Youth Soccer Needs (Another) Overhaul

Flaws of the Academy System in the USA.

In 2007 U.S. Soccer began an initiative called “Development Academy,” it was put in place to turn powerful youth clubs into advanced tools for developing players. The idea seemed to be a step in the right direction. An outlined plan that would have the best youth teams playing against each other and U.S. Soccer would afford the teams the availability to the most advanced technology in training. In the ideal world, it sounded like the change every youth soccer fan dreams of: professional environment for our youth, highly competitive games, and a new idea for how youth soccer should be innovated in this country.

However, the whole process started off on the wrong foot. U.S. Soccer began an admission process into the elitist fraternity. They selected the most highly regarded clubs in the major metropolitan areas across the country. The Academy took clubs based on championship pedigree not on player development. There was (and still is) too much emphasis on results in club matches. The league structure, for some unspeakable reason, put in place a highly prized championship game every year that is aired on television.

Obviously, the increased exposure and the championship trophy is the goal for every club. This makes the oxymoronic title of “Development Academy” that much more humorous with development actually playing second fiddle to results.

During the U-20 camp in December, U.S. Soccer brought in two select teams from the Academy. Both of the teams were from the West region, and were embarrassed against the U-20s to the tune of eleven goals to one. The day before the games, Thomas Rongen told Goal.com that he was expecting some good competition in the games and was looking forward to seeing his players in a game environment. By the time the second half kicked off, Rongen was schmoozing with MLS scouts in the crowd and hardly even glancing towards the field. The result was more indicative of the players abilities than their limited practice time together. The fundamentals still are not there. Rongen should have known this well before kick off considering none of the technically gifted players on his team come from the Academy.

Politics are one of the major components holding youth soccer back. It has been a major problem since day one in club sports and the disease just carried over with the Academy. Soccer moms butter up the coaches to get their kids more playing time. Coaches kiss up to club directors so their team can have better practice times. Etcera and so forth, this goes all the way to the top. The tight knit soccer community did not get that way overnight. The Academy changed nothing on this front. It is the same system from three years ago and many years prior to that.

The only thing that seems to have changed is the monotony of developing players and the umbrella term “Development Academy.” U.S. Soccer now has an all-encompassing control of the clubs that are supposed to develop the best players in this country. Yes, this is why most of our players are compared to robots by European journalists. When you have all of your major clubs learning from the same manual, the players are going to come out in a cookie cutter form.

U.S. Soccer should take no shame in the fact that their experiment failed. It was never bound to work. These high-profile clubs are very competitive with their results, and there is a financial benefit to winning these games and championships. In comparison, player development seems minuscule for club success. It is easy to access last year’s champion but hard to find out which clubs are producing the most talent for the next level.

Plus the massive egos of club directors are only fueled by the titles in their offices. This leads to the other problem with this program, “Development Academy” puts all these clubs on the same level. There is no recognition or reason for a youth club to succumb a player to a professional youth team when they are in the same league. It is backwards thinking to every other successful youth system in the world. All other clubs take pride in the success of their players advancing their careers by climbing the ladder. In the U.S., clubs grab and hold onto talented youngsters to boost their win totals even when opportunity arrives to advance up the ladder.

In the end, the power struggle will ruin more players than it helps. There is no winner in this battle, only losers. Just have some sympathy for the players that are prevented from reaching their potential because the “Development Academy” is not working.



*

Totally agree. My son has played select soccer for the last two years and not once have I ever felt that his development was the #1 priority of his club or coach.
All that matters is winning classic league and other tournaments. Every decision made by your coach is in his best interests, not the players.
The coach will do whatever needs to be done to save his ass, at the players expense. We all think that our clubs are so great because they've won so many national championships or state cups, but in the end, how many profesionals are those clubs producing, compared to the best youth acadamies in England, Spain or Argentina? I think of all the local clubs, FCD is the closest to overseas clubs, yet still a long way off. At least FCD players have the goal of playing on the MLS club when they get older. What does a kid with DT, Solar or Andro have to look forward to? (The sad thing is that my son plays for one of those three clubs).
I agree 100% w/ this article.

The USA soccer team is not fun to watch. Is there really any surprise. The same people, the same cultue is in charge. It is corrupt to no end, which in itself is not the main problem. The main problem is that they don't know soccer, don't know how to develop, and don't know how to educate, they don't appreciate entertaining style. We need a staff that appreciates style and remains true to it even when the winning does not come. Even in Britain, Arsene Wenger spends much of his life battling and educating critics in his home turf. When Murinho took over Chlesea he spend a lot of time educating. Lucky for them the owner is Russian who wants his team to win every trophy but he is only happy if they do it with style. He then hired a Brazial coach and the first player he wanted was an again Barcelona reject, Deco which is an example of the solutions attempted by these soccer fans (owners and coaches) is always in search of entertaining style.
When Arsenal recently played the youngest team ever in the Champions League (the highest competion), they played "The Arsenal Way". The Barcelona players are able to step on their team or transfer as key young players to other teams because of what they call the "Barcelona way". It is a culture of entertaining style rooted in tradition. Barcelona was "founded" by Dutch immigrants and the soccer culture remains loyal to that culture. It is unique even in Spain. I say unique to point out that the rest of the world has problems too, but thank goodness the top teams across Europe are driven by culture of entertainment.
Here in the USA you have acadamy teams coached by the same club coaches as before, so could anyone have expect anything to chanage. The USA soccer team is not fun to watch. It is full of monsters with no opportunities provided to the skill, creative, unconventional players. Barcelona, Arsenal, ... have many small players (in the highest competition) that would never get a chance to play on the USA team. I have no doubt that if Messi grew up in the USA, he would never get a sniff of a national game because the coaches don't like that style (it is all about syle) and he would have been washed out by the club coaches or maybe by U5 by the dominant system of play enouraged by the ego-centric parents yelling instructions that is opposite of the "Barcelona Way".

I've only been around the soccer world for a few years, but I've followed sports in the US for fifty years. These articles about development versus winning puzzle me in a way. I understand the point that you might be able to put together a winning team without having done much to develop the players that are on it yourself. But when I look at other sports in the US that are developed to a high level, I don't see any top-down organizational plan that has produced the excellence in those sports. Take basketball for example. My child's favorite sports are soccer and basketball. When I look around the Metroplex, I can find 50 soccer clubs for his age group, but only a handful of basketball clubs - probably less than ten. And basketball doesn't start in the schools until 7th grade generally. But obviously the US does "develop" a lot of good basketball players. Similarly for football. For baseball, there are a lot of select teams in this part of the world, but baseball's organization seems even more chaotic to me than soccer. There are all kinds of competing organizations and leagues. I guess the point is, there seems to be no National "plan" for developing basketball, football or baseball players, but they get developed anyway, out of the chaos of sandlot, rec, clubs, school sports, colleges, etc. I think it is inherent in the CLUB world that winning is going to be a priority for many clubs. It gives bragging rights, which attracts players & parents, which enables more winning etc. Plus the clubs that win a lot must be doing something in the area of development, at least the team aspect. And how can any national organization enforce making development the primary focus of a PRIVATE club? The club does what it does, and offers what it offers, and they are all a little different and a lot the same, and there has to be some freedom for parents to move their kids around if they don't like where they are. Its a free market. At the same time, if a club actually does focus on development, that is presumably developing the ability to play soccer better, which should translate into more wins at some point if it is working. Anyway, I suspect there is not going to be any ideal top down "remake" of youth soccer that is going to solve the problem of competing with Europe or Brazil. I suspect that will come only if the sport becomes and stays popular over a long time here.

I do believe there are teams, clubs, and coaches that emphasize technical development and a playing style that allows the players to practice in game situations these skills. On Saturday look for teams where the players are trying to do the right thing, control the ball, pass it, switch the ball, string together 5 or 10 consecutive passes starting in the back moving through the midfield to the forwards and back again. Look at the quality of soccer the players are trying to play (e.g, they are trying to emulate Barcelona, African, Asian, South American style play and are fun to watch). That does not mean European soccer is not also fun to watch the EPL plays more direct but still very technical and fast football which requires tremendous skill and ability.
These young teams may not always win but the quality of soccer looks good for that age. Those may be good choices for your son to play in at that age level. There are many good choices for player development beyond the clubs that have academy teams. When the boys get U-16 and older, they will get visibility with coaches scouts etc. playing for a quality coach and team. Lastly, the players need to enjoy what they are doing to put up with the number of years it takes to build really good technical skills as a player and team member.

I think it is way too soon to condemn the new Academy progam. I do agree there is not enough emphasis from the clubs on skills development. Please give us more opportunities to develop the finer points of ball control. The kids need them to implement the tactical side of the game. Also, never forget the power is in the hands of the parents. If you do not like what your child is receiving in Academy, talk with your dollars. We need to get soccer into the middle schools, which will feed into the high schools. Don't like Academy, negotiate with the school districts.

After the lost to the USA in Canada they are now saying "Youth Hockey needs an Overhaul".

watercooler talk in my office today

Canada just needs to quit pretending and join the Union as the 51st state. Problem solved.

If the Academy program is a failure, how would we compensate a middle school coach?

Here's a good thought or a very bad rant:

IMO, classic is not going away, so regionalize it, add teams and get in more practices and scrimmages.

Regionalizing, split it up into 4 regions, north, south, east and west. Players can only play for teams in their area. For example DT would have a DTN, DTS, DTE and DTW along with FCD, Solar and Andro and what ever else club wants to venture into the 4 regions. The CL will have seperate regional leagues of 6 teams per division in 3 divisions. QT is basically the same and the teams that do not make it in play as rec. plus or no league at all. The league teams play two games each week and league is over in 5 weeks. Teams have more time for practices ideally 3x per week and since league is shortened the addition of tourneys and weekend scrimmages can replace high stress league games.

Relegation and promotion will look like this: top 4 D1 stay, bottom 2 go down to D2 and top 2 D2 go to D1 and bottom 2 of D2 go to D3 and top 2 from D3 go to D2. The bottom 4 of D3 must requalify against all the rec plus league and other teams to stay D3. This will happen each fall and spring not just once in the summer.

My thinking is to get the league over as quick as possible, have teams that are developing the ability to go up the ladder quicker and get more time practiciing and scrimmaging than playing serious league games.

A lot of people want a champion so at the end of each season the top 4 D1 regional teams play in a tourney to determine a champion. Four groups of 4 teams from each region and have a QF, SF and F.

As for practice and scrimmages, 2 practices during league season and 3 practices during off season. Scrimmages will be reffed by the coaches/assist coaches. Reason being is that if a coach cannot control his team or parents no one will want a scrimmage with that team and hence it will a detrement to that team. The teams players and parent will be on the best possible behavior so they have a good rep. and can keep gettin ggood scrimages and plus how many scrimmages get ugly, none that I have been to and the soccer is much better in a stress free enviroment.

72 teams are participating, more teams=more kids, less stress=more enjoyment, more mobility=more development and regionalizing will cut down on out an out recruiting and whining about mega teams at u11.

Yes there will still be lieing, cheating and power wielding but it is just an idea.

True10 wrote:Here's a good thought or a very bad rant:

IMO, classic is not going away, so regionalize it, add teams and get in more practices and scrimmages.

Regionalizing, split it up into 4 regions, north, south, east and west. Players can only play for teams in their area. For example DT would have a DTN, DTS, DTE and DTW along with FCD, Solar and Andro and what ever else club wants to venture into the 4 regions. The CL will have seperate regional leagues of 6 teams per division in 3 divisions. QT is basically the same and the teams that do not make it in play as rec. plus or no league at all. The league teams play two games each week and league is over in 5 weeks. Teams have more time for practices ideally 3x per week and since league is shortened the addition of tourneys and weekend scrimmages can replace high stress league games.

Relegation and promotion will look like this: top 4 D1 stay, bottom 2 go down to D2 and top 2 D2 go to D1 and bottom 2 of D2 go to D3 and top 2 from D3 go to D2. The bottom 4 of D3 must requalify against all the rec plus league and other teams to stay D3. This will happen each fall and spring not just once in the summer.

My thinking is to get the league over as quick as possible, have teams that are developing the ability to go up the ladder quicker and get more time practiciing and scrimmaging than playing serious league games.

A lot of people want a champion so at the end of each season the top 4 D1 regional teams play in a tourney to determine a champion. Four groups of 4 teams from each region and have a QF, SF and F.

As for practice and scrimmages, 2 practices during league season and 3 practices during off season. Scrimmages will be reffed by the coaches/assist coaches. Reason being is that if a coach cannot control his team or parents no one will want a scrimmage with that team and hence it will a detrement to that team. The teams players and parent will be on the best possible behavior so they have a good rep. and can keep gettin ggood scrimages and plus how many scrimmages get ugly, none that I have been to and the soccer is much better in a stress free enviroment.

72 teams are participating, more teams=more kids, less stress=more enjoyment, more mobility=more development and regionalizing will cut down on out an out recruiting and whining about mega teams at u11.

Yes there will still be lieing, cheating and power wielding but it is just an idea.

I think I heard a similar proposal before.

The German wrote:

True10 wrote:Here's a good thought or a very bad rant:

IMO, classic is not going away, so regionalize it, add teams and get in more practices and scrimmages.

Regionalizing, split it up into 4 regions, north, south, east and west. Players can only play for teams in their area. For example DT would have a DTN, DTS, DTE and DTW along with FCD, Solar and Andro and what ever else club wants to venture into the 4 regions. The CL will have seperate regional leagues of 6 teams per division in 3 divisions. QT is basically the same and the teams that do not make it in play as rec. plus or no league at all. The league teams play two games each week and league is over in 5 weeks. Teams have more time for practices ideally 3x per week and since league is shortened the addition of tourneys and weekend scrimmages can replace high stress league games.

Relegation and promotion will look like this: top 4 D1 stay, bottom 2 go down to D2 and top 2 D2 go to D1 and bottom 2 of D2 go to D3 and top 2 from D3 go to D2. The bottom 4 of D3 must requalify against all the rec plus league and other teams to stay D3. This will happen each fall and spring not just once in the summer.

My thinking is to get the league over as quick as possible, have teams that are developing the ability to go up the ladder quicker and get more time practiciing and scrimmaging than playing serious league games.

A lot of people want a champion so at the end of each season the top 4 D1 regional teams play in a tourney to determine a champion. Four groups of 4 teams from each region and have a QF, SF and F.

As for practice and scrimmages, 2 practices during league season and 3 practices during off season. Scrimmages will be reffed by the coaches/assist coaches. Reason being is that if a coach cannot control his team or parents no one will want a scrimmage with that team and hence it will a detrement to that team. The teams players and parent will be on the best possible behavior so they have a good rep. and can keep gettin ggood scrimages and plus how many scrimmages get ugly, none that I have been to and the soccer is much better in a stress free enviroment.

72 teams are participating, more teams=more kids, less stress=more enjoyment, more mobility=more development and regionalizing will cut down on out an out recruiting and whining about mega teams at u11.

Yes there will still be lieing, cheating and power wielding but it is just an idea.

I think I heard a similar proposal before.

Who did I plagarize?

Me. However mine was different in the way that you have a D1 league comprised of all regions in DFW which is fed by D2 teams coming from 2 regions (North,East&South,West or whatever make sense) and D3 from 4 regions. Include PPL & Arlington from the getgo. Meaning the higher you get the further you travel. Make a similar set-up in Austin, Houston, San Antonio, Tulsa and OC and once the kids get older let them play regional like PL. Spread the system across the country and in 20 years all problems are resolved.

I guess the German chocolate is affecting my thinking. If this all pans out and you are commish, can I get some high paying do nothing soccer czar post.

German, are you proposing the league to be split into 4 regions. Then, use the top 2 teams from each region to determine D1?

finish1 wrote:German, are you proposing the league to be split into 4 regions. Then, use the top 2 teams from each region to determine D1?

Yes and no. Split the area into 4 regions. Each region has their D3 league. Each region will then send either the top team or top 2 teams to a QT for D2. However d 2 has two regions northeast & southwest (or whatever suites you) those 2 D2 leagues send again their top 2 teams for a challenge tournament with the bottom d1 teams. There is only 1 D1 league.
It is basically a copy of what is done partially in Europe. I think one important fact people don't recognize here in the US that all clubs either Europe or South America have an adult & youth part that are very close connected because at the end they try to feed the adult teams with their own youth players. Most of the time some of the current or former adult players are coaching the youth teams. The other part is that they have only one or maybe two teams per age bracket even clubs like Barcelona or Ajax have one or two teams.
Last not least USSoccer must write the rule book from top to bottom. All leagues have to be the same set-up in terms of players on the field playing time and so on.
I am not starting on the money part because that is whole thread by itself.

IMHO,

No matter what kind of league you structure or who you say is the best...you still have the same coaches coaching the teams. They are coaching the same style of soccer. Creating more exclusive leagues is not going to make the players better.

Everyone wants to see beautiful soccer and entertaining soccer...but they also want to win.

Look at Ayses. They have allways focused on mainly soccer skills over winning. They do have teams that end up in the ranks at the older ages that show the progress of the teams. But when the lower teams are not winning, they are seen as a poor club to play for. The coaches do focus on development. My son played for them (yes past tense) and their team didn't win too many games..but every game we would hear comments about how good they looked. They possessed the ball and moved it around ..but couldn't score. The "couldn't score" part is what kills the teams.

So... my point is...that nothing is going to change unless is starts with the coaching. And then the parents and kids need to see the value of the development and not just focus winning. But this is America...and everyone loves to win and loves the winners.

GO USA!!!

Eskimo raises a good point about good soccer and scoring. You can teach a youth team to play a good looking possession soccer but it is so hard to find the way to the net if you don't have that special kid, that special finisher. It is not only because everybody likes goals that the Pro soccer forwards are the most adulated players and the most payed players.  There is something a bit different about those guys that you can't really teach. There is a great example of that in the 99 age group (I can only talk about what I have seen). One kid is not an athlete he is not very fast, he is certainly not very strong, in terms of skills if he is on the high end he is far from being the best but he is unbelievable at finishing. He can always find a way to put that ball in the net, no matter his body position or the position of the ball. No matter what, that makes him special. The problem is that you can't attract (or retain) that type of player if your club or you team is not successful....So you can play a great looking socce, you can develop your kids perfectly and at the same time you can fail as a team. I guess it is just the nature of the beast and goes with the difficulty of creating a good soccer team. Difficult but rewarding when successful. Soccer is an interesting sport indeed...

OK here is another question inreference to eskimo and gababa. I do like the way AYSES plays they possess and move the very well from their u13s to the u19s(the only teams I have seen). I mentioned to my son that sometimes they do that to the detriment of the score line but all the players think indpendently work well together but mistakes are likely to occur especially at the younger ages with all the possession.

Here's my question if the ball moves faster than the fastest player and ball movement creates space, why do they not score more? Good looking soccer is nice to see but there must be an end result. I would think even a realitviely smallish slowish team that can move the ball and create space should be able to score goals and keep games competitive. Some Andro, Solar and FCD teams do it with success why not AYSES?

My answer would be the missing special forward. Or perhaps coaching ? He may doing doing one part of the job, teaching all the kids how to move the ball but may not be focusing on a few guys as finisher. Actually, that may not even be his own job (as the coach of the team); I would say it is more the kid that needs to work on that on his own with a private coach (skills). I don't think that if you are a bit serious about your soccer you can go without private coaching aside from your team training....Which leads us back to how competitive the parents are in those big clubs. Overly competitive parents will take their kid to private skill in order to insure they are better than the rest and those parents tend to gravitate more towards the big (winning) clubs...What do you think ?

Here is my proposal for the discussion. Let's meet at a Pub have a few pints and discuss it more. Man I am thirsty.
Seriously I think sometimes the coaches/clubs are taken as an easy excuse why US soccer is not successful and from my point of view it's the fundamentals that are missing within the US Soccer organization.

Beers would be good. I feel I am like our kids :not enough free time to practice on my own. I want more free time for them to play pick up games in the street and more free time for me to empty beers with buddies in a pub !

gababa wrote:Beers would be good. I feel I am like our kids :not enough free time to practice on my own. I want more free time for them to play pick up games in the street and more free time for me to empty beers with buddies in a pub !

I am in.

whoa! did someone say beer? I am in. Actually the reason possesion is unsuccesful at a yourger age is simple. To many touches and they are just 10 etc. When they move the ball around it only takes one kid to make a mistake and the ball is lost. Shorten the number of times the kids have to touch the ball and you allow for fewer mistakes. Just watched B Rhines 96 team win premier league. Doing essentially the same thing as our team. We have kids lose the ball on the first touch or make a bad pass or wrong decision. With his older team the mistakes are still there but far fewer. Ayses older teams may start winning because the kids just get better at what they are doing. A special forward at this age will not make a true possesion team win at this age. They still have to work the ball up too him and most of the touches are before he gets the ball. A few special midfielders would help but they are still kids and the mistakes will still be there just less. Solution? Pass and posses and learn or fewer touches, get the ball to the forwards faster, fewer mistakes and win.