ADVERTISEMENT

BIG Trouble @ US Soccer FED

quincy101

I.T.S. Position Coach
Nov 4, 2007
1,793
1,094
113
77
"morale is at an all time low", "a terrible & toxic place to work", "look for a massive exodus of employees after women's WC". All of this & more reported by the NY Times yesterday. Dan Flynn, the current Chief Exec to retire soon with a guy named Jay Beer?halter to replace him. Thas rite, the bro of USMNT head coach Greg Beer?halter. Perhaps this explains why ol' Greg was E. Stewarts pick from the get-go, while passing over several more qualified candidates during the year in which a new coach could have been installing his philosophy & strategy & checking out all the best players, everywhere.

Flynn,Cordeiro & J. Beer?halter have been running the US Fed for years with no change in sight(well, except for their employees). Look for an implosion at the highest levels of US Soccer, particularly if our men don't make the GC Finals, & the women don't make the WC final. Just sad!
 
"morale is at an all time low", "a terrible & toxic place to work", "look for a massive exodus of employees after women's WC". All of this & more reported by the NY Times yesterday. Dan Flynn, the current Chief Exec to retire soon with a guy named Jay Beer?halter to replace him. Thas rite, the bro of USMNT head coach Greg Beer?halter. Perhaps this explains why ol' Greg was E. Stewarts pick from the get-go, while passing over several more qualified candidates during the year in which a new coach could have been installing his philosophy & strategy & checking out all the best players, everywhere.

Flynn,Cordeiro & J. Beer?halter have been running the US Fed for years with no change in sight(well, except for their employees). Look for an implosion at the highest levels of US Soccer, particularly if our men don't make the GC Finals, & the women don't make the WC final. Just sad!
If the women don't make the final, it's because European nations are spending a lot more money than they used to to get their women's programs up to the level of the US. Our level hasn't really dropped, but everyone else who is serious are raising theirs.

Greg Berhalter was on every list the second Arena was fired along with a few others. He's got a good mind for the game and his attacking philosophy seems to be working so far. Anything less than a finals appearance in the GC would be disappointing because things have played out in such a way to be advantageous. If they win tonight, they will play Curacao, who is fun to watch but not better than T&T and a side the US should handle pretty easily in the 1/4s. Then it would presumably be Jamaica who is OK but not to the level of Costa Rica (who has been bad this tournament). Then I would presume it would be Mexico, but who knows with them and I think both Costa Rica (in the 1/4s) and potentially Canada in the semi's have the motivation to catch Mexico sleeping in anticipation of a finals showdown with the US.
 
In all honesty, if given the choice I'd much rather spend more to get our men's competition better... as long as it was truly being utilized properly. Even if the men's team isn't doing so hot in the viewership / success categories right now, there are much larger payout opportunities for the men's teams given the state of soccer leagues around the world and the international importance of men's soccer players.

Imagine if we could one day have the talent to compete... I mean truly compete with the likes of Germany, Brazil, Spain, France, Italy, etc... in the last rounds of the World Cup. Countries that pour their heart, soul, and pocketbooks into their teams as much as we do for football and basketball combined.
 
I would love to see the numbers of what we spend on our national team / program compared to say Brazil, Argentina, etc...
 
The US has the athletes, the problem is ID'ing them and getting them into competent coaching and training situations. The latter is the problem with pay to play at the youth levels. For every Pulisic we find, there are 8-10 that are never seen because they can't afford to play club soccer and have a coach notice him/her and push them forward in the system. You also have coaching egos who refuse to move kids up or down competitively because of their own egos and PARENTS. And it shouldn't be that hard to figure out for the US because outside of cleats, kids only need 1 soccer ball for a group of 20 to play. And the US' talent isn't that far off from those countries anymore with maybe the exception being Brazil who has a pool of 100 players for 23 spots with not much of a drop off in how you combine the players. The US B squad led the France team that won the World Cup a month later 1-0 until about the 85th minute. They still drew that team 1-1. The US doesn't have the same depth and a lot of the problem is the tactical side. The US is way to willing to allow teams to press them but not press back so it looks like they are constantly under heavy pressure. Back in 2009, the US defeated Spain in the Confederations Cup in South Africa in a major upset and led Brazil 3-1 into the 2nd half in the finals. Remember, the US was an unlucky bounce in stoppage time from taking out Belgium in the 2014 WC. Yes, there was a major setback in 2018 by not qualifying for the WC. But the Dutch and Italians also didn't qualify and it took a major series of happenings to occur and line up for Argentina to qualify. We're OK...I'm not defending USSF because they have a ton of issues mainly because their focus is not soccer development, but making $.
 
I would love to see the numbers of what we spend on our national team / program compared to say Brazil, Argentina, etc...
Part of the issue is USSF is a private corporation. I'm not entirely sure how they're completely funded but I think most comes from the MLS joint venture and then some from some other endeavors like US Youth Soccer, US Club Soccer, and they probably get some fees from USL and other sanctioned leagues. Then they probably have some corporate sponsors. Brazil is prob 90% government fund and I'd bet some of the other countries we look up to in soccer are similarly funded. Those countries also aren't supporting (or trying to) basketball, baseball, hockey, football, volleyball, swimming, cycling,etc. at the same levels the US does.
 
Part of the issue is USSF is a private corporation. I'm not entirely sure how they're completely funded but I think most comes from the MLS joint venture and then some from some other endeavors like US Youth Soccer, US Club Soccer, and they probably get some fees from USL and other sanctioned leagues. Then they probably have some corporate sponsors. Brazil is prob 90% government fund and I'd bet some of the other countries we look up to in soccer are similarly funded. Those countries also aren't supporting (or trying to) basketball, baseball, hockey, football, volleyball, swimming, cycling,etc. at the same levels the US does.
The bulk of their funding is men’s TV rights, youth participation fees, and a small but growing merchandise licensing. They are currently taking a loss on the MLS joint venture and the women’s side of the house. (Winning the 2015 Women’s World Cup, after adding in revenue from merchandise and secondary highlight broadcast like Twitter still came out to -$600,000.00).
 
Last edited:
The bulk of their funding is men’s TV rights, youth participation fees, and a small but growing merchandise licensing. They are currently taking a loss on the MLS joint venture and the women’s side of the house. (Winning the 2015 Women’s World Cup, after adding in revenue from merchandise and secondary highlight broadcast like Twitter still came out to -$600,000.00).
Yikes. MLS is a trainwreck IMO because its goal is just different than any of the other top leagues around the world. There are a few clubs that do it right and have a crazy engagement with their fan base (Portland, Seattle). Those games are always well attended because there is a connection with the fans ala most EPL and Championship division squads in England. Even the teams destined for relegation in EPL have die hard followers and people who would kill to get tickets to games. Fulham was not very competitive in EPL this year at all and it was pretty clear that they were destined for relegation and yet they probably claimed at least an 85% seat occupancy rate (if not more) for every home match. How many people will keep going to games in Atlanta and Cincinnati if the teams start to suck. Chicago struggles to get a consistent number, New England is awful as an MLS franchise because it's an afterthought and the Krafts like the $ but it is not a place any of the better players in MLS want to play. Places where you would expect soccer to do well, Houston and Dallas, struggle to get regular sell-outs.

There's got to be community buy-in and connection. Columbus had that and MLS let the owner be greedy and move the team. MLS will never take off if that continues to happen. Without the pro/rel possibility, places like Tulsa and OKC will struggle to buy-in because they will be saddled with minor league teams FOREVER. Fans stay connected in EPL, even at the smaller clubs, because there's always that chance to get a shot at glory. Leicester City's success should be the reason why the US should find a pro-rel model. Teams that earn their success and their shot get more $$$$ to spend.
 
Yikes. MLS is a trainwreck IMO because its goal is just different than any of the other top leagues around the world. There are a few clubs that do it right and have a crazy engagement with their fan base (Portland, Seattle). Those games are always well attended because there is a connection with the fans ala most EPL and Championship division squads in England. Even the teams destined for relegation in EPL have die hard followers and people who would kill to get tickets to games. Fulham was not very competitive in EPL this year at all and it was pretty clear that they were destined for relegation and yet they probably claimed at least an 85% seat occupancy rate (if not more) for every home match. How many people will keep going to games in Atlanta and Cincinnati if the teams start to suck. Chicago struggles to get a consistent number, New England is awful as an MLS franchise because it's an afterthought and the Krafts like the $ but it is not a place any of the better players in MLS want to play. Places where you would expect soccer to do well, Houston and Dallas, struggle to get regular sell-outs.

There's got to be community buy-in and connection. Columbus had that and MLS let the owner be greedy and move the team. MLS will never take off if that continues to happen. Without the pro/rel possibility, places like Tulsa and OKC will struggle to buy-in because they will be saddled with minor league teams FOREVER. Fans stay connected in EPL, even at the smaller clubs, because there's always that chance to get a shot at glory. Leicester City's success should be the reason why the US should find a pro-rel model. Teams that earn their success and their shot get more $$$$ to spend.
Agree on all but the statement about the Crew. The team has struggled in the last ten years to engage fans. One ownership group got out due to problems. The new owner did a make over of the brand and brought in considerable talent and budget to try to boost community involvement. Other than their $10 ticket with a free brat night for OSU ID holders, nothing really stuck. Even the supporters in the Nordecke were dwindling between 2005 and 2015. I’ve been to maybe 5 league games there and never had trouble getting a seat under $50 at midfield or finding space to stand in the supporters section after the game started. The community was far from engaged. They have a loyal fan base in town, but it’s not large enough to consistently fill the stadium. And you’ve got to do that every game in a town with Columbus’ tv footprint. Columbus was a venue that made sense before the designated player rule. Now it will be forever behind. Fun fact: the club was purchased for $60 million including the stadium abc training ground back in 2010. Just the expansion fee to get in MLS is now roughly twice that. Wouldn’t you want to move under those circumstances if the franchise was so undervalued where it was at?
 
It’s a lot easier to get visiting fans to your stadium in England where a short train or bus ride gets you there and back instead of hopping on a plane and staying in a hotel. How many Premier League teams does London have? I know of at least 3 and even more in the lower levels.
 
It’s a lot easier to get visiting fans to your stadium in England where a short train or bus ride gets you there and back instead of hopping on a plane and staying in a hotel. How many Premier League teams does London have? I know of at least 3 and even more in the lower levels.
5 in the Premier League and 5 in the Championship. You can get to every major football club in England by train within 3 or 4 hours.
 
The US women are a lot more fun to watch than the men, are more successful, yet are funded a fraction of what they waste on the men’s team. Time for a housecleaning of the administration of this group.
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT