I think it's also important to note that there doesn't seem to be any relationship between having a lot of foreign players and winning/losing. Perhaps there will be at some point, but right now, its still quite possible to succeed with mostly homegrown players if you have a stable organization and an intelligent coach who knows how to define roles. It's easier to just go pay already proven players though, so I don't think they should adjust the SI/TI rules, heavily increase the max salary, or add another DP slot, because it could spark an arms race in a system that seems to have hit a nice balance this season. Why create a disincentive to the teams that have shown they can win with less resources, just to continue to bolster LA and NY?
Ummmm of course. My point is, the upward pressure will always be on getting better and less on the nationality of the players. We can all crow on and on about how we want Americans, but winning and improving our teams trumps that.
True, there is no correlation between foreign players and winning and losing. You can win with foreigners and without. The question still lingers, why make teams do it the domestic way? Why not give them the freedom to build the team they see fit? Why does it matter to you as a fan? Also, why would salaries be any different? Set the the salary cap at a certain point and let teams buy a DP or 2 or whatever. Costs would still be contained, wouldn't they? Question, how is it a disincentive to teams that win with less resources? Where are you going with that?
I think the league has a number of goals that are sometimes in conflict. We all want to have the best league possible. Most of us also want MLS to help improve soccer in the US. Having players compete for spots is good, but there's no evidence that bringing in foreign competition is the best way to develop an industry locally. On the other hand, there's considerable evidence that bringing in foreign partners can be great, as long as you actually bother to train the locals...
Generally speaking, teams will bring in foreign players to improve the level of play. The more that happens, generally speaking, the fewer spots there are for Americans. So the Americans that make it are going to be the better ones. The league will be of better quality so those better Americans will be challenged on a higher level then they would with a more protectionist system. A better league and better American players with the trade off of fewer opportunities for the lesser American player. As a fan, I am alright with that trade off.
Oh sure. I agree with the general principle that better competition makes better players. But that general principle breaks apart here and there, and comes into conflict with other equally true general principles. If a "less protectionist" system resulted in a weaker national team because MLS was no longer producing enough Americans or it resulted in a less marketable league, then it's not the right path.
So of the 12 US-based sides in MLS, there are 93 foreigners (including green-card holders) and about 243 US citizens. That means that on average around 72-73% of the roster is made up of US citizens. How can you say that is not an American league? That's probably a lot higher than the percent of US citizens in baseball I'm guessing. It certainly doesn't sound like a low number to me. In fact it's probably too high if we want to have a top-tier competitive league that draws in talent from around the world. I'd rather see it closer to 60/40 myself. Also, when you look at the list of foreigners in MLS on scaryice's blog, many of those folks are not even getting minutes off of the bench. I haven't heard of some of those guys, so I know they're not starting.
Do you believe it is MLS's reponsibility to sacrifice the quality of its product for the National Team? Beyond that, are National Team type players (in otherwords our stronger and better players) really ever going to not be able to make it somewhere in MLS? We are MILES away from that point I would think.
Again, you seem not to realize that even in the best league in the world, the number of wins and losses are equal, just like they are in the Tibetan 4th division. You say "of course," but I don't think you mean it.
I don't have any numbers to back this up, but I suspect that MLS is close to MLB and NHL as far as percentage of foreign born players. NBA is also not far behind. I think MLS has it just about right. 27% foreigners is pretty good considering that the MLS fanbase is probably also partially made up of foreigners.
Well, it was one of the first things the MLS Board determined at the league's inception: "They aimed to accomplish this by (1) keeping finances and salaries under control, (2) promote the development of American players, (3) provide a stable financial base for the league through investment and sponsorships, (4) secure decent media coverage, both print, radio and television, and (5) establish a high level of competition to facilitate the development of National Team players." http://www.sover.net/~spectrum/year/1994.html Now, if you're smart, you realize (a) all of these goals are good, but (b) sometimes these goals will conflict. Not one of these goals, however, can trump all the other goals at all times. In other words, I think quality of play sometimes trumps the development of American players, but not at all times in all situations. Well Brian Ching wasn't making it in MLS. Kerry Zavagnin wasn't making it in MLS. Bobby Boswell wasn't drafted by MLS. The system of spotting "stronger and better" players is inefficient. I don't think you give "marginal" players like Ching or Boswell a chance if you don't have many American spots.
I commented on another thread a short time ago regarding the MNT and also the lower age groups.Soccer America had an article about how US soccer was traveling in the African countries to identify foreign players for future use in the US programs. The article went on to discuss how they were identifying them and then assisting them with attorneys to procure passports and visas to come to America and play soccer. 300,000,000 people and we have to go to other countries to find talent to develop ?!?! Next we'll have to be dialing 1 to play soccer.
and then after a while ....when hopefully the level has gotten a lot better, we can initiate a reduction of the foreign players we allow to start per team... so that both the good level of play remains and we get more Americans being a part of that level of play... It does make you wonder right now however, if expansion is a healthy thing when done so fast....or if we can call the current MLS expansion plans too swift in the way it is going to be implemented in the next few years.....
If American players cannot earn their spots then let them rot. MLS is a business not some summer camp. If domestic players cannot make bread in their own league what good are they for the nationals anyway? It is not like there is a large amount of foreign players who play for less money than the domestic players. MLS pays most everyone like crap.
Personally, I think it's an exciting thing if MLS becomes the league of choice for young talent throughout the western hemisphere. I have no problem seeing the large numbers of younger players coming in from throughout CONCACAF, Argentina, Colombia, etc. If we can build stronger CONCACAF players, that will have a benefit on our national team as well -- stronger competition, more meaningful competitions, etc.
I personally want to see the best play here. Competition is good for the league, players, and fans. For example, when Chivas USA started they fielded a team that was distinctly Mexican. Because of the level of competition in the MLS they changed course and now have one of the league's better team. Only by being pushed by your opponent can you learn about yourself. Other sports face similar problems: MLB has seen a decline in African-American players, the NBA has few white Americans on its rosters. Although they have tried to address these issues in various ways, their rosters are stocked with who they feel are the best players available. MLS should be no different. With that said, I would like to a DP slot for US players only to keep our top talents.
The only thing that matters is that we get a TV contract every time an extension is required. Howard Cosell said soccer was here to stay, then we signed world class stars and NASL still folded. The parallels between Beckham and Pele are the same. NASL was even on ABC, MLS only on ESPN.
Thats not even close to a valid argument as ESPN wasnt even around then....that and MLS does have a couple of games on ABC.
Some probably unrelated points: 1. As to DC United, how do you get to 9? We have three SYIs (Christian Gomez, Luciano Emilio, and Fred) and one youth international, Guy-Roland Kepene. Jaime Moreno has a green card and, I suspect, will wind up becoming a citizen. A number of other players are foreign born but have played their entire careers (college) in the US. With the possible exception of Dyachenko (whose situation is confused) they seem to have US passports. So 9 seems a high number to me. 2. That said, I think issue, however, isn't the number of foreign players, but attracting the best athletes in the US to the game. DC United couldn't sign its top draft pick, Jay Needham, a college All-American, because all it offered was a developmental 17K contract, and he opted to play for Puerto Rico in the USL for a reported 30K. So long as we're offering All Americas in the sport 17K, we aren't going to attract many athletes who have other options. Maybe that explains why our national team is so small comparatively. 3. For the game to get more popular in the US, more home-grown talent will help. 4. If I were an MLS muckety-muck, I'd be concerned that somewhere down the road the US MNT will do well in the World Cup with few, if any, MLS players. That a suspect, would have a highly adverse impact on marketing MLS in the US -- just the opposite of what they could tout after 2002. 5. All of this leads me to preferring canning the Beckham rule and raising the salary cap.