DMN Girls DA Story

Devil's advocate.

1) Parents pay for their kid to go to private school, kid gets into a great college because they have good grades and even receive a partial scholarship. When they end up working for NASA is the private school going to ask NASA to pay them because they educated the kid, when they were already paid to educate the kid?

2) Parent pays for their kids piano lessons when they are young and they become a world famous musician. Is the piano teacher going to ask for a percentage of their concert receipts because they taught the kid, when they were already paid to teach the kid piano lessons?

3) Your kid plays high school baseball and is a good player but not great. Parent decides to pay for private hitting lessons and then he starts tearing it up. He gets drafted in the first round and signs a good contract. Does the hitting instructor want to be paid because he made the kid a better hitter?

Your argument is a joke.

Now if the club pays to develop the players, parents can't say much!

slrsoccer wrote:

AtThePitch wrote:

The money is owed to the parent in the US, not the club, unless fully funded by the club.  We the parents foot the bills, not the clubs.

I guess I don't quite understand the logic in this.  Would you use this same logic for other things that you have invested in your kids?

I'll give you some examples.

1)  You pay for your kid to go to private school, they get into a great college because they have good grades and even receive a partial scholarship.  When they end up working for NASA are you going to ask NASA to pay you because you are the one that spent the money on the great private school that ultimately shaped your kid?

2)  You pay for your kids piano lessons when they are young and they become a world famous musician.  Are you going to ask for a percentage of their concert receipts because you are the one that footed the bill for the piano lessons?

3)  Your kid plays high school baseball and is a good player but not great.  You decide to pay for private hitting lessons and then he starts tearing it up.  He gets drafted in the first round and signs a good contract.  Are you going to want to be paid because you paid for the private hitting lessons?

As parents, you are in complete control over what you choose to invest in on behalf of your child.  Whether it be school, athletics, music or acting classes, your investments is a means to develop them.  You did not develop them, your money is what enabled them to develop.  Professional clubs pay fees for developing youth players not fees to reimburse people for paying to be developed.

The only way this sport grows in the US is if youth clubs are incentivized to develop players for the highest level.  When and only when that happens, they will be judged by how many YNT and professionals they have had come through their club and not by what place they are in the standings.  This is the single most important thing to take soccer in the US to the next level.

If this happens, the clubs will be able to use any funds they generate and reduce or get rid of the financial burden of the parents.  But until then, it is a simple decision that you have to make on behalf of your kids - invest in them or not.

I ask this question with all due respect...

Do you understand how the financial side of soccer on the global scale works?

I'll provide an example.

John Doe begins his career at XYZ FC in england. XYZ FC provides coaching, travel, etc... at no cost to the parent. John Doe plays for XYZ for his formative years.

John Doe is noticed by Manchester United and sign him to his first pro contract. At Manchester United he shines, and is eventually sold to Real Madrid for 80 million pounds paid to Manchester United.

Manchester United is legally required to pay XYZ FC a percentage of that 80 million pounds (I believe it's 5%). That money is paid because of the years of investment XYZ spent developing that player.

Here in the US we the parents invest in the child. We pay for their expenses. Say you spend 15 years paying for your child to develop. They sign their first pro contract with FC dallas. 2 years later fcd sells his rights to Anderecht for 6million dollars.

Who spent all the years investing in the development. The club, or the parents? I'm not saying that the parents have to get the money, but how about the player. Put it back into their family. Or should it be the club that made money all those years and then capitalized again when the rights are sold.

This game financially is very different from all the others.

THANK YOU. It's the dumbest argument ever.

Clubs should not be compensated for something they were paid for. This will not spur them on to develop players. Why would they even bother. They could just sit back let mom and day pay them the fat checks and if some kid happens to make it they can cash in. This is whats known as no skin in the game. Dump the cost onto the club and now they have a need to get their money back out of the investment. They can then only succeed by producing kids that succeed.

AtThePitch wrote:

slrsoccer wrote:

AtThePitch wrote:

The money is owed to the parent in the US, not the club, unless fully funded by the club.  We the parents foot the bills, not the clubs.

I guess I don't quite understand the logic in this.  Would you use this same logic for other things that you have invested in your kids?

I'll give you some examples.

1)  You pay for your kid to go to private school, they get into a great college because they have good grades and even receive a partial scholarship.  When they end up working for NASA are you going to ask NASA to pay you because you are the one that spent the money on the great private school that ultimately shaped your kid?

2)  You pay for your kids piano lessons when they are young and they become a world famous musician.  Are you going to ask for a percentage of their concert receipts because you are the one that footed the bill for the piano lessons?

3)  Your kid plays high school baseball and is a good player but not great.  You decide to pay for private hitting lessons and then he starts tearing it up.  He gets drafted in the first round and signs a good contract.  Are you going to want to be paid because you paid for the private hitting lessons?

As parents, you are in complete control over what you choose to invest in on behalf of your child.  Whether it be school, athletics, music or acting classes, your investments is a means to develop them.  You did not develop them, your money is what enabled them to develop.  Professional clubs pay fees for developing youth players not fees to reimburse people for paying to be developed.

The only way this sport grows in the US is if youth clubs are incentivized to develop players for the highest level.  When and only when that happens, they will be judged by how many YNT and professionals they have had come through their club and not by what place they are in the standings.  This is the single most important thing to take soccer in the US to the next level.

If this happens, the clubs will be able to use any funds they generate and reduce or get rid of the financial burden of the parents.  But until then, it is a simple decision that you have to make on behalf of your kids - invest in them or not.

I ask this question with all due respect...

Do you understand how the financial side of soccer on the global scale works?

I'll provide an example.

John Doe begins his career at XYZ FC in england.  XYZ FC provides coaching, travel, etc... at no cost to the parent. John Doe plays for XYZ for his formative years.

John Doe is noticed by Manchester United and sign him to his first pro contract.  At Manchester United he shines, and is eventually sold to Real Madrid for 80 million pounds paid to Manchester United.  

Manchester United is legally required to pay XYZ FC a percentage of that 80 million pounds (I believe it's 5%).  That money is paid because of the years of investment XYZ spent developing that player.  

Here in the US we the parents invest in the child. We pay for their expenses. Say you spend 15 years paying for your child to develop. They sign their first pro contract with FC dallas. 2 years later fcd sells his rights to Anderecht for 6million dollars.  

Who spent all the years investing in the development. The club, or the parents? I'm not saying that the parents have to get the money, but how about the player. Put it back into their family. Or should it be the club that made money all those years and then capitalized again when the rights are sold.  

This game financially is very different from all the others.

You are comparing apples to oranges. We don't live in Europe and our structure isn't the same, in any way, shape or form. If you want to change the system we are mired in then fine, but our system is never going to dictate the rules already in place for player transactions around the world.

We have to start somewhere and unless you can come up with a way that clubs can generate enough revenue to offset the cost of free academies, I don't see another way.

Academies across the world are set up to have the best of the best, one or two teams max at even the youngest age groups. They have a quality over quantity thought process and we have a quantity over quality. Let's be honest, there are parents paying thousands of dollars per year for kids at U12 that will just flat out never make it - anywhere. Clubs across the world view players as investments and clubs in the US view players as revenue. Please let me know how we change the clubs view of players in the US to investments instead of revenue? What current incentive does any club not affiliated with an MLS team have to churn out good players? A trophy case? A section of accomplishments on their website?

If you truly want to improve the atmosphere and produce great players then you have to weed out the ones that don't belong. If you can find a way to reward clubs that are producing great talents then they can reduce fees, which puts those clubs that still charge higher fees and don't develop out of business. However, even many of our MLS clubs aren't financially stable enough to fund the entire academy the way it is set up now...and many are a long way away from being able to do so.

Comparing our model to that of others around the world is a waste of time. There are great youth academies around the world that are completely funded by the selling of their youth academy players. At some point in time they were all funded by the gate receipts, sponsorship deals and the revenue generated by the first team. Someone has to foot the initial bill until the academy can survive on its own by producing players and being compensated for them. Here in the US, it just so happens to be the parents that are footing the initial bill.

My point is that at some point in time every academy started with an investment by someone. Be it the owner of a team, a sponsor or a former player. That investment is what got the academy off the ground. Developing players that could in turn into transfer fees or solidarity payments is what keeps academies going after an initial investment. Here in the US we are still in the first phase, and will never get out of the first phase until the clubs can financially operate without charging parents dues. But when you don't charge parents dues, the revenue still has to come from somewhere? Maybe if Bernie gets elected he can come up with something where all kids play for free.

I really am open to hearing valid ideas. If it isn't compensating the clubs then what is it? How do we get out of this pay to play model if there aren't any trees around with money growing on them. Private sponsorships? Commercial sponsorships?

It's all oranges...

Every MLS entity that sells a player, Matt Miazga, Clint Dempsey, etc.... gets paid.

The issue is simple, a court ruling many many years ago. Hence the currently pending lawsuit.

We are the only country in the WORLD that does not compensate youth development academies, so if they can't be compensated they charge for it. Hence the reason we pay. The club focuses on the win, why, it brings the parents that keep paying.

The number of US players across the globe is increasing yearly. Imagine if some of that $$ trickled down...

Weird...you are saying the same thing I am. What am I missing?

I will give one way to meet in the middle. When a player is sold, a fee could first be used to repay dues that were paid by parents and any left over could go to the club. Bookkeeping better be good though.

What expense is still owed to the club? None of them are in this to lose money so little Suzy can play. Every expense comes out of the parents pockets currently.

You are saying to pay the club for what they already got paid to do. Why pay them anything when they were already paid for a service they provided.

Sounds a bit backwards to me, but I don't work for a club.

This is a pretty complex problem for American soccer players on the boys side but doesn't really apply to the girls side.

There is no market for female soccer players or transfer fees for girls soccer players so not a current problem that needs to be fixed. There is no money in developing girls soccer players as the end goal for most is college soccer. It is highly unlikely the girls DA will be free as there is no reason to make it free. The parents will pay and the league will be more elite than ECNL, hence the reason parents will pay.

On the boys side, FIFA rules and work visa's make it hard for US players to go overseas, but there are a few excpetions to these rules. Have not heard of a local club selling a player to a club overseas. Yedlin was sold by MSL Sounders to Tottenham and MLS tried to take all the money from that transfer and the club that developed him ( Washington Crossfire) is fighting to get their portion of it. Similarly, I believe the Dallas Texans are a part of that suit as well stating they should get some of the money from the transfer of Clint Dempsy from the MLS to Fulham.

The MLS owns the players rights, not the clubs. The MLS wants to keep all transfer money and not pay any of the clubs that developed the kids at the younger ages.

If they get these isseus worked out ( US clubs can get paid for transfers.....FIFA Rule 19 goes away away and kids can go to Europe to play) then US clubs that are not affiliated with MLS could be set to make tons of cash.

sprint wrote:This is a pretty complex problem for American soccer players on the boys side but doesn't really apply to the girls side.  

There is no market for female soccer players or transfer fees for girls soccer players so not a current problem that needs to be fixed.  There is no money in developing girls soccer players as the end goal for most is college soccer.  It is highly unlikely the girls DA will be free as there is no reason to make it free.  The parents will pay and the league will be more elite than ECNL, hence the reason parents will pay.  

On the boys side, FIFA rules and work visa's make it hard for US players to go overseas, but there are a few excpetions to these rules.  Have not heard of a local club selling a player to a club overseas.  Yedlin was sold by MSL Sounders to Tottenham and MLS tried to take all the money from that transfer and the club that developed him ( Washington Crossfire) is fighting to get their portion of it.  Similarly, I believe the Dallas Texans are a part of that suit as well stating they should get some of the money from the transfer of Clint Dempsy from the MLS to Fulham.  

The MLS owns the players rights, not the clubs.  The MLS wants to keep all transfer money and not pay any of the clubs that developed the kids at the younger ages.

If they get these isseus worked out ( US clubs can get paid for transfers.....FIFA Rule 19 goes away away and kids can go to Europe to play) then US clubs that are not affiliated with MLS could be set to make tons of cash.  

Hey look everyone, someone who gets it!

Follow the $.

Had to join the party.  US Soccer does not charge for it's events. It has committed to not charging for administering the Girls DA and may compensate Clubs for the use of their facilities. It is not paying a club to coach their teams or to maintain their facilities. The clubs do not charge for US Soccer events. However they do charge for coaching and a portion of the cost of maintaining their facilities and I assume some additional amount to provide Scholarships.

If US Soccer wants to pay prospects or to maintain their own academy, great! That's not what they are doing. Coaches deserve to be paid and facilities need to be maintained. It's not really pay to Play. It's pay to be coached by a professional at facilities that are managed and maintained to a professional standard and owned by a Private company.

High School and YMCA are free or nearly free. US Soccer doesn't pay for them either. As the person above has said Premier League and Serie A Clubs are for profit organizations and they make a profit from "owning" and "Selling" players they have developed. Well actually their contracts. That's is not a model in the US junior women's soccer landscape.  BTW  there are very few countries in the world that compensate kids for being coached professionally in any sport but girls soccer ???? As in many things the US is ahead and should perhaps enjoy that and take a pat on the back for it.

This is completely irrelevant but as topics on this forum go. Lots of fun.

newbiefornow wrote: It's not really pay to Play. It's pay to be coached by a professional at facilities that are managed and maintained to a professional standard and owned by a Private company.

Obviously haven't shed that newbie tag yet.

A couple of things to clear up:
-a player that is transferred for a fee DOES get a portion of that transfer fee. It's not alot (4%?), but it does trickle down. The player agent also get his cut of the transfer fee as well.

-ALL clubs that have "owned" the player get a portion of the transfer fee when a player is sold on. The most recent club gets the larger portion, the next most recent club get a medium portion, etc. So Real Madrid pays ManU, who then pays Tottenham, who then pays Fulham, who then pays Nottingham Forest, who then pays etc. and the portion gets smaller as they go down. Prime example locally is when Eddie Johnson was sold to Fulham by MLS. I believe he was with DCU at the time. They got the majority of the fee, but FCD got a small portion. Might only be talking 4-figures though after all is divvied up

***aside*** in MLS, the league gets a portion and then the club gets a portion of that since all contracts are technically owned by the league. There was a lawsuit a while back from a player not wanting to give the league their cut.

-someone mentioned a local club not selling a player overseas, but Richard Sanchez was sold to Tigres just last year. That may not technically be overseas, but it is to a team in a completely different Federation. I also think one of the Funes brothers was officially under contract with FC Dallas and was "sold" to River Plate when they went. One is with Benfica and the other is with Everton currently. Also, Brek Shea was sold to Stoke City by FC Dallas for around $4 million. Maybe he wasn't developed by FCD from 6 years old, but he was drafted as a teen and grew as a player in the FCD system, then sold off. Contrary, I think they got zilch when Emerson moved to Fulham or Matt Dunn moved to Europe.

-question: from some of the math on this thread, is someone suggesting that a player like Conor Doyle (graduated McKinney Boyd(?), went to college at Creighton for a year or two, then left school to sign pro at Derby, should have Creighton end up getting a portion of the transfer fee if he was sold on to a larger club? I mean, in theory, they contributed to his develop by offering him scholarship/financial aid to play soccer and go to school.

Remove single-entity in MLS, and a lot of the aforementioned problems go away. However, that is unlikely to happen and unfortunately a franchise-styled super league is in talks for Europe. Sad.

I respect this guys opinion ......"If it ain't broke,..."

US Development will find direct pushback! ECNL STAY STRONG!

http://www.socceramerica.com/article/68082/anson-dorrance-on-the-girls-academy-encl-and-his.html

Bottom line is that it's about the girls. Every single parent on this site can take satisfaction that their daughter will play collegiate soccer somewhere. D1,D2,or D3. ECNL and DA help your player showcase their talents for D1. Lake Highlands for D2 and lower level D1 colleges.
Parents should not be asking for any compensation. You are investing in your children. Just sit back and enjoy the show. No need to attack me. I'm just doing the best I can for my kid. She's doing well and I'm proud of her.

Parents aren't asking for compensation. But they sure as hell don't want some parasite leeching off their kids success after they themselves had to fun it all.

Spolar wrote:I respect this guys opinion ......"If it ain't broke,..."

US Development will find direct pushback! ECNL STAY STRONG!

http://www.socceramerica.com/article/68082/anson-dorrance-on-the-girls-academy-encl-and-his.html

Thats a good read.  Thanks for sharing it.

Spolar wrote:I respect this guys opinion ......"If it ain't broke,..."

US Development will find direct pushback! ECNL STAY STRONG!

http://www.socceramerica.com/article/68082/anson-dorrance-on-the-girls-academy-encl-and-his.html

People read what they want to read. He says he's going to be loyal to ECNL and then he says "We’re going to have to follow where the best players are wherever they happen to be., which means he has no loyalty.

the USSF will not find much pushback. They will tell all of their national team players to move to DA. The girls on the bubble competing for spots will follow and the parents with big egos and a need to be in the "top" league will follow them even if it doesn't suit their needs. There were cries of pushback and never gonna happen. Article after article espousing the beauty of HS and how destructive DA was. Then it all went away only to rise it's ugly head again.

We’re going to be loyal to the ECNL, which I think certainly did a magnificent job when U.S. Soccer was not interested in or at least not investing in girls development.

We’re going to have to follow where the best players are wherever they happen to be. We’re going to have to make that adjustment as collegiate coaches, unquestionably.


so which is it coach, loyalty or follow talent? We should see a few more articles from guys protecting their own self interest

go99 wrote:the USSF will not find much pushback.  They will tell all of their national team players to move to DA. The girls on the bubble competing for spots will follow and  the parents with big egos and a need to be in the "top" league will follow them even if it doesn't suit their needs.  There were cries of pushback and never gonna happen.  Article after article espousing the beauty of HS and how destructive DA was.  Then it all went away only to rise it's ugly head again.  

We’re going to be loyal to the ECNL, which I think certainly did a magnificent job when U.S. Soccer was not interested in or at least not investing in girls development.

We’re going to have to follow where the best players are wherever they happen to be. We’re going to have to make that adjustment as collegiate coaches, unquestionably.


so which is it coach, loyalty or follow talent?  We should see a few more articles from guys protecting their own self interest

I don't know if this just a bad April Fool's joke, a sign of the impending apocalypse, or pure random chance, but I absolutely agree 100% with everything Go99 just said in this post...

soccersounder wrote:

Sho'Nuff wrote:

soccersounder wrote:I spoke to two current ECNL DOC's and they both agreed 4 Clubs will go

I just threw up in my mouth.

It was just a guess Sho Nuff.... No different than yours or mine...  

My guess is 3.... Sting, Texans, FCD...

The word from one of the "Big" boyz club's girls coaches is that Sting is out. Implied that synergy from Boys teams was important along with facilities etc. Not sure why "synergies" would matter? So down to 3 clubs, FCD, TX and Solar?

it's clearly Texans and fcd the real question is will solar hold on. the girls side is more deserving but the boys may actually be weighing them down

go99 wrote:it's clearly Texans and fcd the real question is will solar hold on.  the girls side is more deserving but the boys may actually be weighing them down

Why FCD? They don't want spend any effort for any U12 and younger, rely heavily on recruiting after U12 just because they are FCD.

What a shame.

OK - Pet peeve and call me "that" kind of feminist if you like. If they call the Girls DA the "Girls DA" and the boys DA the "DA", I'm going to be truly annoyed. What is it with the boys team being the Team and the girls team being the "Ladies" Team. Am I the only one who thinks that's total complete #$$%%. If you must make the distinction then use Gentlemen (vaguely militaristic name) and Lady (vaguely militaristic name), which about pegs the era to which that kind of wording belongs. No offence to Warriors, Trojans, Spartans, Chargers or to Eagles, Bears, Lions or Panthers. We all love our top predators. Just making them Ladies seems a bit odd at best.

I like the DA speculation though my money is on a late run by Liverpool.

If DA is about standardizing the coaching for the entire US to keep it in line with how the coaching staff in US Soccer think it should be done how are we all feeling about that? Not that it's really possible but one style and approach may not fit every person at every age in every part of the country. If it's wrong it's going to wrong in a big way. Having different approaches competing and creating a diverse pool of talent seems better and honestly more American.

Ah you are"that kind of feminist". I was gonna make a joke about a sandwich but maybe next time. Fcd because of the current strong relationship with the DA. As for LP I think you would have to actually apply to make a late run