RECAPS
EXTRA TIME
YANKS ABROAD LOCKER ROOM
 
USGKDad
Post #1
Wednesday June 28, 2017 8:47pm

Joined Jun 2017
Total Posts: 5
Interested to see if you all had any thoughts with the closure of the Residency Program to a more focused MLS program with so many building their own academy residency programs.

How will this affect non-MLS academies and players on future teams?

mmee
Culver City, CA
Post #2
Wednesday June 28, 2017 9:36pm

Joined Mar 2014
Total Posts: 1,871
Non-MLS academies need more consideration from US Soccer and MLS.

After that, I don't know.

Know Nothing
Post #3
Wednesday June 28, 2017 9:53pm

Joined Jan 2013
Total Posts: 1,081
Interesting question...I think a lot depends on what happens with the class action suit filed by a number of youth clubs.

As far as player development goes I think individually the overall quality of the players will improve. As for the success of the teams...that may take a hit as it takes time to develop chemistry.

MSantoine
Post #4
Friday June 30, 2017 1:29pm

Joined Nov 2012
Total Posts: 3,706
Should be a good thing. Academies associated with MLS will have advantages but the other ones (St Louis) should be able to take advantage of the PDL league and push that. US should have regionalized academy leagues to make sure kids in all areas get a chance to be noticed and let the best of the best be plucked into MLS academies (if they so chose)

dolcem
Post #5
Friday June 30, 2017 4:21pm

Joined Nov 2012
Total Posts: 1,711
The fact that the MLS is stifling youth development (taking away the financial incentive) just over a % of these transfer fees shows how amateur they are. This is what you get when a gridiron football guy runs the league. They need soccer experts from abroad giving them advice. I guess we just think we know best when it comes to sports, even if it's not one of our own.
GET A CLUB TEAM
mmee
Culver City, CA
Post #6
Saturday July 1, 2017 7:33pm

Joined Mar 2014
Total Posts: 1,871
I believe that USSoccer and MLS say that "it's illegal" to give money to youth clubs for youth players because they don't want there to be a solution because they think we don't need one.
(It is actually illegal to directly pay for the minor-age players)

I bet you anything that there are perfectly legal payout structures you could create that wouldn't be directly paying for players. It would be like a trickle-down dole-out based on the overall quality of your youth club, with varying points for:
-the license level of your coaching staff
-how many kids in the last 5 years went on to higher levels of soccer
-club success
-maybe skill contest success
etc

dolcem
Post #7
Sunday July 2, 2017 12:00pm

Joined Nov 2012
Total Posts: 1,711
Original post from mmee

I believe that USSoccer and MLS say that "it's illegal" to give money to youth clubs for youth players because they don't want there to be a solution because they think we don't need one.
(It is actually illegal to directly pay for the minor-age players)

I bet you anything that there are perfectly legal payout structures you could create that wouldn't be directly paying for players. It would be like a trickle-down dole-out based on the overall quality of your youth club, with varying points for:
-the license level of your coaching staff
-how many kids in the last 5 years went on to higher levels of soccer
-club success
-maybe skill contest success
etc


That's their argument, but don't you think the real reason is that they would lose money over this?

I'm not sure about the legality. That's the way they do it in other countries, although maybe it's because they have different laws.

I like your idea, although for me, the second point is the only one that really matters. In youth soccer, development over results every time (so not a fan of the third point). The main thing we want to reward is for the clubs to develop a small number of really great players. In other countries, all that matters is if the youth club can produce quality top-flight footballers. They don't care about results, and they'll craft the way the team plays around allowing one or two prodigies to express themselves. They development of the other 9 field players is less important than the one who has the potential to be a superstar.

In other words, if a youth club produces 5 players a season that go on to play NCAA and 1 every few seasons that makes it to the MLS, I don't think they're doing it as well as the club team that produces 2 NCAA players a season but once every ten years produces a player that is good enough to play for our national team. In any other country, the clubs go for the latter strategy, as that pays more. That one transfer fee for the European caliber player would worth more than the transfer fees of the handful of MLS players, so that's what they'd go for. If that makes sense.
GET A CLUB TEAM
tylercocinas
Post #8
Sunday July 2, 2017 6:06pm

Joined Aug 2012
Total Posts: 1,100
Original post from mmee

I believe that USSoccer and MLS say that "it's illegal" to give money to youth clubs for youth players because they don't want there to be a solution because they think we don't need one.
(It is actually illegal to directly pay for the minor-age players)

I bet you anything that there are perfectly legal payout structures you could create that wouldn't be directly paying for players. It would be like a trickle-down dole-out based on the overall quality of your youth club, with varying points for:
-the license level of your coaching staff
-how many kids in the last 5 years went on to higher levels of soccer
-club success
-maybe skill contest success
etc


You can absolutely set up a system of compensation legally in the United States. The clubs aren't receiving "payments" its more like restitution for the costs of training a player. So when they move to a different club, the previous team is really only being paid for their investment rather than coming out ahead financially.

MLS just doesn't support it because it would mean more costs associated with American players and the league as a whole is determined to keep all financial costs suppressed. Thats the biggest benefit of keeping the salary cap at the absurd number that its at, and finding workarounds like GAM, TAM, and all the other shenanigans they use to manipulate the amount teams are allowed to spend on players.

mmee
Culver City, CA
Post #9
Sunday July 2, 2017 8:55pm

Joined Mar 2014
Total Posts: 1,871
@dolcem

Yes, I think it's just money, and there already is a decent amount of money for some youth clubs. But the laws are definitely different.

@tylercocinas

Sure, I'll buy it. But I've heard straight from the horse's mouth that this is the excuse that they're using.

MSantoine
Post #10
Monday July 3, 2017 11:29am

Joined Nov 2012
Total Posts: 3,706
@dolcem - Couldnt agree more. Youth teams arent about creating depth, its about getting the one guy in the age group (maybe 2-3 if you have a golden age) and making sure he gets everything he can to become a Mpabbe/Kane/Jesus. You get the guy through the youth camp and sell for 25+ million euros (In Mpabbe's case he'll be a 100 mill guy). That one transfer pays for the academy setup for awhile

Rey Regicide
Post #11
Monday July 3, 2017 12:56pm

Joined Sep 2013
Total Posts: 1,766
I think slowly, and to a harmful effect, clubs oversees are startnig to care.

There has been increasing interest in youth league action, (internet hits, fan base, showcasing the brand worn by kids vs clubs who are historical rivals) and I wouldn't be surprised if they start properly monetizing it.

All I get from friends now adays are "oh my god, check out this goal by barca under 13" videos littered with shoddy defending, parents screaming etc.

There is going to be a penalty w/ regards to the product for this.


The young soccer careers of Rubio Rubin and Brady Scott are headed in completely opposite directions.
RECENT POSTS
Wagner Nears Premier League Goal
YA lineup prediction vs. T&T
vom Steeg lands at Fortuna
Good week for young Americans