We wanted to draw your attention to this piece published in yesterday's New York Times, primarily because of the statements made in the article by two soccer coaches, Stanford women's coach Paul Ratcliffe and Ruedi Graf. While the author notes that both speakers run camps, he seems to take at face value their statements while not really touching on the deep financial interests these people have in making these camps seem like sensible, realistic options for young players.

In fact, as regular readers of this column know, the idea that these soccer camps help kids become better players is a very dubious proposition at best and at least unproven by the performances of current American soccer players.

They also can be harmful: research conducted by University of Connecticut professor Doug Casa (you can see the full piece in our archive for June) indicated that 75% of the players his team tested at youth sports camps were dehydrated. Twenty-five percent of them met the clinical benchmark for "serious" dehydration, which can lead to long-term organ and cardio-vascular damage. Also, there seems to be a growing consensus in the medical community that the constant over-playing of youngsters directly leads to increased injury - not increased performance.

In addition, some coaches (we ran a piece quoting University of Connecticut's Ray Reid and former Manchester United player Gordon Hill back in January of this year) feel that some of these camps do little to help breed any sort of talent. Reid, who also runs camps, said to us in January: "I think too many people look at camps as a way to make money but they don't take care of the product."

Speaking purely about soccer (we can't comment on other sports), the majority of these summer soccer camps don't seem to provide much benefit. It's clear that the vast majority of them are NOT developing better players, and it's also clear they cost parents a lot of money. They also seem to perpetuate the economic segregation that has kept the sport from benefiting from urban athletes. Finally, they may actually harm young players - a lot of these camps are running kids into the ground. As for teaching them tactics: we're not sure these camps, let alone anyone else, are teaching American kids the basics. A look at almost any MLS game will display how poor American players still are with the basics of trapping, crossing and dribbling.

Yet what struck us most about the Times piece was the certainty with which the 12-year-old kid referenced in the lead had about camps; he clearly felt he would be left behind in the sport if he didn't participate. Who is teaching children these things? Do people in this business not have any sense of shame?

We think perpetuating this mentality is not just tragic, but unethical as well. The bottom line is that for the vast majoirity of players, the vast majority of camps do nothing to enhance their professional prospects. We hope more parents have the courage to say no.