where the girls that recently went to Aus for u17 asked to pay for that trip?
Funding of NZF Youth Sides
Pretty sure they were not. I think this round of U-17's is the start of the new regime.
NZF adopts Wynrs pay-to-play model - pretty much all there is to it, and despite all the claims in the world that financially strapped families will not be disadvantaged, at some point they will.
So if current U17 squad turned around and said, "thanks but no thanks" and NZF had to send a second XI to the World Cup what do you think FIFA would have to say on that matter ?
Poor from NZF and can debate financials all day long but when they levy close to $20 from EVERY junior and youth player in the country each season pretty hard justify their position. Not like they can claim all those funds are going direct back to those agegroups as FTC and NTC are run on a cost-recovery basis (i.e. pay-to-play).
Foal, being in the system does not guarantee foal junior will be all the way through. players are dropped from NTC every 6 months if they do not meet a qualifying benchmark standard. Likewise FTC players dropped on annual basis.
Is it merely coincidence that at the same time Fred is asking parents to pay for U17 WC NZF have DOUBLED the NTC intake? Since the program has been running (4yrs?) it has always been dual age band aligned with WC cycles. Now we have a full intake at 2000 and 2001 age groups. In one quick move NZF have doubled their NTC income.
this really does add weight to something that i have suspected for some time...
that if your kid is any good, he is better off operating outside of NZF's structures
concentrate on being awesome, find a good club, play at as higher level as possible, play as often as possible and if the phoenix don't nab you, head off shore as soon as practical
Foal, being in the system does not guarantee foal junior will be all the way through. players are dropped from NTC every 6 months if they do not meet a qualifying benchmark standard. Likewise FTC players dropped on annual basis.
Is it merely coincidence that at the same time Fred is asking parents to pay for U17 WC NZF have DOUBLED the NTC intake? Since the program has been running (4yrs?) it has always been dual age band aligned with WC cycles. Now we have a full intake at 2000 and 2001 age groups. In one quick move NZF have doubled their NTC income.
yup. I was just outlining the approximate costs. My youngest daughter pulled out of NTC because she couldn't be bothered doing FTC. If you don't complete x amount of hours at FTC you can't do NTC. So there is more than finance as to why players miss out.
I don't know why the youngest boys age band was widened/separated. We can see that the next tier up (1998/9) not many younger boys get picked. Where there is now separation (2000 and 2001) if they were still 2 Year band I believe very few 2001 boys would get within cooee. Maybe it is more helpful and encouraging to have single age bands?
There also is a move to scrap U-17 and U-20 Comps and go to U-15 and U-18(?). I'm guessing if this happened it is too far away to effect these age bands of kids but maybe it is playing a part?
The other thing is that this throws the door open to 'not necessarily' the best kids being there
that is always the question with any selection process
I'd be more concerned with the Sth Island players getting a fair suck of the sav at trial time than financial opportunities. I'd also remove any parent from rep coaching and any junior coach from taking a rep side of the same age bracket. If NTC is open to other providers than the FTC coach is not the sole provider of selection data. The list could go on and on.
The other thing is that this throws the door open to 'not necessarily' the best kids being there
that is always the question with any selection process
I'd be more concerned with the Sth Island players getting a fair suck of the sav at trial time than financial opportunities. I'd also remove any parent from rep coaching and any junior coach from taking a rep side of the same age bracket. If NTC is open to other providers than the FTC coach is not the sole provider of selection data. The list could go on and on.
I would like to see this move rescinded if we qualify for the next World Cup. Given the money we got last time to establish different programmes surely the cash this time would sufficient as to provide a slush fund with the interest to be used to fund international tournaments.
Not to mention the extra revenue NZF will make in sponsorship, bonuses etc.
Had we qualified for the Confed Cup would this have happened.... i doubt it.
Its the Cluster Fcuk that just keeps giving!
can someone please clarify for me if the temporary 'bail NZF out of the pooh' player levy of a few years ago was ever removed?
i remember it going around the federations and there being a lot of discussion at the time and it was marketed as a temporary measure
Foal, being in the system does not guarantee foal junior will be all the way through. players are dropped from NTC every 6 months if they do not meet a qualifying benchmark standard. Likewise FTC players dropped on annual basis.
Is it merely coincidence that at the same time Fred is asking parents to pay for U17 WC NZF have DOUBLED the NTC intake? Since the program has been running (4yrs?) it has always been dual age band aligned with WC cycles. Now we have a full intake at 2000 and 2001 age groups. In one quick move NZF have doubled their NTC income.
yup. I was just outlining the approximate costs. My youngest daughter pulled out of NTC because she couldn't be bothered doing FTC. If you don't complete x amount of hours at FTC you can't do NTC. So there is more than finance as to why players miss out.
I don't know why the youngest boys age band was widened/separated. We can see that the next tier up (1998/9) not many younger boys get picked. Where there is now separation (2000 and 2001) if they were still 2 Year band I believe very few 2001 boys would get within cooee. Maybe it is more helpful and encouraging to have single age bands?
There also is a move to scrap U-17 and U-20 Comps and go to U-15 and U-18(?). I'm guessing if this happened it is too far away to effect these age bands of kids but maybe it is playing a part?
I ask NZF for any press release on the issue. Reply is "Unfortunately no press release was issued for this subject.".
Why would they need to issue a press release for something that only affects 40ish people a year?
press releases are only for good news dairy flat
I think there is a fair point being made here by NZF that as the kids selected in a NZ team get (theoretically) international standard coaching, and international exposure, plus the experience of playing at an international tournament they get significant benefit out of it. Someone has to pay for this.
Some of the kids at this age will probably be targeting a career in football and attending this tournament is a helpful step for them. We all willingly pay to attend University for example as an investment in our own future career. People pay to attend academies for the same reason. People pay to go on Smithy's Tornados tour because they can get a college scholarship out of it. I read an article recently about Stu Jacobs academy and his kids were going on a tour of Europe. They each are stumping up $6000 to do that - partly I'm sure because it's a great experience but also because they see some future benefit for them from it and possibly a football career.
Some of the kids at this age however are never going to be pros or go on to play for the All Whites (a small percentage of our kids are going to make it as professional) - effectively they are going for the experience. I think there is a valid discussion to be had about whether, when we have limited resources, we should be paying for kids to "have an experience" at international FIFA tournaments. I'd like more information about other sports - I know for example Waterpolo requires co-payment at every level including seniors but that's not necessarily a fair comparison.
Whether kids should be required to contribute at an age where effectively they have no income and will be required to call on parents to pay, and whether any of this is "fair" is an interesting point. I think we should be a bit careful about characterising this entirely as NZF are stupid, it should all be free, when we know that there is far more for us to spend money on than we can ever raise.
if we are viewing our participation in these tournaments as 'experiences' for rich kids, we shouldn't be there
if we are viewing our participation in these tournaments as 'experiences' for rich kids, we shouldn't be there
That's not what I'm saying at all. And NZF aren't doing that either. All I'm saying is that for some of the kids who go that's pretty much what it will end up being (an experience).
Ultimately, based on our world ranking, there's absolutely no way we SHOULD be at these tournaments but we are and the reality is that for many of the attendees in 5 years they'll be playing Northern 1 and their participation at this tournament will have achieved nothing for NZF other than provide great memories for them of an awesome trip. I'm not arguing players should miss out because of costs - clearly that's not the way forward. Just pointing out that a lot of money is spent on sending kids to youth tournaments and the majority of it does nothing to assist our senior mens team. I don't like it, but I also wouldn't like every amateur player in the country to pay extra subs either...I guess I'm saying it's maybe not as straight forward as we're making it out
if we are viewing our participation in these tournaments as 'experiences' for rich kids, we shouldn't be there
That's not what I'm saying at all. And NZF aren't doing that either. All I'm saying is that for some of the kids who go that's pretty much what it will end up being (an experience).
Ultimately, based on our world ranking, there's absolutely no way we SHOULD be at these tournaments but we are and the reality is that for many of the attendees in 5 years they'll be playing Northern 1 and their participation at this tournament will have achieved nothing for NZF other than provide great memories for them of an awesome trip. I'm not arguing players should miss out because of costs - clearly that's not the way forward. Just pointing out that a lot of money is spent on sending kids to youth tournaments and the majority of it does nothing to assist our senior mens team. I don't like it, but I also wouldn't like every amateur player in the country to pay extra subs either...I guess I'm saying it's maybe not as straight forward as we're making it out
This and your last post both make good points. I think a lot of people here haven't gone beyond a "resources a scarce, let's give out all the resource" approach, which clearly makes no sense.
if we are viewing our participation in these tournaments as 'experiences' for rich kids, we shouldn't be there
That's not what I'm saying at all. And NZF aren't doing that either. All I'm saying is that for some of the kids who go that's pretty much what it will end up being (an experience).
Ultimately, based on our world ranking, there's absolutely no way we SHOULD be at these tournaments but we are and the reality is that for many of the attendees in 5 years they'll be playing Northern 1 and their participation at this tournament will have achieved nothing for NZF other than provide great memories for them of an awesome trip.
I've been struggling to encapsulate the argument in favour of kids paying, and this is the best I've seen so far.
Reality check for a second, NZF don't need this $50k. If they do, and the coffers have been that badly mismanaged, then there are other much more serious problems we should be talking about.
This is, imho, a philosophical decision. A decision to reallocate resources away from youth international teams, but I'm not clear where the money now goes.
That is one reason I don't like it.
The other is that I think genuine international representation is, or should be, very different from the sort of tours I run. I run tours that kids and parents pay to go on for the experience, as JD says. But international representation is about NZF (as representative of all the players in NZ) saying to a player "you're one of the best, we'd like you to represent us". So it's the reverse of what I do.
We're not some tin pot sport like wakeboarding or BMX. We have enough money flowing in the game that when NZF taps a kid on the shoulder and says "congratulations kid, you're one of the best in the land, please represent us at the World Cup" then that shouldn't be followed up with an invoice.
That's m2cw on it anyway.
OK, so what exactly are the benefits from attending these age-group tournaments then?
If we can clearly establish who benefits, and by how much, that should give a very good guide to who should pay the costs.
OK, so what exactly are the benefits from attending these age-group tournaments then?
If we can clearly establish who benefits, and by how much, that should give a very good guide to who should pay the costs.
With the utmost of respect Tx, I don't think that sort of pure market analysis is very instructive.
For a start it is impossible to quantify many of the benefits that might be said to accrue to both sides. International footballing credibility, for example.
But, for the sake of a good straw man:
For the players: a great life experience, some football coaching and match experience, a chance to augment a fledgling footballing CV that may lead to greater US College scholarship opportunities, future international opportunities at other levels, and/or footballing job prospects.
For NZF: fulfilling its obligations to FIFA to attend tournaments it has entered qualifying for, a chance to increase credibility on the international stage, the chance to identify, work with, and develop future All Whites; a chance to provide job opportunities to international coaches and team management, and to develop them.
Yeah, I realise that an economic cost-benefit type analysis is kind of clunky but that's actually a problem across just about all sport. The benefits of sport are often really hard to identify, let alone justify, especially at the elite level. At grassroots you at least can point to obvious health and well-being benefits of mass participation in sport but at elite level, well, what actually is the benefit of the All Blacks winning a World Cup, or Team New Zealand winning the Americas Cup? Seems to me they are often very slight and tend to get over-stated in order to justify funding. A lot of investment decisions at elite level are more politically motivated than anything else (but then that in itself is interesting, we do love sport, we do love winning and we do keep letting politicians get away with it).
Anyway, getting back on track with another question...
Do we think that NZF putting this policy in place indicates some kind of incompetence by them i.e. the money should be there but they aren't managing it well enough, or is this simply the pragmatic (and maybe overdue) reality of the situation? Are football stakeholders in NZ guilty of having champagne taste on a beer budget?
I think I gave my view on that in my last post. We should be able to afford that $50k without asking players for it.
Here's some more juicy information for you. Do you know what happened to the $50k prize money the u21s got in Turkey ?
I think I gave my view on that in my last post. We should be able to afford that $50k without asking players for it.
We should, but can we?
The history here is that prior to 2006 Australia won just about every one of these Oceania qualifying tournaments.
Then in 2006 they joined Asia and we started winning them.
Within 2 years NZF was basically broke and in 2008 we needed SPARC and Kiwibank to bail us out to the tune of nearly $2m.
In 2010 we qualified for the WC and the winnings plus some related sponsorship papered over the cracks and have got us to the point we are now.
However, I really get the impression that we have kind of just staggered along since 2006 with only the 2010 WC winnings postponing the slow realisation that we can't actually afford everything we now expect NZF to do in the context of being the biggest fish in Oceania (and it's a point worth making that prior to 2006 a New Zealand U17 or U20 rep would almost never expect to go to a WC, so who should paid for it was a non-issue).
I really wish NZF would provide some more info/explanation though, because this really does need an informed debate so that the various stakeholders can make some choices about priorities and trade-offs.
Here's some more juicy information for you. Do you know what happened to the $50k prize money the u21s got in Turkey ?
i'm just not comfortable with this path. in the future, i can see the parents who can afford it weighing up a subsidised world cup u17 trip next to the possibility of touring the states or europe with guy or wynton and choosing the latter.
and i imagine in a few years, some of the private tours will have evolved to being pretty slick, attractive and effective in terms of what the young player gets out of it. much more so than the benefits that de jong was extolling last week.
by making it pay as you go, NZF risk placing the 'honour' of representing your country alongside the 'ability to pay' to go on a tour
Here's some more juicy information for you. Do you know what happened to the $50k prize money the u21s got in Turkey ?
So, the u20s (sorry) qualified for Turkey. FIFA rewarded them $50k They were thinking great ! NZF said "we'll take that" and left them in the lurch. Ask any of those players and they will tell you the same thing. They had to stay in a cheap ass hotel.
did they only get $50k?
didn't they used to get all costs covered plus some cash for build up games?
did they only get $50k?
didn't they used to get all costs covered plus some cash for build up games?
Yes and that is what NZF left them with for Turkey as well.
That's very odd.
FIFA cover the costs for all tournaments from the point in time of leaving NZ until they get home so any place they stayed at is covered by FIFA. It could be that was the only option available. NZF may have pocketed the cash, but they would not be responsible for deciding and paying for where the U20s stay when at tournaments.
i assumed that fifa no longer covered the costs
if they still do, why are our kids being asked to pay?
That's very odd.
FIFA cover the costs for all tournaments from the point in time of leaving NZ until they get home so any place they stayed at is covered by FIFA. It could be that was the only option available. NZF may have pocketed the cash, but they would not be responsible for deciding and paying for where the U20s stay when at tournaments.
FIFA pay for everything 3 days out from the tournament. The $50k given to the u21s by FIFA after Fiji is what NZF swooped in and took and kept in the kitty for themselves. We are running out of money fast and the budget for the warm up games leading to the play off was $250k. NZF fly the players from europe business class (Air NZ) to any match and back again. That is $5k a flight. Soon adds up.
Oh and also the allowance the All White players get each day is $80. In comparison, the FA gives the English players $1000-1500 a day.
If this move to charge players is as simple as "if we don't, then we will run out of money and won't be able to do X Y Z" then I could probably handle that.
But so far, NZF haven't said that.
Sorry nufc_nz but that just doesn't make any sense. There is no way FIFA awarded the team themselves $50k. They were playing for NZ and any monies coming from FIFA belong to NZF, end of. Whether NZF subsequently made adequate provision for the team to prepare for the tournament is another matter. And if FIFA didn't cover all costs at the tournament (and/or put them in a "cheap ass hotel") then that is yet another matter.
Classic nufc_nz inside information.
The $50k was supposed to be for the u21s to pay for flights/accom/expenses in Turkey. Instead NZF didn't give the team any of it.