Originally posted by Unregistered
View Post
What happens in practice is that certain leagues attempt to position themselves at the "top of the pyramid" by making two claims:
1) Join our league and you will have more "recruiting opportunities". In other words, a) we will participate in more elite tournaments and showcase events than an OYSA team, including some exclusive showcases (in which non-ECNL teams are barred); and b) a substantial number of coaches and recruiters won't bother attending local events (including local tournaments and State Cup) unless to scout specific players.
2) Coaches recommend Joining Our League because of a higher "speed of play".
I've no problem with 1a. I have a lot more issues with 1b--especially if it is true; no league should be permitted to corner the college recruiting market (and that includes GDA). 2 has always struck me as a dubious claim; if what is meant is "you'll have more opportunities to travel and get your ass whipped by elite clubs that have no local equivalent", then that's true. However the suggestion that ECNL means better quality training from the local club (i.e. that you'll be challenged more in practice) is less obvious--perhaps if the club succeeds in recruiting all the top talent in one spot, maybe; but it's by and large the same coaches leading ECNL teams as before.
The danger with GDA is that it simply replaces ECNL by playing the "if you want to play for the USWNT, you need to play GDA" trump card, and IT becomes the 800 pound gorilla. If US Soccer puts money where mouth is, and provides a professional-level subsidized training environment rather than basically offering the same thing that can be gotten at any local club, then I don't mind so much. But if the GDA experience is not any better than the ECNL or OYSA or whatever experience, then having GDA sitting on top of the pyramid isn't really any better then having ECNL there. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
The problem that GDA faces, again, is that unlike on the men's/boys' side, there's no international transfer market for women players; no substantial savings to teams who develop homegrowns rather than drafting or buying players, etc. And NCAA women's soccer, which is not a revenue sport at most schools, likewise doesn't have the business model (and is disallowed from operating youth academies anyway).
Of course, the Timbers now have produced a grand total of two first-team players from their academy; one who hasn't yet seen any first-team action (though he's only been around for one game), the other who was getting embarrassed by the Galaxy last Sunday. (He had a great seat to watch the game). And the Timbers haven't managed to sell anyone--the one local player in the past five years to make any sort of splash overseas (Rubin) went through IMG, not through the TA, and neither the Timbers nor Westside has gotten a dime for him.
Comment