Regional Residency Program

[Unregistered]

They collect $1 already dip head. look at USSF financial statements.

I worked on a board of a small nonprofit soccer organization in my last state - inner city stuff, tried to keep the fees as low as humanly possible like $75 for fall and spring soccer, all volunteer, ASYO kind of thing but not AYSO. I was also the treasurer. If our group had to fork over $10 per kid to USSF to develop the nation's supposed top talent, who by and large are middle to upper class? Fuk USSF. I'd hide that $10/kid for the kids we were serving.

[Unregistered]

I worked on a board of a small nonprofit soccer organization in my last state - inner city stuff, tried to keep the fees as low as humanly possible like $75 for fall and spring soccer, all volunteer, ASYO kind of thing but not AYSO. I was also the treasurer. If our group had to fork over $10 per kid to USSF to develop the nation's supposed top talent, who by and large are middle to upper class? Fuk USSF. I'd hide that $10/kid for the kids we were serving.

I would go a step further. We pay about $3000 for my kids to play at their non-DA/GDA club). What do my kids get from this $10? What does their club get from them? Why should that club of 1,000 kids, fork over $10k? To finance rich kids at prep schools to play soccer? No thanks. I would rather my younger kids just play football, baseball and basketball then. If I was a club owner and costs started to go up, I would seriously consider trying to find other like-minded clubs and start our own regional association.

[Unregistered]

Dear stupid moron,

Please name 1 "PRIVATE" school that will educate all of these kids for charity of a rich, white, suburban, elitist sport out of the goodness of their hearts. Just one. Are you stupid? Maybe McDonalds will feed them all for free too and the Marriott can host them all. Just because you thought of something does not make it a good idea. Sometimes, we should keep our ideas to ourselves ..... like this one!

Bless your heart my littte sushi eating 1%er, you are just not that smart. let me break it down for you:

1. Obviously you did not know that USSF takes $1 for every youth soccer player already, so your babble about how they were going to collect obviously shows you are willing to flap those gums without knowledge. The complaints about going from $1 to $10, those are real. maybe it needs to be scaled in some fashion.

2. This program would not be attractive to your daughter, the elite, rich, snotty pay to play kid that has every advantage and will be seen by USSF scouts through the ECNL. That type of kid would rarely give up the good public school/private school education they are already receiving. This program targets the kids without the pay to play money.

3. Go to this webpage http://www.doe.mass.edu/charter/finance/tuition/ average tuition charters between $9 and $12k per year. Figure at least a 20% discount for volume. Leaves at least $20k for room/board/food. And this is all before even contacting private schools/publics schools that might have an interest and be able to offer housing and education. Housing options would include schools/public universities, etc. with excess dorm space, public universities with excess dorm space etc. You may not like the education, supervision, and many other things, but for many this would be a step up. Do not say they do not exist,

4. Drop your myopic thinking. Somehow it is done in South America for baseball and soccer, europe for soccer, Canada for junior hockey, heck we do it here for other sports. Do not say we could not do it here. It could be done, but we have chosen not to. we could even go to a local sponsor family system like they do internationally which would save even more money as those kids would just get dropped into public schools. I get it, this is not for you and not needed for your little 1% princess. But it might be something for the 99% which is what USSF is trying to cover.

[Unregistered]

I would go a step further. We pay about $3000 for my kids to play at their non-DA/GDA club). What do my kids get from this $10? What does their club get from them? Why should that club of 1,000 kids, fork over $10k? To finance rich kids at prep schools to play soccer? No thanks. I would rather my younger kids just play football, baseball and basketball then. If I was a club owner and costs started to go up, I would seriously consider trying to find other like-minded clubs and start our own regional association.

Not all private schools are like NEPSAC schools. broaden it out a little.

[Unregistered]

Bless your heart my littte sushi eating 1%er, you are just not that smart. let me break it down for you:

1. Obviously you did not know that USSF takes $1 for every youth soccer player already, so your babble about how they were going to collect obviously shows you are willing to flap those gums without knowledge. The complaints about going from $1 to $10, those are real. maybe it needs to be scaled in some fashion.

2. This program would not be attractive to your daughter, the elite, rich, snotty pay to play kid that has every advantage and will be seen by USSF scouts through the ECNL. That type of kid would rarely give up the good public school/private school education they are already receiving. This program targets the kids without the pay to play money.

3. Go to this webpage http://www.doe.mass.edu/charter/finance/tuition/ average tuition charters between $9 and $12k per year. Figure at least a 20% discount for volume. Leaves at least $20k for room/board/food. And this is all before even contacting private schools/publics schools that might have an interest and be able to offer housing and education. Housing options would include schools/public universities, etc. with excess dorm space, public universities with excess dorm space etc. You may not like the education, supervision, and many other things, but for many this would be a step up. Do not say they do not exist,

4. Drop your myopic thinking. Somehow it is done in South America for baseball and soccer, europe for soccer, Canada for junior hockey, heck we do it here for other sports. Do not say we could not do it here. It could be done, but we have chosen not to. we could even go to a local sponsor family system like they do internationally which would save even more money as those kids would just get dropped into public schools. I get it, this is not for you and not needed for your little 1% princess. But it might be something for the 99% which is what USSF is trying to cover.

You're comparing us to europe and south america for soccer? How much does SSS get when they lose their best player to BBA? What other sports is it done for here that aren't rich-kid sports with boatloads of costly training and tutoring that is paid for by wealthy parents? You're making crap up that even you can't believe.

[Unregistered]

Bless your heart my littte sushi eating 1%er, you are just not that smart. let me break it down for you:

1. Obviously you did not know that USSF takes $1 for every youth soccer player already, so your babble about how they were going to collect obviously shows you are willing to flap those gums without knowledge. The complaints about going from $1 to $10, those are real. maybe it needs to be scaled in some fashion.

2. This program would not be attractive to your daughter, the elite, rich, snotty pay to play kid that has every advantage and will be seen by USSF scouts through the ECNL. That type of kid would rarely give up the good public school/private school education they are already receiving. This program targets the kids without the pay to play money.

3. Go to this webpage http://www.doe.mass.edu/charter/finance/tuition/ average tuition charters between $9 and $12k per year. Figure at least a 20% discount for volume. Leaves at least $20k for room/board/food. And this is all before even contacting private schools/publics schools that might have an interest and be able to offer housing and education. Housing options would include schools/public universities, etc. with excess dorm space, public universities with excess dorm space etc. You may not like the education, supervision, and many other things, but for many this would be a step up. Do not say they do not exist,

4. Drop your myopic thinking. Somehow it is done in South America for baseball and soccer, europe for soccer, Canada for junior hockey, heck we do it here for other sports. Do not say we could not do it here. It could be done, but we have chosen not to. we could even go to a local sponsor family system like they do internationally which would save even more money as those kids would just get dropped into public schools. I get it, this is not for you and not needed for your little 1% princess. But it might be something for the 99% which is what USSF is trying to cover.

Not a bad idea. I would add that clubs who send kids to a GDAP club get some compensation by that club. That will incentivize some of the smaller clubs to send their best thru GDAP, making them mini-destination clubs. SSS would be an example

[Unregistered]

Not a bad idea. I would add that clubs who send kids to a GDAP club get some compensation by that club. That will incentivize some of the smaller clubs to send their best thru GDAP, making them mini-destination clubs. SSS would be an example

back on top

[Unregistered]

Sounds good in theory. Walk me through the player ID and selection process, from logistics to governance.

As a rebuttal, for all the discussion in recent years that the elite and older players have gotten as some sort of problem that needs solving for the future of the USWNT, seems to me the area of the sport that desperately needs attention and solving is grassroots and younger instead.

Can't.

Agree.

[Unregistered]

Sounds like two biggest problems are cost and welfare of kids. Sponsors like Nike would shell out the money and then actually profit through merchandise, etc. The welfare issue is a little more difficult but having women run the thing and limited male presence would be a good start. Having a man (like nassar) working with individuals, as opposed to a group was a terrible idea.

[Unregistered]

Sounds like two biggest problems are cost and welfare of kids. Sponsors like Nike would shell out the money and then actually profit through merchandise, etc. The welfare issue is a little more difficult but having women run the thing and limited male presence would be a good start. Having a man (like nassar) working with individuals, as opposed to a group was a terrible idea.

I agree that on paper the idea has tremendous merit - have the best players training together all the time under USSF coaches, not clubs. But there's too many real life issues. There's the cost and safety concerns above, real and imagined (not just for girls but boys as well). But also the educational piece. Unless it's affiliated with a great school most parents aren't going to risk their kids' education for a "possible" future in soccer (even more so for women's soccer where there's no substantive professional path or interest). Also, how long would this commitment last? A year at a time and if your kid isn't hacking it year one they have to go home? Even some of the country's best talent won't want to be far from home. Such a program would get some of the talent but nowhere near all, in which case is it worth pursuing?

[Unregistered]

I agree that on paper the idea has tremendous merit - have the best players training together all the time under USSF coaches, not clubs. But there's too many real life issues. There's the cost and safety concerns above, real and imagined (not just for girls but boys as well). But also the educational piece. Unless it's affiliated with a great school most parents aren't going to risk their kids' education for a "possible" future in soccer (even more so for women's soccer where there's no substantive professional path or interest). Also, how long would this commitment last? A year at a time and if your kid isn't hacking it year one they have to go home? Even some of the country's best talent won't want to be far from home. Such a program would get some of the talent but nowhere near all, in which case is it worth pursuing?

Selection done by USSF. But because they play in ECNL the USSF coaches will see many many additional players outside of those selected. There will always be politics, but seeing these teams play against each other would force competitive selection. Does USSF want to lose to an ECNL team? I doubt it, but that competition would force better selection.

This program is not for the elite, rich well educated pay to play kids. They are very good players and are being identified now. This is for the rest of the 99% where if USSF sees potential, they can bring a kid in and give them the best training. Right now we are only training at an elite level girls of a certain income bracket living in certain geographies. Do we really believe that only these girls have the ability to become elite players or are we ignoring a huge swath of the girls population just because they cannot afford and/or do not live near good training? If we want to be competitive in the world game, we need to see more kids being trained at an elite level to see how they turn out. This was the idea behind GDA, but it was so stupidly conceived. Left pay to play in place, to big to manage. With residency concept you get all the encl kids + 800 kids USSF specifically identifies with potential regardless of financial means. Not perfect, but better.

[Unregistered]

Sounds very expensive with no identified source of funding. If there is any money for soccer, it could be better spent and reach more kids without the boarding school expenses on top of the soccer training. Do most people with a family want to send the kids off to boarding school?

[Unregistered]

Sounds very expensive with no identified source of funding. If there is any money for soccer, it could be better spent and reach more kids without the boarding school expenses on top of the soccer training. Do most people with a family want to send the kids off to boarding school?

A few MLS clubs are starting residency programs, so that helps broaden the reach on the boy's side and provide training. I agree that some parents, no matter how talented their kids are, they're not willing to ship their kids off to school, entrust their education elsewhere, and trust the adults around their kids (UK soccer has had multiple abuse scandals; it isn't just a girls gymnastics issue) But it is still limited in scale and obviously costs the clubs a fortune. If more MLS clubs thought residency was worth their while they would do it, but so far few are.

It will never happen on the girls side because there is virtually no money in girls' or women's soccer outside of selling some Nike gear every WC and Olympics. The few women's pro teams there are are barely scrapping by and putting more costs burdens on them to train youth players isn't something they will agree to (and Eclipse just dropped out and they had a pro team affiliation).

[Unregistered]

Sounds very expensive with no identified source of funding. If there is any money for soccer, it could be better spent and reach more kids without the boarding school expenses on top of the soccer training. Do most people with a family want to send the kids off to boarding school?

funding source in very first post by OP

[Unregistered]

funding source in very first post by OP

Self funding