US men’s soccer had a tough weekend as their under-23 squad failed to clinch a spot for next year’s Olympics and the senior team suffered a heartbreaking loss against Mexico in the Concacaf Cup. Questions are being raised, and Jürgen Klinsmann’s tenure is under scrutiny. Many blame the style of play, the stagnant philosophy or even poor squad selection. But we may have to look deeper than that in order to understand the root of the problem.

Before I became a journalist, I was the head coach for a high school boys’ soccer team in New York City. For six years, during the fall, I would spend most of my afternoons in a school bus with 30 young men (with questionable hygiene) and we would head to practice, a game, or just sit in Manhattan traffic for an undesirable period of time. There were years when we were successful, others when we struggled, but mostly we were somewhere in between. I have played against some smart coaches, individuals who knew and deeply cared about the game, but most importantly, people who cared about their players on and off the field. I have also worked as a private trainer and coach, helping extremely talented players from developmental academies reach certain goals – and some of those players eventually ended up playing at higher levels.

This article, however, is not about my experiences or credentials as a coach (most level-headed coaches will tell you that in the end, a good player makes a good coach, not the other way around) but rather about the changes to high school programs in America, the conflict with academy programs and what it means for the future of US youth soccer.

******

On 10 February 2012, less than a year into Klinsmann’s tenure, the US Soccer Development Academy announced the birth of the 10-month season for all the youth clubs and players affiliated with the program. This meant that high-school kids who also played academy had a choice to make: one or the other. The idea was simple: if young players want to reach the highest levels (NCAA, MLS) and have wider exposure to scouts and coaches across the nation, then the obvious route is to prioritize the developmental leagues. Klinsmann’s biggest focus – right from the get-go – was to emulate the European model,

“If we want our players to someday compete against the best in the world, it is critical for their development that they train and play as much as possible and in the right environment,” he said back in 2012. “The Development Academy 10-month season is the right formula and provides a good balance between training time and playing competitive matches. This is the model that the best countries around the world use for their programs, and I think it makes perfect sense that we do as well.”

(Note: this past summer, Klinsmann’s squad for the Gold Cup included seven players who either developed their youth career outside of the US or have never played under US developmental academies. For the friendlies against Peru and Brazil last month, there were eight. Against Mexico, there were four players and on Tuesday against Costa Rica, with the inclusion of Andrew Wooten, there are five.)

As a result of this decision, approximately 4,000 players were affected and the trajectory of the high school program drastically changed. School coaches, with obvious reasons, were (and still are) disappointed and every August, around the time pre-season begins, school teams around the country will have lost a few players. Before I continue, I want to make something clear: (and this is something that is rarely discussed) the disappointment amongst coaches is not about losing a player of high caliber as this happens with or without academies (graduation, transfers and injuries, all play a part). This isn’t even an attack on academies or their affiliates as they truly have exceptional coaches and in some cases, offer so much more than just soccer. The discontent lies in a national system that is still looking for an identity, at the cost of alienating youth soccer.

“I think it’s totally absurd not to play both,” says Martin Jacobson, the boys’ head coach of Martin Luther King Jr, the most successful public school team in New York City. Coach “Jake,” as he is affectionately known, has seen it all. Earlier this year, I did a short documentary on his program. Since 1994, when he took over the team, they have won more than 400 games, lost fewer than 20 and have collected 15 of the last 19 PSAL (Public School Athletic League) championships. Through the years the program has produced a number of NCAA and professional players, including Cosmos’s David Diosa and Mali international Bakary Soumare. “Our season is only taking eight weeks away from the Academy and in some instances, players could easily do both. Waivers should be granted. Players are missing out on so many social benefits by choosing the academies over high school.”

He is not the only one who thinks like that. “We have only lost three players to academies in the last five years or so, but it is always detrimental to the program, and the individual, when it happens,” says Colin Huztler, the owner and director of Next Level Sports, a sports and leadership academy in New York. Huztler is also the head coach of The Collegiate School in Manhattan. Under Huztler, the team won three NYSAIS championships. “I can’t imagine pulling a student away from his classmates and standing in the way of allowing him to have a high school athletic career. In my opinion, the fall season should be allotted for high school soccer, and academies can take priority the rest of the year.”

There is an obvious sense of bias when high school coaches argue like this but the truth is that their point is valid. Developmental Academies believe that high caliber players who are involved in their high school programs lose an opportunity to play in the “right environment,” meaning they would miss the chance to train amongst players and coaches of high quality. This is a huge generalization as high schools across the country have a large number of talented individuals who have chosen to play soccer for their schools. The other argument lies within the idea that academies can offer the best possible opportunity for players to progress to NCAA or professional soccer, more so than high schools.

Rafael Bustamante certainly didn’t think so. A local kid from Queens, Bustamante is a junior at MLK Jr and one of Coach Jake’s most important players. Bustamante used to train with an academy but left to join MLK as a freshman. “Sometimes, people don’t realize that playing for a good high school program can offer you more than just soccer training,” he says. “A player can get a scholarship from the school. Additionally, playing for one of the best high school teams in New York City attracts several college coaches to our games. Especially in championship games.”

Bustamante, however, wanted to let me know the most important factor that made him feel sure he did the right thing in choosing a high school. “I am confident to say that my team-mates are like family to me. They have helped me a lot this season as captain. Sometimes, coaches and adults don’t understand the pressure that young players go through. During my time in academy, I experienced several stressful nights trying to complete schoolwork or other errands after practice. It can be overwhelming. With MLK, I have a team and they help me through it. I couldn’t have a better group of guys to lean on.”

Bustamante makes a good point. High school soccer can offer a safety net, a support system, that academies generally can’t, and this is important. The reality is that the vast majority of young players will not turn professional, and if NCAA soccer is the next step, they need every opportunity to learn what it is like to play in a squad, week in and week out.

So back to the 10-month season conundrum: is it a good idea? For Danny Issroff, the answer is complicated. “I think when you ask this question, we have to be clear about who we are referring to,” he says. “There are some very different priorities and issues at hand for different groups of people.”



Issroff, now 23, was a star player at Wesleyan University, in Connecticut. Growing up, he played both with high school and academy teams in New York City as he had already graduated before the 2012 10-month season rule. “The idea is that by playing all year round in what is a clearly superior footballing environment, these players are able to achieve their maximum potential,” he says. “I think based on my experience that the academy system has succeeded in this regard. The problem, of course, is that for all those players who will never play professionally or never play for their country, they are missing out on what can be a great life experience, in some cases they are getting little or nothing in return. So is the 10-month season a good thing? For US Soccer, yes. For many kids in the system, no. For me, ultimately US Soccer has to do what it has to do.”

Danny’s reasoning stands firm and makes a lot of sense. You can’t please them all, right? But the question remains: Why can’t high school teams and academies co-exist? Why can’t we have a system where development focuses on all aspects of the game, where schools and academies work together in order to offer the best possible opportunities to the player and the system?

Would it make sense for MLS to have more of an influence on NCAA teams? Would there be a benefit from adapting the technical lessons from academies, but also the psychological advantages from being on a high school team? The answer is not clear. One thing is for sure: US youth soccer is a unique situation as it is based upon the needs of not just the academies, or even the high-schools, but an extremely diverse, multicultural, American way of life, and comparing to a European model can be a dangerous way of thinking.

Last week, an excellent article by Jordan Ritter Conn for Grantland, investigated the rise of Jordan Morris, the 20-year-old USMNT star who chose college soccer over a “traditional” pro-career. Jeremy Gunn, Morris’s head coach at Stanford, interviewed in the piece, stressed the importance of the US collegiate model and how we must be careful when talking about a “professional environment.”

“Just because something is a professional environment, that doesn’t mean it’s a high-performance environment,” he says. “This [Stanford] is a high-performance environment.” The essence of Gunn’s thoughts illustrates how supporters of US soccer development, should look at the advantages of high school and collegiate opportunities and how they could help the academies, and vice versa. America is in a unique situation where the high performance environment that Gunn is talking about is everywhere, not just in academies.

“Playing in high school was a really enjoyable life experience. In lots of ways it reminded me of playing football on the playground or in the park as a very young kid, and any player will tell you as you get older that you come to yearn for those days when it was just you, your friends and a ball,’ says Issroff. “I will never forget the day that we won the New York Independent School State Championship in high school. I had a lot of success as a club player over the years, but I can’t recall ever really celebrating in the same way, which I think really speaks to the essence of the high school soccer experience.”

Klinsmann has a tough road ahead when the World Cup qualifying games for Russia begin next month. The future of US soccer relies not just on the performances of the senior team and how they play tonight against Costa Rica, but also on the foundation of the American “system” and how young players, from all across the country can benefit from all aspects of US youth development.

US Soccer were contacted for comment on the issues raised in this article but did not reply to our requests





