MAPLE Politics

[Unregistered]

Whether that product is worth the price that is generally charged is completely subjective and more a matter of personal values and parental goals than anything.

Of course, great value in some instances and terrible in others.

[Unregistered]

Two additional points to add here.

1-If the higher end players did not demand a better product (coaches, facilities, uniforms etc) most kids would still be playing in T-shirts on rock strewn fields with volunteer coaches who may or may not have a clue what they were doing. That is even if they were able to find a team to play on which was not always possible. The fact is unlike other parts of the country where clubs have a more municipal footprint, the clubs in this area have always come into being to service the needs of the top end player first. Traditionally club soccer was about the elite player, not the recreational player. Over the last 10 years demand for improved coaching and an escape from the traditional pitfalls of town programs increased the demand for club soccer. The clubs responded by adding capacity to meet this demand, often times by sacrificing the needs of their elite players. To say that the recreational players now subsidize the elite players is not really accurate. If anything it is the recreational players that are responsible for the dilution in club soccer.

2-All is certainly not perfect in the club model and quality is certainly not universal but by and large the overall quality of coaching HAS dramatically improved in the last 10 years and the environment is both more open/accessible and conducive to training than it once was. The fact is club soccer does exist as a tangible product, which has fairly solid quality and meets a customer demand. Whether that product is worth the price that is generally charged is completely subjective and more a matter of personal values and parental goals than anything.

... and for driving the price up.

[Unregistered]

Not mutually exclusive. Are subsidizing (clubs facilitating and/or chasing those dollars...because business is business) and are diluting. Evil? No. Parents willfully ignorant in many cases? Yes.

Very different to say that they are there to subsidize the costs of developing the top end players and to say that they are paying for the increased capacity clubs needed to add in order to satisfy their needs.

[Unregistered]

This debate took place recently. It's an interesting one. It's not a judgment of how other people spend their money. But just because someone exercises that freedom or it's more affordable for someone driving the Lexus instead of the Camry, it doesn't not change the intrinsic value of development for the dollar spent.

Because they are taught by different coaches with different players you can never get to an apples to apples comparison so there is no way you can compare the intrinsic value. You can't even compare it after the fact because some kids play and interact under one coaching style dramatically different than they might under another.

The "don't judge" case (meaning club is always an acceptable or superior development value for the dollar spent) ONLY makes sense if the following are all true: (a) every player has the same potential (elite) regardless of their starting point in the sport and when they enter the club environment, and (b) the quality/level of training, resources, etc. is exponentially greater (by the same factor cost), not just marginally better (never mind not better at all).

You are assuming they are not doing both. You are also assuming that the value one derives is strictly the development. Lastly you are assuming that the value of the cost grows the same for each person. To a wealthy person, $10 is much different than $5. To a poor person, the $10 is dramatically more than the $5.

Watching town teams beat club teams at club-hosted tournaments is the first, best and easiest example to cite that a definitive argument that every parent of every player spending 10 times the amount to play in addition or instead of town doesn't always makes sense. If you are capable of acknowledging "watered down" has occurred in club soccer, regardless of who's to blame, then I'd love to hear how the value proposition (relative to the alternative cost and experience being a fraction of the cost) is a good one at all, much less superior for those players doing the watering down, again, town teams beating club teams in tournaments, club players being cut from high school teams, etc. now being the reality in the marketplace of pay-to-play.

Another assumption you are making is that the person joining the club could have played for one of those high-end towns. This might not be the case.

The bottom-line is -- In a free market system, there is no one to blame for a business need being filled at the present cost. Presently there is very little barriers to starting up a club and/or joining a competitive Sunday league.

[Unregistered]

This debate took place recently. It's an interesting one. It's not a judgment of how other people spend their money. But just because someone exercises that freedom or it's more affordable for someone driving the Lexus instead of the Camry, it doesn't not change the intrinsic value of development for the dollar spent.

The "don't judge" case (meaning club is always an acceptable or superior development value for the dollar spent) ONLY makes sense if the following are all true: (a) every player has the same potential (elite) regardless of their starting point in the sport and when they enter the club environment, and (b) the quality/level of training, resources, etc. is exponentially greater (by the same factor cost), not just marginally better (never mind not better at all).

Watching town teams beat club teams at club-hosted tournaments is the first, best and easiest example to cite that a definitive argument that every parent of every player spending 10 times the amount to play in addition or instead of town doesn't always makes sense. If you are capable of acknowledging "watered down" has occurred in club soccer, regardless of who's to blame, then I'd love to hear how the value proposition (relative to the alternative cost and experience being a fraction of the cost) is a good one at all, much less superior for those players doing the watering down, again, town teams beating club teams in tournaments, club players being cut from high school teams, etc. now being the reality in the marketplace of pay-to-play.

There will always be top town travel teams that will beat some mid to lower level club teams (usually those strong town teams are often made up of many club players that play both anyway). Regardless, its a fact that will always remain true, but does that mean the kids that are on the club team that loses to a top town team, are wasting their time and money? I don't think that is usually the case.

Perhaps the kids on those mid-level to small club teams come from a town with terrible travel teams, or perhaps they have already lost all their other best travel players to premier, leaving their top travel team depleted of talent and having to play in lower divisions. Why wouldn't they then search out a club option that is better for them than what they have in their town? Why is that wrong? Should that player be expected to stay put in travel, just because they may not end up on a club team good enough to beat a strong travel team at some tournament?

There are a lot of players out there who may be the top of their top travel team, but aren't good enough to make a top club team in the region. Heck, that's most of the club kids out there. Even so, it may not even be a skill issue ... maybe its a money or commute issue. Many kids are on mid/small level club teams for all different reasons, and yes maybe there are a few top travel teams that can beat them, but it doesn't mean those kids aren't in the better situation for THEM, because it the end, their mid/low level club team is STILL better than there best travel team in their town.


That all being said, where I do agree that the pay-to-play system gets a bit more murky, is when you have parents sending their kids to play premier when their kid was so bad they couldn't even make a B or C town travel team. To me, that is when I find it hard not judge the choices by the parents, and the message that sends their kids. Until your kid makes the town travel A team, I can't even imagine the desire to send your kid to club, except possibly if you have another kid playing at the same club and you choose to send your weaker player there too for the convenience of having all your children in the same club for carpool and scheduling purposes.

[Unregistered]

Of course, great value in some instances and terrible in others.

Each person has their own value proposition. Location, team dynamics, practice facilities, schedules, etc.

[Unregistered]

The fundamental problem is with the leveling. You can't really argue against someone participating, especially if they want to pay their fair share. That is everyone's individual prerogative. The problem really becomes when you just expand the size of the group to accommodate them and don't really direct them to a level that is actually appropriate for their level of ability. What club soccer has functionally done is flattened out the traditional player pyramid by creating artificial groupings based solely upon age and league affiliation. This is the real issue with NEP and a lot of the USCS offering. NEP got rid of all of the merit based concepts like divisions and promo-relegation in order to be more inclusive and "developmental" friendly but as a result they sacrificed all objectivity. There really no way to tell what level of team you are facing nor is there any consequence to putting a bad team together. Bad teams just keep muddling along as long as the kids keep wanting to play and the parents wanting to pay. Their primary problem is they really only have 2 levels when they probably need about 4 or 5 and they should enact some concrete merit based mechanism for teams to advance between them. Unlike in the past, now if teams fail, there are still plenty of options out there for the motivated recreational player to latch on to so there is no reason to prop up dysfunctional teams any longer.

[Unregistered]

Very different to say that they are there to subsidize the costs of developing the top end players and to say that they are paying for the increased capacity clubs needed to add in order to satisfy their needs.

Show me where someone said "they are there to subsidize" (as opposed to "essentially" and "in effect" they are subsidizing operational costs).

Clubs have an incentive on one hand to simply grow, while managing the conflict, arguably, the impact of "quantity" has on "quality." Larger the club, more leverage to gain lower unit costs FOR EVERYTHING (field lease, uniform contracts, etc.). At some point, bigger probably isn't better (pricing power will derive from exclusivity)...except as of now, consumption in every respect is outstripping supply (as an extension, more and better fields than ever, but pricing is also more expensive than ever). In club soccer, it's still very much a seller's market.

[Unregistered]

Each person has their own value proposition. Location, team dynamics, practice facilities, schedules, etc.

True to an extent, but we're not really arguing micro/anecdotal examples, are we? A desire, willingness or ability to pay a given price, whatever those other parameters might be doesn't define in the macro, that their isn't a segment of the market getting hosed value proposition-wise, does it (even if on a micro/anecdotal level, Mrs. Lexus is thrilled with the 7th division NEP experience at 10 times the cost)?

[Unregistered]

Honestly getting tired of the money grab. Yes my kids a better soccer player from club, but at what price does this all make any sense?

[Unregistered]

There will always be top town travel teams that will beat some mid to lower level club teams (usually those strong town teams are often made up of many club players that play both anyway). Regardless, its a fact that will always remain true, but does that mean the kids that are on the club team that loses to a top town team, are wasting their time and money? I don't think that is usually the case.

Perhaps the kids on those mid-level to small club teams come from a town with terrible travel teams, or perhaps they have already lost all their other best travel players to premier, leaving their top travel team depleted of talent and having to play in lower divisions. Why wouldn't they then search out a club option that is better for them than what they have in their town? Why is that wrong? Should that player be expected to stay put in travel, just because they may not end up on a club team good enough to beat a strong travel team at some tournament?

There are a lot of players out there who may be the top of their top travel team, but aren't good enough to make a top club team in the region. Heck, that's most of the club kids out there. Even so, it may not even be a skill issue ... maybe its a money or commute issue. Many kids are on mid/small level club teams for all different reasons, and yes maybe there are a few top travel teams that can beat them, but it doesn't mean those kids aren't in the better situation for THEM, because it the end, their mid/low level club team is STILL better than there best travel team in their town.


That all being said, where I do agree that the pay-to-play system gets a bit more murky, is when you have parents sending their kids to play premier when their kid was so bad they couldn't even make a B or C town travel team. To me, that is when I find it hard not judge the choices by the parents, and the message that sends their kids. Until your kid makes the town travel A team, I can't even imagine the desire to send your kid to club, except possibly if you have another kid playing at the same club and you choose to send your weaker player there too for the convenience of having all your children in the same club for carpool and scheduling purposes.

I don't know how you're capable of writing that last paragraph and the ones preceding it. What's all these qualifiers of mid and small and low? You said it yourself, you have the 7th team at massive clubs with players who can't make the town A team. End of story. Does it matter that the A team has club players, that this A team is crushing that 7th team? No. The only point is that mom and dad are writing the check to that club with the 7th team. It's in many, not all, but many a terrible decision with questionable motives. You've seen it, I've seen it, we've all seen it.

[Unregistered]

I don't know how you're capable of writing that last paragraph and the ones preceding it. What's all these qualifiers of mid and small and low? You said it yourself, you have the 7th team at massive clubs with players who can't make the town A team. End of story. Does it matter that the A team has club players, that this A team is crushing that 7th team? No. The only point is that mom and dad are writing the check to that club with the 7th team. It's in many, not all, but many a terrible decision with questionable motives. You've seen it, I've seen it, we've all seen it.

So where should those players play if they want to? Their town program?? The wholesale gross failures at the town level are basically what created the demand for club soccer in the first place. If it weren't for the fact that most of the town programs have zero labor and zero facility costs which allows them to be just plain cheaper they probably wouldn't even exist any longer. The real problem here is that you have the situation you describe as one club's A team playing against another's 7th team. 7th teams should compete against 7th teams and it should be apparent that if another club's A team is competing against them that in fact they are really a 7th level team. As it stands now the system hides that little tidbit under gobs of marketing hype supposedly in the name of development.

[Unregistered]

Honestly getting tired of the money grab. Yes my kids a better soccer player from club, but at what price does this all make any sense?

Fellow parent and tired of this sort of whining. You are not a victim because you have the ability choose where you want to be and even if you want to be here. Have some stones and take your own personal stand.

[Unregistered]

True to an extent, but we're not really arguing micro/anecdotal examples, are we? A desire, willingness or ability to pay a given price, whatever those other parameters might be doesn't define in the macro, that their isn't a segment of the market getting hosed value proposition-wise, does it (even if on a micro/anecdotal level, Mrs. Lexus is thrilled with the 7th division NEP experience at 10 times the cost)?

From a pure economic model, when there is a truly competitive market there is no such thing as being hosed.

[Unregistered]

So where should those players play if they want to? Their town program?? The wholesale gross failures at the town level are basically what created the demand for club soccer in the first place. If it weren't for the fact that most of the town programs have zero labor and zero facility costs which allows them to be just plain cheaper they probably wouldn't even exist any longer.

I'd say the truth is in the middle, meaning each side has their distinct slices of the blame pie, but I don't disagree with you. I'm not making an argument against having the choice, as stupid as it is for those to act on it. of blame share of blame pie.

The real problem here is that you have the situation you describe as one club's A team playing against another's 7th team. 7th teams should compete against 7th teams and it should be apparent that if another club's A team is competing against them that in fact they are really a 7th level team. As it stands now the system hides that little tidbit under gobs of marketing hype supposedly in the name of development.

My "7th team" is referring to a large NEP-member club and the "A team" is referring to TOWN. The placements (real life example) were appropriate. If there was a 3rd bracket, the club team belonged in it, not the town team. Moving the town A team from 2nd to 1st bracket play would have been a ****show for them.

But you're right, there's a lot of duplicity and hype clouding the decision-making for the consumer. Ultimately the parents feel good about putting their kids in any environment, even if it's a waste of time and terrible quality, clubs talk a lot about development, but certainly most aren't happy even with just being competitive, and many aren't, they chase winning because it sells, and the circle is complete with parents buying results, reputation and the like that really belongs to and was created by other kids and whatever spin is thrown into the message, causing them to lose all or most of the objectivity they need about their own kid to make a smart choice.