USMNT and Youth Soccer In America

4,941 Views | 71 Replies | Last: 2 mo ago by vwbug
vwbug
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
2:31p, 7/7/26
Interesting article. would like to hear other's thoughts on it...
https://www.espn.com/soccer/worldcup/story/_/id/49297263/usmnt-world-cup-loss-youth-travel-soccer-system
Reply Quote
GrayMatter
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
3:36p, 7/7/26
AG
It looks like Wetzel has been piggybacking off other articles written about this same subject.

WLRN Article

But there have been others in previous years.

Landon Donovan has been very outspoken about this subject.
Reply Quote
ColoradoMooseHerd
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
3:45p, 7/7/26
Youth Sports in america are all about money, they are not about providing the best development of the game
Reply Quote
23
Bull Meachem
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
3:52p, 7/7/26
We do this every four years and nothing changes. We need a bunch of rich people to invest in club soccer to basically give away scholarships through club mechanisms. Unfortunately, with a closed pro system and no solidarity payments, it won't happen. MLS wants to be considered a serious league but they don't want to act like one.
Reply Quote
18
deadbq03
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
3:54p, 7/7/26
AG
Other countries throw tax dollars at youth sports. The US throws tax dollars toward new stadiums for billionaire owners.

But I'm not sure I buy the premise overall. All sports face pay to play now. The other sports are just fine… the big difference is that rich families are willing to subsidize talented kids from the hood on their football and basketball teams. No one is doing that for soccer. And no one in the hood wants to play anyways.

The real problem to me is that US sports revolve around going to college, and men's soccer doesn't have that option readily available. That trickles down to a lack of funding/interest for HS soccer.

Relatedly, the notion of a kid leaving school and joining an academy for soccer and then going pro at 17 would be horrifying for most parents, even if those kinds of academies actually existed here.

Actually now that I head down that road - I think that's it. Kids abroad that are rising soccer prospects leave their home at a young age to join an academy and have to grow up fast. Kids in the US are coddled by their rich parents who can afford pay to play. I wonder if that fact alone explains the difference in grit.
Reply Quote
4
4 edits
agdoc2001
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to deadbq03 • 5:46p, 7/7/26
AG
deadbq03 said:
Other countries throw tax dollars at youth sports. The US throws tax dollars toward new stadiums for billionaire owners.
The real problem to me is that US sports revolve around going to college, and men's soccer doesn't have that option readily available. That trickles down to a lack of funding/interest for HS soccer.


Throw in the fact that now many of the very limited man's collegiate soccer scholarships are going to international players.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Reply Quote
2
carl spacklers hat
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to deadbq03 • 5:48p, 7/7/26
deadbq03 said:
Other countries throw tax dollars at youth sports. The US throws tax dollars toward new stadiums for billionaire owners.

But I'm not sure I buy the premise overall. All sports face pay to play now. The other sports are just fine… the big difference is that rich families are willing to subsidize talented kids from the hood on their football and basketball teams. No one is doing that for soccer. And no one in the hood wants to play anyways.

The real problem to me is that US sports revolve around going to college, and men's soccer doesn't have that option readily available. That trickles down to a lack of funding/interest for HS soccer.

Relatedly, the notion of a kid leaving school and joining an academy for soccer and then going pro at 17 would be horrifying for most parents, even if those kinds of academies actually existed here.

Actually now that I head down that road - I think that's it. Kids abroad that are rising soccer prospects leave their home at a young age to join an academy and have to grow up fast. Kids in the US are coddled by their rich parents who can afford pay to play. I wonder if that fact alone explains the difference in grit.

That is not a small part of it, for sure. When daddy can stroke the check, and that's what is required to play in the highest youth soccer leagues in this country, it certainly can (and does) lead to entitlement. When you have to fight and scratch and claw to get what you get, you develop grit. That is sorely lacking on the USMNT. I hope we keep Poch for another cycle because I think he can impart some of the Argentine grit on the national team, which is needed after becoming so soft over the past 12 or so years.
Reply Quote
1
fightingfarmer09
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to deadbq03 • 5:51p, 7/7/26
deadbq03 said:
Other countries throw tax dollars at youth sports. The US throws tax dollars toward new stadiums for billionaire owners.

But I'm not sure I buy the premise overall. All sports face pay to play now. The other sports are just fine… the big difference is that rich families are willing to subsidize talented kids from the hood on their football and basketball teams. No one is doing that for soccer. And no one in the hood wants to play anyways.

The real problem to me is that US sports revolve around going to college, and men's soccer doesn't have that option readily available. That trickles down to a lack of funding/interest for HS soccer.

Relatedly, the notion of a kid leaving school and joining an academy for soccer and then going pro at 17 would be horrifying for most parents, even if those kinds of academies actually existed here.

Actually now that I head down that road - I think that's it. Kids abroad that are rising soccer prospects leave their home at a young age to join an academy and have to grow up fast. Kids in the US are coddled by their rich parents who can afford pay to play. I wonder if that fact alone explains the difference in grit.

Lots of good points here. These are some ideas I have been thinking on for a while as a dad of young soccer players and helper in running a local grassroots youth league.

College paths would help.
I believe strongly that getting real athletic powerhouse schools like Texas A&M in known conferences like the SEC is a must for US soccer. This allows kids to remain interested deep into high school. It also allows schools to devote resources into soccer programs into the 14-18 age group. Most schools have a soccer coach that is just a stand in from the football team and no real development.

What this does is it takes the potential pool of players from 450,000 annually to maybe 600,000. It keeps kids invested into the age that allows for proper evaluation into puberty. In our local rec league 8-10 age groups are the biggest and 11-13 is the smallest. This is for a lot of sports. It also builds up recognition and "respect" in the US sports community among parents and this helps improve retention.

Elite talent will not go through college.
USMNT talent will not come from high schools and colleges though. Like the elite talent in baseball they will be really targeted by scouts in the 13-16 age group and have options to bypass college as a whole. This is where the academies come in. Establish more resources to help grassroots leagues thrive and help push kids forward into higher competitive training. I would like to have more general support for coaching youth leagues and developing skills and not just rewarding raw athletic ability in the ages of 7-10.

More training, less games.
My kids play indoor soccer in the winter and summer. I would love for them to be able to play futsal if it were offered locally, which it was about 20 years ago. We need more infrastructure and buy-in for small sided games that double as high touch competitions. We have shifted to larger sided games because we literally do not have enough coaches to make more teams. In a perfect world the kids could be playing 3v3 or 5v5 small sided games between the 9v9 and 11v11 seasons. My practices for older kids are going to have a lot more 3v2 and various competitive practice drills to allow the kids time to experiment in low pressure situations.






Reply Quote
2
2 edits
AgLiving06
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
8:42p, 7/7/26
College could be a good starting point, but the issue ends up being Title IX limits mens sports at places like A&M. They aren't going to have it because that means adding another woman's sport as well to stay compliant, and since both are probably money losers for the school, it's not worth their time to do it.



Reply Quote
4
TXAggie2011
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to AgLiving06 • 9:10p, 7/7/26
AG
AgLiving06 said:
College could be a good starting point, but the issue ends up being Title IX limits mens sports at places like A&M. They aren't going to have it because that means adding another woman's sport as well to stay compliant, and since both are probably money losers for the school, it's not worth their time to do it.


The lack of men's soccer programs is mostly a SEC/Gulf Coast problem. But I don't think money is an excuse anymore for the SEC schools to not carry more sports.

The money is there and SEC schools generally carry fewer sports than any of their peers around the country.


A&M has 8 varsity men's sports.

10 of the Big 10 schools, for example, carry at least 10. With Michigan, Ohio State, and Penn State carrying 14, including, by the way, men's soccer.
Reply Quote
2
2 edits
PatAg
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:21p, 7/7/26
AG
alexi lalas is a clown
Reply Quote
2
King Koda
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:43p, 7/7/26
AG
Soccer is the #1 sport in much of the rest of the world. The best athletes from those countries are choosing to play soccer. For many of these kids and families it is a way to change their life. In the USA, soccer is the fourth or fifth sport of choice and the other sports can be much more life changing than soccer in America. Bottom line is the best of the best in America are not playing soccer and it has little to nothing to do with pay for play. If you have a very talented 8-9 year old, they won't pay for soccer or most other sports. The clubs will scholarship them. Most other countries don't have the distance and population issues we have here in the USA either. When my daughter was 9, she went over to The Netherlands and played in an international tournament. One of the teams they played was the Academy team from AJAX. The kids were from all over The Netherlands but could still be in the academy because travel wasn't an issue. We have kids here who travel from Houston and Austin to Dallas to play for better teams. They can still do this without having to move. They are already traveling more than any of those kids did in The Netherlands. We also have so many kids, it's hard to pick out the ones who will be best when they are older and so it's harder to decide who to put the $$ into with so many other sports options as those kids grow. Finally, the academy system in Europe has quite a few down sides as well. For every kid that makes it there are several hundred who are working menial jobs for the rest of their lives because they received a below average education. We aren't competitive in men's soccer because it's not a priority in America like it is in most of the rest of the world.

Bottom line is the best athletes in America may play soccer at a young age but will matriculate to other sports due to popularity (in the USA), future earnings potential, and priorities of communities. The population of America is so spread out, it is hard to get the best players to play and practice with each other without shelling out major money. The population and size of America makes it very difficult to identify kids early enough in order to get the skill trainings and conceptual understandings of the game necessary to play at the highest levels. It's worked on the women's side because of Title IX, but much of the world is catching up to us. The money and popularity of other sports hasn't been an issue in women's sports because it has never been life changing money in any sport.
Reply Quote
5
AustinAg2K
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:48p, 7/7/26
Unfortunately, I think it's just because the US doesn't have a soccer culture. Nearly every kid's first sport is soccer, but then once they get old enough for football, baseball, or basketball, the boys generally switch sports. Where I live, there are plenty of rich kids whose parents dole out money like crazy for football and baseball, and not coincidentally, the local high school is always competing for state championships. There are quite a few NFL and MLB players from the high school as well. The girls, though, don't switch. They continue to play soccer, and spend all sorts of money on private coaching, etc. Not coincidentally, there are a couple of pro-women soccer players.

In the US, boys grow up dreaming of winning the Super Bowl, or playing in a World Series, or dunking a basketball, so they tend to focus on those sports once they are old enough. In other countries, they dream of winning the World Cup, so that's where the best athletes go. I think it's going to be very difficult for the US to truly compete at the international level as long as American football, baseball, and basketball exist. They are just going to take too many of the best athletes.

Edit, looks like King Koda basically made the same argument as me.
Reply Quote
1 edit
AggieEP
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:55p, 7/7/26
The article is right in some respects and off in others. This idea that "tough coaching" can't exist because of the travel ball model isn't necessarily true in my experience. In fact in many cases travel teams hire "professional" (YMMV) coaches to coach their kids which should and does lead to better coaching than the old days when a couple of dads that had seen Pele highlights were out there coaching their own kids. This isn't a coaching issue. We don't need some tough ass to haze the crap out of our kids in order to win the WC.

What travel ball does do though is that it forces kids to choose at an incredibly early age what their sport is, and that's if their parents can even afford the cost and have the ability to travel every weekend to an ever growing number of tournaments. So while top athletes in the past were playing soccer, basketball, baseball and football pretty much through middle school, now they are forced to choose one sport as they start traveling as young as 8U and for sure at 10U. And that pool of kids that can travel and who choose soccer is just extremely small.

To be honest, baseball development is just as screwed right now as soccer. My kid is 10 and because we didn't put him on a travel team at 8 he's so far behind some of these kids. Why is he behind, because he plays basketball, runs cross country, runs track, and does scouts. We are busy as crap letting him experience all kinds of sports and activities. And among all of these activities my son loves baseball the most. He collects cards, his walls are covered with pennants from the stadiums he's been to, but the other day he told me that he might not be cut out to play baseball because he can sense how the playing field is tilted so heavily towards the travel kids. Imagine that, already at 10 years old he's ready to walk away before ever hitting puberty and really seeing what kind of ball player he could be. This is just a microcosm of what we face in soccer, we very likely have an American Messi out there, but the chances he actually plays soccer are super miniscule.
Reply Quote
4
FIDO95
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
8:14a, 7/8/26
AG
When this type of conversation comes up, it reminds of a comment made by the boxing legend George Foreman. He grew up poor and hungry in Houston. That memory of hunger gave him an unrelenting willingness to fight and endure. He lamented in his later years his biggest fear as a father was that he wasn't able to instill enough "hunger" in his own children to enable them to be successful. He gave them the secure type of life he was deprived of but in doing so he deprived them of the character that can only be formed through challenge.

We don't lack athletes and training opportunities. We lack the type of athletes with the character to fight and that was on full display in the Belgium game. When its rich kids whose soccer moms get involved anytime there is a struggle, those kids will likely lack the type of character you need when the game gets hard and you have to pick yourself up. There needs to be struggle at all levels. When Pulisic decides to take the Summer off from the men's team and he knows his spot on the WC team is secure, that is a sign of entitlement, not struggle and the chickens came home to roost.

If you look back at one of the men's most successful players, Clint Dempsey, you can find the seeds helped lead to his success. His mother made great sacrifices to get him on a club team; Yes, he got good training. But his character was formed as a young teen playing in an adult "Mexican" league in Nacogdoches, Texas. He would get the crap kicked out of every week, but he kept showing up. Eventually he would earn their respect for his relentless and fearless play style so much, they gave him the nickname "Gallo" (you know you made it when you get your nickname in Spanish, i.e. Chicharito, El Cepillo, Piojo).

When you look at American Culture, soccer is seen as "soft" or "gay" (I'd tell you people who make those comments have never laced up a pair of boots). The kids with "hunger" and fight will choose football or basketball every time because those sports have the appearance of being more "manly". Until that changes, we will continue to be limited in our pool of talented, hungry players needed to win at the highest level.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Reply Quote
1
Rascal
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to AggieEP • 8:32a, 7/8/26
AG
AggieEP said:
The article is right in some respects and off in others. This idea that "tough coaching" can't exist because of the travel ball model isn't necessarily true in my experience. In fact in many cases travel teams hire "professional" (YMMV) coaches to coach their kids which should and does lead to better coaching than the old days when a couple of dads that had seen Pele highlights were out there coaching their own kids. This isn't a coaching issue. We don't need some tough ass to haze the crap out of our kids in order to win the WC.

What travel ball does do though is that it forces kids to choose at an incredibly early age what their sport is, and that's if their parents can even afford the cost and have the ability to travel every weekend to an ever growing number of tournaments. So while top athletes in the past were playing soccer, basketball, baseball and football pretty much through middle school, now they are forced to choose one sport as they start traveling as young as 8U and for sure at 10U. And that pool of kids that can travel and who choose soccer is just extremely small.

To be honest, baseball development is just as screwed right now as soccer. My kid is 10 and because we didn't put him on a travel team at 8 he's so far behind some of these kids. Why is he behind, because he plays basketball, runs cross country, runs track, and does scouts. We are busy as crap letting him experience all kinds of sports and activities. And among all of these activities my son loves baseball the most. He collects cards, his walls are covered with pennants from the stadiums he's been to, but the other day he told me that he might not be cut out to play baseball because he can sense how the playing field is tilted so heavily towards the travel kids. Imagine that, already at 10 years old he's ready to walk away before ever hitting puberty and really seeing what kind of ball player he could be. This is just a microcosm of what we face in soccer, we very likely have an American Messi out there, but the chances he actually plays soccer are super miniscule.

Going through the same thing right now with my 10 year old. Love the rec leagues and all that it represents in keeping our close community tight. But, several kids have ditched it in the past couple of years for club baseball so it's tough for us to keep a roster together.

Most recently, one of my son's friends wanted to come back to our team that I help coach after spending a year with a club team that was unsuccessful due to parental politics I guess. But, his dad has insisted that he joins another club team instead of coming back to ours. Apparently his sone was crying while signing his new contract that his dad made him sign instead of coming back to play with his friends.

I'm holding my tongue b/c it's not my business but it wrenches my gut for this kid that his dad isn't allowing him to come play with his friends and classmates. Parents really suck sometimes.
Reply Quote
2
tysker
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Rascal • 10:22a, 7/8/26
AG
Quote:
But, several kids have ditched it in the past couple of years for club baseball so it's tough for us to keep a roster together.

Baseball offers college scholarships and more expansive NIL money than ever before. There is an economic incentive, albeit a small one imo, for parents to choose baseball over soccer

The greatest motivator for players from my daughter's academy team way back when was college scholarships. There was never an expectation that the girls would go pro.
Reply Quote
1
deadbq03
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to AgLiving06 • 10:29a, 7/8/26
AG
AgLiving06 said:
College could be a good starting point, but the issue ends up being Title IX limits mens sports at places like A&M. They aren't going to have it because that means adding another woman's sport as well to stay compliant, and since both are probably money losers for the school, it's not worth their time to do it.



NIL could provide a workaround. You can't offer scholarships, but your boosters could offer NIL salaries.

Facilities are already there for the women.

It'd take a massive coordinated effort to implement though.


But I also think USSF ought to really push the opposite. Pump up stories of kids like Cavan Sullivan who are playing professional soccer at age 16. If kids knew they could get paid and not have to even mess with the farce of academics - it might move the needle.
Reply Quote
greg.w.h
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:38a, 7/8/26
AG
College is too late for international competitiveness. I know this is an A&M fansite, but canceling the men's intercollegiate program was the best thing for potential men's international players.
Reply Quote
tysker
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:39a, 7/8/26
AG
Boarding schools and sending your children away for long periods are much more common in Europe.
How many American parents are going to send their 13-year-old to another state, let alone another country to get better at soccer? We're wired differently and want our children to be more well-rounded. Education first, sports second or third.

We scoff at the IMGs of the world, but they are putting out D1 players across many sports.

Also, many of the lesser academies have been considered body shops that use these kids as commodities. The issues with injuries, early specialization, overlooking late-developing players, lack of educational achievement, and limited pathways for kids who don't reach the professional level are well-documented issues in Europe that just wouldn't be acceptable in the US
Reply Quote
2
greg.w.h
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:44a, 7/8/26
AG
This article explains the essential shortcoming though it shows how throwing money at a coach isn't the solution, too. (Corollary is the money spent either buys perspective or we will spend a lot more without understanding the problem.)

https://www.espn.com/soccer/story/_/id/49298797/usmnt-failed-world-cup-players-no-coach-save-them
Reply Quote
1
tysker
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to greg.w.h • 10:50a, 7/8/26
AG
greg.w.h said:
College is too late for international competitiveness. I know this is an A&M fansite, but canceling the men's intercollegiate program was the best thing for potential men's international players.

Well, we all know the older generation went to college, so I wanted to know about the more current generation.
Dike and Agyemang went the college route but the current player pool includes the below.
I'm not sure if this confirms or contradicts your statement of " too late for international competitiveness" but it was interesting to know

(sorry for the formatting, source chatgpt)
Player College Time in College
Matt Turner Fairfield University 4 years
Tim Ream Saint Louis University 4 years
Miles Robinson Syracuse University 2 years
Cristian Roldan University of Washington 4 years
Sebastian Berhalter University of North Carolina 4 years
Roman Celentano Indiana University Bloomington 3 years
Matt Freese Harvard University 2 years
Max Arfsten University of California, Davis 2 seasons
Mark McKenzie Wake Forest University 1 season
Reply Quote
1 edit
deadbq03
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to tysker • 11:06a, 7/8/26
AG
(RE: academies at young ages) Yeah I said that up at the top… but I'll also say that for better or worse, we're starting to see a shift in our society in the perceived value of college. Soccer could lean into that.

Relatedly, with the rise of AI, a lot of people think there will be more value in live entertainment - where a real human is doing something. Recorded music and film are gonna be fake, and people are gonna want something real. Prices for concerts and sports (and broadway acts) are already insane and I think they'll continue to climb higher. And I know a lot of parents (myself included) who are starting to think about paths for their kids where they have a fallback in that area.

So I don't think it's crazy to think that it might become a lot more common for parents to send kids to academies for performing arts and for sports at younger ages to compete in those areas… and forego proper college altogether.
Reply Quote
1
2 edits
greg.w.h
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to tysker • 11:26a, 7/8/26
AG
tysker said:
greg.w.h said:
College is too late for international competitiveness. I know this is an A&M fansite, but canceling the men's intercollegiate program was the best thing for potential men's international players.

Well, we all know the older generation went to college, so I wanted to know about the more current generation.
Dike and Agyemang went the college route but the current player pool includes the below.
I'm not sure if this confirms or contradicts your statement of " too late for international competitiveness" but it was interesting to know

(sorry for the formatting, source chatgpt)
Player College Time in College
Matt Turner Fairfield University 4 years
Tim Ream Saint Louis University 4 years
Miles Robinson Syracuse University 2 years
Cristian Roldan University of Washington 4 years
Sebastian Berhalter University of North Carolina 4 years
Roman Celentano Indiana University Bloomington 3 years
Matt Freese Harvard University 2 years
Max Arfsten University of California, Davis 2 seasons
Mark McKenzie Wake Forest University 1 season
Have we been competitive as a national team with the college system in your opinion?
Reply Quote
2
BQ_90
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to deadbq03 • 12:07p, 7/8/26
AG
deadbq03 said:
AgLiving06 said:
College could be a good starting point, but the issue ends up being Title IX limits mens sports at places like A&M. They aren't going to have it because that means adding another woman's sport as well to stay compliant, and since both are probably money losers for the school, it's not worth their time to do it.




NIL could provide a workaround. You can't offer scholarships, but your boosters could offer NIL salaries.

Facilities are already there for the women.

It'd take a massive coordinated effort to implement though.


But I also think USSF ought to really push the opposite. Pump up stories of kids like Cavan Sullivan who are playing professional soccer at age 16. If kids knew they could get paid and not have to even mess with the farce of academics - it might move the needle.

in SEC or at least A&M you do have to offer scholarships. Full rides. Every athlete at A&M at least gets a full ride now. Plus some get rev sharing, all in theory could get NIL
Reply Quote
fightingfarmer09
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to tysker • 1:36p, 7/8/26
tysker said:
Boarding schools and sending your children away for long periods are much more common in Europe.
How many American parents are going to send their 13-year-old to another state, let alone another country to get better at soccer? We're wired differently and want our children to be more well-rounded. Education first, sports second or third.

We scoff at the IMGs of the world, but they are putting out D1 players across many sports.

Also, many of the lesser academies have been considered body shops that use these kids as commodities. The issues with injuries, early specialization, overlooking late-developing players, lack of educational achievement, and limited pathways for kids who don't reach the professional level are well-documented issues in Europe that just wouldn't be acceptable in the US


I've come around on IMG and other athletic focus academies that also provide an academic curriculum. The way Texas does high school now forces kids into various paths like "healthcare" and locks a 14 year old kid into a path to become a nurse. I think it's about time we allow students to focus on sports and athletics as a career path.

Now this isn't saying "professional sports career path". Youth would also benefit from learning business and leadership strategies in organized team environments. Many of the boys in high school may want to be a coach one day and the only path is college athletics. We should be providing pathways for kids to understand the business of Hudl, biomechanics and kinesiology.

So yeah IMG isn't a terrible idea. I would love to see more options on a more local level to allow coaches to actually teach "how to coach" as a class. Imagine the improved retention of students if they were learning statistics through "play calling 101". This would open up the idea of specific sport focus schools.

America will never just adopt the way Europe does it. But I think that we can find a unique method to achieve the equivalent of sports focus schools.
Reply Quote
1
1 edit
AggieEP
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to tysker • 1:48p, 7/8/26
tysker said:
Quote:
But, several kids have ditched it in the past couple of years for club baseball so it's tough for us to keep a roster together.

Baseball offers college scholarships and more expansive NIL money than ever before. There is an economic incentive, albeit a small one imo, for parents to choose baseball over soccer

The greatest motivator for players from my daughter's academy team way back when was college scholarships. There was never an expectation that the girls would go pro.


I don't think most parents are really thinking college scholarship when choosing an 8U travel team for soccer or baseball. And if they are, then they are insane.

Maybe I'm not saying it correctly, but our rec leagues are being gutted of top talent as kids specialize in a sport super early and start traveling. As in the example given above, it's usually the parents driving this in their mistaken belief that it will make their child more successful.

I'm not sure what the appropriate age would be, but I kind of wish travel and club ball didn't start until 14 so these kids could get the benefit of playing multiple sports up until high school. I know this runs counter to the arguments that some of you are making about getting into specialized soccer academies early, but the rub is that right now very few kids are choosing soccer, so anything that grows the roster of potential future players should be looked at as a positive step. Part of why places like Norway and Belgium can field strong teams despite a small population is because ALL (slight exaggeration) of their young boys play soccer, yes the ones that peak early get scouted and end up in developmental club programs, but they also benefit from the late bloomers continuing to play and develop.
Reply Quote
carl spacklers hat
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to tysker • 3:25p, 7/8/26
tysker said:
greg.w.h said:
College is too late for international competitiveness. I know this is an A&M fansite, but canceling the men's intercollegiate program was the best thing for potential men's international players.

Well, we all know the older generation went to college, so I wanted to know about the more current generation.
Dike and Agyemang went the college route but the current player pool includes the below.
I'm not sure if this confirms or contradicts your statement of " too late for international competitiveness" but it was interesting to know

(sorry for the formatting, source chatgpt)
Player College Time in College
Matt Turner Fairfield University 4 years
Tim Ream Saint Louis University 4 years
Miles Robinson Syracuse University 2 years
Cristian Roldan University of Washington 4 years
Sebastian Berhalter University of North Carolina 4 years
Roman Celentano Indiana University Bloomington 3 years
Matt Freese Harvard University 2 years
Max Arfsten University of California, Davis 2 seasons
Mark McKenzie Wake Forest University 1 season


None of those guys would make the Belgium squad, let alone start for it. And the same holds true for the Top 12-15 teams in the world. So, using the above players as examples, the answer is that college does not prepare US players for international competition. At least not at a level we aspire to.
Reply Quote
2
JimJonesAg11
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to PatAg • 3:37p, 7/8/26
PatAg said:
alexi lalas is a clown

,lol I think his opinion carries a little more weight than yours. just sayin
Reply Quote
1
tysker
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to carl spacklers hat • 5:16p, 7/8/26
AG
carl spacklers hat said:
tysker said:
greg.w.h said:
College is too late for international competitiveness. I know this is an A&M fansite, but canceling the men's intercollegiate program was the best thing for potential men's international players.

Well, we all know the older generation went to college, so I wanted to know about the more current generation.
Dike and Agyemang went the college route but the current player pool includes the below.
I'm not sure if this confirms or contradicts your statement of " too late for international competitiveness" but it was interesting to know

(sorry for the formatting, source chatgpt)
Player College Time in College
Matt Turner Fairfield University 4 years
Tim Ream Saint Louis University 4 years
Miles Robinson Syracuse University 2 years
Cristian Roldan University of Washington 4 years
Sebastian Berhalter University of North Carolina 4 years
Roman Celentano Indiana University Bloomington 3 years
Matt Freese Harvard University 2 years
Max Arfsten University of California, Davis 2 seasons
Mark McKenzie Wake Forest University 1 season


None of those guys would make the Belgium squad, let alone start for it. And the same holds true for the Top 12-15 teams in the world. So, using the above players as examples, the answer is that college does not prepare US players for international competition. At least not at a level we aspire to.

To be fair, maybe 6-7 of the Euro-based US players would make the Belgium squad.
But more to the point, college is not the clear route to develop international-level talent; only Ream, Turner, and Freese start for the US, and frankly, I hope we can find better replacements for all three immediately.
Reply Quote
carl spacklers hat
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to tysker • 5:52p, 7/8/26
tysker said:
carl spacklers hat said:
tysker said:
greg.w.h said:
College is too late for international competitiveness. I know this is an A&M fansite, but canceling the men's intercollegiate program was the best thing for potential men's international players.

Well, we all know the older generation went to college, so I wanted to know about the more current generation.
Dike and Agyemang went the college route but the current player pool includes the below.
I'm not sure if this confirms or contradicts your statement of " too late for international competitiveness" but it was interesting to know

(sorry for the formatting, source chatgpt)
Player College Time in College
Matt Turner Fairfield University 4 years
Tim Ream Saint Louis University 4 years
Miles Robinson Syracuse University 2 years
Cristian Roldan University of Washington 4 years
Sebastian Berhalter University of North Carolina 4 years
Roman Celentano Indiana University Bloomington 3 years
Matt Freese Harvard University 2 years
Max Arfsten University of California, Davis 2 seasons
Mark McKenzie Wake Forest University 1 season


None of those guys would make the Belgium squad, let alone start for it. And the same holds true for the Top 12-15 teams in the world. So, using the above players as examples, the answer is that college does not prepare US players for international competition. At least not at a level we aspire to.

To be fair, maybe 6-7 of the Euro-based US players would make the Belgium squad.
But more to the point, college is not the clear route to develop international-level talent; only Ream, Turner, and Freese start for the US, and frankly, I hope we can find better replacements for all three immediately.

Besides Chris Richards, nobody else on our roster is a lock. Maybe Weston, maybe Folarin, maybe Robinson but they are arguable. Anyone else is a huge stretch. Hell, DeBruyner didn't even see the field against us and Lukaku and Doku were subs. USA hasn't even sniffed players of that caliber so claiming 6-7 of our current roster making Belgium's team is a stretch, IMO.

But to your original point, college doesn't prepare our players for international competition. The 6-7 Euro-based US players you might argue for Belgium's squad, whoever they may be, didn't go through US college soccer to reach the levels they are at. From 18-22, Euro academy players are years beyond their US-based counterparts in terms of technical ability, quality of match play and overall development.
Reply Quote
JJxvi
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
6:11p, 7/8/26
AG
Regarding college soccer, I think one underrated aspect is that the lack of it limits the COACHING career. There should be possibly the equivalent of hundreds more good paying division 1 head coach jobs that currently dont exist. Competition for those spots would fuel development of coaching at high schools and academies, allow more of a career path for athletes that dont make it etc
Reply Quote
1
greg.w.h
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to JJxvi • 8:06p, 7/8/26
AG
JJxvi said:
Regarding college soccer, I think one underrated aspect is that the lack of it limits the COACHING career. There should be possibly the equivalent of hundreds more good paying division 1 head coach jobs that currently dont exist. Competition for those spots would fuel development of coaching at high schools and academies, allow more of a career path for athletes that dont make it etc
You'll entrench a unbeautiful game that way. Or maybe you like clocks counting down?
Reply Quote
UKAgg
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
8:40p, 7/8/26
Hi Folks, would like to make comment as someone raised in UK, came to USA and has spent about half my life in each country. Many of the comments above (albeit in some cases a bit long but which shows the passion! ) have some really good points.

But there are some other ones that while having some merit in a historical context (don't have the culture, suburban well-heeled kids sport etc) I don't believe that tells the full story. Reality is youth soccer is a hugely played sport in the USA, more kids play than ever before. And yet if you look at the USMNT what you find in the starting X1 is the majority of players had one or other military parents based in Europe and that's where they developed as soccer players. Why is this ?

One place to start is the USSF and MLS. Organizations around for decades now and yet seemingly highly politicized and detached from the grass roots. They can point to "growth" as in more youth clubs, MLS franchises etc. but that is primarily not only commercial but also institutional (i.e. youth soccer clubs) in nature. And therein lies a throttle on player development while on the surface appearing to facilitate it.

Most folks know that until at least middle school, and typically high school, we don't really know who will grow into stand out players at the next level, and that applies to most sports. Consequently, prior to the age of 12 encouragement of playing should be much more focused on small sided pick-up games and in local communities city and suburb, and for sure augmented by skills development camps and for example a season ending competition. But where the focus is on having fun and developing the skills, not the treadmill of travel and incessant desire to win manufactured tournaments for over zealous parents, coaches, and Club prestige at a young age.

Of course, this does not solve all the issues and there are many more but it feels like the organizations governing the game here can do more to foster a culture focused on player development first, as opposed to organization structure first, and beginning as it should with the very young elementary school age groups. Back to the question....USSF and MLS need to ask themselves, for all the organization, structuring of the youth set up they have presided over, how come so very few players at this USMNT come from the system they have created ?

Reply Quote
6
UKAgg
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to greg.w.h • 8:45p, 7/8/26
I also noticed in some cases they play on smaller fields than they should be at the College age --- they should all be playing on full size pitches as specified by FIFA. Smaller than full size at college age is hopeless, the athleticism results in everyone being closed down and no chance to develop strategies, vision etc.
Reply Quote
1
Last Page
Page 1 of 3 ▼
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.