|
Post by Soccerhouse on Mar 30, 2017 8:52:24 GMT -5
To quote the article:"A class-action lawsuit filed by three youth clubs against the MLS Players Union, as well as players Michael Bradley, Clint Dempsey, and DeAndre Yedlin has been dismissed by order of the U.S. District Court Eastern District of Texas, Sherman Division." What is interesting is this statement --- In a bid to collect the fees they feel are owed them, the three clubs have taken their case to FIFA's Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC), and are awaiting a decision. Meanwhile, they are also moving to establish the system's legality in the U.S. www.espnfc.com/united-states/story/3092074/us-district-court-dismisses-class-action-against-bradley-dempsey-yedlin
|
|
|
Post by mightydawg on Mar 30, 2017 10:52:27 GMT -5
How would the payments work since most soccer training in the USA is paid for by the parents? I could understand the clubs being paid money to recoup training cost if the club paid the cost of training or subsidized the cost of training but in most cases that is not what is happening.
|
|
|
Post by Soccerhouse on Mar 30, 2017 11:11:01 GMT -5
I think that issue is sometimes used as the excuse here in the states, that we are pay to play etc and hence solidarity payment don't apply.
At the point if a kid signed for millions, I don't think the parents need to be repaid for their payments, would be a nice jester, but the money would be better spent and utilized at the local club and then also give them an incentive to probably reduce fees, retain players and potentially allow more players to play for fewer dollars if the big picture is they can get something back financially etc.
For example, the biggest carrot about Atlanta United is your kid makes it, its 100% free, thats tough to turn down. But imagine if your local club that you have played with since your were 6 offered or could offer the same deal and the club has shown (has a history of) getting young players signed both my MLS and internationally. Would you stay? The problem is now, what is the incentive for the local club to try to compete with Atlanta United, there isn't one? A non-mls club can't really get any return on investment from a kid or player, so why do it?
At the end of the day given how few kids make it to the next level and get big pay days, solidarity payments won't have that much of impact, but it wouldn't hurt and could help reduce our pay to play system. On the flip side, lets say a local club does strike gold and sends 4 kids from the same age group to play internationally - would be a bigger payout and make a huge difference.
|
|
|
Post by rifle on Mar 30, 2017 12:21:19 GMT -5
The point of training compensation payments is to incentivize an academy to successfully train. Right now, the youth clubs are totally cut off from the pro game, and therefore marginalized. IMO, the USSF is colluding with MLS on this, and it's not right.
An easy counter argument to "the club already got paid" is to simply require the youth club to repay any training fee that a parent paid, from the solidarity payment. (Scholarship fees may become harder to account for, but so what!..)
We need to stack the deck in favor of GOOD youth academies, not against.
|
|
|
Post by allthingsoccer on Mar 30, 2017 12:27:11 GMT -5
If we had subsidy it wouldn't be pay to play.
|
|
|
Post by Soccerhouse on Mar 30, 2017 12:30:20 GMT -5
|
|