Stay and Play

T

thedudeabides

SILVER
There are numerous things that are hindering developing world class soccer players in the U.S. because we start off with a smaller pool of athletes to begin with and then proceed to do everything to discourage continuing in the sport. The inherent nature of the political landscape of club soccer is leading the charge. The alphabet soup of acronyms of leagues and programs that change with the weather is mind boggling. Heap the financial barriers of pay to play on top of that and you have a recipe for failure; and we have seen that unfold for decades.

Within the whole pay to play system are the "stay and play" tournament policies. We all know what is really going on here. If this really was a cheaper option for teams then it would be an easy choice but when traveling to tourneys within your state, there is a real possibility that many players have relatives they could stay with, own RV's, want to stay in cheaper hotels not on the list, or are more comfortable staying in a VRBO. These are inherently discriminatory policies against individuals with lesser financial means and may be creating an atmosphere where some tournaments are pricing out good competition. This hurts everyone.

I want to know what your feelings are about these "stay and play" policies and if you have found legal remedies around them.
 
thedudeabides said:
There are numerous things that are hindering developing world class soccer players in the U.S. because we start off with a smaller pool of athletes to begin with and then proceed to do everything to discourage continuing in the sport. The inherent nature of the political landscape of club soccer is leading the charge. The alphabet soup of acronyms of leagues and programs that change with the weather is mind boggling. Heap the financial barriers of pay to play on top of that and you have a recipe for failure; and we have seen that unfold for decades.

Within the whole pay to play system are the "stay and play" tournament policies. We all know what is really going on here. If this really was a cheaper option for teams then it would be an easy choice but when traveling to tourneys within your state, there is a real possibility that many players have relatives they could stay with, own RV's, want to stay in cheaper hotels not on the list, or are more comfortable staying in a VRBO. These are inherently discriminatory policies against individuals with lesser financial means and may be creating an atmosphere where some tournaments are pricing out good competition. This hurts everyone.

I want to know what your feelings are about these "stay and play" policies and if you have found legal remedies around them.
Click to expand...


I am going to take a 10000 foot view to what you are posting... which i agree with.

Please point out any prejudices so I can correct them.

Basically it comes down to systems of governance, economy and cultural structure.

The US is a ultra capitalistic society. We do not provide support directly to sports in the way to help them grow... Everything is indirect. We get what we pay for.

Europe has a more socialist agenda. Each town/ village supports their clubs financially in the EU. Most people never move from their town/city. There is more continuity in European Soccer. The clubs are seen as social identities.

The UK use a quasi-European club system to promote social programs in the community... More socialism but with a capitalist hierarchy.

Mexico.. 9000 professional soccer players. LA Galaxy gave up on the US and now promotes from Mexico.That’s all I know.

South America.. my opinion... like Europe.

Japan..Tradition gets in the way of creativity...they are starting to produce some good players.

China: Communism has been proven not to bring out the best athletes (consistently)

Russia: see China above...now are endorsing capitalistic policies. They will start to resemble the US. Their population is half the US.

this is a 10000 foot view...

I prefer the European model for soccer as it’s more social and less materialistic.

I believe most US club owners would prefer the UK model.
 
Soccermaverick said:
I am going to take a 10000 foot view to what you are posting... which i agree with.

Please point out any prejudices so I can correct them.

Basically it comes down to systems of governance, economy and cultural structure.

The US is a ultra capitalistic society. We do not provide support directly to sports in the way to help them grow... Everything is indirect. We get what we pay for.

Europe has a more socialist agenda. Each town/ village supports their clubs financially in the EU. Most people never move from their town/city. There is more continuity in European Soccer. The clubs are seen as social identities.

The UK use a quasi-European club system to promote social programs in the community... More socialism but with a capitalist hierarchy.

Mexico.. 9000 professional soccer players. LA Galaxy gave up on the US and now promotes from Mexico.That’s all I know.

South America.. my opinion... like Europe.

Japan..Tradition gets in the way of creativity...they are starting to produce some good players.

China: Communism has been proven not to bring out the best athletes (consistently)

Russia: see China above...now are endorsing capitalistic policies. They will start to resemble the US. Their population is half the US.

this is a 10000 foot view...

I prefer the European model for soccer as it’s more social and less materialistic.

I believe most US club owners would prefer the UK model.
Click to expand...
The chief difference between the us/eu is the academy system and player tracking. It is ruthlessly capitalist. Players as young as 9-10 are bought and sold as commodities and abandoned if they can’t cut it (long string if stories on the net about players cut from their academies and stuck now both off the sports/academic tracks... some with money go the us for college sports). The academies are limited to the best of the best that intend to play pro. The rest are all rec like our ayso programs. Unlike the us, playing sports in college, college admissions, and scholarships are not a concern because university is either accessible through social connections or examination (no students creating fake charities in Europe). There’s nothing really socialist about this. It is more ruthlessly capitalistic and meritocratic than the us. It’s also why minorities are prone to play pro in Europe: the white middle class kids parents are too scared to take a roll of the dice on the academy system which will take them away from test prep...more recent arrivals are more willing to roll the dice.
 
thedudeabides said:
There are numerous things that are hindering developing world class soccer players in the U.S. because we start off with a smaller pool of athletes to begin with and then proceed to do everything to discourage continuing in the sport. The inherent nature of the political landscape of club soccer is leading the charge. The alphabet soup of acronyms of leagues and programs that change with the weather is mind boggling. Heap the financial barriers of pay to play on top of that and you have a recipe for failure; and we have seen that unfold for decades.

Within the whole pay to play system are the "stay and play" tournament policies. We all know what is really going on here. If this really was a cheaper option for teams then it would be an easy choice but when traveling to tourneys within your state, there is a real possibility that many players have relatives they could stay with, own RV's, want to stay in cheaper hotels not on the list, or are more comfortable staying in a VRBO. These are inherently discriminatory policies against individuals with lesser financial means and may be creating an atmosphere where some tournaments are pricing out good competition. This hurts everyone.

I want to know what your feelings are about these "stay and play" policies and if you have found legal remedies around them.
Click to expand...
Tournaments are fund raisers for clubs or for profit ventures for the prof. sports events companies (Surf Sports, Rates Sports etc.). Hotel commissions are a huge part of the money making piece, for large tournaments pulling in hundreds of thousands in kick backs. For actual non-profit clubs the tournaments "balance" their books.

I have seen in some instances where teams can pay a fee to get off the hook, but that's more for far west regional league type events, never for club or for profit entities, there's just too much money to be made.

If the big tournaments were going to allow travel teams to opt out, then they would probably raise your tournament fee by 100-200% to make up their revenue shortfall. They are not going to do that because teams would get sticker shock at paying $3000-$4000 for one tournament.
 
Grace T. said:
The chief difference between the us/eu is the academy system and player tracking. It is ruthlessly capitalist. Players as young as 9-10 are bought and sold as commodities and abandoned if they can’t cut it (long string if stories on the net about players cut from their academies and stuck now both off the sports/academic tracks... some with money go the us for college sports). The academies are limited to the best of the best that intend to play pro. The rest are all rec like our ayso programs. Unlike the us, playing sports in college, college admissions, and scholarships are not a concern because university is either accessible through social connections or examination (no students creating fake charities in Europe). There’s nothing really socialist about this. It is more ruthlessly capitalistic and meritocratic than the us. It’s also why minorities are prone to play pro in Europe: the white middle class kids parents are too scared to take a roll of the dice on the academy system which will take them away from test prep...more recent arrivals are more willing to roll the dice.
Click to expand...

I guess another point to add is our cultural view of soccer. Even though it's a large youth sport, it will forever remain a niche sport. Our top athletes don't play it, likely never will. The girls side is a different animal. The boys side will get marginally better but the MLS will never be the equal of the EPL, La Liga, Bundesliga, etc. At times the MLS is hard to watch and at times it's fun to watch. Admittedly, it's more fun when you get a long in the tooth former euro start to play for a few years.

Club soccer will continue to move in the direction of super clubs, absorbing smaller clubs or putting them out of business. Pay to play will still be a thing that excludes players and families, but not enough to move the needle on changing pay to play. In some ways, the pandemic will help the super clubs. As CA and others loosen restrictions further, eager parents and players will do just about anything to play games again, attend showcases, be seen, etc. There is a flurry and fury to get back in front of coaches. It's a psychological thing. Players and parents feel as if they've fallen behind. Some may have, most U15 and below haven't.

Pay to play/stay and play isn't going anywhere. I wish it would diminish but I just don't think it's going to happen. The steady flow of CA license plates into AZ at the height of the pandemic to play soccer is proof enough I guess.
 
Grace T. said:
The chief difference between the us/eu is the academy system and player tracking. It is ruthlessly capitalist. Players as young as 9-10 are bought and sold as commodities and abandoned if they can’t cut it (long string if stories on the net about players cut from their academies and stuck now both off the sports/academic tracks... some with money go the us for college sports). The academies are limited to the best of the best that intend to play pro. The rest are all rec like our ayso programs. Unlike the us, playing sports in college, college admissions, and scholarships are not a concern because university is either accessible through social connections or examination (no students creating fake charities in Europe). There’s nothing really socialist about this. It is more ruthlessly capitalistic and meritocratic than the us. It’s also why minorities are prone to play pro in Europe: the white middle class kids parents are too scared to take a roll of the dice on the academy system which will take them away from test prep...more recent arrivals are more willing to roll the dice.
Click to expand...
The kids that young are not contracted and can't be bought or sold. For sure, deals are done with parents but they are adults.

I agree that its ruthless and definitely a meritocracy. If you are not good enough, you are dropped. The education side is a major problem, but there are examples of kids going through the academy process and also getting a top quality education, Frank Lampard comes to mind, but the focus is the football side, so the kids have to knuckle down and the parent have to be 100% focused on the education side (if it doesn't work out), as his were and his family were hard core football people at prof clubs.
 
Grace T. said:
The chief difference between the us/eu is the academy system and player tracking. It is ruthlessly capitalist. Players as young as 9-10 are bought and sold as commodities and abandoned if they can’t cut it (long string if stories on the net about players cut from their academies and stuck now both off the sports/academic tracks... some with money go the us for college sports). The academies are limited to the best of the best that intend to play pro. The rest are all rec like our ayso programs. Unlike the us, playing sports in college, college admissions, and scholarships are not a concern because university is either accessible through social connections or examination (no students creating fake charities in Europe). There’s nothing really socialist about this. It is more ruthlessly capitalistic and meritocratic than the us. It’s also why minorities are prone to play pro in Europe: the white middle class kids parents are too scared to take a roll of the dice on the academy system which will take them away from test prep...more recent arrivals are more willing to roll the dice.
Click to expand...
No, this is BY FAR the "chief difference between us/eu" soccer ---> follow the money...it's ALWAYS the $$$:

sports-leagues-by-revenue-9337-c600.jpg
 
Also, check male college scholarships for Football, Baseball, Basketball, Track & Field, and probably Hockey vs. Soccer...and female soccer even lower of a percentage scholarship.
 
thedudeabides said:
There are numerous things that are hindering developing world class soccer players in the U.S. because we start off with a smaller pool of athletes to begin with and then proceed to do everything to discourage continuing in the sport. The inherent nature of the political landscape of club soccer is leading the charge. The alphabet soup of acronyms of leagues and programs that change with the weather is mind boggling. Heap the financial barriers of pay to play on top of that and you have a recipe for failure; and we have seen that unfold for decades.

Within the whole pay to play system are the "stay and play" tournament policies. We all know what is really going on here. If this really was a cheaper option for teams then it would be an easy choice but when traveling to tourneys within your state, there is a real possibility that many players have relatives they could stay with, own RV's, want to stay in cheaper hotels not on the list, or are more comfortable staying in a VRBO. These are inherently discriminatory policies against individuals with lesser financial means and may be creating an atmosphere where some tournaments are pricing out good competition. This hurts everyone.

I want to know what your feelings are about these "stay and play" policies and if you have found legal remedies around them.
Click to expand...
In many tournaments you can pay $50 or so per family to opt out of the stay and play requirement. To me this is no different than the fundraiser, golf ball sales, paying for uniforms, etc.

I personally prefer an all-inclusive price tag upfront over the nickel-and-dime practice. But after a couple of years in club soccer, I learned quickly to add another 30% on top of the quoted club fee to arrive at the true cost, and made our decision accordingly.
 
thedudeabides said:
There are numerous things that are hindering developing world class soccer players in the U.S. because we start off with a smaller pool of athletes to begin with and then proceed to do everything to discourage continuing in the sport. The inherent nature of the political landscape of club soccer is leading the charge. The alphabet soup of acronyms of leagues and programs that change with the weather is mind boggling. Heap the financial barriers of pay to play on top of that and you have a recipe for failure; and we have seen that unfold for decades.

Within the whole pay to play system are the "stay and play" tournament policies. We all know what is really going on here. If this really was a cheaper option for teams then it would be an easy choice but when traveling to tourneys within your state, there is a real possibility that many players have relatives they could stay with, own RV's, want to stay in cheaper hotels not on the list, or are more comfortable staying in a VRBO. These are inherently discriminatory policies against individuals with lesser financial means and may be creating an atmosphere where some tournaments are pricing out good competition. This hurts everyone.

I want to know what your feelings are about these "stay and play" policies and if you have found legal remedies around them.
Click to expand...

The easy answer - Don't attend these tournaments.

It was mentioned above that tournaments fundraisers/money makers for clubs. This is 100% true. It is also true that the "big" clubs have reciprocity agreements with other big clubs to have teams attend their tournaments. "If you attend our tournament, we'll attend yours" is very common. It's a (not so secret) way that clubs help fund each other. You'll rarely see a slammers or slammers affiliate attend anything that has a Surf logo on it. But you'll see Slammers and Legends usually attending each other's events.
 
Grace T. said:
Fair. But if you add up the European leagues it’s roughly on nba par.
Click to expand...
Fair? No, it is the right answer.

The point of the thread is "There are numerous things that are hindering developing world class soccer players in the U.S." Then it became a comparison of how other countries, mainly eu, focus on soccer and developing their youth, right?

The 800lb gorilla in the room...and clearly the obvious answer, again BY FAR, and arguably the only answer, is REVENUE $$$!
 
MicPaPa said:
Fair? No, it is the right answer.

The point of the thread is "There are numerous things that are hindering developing world class soccer players in the U.S." Then it became a comparison of how other countries, mainly eu, focus on soccer and developing their youth, right?

The 800lb gorilla in the room...and clearly the obvious answer, again BY FAR, and arguably the only answer, is REVENUE $$$!
Click to expand...
I agree to a point, but there is a difference in the models, e.g. the NFL develops nothing. They have college to do that. MLB have their farm system, but again (youth) talent has been developed for them. In short the major US professional leagues rely on everyone / anyone else to do the development and then skim off the top.

The European soccer clubs, for example, run fully funded DAs from an early age. They invest major $ in developing players and the best they develop may make it (in their club or another) or not. Many of those clubs use those DAs as revenue generating, the lower leagues ones hope to develop players for their first team and maybe, every now and again, get lucky with one they can sell for large $. The big clubs use it as a revenue stream, e.g. Chelsea have 50+ players out on loan - they developed and sold Salah, DeBruin, Lukaku and others.

I like the graphic BTW. I read recently that the NFL are looking to double TV revenue. I also see that the French league lost their sponsor and still haven't got another - noone will pay what they want.
 
happy9 said:
I guess another point to add is our cultural view of soccer. Even though it's a large youth sport, it will forever remain a niche sport. Our top athletes don't play it, likely never will. The girls side is a different animal. The boys side will get marginally better but the MLS will never be the equal of the EPL, La Liga, Bundesliga, etc. At times the MLS is hard to watch and at times it's fun to watch. Admittedly, it's more fun when you get a long in the tooth former euro start to play for a few years.

Club soccer will continue to move in the direction of super clubs, absorbing smaller clubs or putting them out of business. Pay to play will still be a thing that excludes players and families, but not enough to move the needle on changing pay to play. In some ways, the pandemic will help the super clubs. As CA and others loosen restrictions further, eager parents and players will do just about anything to play games again, attend showcases, be seen, etc. There is a flurry and fury to get back in front of coaches. It's a psychological thing. Players and parents feel as if they've fallen behind. Some may have, most U15 and below haven't.

Pay to play/stay and play isn't going anywhere. I wish it would diminish but I just don't think it's going to happen. The steady flow of CA license plates into AZ at the height of the pandemic to play soccer is proof enough I guess.
Click to expand...
It's simple math. Take the woman's side whining about higher pay without producing the revenue to justify it, then in the same breath, doubling down and turning off probably half of fans / paying customers with National Anthem kneeling...what a genius decision to grow interest in your sport and generate revenue.

Like increasingly other BS issues in our society, soccer has ridiculous obstacles in the US, but a large pool of talent is not one of them.
 
MicPaPa said:
Fair? No, it is the right answer.

The point of the thread is "There are numerous things that are hindering developing world class soccer players in the U.S." Then it became a comparison of how other countries, mainly eu, focus on soccer and developing their youth, right?

The 800lb gorilla in the room...and clearly the obvious answer, again BY FAR, and arguably the only answer, is REVENUE $$$!
Click to expand...

I agree. As what I think points out, the European clubs make money in transfer fees for their players. The MLS does not, which further limits their revenue stream. US Players do have the option to go to play in Europe, but the immigration and tax rules make it difficult for them. It has become easier, though, as witnessed by the number of young players playing in Europe right now. But vis-a-vis the MLS, I think your point is absolutely correct.
 
MicPaPa said:
It's simple math. Take the woman's side whining about higher pay without producing the revenue to justify it, then in the same breath, doubling down and turning off probably half of fans / paying customers with National Anthem kneeling...what a genius decision to grow interest in your sport and generate revenue.

Like increasingly other BS issues in our society, soccer has ridiculous obstacles in the US, but a large pool of talent is not one of them.
Click to expand...
It is an interesting business strategy to say the least.
 
"Players as young as 9-10 are bought and sold as commodities and abandoned if they can’t cut it (long string if stories on the net about players cut from their academies and stuck now both off the sports/academic tracks... some with money go the us for college sports)."

Grace T, please stop making things up, there are few of us who went through Euro system as kids, no children as young as 9-10 were "bought and sold as commodities"!
 
whatithink said:
I agree to a point, but there is a difference in the models, e.g. the NFL develops nothing. They have college to do that. MLB have their farm system, but again (youth) talent has been developed for them. In short the major US professional leagues rely on everyone / anyone else to do the development and then skim off the top.

The European soccer clubs, for example, run fully funded DAs from an early age. They invest major $ in developing players and the best they develop may make it (in their club or another) or not. Many of those clubs use those DAs as revenue generating, the lower leagues ones hope to develop players for their first team and maybe, every now and again, get lucky with one they can sell for large $. The big clubs use it as a revenue stream, e.g. Chelsea have 50+ players out on loan - they developed and sold Salah, DeBruin, Lukaku and others.

I like the graphic BTW. I read recently that the NFL are looking to double TV revenue. I also see that the French league lost their sponsor and still haven't got another - noone will pay what they want.
Click to expand...
I agree with the modeling. I would be interested to see the NFL or MLB try the youth academy model...would take a generation or two to measure success. Not sure, but I believe in Europe they do not play HS or College sports...I don't think that would work out in the US though.
 
whatithink said:
Tournaments are fund raisers for clubs or for profit ventures for the prof. sports events companies (Surf Sports, Rates Sports etc.). Hotel commissions are a huge part of the money making piece, for large tournaments pulling in hundreds of thousands in kick backs. For actual non-profit clubs the tournaments "balance" their books.

I have seen in some instances where teams can pay a fee to get off the hook, but that's more for far west regional league type events, never for club or for profit entities, there's just too much money to be made.

If the big tournaments were going to allow travel teams to opt out, then they would probably raise your tournament fee by 100-200% to make up their revenue shortfall. They are not going to do that because teams would get sticker shock at paying $3000-$4000 for one tournament.
Click to expand...

I get what you are saying but the greed has gotten out of hand. If you look at tourney fees 10 years ago, they were substantially less, even when adjusted for inflation. So it isn't that they have to do it to cover their costs, they are doing it to make even more money; and that is their prerogative, but I do believe there are unintended consequences that I pointed out in my original post.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top