|
|
Post by atlchiefs on Dec 6, 2023 15:33:40 GMT -5
As I come to the twilight of my extended coaching time within this great game of ours, I wonder if we're not killing the game, if only albeit slowly. And I have more questions than answers.
For me, it starts with recent questions from parents as well as my club's history surrounding increasing costs to play the game. Clubs have grown into full-blown businesses with enormous overhead. Affiliated state and national organizations extract their pound of flesh through registrations, coaches face increasing licensing costs with continuing educations costs (which by the way has gotten out of hand), referees see rising licensing and required equipment costs, tournament costs have become unbelievable, players participate in private training on-the-side to keep up with the Jones', decent boots cost a small fortune with virtually no life span, and I'm certain I'm leaving out a whole host of other costs that have spiraled out of control.
Shortening a longer rant, why does this game, at a competitive level, cost so many thousands of dollars to play? What happened to the parks being accessible for all? What happened to throwing out a couple of shirts, backpacks, whatever to fashion a couple of goals and just playing the game? What happened to coaches giving back for love of the game? How many kids aren't playing due to the costs, and not just under-privileged kids?
Alternatively, in so far as some of your, other forumites, questions and threads about why the USA national teams don't fare and or develop nearly as well today as maybe they once did, I'm thinking that point might be rooted in the notion that it seems that we have fewer kids playing the game here at home.
For me, I would love to see this great game grow. And to grow, it's my contention that we must somehow lower the costs associated with playing. But what do I know.
|
|
|
|
Post by flamengo100 on Dec 6, 2023 15:53:09 GMT -5
There is a new show on Showtime called "The World According to Football" and the second episode focuses on the US Pay to Play system. It's hosted by Trevor Noah and pretty interesting as it outlined the history of the pay to play system .
|
|
|
|
Post by dabe on Dec 6, 2023 17:52:10 GMT -5
Sad that I didn't have to read the explanation of the question to come up with my resounding "Yes".
Many people assume that only children who are getting free/reduced lunch are being left out. As I have said many times before on this forum those children especially in Atlanta, are in my opinion a gold mine of untapped potential, talent, grit, and so much more. It is all too often the working middle class that is forgotten. Families who can afford a club's tuition so they do not qualify for financial aid, but who cannot afford the travel costs, tournament fees, uniform costs on top of everything else. Single parents who cannot take off work. Single parents with multiple children who can take off work, but would be required to pay additional childcare or bring their other children with them. Two parent households who both work outside of the home.
For example, a cross country trip to nationals is so out of the realm of possibilities for the average American family, it's absurd. Team meetings and practices during the summer being held during the work day is incredibly difficult for players whose parents work. It is the little things that have cultivated this elitist attitude toward the sport.
This isn't the case for Football and Basketball, and to avoid the incredibly frustrating back and forth about why that it is, I will digress to this:
As a country we had the opportunity to use the USWNT's equal pay fight as a time to try and create equity for all players, at all levels and we failed. And with every check I sign toward another trip, or fee, I fear we are getting closer and closer to reaching a point of no return :/
|
|
|
|
Post by lajolla39 on Dec 6, 2023 19:08:42 GMT -5
Costs are out of control but it's also parents that buy into the hype that if you're not on the top team you won't get the training needed to play at the highest level.
The truth is while you can teach Soccer IQ you can't teach speed, + natural athletic ability. Until you've actually seen high level natural athletic ability you don't understand why training alone isn't a "path to the pros". Some players are just naturally gifted and no matter what your kid does to train it won't matter because the naturally gifted player will always have an advantage.
My youngest is a 2016 + she's currently playing rec. We've had to deal with multiple coaches asking us to go to "competitive tryouts" we finally gave in + she went + did well. After the tryout club leadership announced "don't worry about getting on a team because they're planning to have FOUR COMPETITIVE teams". So instead of having 1 competitive team which probably costs 3k per player they're going to have FOUR! I guarantee that 3 of the teams will suck and 1 will be OK.
Unfortunately (for me) where the competitive teams practice is 5 minutes from my house. It would end up costing more to drive 45 min each way to play for a different club.
Sigh... Another annoying thing is that one of the competitive coaches tole my daughter to "not use her arms as much" when playing against others and in one on one's. WTH? What coach tells a player to stop being so aggressive? So stupid, especially when coaching girls. Now she's afraid to use her arms to push off.
|
|
|
|
Post by atlsoccer123 on Dec 7, 2023 0:30:22 GMT -5
Absolutely. At least for youth soccer. Club soccer is a joke and only about $$$. It's sad that people buy into the scheme and families spend the money for their kids. The percentage of players that grab that scholarship somewhere worthy is low...and by then they are burned out. Chasing that scholarship while spending thousands each year makes no sense.
|
|
|
|
Post by atlnoleg on Dec 7, 2023 7:29:28 GMT -5
The thing about playing outside of club is what hits home as much as pay to play. Very few kids under high school age have the access to playing pickup organically. When I say organically, I mean on their own, with their friends, no parents involved to organize. I'm sure many of us posting here are old enough to remember when it was normal for kids to gather on their own and pick teams and play sports. One of the more frustrating things as a parent of competitive soccer players is the lack of free play for them. We even live near a brand new Station Soccer and kids who want to play have to hop the fence to use it. So far they turn a blind eye, but I'm sure they'll start cracking down soon. So if you are serious about playing you are funneled into this system that requires more and more funding the further along you get.
|
|
|
|
Post by rifle on Dec 7, 2023 7:54:36 GMT -5
Definitely.
Example: Tournaments used to cost $500 in 2010. How much today?
I don’t begrudge anyone from trying to earn a living but coaching kids simply shouldn’t be a full time job. I’m certain the training fees have gone up exponentially as well since there will always be more willing suckers ready to fund the dream. By the time you realize what’s up, your kid is aged out. Rinse and repeat.
|
|
rotgg
Jr. Academy
Posts: 90
|
Post by rotgg on Dec 7, 2023 9:48:57 GMT -5
Yes
|
|
gob31
Jr. Academy
Posts: 26
|
Post by gob31 on Dec 7, 2023 13:01:05 GMT -5
Absolutely. At least for youth soccer. Club soccer is a joke and only about $$$. It's sad that people buy into the scheme and families spend the money for their kids. The percentage of players that grab that scholarship somewhere worthy is low...and by then they are burned out. Chasing that scholarship while spending thousands each year makes no sense. If a parent is paying for club soccer so that their kid will get a college scholarship, they are completely wasting their money. Even if a kid gets a scholarship, it's almost certainly going to only be a partial (only 9.9 scholarships for an average college roster size of 30) and it's not likely going to be at a school they truly want to attend. If "free" college is the goal, stop paying for soccer, invest that money, and then have enough to pay for college outright, at a good school. The job market isn't going to be impressed that your kid got a 30% scholarship and degree from East Nowhere State. |
|
|
|
Post by gobirds on Dec 7, 2023 13:42:13 GMT -5
So far, we've opted out of 'the system' for my U12 son. We started in rec league soccer when he was 8 years old and were fortunate enough to land on a team with a quality coach (former player), quality players, and the team has stayed together since (some people come and go but mostly the same kids). Much of the competition isn't great, but there are a couple of other decent teams we meet a few times during the season. It's enjoyable for everyone, no travel schedule, very affordable and is how youth sports should be IMO.
He also played on his middle school soccer team this year and the school is stacked with club kids. There are a couple kids who are in that group that are clearly superior players and I can understand why they might play travel ball and pay the expense. But my anecdotal perception is that the vast majority of club kids aren't clearly better than top rec league players (my son started over a number of them for his MS team). I truly believe that if the majority of those kids played rec league, it'd be an ideal league for 90% of young players. One problem with rec league is that you need volunteer parent coaches and no parents want to volunteer for any youth activities anymore. Everyone is looking to drop their kids off and pick them up. I have no proof, but I believe it to be a major contributor to why youth sports has changed so much from when we were kids to now. Parents would rather pay to not be involved. When my kids were in cub scouts, the pack had a policy that family needed to be involved and volunteer for something. There was also a way to pay extra funds to opt out of volunteering. It amazed me that most parents would rather pay extra than be involved with their kids.
We do pay for some supplemental summer camps and training (like RDS), but they are all reasonably priced. We'll see what happens as he gets older. We've gone to club tryouts a couple times and been offered spots but I don't really see the need to switch unless something stops working.
|
|
|
|
Post by atlnoleg on Dec 7, 2023 14:04:53 GMT -5
So far, we've opted out of 'the system' for my U12 son. We started in rec league soccer when he was 8 years old and were fortunate enough to land on a team with a quality coach (former player), quality players, and the team has stayed together since (some people come and go but mostly the same kids). Much of the competition isn't great, but there are a couple of other decent teams we meet a few times during the season. It's enjoyable for everyone, no travel schedule, very affordable and is how youth sports should be IMO. He also played on his middle school soccer team this year and the school is stacked with club kids. There are a couple kids who are in that group that are clearly superior players and I can understand why they might play travel ball and pay the expense. But my anecdotal perception is that the vast majority of club kids aren't clearly better than top rec league players (my son started over a number of them for his MS team). I truly believe that if the majority of those kids played rec league, it'd be an ideal league for 90% of young players. One problem with rec league is that you need volunteer parent coaches and no parents want to volunteer for any youth activities anymore. Everyone is looking to drop their kids off and pick them up. I have no proof, but I believe it to be a major contributor to why youth sports has changed so much from when we were kids to now. Parents would rather pay to not be involved. When my kids were in cub scouts, the pack had a policy that family needed to be involved and volunteer for something. There was also a way to pay extra funds to opt out of volunteering. It amazed me that most parents would rather pay extra than be involved with their kids. We do pay for some supplemental summer camps and training (like RDS), but they are all reasonably priced. We'll see what happens as he gets older. We've gone to club tryouts a couple times and been offered spots but I don't really see the need to switch unless something stops working. I wish rec was better. My kids did it to get their feet wet in soccer, but it was really bad--like Ladybugs meets Kicking and Screaming bad. I don't know where good rec programs are, but they weren't in our area. |
|
|
|
Post by rpsoccer on Dec 7, 2023 14:19:22 GMT -5
So far, we've opted out of 'the system' for my U12 son. We started in rec league soccer when he was 8 years old and were fortunate enough to land on a team with a quality coach (former player), quality players, and the team has stayed together since (some people come and go but mostly the same kids). Much of the competition isn't great, but there are a couple of other decent teams we meet a few times during the season. It's enjoyable for everyone, no travel schedule, very affordable and is how youth sports should be IMO. He also played on his middle school soccer team this year and the school is stacked with club kids. There are a couple kids who are in that group that are clearly superior players and I can understand why they might play travel ball and pay the expense. But my anecdotal perception is that the vast majority of club kids aren't clearly better than top rec league players (my son started over a number of them for his MS team). I truly believe that if the majority of those kids played rec league, it'd be an ideal league for 90% of young players. One problem with rec league is that you need volunteer parent coaches and no parents want to volunteer for any youth activities anymore. Everyone is looking to drop their kids off and pick them up. I have no proof, but I believe it to be a major contributor to why youth sports has changed so much from when we were kids to now. Parents would rather pay to not be involved. When my kids were in cub scouts, the pack had a policy that family needed to be involved and volunteer for something. There was also a way to pay extra funds to opt out of volunteering. It amazed me that most parents would rather pay extra than be involved with their kids. We do pay for some supplemental summer camps and training (like RDS), but they are all reasonably priced. We'll see what happens as he gets older. We've gone to club tryouts a couple times and been offered spots but I don't really see the need to switch unless something stops working. I think the benefit of a "select" team is that your kid will be challenged by stronger or more technical kids, that at the end will increase your kid soccer level. Personally, I feel comfortable in the competitive level where my daughter is, SCCL. It is less expensive than ECNL* for sure, ECNL means around 10 thousand to 20 thousand (air fare, hotels, meals, tournament fees, club fees, private sessions, etc) per year, and that is insane. SCCL in the other hand is less travel, I am certainly not paying 10 thousand per year, not even close, and my kid is doing private sessions, RDS, and some of those college IDs. SCCL is only local teams around Atlanta and the suburbs, also if your kid is good they can be invited to have extra games with teams above their age, mine is playing her age and a 2 years older team. Would I put my daughter in an ECNL* team? Only if she really wants to, and she shows the commitment of working for it. The soccer level of some ECNL teams is well above any SCCL team, and it is not a surprise since some of those kids train 2+ hours per day, 5 days a week, and play on weekends. I coached Rec, and I agree that there are kids, in the early ages 10 to 12, that due their physicality or soccer ability can compete with a select player at their age, to those I recommended to jump into a select team where they could find teammates that could challenge them. But eventually the select player will win over the Rec player. There is no way to compare training; 1 to 2 hrs per week in Rec to 10 hrs+ per week in Select. |
|
|
|
Post by newposter on Dec 7, 2023 16:07:49 GMT -5
So far, we've opted out of 'the system' for my U12 son. We started in rec league soccer when he was 8 years old and were fortunate enough to land on a team with a quality coach (former player), quality players, and the team has stayed together since (some people come and go but mostly the same kids). Much of the competition isn't great, but there are a couple of other decent teams we meet a few times during the season. It's enjoyable for everyone, no travel schedule, very affordable and is how youth sports should be IMO. He also played on his middle school soccer team this year and the school is stacked with club kids. There are a couple kids who are in that group that are clearly superior players and I can understand why they might play travel ball and pay the expense. But my anecdotal perception is that the vast majority of club kids aren't clearly better than top rec league players (my son started over a number of them for his MS team). I truly believe that if the majority of those kids played rec league, it'd be an ideal league for 90% of young players. One problem with rec league is that you need volunteer parent coaches and no parents want to volunteer for any youth activities anymore. Everyone is looking to drop their kids off and pick them up. I have no proof, but I believe it to be a major contributor to why youth sports has changed so much from when we were kids to now. Parents would rather pay to not be involved. When my kids were in cub scouts, the pack had a policy that family needed to be involved and volunteer for something. There was also a way to pay extra funds to opt out of volunteering. It amazed me that most parents would rather pay extra than be involved with their kids. We do pay for some supplemental summer camps and training (like RDS), but they are all reasonably priced. We'll see what happens as he gets older. We've gone to club tryouts a couple times and been offered spots but I don't really see the need to switch unless something stops working. I wish rec was better. My kids did it to get their feet wet in soccer, but it was really bad--like Ladybugs meets Kicking and Screaming bad. I don't know where good rec programs are, but they weren't in our area. So true! Bottom line is, rec soccer is just for fun and your player may enjoy that environment. For players who are just more athletic and clearly better, the rec environment will just frustrate them. Those players need to be coached by A license coaches at the Big 5 and train/play against players of their talent level and even better so that they are pushed and their need for competition is met. |
|
|
|
Post by rifle on Dec 7, 2023 18:50:03 GMT -5
So far, we've opted out of 'the system' for my U12 son. We started in rec league soccer when he was 8 years old and were fortunate enough to land on a team with a quality coach (former player), quality players, and the team has stayed together since (some people come and go but mostly the same kids). Much of the competition isn't great, but there are a couple of other decent teams we meet a few times during the season. It's enjoyable for everyone, no travel schedule, very affordable and is how youth sports should be IMO. He also played on his middle school soccer team this year and the school is stacked with club kids. There are a couple kids who are in that group that are clearly superior players and I can understand why they might play travel ball and pay the expense. But my anecdotal perception is that the vast majority of club kids aren't clearly better than top rec league players (my son started over a number of them for his MS team). I truly believe that if the majority of those kids played rec league, it'd be an ideal league for 90% of young players. One problem with rec league is that you need volunteer parent coaches and no parents want to volunteer for any youth activities anymore. Everyone is looking to drop their kids off and pick them up. I have no proof, but I believe it to be a major contributor to why youth sports has changed so much from when we were kids to now. Parents would rather pay to not be involved. When my kids were in cub scouts, the pack had a policy that family needed to be involved and volunteer for something. There was also a way to pay extra funds to opt out of volunteering. It amazed me that most parents would rather pay extra than be involved with their kids. We do pay for some supplemental summer camps and training (like RDS), but they are all reasonably priced. We'll see what happens as he gets older. We've gone to club tryouts a couple times and been offered spots but I don't really see the need to switch unless something stops working. This is the way. Truly. I am doubtful but I hope your kid can do the same in HS. Select should be selective rather than just “take everyone willing to pay”. It’s gotten ridiculous. |
|
|
|
Post by atlantagray on Dec 8, 2023 8:26:06 GMT -5
I wish rec was better. My kids did it to get their feet wet in soccer, but it was really bad--like Ladybugs meets Kicking and Screaming bad. I don't know where good rec programs are, but they weren't in our area. So true! Bottom line is, rec soccer is just for fun and your player may enjoy that environment. For players who are just more athletic and clearly better, the rec environment will just frustrate them. Those players need to be coached by A license coaches at the Big 5 and train/play against players of their talent level and even better so that they are pushed and their need for competition is met. Well said- clear and concise. Simply, a child's competitive needs should be met. But, that's the crux of a thread like this; how are those needs to be met without a proper centralized I.D. system and clearing house for top players? |
|
