Should Clubs Get Paid for Developing World Class Players?

[Unregistered]

There are also numerous women on club teams across the globe.

Also an excellent point. Not sure how the transfer system/club fees are done in the women's game as it's quite far behind development from the men and how well it applies to the same model.

[Unregistered]

Some clubs actually provide a significant number of scholarships for players in need and also for high-potential players. If clubs received compensation for developing professional players then maybe our country would be able to limit or phase out pay-to-play. In Europe, only the very best players are groomed by the top professional clubs. Others play for much smaller clubs with limited resources until they hopefully attract the eye of a scout. The resources required to develop 100 players is much less than the resources required to develop 500 or more, so the youth setups of European clubs are much smaller than ours. Also, in Europe they invest very little in developing girls as there is no money in it for them. We should all remember that no system is perfect.

It is only here in the US that so many parents want to pay significant $$ for their uncommitted children to play for "successful" local clubs. It is not the entire problem, but this mentality of purchasing prestige is part of the issue. In fact, in my town there is a high school aged boy who has never played club soccer even for a local town club, never mind a "real" club, yet this kid walks around in Boston Bolts, FCUSA, and LFC gear which he obviously purchased off their We Got Soccer sites. This kid doesn't even play HS soccer yet the prestige has his parents buying him the uniforms of local clubs he's never even played for. That sums up our landscape for me.

[Unregistered]

https://www.espn.com/soccer/major-le...ir-development

Whomever paid the most to develop that player over the years, including the parents, should split the solidarity payment. Period.

[Unregistered]

Not sure this is a USSoccer problem. Seems it a US Club Soccer problem (i.e. the never-ending search for profit).

The demise of the game, to me, is attributed to the advent of US Club Soccer, and the leagues under their umbrella. It's taken the control away from the player and put in with the Club...and their own selfish needs.

Demise? You speak as if soccer was ever at a point in this country from which it could “demise”. The problem for soccer isn’t clubs - most sports in this country operate the same way - it’s that soccer has not yet built a cultural following to match the major sports.

[Unregistered]

Whomever paid the most to develop that player over the years, including the parents, should split the solidarity payment. Period.

How do you define "paid the most." What system is there that tracks the cost of developing a player? Do you include all costs or just an allocation of costs for each player in the club? Why should it just be limited to clubs if the kid also played for academies, had private lessons strength training, sports physiology training, etc? How far back do you go?

There would have to be a written contract between a player and a club. However what does that do for a player's eligibility to play for high school or college if they sign such a contract? Would the player be considered a professional and thus ineligible to play high school or college sports?

[Unregistered]

Some clubs actually provide a significant number of scholarships for players in need and also for high-potential players. If clubs received compensation for developing professional players then maybe our country would be able to limit or phase out pay-to-play. In Europe, only the very best players are groomed by the top professional clubs. Others play for much smaller clubs with limited resources until they hopefully attract the eye of a scout. The resources required to develop 100 players is much less than the resources required to develop 500 or more, so the youth setups of European clubs are much smaller than ours. Also, in Europe they invest very little in developing girls as there is no money in it for them. We should all remember that no system is perfect.

It is only here in the US that so many parents want to pay significant $$ for their uncommitted children to play for "successful" local clubs. It is not the entire problem, but this mentality of purchasing prestige is part of the issue. In fact, in my town there is a high school aged boy who has never played club soccer even for a local town club, never mind a "real" club, yet this kid walks around in Boston Bolts, FCUSA, and LFC gear which he obviously purchased off their We Got Soccer sites. This kid doesn't even play HS soccer yet the prestige has his parents buying him the uniforms of local clubs he's never even played for. That sums up our landscape for me.

US parents aren't keen in their kids being "owned" by a club, plus there are limitations set by US law. Obviously a player with pulisic or Reyna level talent will always play for free, even at a pay to play club. But players like that also will seek and have numerous opportunities to train elsewhere (in their cases helped by dial passports) + their countless hours on their own.

Problem is top players will seek out MLS clubs for better opportunities, even more so if more clubs do residency programs. That leaves the pay to play clubs out of the payment pool, or receiving very little. To help lift the entire system funds need to be shared (proportionately) so non MLS clubs have funds for scholarships.

[Unregistered]

Lots of great points being made, but I'm surprised that no one has pointed out the following...

In Europe, just as in the US, when kids play soccer for "free" or at a very minimal cost (like $100 for a Fall season), someone is still paying for the costs, somehow, someway.

Sure the club may not be charging the parents, but someone is paying for the grass to be fertilized, gas for the mower, paint for the lines, insurance, overall facility maintenance, sometimes even the uniforms. It may be Joe's Roofing Company, or Suzy's Cleaning Service, through sponsorships, or the coaches and team managers who give with their time (often an endless amount of hours), but nothing is ever free, not here and not in Europe. In Europe there is also another thing that allows soccer to be "free" even at the smallest town clubs... direct government subsidies for youth sports.

So to say that ONLY the clubs who do NOT charge for kids to play should be financially rewarded for developing players who sign a professional contract... is a bit disingenuous.

[Unregistered]

Lots of great points being made, but I'm surprised that no one has pointed out the following...

In Europe, just as in the US, when kids play soccer for "free" or at a very minimal cost (like $100 for a Fall season), someone is still paying for the costs, somehow, someway.

Sure the club may not be charging the parents, but someone is paying for the grass to be fertilized, gas for the mower, paint for the lines, insurance, overall facility maintenance, sometimes even the uniforms. It may be Joe's Roofing Company, or Suzy's Cleaning Service, through sponsorships, or the coaches and team managers who give with their time (often an endless amount of hours), but nothing is ever free, not here and not in Europe. In Europe there is also another thing that allows soccer to be "free" even at the smallest town clubs... direct government subsidies for youth sports.

So to say that ONLY the clubs who do NOT charge for kids to play should be financially rewarded for developing players who sign a professional contract... is a bit disingenuous.

The PSG academy and others like it across Europe make their money by feeding the highly profitable senior teams with players and/or by selling their rights to other clubs. Subsidies and sponsorships may play a part but the potential for profits are the main part.

US parents simultaneously bemoan the pay to play model and have issue with a club owning the kids rights. Can’t have their cake and eat it too.

[Unregistered]

IMO, at least in this region of the country, there are very few youth clubs that I would give credit to for actually developing a top player. The European clubs have the whole package, good individual coaching, classroom analysis sessions, conditioning, nutrition, etc. They should be compensated, because the club is actually responsible for developing the player. The clubs here simply give kids a way to gather on teams and enter a league in which to play, with very few exceptions. Any top player here will tell you that they had to patch together a multitude of learning experiences in order to get where they are, with their club experience being a small part of it. Kids here (and their parents) have to be extra motivated in seeking out opportunities to create a full package, with a ton of work on their own in both analysis, conditioning, and with the ball at their feet. If anyone should be compensated, it's the player and their family.

[Unregistered]

IMO, at least in this region of the country, there are very few youth clubs that I would give credit to for actually developing a top player. The European clubs have the whole package, good individual coaching, classroom analysis sessions, conditioning, nutrition, etc. They should be compensated, because the club is actually responsible for developing the player. The clubs here simply give kids a way to gather on teams and enter a league in which to play, with very few exceptions. Any top player here will tell you that they had to patch together a multitude of learning experiences in order to get where they are, with their club experience being a small part of it. Kids here (and their parents) have to be extra motivated in seeking out opportunities to create a full package, with a ton of work on their own in both analysis, conditioning, and with the ball at their feet. If anyone should be compensated, it's the player and their family.

Forgot to add, all these necessary extras for development beyond the club cost money (excepting the work on their own). A player who really can't afford to pay club tuition may be able to get a scholarship, but unfortunately, that won't get them too far. Clubs here are just missing too many pieces of the puzzle.

[Unregistered]

I recently read a log of an American coach who shadowed at a major European academy a few years back. His observation of both boys and girls was that the skill level of Americans at age 10-11 was about the same as their European counterparts. But by 16-17 the gap was enormous. Has to do with the quality of the coaching but also the system itself. All of the countries talent gets funneled into only a few major academies. The talent is then reassessed and cut as they get older. If the kid wants to remain, they need to push themselves. There is no conflict of interest for the club to cut a player and thus lose revenue as here in America.
Here in America we worry about burn out and playing multiple sports. Valid points of course but there are a special select few kids who do not get burned out, who do not play multiple sports. Those are the kids that rise through the European academies.

[Unregistered]

IMO, at least in this region of the country, there are very few youth clubs that I would give credit to for actually developing a top player. The European clubs have the whole package, good individual coaching, classroom analysis sessions, conditioning, nutrition, etc. They should be compensated, because the club is actually responsible for developing the player. The clubs here simply give kids a way to gather on teams and enter a league in which to play, with very few exceptions. Any top player here will tell you that they had to patch together a multitude of learning experiences in order to get where they are, with their club experience being a small part of it. Kids here (and their parents) have to be extra motivated in seeking out opportunities to create a full package, with a ton of work on their own in both analysis, conditioning, and with the ball at their feet. If anyone should be compensated, it's the player and their family.

I'm not so sure of this. When you have a chance, look up Cristiano Ronaldo's path for example. His first youth club in Madeira absolutely did NOT provide a "whole package" to him, there was no classroom analysis, etc. All they gave him was a team to play organized soccer with and a decent coach. Yet, they have received financial compensation from every single contract he has signed during his career, including his most recent one when he moved to Juve - as they should.

[Unregistered]

That is probably because compensation was contained in the contract signed with each club. I don't see any parent signing a contract which contains such language in the U.S. as it may effect the player's eligibility to play high school or college if it is determined to be a professional contract. The U.S. model is pay to play. If a kid is really good they will be scouted and go to one of the European academies like Pulisic, Reyna, de la Fuentes. Etc

[Unregistered]

That is probably because compensation was contained in the contract signed with each club. I don't see any parent signing a contract which contains such language in the U.S. as it may effect the player's eligibility to play high school or college if it is determined to be a professional contract. The U.S. model is pay to play. If a kid is really good they will be scouted and go to one of the European academies like Pulisic, Reyna, de la Fuentes. Etc

Here lies a key aspect and one of the reasons for the fragmented landscape in US Youth Soccer... the fact that kids and their parents aspire to playing soccer in high school and college. No player of any quality in Europe aspires to such thing. Any kid who dreams of playing the game at the highest level possible, as only one thing in mind: CLUB.

[Unregistered]

https://www.espn.com/soccer/major-le...ir-development

Great idea if we actually did...hhahahaha