Do parents understand club loyalty?

[Guest]

I disagree with almost all of this.
Good coaches need to be properly compensated. Good organizations need money to be run properly.
Statistics probably say that the chances of a player reaching that higher level that pays compensation is basically zero.
Can't run a club on the basis of lottery tickets.
I wouldn't want clubs to just focusing on finding the once in a decade/century players.

Why shouldn't coaches try to make a buck. Tired of parents saying that coaches should do it for the "love of the game" or some BS like that, mostly from parents too cheap to pay for quality babysitting.

(*** is "'hometown' type of following"?)

Coaches in High School, College and the Pros do get paid for their services, market rate of course.
Isn't this discussion centered around Oregon's non-profit, mission based, geographic community recreational/classic soccer clubs for children aged 5 to 18?
These 501c3 entities were/are designed to serve their community and of course need volunteers every year as coaches and board members to operate.
Most have little to no capital expenses for fields since the specific geographic community they serve allows them for dirt cheap or free to have unfettered use of School, City & County fields..
95% of the OYSA/AYSO clubs don't need any lottery windfall to operate, most have been running since the 70's on nominal cost covering annual fees to members and no coach pay.
What has happened over the last 2 decade's are these long standing community non-profits being taken over by cats who claim to be 'good coaches' and need to be 'properly compensated'?
Just think about it for a half-second, seriously what in the Sam h3LL would a proper professional soccer coach from abroad or even domestic, be doing coaching a bunch of recreational grade and middle school kids in our metro area & expecting to get a living wage + ?

I can only Imagine if this were to happen, what would probably happen next? Would these sneaky Cats want to use the same fields the club gets for free, then have their recreational club team parents pay them to 'train' their kiddos on the side--call it a private. Wink...Wink...Nudge..Nudge. Bob's your Uncle...

Seems like the love of money, over the love of the game would be rule of law. This will never happen in Oregon!! Since we understand the 'Game' here....LOL


.

[Guest]

Training compensation and solidarity payments are a FIFA regulation that US Soccer doesn't enforce to benefit the MLS.

"Hometown" following is exactly what you see from Amateur/Semi-Pro clubs across the globe, they feed the pyramid with pro players and are appropriately compensated when they do. Basically, almost every town has "A" club, whether amateur or semi-pro and almost all players play for that club - they are elevated up the pyramid if they are good enough. Most aren't, so they play in their hometown club at a fraction of the cost we have here in the US and similar level clubs don't recruit from other towns. The clubs absolutely run on "lottery ticket players" and lessened player fees.

So the reason you want compensation from higher level to youth clubs is so you can get your training subsidized.
So you want some else to help pay for services that you receive.
Got it!
So you want some else to shoulder the risk if your player doesn't turn out to be a superstar.

[Guest]

Coaches in High School, College and the Pros do get paid for their services, market rate of course.
Isn't this discussion centered around Oregon's non-profit, mission based, geographic community recreational/classic soccer clubs for children aged 5 to 18?
These 501c3 entities were/are designed to serve their community and of course need volunteers every year as coaches and board members to operate.
Most have little to no capital expenses for fields since the specific geographic community they serve allows them for dirt cheap or free to have unfettered use of School, City & County fields..
95% of the OYSA/AYSO clubs don't need any lottery windfall to operate, most have been running since the 70's on nominal cost covering annual fees to members and no coach pay.
What has happened over the last 2 decade's are these long standing community non-profits being taken over by cats who claim to be 'good coaches' and need to be 'properly compensated'?
Just think about it for a half-second, seriously what in the Sam h3LL would a proper professional soccer coach from abroad or even domestic, be doing coaching a bunch of recreational grade and middle school kids in our metro area & expecting to get a living wage + ?

I can only Imagine if this were to happen, what would probably happen next? Would these sneaky Cats want to use the same fields the club gets for free, then have their recreational club team parents pay them to 'train' their kiddos on the side--call it a private. Wink...Wink...Nudge..Nudge. Bob's your Uncle...

Seems like the love of money, over the love of the game would be rule of law. This will never happen in Oregon!! Since we understand the 'Game' here....LOL


.

It seems like you are still living in the 70s. But you want to us play better soccer than we had in the 70s, through better coaching than we had in the 70, on the turf fields that were not available in the 70s.
As far as I know, very few clubs around here have use of fields for free.
Just because it's not for profit doesn't mean that everyone is a volunteer.
Recreational soccer is still available more or less as you have described it.
What has happened over the last 2 decades is that more and more parents/players are willing to pay more and more for a higher level of youth soccer.
And clubs (and trainers) have popped up to serve them.
You might question whether we are getting good value for their money, but it seems to me that most players are not quitting club soccer because of the fees.
It seems like you just don't respect coaches and not for profit organizations.
You probably don't respect teachers or schools either.

[Guest]

The current environment does fine at identifying talent and pushing it up. The current system doesn't develop enough players.
Because the countries having the most success have one pyramid, supported Top-Down by their Federation. We have bifurcated systems that fight over the player pool and doesn't develop enough talent based upon our demographic advantages.
Very few "top players" exist anywhere
The more clubs we have, the more there is a recruitment focus vs. development. Market based approaches only really work efficiently when the consumer has knowledge of the product and here in the US that isn't the case - the only knowledge they have is that some teams win. But winning at young ages doesn't mean the players are getting better.
The smaller club may be just as you say. But most parents can't separate winning from development (not that they are mutually exclusive), but the coach that recruits big, fast, strong at a young age, wins games.
In a market based environment, the clubs get along only as much as it helps their bottom line. That doesn't mean they are focused on what's good for the kids.

Parents should try to find a club that doing a better job developing players. The more clubs we have, the more options to find a club that's doing it better.
Most parents, especially at the younger ages, just chose the club that's closest to them, the one that's the most convenient.
If there were more than one club that was convenient, then parents could really make a choice based on program/coaching quality.
If you have only a few clubs around you and they all sucked (sound familiar?), why wouldn't you want to entertain a new club.
Why would you want a federation driven solution when you probably think your federation sucks?

[Guest]

It seems like you are still living in the 70s. But you want to us play better soccer than we had in the 70s, through better coaching than we had in the 70, on the turf fields that were not available in the 70s.
As far as I know, very few clubs around here have use of fields for free.
Just because it's not for profit doesn't mean that everyone is a volunteer.
Recreational soccer is still available more or less as you have described it.
What has happened over the last 2 decades is that more and more parents/players are willing to pay more and more for a higher level of youth soccer.
And clubs (and trainers) have popped up to serve them.
You might question whether we are getting good value for their money, but it seems to me that most players are not quitting club soccer because of the fees.
It seems like you just don't respect coaches and not for profit organizations.
You probably don't respect teachers or schools either.

US Soccer players born in the 1960s and 1970s, caused the United States to experience a surge of talented soccer players who went on to participate in the 1990, 1994, 1998, and 2002 World Cups.
These players were born from non-profit clubs, without the burden of paying fees or the need for paid coaches and airline tickets. They came from local clubs to high school, then to college, and finally to professional clubs abroad in countries such as England, Germany, Greece, the Netherlands, and Mexico.

A statement made by a guest highlights that 95% of the OYSA/AYSO clubs don't require a lottery windfall to operate, as they have been functioning since the 1970s with nominal fees covering annual memberships and no coach pay.

However, this has changed in recent years, as the pay-to-play model has become the norm and has resulted in a pay-to-play stigma in the soccer community.

The players produced in the last decade in the United States pay-to-play system cannot match the achievements of American players born in the 1970s, who went abroad to play for professional teams. Today's American players abroad start at a much younger age, but they never had to face the negative aspects of the pay-to-play model that has taken over community-based non-profit soccer clubs.

Comparing the players produced in Oregon over the last 10 years to those produced in the 1980s, 1990s, and 2000s highlights the stark differences in talent and achievement levels.

The fact that many recreational soccer clubs do not own the fields they use and pay for the mortgage on the multi-million dollar turf field complexes highlights the issue of pay-to-play in the soccer community.

Non-profit status at a mission-based community soccer club should not result in members being taken advantage of through high fees. Recreational soccer is still prevalent in the area, but the "competitive" clubs' second, third, and fourth teams have become high-priced pay-to-play scams. Over the last two decades, individuals looking for a paycheck have converted recreational clubs into money-making schemes.

The pay-to-play model has become more of a problem than ever before, with families being charged thousands of dollars for their children to play soccer. This has resulted in the United States lagging behind the rest of the world in providing youth soccer opportunities and is pushing aside children who want to play a game that is accessible to kids of all income categories around the world. The rise of pay-to-play has created a negative impact on the soccer community and has become a barrier for children who want to play the sport.

[Guest]

US Soccer players born in the 1960s and 1970s, caused the United States to experience a surge of talented soccer players who went on to participate in the 1990, 1994, 1998, and 2002 World Cups.
These players were born from non-profit clubs, without the burden of paying fees or the need for paid coaches and airline tickets. They came from local clubs to high school, then to college, and finally to professional clubs abroad in countries such as England, Germany, Greece, the Netherlands, and Mexico.

A statement made by a guest highlights that 95% of the OYSA/AYSO clubs don't require a lottery windfall to operate, as they have been functioning since the 1970s with nominal fees covering annual memberships and no coach pay.

However, this has changed in recent years, as the pay-to-play model has become the norm and has resulted in a pay-to-play stigma in the soccer community.

The players produced in the last decade in the United States pay-to-play system cannot match the achievements of American players born in the 1970s, who went abroad to play for professional teams. Today's American players abroad start at a much younger age, but they never had to face the negative aspects of the pay-to-play model that has taken over community-based non-profit soccer clubs.

Comparing the players produced in Oregon over the last 10 years to those produced in the 1980s, 1990s, and 2000s highlights the stark differences in talent and achievement levels.

The fact that many recreational soccer clubs do not own the fields they use and pay for the mortgage on the multi-million dollar turf field complexes highlights the issue of pay-to-play in the soccer community.

Non-profit status at a mission-based community soccer club should not result in members being taken advantage of through high fees. Recreational soccer is still prevalent in the area, but the "competitive" clubs' second, third, and fourth teams have become high-priced pay-to-play scams. Over the last two decades, individuals looking for a paycheck have converted recreational clubs into money-making schemes.

The pay-to-play model has become more of a problem than ever before, with families being charged thousands of dollars for their children to play soccer. This has resulted in the United States lagging behind the rest of the world in providing youth soccer opportunities and is pushing aside children who want to play a game that is accessible to kids of all income categories around the world. The rise of pay-to-play has created a negative impact on the soccer community and has become a barrier for children who want to play the sport.

The recreational soccer clubs are still there. The high school rec league seems like a great option for many players. No one is forcing players to pay club fees.

You seem to make the competitive clubs to be the bad guys, but I think they are just tapping into a market with many willing to pay.
Families seem to be willing to pay thousands of dollars for their children to play soccer.
They could just pay the $50 rec fee but chose to pay the $1750 club fee instead, even on those second, third, fourth teams.
Some, seem to be willing to even pay thousands more.
I don't think the docs/coaches are getting rich off the clubs. (No, 125K is not a lot of money these days. And why shouldn't they be compensated, especially if the market is willing to pay.)

I more concerned that there isn't a better pickup soccer scene for kids.

[Guest]

The recreational soccer clubs are still there. The high school rec league seems like a great option for many players. No one is forcing players to pay club fees.

You seem to make the competitive clubs to be the bad guys, but I think they are just tapping into a market with many willing to pay.
Families seem to be willing to pay thousands of dollars for their children to play soccer.
They could just pay the $50 rec fee but chose to pay the $1750 club fee instead, even on those second, third, fourth teams.
Some, seem to be willing to even pay thousands more.
I don't think the docs/coaches are getting rich off the clubs. (No, 125K is not a lot of money these days. And why shouldn't they be compensated, especially if the market is willing to pay.)

I more concerned that there isn't a better pickup soccer scene for kids.

The DOC controls or monetizes the market at least within their own rec/classic club. Ethically speaking shouldn't they be creating REC teams instead of the make believe competitive teams? It's so corrupt and disingenuous at the same time. Sounds like you favor robbing these naive parents instead of having their kids play appropriately at REC.

we Making ours, with male believes,--- the new normal in Oregon club soccer. Remember to purchase your punch card for Privates.

[Guest]

The DOC controls or monetizes the market at least within their own rec/classic club. Ethically speaking shouldn't they be creating REC teams instead of the make believe competitive teams? It's so corrupt and disingenuous at the same time. Sounds like you favor robbing these naive parents instead of having their kids play appropriately at REC.

we Making ours, with male believes,--- the new normal in Oregon club soccer. Remember to purchase your punch card for Privates.

Why do you assume the parents are naive?
Just because a player is not on the first team doesn't mean that player wouldn't enjoy a more structured environment than rec.
Even at the lower levels, club training is usually better than rec.
And I've seen many players move up the ranks from lower teams.
And as for privates, I believe in private training.
Do you believe that private training has no benefits?

[Guest]

So the reason you want compensation from higher level to youth clubs is so you can get your training subsidized.
So you want some else to help pay for services that you receive.
Got it!
So you want some else to shoulder the risk if your player doesn't turn out to be a superstar.

I want compensation from higher level clubs so that we can either scholarship more players or make the overall club fees cheaper. This is how it works elsewhere and why the cost of entry elsewhere is so much less. And yes, if they have to take the risk, they will be more careful about who they take - again, this is why the system works. The higher clubs should have an initial investment. Right now they can take/cut at whim and it actually harms players.

[Guest]

Parents should try to find a club that doing a better job developing players. The more clubs we have, the more options to find a club that's doing it better.
Most parents, especially at the younger ages, just chose the club that's closest to them, the one that's the most convenient.
If there were more than one club that was convenient, then parents could really make a choice based on program/coaching quality.
If you have only a few clubs around you and they all sucked (sound familiar?), why wouldn't you want to entertain a new club.
Why would you want a federation driven solution when you probably think your federation sucks?

The problem is that there are few/no standards for the inexperienced parent to find a club that is "better at developing player", or has a better "program/coaching quality". I would argue that the current paradigm is that clubs focus on making money, not developing talent, because most buyers are not astute and most programs are not transparent. It's a perfect business model - high cost/dumb buyer.

Yes, I want the Federation to set up the structure and do the recognition of member clubs - with the elimination of State Associations, US Club, AYSO, USYS. The Federation can ensure that the clubs meet specific developmental requirements and the paradigm can shift from making money to creating players. This would make the system more transparent and parents would know their local organization is affiliated/approved by the Federation.

I don't think the Federation sucks, just isn't organized well for development. It allowed the youth/amateur game to grow organically and the system is ripe to be overhauled.

[Guest]

The problem is that there are few/no standards for the inexperienced parent to find a club that is "better at developing player", or has a better "program/coaching quality". I would argue that the current paradigm is that clubs focus on making money, not developing talent, because most buyers are not astute and most programs are not transparent. It's a perfect business model - high cost/dumb buyer.

Yes, I want the Federation to set up the structure and do the recognition of member clubs - with the elimination of State Associations, US Club, AYSO, USYS. The Federation can ensure that the clubs meet specific developmental requirements and the paradigm can shift from making money to creating players. This would make the system more transparent and parents would know their local organization is affiliated/approved by the Federation.

I don't think the Federation sucks, just isn't organized well for development. It allowed the youth/amateur game to grow organically and the system is ripe to be overhauled.

On what basis are you concluding that clubs are not developing players in the current environment?
On what basis are you concluding that clubs are focused on making money?
And how and why would you think the federation can ensure that the clubs are meeting specific developmental requirements?
Are you suggesting that once the federation gets involved then all clubs will be great at developing players?
What might these standards even look like?
In your assessement, are there even any "good" clubs currently?
And why would there be a shift from making money?

[Guest]

Why do you assume the parents are naive?
Just because a player is not on the first team doesn't mean that player wouldn't enjoy a more structured environment than rec.
Even at the lower levels, club training is usually better than rec.
And I've seen many players move up the ranks from lower teams.
And as for privates, I believe in private training.
Do you believe that private training has no benefits?

As a coach, for over 25+ years, the number of 'experienced' soccer parents has increased (per team), but it's still the vast minority. Most parents never played. So yes, a lot of well-intended parents can't judge the quality of a coach/trainer and revert back to the idea that if a team wins, the coach/trainer must be good.

I do believe there are benefits to private training, but it doesn't overcome the direct desire and time spent with the ball an individual player can accomplish on their own. Technical ability is primarily a function of time spent with the ball and it really can't be overcome by team/individual private training, unless you're paying for that training to occur everyday - but that's just the training, what is the ultimate desire of the player. All that training won't overcome the desire.

I too have seen players move up the ranks. What I'm saying is that with our resources, and better organization, we can help more players move up the ranks. We are not maximizing our opportunity to create more players who love the game and desire to improve. Right now I believe our players move up despite bad organizations (mostly). I also believe we have a lot of good coaches, but that the current structure almost forces them into a recruiter role to improve the team and thus the focus isn't on developing the players they have now.

[Guest]

As a coach, for over 25+ years, the number of 'experienced' soccer parents has increased (per team), but it's still the vast minority. Most parents never played. So yes, a lot of well-intended parents can't judge the quality of a coach/trainer and revert back to the idea that if a team wins, the coach/trainer must be good.

I do believe there are benefits to private training, but it doesn't overcome the direct desire and time spent with the ball an individual player can accomplish on their own. Technical ability is primarily a function of time spent with the ball and it really can't be overcome by team/individual private training, unless you're paying for that training to occur everyday - but that's just the training, what is the ultimate desire of the player. All that training won't overcome the desire.

I too have seen players move up the ranks. What I'm saying is that with our resources, and better organization, we can help more players move up the ranks. We are not maximizing our opportunity to create more players who love the game and desire to improve. Right now I believe our players move up despite bad organizations (mostly). I also believe we have a lot of good coaches, but that the current structure almost forces them into a recruiter role to improve the team and thus the focus isn't on developing the players they have now.

This.

[Guest]

The DOC controls or monetizes the market at least within their own rec/classic club. Ethically speaking shouldn't they be creating REC teams instead of the make believe competitive teams? It's so corrupt and disingenuous at the same time. Sounds like you favor robbing these naive parents instead of having their kids play appropriately at REC.

we Making ours, with male believes,--- the new normal in Oregon club soccer. Remember to purchase your punch card for Privates.

So why should club/year round soccer only be for kids who are talented? If a player loves playing soccer and wants to play year round and wants to improve, shouldn't they have that option? That is what many of those 3rd and 4th team players are. For those players they take it more serious than the Rec players do, and they want to do it more. And realistically soccer isn't even that expensive when you start comparing it to other club sports (volleyball, softball, basketball, gymnastics).

[Guest]

As a coach, for over 25+ years, the number of 'experienced' soccer parents has increased (per team), but it's still the vast minority. Most parents never played. So yes, a lot of well-intended parents can't judge the quality of a coach/trainer and revert back to the idea that if a team wins, the coach/trainer must be good.

I do believe there are benefits to private training, but it doesn't overcome the direct desire and time spent with the ball an individual player can accomplish on their own. Technical ability is primarily a function of time spent with the ball and it really can't be overcome by team/individual private training, unless you're paying for that training to occur everyday - but that's just the training, what is the ultimate desire of the player. All that training won't overcome the desire.

I too have seen players move up the ranks. What I'm saying is that with our resources, and better organization, we can help more players move up the ranks. We are not maximizing our opportunity to create more players who love the game and desire to improve. Right now I believe our players move up despite bad organizations (mostly). I also believe we have a lot of good coaches, but that the current structure almost forces them into a recruiter role to improve the team and thus the focus isn't on developing the players they have now.

Given that half the teams don't have winning records, a lot of parents must think the coach sucks. LOL