SC Soccer Forums SCSoccer.com Forums Girls Varsity Soccer Poverty, Affluence, and Soccer Success

Excellent insight P&Y, but do you think that the problem transcends mere economics? Your post brings to the forefront the issue of “nature vs. nurture” to the soccer scene in a brilliant insight that goes beyond the physical attributes of successful players and teams. And while it’s interesting to see the correlation between higher income schools with successful soccer programs, I find it more interesting to postulate why there is a lack of black players in the game.

First a disclaimer, I have absolutely no data to back this up… this is simply my personal observations. With that said, I’ve noticed that even economically disadvantaged schools with high percentages of blacks, still field teams that are lacking black players. And the majority of blacks that do play the game seem as though they come from area’s outside of South Carolina.

The game of soccer doesn’t have to be an expensive sport. It is the world’s most popular game, especially in economically disadvantaged regions. I believe the problem we have is more of a social issue rather than an economic issue.

Socioeconomic stats are a correlation, thus a MARKER as we look at successful soccer programs. Socioeconomics and race are highly correlated in SC also. Thus, the dynamic is very complicated—more than just money, more than just culture, more than just race. BUT all of these factors matter. The trick is to determine how and why—then to decide if we wish to do anything to address whatever we see as a problem, or as unfair.

TVOR<< My 2 cents on this topic would be this.... which other sports consider their "non-high school" counterpart as superior to the high school game.>>

I believe that if you look into other sports you’ll find a lot of clubs that are superior to their high school counterpart. I personally know a Track & Field club coach that mirrors the environment that we have in soccer. He pulls together the best players in a region and takes them to exclusive track meets primarily for competition with “the best of the best”. He tells me that college recruitment is primarily done at these meets where only clubs are represented, rather then the college coachs going to HS meets.

This is the last year that club teams will be able to scrimmage college teams in all sports. While this is an unfortunate decision by the NCAA it was brought about because of recruitment violations brought on by AAU Basketball. Some AAU teams were putting together fantastic teams and charging admission for the scrimmages with college teams. They then distributed the proceeds to the players… an obvious violation of NCAA intent of keeping players non-professional (I hope this doesn’t start a distraction of the debate of “should college players be paid”).

Face it, if you’re a college coach do you want to drive 2 hours to watch 1 potential recruit playing with 21 mediocre players or would you go to a club tournament where you could watch that same player playing against real competition… and maybe getting the names of some potential recruits that you hadn’t heard about? This isn’t just true for soccer, it’s happening in all the sports you mentioned with the possible exception of Football. And clubs can provide a “funnel” of players for a college where a HS might have a collegiate quality player only sporadically. This provides the club and college a relationship that is mutually beneficial.

Like it or not you’re going to continue to see more emphasis on club sports then HS.

Chico, if you keep quoting and posting, you're going to surpass my #2 ranked post count!


Point made and understood about their club contributions.

If non-high school teams are such a big deal in other sports, then tell me which AAU team did LeBron James play for? Which club volleyball team did Logan Tom play for? Which club track team did Maurice Greene run for? When a baseball player gets drafted, do they mention his Legion team?

College coaches were willing to drive hours to watch LeBron play a high school game... The best football recruit is the Clausen kid from California. All of his hype is based on high school results. Top baseball recruits year in and year out are based on high school stats.

The fact is that soccer, more than any other sport, relys on club results to evaluate players. Playing for top clubs costs money. This leads to US soccer having the stigma.

TVOR << If non-high school teams are such a big deal in other sports, then tell me which AAU team did LeBron James play for?>>
You asked so here goes… This is an excerpt from:
http://www.jockbio.com/Bios/James/James_bio.html


<<Calling themselves the Northeast Ohio Shooting Stars, LeBron and his pals—coached by Joyce’s father—made a splash on the national scene in 1997 by qualifying for the Under/6th Grade AAU National Championships in Salt Lake City, Utah. Two years later they went all the way to the AAU Under/8th Grade final, in Orlando, Florida. The Shooting Stars won their first five games to set up a showdown with the Southern California All-Stars. They lost a heartbreaker, 68-66, but LeBron was the big story with his sparkling play.
By then LeBron, Joyce, Cotton and McGee—the self-proclaimed "Fab Four"—had arrived at a decision. They were a package deal, and pledged to continue their hoops careers together. The foursome settled on Saint Vincent-Saint Mary High School, a parochial school in downtown Akron. Best known for its tradition of academic excellence, SVSM was about to establish a new legacy, with LeBron leading the way.>>

So as you can see LeBron got his recognition from AAU Basketball… thanks for helping me make my point.

And my last post will probably add fuel to the fire of the "private school" controversy that's going on.

Great analysis! I'd like to see a complete table for girls and boys on this matter. It certainly appears that the more affluent an area, the better the chances for top soccer to be played. Kudos to those areas that are getting it done outside of the "upper crust" areas!

Per pupil cost is very misleading since the more poverty in a school, the more likely federal regulations kick in—such as forcing classes to have low student-teacher ratios, thus higher per pupil expenditure. This is complicated, but the raw data are misleading. I could add more if anyone is interested.