Spurs 1, Crossfire Premier 0

[Unregistered]

Today, FIFA ruled against CP in its claim for a solidarity payment concerning the transfer of DeAndre Yedlin from the Sounders to Tottenham Hotspur. http://www.espn.com/soccer/major-lea...enham-transfer

Spurs objected to the request on three grounds:

* Inadequate recordkeeping (Yedlin's "player passport" was incomplete, although it did indicate a few years training at Crossfire)
* Pay-to-play clubs are not "training clubs" in that they do not place funds at risk to develop players, and thus are not eligible to receive TC/SP.
* MLS said they didn't need to pay it per US law, and this declaration by the transferring club relieves them of the duty to do so.

FIFA, of course, didn't state why.

Westside still has an outstanding case concerning Rubio Rubin--unlike Crossfire (which was a claim for a solidarity payment), Westside is demanding training compensation from Dutch club FC Utrecht. Don't know if Rubin's documentation is in order. If pay-to-play is an issue, that would apply to Westside as well. As Rubin was never in MLS, the third item above probably doesn't apply.

[Unregistered]

Today, FIFA ruled against CP in its claim for a solidarity payment concerning the transfer of DeAndre Yedlin from the Sounders to Tottenham Hotspur. http://www.espn.com/soccer/major-lea...enham-transfer

Spurs objected to the request on three grounds:

* Inadequate recordkeeping (Yedlin's "player passport" was incomplete, although it did indicate a few years training at Crossfire)
* Pay-to-play clubs are not "training clubs" in that they do not place funds at risk to develop players, and thus are not eligible to receive TC/SP.
* MLS said they didn't need to pay it per US law, and this declaration by the transferring club relieves them of the duty to do so.

FIFA, of course, didn't state why.

Westside still has an outstanding case concerning Rubio Rubin--unlike Crossfire (which was a claim for a solidarity payment), Westside is demanding training compensation from Dutch club FC Utrecht. Don't know if Rubin's documentation is in order. If pay-to-play is an issue, that would apply to Westside as well. As Rubin was never in MLS, the third item above probably doesn't apply.

I get confused by the pay-to-play dynamics for non-profits. Can you explain what you mean by, "Pay-to-play clubs are not "training clubs" in that they do not place funds at risk to develop players, and thus are not eligible to receive TC/SP."

[Unregistered]

I get confused by the pay-to-play dynamics for non-profits. Can you explain what you mean by, "Pay-to-play clubs are not "training clubs" in that they do not place funds at risk to develop players, and thus are not eligible to receive TC/SP."

In US you pay money for your kid to play soccer.

In Europe and the rest of the world, clubs pay money for some kids to play soccer.


In the US if the clubs don’t develop your kid it doesn’t matter. You paid them.

In the rest of the world, they develop your kid on their dollar on the idea that when the kid is good enough, they can sell them or get compensation every time the player is sold to another club.

[Unregistered]

In US you pay money for your kid to play soccer.

In Europe and the rest of the world, clubs pay money for some kids to play soccer.


In the US if the clubs don’t develop your kid it doesn’t matter. You paid them.

In the rest of the world, they develop your kid on their dollar on the idea that when the kid is good enough, they can sell them or get compensation every time the player is sold to another club.

Somewhat of an oversimplification - outside of the top pro academies, pay-to-play exists throughout Europe.

[Unregistered]

Somewhat of an oversimplification - outside of the top pro academies, pay-to-play exists throughout Europe.

Uhhh there isn’t a lot of actually non pro academies in Europe. There is a pro team as many as high schools here. Maybe more actually.

[Unregistered]

Uhhh there isn’t a lot of actually non pro academies in Europe. There is a pro team as many as high schools here. Maybe more actually.

In much of Europe, you have essentially two tiers of youth soccer:

* Professional academies, run by clubs ranging from third and fourth division sides up to the academies of Barca or Ajax or Man United. Highly competitive, training is free.

* Amateur clubs. Generally don't involve travel, and are inexpensive and often subsidized by the national federation. Classic level soccer at a rec price.

The pay-to-play travel team is far less common over there. TC is not an issue for the amateur clubs; anybody who is even remotely considered a prospect can find a spot on some academy, though it may not be a very good one.

But "should pay-to-play clubs get training compensation too"? is an interesting question. As is the question of whether donation-backed financial aid makes a club a "training club", or the club needs to be a free-for-everyone model.

Unfortunately FIFO, being the pr***s they are, did not state why in their ruling. They did the same thing with their rulings concerning Dempsey and Bradley--and stated that for a fee of $10k, the youth clubs in question could receive an explanation--otherwise they had no intention of explaining themselves.

[Unregistered]

In much of Europe, you have essentially two tiers of youth soccer:

* Professional academies, run by clubs ranging from third and fourth division sides up to the academies of Barca or Ajax or Man United. Highly competitive, training is free.

* Amateur clubs. Generally don't involve travel, and are inexpensive and often subsidized by the national federation. Classic level soccer at a rec price.

The pay-to-play travel team is far less common over there. TC is not an issue for the amateur clubs; anybody who is even remotely considered a prospect can find a spot on some academy, though it may not be a very good one.

But "should pay-to-play clubs get training compensation too"? is an interesting question. As is the question of whether donation-backed financial aid makes a club a "training club", or the club needs to be a free-for-everyone model.

Unfortunately FIFO, being the pr***s they are, did not state why in their ruling. They did the same thing with their rulings concerning Dempsey and Bradley--and stated that for a fee of $10k, the youth clubs in question could receive an explanation--otherwise they had no intention of explaining themselves.

A fairly detailed discussion of the various options in England, for example: https://rantingsoccerdad.com/2017/11...-pay-but-less/

Rec soccer might actually look more expensive in England than it does here; travel pay-to-play soccer is much less there then here, which author speculates is less travel distances and lower coaching pay.

[Unregistered]

In US you pay money for your kid to play soccer.

In Europe and the rest of the world, clubs pay money for some kids to play soccer.


In the US if the clubs don’t develop your kid it doesn’t matter. You paid them.

In the rest of the world, they develop your kid on their dollar on the idea that when the kid is good enough, they can sell them or get compensation every time the player is sold to another club.

Some exceptions when kids are on full financial aid and they pay nothing.

[Unregistered]

Some exceptions when kids are on full financial aid and they pay nothing.

Also referred to as the Westside plan...and I don't buy it. Clubs know what they are doing if they subsidize a player in this pay to play model. To come back after a player makes it and expect compensation or renumeration if you will, is ridiculous. It's bad enough that the club will use said player as an advertisement for how good the club is...and then try to cash in on the players success. Absurd. It is not as if Westside or Crossfire ran a 24 hours a day, 7 days a week academy. Give me a break.

[Unregistered]

Also referred to as the Westside plan...and I don't buy it. Clubs know what they are doing if they subsidize a player in this pay to play model. To come back after a player makes it and expect compensation or renumeration if you will, is ridiculous. It's bad enough that the club will use said player as an advertisement for how good the club is...and then try to cash in on the players success. Absurd. It is not as if Westside or Crossfire ran a 24 hours a day, 7 days a week academy. Give me a break.

It's bad enough that the club will use said player as an advertisement for how good the club is...and then try to cash in on the players success.

Don't the clubs in Europe do the same thing? Do they not "promote" their top players?

[Unregistered]

Yes

It's bad enough that the club will use said player as an advertisement for how good the club is...and then try to cash in on the players success.

Don't the clubs in Europe do the same thing? Do they not "promote" their top players?

I am sure clubs promote successful players all over the world. The pay to play model to me means a club waives it right to these training fees.

The pay to play clubs have no skin in the game. Their business model is based on tuition dollars and not the ultimate sales of players

[Unregistered]

I am sure clubs promote successful players all over the world. The pay to play model to me means a club waives it right to these training fees.

The pay to play clubs have no skin in the game. Their business model is based on tuition dollars and not the ultimate sales of players

Based on tuition dollars because that is the only way to recoup costs in the US. If you open other revenue sources (training comp/solidarity), will lessen dependency on tuition, particularly for high-potential players.

[Unregistered]

Also referred to as the Westside plan...and I don't buy it. Clubs know what they are doing if they subsidize a player in this pay to play model. To come back after a player makes it and expect compensation or renumeration if you will, is ridiculous. It's bad enough that the club will use said player as an advertisement for how good the club is...and then try to cash in on the players success. Absurd. It is not as if Westside or Crossfire ran a 24 hours a day, 7 days a week academy. Give me a break.

Financial aid at Westside isn't directly based on ability to play--there are Mundial kids receiving financial aid. On the other hand there are a limited number of scholarships available so it is possible that a kid who might make the cut if he pays won't get a scholarship.


So despite offering fairly generous financial aid, WT is still a pay-to-play club.

Of course, FIFA doesn't really define the term "training club", and I'm not aware of any existing specific rule that says "pay-to-play" clubs (a club where tuition or dues covers a significant part of expenses) are excluded from training compensation or solidarity. OTOH, a good argument can be made that they should be excluded--that a training club (or team, since clubs may operate different types of teams) is one where the costs are paid (or mostly paid) by the club, in the expectation of selling players or signing them to a first team deal, and that a pay-to-play club has already been compensated in terms of dues received, and has no further claim on a player's professional compensation.

Some countries' national associations may specify this in greater detail. And a historical lack of attention to TC/SP from US Soccer might instead be the grounds for denying the claims of Crossfire and/or Westside, rather than any ruling that pay-to-play clubs are ineligible.

[Unregistered]

FIFA has now released the details of the ruling, and essentially:

* Crossfire has a valid claim to a solidarity payment, the fact that it is a "pay to play" club is not a barrier to training compensation or solidarity payments.

* Crossfire's documentation of their claim ("player passport") was valid.

* However--Tottenham paid the total solidarity payment due to Seattle Sounders, and based on representations from the Sounders and/or US Soccer, believed in good faith that they completed their obligation, and thus don't owe Crossfire Premier any additional funds. Crossfire Premier may have a valid claim against the Sounders for a share of the solidarity payments the Sounders received.

This is good news for youth clubs--and locally, very good news for Westside Timbers, who may well thus win their case against FC Utrecht for training compensation for Rubio Rubin. No MLS club was involved in that transaction. Some technicality might yet bar Westside from being compensated, but the big concern--that pay-to-play clubs are not eligible--has been rejected by FIFA.

Crossfire Premier is happy about this even though they have not yet been compensated--FIFA has said they are due a payment, just not from Spurs.

https://www.espn.com/soccer/major-le...in-yedlin-case

[Unregistered]

Also referred to as the Westside plan...and I don't buy it. Clubs know what they are doing if they subsidize a player in this pay to play model. To come back after a player makes it and expect compensation or renumeration if you will, is ridiculous. It's bad enough that the club will use said player as an advertisement for how good the club is...and then try to cash in on the players success. Absurd. It is not as if Westside or Crossfire ran a 24 hours a day, 7 days a week academy. Give me a break.

Not to mention in the pay-to-play model, other player’s fees are subsidizing the scholarships so clubs never actually invest anything in a player. Compensation for US youth clubs is absurd.