Alright, I've had time to sleep on it. What can we do to improve the state of soccer in this country?

It's time to follow the Iceland model. The reason they are punching so hard above their weight class is they have 1 UEFA A or B certified coach for every 27 people playing the game in Iceland.

I don't have kids yet. I haven't played anything more than pickup games since college. I've been useless to the sport other than as a consumer. It's time for those of us who love the game and know the game to start getting certified and coaching so our young talent in this country isn't hamstrung into being coached by the dad who drew the short straw and doesn't know offsides from a cross.

The USSF F license is all online and takes a grand total of two hours. I'm going to start there, sign up for a D class when possible and look for an opportunity to volunteer to coach at any level. We need to fix this.

Almost every dad coaching little kids rec soccer has an F license.

I would like to think that nearly every kid in any club in our urban and suburban markets playing competitive soccer from U-9/U-10 on up has club coaches with something more than an F license. It's why everyone argues about the "pay to play" system we have in the US.. The clubs all hire coaches from the UK, South America, etc. to coach our youth, but families have to pay more than $2k/year in club dues that doesn't include kits, travel costs, etc. For example, my 2007 (U-11) kid is in the top pool at his club and is trying to make the USDA next year (now starts at U-12). His coach is a Scot and has an A license from USSF. My son's asst coach is from Brazil and while I don't know what license he has, it's higher than F.

The MLS academies and the European clubs that have set up shop in some US markets offer academy options for the elite talent so they don't have to pay and they can get professional contracts instead of slowing their development in college - -- - that is starting to change things, but it needs to continue and keep developing.

As someone who's moved up the licensing ladder over the years, working through the USSF system is a beating. When I first got into coaching, USSF would allow you to basically test out of some of the lower level licenses and they accepted previously-attained equivalent licenses from other organizations such as NSCAA (now United Soccer Coaches). The NSCAA courses were cheaper and more easily available, so that's the ladder I started up. A few years later, USSF ended the testing out policy and also stopped letting you "switch over" from other education ladders. I understand why they did so - it's good to have complete control over what's being taught, but they kept prices high and didn't do much to increase the availability of courses (at least in Texas).

Also, the emphasis from USSF with their licensing has never been on coaching education - it's always been more about creating a stratified system of Who's Who in coaching. The Pass/Fail system of the USSF courses is very, very subjective and there's a bit of an elitist, who do you know? character at work. (Full disclosure - I have the USSF "F" license and multiple GK and field licenses from NSCAA.) When I registered for my USSF E course several years ago, I talked to a couple of people who'd attended a course with the same trainer in years previous. Unfortunately, I was told by several very good coaches that this trainer typically only passed on coaches that were already working at high club levels and had even been known to fail good club coaches who happened to work for other rival clubs than the one he coached for. And these types of stories pop up again and again from around the coaching communities. EURO license courses are also known to be very political and elitist.

Coaching education needs to be about EDUCATING coaches, in my opinion, and I haven't seen much push from USSF to make sure that's happening unfortunately. Maybe with a change at the top, that mindset will change for the better.

oh no said:

---

Almost every dad coaching little kids rec soccer has an F license.

---

Missed my point. I wasn't saying the F would fix it, just that I'm starting there personally since I don't have anything yet.

We need more better trained coaches with playing and coaching experience and training at the youth and rec levels to help identify those kids with talent and help get them into a position where they have a chance to compete at a higher level.

i see your point. my point is that most of our youth are probably being trained by someone at or higher than F. there are probably very few people out there with a pro or A, and maybe getting more of ourselves up to obtain E, D, C, etc. will help, but I'm not convinced that the clubs lacking E, D, C, or B licensed coaches is that much of the problem. pay to play is a bigger issue, IMO.

How much does youth soccer cost per kid per year?

I think the US has already made some positive changes in the past decade with regards to MLS and trying to create home grown players. The biggest problem is still a cultural one if we want to truly unlock the USMNT potential.

Kids need to grow up loving the game. You can't force that. There is no such thing as Soccer Stockholm Syndrome. I don't believe the sport was culturally relevant even two decades ago but that is starting to change. There has been a noticeable increase in television coverage during the past decade (especially in the last 5 years). And I honestly believe that FIFA (yes, the video game) is having a big impact on the sports popularity with kids. If a kid loves the game, they will want to find an outlet to play.

I think the USMNT is on the correct path, unfortunately many of the changes made a decade ago won't start to pay off until 2022 at the earliest. That team next WC team will be pretty young but that cycle hopefully marks the beginning of the USMNT as a power.

Is this jeff the ref?

Integrate soccer into middle school athletics just as football, volleyball, basketball, CC, TnF are now.

That's happening in most metro school districts, but that doesn't address the problem of the high cost of clubs that eventually feed players into our academy system.

Academy coaches don't have to beat the bushes for talent because they're just promoting the paying/largely affluent kids up from their lower-aged teams.

JJxvi said:

---

How much does youth soccer cost per kid per year?

---

I'm in the Houston area; i imagine most clubs are like my son's; it's probably similar to this:

U-4 - U-18 - you can stay in recreational leagues for cheap - coached by volunteer dads, but the clubs may offer an optional once a week training session with a pro coach from the club. this is probably just a couple hundred a season (fall or spring)

U-8, U-9, U-10 - you can stay in recreational league or you can join the club's youth academy - training 2/week with pro coaches from the club and games vs other clubs in the area on the weekend - probably close to $500/season or $1,000/year.

U-11 - U-18 - more competitive league vs other clubs in the area typically starts at U-11, but the top pool of U-9 and U-10 kids will play up in a U-11 bracket. includes training 3/week with pro coaches from the club. this is over $2k per year. The 2k/year does not include tournament and travel fees, kits, any private training, winter and summer camps or winter or summer futsal or indoor leagues, etc.

approved / certified clubs that have a US Development Academy program that starts in U-12 for boys is nearly 100% travel, training 4 days / week and is considerably expensive. the very top tier players get into DA. they cannot play other sports and cannot play for their HS team. training program is guided/overseen by USSF.

My understanding and this is what's starting to change now - most MLS teams have an academy for the elite talent where they don't pay a dime - the players are ID'd via tryouts or talent scouting through their affiliate youth clubs. Similarly, many European clubs have set up shop in some of our main soccer markets that will probably cost 2k/year similar to above, however, if they happen to ID a talent that is on a pro-track, they will try to expatriate them to Europe in the main club's academy and they won't pay a dime. Many of both these and the MLS clubs have USL or other semi-pro teams to continue development as well.

Quote:

---

Second is that, at the end of the video from last night, you can see me pleading for you (yes you, the one reading this) to get involved, specifically as a coach or a referee. As of now in the US there's one A licensed coach per every 6,000 or so players. That's not enough.

Not coincidentally, it costs about $4,000 to get a USSF A license. In Spain, the number is about $800. In Germany, it's about $600.

So while ending pay-to-play is a good and noble long-term goal, I'd like for everyone to think, for a minute, about a short-term win. Lowering the USSF licensing fees would be, and maybe we can all figure out how to put some of that $100 million to use.

---

via https://www.mlssoccer.com/post/2017/10/11/armchair-analyst-no-excuses-no-good-outcomes-now-whats-plan bolding mine. It's a good article to read as is the Neil Blackmon (from The Yanks are Coming) one linked at the beginning.

One in 27 is meaningless when you realize how many people are playing soccer in this country vs the rest of the world (on a country by country basis).

EDIT: Sorry, did not read whole thread and see it's been pointed out already.

I know plenty of C and B licence coaches who, quite frankly, are not that good. I know of at least one B level coach who lost 12 of 16 kids off his Academy team simply b/c of the coach.

Factor in how many clubs simply exist to make a profit more than anything else and you get 1000's of kids at a single club and coaches trying to handle 4-5 teams. No offense, but by age 12 there should not be 6 teams in an age group.* Clubs need to stop and say, we will have 3 teams per age group over U13. We're sorry if you don't make it. Try again next year or play rec. soccer with your friends. We have camps all year long if you want to improve your skills before next season's try outs.

I referee as well and the number of Division 6 teams I've seen at the club/premier level at U13 and above makes me want to ask the parents WTF are they paying for? $3,000/yr so your son can learn what exactly? If he wants to play with his friends, sign up for the rec. league and have some fun.

* Younger age groups I understand having more teams/players. I've seen plenty of kid's get a lot better between ages 10 and 12 that I can see having lots of kids at the younger ages. But by age 12/13, 95% of the kids out there are getting to a level where you can say "he/she can play competitive soccer through HS or he/she is not going to get there, lets try something else or stick with rec. and have fun".

We all think.say Pay for Play is the problem. Here's the rub. Who pays for the training and facilities and equipment and fields and other part of this if it isnt Pay for Play? I dont know the answer but I do know those things are not free. And clubs do have financial scholarships for less financially able kids. Somewhere in there is a happy place where fees are generated to cover the costs that have to be covered without the big business side.

At the NT level, I would stop wasting roster spots on dead weight. The Wondo's of the world need to not be selected. I would much rather that they take a younger player and expose them to that level and training even if they dont play.

I would also stop moving NT matches around the nation. develop a home field. Hell, thats what T&T did last night. You dont have to soak and let the grass grow. Just keep it at the same stadium where you develop a national team atmosphere.

oh no said:

---

i see your point. my point is that most of our youth are probably being trained by someone at or higher than F. there are probably very few people out there with a pro or A, and maybe getting more of ourselves up to obtain E, D, C, etc. will help, but I'm not convinced that the clubs lacking E, D, C, or B licensed coaches is that much of the problem. pay to play is a bigger issue, IMO.

---

how do you solve the pay to play in the USA?

Carnwellag2 said:

---

oh no said:

---

i see your point. my point is that most of our youth are probably being trained by someone at or higher than F. there are probably very few people out there with a pro or A, and maybe getting more of ourselves up to obtain E, D, C, etc. will help, but I'm not convinced that the clubs lacking E, D, C, or B licensed coaches is that much of the problem. pay to play is a bigger issue, IMO.

---

how do you solve the pay to play in the USA?

---

well, that's the debate, and I don't have an answer, other than I think it's starting to happen already right now with the MLS clubs and some others starting to model their academies after the european clubs.

oh no said:

---

well, that's the debate, and I don't have an answer, other than I think it's starting to happen already right now with the MLS clubs and some others starting to model their academies after the european clubs.

---

FC Dallas seems to be working hard at this.

It'd be nice if the MLS would stop the designated player program altogether and gave some kind of incentive for clubs to use that money to develop academies instead.

I'm tired of watching old European has beens play in the MLS, I want to see home grown talent on the field instead.

Every activity in which my kids participate is basically pay to play. Whether it be Tae Kwon Do, gymnastic classes, rock climbing classes which take monthly fees, or the acting/swimming/piano classes and the associated session/class costs or the seasonal costs of soccer, basketball, etc. it's all pay to play.

Very few of us are talented enough to have a sponsor or beneficiary and even then someone or some group is bearing the cost. The players that are good enough to receive benfits then becomes cogs or de facto employees of their benefactor. You could make the argument that eliminating pay to play lead to the current issues and corruption in AAU basketball.

tysker said:

---

You could make the argument that eliminating pay to play lead to the current issues and corruption in AAU basketball.

---

well it is. Things like Adidas Grass Roots program & AAU bball is to basketball prep stars as the development academies are to soccer players. Only, soccer DA's skip the whole collegiate NCAA thing we have here in the US with amateurism rules though. ...and the argument that DA's modeled after european club academies are what we need to inch closer to being competitive with western european and south american players.

I don't have anything of value to add, other than to say that this thread is stellar, full of great information, and an example of why I think the soccer board is the best part of TA

Carry on

mathguy86 said:

---

We all think.say Pay for Play is the problem. Here's the rub. Who pays for the training and facilities and equipment and fields and other part of this if it isnt Pay for Play? I dont know the answer but I do know those things are not free. And clubs do have financial scholarships for less financially able kids. Somewhere in there is a happy place where fees are generated to cover the costs that have to be covered without the big business side.

At the NT level, I would stop wasting roster spots on dead weight. The Wondo's of the world need to not be selected. I would much rather that they take a younger player and expose them to that level and training even if they dont play.

I would also stop moving NT matches around the nation. develop a home field. Hell, thats what T&T did last night. You dont have to soak and let the grass grow. Just keep it at the same stadium where you develop a national team atmosphere.

---

Yep, the friendlies can be player all over, but the qualifiers should be at 2 places max.

I think we are too big of a country and too decentralized to have our own Wembley or Azteca.

I don't have time to go in depth about pay to play until my tests are over tomorrow, but I'll leave this here for now.

He has a thread of informative stats about youth sports in the USA.

Also, not sure how I feel about a "home" stadium. I don't think we see that happen though.

ChipFTAC01 said:

---

I think we are too big of a country and too decentralized to have our own Wembley or Azteca.

---

Move the friendliest around. The hex matches should be at the same location. The players will know the locker room, training area, pitch everything. Give them a consistent home field. I do not want to ever see the stadium in NYC filled with a partisan away fan base. Not ever again. Put them in Columbus. Or KC.

Yeah, if we were to get our home stadium I bet it would be in DC, Chicago or LA. None of those get me too excited.

mathguy86 said:

---

ChipFTAC01 said:

---

I think we are too big of a country and too decentralized to have our own Wembley or Azteca.

---

Move the friendliest around. The hex matches should be at the same location. The players will know the locker room, training area, pitch everything. Give them a consistent home field. I do not want to ever see the stadium in NYC filled with a partisan away fan base. Not ever again. Put them in Columbus. Or KC.

---

I disagree. Where we play our home Hex game is directly related to the second game of the round. If we are playing in Azteca next, we will play in Denver to get acclimated to the altitude. If we are playing in T&T, we play at Orlando first.

While I think that more careful consideration needs to take place before deciding venue (no more NJ), I think the current system does a good job in terms of preparing the team for the conditions faced on the road.

moneyag7 said:

---

mathguy86 said:

---

ChipFTAC01 said:

---

I think we are too big of a country and too decentralized to have our own Wembley or Azteca.

---

Move the friendliest around. The hex matches should be at the same location. The players will know the locker room, training area, pitch everything. Give them a consistent home field. I do not want to ever see the stadium in NYC filled with a partisan away fan base. Not ever again. Put them in Columbus. Or KC.

---

I disagree. Where we play our home Hex game is directly related to the second game of the round. If we are playing in Azteca next, we will play in Denver to get acclimated to the altitude. If we are playing in T&T, we play at Orlando first.

While I think that more careful consideration needs to take place before deciding venue (no more NJ), I think the current system does a good job in terms of preparing the team for the conditions faced on the road.

---

I see both of your points. At the very least, I firmly believe we need to set 2-3 venues. I'm not a fan of using our qualifying matches as some kind of cross country tour for exposure.

It's not going to happen, but honestly the most effective thing that could possibly by done by anybody on this board besides something as basic as "watch soccer" and "go to soccer games" is to get truly serious about demanding varsity men's soccer at Texas A&M, and then by some miracle that happns, actually support it in every way (esp your wallet).