overlooked factor: non-profit vs profit

[Unregistered]

Let me preface what I'm about to write with... I am a former Oakwood soccer player from U11-U18 (pre-dating the Academy), and I had a positive experience with Oakwood. So its basically a testimonial.

I'm writing this for the parents out there that are unsure of which club is the best "fit" for their kids.

I believe that one important factor (often overlooked) between "good" clubs and "bad" clubs is whether clubs are non-profit or profit based. Obviously, a profit based clubs primary focus is to maximize their profit-margin. This is manifested in having multiple teams at one age group (A, B, C, etc). How can one expect that the B or C teams get the same quality of instruction that the A teams get (yet they are paying the same fee)? I'm not knocking profit based clubs for seeking to maximize profits, that is in their self-interest so they can stay afloat. I'm just trying to illustrate there is an added dimension that takes some amount of energy away from focusing on the development of your kid that non-profit based clubs don't have to worry about. I believe their player developmental model may suffer with the added dimension.

Non-profit clubs don't have to worry about "making numbers"; that notion doesn't register on their radar of things to think about for an upcoming season. They have the luxury of devoting more energy to the holistic development of the youth soccer player. This is manifested by having one team at a respective age group that gets all of the attention of their respective coaches (someone on another thread alluded to last season Oakwood 1999/2000's having 26 rostered kids they split the team up with one group playing 8 vs 8 and the other group playing 11 vs 11). I believe this is one extremely important factor for parents to consider when it comes to considering which teams their kids should try out for.


At Present: I can say that I feel comfortable with most of the coaches at Oakwood including GC, DF, RD, EB, BW, MC, LA (the rest I haven't seen coach so i can't rate them). They understand and truly believe in the notion of holistic soccer development and stick to it as best they can.

Be warned: The coaches on the girls U-11 team last year (2011-2012). I observed only one game this past game spring. Those three scared me to death with regards their demeanor towards the kids. One of them is the Glastonbury Boys Varsity High school coach (the only one I know first hand). Wow, his go-to "move": yelling criticism followed by nothing. He offers nothing in terms of substantive in-game tactics. Two words of advice: stay away.

Academy vs Premier: The academy is meant for type A personalities that want to compete against the best out there (i.e. Red Bulls Academy, NE Revolution Academy players, Baltimore Bays Academy, etc.) It isn't meant for every player, its meant for the serious player that wants to truly test themselves.
With that being said, very good players who want to play with their high school friends have that choice. However, to discourage a promising player from play in a training environment that taxes them in positive ways mentally, physically and emotionally in favor of a playing environment where they are not pushed, is in my opinion, a disservice to that child. In fact, that player will probably never actualize his true potential.
I wish I had the Academy when I was younger because ODP was a farce. I don't know about the state of it today.
Another factor to consider to maintain your status as an Academy program USSF wants clubs to move away from the "pay-to-play" model. That is to say: eventually the academy will be free for those that can get into it.

In anticipation of the "you're just an oakwood homer/shill..... boo" comments so: read my preface.

I DID have an excellent experience, and I'm just trying to inform those inquiring parents (consumers) who are looking for "good" clubs to think about another factor that is often overlooked: the incentives of those clubs. I believe, generally, that non-profit soccer clubs (drawing only from my experience), have your child's developmental interests in mind, due to their main interest not being "profit margins".

Let the hating commence!

[Unregistered]

Let me preface what I'm about to write with... I am a former Oakwood soccer player from U11-U18 (pre-dating the Academy), and I had a positive experience with Oakwood. So its basically a testimonial.

I'm writing this for the parents out there that are unsure of which club is the best "fit" for their kids.

I believe that one important factor (often overlooked) between "good" clubs and "bad" clubs is whether clubs are non-profit or profit based. Obviously, a profit based clubs primary focus is to maximize their profit-margin. This is manifested in having multiple teams at one age group (A, B, C, etc). How can one expect that the B or C teams get the same quality of instruction that the A teams get (yet they are paying the same fee)? I'm not knocking profit based clubs for seeking to maximize profits, that is in their self-interest so they can stay afloat. I'm just trying to illustrate there is an added dimension that takes some amount of energy away from focusing on the development of your kid that non-profit based clubs don't have to worry about. I believe their player developmental model may suffer with the added dimension.

Non-profit clubs don't have to worry about "making numbers"; that notion doesn't register on their radar of things to think about for an upcoming season. They have the luxury of devoting more energy to the holistic development of the youth soccer player. This is manifested by having one team at a respective age group that gets all of the attention of their respective coaches (someone on another thread alluded to last season Oakwood 1999/2000's having 26 rostered kids they split the team up with one group playing 8 vs 8 and the other group playing 11 vs 11). I believe this is one extremely important factor for parents to consider when it comes to considering which teams their kids should try out for.


At Present: I can say that I feel comfortable with most of the coaches at Oakwood including GC, DF, RD, EB, BW, MC, LA (the rest I haven't seen coach so i can't rate them). They understand and truly believe in the notion of holistic soccer development and stick to it as best they can.

Be warned: The coaches on the girls U-11 team last year (2011-2012). I observed only one game this past game spring. Those three scared me to death with regards their demeanor towards the kids. One of them is the Glastonbury Boys Varsity High school coach (the only one I know first hand). Wow, his go-to "move": yelling criticism followed by nothing. He offers nothing in terms of substantive in-game tactics. Two words of advice: stay away.

Academy vs Premier: The academy is meant for type A personalities that want to compete against the best out there (i.e. Red Bulls Academy, NE Revolution Academy players, Baltimore Bays Academy, etc.) It isn't meant for every player, its meant for the serious player that wants to truly test themselves.
With that being said, very good players who want to play with their high school friends have that choice. However, to discourage a promising player from play in a training environment that taxes them in positive ways mentally, physically and emotionally in favor of a playing environment where they are not pushed, is in my opinion, a disservice to that child. In fact, that player will probably never actualize his true potential.
I wish I had the Academy when I was younger because ODP was a farce. I don't know about the state of it today.
Another factor to consider to maintain your status as an Academy program USSF wants clubs to move away from the "pay-to-play" model. That is to say: eventually the academy will be free for those that can get into it.

In anticipation of the "you're just an oakwood homer/shill..... boo" comments so: read my preface.

I DID have an excellent experience, and I'm just trying to inform those inquiring parents (consumers) who are looking for "good" clubs to think about another factor that is often overlooked: the incentives of those clubs. I believe, generally, that non-profit soccer clubs (drawing only from my experience), have your child's developmental interests in mind, due to their main interest not being "profit margins".

Let the hating commence!

Disagree with you that a not for profit are not concerned about making their numbers.

If your experience pre dates the Academy then it should not be considered choosing Oakwood as a club since it has compeltely changed.

[Unregistered]

Disagree with you that a not for profit are not concerned about making their numbers.

If your experience pre dates the Academy then it should not be considered choosing Oakwood as a club since it has compeltely changed.

Not OP but please tell me how it has changed? Daughter has been there since U12 and soon to be U17 so I have FIRST HAND KNOWLEDGE! So fire away.

[Unregistered]

Disagree with you that a not for profit are not concerned about making their numbers.

If your experience pre dates the Academy then it should not be considered choosing Oakwood as a club since it has compeltely changed.

Non profit is a nice way to avoid paying tax

[Unregistered]

Non profit is a nice way to avoid paying tax

Your point Steve?

[Unregistered]

"This is manifested in having multiple teams at one age group (A, B, C, etc). How can one expect that the B or C teams get the same quality of instruction that the A teams get "

I have seen the problem first hand with CFC. I think they try to offer a comparable experience to their B sides, but it dosen't come close to the CFC United level. Also another problem is the level of player/parent commitment amongst the B team, soccer does not always come first. This can be discouraging to a player that is almost at the A level and needs the challenge to improve.

[Unregistered]

Based on our experience with three different clubs Oakwood was the best. LA is one of the best girls coaches out there.

[Unregistered]

Non profits are better?

The counterpoint to your arguement...look to the downfall of Western United, where the self-interest of the parents running the non-profit meant only the teams with their children on the roster received resources/attention. They may not have been concerned about the numbers, but actions were still skewed by hidden agendas.

[Unregistered]

The counterpoint to your arguement...look to the downfall of Western United, where the self-interest of the parents running the non-profit meant only the teams with their children on the roster received resources/attention. They may not have been concerned about the numbers, but actions were still skewed by hidden agendas.

Big difference between the situation you describe and Oakwood's RD and DF.

[Unregistered]

Obviously they don't care about numbers, they almost default on their loan for the Portland fields.....

[Unregistered]

Obviously they don't care about numbers, they almost default on their loan for the Portland fields.....

And you are?

[Unregistered]

Obviously they don't care about numbers, they almost default on their loan for the Portland fields.....

"Almost default"... What the heck does that mean? You either default or you don't default - "almost default" means "not defaulted", Mr. FSA. I'm not an OW booster but I know a cheap shot when I see one.

The OP raises a very good question about the best organizational structure for a soccer club. Actually, he goes into many details unrelated to the non-profit / for-profit question but they are important in their own right.

Actually, the profit status is only one small part of the organizational structure of the club. You could have a for-profit club and non-profit club practically mimic each other depending upon the mission statements (non-profit) or strategic vision (for-profit) of the club.

For example, having A and B (and C) teams is not uniquely a for-profit strategy. Recognizing the different ages at which different kids develop mentally and physically, a non-profit that recognizes the need to instill excellent coaching at an early age (even though the player may not currently be considered an "A" talent) might very well develop an A / B / C platform. A purely profit-driven outfit might do the exact same thing for short-term gain. A different for-profit might appear to employ the exact same strategy but with a motive that more resembles the non-profit club.

Bottom line is that the philosophy, motives and org structure of these clubs is extremely important BUT most parents will never learn anything about any of it until your kid has been in the system for many years. And even then, these things may remain very opaque. In my opinion, your best chance is to understand the people who are close to your child on a day to day basis. Understand them as best you can. It's like school - you can be in a great school with a bad teacher or a bad school with a great teacher. A great school just creates the best possible environment to foster the learning experience but it doesn't actually create the learning experience.

Having said that, certain clubs SEEM to create certain systematic results while others appear to be more decentralized (disorganized?) and less uniform in their product. Oakwood, Beachside, Yankee, SCP, Everton, Arsenal, FSA,... Each has their own stereotype.

I think it would be very helpful for people with history in these clubs (good, bad and in-between) to paint the true image of their experience. Not just rah-rah stuff to support the club but a real picture that parents can use to help find the best fit and possibly even to give clubs some anonymous feedback if they care to hear it. We've all seen the ridiculous blurbs that clubs write about themselves on their websites. They all the say the same thing about developing the "whole player" (whatever that is), imparting leadership, confidence, technical skill, blah, blah, blah.

Not to pick on one in particular but... How about something like this?
My sons played at Beachside. It's a tough program with strong coaches and an unbelievable pool of talent to play with. They drill them in militaristic style that, at times, borders on abusive. Some kids cannot handle it and, even if they can, sometimes their parents cannot. For the ones who are not broken by the experience, they come out of it much stronger and confident. I watched my older son develop into manhood with the help of this program and it was a trying and rewarding experience. It also gave him the skills, experience and exposure that he would need to become a leader on his high school team and be recruited to play at a D1 college.

My younger son did not have the same experience. In our opinion he was as strong a player as any but the best two or three on the team and yet the coach did not seem to see it. Once he was identified as a "bench" player it seemed impossible to move out of this position even if his performance in training was spectacular and another, more favored, player's was subpar. He soon lost interest in soccer and picked up another sport at which he excels at the high school level. In retrospect, we realized that our older son had been the beneficiary of the kind of "golden boy" treatment that victimized our other son.

We didn't feel that there was anyone to talk to about this. The vibe at the club is "achieve or leave". If you aren't cutting it, it's your issue and you should either keep quiet and work harder or just go somewhere else that's not as competitive. It's dog-eat-dog and if you are doing the eating and can endure the rigor you will have the best possible soccer experience. If you are unlucky, unfavored, need a soft touch or want to play 3 sports... RUN AWAY.

[Unregistered]

One thing that does not get comment is not the quality of the program, but the quality of the parent.

As a parent, I have seen groups of parents HELP a team in various ways and also hurt in others. And, being supportive parents (of the coach, if you think he/she is a good one, and of the other parents and players) rubs off on the kids.

In my opinion, as a parent, we have to look for groups of parents that are positive, because that is more of a factor in the success or failure of a team of young kids (particularly 14 or younger), than is commented on here.

[Unregistered]

dumb post

"This is manifested in having multiple teams at one age group (A, B, C, etc). How can one expect that the B or C teams get the same quality of instruction that the A teams get "

I have seen the problem first hand with CFC. I think they try to offer a comparable experience to their B sides, but it dosen't come close to the CFC United level. Also another problem is the level of player/parent commitment amongst the B team, soccer does not always come first. This can be discouraging to a player that is almost at the A level and needs the challenge to improve.

you have seen it first hand. If you did, you would know for instance, that the Wolves are not a United B team. The Wolves have an A team. While some kids may choose to try out for United and thus many of the better players could/do leave the team, it doesn't make the team a B team for United. Less talented, perhaps, but not a B team. I don't think many of the girls who play on say the Wolves U15 team treat soccer as a rec sport and don't go to practice and miss games for other sports, cheerleading and band performance

There are many reasons why United is not for everyone, commitment level, cost, distance to practice facility, travel time and ability to be transported, not to mention talent level. United team is open to all players, not just players in CFC system, so hard to say any other branch is a B team.

In theory, yes, United should be more talented, if not, there is a problem, but that alone doesn't make all other CFC teams B teams like FSA White for example. That is a true B team. Play out of same location as Navy, only open to FSA players and if you are less talented you make the B team, plain and simple. As a B team, FSA invests less then they do in the A team, quality of coaches, etc.

[Unregistered]

I believe that one important factor (often overlooked) between "good" clubs and "bad" clubs is whether clubs are non-profit or profit based. Obviously, a profit based clubs primary focus is to maximize their profit-margin. This is manifested in having multiple teams at one age group (A, B, C, etc). How can one expect that the B or C teams get the same quality of instruction that the A teams get (yet they are paying the same fee)? I'm not knocking profit based clubs for seeking to maximize profits, that is in their self-interest so they can stay afloat. I'm just trying to illustrate there is an added dimension that takes some amount of energy away from focusing on the development of your kid that non-profit based clubs don't have to worry about. I believe their player developmental model may suffer with the added dimension.

Non-profit clubs don't have to worry about "making numbers"; that notion doesn't register on their radar of things to think about for an upcoming season. They have the luxury of devoting more energy to the holistic development of the youth soccer player. This is manifested by having one team at a respective age group that gets all of the attention of their respective coaches (someone on another thread alluded to last season Oakwood 1999/2000's having 26 rostered kids they split the team up with one group playing 8 vs 8 and the other group playing 11 vs 11). I believe this is one extremely important factor for parents to consider when it comes to considering which teams their kids should try out for.

The for-profit v not-for-profit issue is nice Econ 101 theory, but, in the case of a youth premier soccer club where the people who own the club are the same people who manage the club, there is no significant difference.

"Making numbers" - If the managers of a for-profit club also own the club (eg CFC), the stockholders do not represent a separate constituency that must be satisfied. Managers of both for-profit and not-for-profit clubs care A LOT about "making numbers" for the same reasons: (1) so the club can stay in business, (2) so they can pay themselves and the people who work for them good compensation and (3) so that can fulfill their vision for the club in terms of quality of services and scope.

Club size; multiple teams - There are lots of motivations to have multiple teams -- all the same for both for-profit clubs and not-for-profit clubs. (1) You believe you offer a quality service and want to serve the community; (2) By having more teams, you can generate more aggregate revenue in excess of operating expenses, so you can pay for capital projects, such as building fields; (3) the managers get a ego boost from running a bigger club; (4) more teams means it is less likely that player defections will leave you with weak teams (or no teams at all) in certain age groups, (5) more teams gives you a better pipeline -- allows you to develop your own A team players rather than having to steal them from other clubs, (6) more teams allows you to hire more of your coaching buddies and give them jobs, (7) more teams may allow your coaches to have full-time soccer coaching jobs, instead of just being part-timers. In fact, given all the advantages of running a big club, it's hard to see why anyone would want to run a club that fields only 1 team per age group would be (1) inability to draw players, (2) inability to get staff, (3) inability to get fields, (4) lack of ambition.

A team v B team coaching quality -- Yes, there will be a tendency for the A team to get better treatment than the B team. Not always, but frequently. The question is whether what the B team gets at one club is still better than what the A team at some other club gets. There are a lot of clubs out there where this is true.