OT: 2018 World Cup Thread
- Thread starter LionJim
- Start date
A
anon_xdc8rmuek44eq
Guest
Interesting video about France's player development/dominance in the World Cup. France is winning while winning - they have 50 French born players in the tournament (21 for their team, 29 for players on other teams) and Brazil is a shockingly not very close second (28 total). Video talks about immigration to France after WWII, the development of their national training center in the 70's, and the rich talent pool in Paris's immigrant laden suburbs.
Meanwhile, in the US, you have to pay a ton of money to play on the academy teams, which filters out a lot of low income immigrants. We need to fix our development system.
The area in which France has been able to “develop” new soccer talent looks surprisingly similar to their colonial boundaries in their second colonial period.
Imagine if the United States had conquered, and occupied, all of the Caribbean and Central American nations in the period between 1820 and 1980. And as a form of reparations had allowed everyone in those countries access to American citizenship. Would that mean America got better at “developing” baseball talent or that they vastly expanded the population of potential baseball players?
Imagine if the United States had conquered, and occupied, all of the Caribbean and Central American nations in the period between 1820 and 1980. And as a form of reparations had allowed everyone in those countries access to American citizenship. Would that mean America got better at “developing” baseball talent or that they vastly expanded the population of potential baseball players?
A
anon_xdc8rmuek44eq
Guest
You still have to develop players; doesn't matter where they come from. Additionally, the point is these players are born in France. The US can't develop the same way and it's not because they don't have the talent to draw from.
Hope Solo had something to say about this. Yes, I know that she is or was at least slightly crazy, but her critique of youth soccer in the United States seemed to me to be well reasoned and forward thinking. You’ll have no problem Googling her recent comments.
Soccer is the U.S. is played by rich, soft suburban kids. Our national team is a reflection of this.
Many other countries best players come from poverty, like many of our football and basketball players. Poverty breeds athletic fire like orange slices in the back seat of the Tahoe can never match.
Many other countries best players come from poverty, like many of our football and basketball players. Poverty breeds athletic fire like orange slices in the back seat of the Tahoe can never match.
A
anon_xdc8rmuek44eq
Guest
Here are her comments (I assume the $15,000 she's referencing is for kids to be able to play at the 'travel' level and go to tournaments across the States, but not sure...):
Also, no flag!
---
Former U.S. goalkeeper Hope Solo said Tuesday soccer in the United States has become a "rich, white kid sport" and that the sport's high cost at the youth level is detrimental to the "state of the game."
"My family would not have been able to afford to put me in soccer if I was a young kid today," Solo said at the Hashtag Sports conference in New York.
"That obviously alienates so many communities, including Hispanic communities, the black communities, the rural communities and under-represented communities. Soccer, right now, has become a rich, white kid sport."
The two-time Olympic gold medalist also pointed blame at the high cost in the youth system as to why the U.S. men's national soccer team failed to qualify for this summer's World Cup in Russia.
"You have to look at why have our U.S. men not qualified for the World Cup? And it goes back to our youth system," Solo said. "And it's because we are alienating so much talent in the youth system, and it breaks my heart because these kids are passionate about the game and they are filled with great skill, yet they're being told if you don't have the money, you can't represent your country."
In making her case, Solo said that the average price for a kid to play soccer in the U.S. is $15,000 per year. However, recent Time Magazine figures from 2017 indicate that the average is $1,472. It's unclear what statistics Solo was referencing.
Solo helped guide the U.S. women's national team to a World Cup title in 2015. Her contract with U.S. soccer was terminated following the 2016 Rio Olympics after she made critical comments about the Swedish national team. Solo most recently ran an unsuccessful campaign to become the president of the U.S. Soccer Federation.
U.S. soccer legend Landon Donovan recently shared similar sentiments with USA TODAY Sports, saying, "soccer has become a sport that only wealthy people can play. If you're a parent who makes $30,000, $40,000 a year, how can you possibly afford to pay $3,000-$4,000 to play soccer?"
It's rarely a good idea to use the words of Hope Solo as support for one's argument. She's rather loose with her words. In addition, she makes sweeping generalizations about subjects, which causes her statements to lose a lot of their accuracy.
The US totally overhauled its development system some time ago, and came up with the Academy system. Some of the Academy teams are located in rather well-to-do areas of the country, and they do charge quite a bit for their players.
At the same time, many of these elite Academy teams have programs which enable players from families without much money to be a part of the team.
In addition, many of the MLS teams have started Academy programs which are totally free for the players and their families. The MLS Academy programs have started to produce some of the top players in the USA, and it isn't costing the players or their families a thing.
The Academy program was put in place by US Soccer around 2007. In addition, it received a big boost from former USMNT coach Jurgen Klinsmann, who felt the US development system palled in comparison to what he had experienced and seen in his native Germany.
The Academy system has been producing the majority of the players in the US U-X (X standing for various ages) teams that have competed internationally. The Academy system is just now getting to the point of being a source for the MNT and the WNT rosters.
It's easy to pick on the US development system this year, as the USMNT did not qualify for the World Cup. However, the USWNT has been the dominant international team for a few decades, so it's not as though the US is not producing some excellent players.
Only time will tell, but I think the Academy system will prove to be an excellent development program, and the Men's WC in 2022 and 2026 will reflect as much.
Thank you, Tom. It’s good to know this. Very welcome information.
My own opinion, which one might wish to take dubiously, is that it was poor coaching, primarily, that lead to our missing the World Cup.
High level travel soccer is largely being played by white kids with families who can afford the travel expenses. At least that is that I have witnessed over the last few years being involved with it. We weren’t involved with it previously because we couldn’t afford it.
Well that is consistent with my previous comment. however, I wouldn't call them "rich" or "soft". Definitely middle class and up though.
From my personal experience, the academy cost is about 6 to 8k per year, which includes a lot of travel cost.
Fair statement. It’s just a shame that I see a ton of talented, young Spanish speaking immigrant children who are not given the opportunity improve their skills outside of their neighborhoods because of the costs involved. Want to improve US soccer st the youth level? Find a way to engage these families in the process. So many of them come into America living and breathing soccer, then can’t afford to play it at the highest levels.
I'm sorry, but aren't you referring to Ice Hockey??
I wish I was referring to hockey. My girls do soccer, volleyball, track, cross country, Irish dancing. Not a hockey or softball player amongst them.
[QUOTE="Tom McAndrew, post: 3547517, member:
In addition, many of the MLS teams have started Academy programs which are totally free for the players and their families. The MLS Academy programs have started to produce some of the top players in the USA, and it isn't costing the players or their families a thing.
[/QUOTE]Hmmm. You sure about that? Even travel and hotel costs?
In addition, many of the MLS teams have started Academy programs which are totally free for the players and their families. The MLS Academy programs have started to produce some of the top players in the USA, and it isn't costing the players or their families a thing.
[/QUOTE]Hmmm. You sure about that? Even travel and hotel costs?
That's what they indicate on their web sites. I've talked with players and parents on a handful of the teams, and they've all indicated that even travel costs were covered. I haven't asked the question to all the teams/their parents, so I hesitate to offer a blanket statement about this.
Here's a video interview with the Philadelphia Union Academy director which does include him speaking directly about travel costs:
Surely a step in the right direction.
Pretty sure that the Portland teams (timbers and thorns) do not do that and they don't let players play high school soccer.
that's a standard feature of Academy soccer. High school coaches hate it. There are teams that play Academy-type schedules, but don't play in the Development Academy leagues, so the players are able to play high school soccer if they so desire. I believe that US Soccer doesn't consider them Academy teams, which is how they can operate as a kind of hybrid. The Academy teams that are run by the MSL teams play in the DA leagues, so those kids do not play high school soccer.
As for whether they charge or not, I don't know -- I've never dealt with any players from the Portland Timbers Academy teams.
Oh, the final is at 11 Eastern tomorrow, Sunday. For some reason I thought the third-place game today was at 2 Eastern and so missed it. Don’t make the same mistake!
Croatia shall emerge victorious!
Croatia shall emerge victorious!
With a vast majority of girls residing in 2nd and 3rd world countries - many of which treat women as chattel almost - the idea of them even having the time or freedom to “play” anything is fanciful. Our girls, and those in countries where the culture even gives a damn about them (e.g. Scandinavia, most of the developed West, Japan) have a huge leg up on other girls. But Title IX gave us a big head start over even our mainly 1st world rivals when it came to women’s sport, so there are other, just as important ingredients to why we pump out world class women.
I would add to that, that I work with several immigrant families. They are all into their boys athletics. The girls athletics are generally not supported as vigorously.
It’s true in my opinion. Poor kids I knew in the coal region, like me, would rip your face off to gain an inch. I can only imagine what kids who are poor by African or Brazilian standards are like. US soccer kids have no edge.
I think there probably is something to the rich white suburban theory. Although, not just the lack of "fire". It's the fact that our best athletes simply are not white rich suburban kids. It's not primarily "fire" that they are missing, but rather, talent. Combine lack of drive with lack of skill, and no wonder we didn't qualify.
It's simple. American kids (and their parents) dream of the millions to be made in the NFL or NBA or MLB. While there is money to be made in pro soccer, the dollar signs don't flash like other sports.
A
anon_xdc8rmuek44eq
Guest
Definitely something to this; in a lot of other countries (most actually) soccer is far and away the top sport. Soccer in America has to compete with football, basketball, and baseball for the best athletes. I would think that there is room for elite athletes in all of these sports given America's vast resources and growing interest in the sport, and like Tom said, I believe the Academy system will start to pay off soon.
Croatia's playing rather well in the early going of the final. The ball has been primarily in their offensive zone. That said, France's D has done very well under the pressure.
France seems to be going with the long passes to counter Croatia's control by the middies.
France seems to be going with the long passes to counter Croatia's control by the middies.
France gets a FK from about the 30 yards out, and on replay it was a bad call. And France scores off the FK, 1-0, at the 18 minute mark. It was a header off a Croatian defender.
Croatia dominates for the first 18 minutes, and finds themselves down by a goal.
Croatia dominates for the first 18 minutes, and finds themselves down by a goal.
