Many times the Technical Director wishes to advocate for a change to accepted state association practices. These changes can be dramatic national initiatives, as in the push for small-sided games (SSG); or more local efforts, such as the creation of a state-run league, or a reduction in SSG roster sizes, or a reformatting of the state cup. Whatever the issue, the Technical Director should never assume that what he/she brings to the table would automatically be accepted or adopted by their state board. Change is difficult and often the board may not initially grasp the need for reform or possess the necessary soccer experience to appreciate the need for upheaval; or they may fully appreciate the issue, but lack the will or support to fight the battle that will inevitably result from implementing a major initiative.
In general, the conservative nature of organized structures works against rapid and particularly, efficient change. The level of opposition entrenchment will be directly proportional to the level of turmoil created by an initiative. Appreciating that elected officials need time to come to grips with any far- reaching proposal, and that they also must feel supported by their key
constituents, should temper any Technical Director frustration with the slow pace of progress. Small changes, such as the date of the US Youth Soccer state cup finals or the adoption of a minimum field size for 11-a-side US Youth Soccer state cup games, can and should be initiated at the board level in a top-down fashion. These initiatives can easily and safely be adopted by a state board without much fanfare and without any great hue and cry from the members.
However, major controversial issues, such as SSG’s or single carding, will initially require a lonely educational approach on the part of the Technical Director that can, and often will be fraught with rejection. With big issues, the “mandate” rarely, if ever, comes from the top down because, without broad support, the approach tends to rankle American sensitivities. In these rare instances, the Technical Director must work club-by-club and league-by-league to create the political groundswell necessary for board adoption. This is no different than domestic politics and Technical Directors must consider canvassing a necessary and vital aspect of their job.
With these bottom-up initiatives, the Technical Director should be very careful to operate with prior board approval. Advocating a new “product”
without an employer’s knowledge or consent is ethically wrong and a sure way to diminish credibility and erode support. Start these initiatives through
conversations with the president and executive director and then with other board members. Approval to start selling an idea must begin with support at home.
The Technical Director should be emotionally prepared to deal with a myriad of opposing viewpoints, some of which may border on the absurd. Simply citing, “It’s good for the players” or “Good for the game” will not be cogent enough arguments for starting to gain momentum. Change agents – voting boards –
need details and want to know what benefits and problems are associated with change. They also want to hear who else is on-board, because being a pioneer can be incredibly difficult and takes tremendous confidence.
Preparation for any formal proposal should include conversations with experienced Technical Directors who may have already fought your particular battle. Find out what the opposing arguments are and what the appropriate technical and emotional responses might be. Ask your fellow Technical Director to play a “devil’s advocate” role in challenging your understanding of the issues. Having the main arguments thought through before starting your presentations will make defeat of the myriad straw man arguments all the easier; otherwise, your conversations will inevitably become bogged down in diversions and roadblocks and the opportunities to create a toehold will be lost. This is particularly true when advocating to local league groups that are heavily influenced by parent opinion and generally do not have the same national perspective as a state board. As a consequence, they are routinely more hardened in their opinions and more difficult to steer in a positive direction.
On a brighter note, it should be appreciated that most people are quite reasonable and want to be supportive of their state Technical Director. Those who are open-minded will quickly appreciate the value of proposals that are accompanied by persuasive rationale and supported by evidence of success and benefits elsewhere. The use of age appropriate players for field demonstrations is essential for selling changes involving developmental issues. The use of PowerPoint, videos and handouts, which include details and examples to support a position, are also necessary for creating a professional presentation. Even our dress and appearance can help to suggest that we are representing an educated profession, rather than simply a fraternity of coaches.
P R I O R I T I E S A N D D I R E C T I O N
The scope and volume of initiatives that a Technical Director might take on over a period of time must be tempered with the physical and emotional cost of researching, planning, presenting, educating and steering projects from
conception to operation. It is important to organize goals from the major structural issues to the smaller, “fleshing-out” issues and then determine a priority list in conjunction with the executive director and president. It is also important to appreciate that too much change in a short period of time will be difficult to implement successfully. This is particularly true of larger
organizations.
The scope of change initiatives can come from a number of sources. First, determining local needs is very important for the Technical Director to be successful and these are uncovered through vision, experience, discussion with local stakeholders and observation. Second, formal and casual conversations with fellow Technical Directors can serve as a fertile ground for learning of innovations and regional trends. Finally, the national Position Statements, which are produced and revised annually by the Technical Directors in conjunction with
the US Youth Soccer Coaching Department, provide a “road map” of key issues that are determined to be worthy of a unified national message.