The truth about pay to play
What is it really and how do we solve it?
Earlier this year, FIFA President and broken clock Gianni Infantino was shocked by how the United States handled youth soccer stating βOne of the things which shocked me here in America is that children have to pay in order to play. We have to stop this.β
At this point you probably know weβre not looking to solve pay-to-play in the United States anymore. There are tens of thousands of clubs and hundreds of associations across the country so really weβre in a race to make improvements to the system and institutions themselves rather than wage a multi-front war against the way US Soccer is built.
What I didnβt realize was that pay-to-play is a problem for recent generations in a way that it wasnβt for previous ones further back. And while this story is about youth soccer in america, it inevitably touches the very foundations of our society. Greed, corruption, and an endless pursuit for profit that stops our national team from reaching its full potential, but it also does something far more dangerous. It denies our children access to a sport that should be for everyone.
Look at this from a study on youth development across European football. Only 14% of club budgets come from membership fees charged to families of the children playing in those systems. The rest comes from funding from the club, solidarity payments from transfer fees of previously trained professionals, sponsorships and municipal support.
In the United States the figure for membership fees paid by players and their families rises to a staggering 90% or more. Today I want to discuss this topic in a way that it hasnβt been covered before. With help from two experts on the problem itself and the impact to our communities and professional environments. So first letβs define the problem.
What exactly is the pay-to-play system? Simply put, it's a model where families pay for their children to participate in soccer clubs and academies. These fees cover coaching, facilities, travel, and tournament expenses. While this system helps fund soccer programs, it also creates significant barriers for many families.
To understand the roots of pay-to-play, we need to look back at the late 20th century when soccer was a relatively niche sport in the country. Back then, youth soccer leagues were primarily community-based, run by volunteers, and funded through modest community contributions. These leagues were accessible to most families, reflecting soccer's grassroots essence.
The landscape began to shift in the 1970s and 1980s. The North American Soccer League (NASL) brought greater visibility to the sport, and soccer's popularity surged, particularly among young players. This growth in interest created a demand for more structured and professionalized youth soccer programs. Community leagues, previously operated on shoestring budgets, could no longer meet the expectations of a rapidly expanding player base seeking higher levels of competition and training.
As the need for better facilities, experienced coaches, and comprehensive training programs grew, so did the costs associated with running these programs. Clubs began charging fees to cover these expenses. Initially, these fees were relatively modest, but as the quality and competitiveness of youth soccer programs increased, so did the costs.
The 1980s and 1990s saw the rise of competitive soccer leagues and tournaments. Clubs competed not only on the field but also in terms of facilities, coaching staff, and player development programs. This internal competition drove up costs as clubs invested heavily to attract the best players and provide top-tier training environments.
Today, the pay-to-play system is deeply embedded in U.S. youth soccer. The high costs associated with club fees, travel, and tournaments create significant barriers for many families, leading to a lack of diversity and missed opportunities for talented players from lower-income backgrounds.
But this model is quite different from how youth soccer works in many other countries.
In countries like England, Germany, and Brazil, youth soccer is often funded by local communities, sponsors, or the clubs themselves. This ensures that all talented players, regardless of their financial situation, have access to high-quality coaching and facilities.
Marcus Chairez is a consultant and scout of high-level youth players in the US. He is the founder of the US Soccer Collective which covers deeply the top levels of youth development in the United States.
Hereβs what he had to say regarding the current system versus the rest of the world:
The fundamental problem with pay-to-play is access to good coaching. In the U.S., you don't find good soccer coaching everywhere like you might with basketball. This creates a business opportunity for competent coaches, which drives up costs and forms an economic barrier for many families.
In the U.S., youth soccer has grown immensely, with over three million registered players. But the costs can be staggering. Families might spend thousands of dollars each year on club fees, travel, and equipment.
I want to talk about how these costs impact families and players. Simon Landau is the co-founder of the Open Goal Project. A non-profit aimed at attacking the dangers of the pay-to-play system by creating opportunities for young soccer players from low-income families and underserved communities to access high-level soccer in Washington DC. Oh and heβs also my cousin. His co-founder Amir Lowery is a former MLS pro.
One of the biggest issues with pay-to-play is the exclusion of black and brown kids and immigrant kids from accessing high-level opportunities. The system creates barriers that are not just financial but also related to the locations of programs and other obstacles that prevent these kids from participating in the sport. Simon says.
So like me, you might be curious about the U.S. system and how youth soccer operates in other countries. In Brazil, for example, soccer clubs are deeply embedded in local communities. Funding often comes from local businesses and community support, making the sport accessible to all kids. In Europe itβs similar, local clubs are mostly funded through the clubβs relationship with professional sides, solidarity payments for training future professionals, and sponsorships or government support.
In almost every other country, soccer is accessible and inclusive. It's not determined by where you live or how much money you make. Instead, access is based on your skill level, passion for the game, and the community you develop around it. This inclusive approach helps develop a larger and more diverse talent pool, which contributes to the success of the full pipeline.
The pay-to-play model doesn't just affect individual players; it impacts the entire U.S. soccer landscape. By limiting access to high-quality coaching and development opportunities, we're restricting our talent pool.
Marcus details his opinion of how this impacts the professional stages:
The U.S. has a huge population and a lot of potential talent, but the pay-to-play system limits the pool of players who can compete at the highest levels. This affects the performance of our national teams and prevents us from reaching our full potential on the global stage.
Without a diverse and inclusive development pipeline, the U.S. misses out on a wealth of talent that could elevate our national teams.
You know, I think in general, I don't think this is even an argument. I think if you talk to anybody in any industry to effectively pull the most talented individuals in anything, whether it's in math or in science or in soccer, right? The more individuals there are, and the larger the population you can pull from,
the higher likelihood you're gonna get the cream of the crop, right? That's just a fact. And I think that's the key piece here is, you know, not every player in our community is gonna be the top player, but.
There are definitely players within the community now and in the future who can compete at the highest levels. And we've seen it directly. 13 of our kids at this point since 2015 have gone on to play in some form or fashion in college. And I think these are kids who without our program would have never had access to the opportunity to even develop, to be spotted by a potential coach.
And so it's directly correlated this kind of pathway to playing and competing at a higher level. If you're cutting off a population at the earliest age, this is our belief is there's a trickle up, whether it's collegially and ultimately professionally or national team wise, that the more players were able to provide accessibility and inclusion to for the game.
Simon continued about the access to quality coaching is another critical factor. In the U.S., the best coaching often comes with a high price tag, further disadvantageing lower-income players.
One of the key issues with pay-to-play is the lack of access to quality coaching for lower-income players.β Simon continues, βthis is compounded by the fact that many of the top coaches in the U.S. come from middle and upper-class backgrounds, making it difficult for players from diverse backgrounds to relate to and connect with their coaches.
The cost of obtaining coaching licenses in the U.S. also poses a barrier. High fees for coaching courses make it difficult for individuals from lower-income backgrounds to become certified coaches.
I personally saw this in my own experience. I have a US Soccer D license. If I want to get my C or B license it will cost thousands of dollars for the class and then for travel and accommodations, not to mention the ability to take time off work or leave my family. In England I was able to earn an FA Level 2 (UEFA C) license for about $250 total. I was able to complete a lot of it online, and had various observations at the club I was training kids at.
The high cost of coaching licenses is a significant barrier. It limits the diversity of the coaching pool and affects the quality of coaching available to players from lower-income backgrounds. This impacts their development and their ability to compete at higher levels.
So, what can we do to address these barriers? Programs like Open Goal Project are leading the way by providing free-to-play opportunities for youth in underserved communities.
At Open Goal Project, we provide free-to-play opportunities for youth in our community. Our program covers all costs, including registration fees, travel, and equipment, ensuring that financial barriers do not prevent talented players from accessing high-level soccer opportunities.
Community involvement and support are essential for creating a more inclusive and competitive soccer landscape in the U.S. By advocating for and supporting programs that provide free-to-play opportunities, we can help ensure that all talented players have access to high-quality coaching and development opportunities.
Thereβs also been advancements in solidarity payments within the US Soccer youth system. This actually seems like the largest tangible advancement weβve made as a full ecosystem in the last decade.
The current landscape may seem bleak, but there is a lot of room for optimism. The vision for the future is one where talent is nurtured regardless of financial status. With more inclusive practices and broader access, the U.S. can build a stronger and more competitive soccer landscape, benefiting from the full potential of our diverse population.
Hereβs what Marcus had to stay about the future of pay to play:
IΒ see all the kind of foundational elements of a sport that's growing in popularity and understanding. I also think this is a country that, and I don't need to get political, but whether people are like it or not is going to get more diverse and mixed. And I think that is a good thing for this sport.
So I think the reason to be optimistic is that you see growth, you see growth in coverage in youth soccer, you see growth in talent levels at these younger ages. I think it's really exciting players coming through at the younger age groups. You're seeing growth in professional clubs starting throughout the country.
I still think it's a bit fractured and segmented, but I just don't think you can argue with the growth of the sport and the growth in popularity and then hopefully the growth and kind of understanding of how you get to the highest level. And I think generationally, as the sport grows, you start to solve some of those coaching issues we talked about. The more people you see fall in love with the game.
The more you see people play the game at different levels, they're going to get back to it in the future and be good coaches. So I just think it may be a while, but I think the growth is going to pay off. In the next few generations where there's just more people who love and understand the sport and therefore can give better education, pass that love on to more people, whether that be their sons or daughters.
So I think the growth is inevitable and I think that in itself is a reason to be really optimistic.
and Simon adds
We are proving the theory that with the proper coaching, with the proper attention, with the proper investment that these kids can take natural talent and continue to progress and continue to improve. And it's exciting specifically on the younger groups to see our clubs and our teams that just started over the past couple of years begin to compete.
Seeing these teams from Open Goal, beat these teams in some cases, win local tournaments. Because it just shows that with investment, with equity in this space as we strive for it, that the talent is there and that the kids deserve it. And in the long term, the more we focus on it and the more attention is paid to it and the more investment provided to it the more impact we'll have and the closer we'll get to real change.
Thank you very much for reading this and thank you to Marcus Chairez of US Soccer Collective and Simon Landau of Open Goal Project for providing full-length interviews.
If you want to follow Marcus you can find him on X here.
If you want to support Open Goal Project you can find them here.