What is Poaching? When is the line crossed?

[Unregistered]

When is it acceptable to actively recruit another clubs player?

[Unregistered]

When is it acceptable to actively recruit another clubs player?

When Ever you want.

I have never seen a coach or club penalized, even when blatantly poaching.

[Unregistered]

Poaching is a stupid rule that can rarely be enforced. It's meant to protect clubs, but who cares. The rule should be applied to the current year, so that teams don'y disappear half way through the season. Clubs can withhold Player Passes to enforce this. And if you are recruiting for the following year, it should be OK, because no one has been commited for the following year. Poaching is in place because of weak coaches and manipulative parents with significant influence at FYSA that want to keep their teams together.

If you're a good coach, you don't need to worry about losing players, they come to you over time. Bad coaches lose players, because they are inferior to the good coaches, or drive players away. Pure supply and demand. If you can buy an apple that is 20% bigger and just as good as another apple, people will get the larger apple (and even pay more for it). Show me a case where you FYSA levied a fine without an e-mail, video or voice recording. Heresay will never work, and you really need to be dumb to get caught with actual evidence. Just get rid of the rule.

[Unregistered]

When is it acceptable to actively recruit another clubs player?

Q: When is it acceptable to actively recruit another clubs player?

A: When you're wearing a Purple Shirt.

[Unregistered]

When is it acceptable to actively recruit another clubs player?

According to the FYSA rules no registered players may be recruited in any way by any representative of any other club or team (even if merely a parent) until all State Cup games for that year have been concluded.

Even though others are quick to claim the rule is unenforceable, I personally know a coach who was banned from coaching for one year after being accused of and found guilty of poaching players before all State Cup games had been completed.

[Unregistered]

According to the FYSA rules no registered players may be recruited in any way by any representative of any other club or team (even if merely a parent) until all State Cup games for that year have been concluded.

Even though others are quick to claim the rule is unenforceable, I personally know a coach who was banned from coaching for one year after being accused of and found guilty of poaching players before all State Cup games had been completed.

So, why does FYSA allow clubs to host tryouts before State Cup concludes for NPL and then allow those recruited NPL teams to compete in State Cup? If FYSA doesn't enforce poaching on the abuse of US Club for tryouts, they won't enforce anything with poaching.

[Unregistered]

Can anyone tell me why they even care about the issue of poaching? Are you really that afraid that another club is going to steal players off your team? If a player is so unhappy that he wants to pay his full year's fees just to be released to go elsewhere, let him go.

[Unregistered]

Can anyone tell me why they even care about the issue of poaching? Are you really that afraid that another club is going to steal players off your team? If a player is so unhappy that he wants to pay his full year's fees just to be released to go elsewhere, let him go.

Here, here! I agree!

[Unregistered]

So, why does FYSA allow clubs to host tryouts before State Cup concludes for NPL and then allow those recruited NPL teams to compete in State Cup? If FYSA doesn't enforce poaching on the abuse of US Club for tryouts, they won't enforce anything with poaching.

FYSA does not care.

[Unregistered]

FYSA does not care.

and they shouldn't care. It is the parents who are paying for their kids to play and if those teams or clubs do right no one is looking to leave. Why do some clubs feel entited to own kids is beyond me.

[Unregistered]

and they shouldn't care. It is the parents who are paying for their kids to play and if those teams or clubs do right no one is looking to leave. Why do some clubs feel entited to own kids is beyond me.

The clubs don't feel "entitled to own" players. They feel (correctly) that they have a binding contract with the players. A third party interfering with that contract is disruptive to the cohesion of teams and clubs.

It's not unreasonable for rules to prevent this. A contract is a contract.

[Unregistered]

The clubs don't feel "entitled to own" players. They feel (correctly) that they have a binding contract with the players. A third party interfering with that contract is disruptive to the cohesion of teams and clubs.

It's not unreasonable for rules to prevent this. A contract is a contract.

What other businesses or industries are prohibited from trying to lure one client away from a competitor once their "contract" has expired? (Other than lawyers of course, but who wants to be associated with lawyers?)

If all clubs get together and agree, we won't compete for each other's clients" then in most businesses that is called colusion. In youth soccer, it's called FYSA.

[Unregistered]

The clubs don't feel "entitled to own" players. They feel (correctly) that they have a binding contract with the players. A third party interfering with that contract is disruptive to the cohesion of teams and clubs.

It's not unreasonable for rules to prevent this. A contract is a contract.

You obviously are not an attorney. The contracts soccer clubs have a horribly drafted. If I pay for services rendered and the service is not being provided, I have every right to challenge the validity of the contract.

[Unregistered]

What other businesses or industries are prohibited from trying to lure one client away from a competitor once their "contract" has expired?

Every business has a right to prohibit any competitor from an intentional interference with its contractual relationships with clients.

Youth soccer club contracts run for the whole seasonal year and those clubs have contractual relationships with their players until those players have been released or for the duration of that seasonal year, whichever comes first.

FYSA poaching rules do NOT prohibit clubs from luring players away from others club once they have been released or the seasonal year has expired, i.e., once the contract is no longer in place. FYSA poaching rules ONLY prohibit clubs from luring players away from other clubs while those contracts are still in place, i.e., while those clubs and those players still have contractual relationships.

[Unregistered]

The clubs don't feel "entitled to own" players. They feel (correctly) that they have a binding contract with the players. A third party interfering with that contract is disruptive to the cohesion of teams and clubs.

It's not unreasonable for rules to prevent this. A contract is a contract.

I don't doubt the validity of FYSA's internal rules. One, I just think it's a stupid rule that is outdated and unenforceable, if due process is really applied. The rule was set by weak minded coaches. Two, the energy should be focused on ensuring that players cannot transfer in mid season. Teams can be destroyed by the holidays, and that is detrimental, because of cancelled league games and teams that sign up ahead for tournaments (those parents usually prepay ahead of time). I understand that part.

But, allow a coach to recruit players for the following season. The players are not professionals, and there is no consideration on the part of the Club to guarantee a spot for the player the following year, so any discussion a player has with another coach for an uncontracted year should be allowed. FYSA could be taken to court, and if the case is strategized this way (no consideration given by the Club), the court very likely would rule in favor of the player/parents. It would be better for FYSA to allow recruitment for an uncontracted year in the future.