Are American Youth Clubs Too Big?

[Guest]

So the easy way for a mega club to justify its mega-ness is to simply say it is not trying to be a professional club Academy. HOWEVER, the way professional club academies are structured is really a gold standard, isn’t it? So this Premier League manual is really interesting. Some key take aways:

1. A maximum of 250 players in the academy for under 18 and younger
2. A coaching ratio of one coach for every 10 players for all training g sessions
3. Every coach must have a UEFA B license
4. Each Club shall ensure that each of its coaches plans each coaching session by setting out the learning objectives which the session is designed to achieve and the coaching which will be given in order to achieve them
5.Each Club which operates an Academy shall prepare (and make available to the League and to the ISO on request) a Coaching Curriculum which shall have regard to:
- the Club’s Vision Statement, Coaching Philosophy and Playing Philosophy;
- the Club’s Academy Performance Plan;
The Club’s Coaching Curriculum shall be drawn up by the Academy Manager (or, in the circumstances set out in Rule 57, the Head of Academy Coaching) who shall consult with all appropriate Club Officials (which may include the Manager, the Chief Executive, coaching staff, the Academy Management Team and the Technical Director if the Club has appointed one)

Are you happy with Washington’s mega clubs? Poor coaching ratios? Lack of session planning?
Are you happy with coaches coaching 2,3 or even 4 teams?
Should it be a goal of youth clubs in our state to aim for such standards?
Or is “bigger is better” just the American way?

https://resources.premierleague.com/...1-YD-Rules.pdf

[Guest]

I think that all makes sense ..EXCEPT...we would need to keep the number of kids the same so we have a larger pool of talent to draw from in the early years so late bloomers that are good don't get cut out.Since it's not academy level..It would have to have the ratio of coach per player knocked up to maybe 14 or have an assistant coach and most parents now would be willing to absorb those costs. Other than that it would be really good for development.

[Guest]

I think that all makes sense ..EXCEPT...we would need to keep the number of kids the same so we have a larger pool of talent to draw from in the early years so late bloomers that are good don't get cut out.Since it's not academy level..It would have to have the ratio of coach per player knocked up to maybe 14 or have an assistant coach and most parents now would be willing to absorb those costs. Other than that it would be really good for development.

Very important piece you forgot to mention. It’s a pro club and have million dollar backing from academy to the top team.
This would all be great but it means more expense which predominantly comes from parents.
Apple and Oranges

[Guest]

Very important piece you forgot to mention. It’s a pro club and have million dollar backing from academy to the top team.
This would all be great but it means more expense which predominantly comes from parents.
Apple and Oranges

The other issues is that even many of the high level "amateur" clubs are low-cost due to:
1. Long-time local supporters and,
2. Solidarity payments for players developed