Can MLS teams claim "home grown" status for players from satelite academies outside their market?

Re: Can MLS teams claim "home grown" status for players from satelite academies outside their market

I'd think that the fact that they exist suggests that MLS teams will have the rights to players who come through the academies. I know there was talk about Cascio -- who came through Arizona -- going to RSL this offseason before he predictably decided to return to UConn.

My guess is there's a limit on the number of satellite academies.

 

Re: Can MLS teams claim "home grown" status for players from satelite academies outside their market

I believe areas not in anyones local territory are completely up for grabs.

 

Re: Can MLS teams claim "home grown" status for players from satelite academies outside their market

Aren't those territories allocated by a "commission"?

 

Re: Can MLS teams claim "home grown" status for players from satelite academies outside their market

At the time the league first introduced the homegrown player initiative in 2006, the league defined the "home territory" for all MLS teams.

Each team's home territory included their local area; however, the smaller-market teams were also granted additional territories in non-MLS regions to make up for their own limited populations. As far as I know, those satellite territories are fixed by MLS and are treated just like the clubs' standard home territories for homegrown purposes.

 

Re: Can MLS teams claim "home grown" status for players from satelite academies outside their market

Chicago Fire setting a satellite in MS to get Kellen Gulley is not a small market team granted additional territory. As we all know Chicago is not a small market.
All interesting questions but we really don't know the answers. Anyone interested in contacting MLS for clarification. I thought their was a recent posting that relaxed th HG rules without any set distance, just that they had to have played for the MLS academy for a set time over a set period and they couldn't be added after college enrollment. If true I like it because it sets the stage for any player to be able to join a future rendition of residential training. Proximity will drive most players to stay local but it will open the doors for those not close to be able to be trained by MLS academies.
From Red Bulls site:http://www.redbullsacademy.com/academy/overview/homegrown_player_policy.aspx

It does list a 'home territory'. But only list 2 a yr so it must be outdated. I thought they pulled the plug on limit per year to encourage teams to develop as many as they see fit to start moving this important talent development tool along.

 

Re: Can MLS teams claim "home grown" status for players from satelite academies outside their market

From here:

"Several years ago, greater than five years ago, the MLS competition committee met and wanted to start dividing up the country so people had pockets, so that clubs could tag players and have rights to youth players in a way without having them under contract. This was even before the youth clubs even came around. Clubs were trying to protect youth players in their area, try to keep them under interim in MLS, so a player from Utah wouldn’t end up over in Galaxy. It was just a way for them to try to create a little bit of protection for their area. In Los Angeles, you have a massive player pool, so their developmental territory essentially is Southern California, but because Utah’s player pool is so small they get granted a little bit larger player pool, which is Arizona. They were trying to divide it up by player pool density and they divided up the country. Who knows where that will end up now that residency is starting up for us and potentially for others in the next couple years, but definitely the landscape is changing."

"I know for a fact New Mexico is not a territory for anyone, neither is Nevada. In fact, Colorado Rapids have a partner club in Nevada as well. I don’t think people expected residency to hit as fast as it did, so I don’t know that there are very specific rules just yet. People still think residency is a couple years away - aside from Vancouver, who has had a residency program for a while, but the concept of residency in the United States was not something that MLS and the clubs were necessarily thinking was going to pop on the scene in a matter of a few months, so there’s still a lot of discussion on how a lot of that works.

Honestly, there aren’t any rules. But players who are in a region like Arizona are theoretically under the Real Salt Lake umbrella, but RSL can only tag so many players, can only put so many developmental players under their wing. Then there are states like New Mexico, Nevada, and other states in the country who don’t have MLS teams, who aren’t affiliated to clubs. RSL has an affiliate in Tampa, RSL Florida, it’s just a youth club that operates under normal USYS [United States Youth Soccer] and it doesn’t operate in Development Academy League, they play in State Cup and regionals just like every other non-academy club in the country. For the most part, we’re staying in regions where players are under-served, they don’t have academy options."

So RSL's academy is in its territory, but some of the other (presumably Chicago) are in no-man's land, and under current rules presumably the players and their parents would have to move to Chicago for a year before signing as homegrowns.

But of course this assumes MLS hasn't changed the rules since then and not told anyone...