Down fall of American Youth Soccer (applies to other youth sports)
I came across this blog via twitter. I thought that it would spark debate on how youth sports league should be run.
My take on this:
People reward mediocrity, not hard work that leads to an even greater rewards like knowing how to win, acquire essential skills needed to play soccer in the next level, etc. I feel that youth sports league in general needs to work on developing kids the proper way to play the game of sports so they can use that basic foundation to better themselves as an athlete and learn about themselves as a person through hard work/effort.
By the same token, I do understand the need to play everybody but I do not agree on letting people score to feel good about themselves. I absolutely hate the participation certificate or trophy because it does nothing for me other than the fact that I played in the league. What happens if the kids are 18 or plus year old and out in the real world? You don’t get a trophy for being part of the company.
I hope you made that sniffling kid cry when he realized he didn't "earn" those trophies. Losers like that should barred from playing competitive sports. "Real" 7 and 8 year old athletes would have left those sorry ass trophies on the field.
[Insert Carvin Johnson 2nd place photo here]
I would never advocate being a dick about it, but I do agree that participation awards are getting ridiculous. I grew up in the 90's when everyone seems to have started the trend, and the whole "praise for everything" mentality has screwed a lot of people up.
I'd go with my parents strategy of not berating me for losing (or anything close to berating) but to praise what deserves praise and nothing else. If a kid who gives 100% to the team, even at a young age, gets the same praise as the kid looking at his Pokemon cards on the sideline, I think you've compromised the values you want to teach young children.
My kid brought home a trophy like that and was all like: "Daddy look what they gave me!"
I said: "Why did you get that your team sucked this year?".
He looked at me puzzled and then I yanked it out of his hand and threw it in the trash. He's really upset but when he actually earns something it'll make him feel even better.
My point exactly. That kid needs to learn that the world is cruel. Parents need to step up and do their part. Your kid shouldn't just feel good about himself. He needs to do something to earn the right to feel good about himself. I would also recommend witholding your love until he does something worthy of it.
I detect your sarcasm.
In all seriousness, why is it better to feel good than to be good? What is wrong with starting at a young age?
As much as I hate to see myself defending the nutty author of the blog post, I see little more than hyperbole and straw-man arguments from his detractors. Can you articulate why your preferred method of molly-coddling children is objectively better -- which is to say, that it will generate more successful adults? Which is to say, that your preference towards fun and comfort will better serve individuals faced with the endless competition for resources that all organisms are locked into? Because, as I see it, the cultural norms of narcissistic, glory-seeking Romans objectively kicked the asses of more egalitarian tribes.
"Second place? Second place is no place! You're off the team! You're nothing! You lost! You're a loser!"
the town i'm from once had a great Little league baseball program, and that directly lead to a great varsity program. Lately, the little league has collapsed b/c dads have decided to put together the best possible travel teams (at age 8 or so) and travel instead of play LL, which takes the best talent from the system next thing you konw there are 2 or 3 teams playing travel and no LL, whereas there used to be 6-8 teams per age group.
This has actually really hurt at the HS level b/c so many kids quit early since they aren't "elite" at age 8. some of these kids may have developed into quality varsity players, but now if you're not the best at 8 you don't really have a chance to play on a travel team, so you can't play at 12, so you can't play at 16.
Idk how many here have read Gladwell's "Outliers", but it tackles the oddity that almost all top Canadian hockey players at age 18 were born in Jan-March, which he attributes to the fact that travel squads are chosen at age 5 where a couple of months of development is a huge deal. a similar thing seems to be happening in my town's baseball program
To tie it into the original post, i agree that competition is important when it comes to youth programs, but i also think its not only excessive, but also bad for a program, when there is too much emphasis placed on performance at too young of an age. it takes years to develop athletically, and you never know who will develop into a quality player, and what dominant 8 year old will fall off by age 15
I wanted to make a similar point or at least a related one in that there's an enormous drop-off in the number of people participating in any organized sports - particularly as kids age into teenagers. There are real issues with kids losing interest and finding themselves left out of sports they formerly enjoyed - with or without participation trophies - and opting to just stop playing. It's not because there's a lack of competitive fire, in fact it's largely the opposite.
As a father who's also coached his kids AYSO teams, there's nothing I liked less about the gig than parents who obsessed over winning and scoring. Fortunately a-holes like the author linked by the OP are few in number and by and large parents actually care about their children's holistic development as human beings, not just scoring machines. Sports - like reading, math and all other things we hope kids pick up along the way - should be developmentally-appropriate across all generations and interests. There actually are plenty of opportunities for kids to track into competitive sports - but their parents better be ready when they get cut or lose playing time to more talented and driven ones. What we need to make sure is still available is supported athletic opportunities for kids - and adults - who simply enjoy playing a sport.
Shouldn't they be focusing on developing their fundamentals at that age like flopping and acting hurt?
I know there is a lot of dissatisfaction in England about their youth soccer program (though obviously at older levels than U4). To generalize, English youth players are coached to focus on winning above all else. At a lot of levels, this can be achieved by playing long-ball (read: Stoke City) tactics and roughing up the other team. In Spain, for example, it is more about developing skills than winning. Players learn to pass the ball under pressure and work on their technique. Again, I'm generalizing broadly but there is a big difference in the technical quality of players on the respective national teams. Paul Scholes and Jack Wilshere are the only English midfielders that are anywhere near their Spanish counterparts in technical ability. (And Scholes has been retired from international play for 7 years). Spain has guys like Xavi, Fabregas, Iniesta, Navas, Canales, Cazorla, Silva etc who were brought up developing their skills instead of just winning. Because, at the end of the day, who cares which team wins a U4 or U10 match?
There needs to be a distinction between youth sports as exercise/release for young kids and youth sports for the pursuit of athletic accomplishment and a potential future. So many kids play soccer at a young age because their parents want them to get outside, it is super-cheap and pretty easy to become involved, and frankly it has the lowest coordination/"skill" bar for younger kids compared to sports like football and basketball. Heck, I played youth soccer until junior high but never contemplated the travel teams, the tournaments, etc. And my thinking was, those kids who wanted to pursue soccer more competitively (like some in my family), then they had options without me being forced to up my level of interest.
So if the argument being made is that these leagues need to transition more to the farm-style systems you see in Europe and focus more on the individual (which is my take), then you need to refocus the club/traveling team dynamics, not overhaul youth soccer. Yes, there is something weird about giving every kid an award for showing up and subjugating the individual so that "nobody loses", but that is a societal issue that needs to be addressed in American culture; I don't think soccer is anyhting more than a symptom of the larger problem.
As someone with extensive experience coaching and organzing youth sports, the guy who wrote the blog post is a complete idiot and exactly the kind of parent I don't like.
First, U4 soccer should probably not even exist. It is nothing more than a very large play date. The children are not mature enough and do not have enough discipline to play soccer. That is why they drill constantly which clearly gets boring.
The idea that Dan Levy has a really good player on his team that he does not want to stiffle is completely ridiculous. Being good at soccer when you are 3 means nothing. Imprinting on 3 year olds who is good and who is bad is complete failure.
There are just no words for how completely misguided the entire post is.
This guy is unable to get along with anyone as a coach of U4 league... Seriously, who has the problem?
THEY TOLD HIM NOT TO PLAY GAMES BUT HE PLAYED GAMES ANYWAY AND THEN EVERYTHING WENT WRONG BUT HE STILL BLAMES THEM.
Look in the mirror idiot.
I have 2 kids playing soccer. U4 and U6.
U4 is 60mins of drills and 30mins of "scrimmage."
the scrimmage is pointless. the 3-4 kids who want to run after the ball will do so and the rest run after them in a crowd or pick dandelions. there is no point.
the drills are even pointless b/c teaching a 3 year old to kid only with the side of your foot doesn't make sens to them. just get them to play fun games with a soccer ball: mosquito etc.
U6 games are also pointless b/c it's exactly the same: kids running around w/o awareness except the 3-4 kids who 'get it' and run the fastest. The difference here is 4-5 year olds can start to comprehend the drills and you can really start drilling good habits, and maybe start them doing throw-ins, corner kicks, kickoffs, etc. the game is pointless.
The first rule of youth soccer is have fun. It's also the second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh rule. (The eighth rule is "if it's your first practice, you have to fight!". No, I'm sorry. That's the other club. The one I'm not supposed to talk about. Never mind.)
A good youth soccer program teaches kids (even the very young ones) skills that they'll use as the grow with the game, but in a fun way that keeps them from being bored and has them looking forward to the next practice or game. Lots of silly games for the little ones, but ones with hidden drills and skill development.
My experience is that the kids will get plenty competitive on their own if you give them time and don't ruin the game for them.
Nothing to see here. Move along... .
Wait, this guy bragged about the fact that his 4-year old daughter "played hard" with a 102.5 degree temperature.
What the fuck is wrong with people. She's not Michael Jordan in the fucking NBA finals, bro.
Having seen the huge swings in attitude and aptitude in kids from the fall to the spring, this guy's going to be really disappointed when the apathetic girls who spent most of the game lying down picking dandelions instead of gunning for the goal are suddenly running rings around his once-dominant next-great-thing as the intermittent growth spurts and interest levels of all kids ebb and flow. Sheesh.
NSFW/H (especially 0:28-0:30)
I have a three year old and I had no idea her playing in a league was an option. She would only care what color her jersey was and what kind of snack was involved. She's in ballet strictly for the outfit.
I remember reading, years ago, an account of some well-intentioned folks that tried to teach the kids at an Hopi Native American school to play soccer. The kids evidently enjoyed the game, however there was one difficulty. Both teams would work together to score the ball into one of the nets. Cooperation was the paramount concern. Kids games are going to reflect society more than society is going to reflect the game. With respect to a lot of these societal values, sports do not necessarily teach them to kids as much as kids bring them to sports. They are already in place. Kids aren't getting anything out of U4 soccer that they don't already have.
makes me sick, and really makes me feel sorry for the kids on the team...
my heart goes out to the little girl and the rest of the poor kids on this team, they probably are getting their first taste of organized sports... and what a sour taste it must be...
this guy no doubt has ruined some of the excited that the little kids and their parents had with their first experiences...
seriously, i cant believe that anyone would think this way, and that others would agree...
Care to elaborate?
After TeeBall he figured out what they were and didn't think it was proper. The football parents his last year in peewee football were horrified when we said he didn't want a participation trophy. The ones he did get he would give to another kid nearby, susually someone's younger brother or sister.
IMHO, the downfall of youth sports is "daddyball". I could rant about that for 1500 words, but I'm sure everyone has encoutnered it and knows what it is about.
The downfall of youth sports is kids quitting before they reach puberty. Most team sports are termed "late specilazation"... look up the LTAD model for more info. The early years should be about fun and improving overall athleticism... and doing whatever it takes to keep the kid interested in sports. For a lot of kids, participation awards go a long way as an incentive to KEEP PARTICIPATING, which IS the most important thing. Competitive drive can be instilled as they enter their pre-teen/teen years when they've already developed a healthy love for the sport(s).
Also, do I even need to bring up the obesity epidemic as another reason why it is incredibly important to keep kids interested in sports?
Why is continued participation in a team sport the most important thing? Team sports aren't for everyone, and it's not like they're the only forms of exercise. Kids should be active, yes, but that doesn't have to involve being on a team - or not every team out there. (Personally, I found that I enjoyed baseball and football more than soccer.) They can ride a bike, swim, play an individual sport, whatever. They should be able to find a physical activity that they enjoy doing. It doesn't have to involve 10 teammates, a scoreboard, and a crowd.
As for childhood obesity, that has considerably more to do with poor diet than anything. Physical activity is important, but it's really a secondary factor. The U.S. actually has the world's highest rate of youth sports participation, and yet we also have the fattest kids.
If your goals are growing the game and helping the kids to reach their full potential, then continued participation is the key.I fail to see why a responsible parent should care about either of those things. My child's well-being should matter a whole lot more to me than whether he "reaches his potential," whatever that's supposed to mean. And I really don't care if a sport grows or doesn't grow. If my kid were to tell me after one day of practice, "I want to quit," I agree that that's obviously too early. But if he/she were to say after a couple of seasons, "I really don't like this," then I think it's my duty to find him/her another athletic pursuit. The notion that I should tell a kid of say, six years that he/she should "gut it out until puberty" is absurd.
As a parent, I agree with you. When it comes to my kids I'm not interested in growing the game, etc. But the article the OP posted was regarding the way youth leagueas are currently run, and how things like participation awards are destroying them. So when I'm talking about growing the game, having kids reach their potential, improving the talent pools at the higher levels, I'm speaking from the prespective of the youth league... and those are the main goals of most major youth leagues.
And I said that participation awards and emphasizing fun at the younger youth levels are good ways to encourage continued participation (which leads to the above stated goals)... that's not the same as saying that you need to force your kid to participate... I would never advocate that.
This guy seems a little nuts. I'm still inclined to agree, to a limited extent, with his point.
Think about Mozart composing at a very young age. What if, instead of prompting the development of his talents, every kid in the aristocracy got to spend a few minutes banging around on the keyboard? Each kid, including Mozart, got the same amount of time and the adults all acted as if the "composition" of each was equal to the rest?
Granted, the intentions behind Mozart Sr. pedagogy were probably selfish and neurotic, but the results were brilliant.
So, is it not possible that the linked blog's author is a nutjob ... but also has a point?
you think that if Mozart's childhoods peers were more exposed/encouraged to compose music that it would have been . . .bad? . . .somehow? Like Mozart wouldn't have become Mozart? or too many "Composing for Kidz" organizations would have ruined the music scene somehow? Thats a bizzare mental path your'e strolling down my friend.
I have a 6 year old daughter that started playing soccer at age 4. First a local city league, then AYSO U5, and AYSO U6 (already signed up for U8 in the fall). She was marginally athletic at first, and we've been lucky that each coach has had a fair, energetic, and positive coaching style. She has blossomed under the participation trophy philosophy because that is what it's all about. It's not about the trophy, it's about having fun, getting exercise, and LEARNING to always do your best.
The trophy is somewhat meaninless, it's as much a keepsake from her time on the team as much as anything else. She gets smiley stickers at school too, so what? kids respond positively when they are rewarded for following rules, trying their best, etc. The trophy could be replaced with a unicorn sticker and she'd like it even more, I think the actual trophy bothers the overbearing Dads because of it's tradition.
I never keep score at the games, and (unlike many of the disinterested parents) consistently praise my daughter not for her performance, but for her effort as a teammate. She took a cleat to the head two nights ago in her last game of the spring (and still scored on the play!)
I told her I was proud of her doing her best and scoring, but that I was more proud of how she got the rest of her emotional-boy teammates to work together for most of the game.
She has a lifetime of involuntary competitive situations ahead of her; the current joy, exercise, and problem solving skills she's developing being part of a team deserve some recognition if it helps to keep her motivated.
My 5 year old played tackle Pop Warner last fall. He was lucky to have a coach who worked on development and was pretty good about playing time.
Several of the coaches in the league took it way too serious. One team was busted for putting ineligible kids (too old) into the league and falsifying weights. The coaches were basically trying to feel good about themselves by cheating to win. Their younger kids played the absolute minimum required.
We are moving to a different league this year. The team name is Wolverines and the coaches are all about development, hard work, and sportsmanship. Much better situation for teaching life skills.
If you ain't first, you're last.
I played youth soccer as a kid. I wasn't very good, and neither was my team. They mostly stashed me on defense or sometimes left or right midfield. I was regularly substituted for. I scored exactly one goal in about five seasons of playing, and we never won any trophies.
None of this destroyed my self-esteem. I accepted that I was a crappy soccer player and eventually gave it up for sports I was better at. What kind of society do these people expect to build by shielding children from every possible setback? At some point their kids are going to find out that they're not all superstars at everything.