U.S. Soccer’s Elitism Problem

[Unregistered]

Fair question, even if presented as a hyperbolic false dichotomy.

Hyperbole perhaps but you may want to research false dichotomy before you try to impress someone again.

[Unregistered]

Hyperbole perhaps but you may want to research false dichotomy before you try to impress someone again.

I hate it when the hyperbolic false dichotomy card is thrown.

[Unregistered]

Zero.

Might that be a matter of perception based upon the only options being presented by the clubs. Lindsay Horan basically skipped college and based upon their NT schedules you have to wonder if players like Pugh and Sanchez will ever end up playing any significant minutes for their colleges. Wouldn't be a surprise if the NT started suggesting more of their elite players forego college and turn pro.

[Unregistered]

I hate it when the hyperbolic false dichotomy card is thrown.

Only an "elitist" would throw that card. Pot, meet kettle.

[Unregistered]

Might that be a matter of perception based upon the only options being presented by the clubs. Lindsay Horan basically skipped college and based upon their NT schedules you have to wonder if players like Pugh and Sanchez will ever end up playing any significant minutes for their colleges. Wouldn't be a surprise if the NT started suggesting more of their elite players forego college and turn pro.

Anyone dumb enough to skip college to make significantly less than most bartenders deserves what they get.

[Unregistered]

great idea. but how does a club generate this income to pay it back since they unable to sell players as happens in other countries?



dap is not this great development system. ironic really. rename the club model of 3 hour and a half practices a week, "development" and "academy" and expect a better result? other than a couple outlier clubs like the texans...but they were among the best before the rebranding, so not much has changed.

college is slightly better, but the cake is baked well before a player steps foot on campus. the skills that are missing at this age are a result of insufficient play and skills that must be obtained at the young ages. it is very difficult, some would argue impossible, to learn vision, creativity and calm on the ball without tons of free play as a child. it can't be "coached". nor will it be created in high pressure dap games or practices. once acquired it can be refined in a club environment, but the hundreds, if not thousands of hours outside gotta happen first.

I would contend that vision creativity and calmness are inherent qualities, you either have those tendencies or you don't.

[Unregistered]

Anyone dumb enough to skip college to make significantly less than most bartenders deserves what they get.

Why are you so sure that pro soccer players are making so much less than what a recent college grad is making and because of that a pro career doesn't make any sense? Granted in the NBA and NFL the money is significantly higher but it's still not enough to retire on after the average length of a pro career. All of those kids who leave college early essentially end up in the exact same situation needing to have a plan B for the rest of their lives so how is that so much different?

[Unregistered]

I would contend that vision creativity and calmness are inherent qualities, you either have those tendencies or you don't.

Is your argument that those traits are not cultivated in a structured, professional training environment over time in any significant way different than if that player never experienced that training environment?

I don't disagree that there are a host of traits that some people have that others don't (height being a great example), but among those with traits in common, I would say there's a difference between capability and ability, potential and achievement, etc. That difference being "development."

[Unregistered]

Is your argument that those traits are not cultivated in a structured, professional training environment over time in any significant way different than if that player never experienced that training environment?

I don't disagree that there are a host of traits that some people have that others don't (height being a great example), but among those with traits in common, I would say there's a difference between capability and ability, potential and achievement, etc. That difference being "development."

No, I think they are cultivated through training and development but that they are also inherent within the individual and not all people possess it, even those with super skills. It's why we can label people overachievers and underachievers.

[Unregistered]

I would contend that vision creativity and calmness are inherent qualities, you either have those tendencies or you don't.

A players personality is certainly reflected in their playing style. An aggressive or greedy or unselfish player usually brings these qualities to the field.

But how the aggressiveness, to pick one trait, is channeled to the field, is a direct reflection of how much time a kid has spent messing around with the ball. If the ball sticks to their foot, they can attack goal dribbling it, and not be pressured off the ball. If they have worked on various moves, they can unbalance the defender. If they have passed enough, in enough different situations, they can keep their head up and release the ball when the double occurs and an teammate is open.

If they don't have sufficient skills or vision the options contract. An aggressive personality is likely to pass and run forward, kick and run around a defender, attack a ball on a set piece, or aggressively defend to win the ball. None of these are "calm" actions.

99% of the youth and college games in the US field too many players unable to play a "calm" skilled style so the games resemble pinball soccer. And calm players, like the Mewis sisters, stand out.

[Unregistered]

I've been resisting saying this for a long time, but after almost 10 years of "involvement" in local rec, travel, and club soccer (and I know ten years is but a blip on the screen) I've come to realize that the only players who matter are the ones who, to quote Richard Gere in Officer and a Gentleman, "have no place else to go"--meaning the game is the ONLY thing for them, meaning there is nothing that competes for their time, interest, or attention, meaning soccer isn't a way to "get" something other than MORE soccer--not daddy's praise, not college, not fame, not even a paycheck--it is the GAME that matters to them. It burns in them internally. Pay-to-play stands the "success pyramid" on its head because with money comes distractions, the main (and fatal) one being the realization that "the game" isn't everything--and once a player realizes that the game ISN'T everything, he is done. DONE. "Soccer isn't everything" is truly a bell that can't be "unrung".
So, in the US, when we "front load" soccer with privileged kids, we necessarily clog the system with players who are going to lack the needed desperation. All us urban, suburban or ex-urban doctors, lawyers, teachers and everyone else with a steady paycheck have by our success eliminated our offspring from advancing the national cause. (There may be plenty of rich kids in the NT "pool", but I know for damn sure none of them will ADVANCE our national standing. Soccer just doesn't work that way. No "zero sum" game works that way.)
It is painful and dispiriting to realize that until the ranks are full of kids who KNOW NOTHING BUT SOCCER, live nothing but soccer, and when they flame-out of soccer will not even be qualified to COACH soccer, much less succeed in some other professional field, until then we will be nothing but the third rate pretenders we now are.
Until the faces of our NT players reflect the faces of the least privileged, least affluent--and, yes, least successful members of our society we will be hamstrung by a handicap of our own making: The knowledge that "soccer isn't everything.

Who is Richard Gere? Did he play soccer?

[Unregistered]

A professional, structured training environment is one part of development. But as constituted here in the US it is not nearly sufficient to create a decent player. They need many more hours messing around with the ball alone, and in unstructured playing situations to be calm and skillful. Structured practice is likely 25%, games another 10-15%. The rest happens in other venues at other times.

[Unregistered]

Hyperbole perhaps but you may want to research false dichotomy before you try to impress someone again.

You think I was trying to impress someone by characterizing (rightfully) your framing of the "wealthy suburban stay-at-home soccer mom" driving a "5 series BMW" and "low income, inner city single mother" as a false choice for pay-to-play defenders (and it's a tedious cliche by the way) in this debate? That's funny.

US Soccer is getting exactly what it deserves almost as much as the parents being fleeced. But hey, it's their money, and for those who don't have it, the game really isn't suffering because even with costs mitigated, they probably wouldn't want get Little Luis and Marta to practice anyway, so that's where the pay-to-play debate should stop, am I right?

[Unregistered]

A professional, structured training environment is one part of development. But as constituted here in the US it is not nearly sufficient to create a decent player. They need many more hours messing around with the ball alone, and in unstructured playing situations to be calm and skillful. Structured practice is likely 25%, games another 10-15%. The rest happens in other venues at other times.

No disagreement there, I think pay-to-play as constituted today is at least as much problem as it is solution, but soccer culture lacking is massive. Parents are at the center of whatever Venn diagram of "blame" (for the lack of a better word) you want to construct.

[Unregistered]

Wealthy suburban stay-at-home soccer moms complain about having to drive their 5 series BMW to practice 3x per week in Foxboro.

How does a low income, inner city single mother even start to care about DA soccer?

Most complain?

Most wouldn't care?