|
Post by SoccerMom on Oct 20, 2018 9:49:33 GMT -5
FIFA panel to consider solidarity payments claim from DeAndre Yedlin's youth club[br Jeff Carlisle U.S. soccer correspondent FIFA's Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) will consider a claim for solidarity payments involving Newcastle United and U.S. international defender DeAndre Yedlin on Oct. 25, according to a document obtained by ESPN FC. A five-person panel is scheduled to render a decision as to whether Redmond, Washington-based youth club Crossfire Premier is owed solidarity payments related to Yedlin's transfer from the Seattle Sounders to Tottenham Hotspur, which took place in August of 2014. The reported transfer fee was $3.71 million. A source with knowledge of the claim states that Crossfire Premier is seeking around $100,000 for the time when Yedlin was registered there, a period that spanned the fall of 2006 until the spring of 2010. This isn't the first time that the Yedlin case has had a hearing scheduled in front of the DRC. The case was on the DRC's docket back in August of 2017, but was later pulled. Now it appears that Crossfire will have its case heard. The panel will base its decision only on documents provided, and there will be no testimony. If Crossfire prevails, it is believed that this would mark the first time that a U.S-based youth club will have received official solidarity payments as the result of the transfer of a U.S. player. The source stated that Tottenham would technically owe the money, but would likely ask MLS to reimburse it and then make a payment to Crossfire. Solidarity payments are a mechanism by which FIFA aims to compensate youth clubs for developing players. FIFA's Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (RSTP) stipulate that whenever a player is transferred prior to the end of their contract, and that transfer involves moving from one country to another -- a "change of association" in FIFA parlance -- then five percent of the transfer fee is to be allocated to the club or clubs that developed the player. The rules also stipulate that when a player signs their first professional contract, the pro club is obligated to pay training and development costs to the youth clubs that developed the player between the ages of 12 and 21. (The Yedlin case only pertains to the payment of solidarity payments.) Yet the U.S. Soccer Federation has long forbidden the implementation of RSTP. Among the reasons cited are fears that RSTP violates child labor laws or would result in litigation on anti-trust grounds by various stakeholders, including the MLS Players Association. The USSF has also contended that a consent decree contained in the case Fraser vs. MLS prevented it from enforcing RSTP. Seattle-based attorney Lance Reich, who is representing Crossfire Premier in the case, said, "It's taken a long time to get to this point and we hope that FIFA will clarify to the USSF and the world that US youth clubs are members of FIFA and entitled to training compensation and solidarity fees, just like all other FIFA clubs." As MLS has seen more and more youth products head overseas with no training compensation and solidarity payments paid to its teams, it has come out in favor of RSTP, though it still has concerns as to how it would be implemented. I'd like to see us be able to participate in [solidarity payments]," said MLS commissioner Don Garber at last August's MLS All-Star Game. "It's not because MLS doesn't want to, it's because there are issues as it relates to the labor laws and antitrust laws in our country that don't fully accept that if compensation is going to someone other than the player that there are issues with that. I want to be very clear, MLS is a winner in the solidarity payment world, and I have no objections to it." Such issues haven't stopped the youth clubs from seeking what they believe is rightfully theirs, and if the DRC finds in favor of Crossfire, the impact on the U.S. youth soccer landscape could be seismic. One source connected with other solidarity payment cases estimates that there are over $3 million worth of claims pending before the DRC, including cases related to Toronto FC midfielder Michael Bradley, now retired Seattle Sounders forward Clint Dempsey, and current Philadelphia Union midfielder Alejandro Bedoya. In addition, a ruling in favor of Crossfire Premier would almost certainly lead to new claims related to training compensation and solidarity payments involving players who have recently moved overseas. www.espn.com/soccer/deandre-yedlin/story/3672912/fifa-panel-to-consider-solidarity-payments-claim-from-deandre-yedlins-youth-club
|
|
|
Post by Soccerhouse on Oct 21, 2018 7:20:14 GMT -5
Should be interesting to follow - Sunil claimed it was against federal law to pay solidarity payments....
|
|
|
Post by crossbar on Oct 21, 2018 9:56:49 GMT -5
Should be interesting to follow - Sunil claimed it was against federal law to pay solidarity payments.... If you read the full article above, Garber says the same thing. He says he’d like MLS to participate, but that they can’t due to certain labor laws. Personally, I’d love to see this happen. As things stand, however, any club that charges me the full cost of participation for my kid isn’t entitled to any sort of payment down the line.
|
|
|
Post by Futsal Gawdess on Oct 21, 2018 11:36:44 GMT -5
I have not read the full article, but I did have a question related also. So do players or their families get back the thousands of $$$ they paid to the local club for "development?"
|
|
|
Post by crossbar on Oct 21, 2018 11:58:55 GMT -5
I have not read the full article, but I did have a question related also. So do players or their families get back the thousands of $$$ they paid to the local club for "development?" That's the thing... We're almost entirely on a pay-for-play model in the USA, so I don't really see how a typical club here gets to make a claim for payment. If the thinking is that solidarity payments help pay for the player's development at earlier stages... Well, the club has *already* been paid (by the family). In the case of a fully funded program like Atlanta United, the club is paying the bills and making the investment, so they can reasonably make a claim for players that came through their system. But for all the other clubs, why should they get paid twice? Give that money to whoever covered the costs of the training... Of course, you can't expect individual clubs to fully fund their programs from top to bottom, as there's little chance of a lower level team ever producing a player that will generate a payment -- and yet we still want to encourage participation at all levels. It thus seems like there would need to be a hybrid model, where the club gets to make a choice as to which players/teams are supported. If they choose to self-fund at least a portion of their program, then they get to claim solidarity payments to recover their investment (plus profit) for those players. If they choose to subsidize a portion of the cost, then they get a portion of the payment, and so on. Even if the youth club is required to refund the payments collected from the family during the kid's time as a youth, there's no incentive for them to move away from pay-for-play. Rather, they'd get to play both sides of the system: collect payments from families and, at worst, give that money back come payday. Why should they get all the upside when the families have been footing the bill all along? If clubs want to play both sides, then it seems like they should split the "winnings" with the family. Not just a refund of prior dues, but a full share in the payment. But really, if they want to continue asking parents to foot the bill during the early years, then they should forego the payments and whatever money is passed down the line should come back to the "investors" (i.e., the parents).
|
|
|
Post by gaprospects on Oct 21, 2018 12:02:49 GMT -5
I mean, let's be real for a minute here. Training compensation doesn't come into play when a player from a youth club signs a contract with a pro team, it comes into play when that player gets sold by said pro team to a different pro team. If you're a player worthy of a seven-figure transfer fee, you've more than made back whatever your family paid in club soccer fees and then some.
|
|
|
Post by crossbar on Oct 21, 2018 12:55:12 GMT -5
Okay, let's keep being real: If the youth club already got paid in full for the training that was provided, why should they get to collect again?
My point is that these sorts of payments, if handled properly, could help to move us away from pay-for-play and further help to ensure that the best players are hitting the pitch, regardless of ability to play.
Sure, scholarships exist, but who is paying for those? The parents of non-scholarship kids. Most clubs aren't really "investing" anything under the current model, so why should they be collecting a return on their non-investment?
|
|
|
Post by atlfutboldad on Oct 21, 2018 13:26:06 GMT -5
I have not read the full article, but I did have a question related also. So do players or their families get back the thousands of $$$ they paid to the local club for "development?" My first thought exactly. The club paid likely ZERO for his development, rather were paid FOR it. If the club gets paid the parents should absolutely sue for every cent they paid the club (and possibly travel expenses as well).
|
|
|
Post by rifle on Oct 21, 2018 14:25:20 GMT -5
Solidarity and training compensation make sense in world football where youth clubs and pro first teams are connected. The payments are meant to reward clubs that produce quality pros. Not every club’s first team can win championships, but ANY club can do a good job training and preparing players for higher levels.
American youth soccer clubs are not built that way. And those who think our men’s national team shortcomings are unrelated, should open their eyes. Pay to play is a system whose first priority is to separate money from willing suckers. Talent that is discovered in a pay to play system happens by chance, not by design.
|
|
|
Post by Soccerhouse on Oct 21, 2018 14:31:47 GMT -5
What ^ said!
|
|
Tom D
Jr. Academy
Posts: 14
|
Post by Tom D on Oct 24, 2018 10:40:13 GMT -5
Lots of good points here. Even though there will be some disagreement over who gets these funds, I think everyone can agree the ability for US clubs (or their investors) to receive PREVIOUSLY UNAVAILABLE FUNDS through solidarity payments would be a positive improvement for the game in our country. These are funds from foreign clubs, and mostly likely will be reinvested in the game here in the US, bringing down costs, creating opportunities, improving facilities, etc.
Plus, maybe most importantly, its motivation for all clubs in the US to develop pro-quality players.
|
|
Tom D
Jr. Academy
Posts: 14
|
Post by Tom D on Oct 24, 2018 10:48:03 GMT -5
Solidarity and training compensation make sense in world football where youth clubs and pro first teams are connected. The payments are meant to reward clubs that produce quality pros. Not every club’s first team can win championships, but ANY club can do a good job training and preparing players for higher levels. American youth soccer clubs are not built that way. And those who think our men’s national team shortcomings are unrelated, should open their eyes. Pay to play is a system whose first priority is to separate money from willing suckers. Talent that is discovered in a pay to play system happens by chance, not by design. And I totally agree with everything said here, but would add that just because currently American clubs are not built this way, like they are in the rest of the world, does not mean that things cannot change and improve. Training compensation and solidarity payments will be a big part of this positive change. But along with these we need promotion and relegation in the US pro system. We need an open system that is based on sporting merit, rewarding those clubs who do well, and giving hope and driving interest and investment into all clubs in all communities across our nation.
|
|
|
Post by mightydawg on Oct 24, 2018 15:03:14 GMT -5
Lots of good points here. Even though there will be some disagreement over who gets these funds, I think everyone can agree the ability for US clubs (or their investors) to receive PREVIOUSLY UNAVAILABLE FUNDS through solidarity payments would be a positive improvement for the game in our country. These are funds from foreign clubs, and mostly likely will be reinvested in the game here in the US, bringing down costs, creating opportunities, improving facilities, etc. Plus, maybe most importantly, its motivation for all clubs in the US to develop pro-quality players. I agree that the money should be returned to the US but to think that costs will every come down is a bit naive. Costs are continuing to rise. A $100,000 solidarity payment is not going to change that. Maybe the money should go to the state soccer organization where the player came from with a directive that the money be used to improve some aspect of the game (inner city fields, referee training, etc)
|
|
Tom D
Jr. Academy
Posts: 14
|
Post by Tom D on Oct 25, 2018 12:51:54 GMT -5
Lots of good points here. Even though there will be some disagreement over who gets these funds, I think everyone can agree the ability for US clubs (or their investors) to receive PREVIOUSLY UNAVAILABLE FUNDS through solidarity payments would be a positive improvement for the game in our country. These are funds from foreign clubs, and mostly likely will be reinvested in the game here in the US, bringing down costs, creating opportunities, improving facilities, etc. Plus, maybe most importantly, its motivation for all clubs in the US to develop pro-quality players. I agree that the money should be returned to the US but to think that costs will every come down is a bit naive. Costs are continuing to rise. A $100,000 solidarity payment is not going to change that. Maybe the money should go to the state soccer organization where the player came from with a directive that the money be used to improve some aspect of the game (inner city fields, referee training, etc) Thanks for the feedback and the chance to discuss this further. I disagree that its naïve. Solidarity payments (and training compensation) are how clubs fund youth development all around the world. Maybe I should have been more specific and said... bringing down costs and creating opportunities for HIGH LEVEL players, (not your average players). Check out this article: blog.3four3.com/2015/09/14/pay-to-play-and-the-link-to-promotion-relegation/And I do not agree with the idea of giving control of the funds to the state soccer association. While those aspects you mentioned are important, I think you have to let the club who developed the high level player control the funds. Otherwise clubs lose a major incentive to develop high level players. That's probably the most important aspect. It will help change the mentality of our soccer culture. Plus the club has proven successful, ie shown they know how to develop high level players, and not only deserve the reward, but are the best place to reinvest those funds if we want to develop more high level players. And I have to say $100,000 would be a massive boost to any local club. Are you connected to the state soccer association?
|
|
|
Post by rifle on Oct 25, 2018 15:53:44 GMT -5
Amen Tom. I’ve posted that 3four3 link here before.
I’m a STH to Atlanta United, and I feel totally conflicted for doing so because MLS is anti competition between clubs... and clubs are the lifeblood of the sport.
Pay to play is not the way to unleash the potential of soccer in this country. It is holding us back. And that’s a shame.
I hope the FIFA panel rules in a way that opens a door that ultimately forces US Soccer to open the pyramid. Until that happens, we’re only going to get more of the same.
|
|
|
Post by mightydawg on Oct 29, 2018 15:51:33 GMT -5
I agree that the money should be returned to the US but to think that costs will every come down is a bit naive. Costs are continuing to rise. A $100,000 solidarity payment is not going to change that. Maybe the money should go to the state soccer organization where the player came from with a directive that the money be used to improve some aspect of the game (inner city fields, referee training, etc) Thanks for the feedback and the chance to discuss this further. I disagree that its naïve. Solidarity payments (and training compensation) are how clubs fund youth development all around the world. Maybe I should have been more specific and said... bringing down costs and creating opportunities for HIGH LEVEL players, (not your average players). Check out this article: blog.3four3.com/2015/09/14/pay-to-play-and-the-link-to-promotion-relegation/And I do not agree with the idea of giving control of the funds to the state soccer association. While those aspects you mentioned are important, I think you have to let the club who developed the high level player control the funds. Otherwise clubs lose a major incentive to develop high level players. That's probably the most important aspect. It will help change the mentality of our soccer culture. Plus the club has proven successful, ie shown they know how to develop high level players, and not only deserve the reward, but are the best place to reinvest those funds if we want to develop more high level players. And I have to say $100,000 would be a massive boost to any local club. Are you connected to the state soccer association? No connection to state soccer association. Just trying to think of ways to use solidarity payments to truly advance soccer in the U.S. Most of the talent eventually ends up at one of the mega clubs (of which my kids are a part of). To say that the money should end up in the mega clubs and that the mega clubs are going to use that money to end pay for play is not realistic. Take Concorde for instance. In the last tax year I could find, Concorde had revenue of $2.5 million. A $100K payment to Concorde would increase its revenue by 4%. I think Concorde is a great program but I find it hard to believe that even if it developed a pro player per year, which is unrealistic, that a 4% increase in revenue would bring down the costs of playing HIGH LEVEL soccer at Concorde. Not picking on Concorde, I think the results for all the mega clubs would be similar. Further, as previously mentioned by others, by and large, it is parents that develop top level talent by paying for the soccer and extra training outside of the team training provided by the club. I want the money back in the US and used in the manner that will most effectively lift the sport of soccer in the U.S. I just don't think that is through the clubs.
|
|
|
Post by Futsal Gawdess on Oct 30, 2018 10:33:13 GMT -5
I think most of us can agree that the jaw dropping costs of travel are what make high level soccer expensive. Not thumbing my nose at the club fees $2000, but the travel portion is what puts a hole in most of our pockets. My suggestion would be to use the profits from US Soccer and solidarity payments to fund travel for the highest level leagues. Now, we can argue about what the highest levels are or should be, but let us just go with DA for boys and ECNL for girls for now. If the clubs continue to offer scholarships for the best of the best or the most needy, then I think that would bring in more good players from different socioeconomic backgrounds and do a lot towards leveling the playing field. Then maybe, just maybe some of our scouts would have the opportunity to see and scout players who were originally prohibited from some of these league games and showcases... FG
|
|
|
Post by Soccerhouse on Oct 30, 2018 11:32:29 GMT -5
Since you mentioned payments etc -- I find it interesting that a player's parent can make payments to a club for 5+ years never missing a payment or being late. Then the very first time this occurs, and for some reason a payment is missed, their player card is pulled and the player is not eligible to play until payment is received ---- Yet, on the flip side, I know players/parents that haven't paid a penny in 5+ years, not even 5 bucks towards coaching fees or travel expenses, zero dollars, and yet, that player never gets threatened to have their player card yanked.
sorry for somewhat changing topics, just a little frustrated on this issue.
|
|
|
Post by olderthandirt on Oct 30, 2018 11:44:54 GMT -5
Since you mentioned payments etc -- I find it interesting that a player's parent can make payments to a club for 5+ years never missing a payment or being late. Then the very first time this occurs, and for some reason a payment is missed, their player card is pulled and the player is not eligible to play until payment is received ---- Yet, on the flip side, I know players/parents that haven't paid a penny in 5+ years, not even 5 bucks towards coaching fees or travel expenses, zero dollars, and yet, that player never gets threatened to have their player card yanked. sorry for somewhat changing topics, just a little frustrated on this issue. "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others." - George Orwell
|
|
|
Post by Futsal Gawdess on Oct 30, 2018 12:26:30 GMT -5
Since you mentioned payments etc -- I find it interesting that a player's parent can make payments to a club for 5+ years never missing a payment or being late. Then the very first time this occurs, and for some reason a payment is missed, their player card is pulled and the player is not eligible to play until payment is received ---- Yet, on the flip side, I know players/parents that haven't paid a penny in 5+ years, not even 5 bucks towards coaching fees or travel expenses, zero dollars, and yet, that player never gets threatened to have their player card yanked. sorry for somewhat changing topics, just a little frustrated on this issue. Let me guess, they are ballers and the team would turn into a pumpkin without them???
|
|
|
Post by cantgetright on Oct 31, 2018 12:32:31 GMT -5
I am sorry, but clubs deserve nothing. Parents pay for everything. Give the parents solidarity payments for all of the payments to clubs, car wear and tear, travel, so on and so forth. Do clubs deserve money for providing a service that they were paid for by the parents? This is the most a$$nine argument ever. If pay for play model is out the window then yes.
|
|
|
Post by toonarmy on Oct 31, 2018 13:19:03 GMT -5
Cantgetright nailed it in a lot less words than I ever could!!
|
|
Tom D
Jr. Academy
Posts: 14
|
Post by Tom D on Oct 31, 2018 15:55:40 GMT -5
Like I said in my original post, the solidarity payments should go to the club (or its investors). And yes, investors are probably the parents, until clubs’ first teams are all fully funded by the clubs. Yes, some pro quality players had parents that paid for their training. But most clubs have “scholarships” that go to players who need financial help, and are usually the best players. I’ll even go out on a limb and say the majority of pro quality players produced in the US these days are on “scholarship” or play for fully funded programs. But if the parents paid for the training, l have no problem reimbursing parents for their expenses and even sharing the reward with them as investors. But to deny the club any reward is counter productive. Try to think about how this changes the mentality of the clubs. Given our current pay to play model, soldarity payments (and training compensation) may be hard for people in the US to understand. But if we want to get world class results, we need to start operating our soccer businesses the same way as countries who are having international sucess, with results as the priority.
|
|