USWNT, Shameful

[Unregistered]

Why are you skipping over the part about the top boys teams are subsidized? That is much more important. Very few families would choose HS over a subsidized academy.

When they are paying am arm a leg to participate? Then ok...dont charge me an arm and a leg and then crap all over my HS team. When you are paying for me to participate? Then ok...HS sucks.

Where/how were they to subsidize them?

We pay the same as a GA club as we did for a GDA club as we did in NPL. Actually, it came to a little bit less since we augmented NPL training w/ futsal and private camps, which were included.

But, yes, if you have a player intent on playing HS at the expense of being totally committed to your game, then that isn't the player they intended to target. What they found out is there are more of that category than intended.

Can't blame US Soccer for that.

[Unregistered]

Where/how were they to subsidize them?

We pay the same as a GA club as we did for a GDA club as we did in NPL. Actually, it came to a little bit less since we augmented NPL training w/ futsal and private camps, which were included.

But, yes, if you have a player intent on playing HS at the expense of being totally committed to your game, then that isn't the player they intended to target. What they found out is there are more of that category than intended.

Can't blame US Soccer for that.

You made an equivalency to the boys side that is false. If the girls side had as much financial support as had the boys, they would have attracted more of the players they sought. Obviously.

[Unregistered]

They should play the kids next game.

[Unregistered]

You made an equivalency to the boys side that is false. If the girls side had as much financial support as had the boys, they would have attracted more of the players they sought. Obviously.

Fair point.

But, take it from apples to apples: One league costs the same as the other. One doesn't allow you to play HS, the other does. People died on the hill of allowing HS with no financial incentive to do either.

Do you think apples to apples, boys would've played HS if the costs were the same? Legit question, I don't know.

How much of the boys were truly provided support? Again, I don't know.

[Unregistered]

Almost every mls academy is FULLY funded. Why are you carrying on if you don't even know that.

[Unregistered]

Almost every mls academy is FULLY funded. Why are you carrying on if you don't even know that.

Because I wasn't aware EVERY boys academy team was associated with an MLS and they are fully funded.

Oh, wait, that's right.....

[Unregistered]

Fully fund 30 girls academies and you will get the players desired. Give it a try and you will see.

[Unregistered]

Fully fund 30 girls academies and you will get the players desired. Give it a try and you will see.

Where would that money come from?

But, yes, if all the clubs pitched in 1% of their revenue and it was used to fund the program, it would be a huge help. Likely, 90% of our kids that we all brag about would be forgotten in a heartbeat. That still doesn't address the commentary that "girls just want to play high school". Costs were never mentioned, only that USSF were morons to think girls would give up HS.

Unfortunately, you still need some type of inclusive pyramid as the US is too big to think it's going to capture everyone with 30 academies.

[Unregistered]

You people are absolutely miserable.

1st loss in 45 games. Oh noes!!! This must mean we are falling behind!!!!!!!!!

Don't get me wrong, I can't stand Rapinoe either but for real people, it was the 1st loss in YEARS. Please tell me any other National Soccer team, men or women, that did not lose a international game in 45 games played.

[Unregistered]

You people are absolutely miserable.

1st loss in 45 games. Oh noes!!! This must mean we are falling behind!!!!!!!!!

Don't get me wrong, I can't stand Rapinoe either but for real people, it was the 1st loss in YEARS. Please tell me any other National Soccer team, men or women, that did not lose a international game in 45 games played.

It's not the loss, it's the manner of the loss and the way it's been coming. Yes, to some, they waltzed through the last WC. In reality, they struggled, scored mostly off set pieces, and were gifted at least one game and likely two.

Technically they have been falling behind and speed and braun can only take you so far. They were badly exposed last night.

The question is now why? Was it because they held onto the dinosaurs due to marketing? Or, because what's behind isn't the quality that the rest of the world is now putting out?

[Unregistered]

Where would that money come from?

But, yes, if all the clubs pitched in 1% of their revenue and it was used to fund the program, it would be a huge help. Likely, 90% of our kids that we all brag about would be forgotten in a heartbeat. That still doesn't address the commentary that "girls just want to play high school". Costs were never mentioned, only that USSF were morons to think girls would give up HS.

Unfortunately, you still need some type of inclusive pyramid as the US is too big to think it's going to capture everyone with 30 academies.

Boys and girls like to play HS sports but give the top players fully funded academies and surprise surprise...they give it up to pursue the academy.

Cut down the travel and fund 60. Or cut it down and even more and fund 90 with more regionalized competition appropriate for developing young talent. Somehow the rest of the world manages to develop soccer talent without flying their kids all over on planes.

[Unregistered]

It's not the loss, it's the manner of the loss and the way it's been coming. Yes, to some, they waltzed through the last WC. In reality, they struggled, scored mostly off set pieces, and were gifted at least one game and likely two.

Technically they have been falling behind and speed and braun can only take you so far. They were badly exposed last night.

The question is now why? Was it because they held onto the dinosaurs due to marketing? Or, because what's behind isn't the quality that the rest of the world is now putting out?

Both but the latter will be the problem going forward.

[Unregistered]

Boys and girls like to play HS sports but give the top players fully funded academies and surprise surprise...they give it up to pursue the academy.

Cut down the travel and fund 60. Or cut it down and even more and fund 90 with more regionalized competition appropriate for developing young talent. Somehow the rest of the world manages to develop soccer talent without flying their kids all over on planes.

Not all academies are fully funded.

I agree on the travel, but there HAS to be some level of it nationally. That's just the country we live in. It's a big country.

However, if there were coordination between all the clubs and leagues who allowed it, then only the select few would need to travel. That alone would open doors to many players with huge potential that we ignore today. We need clubs to get out of the way of the Federation, which I don't see happening.

Every other reputable soccer nation has a cohesive soccer program that encompasses everyone. They don't have competition for players within their own borders the way the US does.

[Unregistered]

People. We can blame left and right. Here's the truth: The roster is old but the players that were left off it still aren't better than the veterans and it may get worst.

The rest of the world plays because they enjoy it and or want to be a professional. Here, we want status and college soccer!! Woo!!

[Unregistered]

People. We can blame left and right. Here's the truth: The roster is old but the players that were left off it still aren't better than the veterans and it may get worst.

The rest of the world plays because they enjoy it and or want to be a professional. Here, we want status and college soccer!! Woo!!

And equal pay!