Sure, but saying that something was a flaw of the NASL is not equivalent to saying that it was the most important reason behind the NASL's demise.
Huh? In its last three major championships, England missed out on the semi-finals on PKs twice and lost to the eventual world champions the other time. They've done pretty well. It just doesn't seem so because their media blows everything out of proportion. This is a false analogy because we don't know how they would have done if they hadn't had as many foreigners as they did. They might not have qualified or even reached the knockout stages. England's problems are due more to the way they develop players and have traditionally played the game. Moreover, we're at a completely different starting point at both the league and national team level. Vastly improving the quality of day in/day out competition for a high quantity of players will help our national team take that next step. England also has no limit on the number of non-English players per team as we would have if we increased the international player limit. I'm country>club by a country mile, and I'd much rather see 5 Americans starting per team in a much better quality league than 7 Americans starting in a mediocre league. Those extra two American players are not going to be in the national team picture anyway. As a fan of the sport, I would also enjoy watching better quality play season to season than waiting for the World Cup every 4 years. All of this is based on getting quality international players like Toja, Gomez, Fred, etc. I don't want to see mediocre international players taking away spots from Americans. All of that rests upon the owners raising the salary cap...but if they're willing to do that and we're expanding, then I think we should increase the international player limit and raise the quality of those intl players simultaneously.
The problem of course is that sometimes those periods last a couple hundred years for the simple reason that no business likes competition and will do what it can to restrict it. And so I have high fructose corn syrup in my Coca Cola for no reason other than rich sugar producers in Florida will pay through the nose to keep things that way in Florida (Congressmen may not come cheap, but it's cheaper than the consequences of opening up the sugar market to foreign producers). So the key with protectionism and any benefits it might bring is always how much and for how long?
But what evidence was there that it was a flaw? Team America didn't exactly set the NASL ablaze with its popularity and success. It seemed to me you arguing that it was a flaw because of the NASL's demise. I pointed out how that was not necessarily the case.
Well I guess I'm starting from the idea that developing American talent is a good idea (which is a central point in this thread) as opposed to starting from looking at why the NASL failed (which is not a central point in this thread). So, from that lens, yeah, it's a flaw of the NASL. THe question of whether the NASL failed because it didn't have American stars is a bit more complicated. It seems reasonable to me that the need to wholesale import exciting foreign stars contributed to the high costs of "running a franchise on that scale". You can get into "what if?" scenarios of whether that need would have been so acute if the NASL had developed a Clint Dempsey or young Clint Mathis, but I'm not sure there's going to be a satisfactory answer.
I do not consider those acceptable results for England based on the quality of their first xi. They also have struggled more than an acceptable amount in qualifying for Euro2008. I feel the only reason England struggles is depth. To me their first xi has been the second best in the world to Brazil on average over the last decade. Their second xi players struggle for time in the premiership at prime ages. Heskey, Defoe, Crouch, Sean Wright Phillips, Joe Cole (really a 1st XI but you get the point) are the type i'm thinking of. If England had just a minimally protective system those guys would be in a much better position of being a mainstay and leader on their club instead of rotation guys. I'm not advocating a throw them all out system in England or America. England's in a tough spot since the EU rules encompass so many people. Honestly I don't think it can be "fixed". You can't turn away national team level guys that earn their work permits on the field, as those are star level guys that fans want to see regardless of nationality. You can't turn away EU citizens that want to claw their way into time in the best paying league as it's illegal. Therefore you have too much competition for starting time and have domestic national teamers on the bench far too often. We don't know alot of things about how it could have played out differently, but that doesn't stop us from making reasoned observations. I disagree that England's system is inherently flawed. At it's highest level, the English style is tactically superior in my opinion. A perfect cross or long ball isn't always possible to defend. If you have a positioning or a height advantage you should get a quality shot off when a perfect cross is made. The Brazilian possesion style must wait until the opponent makes a mistake to open that small passing window. Both styles can be employed to great effect, and obviously all teams employ some of both tactics. I wouldn't say tactics in general are their failure. I would say that more than 5 players per good MLS team are in the picture, at least in the wide view picture: DC - Olsen, Boswell, Perkins, Namoff, Gros, Carroll, Simms have all seen playing time within the last 2 years for our NT. People are hyped about Burch. However, add a few more foreign guys and Simms and Burch and Boswell and Perkins all would have been exterme longshots to have gotten a chance given their status coming into the league. Namoff and Gros also likely wouldn't have. Houston - Ching, Clark, Mullan, Robinson, W. Barrett, Holden, Davis, Jaqua. 8 guys with recent or anticipated future callups. Again if you had a few more quality foreign guys on each team would Ching have ever gotten a job. Jaqua wouldn't be able to crack this lineup if they highered someone a bit better than Daglish. Holden/Davis/Mullan is already one too many. NE - Twellman, Noonan, Christman. I like this forward competition. I would hate to see them buy someone that would bury U-23 potential starter Christman on the bench. What I would like to see is them to upgrade Dorman or Khano Smith instead. What likely will happen is when Ralston retires he'll be replaced with a DP of some sort and that will be one less chance for the next American right mid. Also Parkhurst & Reis are in the NT picture giving 6. I also enjoy seeing the Beckham, Angel, Blanco types and the Toja, Fred, Emilio types. I also support those like Joseph or Dane Richards who grew up in our college soccer system. What I don't like is what this would add up to if we increased the salary cap and the number of slots. If RSL can find 3 starters in Argentina mid-season that fit under the current cap, what's to stop them from finding 7 or 9 or 11 if they had more slots and more money to offer? LA has brought in Beckham, Pavon, Xavier and could obviously keep going based on various interested players they've turned down for budget reasons, until only Donovan stood a shot at playing. Chivas could return to a variation of their original strategy and create a mexican nationality star studded team instead of what they had in 2005. All of this is fine if you're more interested in MLS success than country success. However there is defintley logic behind some level of protectionism being good for the national team. I actually think the current level of foreign slots is about right for now. I just worry that if you raise the cap significantly that all 7 foreign guys will be regular starters due to the large supply of quality soccer players in the world for the right price.
How many players on the England national team play outside of england? And off the top of my head right now I can't think of an english player playing in one of the other top leagues in europe. On the other hand all of the other top national teams have players playing in the top leagues all over the world. Maybe Englands has a problem because its players choose not to leave the EPL and get experience in other leagues but instead choose to fight for their place on teams like the big 4 in england like they have something to prove.
Why do some people think that it is a great idea to send Americans abroad to improve their skills by playing in a higher level of competition against foreigners, but if you bring foreigners here to raise the level of competition that's a bad thing? Frankly I think there should be zero restrictions on the number of foreigners in MLS. As a fan I want to see the highest quality soccer possible. If that results in fewer Americans on the field, fine. However, I would submit that the Americans who make the cut are likely to be of a higher caliber -- pressure makes diamonds. Looking at Europe it's hard for me to see any national teams suffering because of an influx of foreign players. While England may not have performed to the lofty expectations some have set, I'm not sure it was due to a lack of talent. Since the advent of the Premiership the country has produced some truly outstanding players for the national team. Germany has even fewer restrictions on foreign players I believe and their national team doesn't seem to have suffered much (WC in 02, semis in 06). The Dutch continue to crank out talent as they always have (Babel, Huntelaar spring to mind) and Italy just won the last WC. Then again it's difficult to see how things would have played themselves out if restrictions would have been more pronounced, so it's difficult to have a definitive answer. That said, it seems that in almost every instance I can think of, improved competition leads to a better product. Protectionism is rarely rewarded. And of course none of this happens in a vacuum. I was reading the other week how some English coaches are tearing their hair out over the dearth of promising English youngsters, blaming if I recall a culture in which kids prefer to play Xbox than go outside and kick a ball around.
this is a wonderful point. i know it doesn't qualify as a "top league" and he may no longer qualify as a "top player", although he has been getting NT minutes when healthy -- David Beckham plays in MLS. ideally, MLS would someday look like Serie A (and the USMNT might enjoy the success that the Italian NT has), but in reality I think there are more forces pushing MLS to look more and more like the EPL -- and i'm not sure that is a good thing. MLS needs to be a successful business. does that mean it needs to model itself after other leagues or try to mimic them? no. but there are examples of varying degrees of sporting (NT) success out there based on domestic league player composition of nationals to imported "stars". my question is about coaches in MLS. percentage-wise, are more head coaches or players imports in MLS? "An American League" will always have some aspect of "internationalism," given the nature of the sport and of the culture of this country. it's the land of opportunity, we've got players and coaches looking to come here and earn an "easy" living. the idea would be to make it less "easy" for the soccer professionals (both domestic and international) as time goes on. melting pots are good.
I'd probably differ slightly by saying that blanket protectionism is rarely rewarded and that most protectionism has a sell-by date. Obviously, the free market works wonders, but it's still possible to overzealously apply the concept: an efficient market result may be disasterous for certain parties, but overall the best result. I have no doubt that you can hire Guatemalan veterans who will outperform the last guy on the developmental roster right now for exactly the same salary-- and coaches would feel like they needed to hire the veteran because they need results right now. But that's not necessarily the right result if you're trying to develop a player pool and create a career path (not out of charity, but so that you continue to have a cheap supply of players for years to come).
Colin, it's only the last year or two that Germany has been an "open" league. We don't know what effect that will have on the German national team yet, and won't for a decade or more. Are you talking about for MLS' player pool, or are you talking about industry in general? If the former, I dunno. If the latter, history is rife with situations where the unfettered market led to disaster. That's why we don't have depressions anymore, like we used to have every generation or so. FDR and Congress passed a bunch of things that regulated the "market" and made the economy run better* than the free market. *By "better," I'm not saying "maximum freedom." I'm saying "maximum production/maximum standard of living." Of course, history clearly teaches us that a completely unfettered market reduces freedom, in time.
I would agree, in principle to your idea of no restrictions except for the problem that the development infrastructure in the US and in Canada are both growing at the moment (and the US is definitely ahead of Canada in that department). I think import restrictions should be phased out over a (long) period of time. Allow MLS franchises to get their academes in place, allow for a few more expansion teams first. When the MLS is 18+ teams that have all had academies operating for 5+ years, then start to think about allowing more imports in the MLS because the academy infrastructure should start producing a few players at that point. Cheers!
While you may have no doubts, I have a very difficult time seeing this play itself out. Guatemalan vets that are willing to play for 12-17K? If so the USL should be crawling with them. I realize there is a perception that Central Americans will perform any task for the most menial of wages, but let's get real.
Well, my emphasis wasn't so much on the ability of the market to actually produce optimal results at all times (which is what you're objecting to), but rather on just how phyrric a victory those results can be: an efficient market result can be a disaster for certain parties. While I might willingly agree to the destruction of the American manufacturing sector in the name of overall economic progress, I don't think we'd want the same result for soccer. But as to your point, I agree. Markets undervalue certain things-- like future consumption, the value of competition, etc-- so you certainly get breakdowns all the time. I get when everyone here says "Competition's the best thing". Sure-- it's the absolute best way of driving human endeavor, but it's still a blunt edged weapon.
You know, you're right-- that was hyperbolic. Here was my thinking: Carlos Ruiz came to MLS making 50k and he was a hot young prospect in Guatemala. If that's towards the top of the wage scale, what are the avereage guys making? I don't think it's ridiculous to assume that they're making a lot less than the young stud was, but really I don't know what the wage structure for players is in Guatemala. Why isn't the USL littered with them? Well they do have a foreign player limit too and teams do seem to have a number of South and Central Americans. Fundamentally, if you believe that the foreign player limits are restrictive, then you need to logically believe that better foreign players will play for the same price.
I do believe this. I believe that if the restriction was lifted that there would be fewer American players in MLS. But I also believe that the Americans who survived would be become better players by playing at a higher level of competition.
True, but Germany has long had fewer restrictions than the other major leagues, which is why so many Americans have begun their overseas careers there despite the language barrier. I'm not sure how many instances there are in which a truly laissez-faire, unfettered market has existed so this is an interesting proposition. I'm genuinely curious as to examples of these disasters occurring, as well as instances of completely unfettered markets reducing freedom. That FDR and Congress made the economy perform better is far from clear, and there is an excellent case to be made that they in fact hindered economic recovery. As for why depressions/severe recessions don't occur anymore I would cite the roles of globalization (even if your domestic market is depressed you can export your way back to growth) and the information revolution that helps businesses make better decisions, thus reducing the boom/bust cycle.
They choose to stay in England for one overriding reason:- money. There is certainly a plausible argument that this may affect the competitiveness of the England team though.
Don't forget that MLS still refuses to pay transfer fees. There are only so many MLS level players out there that are available for free. Yes, we've pulled off some good ones like Emilio and Dichio, but still the majority have been modest successes at best. Unless you're willing to pay DP level money, and even then it can bite you in the ass if you get the wrong guy at the wrong time ... see Beckham If you look at last season's mid season acquisitions, almost all of them have failed to hold a spot for a whole year. Let's take a look, Matias Donnet, Yaphet Soto, Manuel Abundis, Pascal Bedrossian, Jesus Morales, Alain Nkong have all failed. Paul Dalglish and Ricardo Virtuoso are on the bench. Really the only good mid season pick ups from last year that I can think of are Miglioranzi, Kovalenko and Van Den Bergh. The offseason has been a little more productive, but for every success story there have been at least as many failures. Don't forget Waterreus, Addlery, Welsh, Robinson, Tejada, Roberto Brown. Some of the more recent acquisitions like Wanchope and Xavier have also not convinced me all the way that they are worth their price tag. There just aren't that many players out there that are free. Being free basically means that they are rejects. The ones that are good, MLS will still have to bend backwards to get. Look at Emilio, DC United had to wait 3 years to get their hands on him. Fred was practically stolen from a second year franchise, and we still had to pay in the end. Toja was only sent here on a loan. So the point is that even with looser restrictions and a slight bump in salary cap, no MLS team has the tools to assemble a team full of quality internationals. If anyone tries to do that, they will most likely end up with a squad full of headcases, old veterans, unproven youngsters with maybe a few gems mixed in along the way. Until MLS is prepared to pay transfer fees of $500,000 or above, we will not have the ability to replace American talent. I think Dominic Kinnear and Stevie Nicol have gotten this, and it's no surprise that they have been the most successful coaches in MLS recently.
Regarding the Transfer Fees I would not bet on MLS buying any players any time soon. It goes against the entire Player Trading culture all American sports have. Its enough pressure on a team to bring in an international player and have him maybe not do well. Imagine if the player was brought in for a Million dollar fee and does not do well. Imagine how much worse the media would make it out to be. The MLS will continue to pick up out of contract players like Beckham, Blanco, and Juan Pablo Angel. Players will continue to come here because it seems the league is ready to invest in salaries that make it worthwhile for these players to come here. Unfortunately no player will come here just to help the MLS and US soccer grow. Money is important to all footballers as they have a limited amount of time to make their money while playing. So far the investments in my opinion have worked. Blanco, Juan Pablo Angel, Emilio while they have not gotten any exposure compared to Beckham have all done great in helping their teams and the overall level of the league. Even Beckhams signing which has been and will always be criticized by many was a great move regardless of the injury problems he has faced. The truth is kids want to grow up to be rich superstars, not grow up to play their favorite sport professionally. What makes kids go play football, baseball, basketball is not necessarily their love for those games but the admiration they have for the Terrell Owens, Kobe Bryants and Derek Jeters of the sports world. Beckham and other big name players who have done well, with their million dollar contracts and hollywood lifestyles will give kids a reason to stick with soccer instead of choosing a different sport. They may believe, however unrealistic it may be, that they can be Beckham with the pop star wife millions in the bank and play soccer. This brings me to my next point which many have already said is MLS's ability to compete with foreign leagues in terms of salaries for all players. You cannot expect the league to produce American talent when American college graduates have to sign developmental contracts and barely have enough money to live. most leagues in the world provide housing as part of their contracts, to my knowledge the MLS does not do this so with the 12,900, 17,000, 30,000 salaries young Americans are forced to pay rent in the countries major cities makes life that much more difficult. Lack of opportunity and low wages is what is hurting the league as many college graduates simply give up on the idea of playing soccer knowing they can get a normal office job paying two times what they would make in the MLS. I feel it is important that the MLS keep its foreigner restrictions under control so that to not allow other countries to take over the league as is happening in the Premiership. Many England national team members sit on the bench on their club teams due to the their not being a limit on EU players. The MLS has a healthy ratio of Americans to Foreigners and this helps raise the level of the Americans in the league. Playing against top competition every day is what makes players improve so quality foreigners in the league will only help the American players. What the MLS cant do is run out and sign random foreigners to large contracts. I also feel the MLS should make an effort to bring some Americans who play abroad to the MLS. I know this is not easy because of the difficulty to compete regarding player salaries but their are many Americans abroad who began their careers overseas that could be great additions to MLS teams. I think American fans and future players would love to see players like Oguchi Onyewu, Jay Demerit, Benny Feilhaber, Michael Bradley in the MLS. While it is unrealistic for these players to play in the MLS any time soon, there are players like Lee Nguyen, Chase Hilgenbrinck and Heath Pearce among others. From what I know there are many players like these went overseas due to lack of opportunities in the US.
Well I agree with that, but what if the total talent represented by those who survived was less than the total potential talent of young studs who hadn't yet developed at the time they were replaced by a cheaper non-US player? I think the blanket statement is right, but not nearly comprehensive enough to be a guiding light for my league.
What can you expect from a country that imports' 99.9% of it's products' from China? What's American anyways? It's not a nation or culture, it's a market that goe's under the facade of being a country. Thank your leaders' for that. You buy the ticket everytime you vote!