This is not a vent board or any other kind of therapy. Before you hit the POST button, ask yourself if your contribution will add to the level of discussion going on.
Important notes on articles:
- Please do not copy entire articles into your post; rather, provide links to them.. We are now links-only for ALL Internet publications. If only a small portion of the article pertains to your post, Fair Use allows you to copy those one or two paragraphs, provided you cite the author's name and the publication for which he writes. Otherwise, put a link in the HTTP Link box.
- Even if you're copying a reference to an article, provide a link to the page from which the article came. We're trying to cut down on duplicate topics, and the posting process will check the link to your article to see if it's already being discussed on this board. At the very least, you'll save yourself some grief on the boards.
- If your first reaction after reading the article you're going to share is the author is uninformed / stupid / a jerk / all of the above, it's not worth sharing with anyone. Not every article needs to be discussed. The more the hair-pulling articles are discussed (e.g. ESPN Page 2), the more the authors will write hair-pulling articles.
Post being replied to
participant growth not the same as professional development by turtle17
I'm personally not sure participant growth is that related to development of professional level players. It isn't unrelated, but I tend to think the key factor is a combination of soccer match attendance, eyeballs on games on TV, and realistically for today's media market views on social media. That can drive the money which can incentivize development of future professional players as compared to incentivizing pay for play.
To answer what can change for soccer given flat long-term participation, one possibility is a new generation can make it a sport they follow similarly to the way other big sports are followed in the US. Of course, people have been talking about this for a long time.