I don't see what that proves. Adu left a better player than he entered (which, granted, was likely to happen anyway). And if you want to throw anecdotes like Adu at me I could come back with Altidore who has been carefully handled and groomed by Arena. I think lifting the foreign player restriction would be best both from a national team and MLS perspective. For MLS it would raise the level of play. For the national team -- and for the clubs -- it would ensure that young players are groomed in a tougher environment, thus producing better players. I fail to see any downside.
I believe that Sachin has it right when he says that national team players developed by clubs are a positive externality.
You've got to be kidding me. Japan has been for quite some time the world's leading market for luxury goods -- hardly the sign of a country in a depression. Japan experienced economic stagnation for most of the 90s and depended on exports to keep it from severe recession but it was hardly a depression. I'm not sure unemployment ever got above 5%. And Japan is most assuredly not an example of a country that experienced economic difficulties because its markets weren't sufficiently fettered.
Well, there's not much room for common ground here-- I see no equivalence between "people value current consumption" and "player development is taken seriously." Imagine a world where clubs devoted no resources to player development. There would be stars. Devoting resources to player development only means that you maximize the potential of players. You keep on saying this like I don't agree with the concept. I do-- but you set it up as false choices. Yes, players get better because of competition. Yes, competition can freeze out some players who would develop, if given more chances.
I agree. Are enterprises geared towards providing positive externalities? Are enterprises geared towards providing public goods? A-ha...
In both cases, no. Most enterprises produce purely private goods that are rivalrous and excludable, such as iPods, loafs of bread, cleaning services, etc. What exactly is the public good that DC United provides by turning Bobby Boswell into a national team player?
I'd broaden this fascinating discussion of economics and sociology with some philosophy if I remembered anything from my philosophy-major days other than the Monty Python song and the Monty Python soccer sketch.
Right, so a public good (non-rivalrous and non-excludable) would not be produced by a private enterpise unless it happened to be inadvertant and at no extra cost. There's nothing that says an externality can't be both of those things. Having a good national team is a public good in the soccer world. It's non-excludable and enjoyment of it doesn't detract from anyone else's enjoyment of it. It is a positive externality of club player development.
Right. But by definition, the GM is looking at the team's long term needs, and the coach, as the other poster wrote, is looking at the short term.
I'm not sure of the proper economic term, though it was discussed in The Economist, but providing public goods is often seen as good for the company as well as the public. When you see a BP ad, what do you see? Generally, they're touting the company's investments in environmentally conscious energy. In the short term, those investments could hurt the bottom line. In the long term, they should help -- as finite sources of energy grow scarce, the price will rise, and the alternatives will become cheaper as engineers create efficiencies. But notice what BP is doing with those ads. They're appealing for immediate short-term gain from their investments ... by appealing to the public. This sort of thing isn't unusual. Pick up a playbill for your local theatre company or symphony, and you'll see all your biggest local businesses represented. The message they're sending is that they're invested in the community. (Incidentally -- this is why, even if I weren't a journalist, I'd be less likely to buy things advertised via direct mail and more likely to buy things from a business that advertised in my local newspaper or on a Web site. Businesses advertising by direct mail are just spamming your mailbox. Businesses advertising in the paper or on a Web site have a symbiotic relationship; they're advertising their products while also subsidizing quality content. We hope.) I realize we're looking at a thin line between good works and simple advertising. I'd argue that the "advertisement" in many of these cases is the good work. When you sit down to watch a symphony orchestra, you don't sit through ads for the symphony's top benefactors. At most, you see their names. With the appearance of those names, the companies generate good will. In MLS, I'd argue that a team generates more good will by producing a U.S. national team player than it does by producing a Jamaican national team player or a potent scorer for a Championship team. A healthy mix helps -- if we see David Beckham identified as a member of the Galaxy after scoring a goal in Euro 2008, that's not a bad thing at all. But the Galaxy also will get a substantial boost if Landon Donovan impresses with the national team. Toronto FC isn't exactly turning away Canadian national team players. It's not just national pride at stake here. Sometimes, it's regional. Devon McTavish is a good story at D.C. United because he's a local guy. The Red Bulls like their Jersey guys. Ideally, though, players will remain with the club for a long time, so most of them will be "local guys." Even with his brief stint up I-95, Jaime Moreno has been in Washington longer than a lot of the D.C. United fan base. Can't get much more local than that. So I think all of that -- the good will of producing U.S. national team players, the regional draws, the established players sticking around -- separates MLS from the NASL, where franchises -- let alone players -- had a hard time staying put.
There is no conflict. Look at everyday life. Current consumption is valued over future consumption. This is, as you noted, econ 101. And yet people still retire without starving to death. Why? Because maybe they think the returns they can get from saving outweigh those benefits of immediate consumption. Which is the same reason Bayer Leverkusen was willing to sign Landon Donovan to a healthy contract and then stick him in the reserves to toughen him up -- they were waiting for the future pay-out. But they would be crap, and stars only in a relative sense. Soccer players being produced today are, I would submit, better than any that have come before them. I believe that some former players have admitted as much. The training players receive now is far better that at any time previously in history. Which is happening already. I just fail to see how allowing foreigners in all of a sudden means that player development somehow goes out the window. Frankly I think it would help improve player development. And, as I maintain, other chances exist. With other clubs, other divisions, other leagues. It's not as though you have one shot and then if things don't work out you're done. Look at Kenny Cooper. Things didn't work out for him at Man U or in Portugal and now he is in MLS and has played for the national team.
What does it matter? Regardless of how the clubs are geared the fact is that they have a good record of churning out good national team material.
At last, we agree. I'm with you there-- even though current consumption is prioritized, people will generally do enough not to starve in the future. But the question is not "is future consumption valued at all?" Instead, "is it valued adequately?" And there, the answer seems to be "no". People don't starve in retirement, but most studies show they're not saving enough. And what if the benefits of something weren't even certain to come to you? Then how much more would you value current consumption? That's the situation coaches are in. And then, even in the perfect world where a coach's interests are completely aligned with the club's long term interests, there's no reason to think that they have the same interests as a national team or any particular player. Agreed. I think the system is much more ordered now-- the risks of a coach simply favoring himself instead of the club's long-term interests have been reduced because of multiple layers of management who are paid to do just that. But even in the best run companies, you still get short-sightedness and me-first-ism-- in other words, it's better than it's ever been, but it's still a big factor. Why do you keep on saying extreme statements like "player development somehow goes out the window"? I don't get that. If soccer's a game of inches, careers aren't much more than a meter. Player development never "goes out the window"-- it just has relatively diminished importance when you can buy relatively cheaper players from outside. The margins for players who "make it" are not huge-- a small change can lead to big consequences-- the one less tryout someone has could be the difference between success and failure. That concept, coupled with the fact that there are few potential stars and generally no good way to separate them out from more mundane players early on, means that, yes, you can be missing out on a great player because of minor changes. Let me try to give you an example: I have always thought that there were a number of American players who were good enough to be squad players in the English prem. The response on these boards from some parts was "If they were good enough, they'd be there." Well, except that there's the WP issue. Now, for guys that qualify, it's not a big deal, but it's still a hassle. So, the response was "If a player's worth it, a club's not going to be stopped by the WP." The problem with that, though, is that the best Americans were just squad players-- there were plenty of Europeans who were equally good (but not better). In that case, given a choice between a European and an American (for whom you'd need to go through a very minor hassle), you will rationally choose the European every single time. But the end result: almost no Americans in the prem, even though a number were certainly good enough. Over time, the problem has diminished because the prem Americans are no longer squad players-- it's a little bit harder to say that they're easily replaced by a gazillion hassle-free Europeans. But what was the difference historically? A relatively minor hassle.
Actually I believe that there is considerable evidence that seniors are the wealthiest demographic in the U.S. That's the situation that everyone is in. No future benefits are certain. This has always been the case and will always be the case under any scenario. And this will continue under any scenario. If you really think that we need to maintain foreign restrictions because coaches will just go out and get cheap foreign players ahead of gifted young U.S. players, then what is to stop them from grabbing veteran American players out of the A-League ahead of young unproven talent? And I have said repeatedly, it's not as if players only have one avenue or path to success. They get multiple chances. If they aren't valued at their club they can move to another one. I cited the example of Kenny Cooper before. Another example is Bryce Wegerle, who went to Udinese, went on trial at Livingston and has trained with at least one MLS club and last I checked was in the USL. All those chances leave me to think he just ain't the next great thing. Conversely there is Brian Ching, who washed out of MLS, went to the A-League and returned to MLS to play a starring role. Cobi Jones was a non-scholarship player at UCLA. Stern John played for a freakin' community college. Talent is rewarded. I have no idea what this proves. Artificial barriers exist to American players and thus there were less of them in the prem. Well, yes. This is not an example of the market failing to identify talent. (I'm also not sure I see this as a minor hassle -- World Cup veteran Josh Wolff was denied a WP, which shows how difficult these things are) More generally, if you think that eliminating foreign restrictions will lead to less opportunity for young Americans, let me ask you this: Since the inception of MLS barriers against foreign players have declined. Originally you could only have 5 foreigners per team. Then players with green cards were no longer counted as foreigners. Then restrictions on youth internationals were lifted. Gradually these barriers have become eroded. And what has been the impact on US youth soccer players? Are the players we are turning out now inferior to those of the past, or are there fewer of them? Is there a demonstrable relationship between the quality of U.S. players and restrictions on foreign players? We should have enough faith in the quality of the U.S. player to force them to compete against foreign talent.
Colin, pretty much everything is a nuance-- and that's where our discussion keeps breaking down. When you state a truism like "future benefits aren't certain, so we value current consumption more than future consumption", that doesn't mean that the amount of over-prioritization is the same in every scenario. If you are saving for retirement, you can be pretty certain you will get the rewards of that. Even if you die, then your family gets it, which is not quite as nice as you getting it, but still awfully nice. If you're a coach, you are working in one of the world's least stable professions. You have no guarantees that you'll be around next year. And in this case, "saving" actually might speed up the day of your demise-- except as a coach, it's pretty certain that you won't be replaced by your wife or children after the owner axes you. Actually the league's structure pretty strongly suggests that they are concerned about precisely that. The generation adidas program has long provided an incentive to get young players (just note how it's affected decisions in the SuperDraft). The addition of the developmental rosters also allows teams to take fliers on young talent that didn't, at first glace, belong on the roster. The foreign player restrictions help those two programs acquire an AMerican flavor. Yes, you have said that repeatedly. Again, I've tried to show that there are nuances to that blanket statement. 19 opportunities isn't the same as 20, especially if #20 happens to be the one that makes you. Soccer careers are not like a simulation machine where you can do a test a million times and see what the best results will be. We don't have to agree on that-- I recognize that you'll only see that distinction as important if you believe, as I do, that margins for success are frequently very small. It shows you that talent being rewarded is affected by lots of outside factors, some of them relatively minor. Wolff didn't qualify for a WP-- I was referring to players who did (for whom the process really isn't that onerous-- when you don't qualify, it's ridiculous). If what you're saying is right, then the "demonstrable relationship" would show that Americans have improved when more non-US players were in the league. Personally, I think that would be a tough exercise to do: there's a backdrop of expanding opportunities for American players (which is really what the statistics at the start of this thread show) and massive shifts in the perception of American players abroad. Any attempt to isolate that one factor is probably doomed, regardless of whether it supports your idea or mine.
How do you know that there is a current over-prioritization on winning and too little prioritization on developing young players? How does keeping out foreigners prevent this from happening? Again, what's to stop a coach from substituting veteran American players for young players? Generation Adidas is designed to get promising players and place them in a professional environment so they can excel faster than they otherwise might in college. It is not exclusive to Americans and it does not guarantee playing time (except, of course, in the reserves). Players have to earn their way on to the field, as they should. To me, it is further evidence that player development is not being neglected. But here's what I see: By shielding players from foreign competition, while they might get that 20th opportunity, they will also suffer as players from being exposed to an inferior playing level than would otherwise be the case. While we might get more players we will also get more mediocrity. But Wolff should have been a slam-dunk given that he appeared on 2 WC rosters. Convey also had his first crack at a WP denied. That tells me both that there aren't that many players that would qualify for these things, and this notion that there were a number of American players who could have stepped in if not for the formality of obtaining a WP isn't true. Let's not forget than in Dec. 98' that Eric Wynalda couldn't even get signed by Charlton Athletic, so I have a hard time thinking that there was a ready pool of US talent available for these prem teams if not for the WP issue. Yes, I would make the case that the average American player has improved in MLS even with the influx of foreign talent, and likely even because of it. And yes, there have been many factors at work and isolating one is difficult. But I feel extremely comfortable stating that the average US player certainly isn't worse even with all the foreigners. Further, the fact that there are expanding opportunities for Americans abroad is another argument in favor of lifting the foreign player restrictions, as is the fact that MLS is set to expand to 16, and possibly 18, teams in the near future. Personally, I'm not sure the talent exists to populate those teams with Americans while keeping up the league's rising standard of play. Finally, it seems to me that much of this debate is taking place from a US national team perspective. But what about MLS? As a fan I want to see the highest level of play possible, and if foreigners can give that to me, so much the better. After all, the way to truly help young American players is ensure that MLS has the highest standard of play possible. For them to be the best they need to compete against the best we can offer them. And if you're concerned that coaches will just sign foreign veterans ahead of them, well it seems to me there is nothing stopping those same coaches from signing American veterans ahead of them. Question: Do you think that MLS foreign player restrictions should be further tightened? Are they too lax? What should the limits be?