA regulations. If clubs want compensation then dont sit on the fence become an actual development club
fcd deserves and gets its transfer and other fees. They also do not pay solidarity fees to other clubs considering the fee drops all the way down to U12.

go99 wrote:But solidarity payments are connected to training compensation and is covered under the same FIFA regulations. If clubs want compensation then dont sit on the fence become an actual development club
fcd deserves and gets its transfer and other fees. They also do not pay solidarity fees to other clubs considering the fee drops all the way down to U12.

of course FCD doesn't pay. because until a successful lawsuit is won they won't have to. I'm not taking a position just reporting the facts ma'am. dragnet

Even if the lawsuit is successful fcd won't have to pay. That's not exactly the yedlin case. At best it would open the conversation for FIFA payments to other clubs. They would still face an uphill battle. But I guess it would allow them to request the payments without having the MLS steal the money. I for one think payments would be good if done the right way but no free rides for the club

Do you not think this benefits MLS? Right now their kids play for free at most academies and a kid can leave at anytime to another country with the MLS team getting nothing.

The only kids that have value are the few that have signed pro contracts. If non MLS clubs are getting screwed so are MLS clubs. Probably more for MLS as they are utilizing more resources on their kids.

Now what about college? Didn't Dempsey go to college for 4 years? Maybe they should be paid as well as the youth club.

If we were anywhere rise in the world, the clubs would get payments but we're not there so let's see if the government can screw this up even more than it is

MLS clubs can get payments thru transfers. And I like how you add if it was anywhere else in the world but somehow forget, if it was anywhere else in the world we wouldn't be paying $3k to play soccer. You don't get something for nothing and thats what SOME clubs are asking

Fully agree with you about paid through transfers if a kid signed MLS. But the bigger issue is the first contract. A kid can stay MLS youth until 18. Then leave to Mexico or Europe and MLS and club get nothing. Stay MLS through high school, go to college for a year or more, then leave the country and still get nothing. My point was while it may cost MLS a few payments to us non MLS clubs I would think they benefit far more by protection of its own players.

To solve this problem the MLS club just has to sign the kid to a contract and then do the work to sell him. Not just sit back, do nothing until the kid makes it on his own and then capitalize on his efforts. Sign them, shop them, sell them. And will you see the few benefits for the MLS clubs (making it easier to collect money without working) you miss the fact that it allows all of the non MLS clubs to make money for free and if they can make it without paying then whats their incentive to start funding? You pay for a players development you should get reimbursed so sure get FCD some money back. Texans current players by all means get them some money. Everyone else stop sticking your hand out asking for something for nothing.

So to the other clubs with their hands out. "pay up or shut up"

This is a very interesting topic, and is one that could dramatically shift the scope of player development in our country depending on the result of these suits.

We agree with the stance of these clubs, as it would essentially eliminate the need for a pay-to-play system and would stimulate true player development, because then clubs would have an invested interest in a player's long-term growth. However, if these laws were changed to match FIFA​ regulations and youth clubs were allowed to receive a percentage of transfer fees for the professional players that they produce, they cannot collect team fees from families at the same time. You can have one or the other, but not both.

Footy Factory wrote:This is a very interesting topic, and is one that could dramatically shift the scope of player development in our country depending on the result of these suits.

We agree with the stance of these clubs, as it would essentially eliminate the need for a pay-to-play system and would stimulate true player development, because then clubs would have an invested interest in a player's long-term growth. However, if these laws were changed to match FIFA​ regulations and youth clubs were allowed to receive a percentage of transfer fees for the professional players that they produce, they cannot collect team fees from families at the same time. You can have one or the other, but not both.

What law says clubs can't have both. These fees if ever paid are like lottery money. Not anything clubs can budget on.

It's not a law. It's a standard. Clubs from all over the world are collecting compensation for transfer fees from players that they have developed, but they do not charge those players to train with them. In fact, most young talents are paid for by their clubs and signed to long-term contracts. These clubs now have an invested interest in maximizing that player's potential, so that they can get a return on that investment later on down the road.

Example: Portugal's 18 year old starlet Renato Sanches was signed by Benfica as a 9 year old in 2006. Benfica paid 750 euros and 25 footballs to sign him because they saw potential in him, and were interested in developing him for the future. In May, Benfica sold Sanches to Bayern Munich for 30 million euros, which they will now use to reinvest into their club and buy more promising young talents to develop.

Until we move away from the pay-to-play system, we will never truly be in the business of developing players for the future.

Footy Factory wrote:It's not a law. It's a standard. Clubs from all over the world are collecting compensation for transfer fees from players that they have developed, but they do not charge those players to train with them. In fact, most young talents are paid for by their clubs and signed to long-term contracts. These clubs now have an invested interest in maximizing that player's potential, so that they can get a return on that investment later on down the road.

Example: Portugal's 18 year old starlet Renato Sanches was signed by Benfica as a 9 year old in 2006. Benfica paid 750 euros and 25 footballs to sign him because they saw potential in him, and were interested in developing him for the future. In May, Benfica sold Sanches to Bayern Munich for 30 million euros, which they will now use to reinvest into their club and buy more promising young talents to develop.

Until we move away from the pay-to-play system, we will never truly be in the business of developing players for the future.

I understand the standard in other countries. No US Club is in a position to start an academy program from scratch or immediately train everyone for free if they hit the lottery and recoup $300,000 for a Demspy once in a while lol The bylaws don't say anything about what your wishes are. They simply say Club get s paid.

Right. It starts with the USSF allowing clubs to receive a percentage of transfer fees from the players that they develop. As soon as that happens, then we can begin to see a change and gradually move away from the pay-to-play system.