Letter to the USSF

The USSF's Perspective Problem

Well-Intentioned Soccer Insiders Must Remember 
The Love Of The Game

As I take in more and more of the soccer landscape in America, meeting new coaches, talking with more parents and players, observing match after match at parks and indoor facilities, a couple things have begun to bubble to the surface that seem worth sharing- hey, I have my little soapbox here, might as well shout from it.

There are a lot of reasons to coach (I outlined a few of mine here when I moved to Philly) but the overarching source of satisfaction is seeing how completely a player under my care can reach his or her potential.  Sadly, I haven't been able to stay in one place long enough to watch a kid through the entire youth career, but in five years with OSSC in NY, I worked with every age group in a small enough organization that I was able to closely observe a lot of kids as they grew over those five years.  I also keep getting reports even now from colleagues and families with whom I keep in touch.  It's the little game I'm playing in my head -if you ever see me on the sideline looking a little distant, it's a fair bet I'm comparing and contrasting someone's performance over time - day in and day out.  But it occurred to me the other night as I stood out in the rain at Tee's with three players at training that my objectives may not be anywhere near to the goals of the families involved.

If this is the case, I offer no criticism.  Let's be clear.  But for all the various justifiable reasons to join a soccer club, I seriously doubt that the top reason is frequently to max out junior's athletic potential.  It's in the mix, for sure, to a greater or lesser extent, but any reasonable parent is looking for things like social value, leadership opportunities, maturation, a healthy environment, lessons in teamwork, and just supporting an interest of a child - is it too cliched to say "fun"?  The list goes on, but the point is, most parents (and kids for that matter) aren't taking to the field with the one and only goal of making the US National Team.

And there's the disconnect.  The USSF and it's supporters (among whom I include myself) tend to get all excited about player development, and creating systems of helping the best kids get better, finding all the talent available to the game, and competing on the world stage.  Those are laudable goals.  But they aren't quite in tune with the "99%".  I've toyed with this disconnect indirectly previously in this space (see bottom of post for the series on player development) but it deserves to be put on page one.  The vast majority of players are recreational, even up through the college ranks.  Only the very top, tiny percent will make a living in the game, and we all know it.

So the question is, how does the USSF promote it's player development agenda to the broader public in a way that shows not only is player development good for the US WNT/MNT, but also improves the soccer experience for every kid that laces up a pair of boots?  Can the USSF make that argument at all?  If the USSF doesn't bother to make this argument, will we end up with a "haves" and "have nots" stratification in youth soccer, where the lucky few who have access to DA-style clubs benefit, while the rest maintain the wholly insufficient status quo.

I believe it's actually easy to make the argument.  But as the broo-ha-ha over the USSF Development Academy system settles down, and the tenets of player development-first approach trickle down through the ranks, the USSF needs to sell this approach.  The last thing the USSF will want is for the elite programs to become seen as unreachable by "regular" players.  Clubs that are more mainstream must improve the player development they do to help their best players reach the elite youth teams, if so desired.  But they have to provide that development within a framework that allows the recreational player to fully enjoy their time in the game while benefiting from the many improvements the USSF Curriculum and other initiatives offer all players.

Here's a great article on ESPNFC.com about talent development in the US, which prompted this post.  The pull out quote below shows the disconnect pretty clearly.  Kids should train 500 or whatever hours per year...but there isn't any discussion of what all this offers the vast majority who aren't troubled with the possibility of going pro:

Lepore eagerly reeled off the numbers. "The average American club used to offer just 12 hours of training a month. With our new emphasis on training, we are aiming for eight hours a week which, over the newly extended 10-month season, computes to 350 hours a year." 
This number still lags behind Ajax's 576 hours, Barcelona's 768 hours and Sao Paulo's colossal 1,040 hours, but the coach points out with glee how close it is to Italy's total, where the elite practice 432 hours.

Eight hours a week is a lot.  It better be enjoyable.  Personally, I believe it can be, quite easily.  But it'll take a whole organization to really make it click- one coach or one team would struggle to keep things fresh, interesting and fun for the better part of a year.  If the USSF is to effectively be the leader for the game in this country, it's probably as important they not just bully or cajole the "top" clubs into this framework and ignore the huge number of clubs and players feeding into that top tier.

The USSF's Take

The Curriculum
Best Practices

Player Development Posts

Part One
Part Two
Part Three
Part Four
Part Five

Two related additions

One
Two