I think Traffic's third-party player ownership is a dumb business model that doesn't work. Whatever connections they have to other clubs isn't worth the barrier to transfer created by the fact that the player isn't available on a free and has to be purchased. That being said, there's more to the story than Gale's sob story in that article. Traffic hasn't helped, but Gale Agbossoumonde's biggest problem is Gale Agbossoumonde.
Not really. 1) Red Bull is one team. 16 clubs hover around the $3 million to $4.4 million mark and TFC, LA, and NY exceed these due to imports. 2) Those imports are paid not only to play but also to serve as marketing faces to further legitimize the league. That's their highest and best use globally. PSG or AC Milan or Arsenal or Tottenham could offer similar contracts, but they can't materially exceed MLS offers because they don't need Keane, Beckham, Marquez, Donovan, Henry, or Frings to market their leagues or clubs. Generally speaking, personal brand just isn't as important when acquiring players in established soccer markets. MLS is paying those guys to maximize club revenue based upon their personal brands in addition to what they may bring on the field. And the beauty of it is, even if they tank, the league can say, "See. Rafa can't cut it here and he's ex-Barca." Gale Agbossoumonde doesn't bring a personal brand. He had a grand total of one cap given to him as a birthday present as far as reputation at a professional level goes. Hell, half the people on this forum can't even spell his name correctly (admittedly a difficult one), and this forum basically represents the MLS cognoscente. You may not agree with the practce, but it is sound business at this point. 3) Over the hill players get overpaid with or without your "free" market. Raul played well w/ Schalke, but the guy was over the hill. Was he worth $8 million a year? With the exception of maybe a year where he got them further in CL, not on your life. American sports have the same issue. 4) Median salary of 19 highest paid defenders in MLS, most of whom have intl options and are still among the best defenders in the league: 257K. Progressing downward in groups of 19: 186K, 140K, 100K, 71K, 56K, w/ commodity level below that. The top of the heap is nearly completely unrestricted w/ respect to options and they're on less than twice what a raw kid who got a cap on his birthday was offered. I share your frustration w/ salaries, but you're really missing the boat on how thin of a margin the league is still resting. Median club rev ~ 18 million. Median club exp ~ 18 million, of which ~ 4million = salary. Operating expenses other than salary (which are pretty much fixed) are consuming almost everything. A 20% revenue hit or a 20% expense spike would be really, really troublesome at this point. It would hit 3/4 of the league very, very hard. This is what happens when your league has media contracts totalling about 30 million and NHL has them in USA and Canada at 300 million. That extra cash can hit salaries and the owners. MLS doesn't have that. Conservatively, the league can increase top line 5 to 7% per year and should be able to manage non-salary expenses at inflation (2.5%). Which means that in 2020, in today's dollars, the money available to players/owners should increase from 4 million to somewhere between $6.3 and $8.6 million. That's a point at which the league could begin to pursue youngsters and compensate based upon merit (rather than marketing potential) at a more substantial level. Until that day comes, all this griping about free agency and transfers and so on is moot.
Not really. 1) Red Bull is one team. 16 clubs hover around the $3 million to $4.4 million mark and TFC, LA, and NY exceed these due to imports. 2) Those imports are paid not only to play but also to serve as marketing faces to further legitimize the league. That's their highest and best use globally. PSG or AC Milan or Arsenal or Tottenham could offer similar contracts, but they can't materially exceed MLS offers because they don't need Keane, Beckham, Marquez, Donovan, Henry, or Frings to market their leagues or clubs. Generally speaking, personal brand just isn't as important when acquiring players in established soccer markets. MLS is paying those guys to maximize club revenue based upon their personal brands in addition to what they may bring on the field. And the beauty of it is, even if they tank, the league can say, "See. Rafa can't cut it here and he's ex-Barca." Gale Agbossoumonde doesn't bring a personal brand. He had a grand total of one cap given to him as a birthday present as far as reputation at a professional level goes. Hell, half the people on this forum can't even spell his name correctly (admittedly a difficult one), and this forum basically represents the MLS cognoscente. You may not agree with the practce, but it is sound business at this point. 3) Over the hill players get overpaid with or without your "free" market. Raul played well w/ Schalke, but the guy was over the hill. Was he worth $8 million a year? With the exception of maybe a year where he got them further in CL, not on your life. American sports have the same issue. 4) Median salary of 19 highest paid defenders in MLS, most of whom have intl options and are still among the best defenders in the league: 257K. Progressing downward in groups of 19: 186K, 140K, 100K, 71K, 56K, w/ commodity level below that. The top of the heap is nearly completely unrestricted w/ respect to options and they're on less than twice what a raw kid who got a cap on his birthday was offered. I share your frustration w/ salaries, but you're really missing the boat on how thin of a margin the league is still resting. Median club rev ~ 18 million. Median club exp ~ 18 million, of which ~ 4million = salary. Operating expenses other than salary (which are pretty much fixed) are consuming almost everything. A 20% revenue hit or a 20% expense spike would be really, really troublesome at this point. It would hit 3/4 of the league very, very hard. This is what happens when your league has media contracts totalling about 30 million and NHL has them in USA and Canada at 300 million. That extra cash can hit salaries and the owners. MLS doesn't have that. Conservatively, the league can increase top line 5 to 7% per year and should be able to manage non-salary expenses at inflation (2.5%). Which means that in 2020, in today's dollars, the money available to players/owners should increase from 4 million to somewhere between $6.3 and $8.6 million. That's a point at which the league could begin to pursue youngsters and compensate based upon merit (rather than marketing potential) at a more substantial level. Until that day comes, all this griping about free agency and transfers and so on is moot.
Yes i know that Beckham, Marquez, Henry etc are not paid their market value either. They are paid for their value to MLS's image. But what's the point of selling MLS this way? Our American domestic league should be concerned with developing and showcasing American players, not pairing 35 year old former elite players who make millions while the rest of the league is making peanuts. If the point is to show the rest of the world that MLS can play with the big boys its not working. The rest of the world considers MLS a retirement league. Free agency would not dramatically raise salaries. How much would Gale get if MLS had free agency and no single entity? Since he's untested I would guess that it wouldn't be much more than $150k a year. But he'd be able to choose which city he played in (if he got multiple offers). Since he does have potential a club may consider signing him to a 3 year deal at more than 150k with the hopes that he does develop into a star. Then that club could sell him to Europe and pocket a multi-million dollar transfer fee. This is how it works everywhere else on the planet. It's far more important for the young player to choose where he plays when he is starting his career. In soccer nations young players first club is close to home. If they are good enough they move up the ladder and as they get older they move on to bigger clubs. With MLS if the player isn't a HG and he wants to play in MLS he must enter a draft where he has no control over where he will start his career. This is not done anywhere else in the world. Take any of the young American players who chose to play in foreign systems rather than America. All of them were presented with a choice: They could a) join the foreign club of their choosing and negotiate the terms of their deal or b) sign with MLS where they will enter a draft that will decide the city they will live in and begin their career. It's a no-brainer. Now think about how many millions MLS teams are losing out on because so many of our young players do not begin their careers domestically. Countries like Holland, Brazil etc develop their players, sell them for millions, and then put that money back into developing more players. We let them go for nothing. Instead of throwing money at over the hill players because its supposedly good for MLS's image we'd be much better off if we put those millions into development. What's holding this back? Without getting too complicated it all starts with single entity and no free agency. When a GA skilled player who lives in San Diego is not allowed to begin his career up the I-5 at Chivas or LA Galaxy and instead is forced to enter a draft where he might end up in Toronto, something is wrong.
I'm skeptical Holden would have been a DP. DeRo has arguably been the best player in the league over the last 5 years and was only able to claw and complain his way to DP status. Wondo has been the best scorer in the league over the last 2 years yet he's not even considered to be DP material in this thread. Outside of Henry, no one is as important to his team as offensively as Wondo is to the Earthquakes.
I think this is a good summary. The limited competition from abroad (and USL for that matter) is why I believe the courts allowed MLS to eliminate the market in the US and Canada.
I could think of a lot better examples than him. Generally young, very athletic players with interest from outside markets along with former US national team players get the closest to their value of any of the US/Canadian players.
I'll buy marketing value for Henry, Marquez etc. but is Branko Boskovic, Eric Hassli or Danny Koevermans etc. of any great value in terms of Marketing? Your point about ability of the league to pay is valid. My dislike is the way they take advantage of US and Canadian players. A guy like DeRo who has arguably been the best player in the league over the last 5 years shouldn't be making a small fraction of what several of his teammates make. I have no problem if MLS pays everyone low salaries to keep afloat, but dislike the fact that US players a paid typically paid significantly less than foreign players of the same ability and marketing value.
Some of the bigger name DPs move the needle in terms of marketing since many people in the US don't value US players or the US league. I also think pure free agency would cost a lot more that you think as most of the players are from the US and Canada. Many others have gone to school here and have started to form roots here. I'm sure a lot of teams would prefer to take proven MLS players over paying more for speculative talent from the rest of the world. Finally I think MLS realizes that it had been leaving too much money on the table which is why bigger named young players are getting better contracts.
http://www.camerinocrema.com/portal/modules/noticias/item.php?itemid=2624 Yup. I believe Moises has family from Guatemala. [People tend to assume that all hispanic kids from Texas are Mexican. Believe it or not, this isn't the case!!!!!] I remember that he went to Guatemala in the off-season to do charity work. It's a good opportunity for him to get playing time. It's definitely better than an occasional reserve game. I have no idea if it's better than an NASL/USL loan, as I've never watched a game from the Guate league. My gut says it is.................... I have no idea whether the FCD front office sees a future for Moises at the club. Will he be back with the first team next season? Or is this a first step towards his departure? I have no idea.................but Moises has now been at the club for two years, and has never made a first team appearance (other than friendlies). It would appear that Alex Lee, a kid picked up in the supplemental draft, had beaten him out for a backup fullback slot. Also keep in mind that FCD has a fullback on the way that's ranked as one of the top 2013s in the nation: Kellyn Acosta. He's committed to the NCAAs, but that doesn't mean FCD might not be trying to lock him up as a homegrown. We've had other former U20 defenders like Sacir Hot (also a homegrown signing) fall off the face of the Earth recently. Of the 2011 U20WC qualifying roster...............Hot has disappeared, Hernandez has been jettisoned to Guatemala, Agbossoumonde is in the NASL, Garza's in Mexico but rarely plays, Korey Veeder seems to get minimal playing time with Columbus, Perry Kitchen was a defender with that team out of necessity (most believe he'll stay in the midfield as a pro), and Ibeagha is still in the NCAAs. The only true defender on that roster I like is Zarek Valentin, and he's only made 6 appearances for Montreal this season. For the bazillionth time.................we must wonder where the young, developing defenders are in this country. Certainly not in MLS.
I realize that. My point is that the majority of HGP signings are guys who don't get much first team PT and many are probably ,unfortunately,playing in a woefully inadequate reserve league. Alot of these guys would have probably been better off playing fulltime for a top Div 1 collegiate program. The Seattle Sounders have taken the approach that the potential HGP guys are better off in college for their development and it seems to make alot of sense given the history of what happens to most of the HGP signings who don't attend college.
Which is presumably why we're in a constant state of panic regarding our USMNT and USYNT defenders............................
In my mind there is still debate back and forth on which is better. There are advantages and disadvantages to both with the net result ambiguous. Professionals are dedicated to their profession with full year training vs better players with a clear path to what needs to be done and how to do it, the disadvantage is the number of games is too low. College advantages is number of games which may be too high 25 in only 3-4 months with the remainder of the year filled with basically pickup soccer with spring campaign and PDL with no pro team integration. I know I'm probably in the minority but full year training against better competition with some games is 60/40 better than the hodge podge training with multiple levels of commitment with alot of games crammed into 3 months. Neither is perfect but in my mind consistency of commitment playing along top professionals integrated into first team pro football trumps college soccer.
the goal is to get the player in a competitive environment. Neither College nor the Reserve league are competitive enough environments. i think the answer is having MLS U-23 teams in hyper-regional leagues. For starters every MLS team should have an U-23 in the PDL. Some already do. http://pdl.uslsoccer.com/teamdirectory/index_E.html i'm not sure how competitive PDL is. Maybe someone can chime in. But the good news is the structure is there. Adding more MLS U-23 to the PDL will make it more competitive.
This is my first year watching PDL as my grandson plays for the Sounders U23 team. My overall impresssion is that the games look like glorified high school games. The play is virtually all dump the ball and run. . There are a hodge podge of players from elite young college guys to over the hill guys in their upper 20s. overall not very impressive but as you say the structure is there so it's a place to start.
http://www.mlssoccer.com/news/artic...book-great-expectations-behind-hernandez-loan This is the short term solution to a big problem. the MLS is NOT set up to handle the transition from youth to pro because no meaningful reserve league and teams. Having these teenagers only train with first team and no consistent weekly playing competition of their own is detrimental to their growth. As Arena said the MLS has to decide what they really want to do and stop burying their head in the sand, either invest and develop the system or stop and just go back to drafting college players and getting players from overseas and live with the consequences. Ill be damned if i let them destroy my son's development.
why PDL alone? they could have a tier structure with pdl, nasl and usl pro and the 17-21 years old progress up the ladder. Each MLS team would have their own teams instead of loaning them to established teams. The opportunity and ground structure is in place just need some leadership and thoughtfulness to make it happen so its a win-win for everyone.