First time I read it, I noticed the same thing. So I looked at his answer as part of a conversation (which it was) and not as a written answer to a question. I think he meant that if they bring in a 15 year old who does NOT have a Mexican passport, the kid is a free agent at 17 because they can't sign him to a youth contract. He just got lazy with pronouns and antecedents, like we all do in conversations.
I think that over time there will be a growing pool of talented youngsters that will want to forego NCAA eligibility. We can think of it like the giant pool of talented young baseball players that choose to forego the NCAAs every year. When our reserve league is built like baseball's is...............then kids will be more interested in heading straight to the pro ranks. They'll see the developmental pathway. Let's face it. Going pro in soccer right now as a teenager in the US is a risky business. If you're an upper echelon prospect like Luis Gil then the pathway looks clearer. For the really good prospect..................the pathway is less clear and NCAA eligibility is a big deal.
I'm guessing here that the player comes in to the academy being paid living expenses maybe living with relatives or at a club boarding house. All of this is under the table. In addition, Mexican clubs have a "gentlemen's agreement" where they will not poach players from each other even though the player is out of contract. So the only time FIFA is notified is when they sign a pro contract. So the Mexican-Americans can't sign pro-contracts until they are 18. Apparently, in Mexico, this is very late.
Okay, if he's talking about a non-Mexican citizen it makes more sense, though I wonder how he's bringing him in at 15 either. According to FIFA, any player 12 or over has to be cleared when they change countries of registration (http://www.ussoccer.com/about/federation-services/intl-clearance.aspx). Unless the players were never registered with a club in the US (certainly possible if they never joined a USSF club or only played high school), then it's legit (or so it seems). Even a Mexican citizen would need an ITC if he played for a club in the US.
You know that new rule (relatively new) that international transfers of children are illegal? Oftentimes people will say that, for example, Arsenal can just poach the next Freddy by bringing the kid in to play in the Arsenal academy. And that's true, there's no rule against Arsenal bringing in a 16 year old kid to their academy. But the thing is, Arsenal has no rights to the kid until he is 18, they can't sign him to a contract. Of course, if that's what the guy was talking about, why did he say "17" instead of 18? Oh well, another great theory of mine shot to hell.
17 is the year a pro contract is deemed legal in some countries, but not the US. The applies to the locals only. The fer'ners have to wait another year. Xolos probably don't have to worry about that either, as they don't have to even bring anyone "across the border" per se, with the kids living in San Diego and just driving or being driven to work each day. ----------------------------------------- dwsmith1972 - thought you might be interested in this excerpt, as this is another source. ------------------------------ If he gets interest from the English clubs, as he should, then he might get that much in a total package as a free agent. If Shea cost Stoke $4M in transfer + (let's speculate) about $1.5M/Y for 4 years, the total is $10M over 4 years or $2.5M/Y. Within 2-3 years, that'll be the very lower tier pay in the EPL. An average starter probably be making $5M-$7M/Y. In Mexico, $2.5M is Blanco territory, reserved for a top name, who's a top draw with the top club.
Are you sure he doesn't speak Spanish? I just always assumed he probably did and figured that was part of the reason why he'd be willing to go to the Spanish 2nd division.
But isn't even the 16 year old part of the same issue? They should only be registered if their parents have come over for "non-soccer" reasons? Of course, education programs can be used as one way around that, but still seems that FIFA wants to cut down on most of the funny business.
This is the second time you've tagged me recently. While I agree that the article is interesting [I read it yesterday] the tagging is a bit curious. The first time you tagged me you did so in a response to super dave and it struck me as either a poor attempt at humor or a passive aggressive swipe in that I'd liked something he'd written. This time is a bit annoying in that you seem to have done so in order to sort of lazily buttress a straw-man argument with an appeal to authority without ever bothering to actually respond to the specifics of my own argument. To recap: Me: I think athleticism isn't easy to pin down and varies with context and don't think its a given that MLS is considerably more athletic than Liga MX. You: "MLS is superior athletically cause anyone with eyes can see and Nesta said it was and this scout says it too" [Nesta said nothing about Liga MX and it wasn't clear what this scout meant by athletic but it was clear he was talking about youth players and physicality. More specifically, as part of your argument that MLS was clearly inferior in terms of coaching you pointed to head to head results between the leagues* and the evident athletic superiority of MLS over Liga MX. I responded essentially that this wasn't an assertion I would make without a more thorough examination of what athletic meant [as did other posters]. You responded that it was obvious to anyone who watched and threw up a Nesta quote which was out of context and about American players work rates ["running like beasts"]. More to the point, in my follow up post I pointed out that greater work rate and greater physicality did not = more athletic and you never addressed this. I then cited various examples of hard working and physical players [Stephen Hunt, Wolyniec] who while decent athletes certainly wouldn't be mistaken for great athletes and who I believe pale athletically in comparison to many extraordinarily quick and fast players in Liga Mx who have no or few equals in MLS for athleticism [Baloy, Damian Alvarez. I would now add Martinez and Riascos of Tijuana, Chaco Jimenez, Manso and a few others]. Now you cite a quote in isolation of a scout using the terms physical and athletic in reference to American youth players versus Mexican players which never addresses my arguments, is arguably taken out of context [given the totality of the passage and its reference to "physical"] and nothing at best is a pretty lame appeal to authority. And yeah, I read the article yesterday. *Bonus: you argued that evidence that MLS coaching was inferior was the fact that they never beat Liga MX teams in head to heads. You didn't bother addressing the rebuttal that MLS teams have beaten Liga MX teams in head to heads in recent years. So, I guess, thanks for tagging me. I'd only hope that next time you tag me [should I be so fortunate] you'll actually have responded to my post or explained why you did so.
Here's the FIFA rule that Xolos has to deal with on transfers (not necessarily contracts): The player lives no further than 50km from a national border, and the club for which the player wishes to be registered in the neighbouring Association is also within 50km of that border. The maximum distance between the player’s domicile and the club’s quarters shall be 100km. In such cases, the player must continue to live at home and the two Associations concerned must give their explicit consent. Contracts are generally governed in the country in which the work is performed, so whatever the FMF and Mexican rules are govern the contract.
I tagged you because I wanted you to see this piece as supportive of my general stance on the topic that you and I have discussed previously. You in turn parsed out the general statements in a lawyerly fashion - I can spot a pro - as if a chain of statements from the various sources was inconsistent with my assertions. I guess if quotes like "much more physical and athletic" and "running beasts" don't satisfy your requirements for even circumstantial evidence, then further conversations about this are fruitless. We'll just agree to remain miles apart on the issue. I am not about to engage in tertiary debates since we can't reach a consensus on the obvious. PS. And I promise not to tag you from now on.
Michael Orozco on the lucrative opportunities for youth players in Mexico: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/writers/luis_bueno/04/25/orozco.qa/index.html#ixzz2K5P2yTwJ
MOF wasn't recruited to go play soccer there. He was basically a free agent auditioning for San Luis without a contract.
He was with Necaxa (Hugo Salcedo arranged a trial) and after some time there followed Raul Arias to San Luis. In this one he says Necaxa gave him housing and food...plus a whopping $200 a month:
I think that is one way but I also think maybe a "statement of understanding" (i know that isn't the correct term) can be signed where a kid isn't given money and just training and if he signs with another club then the MLS club is entitled to a small fee (say 12k per year in the academy) and a percentage of a sell on fee.
The problem - or really a benefit, at least historically - is that the US college degree is worth a lot of money and most soccer prospects from the middle class environment will select that over the minor league soccer. The US top pro leagues also have that problem (the NHL, the MLB) but it's not as big due to the much higher wages that they can afford to splurge on its players. But when a full ride to a decent university (~$40K-$50K) is roughly what MLS plays its non-GenAd rookies, most of those with the college option will take that route.
Well I think that can be solved if teams offer a university clause with an initial contract. Say 100k for a 4 year degree plus 35k/yr wouldn't be too bad for most players.
I know but if they do that to contracts for guys that want to come out it could work (obviously without Gen Ad wages). Hell they don't even need to really pay guys that are aged 16-20. Just offer free food and housing plus per diem.
The days of the "full ride" scholarship for soccer players are pretty much done. Most NCAA programs are limited to 9.9 scholarships for a team (12 in NAIA).
There's nothing new here; Mexican teams are exploiting the vastness of our country, MLS' decadence, and the appeal of Mexican-American player's desire to play for their parent's homeland. As to the salary, it's an exaggeration since only the very best players make more than $1m, the highest being $2.5mln. At the youth level they may have a slight edge since until recently MLS relegated the development of players to college teams and tried to get away with $10500 contracts for players in their early to mid 20s. Aren't we losing more players to European teams? Not just the European born ones and MLS is even losing players after they play in college to Scandinavian teams. What this means is that there's yet another reason MLS has to change its ways and stop using the NFL model.