The article you've copied doesn't sound at all like the club I belong to. The two statements in bold don't resemble it at all. This past year, our team played in Region III premier league and ECNL. It was more games. More importantly, it was more quality games. Yet, the money that I payed to the club did not increase. Yes, I did spend more money traveling but the club did not get rich off of me.
I also know that at U-10 winning is absolutely NOT emphasized and is barely even mentioned at the club I'm in. I have seen other clubs where younger players win games 10-0 or even more. I have experienced life at our club at the younger ages and there are great efforts to make sure that games are evenly matched and that when there is a mismatch coaches are educated enough to find something technical to focus on instead of simply scoring more goals etc.
I am sure that there are clubs out there that fit what Tony is describing. But I don't see it in the club I'm involved with. I would certainly never argue with someone like Tony DiCicco with regards to U.S. soccer. But I'm always a little amused when I hear someone like him say "I know the U.S. game, I coached the U-20s in 2008". Really? Is the U-20 full national team a microcosm of the club soccer in the U.S. from pre U-10 through U-18? Can you judge every soccer club in America and make such generalizations like "For them it's about winning the next match" simply because you haven't seen the next Mia Hamm or Michelle Akers? Is going to watch the WPS really that big of a difference maker? Should every girl in SC make trips to Atlanta to watch games? I wonder if there would be any financial ramifications for Tony and others on the U.S. staff if there were more teams in the WPS and higher attendance. Should girls who are Chelsea and Arsenal and Manchester United fans that watch games on TV regularly benifit more by watching the Beat?
Anyway, getting off topic a little maybe. I guess I'm just not drinking Tony's Kool Aid. Wow, did I just say Kool Aid?
