Interesting Tweet on DA

In our case, for 2019-20 it was the difference in my kid making the 07 ECNL team or the 06 2nd team (didn't make the 06 ECNL team). In retrospect i was glad we missed out on the travel/$$$, so no complaints how it worked out.

I guess the theory might be tested next spring, if invited to play in 07 local ECNL games as a trap year player, but she will play SCCL next fall (not trying out for 06 ECNL again until likely 10th grade).

my issue has also always been -- the best of the best of the best aren't even playing DA anymore -- they are homegrowns and playing in the USL.

The primary purpose was to go back to the age mandate the world has and the USA originally had before mid 80s. It's ok if you are chaffed bc your kid is now young, but school year mandate is the weird mandate, not the (original) birth year mandate.

Footyfan, I have two kids who play up an age group, so personally it doesn't really matter to me what the cut off date is. This additional reason (aside from the NT scouting), to align with the rest of the world (even though from what I understand, the rest of the world definitely isn't fully aligned by birth year - it's a bit sporadic), still only affects 1% of the players in the U.S. The other 99% who aren't playing internationally would benefit, for the reasons Straight Red noted, by reverting to a school year or approximate school year cut off date. I'd argue that a decision to benefit the 1% over the 99% would be the weird one.

You seem unconcerned that it has ongoing repercussions. It’s not about that team four years ago that your kid was on being disrupted...

If coed middle school soccer teams coached by a PE teacher are the best answer for 14y/o kids left without a team.. I guess I will leave this topic alone. Sorry for the thread-jack.

Not sure what the abandonment means, but for the last 1/3 of birth year, the team they most of their select soccer with graduates their junior year.

The other fact is that the makeup of first tier youth teams (U19 and below) shows steady drop in number of players by birth month across the calendar year. That is evidence that the both year grouping is simply advantageous to first half of year birthdays. If made flexible by a few months I think you'd see less of a steady decline in participation by birth month.

Assuming the whole point of youth soccer is having fun and developing quality players and people I mean...

You use CAPS LOCK to tell someone not to use CAPS LOCK for emphasis? lol

Numbers declining before birth year mandate:
www.statista.com/statistics/191697/participants-in-outdoor-soccer-in-the-us-since-2006/

But local rec clubs see rise in participation (what??!!! isn't that the group that supposedly quit playing because of birth year???):
medium.com/@bashreve14/youth-soccer-participation-trends-downward-nationwide-d9d7011aa46

Another source that states 1) numbers in decline before BYM, 2) participation in ALL sports were declining, 3) but seeing an increase in numbers again...:
ussoccerfoundation.org/blog/post/after-a-troubling-report-on-youth-soccer-participation-numbers-its-time-for-some-good-news-

To recap:
The sky didn't fall.
No kids were left behind.
Birth year wasn't the cause of decline in numbers.

Stop all the BS and move on.

Lol, Soccernotfootball, this is some of the worst research I have ever seen. Did you read the articles or just cherrypick headlines you thought might help your argument? Your post is fake news at its finest. Taking stuff out of context and trying to make it fit your agenda. And you said stop with the BS and move on. Hysterical. I won't comment on the first link cause it looks like I have to sign-up for something to get the info. Maybe you can copy and paste what it says?

But I'd argue that the last two articles probably do a better job of supporting the exact opposite of what you assert. They both cite the same study which was done 2 years after the age mandate. The study said that over the previous 3 years there was a significant decline in youth soccer participation. 14% decline, about 600,000 kids. Yes, the study supposedly includes 1 year befofe the birth year mandate (I suspect that might have been on purpose to try to avoid the coorelation, but I'm probably a little biased), but there's no way to know for sure ,from the article anyway since the stats from the 3 year study are lumped together, which of those 3 years had more decline (the 1 before the mandate or the 2 after the mandate). But I don't think you can use the study to say that there was a decline in participation before the birth year mandate.

What is really funny, however, is that you use the articles to say there has been an increase in particpation: link 2 you say an increase at the rec level; and link 3 you say just a recent increase in general. If you actually read the articles you would know that the increases mentioned are for specific local programs and not an actual increases in rec programs or programs in general. And ironically, the last article is about increased participation in an afterschool soccer program (wow, kids wanting to play with school friends, surprising).

Listen, we know you like it that way it is - probably what you think is best for your kids. I get it. Personally, for my kids, I don't care. They both play up an age group anyway cut off dates don't really affect them right now (they might for my oldest when she is a senior, I guess, but I'm honestly not worried about it). But I really don't see how anyone who wants what's best for youth soccer on the whole, could argue that a bith year cut off date is better than a school year cut off date. I've been around the youth game for a very long time, and I personally saw more kids quit that year than I ever have. As Straightred said, you still haven't given a single reason why birth year is better. I'm pretty sure it's because there aren't any (except for the 1% who are playing internationally or trying to make the national team).

You are pointing out a problem that exists in both mandates: the older kids in the year range are preferred by coaches/systems. Is that what you meant to show? That is not solved by school year mandate. I believe that is what bio-banding is for.

My only issue with bio-banding is that USSF created it after the birth-year mandate but it only applied to USSF DA. Similar to DA's "you can't play school soccer unless you go to a small private school and you can play with a waiver blah blah blah"...rule.

Most people I know mock bio-banding, but it isn't a bad idea at the highest levels... But the unicorns are already faster than everyone else and playing up a year or two, so it is very unclear what the demand for bio-banding truly is.

Bio-banding is a complex and very subjective process... and unrelated to the birth/school year issue.

Good article from SA in Jan 2020:

U.S. Soccer should retreat from youth soccer
by Mike Woitalla @mikewoitalla, Jan 18, 2020
The soccer from the young teenage boys thoroughly impresses me – as does the entire scene at the Boys Development Academy games that I check out from time to time.


Rarely is the ball mindlessly booted upfield. Defenders pass to each other, and often back to the goalkeepers, as they try work it to the midfielders. If they fail and the opponents score, the coaches don’t get upset. They say something encouraging.

There’s an emphasis on playing in a way that might be risky for the final score – but is important for the long-term development.

Neither the coaches nor the parents scream at the kids. When advising their players, the coaches do so in a civil, concise manner, usually when the ball’s out of play.

I notice a better flow to these games compared to ones I’ve been reffing or coaching in other leagues. At the U-12s in DA play, subbing had been done on the fly. What an excellent idea. In all games, play isn't constantly interrupted in the manner that I find so irritating – such as one coach subbing players a minute after the other team subs. Or players getting replaced after ridiculously short stints in the game.

The fit referees traverse the field, signal and gesture just as an assessor would want them to. They obviously take pride in their work, taking their tasks seriously – as if they’re aiming to climb the officiating ladder.

Watching Boys DA U-13s and U-14s – and U-12s before that age group was eliminated this season – I see a remarkable difference compared to so much of American youth soccer I’ve watched in the past. I had been accustomed to youth teams with one or two outstanding players, some good players, and many who simply lacked technique or a sense of tactics. All the players on these DA teams might not end up stars, but the overall skill throughout the rosters is certainly at a higher level that what we watched a couple of decades ago.

U.S. Soccer launched the Boys Development Academy in 2007 as a response to, in a nutshell, U.S. youth national coaches’ concern about the wild west landscape of the American youth game. Between myriad state, regional and national competitions, showcase tournaments and ODP events, young elite American players were overloaded with games – far too few of them being “meaningful competition.”
A Development Academy with elite clubs set up by U.S. Soccer would emphasize player development over results, and make a shift from an “overburdened, game emphasis” model to a “meaningful training and competition” model. U.S. Soccer, whose previous involvement in the youth game was limited mostly to running the youth national team program, had in 1999 started a residency program for its boys U-17s in Bradenton, Florida. It imagined that top clubs around the nation would put elite teenage players in a similar day-to-day player development environment.

The DA’s creation coincided with MLS mandating its clubs field youth programs. The progress since has included a significant increase in young Latino players reaching the higher levels of American soccer. The pro clubs had proved more receptive to Latin-style players. The funding of youth academies by MLS teams and the necessity of amateur youth clubs to scholarship players in order to remain competitive dramatically increased opportunities for players who had historically been prevented from playing elite youth soccer because of the cost.

Indeed, one can point to many positives that have come out of U.S. Soccer’s ambitious DA program. It does deserve credit for helping raise the level of players, coaches, and even referees

But the landscape and soccer culture in the USA has changed significantly since 2007. And now the Boys DA and the manner in which U.S. Soccer is involved in youth soccer demands re-evaluation.

The professional game has grown dramatically. MLS fielded 13 teams in 2007. It will kick off 2020 with 26 teams. The number of Division II clubs tripled as USL Championship sets to field 35 teams in 2020.

The DA, which started with U-16 and U-18, added age groups and more doubled the number of clubs from the 62 in 2007 to 150.

And U.S. Soccer has ramped up the degree to which it dictates, regulates and restricts.

That created another side to the idyllic scene I started with. Those boys are banned from high school soccer and the younger ones can’t even play middle school soccer. Since the high school ban was implemented in 2012, for how many boys was that a worthwhile sacrifice?

And if a DA kid gets caught donning his high school jersey, he gets suspended. U.S. Soccer punishes kids for wanting to play more, for seeking different soccer experiences. Gone are the days of teenagers, if they’re in the DA, playing in adult amateur leagues, like Clint Dempsey in Texas Latin Leagues.

The restrictions may have been prompted by good intentions -- six-game weekend tournaments are obviously too much -- but it now seems like U.S. Soccer’s leaders in Chicago think only they know what’s best for every elite young player in every corner of the country. Some of their mandates make running youth clubs more expensive when that’s the last thing we need at the grassroots for American kids and their families.

U.S. Soccer requires at least a B or A licenses for a coach to serve as a head coach of a DA team. I am quite sure anyone reading this knows coaches without a USSF B license who wouldn’t ruin 12-year-old players, and many who would do a fine job. That licensing requirement adds significant costs, because the licenses are expensive to get and the coaches who have them can demand higher fees. Many clubs who were enticed by DA status – and courted by U.S. Soccer because it needed to fill out the schedules of full clubs at the younger age groups -- are struggling financially more than ever.

Other U.S. Soccer staff and facility requirements, and travel requirements strain a club’s budget. U.S. Soccer is supposed to serve all of its members, but it has created a system in which many clubs around the nation have to suck resources away from the majority of its players to fund the minority who play DA.

But it was the boss of a rich MLS club who told me it was absurd to send a team 3,000 miles to play in a three-game showcase.

The architects of the DA’s creation are no longer involved with U.S. Soccer and it has changed since the launch, when the idea was to spur better soccer experiences for elite players, limit travel and alleviate pay to play. Now the DA travel requirements for many clubs, especially since the horribly executed tiering system was introduced, can be as arduous or worse than what existed pre-DA.

The areas of player development that the DA was supposed to address do not require a national league.

Not forcing all the DA clubs across the country to play on the same schedule would address several issues. For one, create possibilities of managing a combination of elite club ball and high school play. Giving clubs the freedom to navigate the high school decision would actually benefit some players. High school soccer is not nearly as awful as the folks at U.S. Soccer have you believe. It exposes players to the pressure and exhilaration of playing in front of crowds and puts players from ages 14 to 18 -- from freshmen to seniors -- on the same field.

It’s one thing for a professional club that doesn’t charge to require its players to skip high school ball for long-shot dreams -- and another for U.S. Soccer to force that restriction on every player across the entire country who wants to play in its league. In fact, it’s sad how U.S. Soccer has dismissed instead of helped improve one major part of the youth game that’s not expensive for players and their families.

The geographically enormous USA – with extreme differences in weather and demography -- is not suited for a one-size-fits-all approach to youth soccer. And what disastrous outcomes is U.S. Soccer imagining were it to trust clubs and leagues around the nation with more autonomy?

Even if only half the leagues and clubs around the nation got it "right," the populous of players on a promising track would still exceed that of many nations that produce world-class players.

I’d also argue that we wouldn’t want all our clubs and players to be coached the same way. Our players need to cope with different types of opponents. There’s nothing close to a guarantee that the small group of experts in Chicago have the formula to develop world-class players, as the DA slogan claims it’s doing. I’d venture that there are youth club leaders out there better equipped to judge how to get the best out of young talent in their area.

The Federation providing more guidance and supervision to youth soccer in 2007 was a smart move. And it's thanks much to U.S. Soccer creating the DA that now, in 2020, it’s safe for U.S. Soccer to retreat from youth game.

It’s time to trust the clubs to create their own roadmap and to allow for more regionalization.



The game has evolved so much in the USA that what impressed about the DA games will still happen without U.S. Soccer’s management. I'm thinking of the soccer at the DA’s highest level – for example, recent LA Galaxy, FC Dallas, NYCFC, Seattle Sounders performances. Names such as Jesus Ferreira, Paxton Pomykal, Brandon Servania, Efrain Alvarez, Uly Llanez, Alex Mendez, Gio Reyna, Alfonso Ocampo Chavez, Chris Richards, Weston McKennie …

Such players may have emerged thanks to U.S. Soccer providing a platform that MLS clubs could conveniently take advantage of. (U.S. Soccer and MLS should be extremely grateful for and reward in some manner the amateur clubs that provided the foundation.)

Now, players like the ones listed above no longer need U.S. Soccer to provide the pathway. It’s time for the pros, MLS and USL, to provide the resources. Time for U.S. Soccer to stop trying to balance the needs of MLS clubs and amateur clubs, only to insult the amateur clubs and leave MLS clubs unsatisfied.

And those players I watched enjoying those polished facilities, with fine reffing, competing against teams aiming to play a similar way? That can still happen without U.S. Soccer running things. Plus the boys could benefit from, at other times, playing in different environments, against different formations, different styles.

The way U.S. Soccer is running the DA now, neither the MLS clubs nor the amateur clubs are happy. The various criticisms include too much travel, too much uneven competition, too structured, too many regulations. Granted, American soccer will always have challenges U.S. Soccer can’t solve and isn’t at fault for. But MLS, USL clubs and the top amateur clubs are capable of navigating a way for their young players to get suitable competition.

By no longer running the DA, U.S. Soccer can dedicate its resources to the youth national team program and scouting. It could create training centers around the country for potential young national team players to convene on a regular basis without having to travel far or spending too much time away from their clubs, family and school.

Staying above the fray of the youth turf wars increases the chances of U.S. Soccer regaining the confidence of its membership. Reallocating resources that went to the DA to expanding the scouting network improves the chances of discovering talent from less traditional areas. The massive youth and pro game that U.S. Soccer helped create is worthy of and prepared to thrive with more autonomy. And the best will rise to the top.

Also - all of this argument about 'playing with your friends from school' is bullshizat, and you all know it. Once you leave the local rec league (where you'd actually be playing with the kids from your school) and go to club.. that goes out the window.

Neither of my kids has had a classmate on their team once they went to academy. I think in all the years my kids have played, they've only had one or two teammates who had classmates on the teams.