I too am a college soccer fan -- go Zips! And congrats to the Catamounts for a great Cinderella run, first unseeded team (top 16 of 48 are seeded) to win it all since the UCSB Gauchos in 2006. (Caveat: the Marshall Thundering Herd was unseeded when they won the covid-reduced 2020 championship, in which the top 8 of 32 teams were seeded.) And gotta love all those weird team names!
My take: this is just a microcosm of the big issue of global competition. Chris wants protectionism for US "workers". But at many universities now, rich foreign students paying full tuition is what pays the bills. So hard to say they can't also play on their college's teams.
Another issue is the US-specific conflation of semi-pro sports and education. I'd like to see these separated, as they are in the rest of the world, though the chances of that happening are zero.
"But at many universities now, rich foreign students paying full tuition is what pays the bills. So hard to say they can't also play on their college's teams."
Scholarships in non-revenue sports have historically been severely limited by the NCAA, though that is changing. For soccer, it was 10 scholarships per team, going to 28 next year (28 is also the upper limit of the roster size). My point is that if you are going to maintain the pretense that athletics is just part of college life, it's hard to restrict the number of foreign students that are allowed to participate without also restricting the number of foreign students overall.
What you saw last night -- and I watched at least a dozen games of the college cup including the championship game -- is a symptom of a larger problem in US MEN's soccer. The fundamental problem with US MEN's soccer -- which I believe you have addressed here -- is its pay-to-play model that isn't producing players good enough to play at the college level here. The MEN's clubs in the US aren't interested in developing the talent; they're primarily interested in growing their programs and chasing the dollars. Until we address that, we are going to continue to spin our wheels and look for short-term fixes such as limiting the cap on the number of international players on a roster. P.S. the Women's college cup also is loaded with international players and I would argue that the women's game at the high school and college levels is far superior than the men's. But that's a topic for another day!!
This is happening in high school too, elite players are transferring to the schools where their travel coaches coach, effectively taking the spot of a kid in district while the coaches chase championships. We are ruining kids sports.
I respectfully disagree with you wholeheartedly. I acknowledge your personal stake in all of this. However, your argument, applied to say, scientists, would suggest that universities should limit their science departments solely to American science students, because many countries in the world are smarter at science than us. How does that benefit science innovation? The NCAA is a broken institution, and does nothing but harm to students. The proper argument is either (a) lobby foreign governments to allow US players into their academies (which Pulisic was allowed to do because he holds dual citizenship) or (b) set up our own academies! The NBA and NFL basically get a free minor league system. For soccer, if you're a four year college player, you're already to old, by global standards, to be any good. So what's the point of that? You've made the correct point that "failed" foreign players can dominate our kids. The answer to that problem is not to restrict roster spots, it's to find out why they're better than us in the first place. And usually, the answer is that they didn't have to go to college in the first place.
What the problem really boils down to are international freshmen that are 23/24 years old. They hold a distinct advantage over 18 year old American player just based on age. As an American, you can take a gap year and not jeopardize your eligibility. Any longer than that, you are ineligible to play. A lot of DI programs are recruiting American high school seniors but telling them that they are required to take a gap year. If the international players were held to the same enrollment rules as US players, this situation would be much different.
Chris, Love your work but this only tells half of the story. Can you please specify that this is MENS college soccer in crisis? I would love to see the same post for women and how they are leading the world at both college and Int'l levels. The US Women's National Team is superb (the last world cup aside), the same cannot be said for the US Men's National Team.
Women's soccer is headed down the same path. The number of internationals is steadily increasing.
As long as the system remains unchanged, the pressure for colleges and coaches to prioritize short-term interests (winning, keeping their jobs) will get women's soccer to the same sorry state as men's soccer.
It's important when trying to understand international women's soccer that in most countries, women did not play soccer, or could not play (the English FA banned women playing on their grounds from 1921 to 1970). That has been changing. The US women in many ways had a head start, thanks to Title IX. But today the US has more competition, as recent results show.
Let me re-phrase your argument “They will not replace us”. Raising the competitive level of soccer is good for American soccer. Maybe your son isn’t good enough to compete with them so he can play at a weaker school and maybe not get a full scholarship. Future soccer players will adjust. This is not a problem for soccer….
This is fantastic news! People are so delusional to think that their kid can play college soccer or get any kind of scholarship. People need to realize what a canard that is for most kids. The thousands you spend on club soccer would be better off spent on great experiences. Go play multiple sports and enjoy your childhood. Kids and especially parents need to wake up and realize all this money is not leading to a scholarship. The Division 3 opportunities will still be there, but that is basically pay to play. Club sports and intramurals are the way to go for kids who want to play sports in college. Go have fun, we are not Europe and never will be.
Very informative article. As a father to (2) boys that play MLS Next right now, I reluctantly had to read the article. I was in Indio last week watching all that talent thinking that very few of these kids will be able to get collegiate scholarships, due to the foreign invasion. Those foreign kids deserve those college roster spots, no doubt, but there has to be a better way to give US kids that play at the highest level possible, more roster and scholarship opportunities in college. MLS Next already takes away the HS soccer experience, so to many parents if the chances of continuing in college are slimming, then why miss out on the fun and camaraderie of playing for your high school? It's quite the parental conundrum.
In addition, under the NCAA v. House settlement, college soccer roster spots will be reduced to 28, from an average of ~32 spots today.
Having played a sport in college, and seeing the impact of travel sports on kids, I have decided to not have my sons play on any of the travel teams, despite heavy recruitment, based on likely costs/benefits. The whole system is a mess right now.
Thanks for once again giving me a perspective on a subject I knew nothing about. Unfortunately, collegiate sports, which still have a lot of benefits to offer the players, have morphed into big business. Please keep informing us on politics AND ( ostensibly) non-political issues. Everything keeps getting more complicated…
I am glad someone else is seeing how bringing in international players who are not going to play on their home country is only going to make playing soccer less palatable for American players. Why practice 4 nights a week and give up weekends for an elite travel team that plays nationally only to have your chances of playing at the college be virtually non-existent. There are very few scholarships at D1 schools to begin with usually between 3-8 scholarships depending on the program, not to mention the scholarships are split so no full rides. Most players are paying tuition that includes American students. Add the fact that some of these international players are early to mid 20's. One of the goalkeepers playing in the championship game wasa 22 year old freshman. When there is no end game, parents will pull there kids out of youth soccer. There is a reason why Japan limited foriegn talent in baseball and why they became competitive on the national, think World Baseball Championship.
With the NCAA settlement changes, schools can offer full scholarships for the entire roster, which I think will be limited to 28 spots for soccer. The obvious questions are how many schools will fund all 28 roster spots (I think very few) and who will they pick (likely more international players).
Actually, any money given is to an athlete is considered "scholarship money" no matter the amount. If your given $100 it's considered scholarship money. My son plays Division 1 soccer and his school has at most 5 full scholarships. Most programs have 8.5 scholarships that they either spilt between players and on the rare occasion give a full one. His school gives no incoming freshman scholarship and they have one international on a 50 % scholarship that's 28 years old and has had medical issues that prevent him from training or playing and there is an NCAA rule that you're not allowed to take a scholarship away from an international.
Through this year, a men's NCAA soccer program could provide a total of 9.9 scholarships, which were often spread between players. Under the new settlement, a school can offer 28 full scholarships to players on its men's soccer team.
Many schools will choose not to offer that many scholarships for financial reasons, but the cap has been lifted.
Very unfortunately, most of this debate is missing the point. It is very much NOT about internationals, "global competition", etc. It's about sportsmanship.
The focus should be on
- Meaningful eligibility rules. Right now international players have a huge advantage. They come onto these teams with years of experience, often at a pro or semi pro level. That's not fair. Those years should count against eligibility.
- Sensible age limits. A fair competition would have age limits, to cover for experience that the eligibility rules do not capture. (Having an exception for those coming out of the US military would be the easiest thing to write, raising that as a problem is clearly an attempt to dodge the issue.)
Coaches see their own short term interest is served by the current system. But the entire college sports system is collapsing around them, and these coaches are accelerating the collapse.
Otherwise, there's no reason to have teams like Vermont and Marshall attached to a college. No one cares about the games, there's no sense of tradition or rivalry. And there will be no alumni donors supporting sports like mens soccer. Mens college soccer is rushing to a dead end.
It's probably great for those who would rather just kill off college sports. The coaches recruiting 25 year old players with years of experience are their best ally in killing college sports.
Is it allowed by current rules? Unfortunately, yes. Does it reflect any positive spirit of sports? No.
I agree 100%. The NCAA should limit the number of foreign players for the exact reasons you mentioned. I was privileged to have lettered four years playing Division 1 soccer in the late 1970's. Everyone was upbeat then about the future of youth soccer in America. 40+ years later, I see no positive movement in the promotion of youth soccer in the collegiate ranks. It's a sad reality that winning at all costs is more important than developing and rewarding home grown talent.
Chris - you may want to look into the plan US Soccer has to take soccer out of the NCAA and play a full year long calendar and abandon the NCAA fall model.
I think you are only getting part of the picture and how the sport is growing in the U.S. For the truly elite American players, college competition is often a step down in competition and development. It isn't like football or basketball, where a college career gives players a chance to get bigger and grow into bodies that can compete with grown men. Though, in basketball, plenty of players hope to get to the pros after they turn 19.
In soccer, the elite American players stay with club teams in the hope of getting promoted to the top team, or sold toa European club where they can start making money and develop against top talent. There is no real NIL money for college soccer, so the early pro route is attractive. They also have more opportunities than other sports like football or basketball, since there are professional leagues across Europe, and the teams have their own development pipelines. So, they have options in England, France, Germany, Spain, Italy, the Netherlands, etc.
If you look at recent productive USMNT players, they didn't go the college route. Landon Donovan - no college. Tim Howard -- No college. Clint Dempsey did go to Furman, but that isn't exactly a D1 powerhouse program. Pulisic - no college. Weston McKennie got a scholarship offer to play for UVA, which he turned down to go pro. Michael Bradley -- no college. Matt Turner -- Fairfield University (again, not a power house). Antonee Robinson - came up through the Everton academy system. Tim Weah - no college, and came up through the Paris Saint-Germain academy system.
My point is that the true elite players rarely find college as the best option to a pro career.
From a friend "Shaun, as a father to a kid that played for UVM, I think I’m uniquely qualified to speak to this subject. The problem is not the colleges. It’s how America develops players - the best home grown kids now skip college and stay in their club academies, hoping to play for the first team or to be sold abroad. College used to be the preferred path to a professional career for a US kid - now it’s an option but it’s not preferred for the elite talents. Look at the USMNT, not one player went to a Div 1 university - they all played for MLS teams and/or they were sold to foreign clubs. The universities have to find alternative sources of talent to fill this void, that will allow them to compete. That’s why they are looking at the second tier kids from abroad."
I too am a college soccer fan -- go Zips! And congrats to the Catamounts for a great Cinderella run, first unseeded team (top 16 of 48 are seeded) to win it all since the UCSB Gauchos in 2006. (Caveat: the Marshall Thundering Herd was unseeded when they won the covid-reduced 2020 championship, in which the top 8 of 32 teams were seeded.) And gotta love all those weird team names!
My take: this is just a microcosm of the big issue of global competition. Chris wants protectionism for US "workers". But at many universities now, rich foreign students paying full tuition is what pays the bills. So hard to say they can't also play on their college's teams.
Another issue is the US-specific conflation of semi-pro sports and education. I'd like to see these separated, as they are in the rest of the world, though the chances of that happening are zero.
"But at many universities now, rich foreign students paying full tuition is what pays the bills. So hard to say they can't also play on their college's teams."
Presumably they are scholarship athletes.
Scholarships in non-revenue sports have historically been severely limited by the NCAA, though that is changing. For soccer, it was 10 scholarships per team, going to 28 next year (28 is also the upper limit of the roster size). My point is that if you are going to maintain the pretense that athletics is just part of college life, it's hard to restrict the number of foreign students that are allowed to participate without also restricting the number of foreign students overall.
What you saw last night -- and I watched at least a dozen games of the college cup including the championship game -- is a symptom of a larger problem in US MEN's soccer. The fundamental problem with US MEN's soccer -- which I believe you have addressed here -- is its pay-to-play model that isn't producing players good enough to play at the college level here. The MEN's clubs in the US aren't interested in developing the talent; they're primarily interested in growing their programs and chasing the dollars. Until we address that, we are going to continue to spin our wheels and look for short-term fixes such as limiting the cap on the number of international players on a roster. P.S. the Women's college cup also is loaded with international players and I would argue that the women's game at the high school and college levels is far superior than the men's. But that's a topic for another day!!
This is happening in high school too, elite players are transferring to the schools where their travel coaches coach, effectively taking the spot of a kid in district while the coaches chase championships. We are ruining kids sports.
I respectfully disagree with you wholeheartedly. I acknowledge your personal stake in all of this. However, your argument, applied to say, scientists, would suggest that universities should limit their science departments solely to American science students, because many countries in the world are smarter at science than us. How does that benefit science innovation? The NCAA is a broken institution, and does nothing but harm to students. The proper argument is either (a) lobby foreign governments to allow US players into their academies (which Pulisic was allowed to do because he holds dual citizenship) or (b) set up our own academies! The NBA and NFL basically get a free minor league system. For soccer, if you're a four year college player, you're already to old, by global standards, to be any good. So what's the point of that? You've made the correct point that "failed" foreign players can dominate our kids. The answer to that problem is not to restrict roster spots, it's to find out why they're better than us in the first place. And usually, the answer is that they didn't have to go to college in the first place.
What the problem really boils down to are international freshmen that are 23/24 years old. They hold a distinct advantage over 18 year old American player just based on age. As an American, you can take a gap year and not jeopardize your eligibility. Any longer than that, you are ineligible to play. A lot of DI programs are recruiting American high school seniors but telling them that they are required to take a gap year. If the international players were held to the same enrollment rules as US players, this situation would be much different.
Chris, Love your work but this only tells half of the story. Can you please specify that this is MENS college soccer in crisis? I would love to see the same post for women and how they are leading the world at both college and Int'l levels. The US Women's National Team is superb (the last world cup aside), the same cannot be said for the US Men's National Team.
Women's soccer is headed down the same path. The number of internationals is steadily increasing.
As long as the system remains unchanged, the pressure for colleges and coaches to prioritize short-term interests (winning, keeping their jobs) will get women's soccer to the same sorry state as men's soccer.
It's important when trying to understand international women's soccer that in most countries, women did not play soccer, or could not play (the English FA banned women playing on their grounds from 1921 to 1970). That has been changing. The US women in many ways had a head start, thanks to Title IX. But today the US has more competition, as recent results show.
Let me re-phrase your argument “They will not replace us”. Raising the competitive level of soccer is good for American soccer. Maybe your son isn’t good enough to compete with them so he can play at a weaker school and maybe not get a full scholarship. Future soccer players will adjust. This is not a problem for soccer….
This is fantastic news! People are so delusional to think that their kid can play college soccer or get any kind of scholarship. People need to realize what a canard that is for most kids. The thousands you spend on club soccer would be better off spent on great experiences. Go play multiple sports and enjoy your childhood. Kids and especially parents need to wake up and realize all this money is not leading to a scholarship. The Division 3 opportunities will still be there, but that is basically pay to play. Club sports and intramurals are the way to go for kids who want to play sports in college. Go have fun, we are not Europe and never will be.
Very informative article. As a father to (2) boys that play MLS Next right now, I reluctantly had to read the article. I was in Indio last week watching all that talent thinking that very few of these kids will be able to get collegiate scholarships, due to the foreign invasion. Those foreign kids deserve those college roster spots, no doubt, but there has to be a better way to give US kids that play at the highest level possible, more roster and scholarship opportunities in college. MLS Next already takes away the HS soccer experience, so to many parents if the chances of continuing in college are slimming, then why miss out on the fun and camaraderie of playing for your high school? It's quite the parental conundrum.
In addition, under the NCAA v. House settlement, college soccer roster spots will be reduced to 28, from an average of ~32 spots today.
Having played a sport in college, and seeing the impact of travel sports on kids, I have decided to not have my sons play on any of the travel teams, despite heavy recruitment, based on likely costs/benefits. The whole system is a mess right now.
Thanks for once again giving me a perspective on a subject I knew nothing about. Unfortunately, collegiate sports, which still have a lot of benefits to offer the players, have morphed into big business. Please keep informing us on politics AND ( ostensibly) non-political issues. Everything keeps getting more complicated…
I am glad someone else is seeing how bringing in international players who are not going to play on their home country is only going to make playing soccer less palatable for American players. Why practice 4 nights a week and give up weekends for an elite travel team that plays nationally only to have your chances of playing at the college be virtually non-existent. There are very few scholarships at D1 schools to begin with usually between 3-8 scholarships depending on the program, not to mention the scholarships are split so no full rides. Most players are paying tuition that includes American students. Add the fact that some of these international players are early to mid 20's. One of the goalkeepers playing in the championship game wasa 22 year old freshman. When there is no end game, parents will pull there kids out of youth soccer. There is a reason why Japan limited foriegn talent in baseball and why they became competitive on the national, think World Baseball Championship.
With the NCAA settlement changes, schools can offer full scholarships for the entire roster, which I think will be limited to 28 spots for soccer. The obvious questions are how many schools will fund all 28 roster spots (I think very few) and who will they pick (likely more international players).
Actually, any money given is to an athlete is considered "scholarship money" no matter the amount. If your given $100 it's considered scholarship money. My son plays Division 1 soccer and his school has at most 5 full scholarships. Most programs have 8.5 scholarships that they either spilt between players and on the rare occasion give a full one. His school gives no incoming freshman scholarship and they have one international on a 50 % scholarship that's 28 years old and has had medical issues that prevent him from training or playing and there is an NCAA rule that you're not allowed to take a scholarship away from an international.
Through this year, a men's NCAA soccer program could provide a total of 9.9 scholarships, which were often spread between players. Under the new settlement, a school can offer 28 full scholarships to players on its men's soccer team.
Many schools will choose not to offer that many scholarships for financial reasons, but the cap has been lifted.
Very unfortunately, most of this debate is missing the point. It is very much NOT about internationals, "global competition", etc. It's about sportsmanship.
The focus should be on
- Meaningful eligibility rules. Right now international players have a huge advantage. They come onto these teams with years of experience, often at a pro or semi pro level. That's not fair. Those years should count against eligibility.
- Sensible age limits. A fair competition would have age limits, to cover for experience that the eligibility rules do not capture. (Having an exception for those coming out of the US military would be the easiest thing to write, raising that as a problem is clearly an attempt to dodge the issue.)
Coaches see their own short term interest is served by the current system. But the entire college sports system is collapsing around them, and these coaches are accelerating the collapse.
Otherwise, there's no reason to have teams like Vermont and Marshall attached to a college. No one cares about the games, there's no sense of tradition or rivalry. And there will be no alumni donors supporting sports like mens soccer. Mens college soccer is rushing to a dead end.
It's probably great for those who would rather just kill off college sports. The coaches recruiting 25 year old players with years of experience are their best ally in killing college sports.
Is it allowed by current rules? Unfortunately, yes. Does it reflect any positive spirit of sports? No.
I agree 100%. The NCAA should limit the number of foreign players for the exact reasons you mentioned. I was privileged to have lettered four years playing Division 1 soccer in the late 1970's. Everyone was upbeat then about the future of youth soccer in America. 40+ years later, I see no positive movement in the promotion of youth soccer in the collegiate ranks. It's a sad reality that winning at all costs is more important than developing and rewarding home grown talent.
Chris - you may want to look into the plan US Soccer has to take soccer out of the NCAA and play a full year long calendar and abandon the NCAA fall model.
I think you are only getting part of the picture and how the sport is growing in the U.S. For the truly elite American players, college competition is often a step down in competition and development. It isn't like football or basketball, where a college career gives players a chance to get bigger and grow into bodies that can compete with grown men. Though, in basketball, plenty of players hope to get to the pros after they turn 19.
In soccer, the elite American players stay with club teams in the hope of getting promoted to the top team, or sold toa European club where they can start making money and develop against top talent. There is no real NIL money for college soccer, so the early pro route is attractive. They also have more opportunities than other sports like football or basketball, since there are professional leagues across Europe, and the teams have their own development pipelines. So, they have options in England, France, Germany, Spain, Italy, the Netherlands, etc.
If you look at recent productive USMNT players, they didn't go the college route. Landon Donovan - no college. Tim Howard -- No college. Clint Dempsey did go to Furman, but that isn't exactly a D1 powerhouse program. Pulisic - no college. Weston McKennie got a scholarship offer to play for UVA, which he turned down to go pro. Michael Bradley -- no college. Matt Turner -- Fairfield University (again, not a power house). Antonee Robinson - came up through the Everton academy system. Tim Weah - no college, and came up through the Paris Saint-Germain academy system.
My point is that the true elite players rarely find college as the best option to a pro career.
Should we impose a tariff on imported collegiate soccer players? 😉
From a friend "Shaun, as a father to a kid that played for UVM, I think I’m uniquely qualified to speak to this subject. The problem is not the colleges. It’s how America develops players - the best home grown kids now skip college and stay in their club academies, hoping to play for the first team or to be sold abroad. College used to be the preferred path to a professional career for a US kid - now it’s an option but it’s not preferred for the elite talents. Look at the USMNT, not one player went to a Div 1 university - they all played for MLS teams and/or they were sold to foreign clubs. The universities have to find alternative sources of talent to fill this void, that will allow them to compete. That’s why they are looking at the second tier kids from abroad."
That’s not true-Matt Turner played D1 at Fairfield.