Freddy Adu was the youngest, I believe 14, give or take 10years.
Gio Reyna to Dortmund
- Thread starter sbrylski
- Start date
I wish I still had my Adu USMNT kit to wear purely for the laughs.
people dont choose to go to portugal anymore. everyone wants to be german
Davo15
Registered
Portuguese passport ? Shouldn’t he be signing for Wolves then ?
This has been done since late February (as has been alluded to probably a million times
The Homegrown conversation did occur and it involved CFG. It was a conversation above Claudio’s level to a good extent
Gio’s situation is unique in that he qualifies for an EU passport
While I’m disappointed as well, remove Claudio from the equation. Any highly rated prospect with an EU passport is going to Europe. They should. It’s a better offer. It’s like choosing between a Lambo and a ‘94 Corolla.
The Homegrown conversation did occur and it involved CFG. It was a conversation above Claudio’s level to a good extent
Gio’s situation is unique in that he qualifies for an EU passport
While I’m disappointed as well, remove Claudio from the equation. Any highly rated prospect with an EU passport is going to Europe. They should. It’s a better offer. It’s like choosing between a Lambo and a ‘94 Corolla.
Those are probably the actual cars one can afford playing top tier in Europe vs MLS.
Apparently FIFA heard the arbitration case on solidarity payments for US clubs today, according to reporting by The Athletic. We could soon see solidarity payments become a thing for American academies, as they should have always been.
Today, a five-member panel from FIFA’s Dispute Resolution Center was scheduled to review a petition from Crossfire Premier arguing that the club is entitled to collect solidarity payments for its contribution to Yedlin’s development. A ruling could come as soon as Friday, and if the panel rules in Crossfire’s favor, it will have immense ramifications for soccer in the United States.
https://theathletic.com/613009/2018...uld-drastically-change-u-s-youth-development/
I still don’t understand the argument a pay-for-play Academy has for getting solidarity payments. They took no risk and invested nothing in a pay-for-play player.
Agreed. Pay for play clubs shouldn’t get anything since the families are footing the bill, but free to play should definitely get solidarity.
I'm sympathetic to that argument, but I think requiring USSF / MLS to participate in the FIFA solidarity payment structure is a key part of eliminating pay-to-play and I think it's more likely that a "solidarity payments for everyone" ruling comes down than a "solidarity payments for some" ruling.
Not sure what you mean by Pay for play. As a former President of a youth club for 5 years in a town with no public fields I can tell you that without kids paying there was no other way to buy a lawn mower, striper, goals, insurance and keep the fields safe and in a condition where good soccer is possible. We are near the end of the outdoor season and unless you want all kids to stop touching the ball from Decemberish to Marchish depending on the year you have to rent indoor practice space. Quality coaching usually has a cost associated with it too. Our Club did everything we could not to turn anyone away because they couldn't afford to pay their share of the costs and nobody (including paid coaches) was making anything close to their market value but the reality is without government or corporate support you can't run a youth soccer club with proper development where everyone plays for free in our climate.
I understand what you are complaining about -- its insane to spend over $10K/year to have your kid play youth soccer at the top levels of the youth soccer pyramid but that issue has to be called something other than "pay to play". Lumping clubs like mine in with the model you are complaining about is a mistake.
I don't think it's about mandating free soccer nationwide. It's about aligning incentives. Families pay, pro clubs benefit.
By opening up solidarity payments, pro clubs necessarily have to pay for the benefit they receive. Academies or other youth orgs simply have more economic models to choose from. Pay-to-play programs can still exist, but successful ones that start to receive solidarity payments can start to drop prices and attract more youth players from more socioeconomic communities.
This isn't an issue for town/travel clubs. This is about the expensive premier/academy clubs. Town clubs are never going to be in a position to earn solidarity payments because they're never going to lose players to professional contracts.
The payments are designed to compensate clubs for taking the risk of training kids for free. If you don't train kids for free you're not taking risk, so you shouldn't get compensated for it.
If you're NYCFC and your academies are free, you definitely should be compensated for that.
Hard to argue that clubs should have it both ways, but if allowing US solidarity payments leads to more free academy teams, that's a great thing.
Exactly right Fred. The term "Pay to Play" includes the town/travel clubs that aren't the problem -- my understanding is that the solidarity payments would filter down to all the clubs so if a kid played travel from 8-12 and then moved to premiere level from 13-17 and then signed both clubs would get a piece of the solidarity payment because both were involved in the youth training of the player -- but I haven't thought about this in a couple years. Post if you think that is wrong.
I believe you need to be an affiliate club of the national association to get solidarity payments, which would limit then to US Soccer Development Academy teams and youth teams of other professional teams that are not in the DA.
Town teams that are overseen by US Club or US Youth Soccer would not be eligible.
I have no idea if this is your model, but where I grew up, there were “clubs” in my city described as “Travel teams” which were the teams kids had to try out for and if they make it, they pay the $10k to play, travel, coaching, etc. typically the coaches also were connected to the middle and high school teams as head coaches since their players are in school for 7hrs and training wouldn’t start until afternoon - this obviously made ends meet financially for them with benefits and such.
These travel teams were affiliated with the areas league play where 10-12 age group teams (non-travel teams) played matches every Saturday with reduced fees and typically the coach was a knowledgeable parent; the travel teams would play an age group (2 years) up so the skills were more comparable and fair. These leagues paid for the fields and upkeep and whatnot (14+ leagues x 10-12 teams each was substantial in additional to adult leagues also paying), and it wasn’t beholden to the travel team club to maintain it. As such, there were no free rides/sponsorship on either the travel teams or the regular league teams and all were pay-2-play by the parents or sponsors if a team could land them.
In that setup, if a player later was signed by Dortmund or another pro club, I would not expect them to get solidarity payments in any capacity because the teams/clubs weren’t covering the costs of training/coaching - the families were.
Dumb question but by the heuristic of consistency and whoever takes the risk should get the payments - shouldn't that flow to the parents?
Obviously yes. That’d be part of the player’s signing bonus - negotiated not just between player and club but player and parent
