Mike Woitalla: US Soccer should retreat from youth soccer

[Unregistered]

Interesting article, unfortunately behind a paywall: https://www.socceramerica.com/public...th-soccer.html

In it, Mike Woitalla, a regular contributor at socceramerica.com, argues that after a decade-plus of the DA, it may be time for US Soccer to take a step back. Not because the DA has failed (on the boys side), but because it has SUCCEEDED: MLS and USL now have a viable academy system (some clubs, at least), and at the club level, the bar has been raised. OTOH, a one-size-fits-all approach to high-level youth clubs doesn't make sense (particularly the high school ban); what makes sense for a subsidized professional academy doesn't necessarily make sense for a nonprofit youth club.

Things US Soccer could do instead (on the boys' side):

* It should focus mainly on the top level, and by "top level" I mean fully subsidized academies. Rather than enforcing standards at this level, though, the role of the Federation should be to provide technical support and facilitation. Also, running subsidized academy teams in places like South Texas, without a pro team around but with a large talent pool, would be highly beneficial.
* Below that, US Soccer should publish recommendations, but running leagues and setting rules are better left to local organizations.
* If US Soccer can figure out a way to make USYS and US Club play nice together, that would be useful. Right now, having two competing youth associations (three if you count the mostly-rec AYSO) weakens the ability of either to enforce any rules or standards--clubs simply threaten to bolt to the other organization's league if they get ticked off. (Witness the regular chatter around here how nice it would be to have BECNL in Oregon, mainly to raise a middle finger in the direction of OYSA and/or Peregrine).

[Unregistered]

Interesting article, unfortunately behind a paywall: https://www.socceramerica.com/public...th-soccer.html

In it, Mike Woitalla, a regular contributor at socceramerica.com, argues that after a decade-plus of the DA, it may be time for US Soccer to take a step back. Not because the DA has failed (on the boys side), but because it has SUCCEEDED: MLS and USL now have a viable academy system (some clubs, at least), and at the club level, the bar has been raised. OTOH, a one-size-fits-all approach to high-level youth clubs doesn't make sense (particularly the high school ban); what makes sense for a subsidized professional academy doesn't necessarily make sense for a nonprofit youth club.

Things US Soccer could do instead (on the boys' side):

* It should focus mainly on the top level, and by "top level" I mean fully subsidized academies. Rather than enforcing standards at this level, though, the role of the Federation should be to provide technical support and facilitation. Also, running subsidized academy teams in places like South Texas, without a pro team around but with a large talent pool, would be highly beneficial.
* Below that, US Soccer should publish recommendations, but running leagues and setting rules are better left to local organizations.
* If US Soccer can figure out a way to make USYS and US Club play nice together, that would be useful. Right now, having two competing youth associations (three if you count the mostly-rec AYSO) weakens the ability of either to enforce any rules or standards--clubs simply threaten to bolt to the other organization's league if they get ticked off. (Witness the regular chatter around here how nice it would be to have BECNL in Oregon, mainly to raise a middle finger in the direction of OYSA and/or Peregrine).

How can you possibly say this system has worked so well. Author lost all credibility with this statement. Net result of current system is; our mens team is not capable of beating teams from countries with populations the size of Nebraska. Total rebuild needs done. Make our mens national team great again.

[Unregistered]

How can you possibly say this system has worked so well. Author lost all credibility with this statement. Net result of current system is; our mens team is not capable of beating teams from countries with populations the size of Nebraska. Total rebuild needs done. Make our mens national team great again.

Sure - it is a fair take that usda has been a failure. However, may lead to similar conclusions - fed should be less intrusive in youth soccer.

[Unregistered]

How can you possibly say this system has worked so well. Author lost all credibility with this statement. Net result of current system is; our mens team is not capable of beating teams from countries with populations the size of Nebraska. Total rebuild needs done. Make our mens national team great again.

It wasn't the DA alumni who failed to qualify for Russia. Other than perhaps kids who were U17s when the program got traction, DA products were largely too young to play for the senior team. Now we see some coming through the system, but the US men's team has been an ugly mismash of talented youngsters, and aging veterans like Bradley who have experience and guile, but are technically overmatched by most international players.

It was the last of the "golden generation", who did well in 2014, but were on the downside of their careers during 2018 qualifying--followed by the generation gap (a 3-4 year span where the best American player produced was Darlington f'n Nagbe). Plus a poisonous locker room, and more than a fair bit of resentment of Christian Pulisic.

I'll agree that the current leadership of US Soccer stinks, and the coaching situation is ridiculous. US Soccer House is a toxic mess, half the coaching positions remain unfulfilled, and still there's no CEO.

But the DA--or if you prefer, the MLS academies, as credit should go to the clubs and coaches (and players), not to the league--is producing a lot of good talent.

At any rate, the article is suggesting that the pros ought to take over the role of elite player development, which is how it works everywhere else. Neither the Football Association in England, nor the DFB in Germany, are running anything like the DA--they don't have to.

Some dinosaurs around here seem to want to go back to the old days when soccer was a boutique sport, MLS wasn't a serious professional league (or didn't exist at all), and a handful of American players would make it to Bradenton or the European leagues. Soccer is too popular now in this country, those old days aren't coming back.

[Unregistered]

It wasn't the DA alumni who failed to qualify for Russia. Other than perhaps kids who were U17s when the program got traction, DA products were largely too young to play for the senior team. Now we see some coming through the system, but the US men's team has been an ugly mismash of talented youngsters, and aging veterans like Bradley who have experience and guile, but are technically overmatched by most international players.

It was the last of the "golden generation", who did well in 2014, but were on the downside of their careers during 2018 qualifying--followed by the generation gap (a 3-4 year span where the best American player produced was Darlington f'n Nagbe). Plus a poisonous locker room, and more than a fair bit of resentment of Christian Pulisic.

I'll agree that the current leadership of US Soccer stinks, and the coaching situation is ridiculous. US Soccer House is a toxic mess, half the coaching positions remain unfulfilled, and still there's no CEO.

But the DA--or if you prefer, the MLS academies, as credit should go to the clubs and coaches (and players), not to the league--is producing a lot of good talent.

At any rate, the article is suggesting that the pros ought to take over the role of elite player development, which is how it works everywhere else. Neither the Football Association in England, nor the DFB in Germany, are running anything like the DA--they don't have to.

Some dinosaurs around here seem to want to go back to the old days when soccer was a boutique sport, MLS wasn't a serious professional league (or didn't exist at all), and a handful of American players would make it to Bradenton or the European leagues. Soccer is too popular now in this country, those old days aren't coming back.

That USDA products were not good enough to have an impact on the last qualifying cycle is a direct indictment of the USDA's output. The platform started in 2007 - meaning there are plenty of alums in their mid-20s.

Very few countries the size of the United State try to impose centrally-planned, one size fits all development solutions - in soccer or in education. Not sure any of them do it successfully.

There is no going back to the old days. Also doesn't mean we should double down on bureaucrats who have little to show for the millions invested in their platform, especially compared to the performance of the dinosaurs, who produced better national teams than today's geniuses.

What should the new way be? MLS and other pro teams need to be center of developing players for their teams. That probably isn't enough clubs - need another 50-70 with incentivizes to develop pros; that is the hard part right now.

National team performance would benefit from 100+clubs focused on developing pros, just as it does in any other successful soccer country.

[Unregistered]

That USDA products were not good enough to have an impact on the last qualifying cycle is a direct indictment of the USDA's output. The platform started in 2007 - meaning there are plenty of alums in their mid-20s.

Very few countries the size of the United State try to impose centrally-planned, one size fits all development solutions - in soccer or in education. Not sure any of them do it successfully.

There is no going back to the old days. Also doesn't mean we should double down on bureaucrats who have little to show for the millions invested in their platform, especially compared to the performance of the dinosaurs, who produced better national teams than today's geniuses.

What should the new way be? MLS and other pro teams need to be center of developing players for their teams. That probably isn't enough clubs - need another 50-70 with incentivizes to develop pros; that is the hard part right now.

National team performance would benefit from 100+clubs focused on developing pros, just as it does in any other successful soccer country.

I think we actually agree on the latter points:

* The federation and the national teams should not be the primary developers of talent. In most nations, that is done by pro academies, especially at the youth level. NT training camps are for getting club players to work together and learn the system. The DA was useful in that it shook up a complacent club scene.

* We've gone from nearly zero decent pro academies, to a couple dozen. We need to double or triple that, still, and get the remaining MLS clubs on board with the need to run academies. (Reducing geographic regions, especially for players over 16, might help--the Timbers might treat their academy seriously if they could recruit from anywhere. Of course, that would probably hurt local kids, at least in the short run).

* MLS, our top tier, probably is getting too large. We need to find a way to make lower-level soccer a viable business model--either MLS will have to subsidize some of the lower leagues (perhaps a formal farm system like baseball has), or other improvements to the business model will be necessary. (We need more mid-sized stadiums that allow alcohol sales, if nothing else--many high school facilities would be excellent venues for lower-level pro matches, but school districts have strict no-booze policies for obvious reasons).

* The DA has had several issues: 1) trying to dictate too much (it was only a few years ago that it was demanding all clubs play a 4-3-3), 2) treating nonprofit youth clubs and MLS academies as the same, 3) some poisonous US Soccer politics (there is a LOT of resentment of Jurgen Klinsmann and his actions as technical director, and the DA may be a victim of the backlash).

* That said, I'm amazed at the amount of sabotage that goes on in youth soccer. I'm not just talking about clubs competing for players, sometimes using underhanded means, but entire platforms doing this to each other (and yes, US Soccer is complicit).

[Unregistered]

I think we actually agree on the latter points:

* The federation and the national teams should not be the primary developers of talent. In most nations, that is done by pro academies, especially at the youth level. NT training camps are for getting club players to work together and learn the system. The DA was useful in that it shook up a complacent club scene.

* We've gone from nearly zero decent pro academies, to a couple dozen. We need to double or triple that, still, and get the remaining MLS clubs on board with the need to run academies. (Reducing geographic regions, especially for players over 16, might help--the Timbers might treat their academy seriously if they could recruit from anywhere. Of course, that would probably hurt local kids, at least in the short run).

* MLS, our top tier, probably is getting too large. We need to find a way to make lower-level soccer a viable business model--either MLS will have to subsidize some of the lower leagues (perhaps a formal farm system like baseball has), or other improvements to the business model will be necessary. (We need more mid-sized stadiums that allow alcohol sales, if nothing else--many high school facilities would be excellent venues for lower-level pro matches, but school districts have strict no-booze policies for obvious reasons).

* The DA has had several issues: 1) trying to dictate too much (it was only a few years ago that it was demanding all clubs play a 4-3-3), 2) treating nonprofit youth clubs and MLS academies as the same, 3) some poisonous US Soccer politics (there is a LOT of resentment of Jurgen Klinsmann and his actions as technical director, and the DA may be a victim of the backlash).

* That said, I'm amazed at the amount of sabotage that goes on in youth soccer. I'm not just talking about clubs competing for players, sometimes using underhanded means, but entire platforms doing this to each other (and yes, US Soccer is complicit).

MLS is way too big for the talent in this country - Bundesliga still has only 18 teams - but whether it has 20 or 40, still not big enough net.

On #2, not sure Timbers have demonstrated themselves to be any better at developing pro talent then Westside did in the old days, or Crossfire or Texans today. So special status for MLS clubs is, well, arguably unmerited.

MLS focusing on developing players for their first team is still central to producing a good national team; but excluding top youth clubs will be a mistake, if for no other reason that travel west of the Mississippi is only going to be worse in a smaller (i.e. MLS/USL) circuit. Spain still has independent youth clubs playing at high-level.

But MLS is going to do what MLS is going to do. Federation though, can do more harm then good with one-sized fits all approach.