Honestly, the league by % is a very healthy number of americans, and going forward I dont care if that % goes down as long as A) all positions are represented by Americans, and B) over time, the gross number of american starters increases. So, if say there were 95 out of 143 MLS starters that were American today, I'd be perfectly fine if 3 years from now there were 110 out of 176.
Um... they all would because they have to? If it is a FIFA sanctioned competition (and with slots in the FIFA Confederations Cup for the winners they sure look FIFA Sanctioned) the national teams have the upper hand.
Yes, they would have to for the CONCACAF Gold Cup because it's our confederation competition. However, they DON'T have to for the Copa America. It's not our confederation championship. Despite that, Eddie was hauled away from KC for the Copa. Which is why Sakatei was using it as a clear example of MLS catering to the nats too much. It is interesting to watch the balance MLS and the USSF are playing. I think, considering everything, they're both doing a decent job.
A very odd statement given that teams don't have to play a single British player and or even a single EU player. If you want a protectionist league, look no further than a league like MLS, with it's quota system.
Nor does an MLS team have to play a single American (in theory). But both the British and American rules are structures such that it is extremely unlikely this will ever happen. The difference in the effect of the restrictions come from the Premiership not being able to apply its foreigner rules to EU passport holders, while MLS is only restricted by law from applying its rules to green card holders. For non EU/green card players, the British system is FAR more restrictive, as the number of players that can actually meet the standard is relatively small. The only reason most MLS teams arent maxing out their SI and YI slots is that its simply more salary cap friendly to field a majority of Americans because they are generally much cheaper for the league then a better quality foreigner would be. What British rules really do is restrict young African, Brazilian and Argentinian imports, and to a lesser degree American imports. My point being in all this is that I actually agree with you in the sense that because of the EU labor laws, the MLS system is effectively more protective of the American players. I disagree with you in the sense though that for players who do not have EU passports, getting a gig in England is MUCH harder then getting one in the US. So in the end, the protections in place in England are more restrictive on the face, its just they have a loophole that you can drive all the best players from the continent through.
The Premiership has no foreigner rules. As for the extremely unlike bit, it has already happened with a number of teams, including Arsenal and Fulham. No, there are simply no restrictions on EU (and EEA plus a few others) players regardless of their ability level. This is hardly a "loophole" given the underlying absence of any Premiership restrictions on foreign players: it is EU economic policy on the freedom of labour within the union.
NO foreigner rules? So Arsenal doesn't need a work permit to sign a US player? Better tell their North American scout, because he seems to think that a work permit is a major factor. Their are restrictions on foreigners entering the English game. There is absolutely nothing keeping an MLS side from fielding 3 SIs, 4 YIs, and 4 green card holders, and none of them would be american. Other than its really hard to find 4 GC holders, and fit MLS starting quality players in the SI and YI categories under the cap. Arsenal fielding non British players relied heavily on the EU exemption. So by your same logic, their are no foreigner rules in MLS. By EU law, they can't apply work permit rules to EU members that they apply to non-EU members. That doesn't mean that those rules don't exist, it just means that passport holders of EU members are exempt.
I said there were no Premiership restrictions. There aren't:- unlike MLS, the Premiership doesn't impose restrictions on the number of foreign players a club can play. A silly comparison given that to get a GC in the first place someone must typically have lived and worked in the US for a period of time. And such opportunities are heavily circumscribed by MLS's quotas on foreigners. Compare and contrast to the EU situation where movement of labour is as unrestricted as that between US States. Your claim was that there was a "loophole" through which the best EU players got in. There is no such loophole; there is simply free movement of labour within the EU which allows any EU national, regardless of ability, to work in any EU country. EU law doesn't represent a loophole, it represents, well, the law of members of the EU. Using your 'logic' it's a loophole that someone born in Oregon can work in California.
I thought the rule was that no team could have more than 5 SI's playing at any given time? Is it that they are realy foreigners or is because they don't have American surnames that you assume they are foreigners? Bsides whats the big deal? Look at MLB, there are plenty of foreigners who play for each team and it is still considered America's past time. I even saw a commerical for some beer in Spanish poking fun at "America's game" where they showed the lineup for a baseball team and all the last names on the uniforms were Hispanic!! That was so funny cause it is ture!!!! And on that note.........Vladimir Guerrero for President!!!!!!!!! GO ANGELS(the FALL CLASSIC is COMING......)
The premiership is subject to the work permit rules regarding footballers, just like every other level of English football. If you have a particular reason to split that hair, I'm all ears. But to me it seems like you are trying to win this argument by trying to parse what the meaning of the word "is" is. Then by that logic, Arsenal has never fielded a team full of foreigners, because they were all EU nationals! Or perhaps MLS teams have fielded teams of all foreigners when their players weren't from in-state! In fact, regardless of how its obtained, a GC is the best analogy because its a class of non-citizens protected by labor laws to be treated as citizens in terms of employment purposes. The restrictions put on non-british citizens do not apply to EU members because they are protected under EU labor laws, just as the restrictions put on non-US citizens do not apply because they are protected by the laws governing green cards.
There is a limitation on the number of non-US rostered players a team can have, but as far as I know there is no limitation on the number that can be used in a game. Furthermore, I know YI and I believe SI slots can be traded to alter this amount. Green Card holders are under US labor laws treated as US citizens by MLS, so you could field 11 Green Card holders. The fact that M is even arguing this point is absurd though, since as I stated their is functionally very little protection for English players in England because of the EU labor laws. However, from an American looking in it is one of the hardest countries to find work in, because of the work permit rules basically mean you either have to appear in a high % of competitive matches, or have an EU passport. And the number of teams that have even filled their SI slots isn only about half (Toronto doesnt count, as they have a whole Canada/US issue to worry about), because the economics work out in such a way that you really aren't going to want many SIs, because the ones of a quality enough to make an MLS impact are going to command as much or more in other leagues then an MLS can pay more then a few players. Btw, MLS if anything will be relaxing the current rules next year, particularly in regard to US/Canadian players.
Not at all. The Premiership chooses not to impose its own restrictions on non-EU nationals (unlike some other European leagues which have quotas and unlike MLS of course). If it wanted to restrict the number of non-EU nationals a team could field at once it would impose such quotas. That would be a good point if there was an EU national team or if there were national teams for each US State. Can't say I'm holding my breath for that to happen. It's a lousy analogy because all EU citizens have the right to work anywhere in the EU as a basic right. To obtain a Green Card, a non resident alien must typically first get a work permit to work in US, be resident here for a period of time, get labor certification, go on the wait list for his particular nationality, and get to the head of said list (which in the case of some nationalities takes years). A good analogy would be if NAFTA gave all Mexicans and Canada the right to live and work in the US.
The English leagues are the only place I'm aware of where a team that wants a player won't be allowed to sign that player because of external restrictions. In the US, an MLS team would need to make hard decisions about who to cut in order to make room for a player, but they would never be denied the ability to sign someone. It's hard to compare the two, very different systems and come out with a clear answer on why one is more restrictive. Both systems distort the player market. Personally, I find the UK work permit scheme to be a little oppressive because it simply makes some players off-limits. But it's not MLS offers complete flexibility either.
The Premiership doesn't "choose" any goddamn thing. They don't set the rules. I can't believe you don't know this. DPT material.
I see. So perhaps you'd like to explain how the Premiership, used to have a quota on the number of non-EU nationals who could play at once, but chose to scrap such a restriction a few years ago? p.s. reading... comprehension... vital... I didn't say that the Premership set the rules, I said "The Premiership chooses not to impose its own restrictions on non-EU nationals". That's a correct statement.
Could someone possibly alert me when we get back on topic and cease the pedantic hair-splitting here?
That means more in a league like the NFL than it does in the soccer world. When you discuss the effect winning and losing has on fan support in sports leagues, what you're really talking about is support due to perceived quality. Baseball teams that win are perceived to be of higher quality than those that lose and so the fans follow suit. As you mention, without any other serious options when it comes to the sport at a high level, this dynamic becomes a zero-sum game; one team's increased fan support is balanced by another's decline. With soccer the existence of external leagues adds a different wrinkle to the equation. Now perceived quality is based not just on winning, but also on factors relating to what goes on in other leagues. As such it ceases to be the zero sum game that it is in other U.S. leagues. A team can win as much as it wants, if the fans perceive the quality to be lacking (whether rightly or wrongly), you won't see the same kind of boosts you'd see in other American sports.
There's absolutely no evidence that American players would have saved the NASL. The problems were elsewhere, most notably that the majority of the owners did not have the financial resources necessary to operate a franchise on that scale in a startup league. The ones that did, stuck around more or less for the duration (or at least until the handwriting was on the wall). For all of MLS' possible startup errors, it at least fixed that one from jump street.
I think you're missing the point. What does it say about college All-Americans when all DC United will offer them is 17k a year? Forcing MLS teams to play Americans regardless of their quality isn't going to help the quality of American players. Allowing MLS teams to participate in raising the quality of American players by assisting in their development as youth players might. Juan Toja is seven months younger than Jay Needham; based on simple quality, who'd you take? The solution isn't to throw Toja out of the league, the solution is to make our Jay Needhams as good as Juan Toja.