Is MLS a failure?

I would be more forgiving of the problems of developing American talent in MLS if the league, in sidestepping this as a priority, was at least putting together teams capable of competing in continental competitions. But generally, MLS clubs get their ass kicked by clubs in Mexico, with 45 MLS appearances in the modern era of CCL resulting in a mere 6 semifinal appearances and 2 final appearances.

Preseason isn't an excuse. And although there are managers that ignored CCL as a priority (Arena), that really isn't an acceptable excuse either.

 

Wrap your head around this.

MLS tv deals going at it alone probably don't fetch what they currently receive. NT deals very well could fetch more if presented individually. Yet a major chunk of the combined deals go to MLS to help out the league.

What does the league do with the money from the NT deal?

Turns around and allocates much of it it into TAM players, largely foreign attackers who then block avenues to development and playing time for young Americans.

So by packaging the tv deals with MLS the USSF is actively hurting its own American players.

Now if MLS wants to do that on its own accord, go do it. But using NT generated revenue to block the trajectory of young Americans is crazy.

Despite having access to the USSF annual budgets (these are public documents), the money received by the Federation for the TV rights package from SUM isn’t apparent because it is rolled into a larger line item related to sponsorships. But educated analysis by many has led to the conclusion that the Federation is being severely shortchanged its fair share of television dollars.

For example, in calendar year 2017, an estimated 65% of English-language viewers for programs covered by the SUM media deal were watching US Men’s (USMNT) or Women’s National (USWNT) team matches covered by the package. But the general consensus is that the USSF only receives somewhere between 20% and 33% of the revenue from this deal on a yearly basis. While Gulati has argued in the past that having a steady, reliable check coming into the USSF every year allows the Federation to plan effectively and not worry about the volatility of the market, it’s pretty clear the rights for the men’s and women’s national team are worth far more than they are currently yielding. In fact, the SUM arrangement might be considered a clever way of USSF providing a subsidy to Major League Soccer that is not being provided to second division men’s league USL or any amateur or adult league in the country.

It was probably unwise for Garber to give numbers since to this point it’s been a game of speculation. When you consider that over the next five seasons that the SUM English- and Spanish-language TV rights deals that include the MLS and USSF properties will yield about $90 million a season, but only a little over $20 million a year will be directed to the federation’s coffers (approximately $110 million in total), it indeed shows that the USSF men’s and women’s programs are being shortchanged.

http://worldsoccertalk.com/2018/02/...l-judged-handles-soccer-united-marketing-sum/

This is a major problem. Not only how MLS redirects the revenue it receives which hurts the American player but that you have to combine that with the MNT and WNT and the Fed are losing out on many millions more in order to assist in doing that!!!

And, little if any of it trickles down to non-MLS teams. Why not pump a good chunk of it into the USOC and reward clubs like FC Cincy or Miama FC? The DFB has mandated that all 2Bund clubs see a piece of the pie from the Bund tv rights based on where they finish in the table. Why doesn't this happen here?

Because MLS created SUM and USSF has allowed its relationship with SUM to show great preference to MLS over all non-MLS clubs and both the MNT and WNT. And how did that happen? Because the commissioner of MLS is the CEO of SUM and the head of the professional council on the USSF board of directors. The USSF sanctions MLS which means Garber essentially sanctions his own league while also controlling SUM and the flow of profit from SUM.

And why do MLS expansion fees keep rising astronomically? It's not because day to day operations are so profitable. It's because buying into SUM and being a shareholder in a 2 BILLION dollar entity which makes most of its profit on the NTs, the Mexican NT and foreign friendlies yet redirects most of it to MLS owners thru dividends is where the profit is.

So no wonder SUM won't open its books when US senators demand they do so.

Soccer United Marketing (SUM) is the real spring of oil in this whole equation. When investors are staring mouths agape at MLS, they are really looking at SUM, the company that handles the media rights for American soccer. SUM sells off the rights it has for MLS to interested broadcasters all over the world. That money goes to the league owners, who just so happen to be the principle investors of the company. When new owners come into MLS, they are buying into SUM, as well. In this way, SUM is not so different to the setups for Liga MX and the Premier League. In those models, the league controls all the revenue from broadcasts of their games and leaving out the Football Associations who are interested in distributing that money to the lower leagues and the national team. But SUM does a bit more than those other leagues. SUM handles all the television rights for not just MLS but all soccer in America. That means if a soccer game happens and is broadcast on national television in the United States, SUM gets a cut. All those friendlies featuring touring European clubs that happen every summer? MLS owners get a cut of that. Whenever Mexico plays a friendly in America, SUM gets a cut of that. Whenever the United States hosts the Gold Cup, SUM gets a piece of that action. SUM also has broadcasting rights for the national teams. Every time the USMNT, USWNT, or one of the youth teams has a game on TV, these MLS owners split the pot. World Cup qualifiers? SUM collects a check. This is way greater than the money MLS puts in. Essentially, SUM and its investors benefit from the entirety of American soccer, which makes the investment into MLS appealing.

https://www.starsandstripesfc.com/2...jor-league-soccer-marketing-usa-mexico-canada

And funny enough, as pointed out above, "USSF only receives somewhere between 20% and 33% of the revenue from this deal on a yearly basis".

You look at all the above and who hands down benefits the most? The individual shareholders in SUM, others wise known as each individual MLS owner.

Unbelievable.

 

Except that USSF is propping up MLS with a $70MM per year subsidy. MLS should be working to whatever ends USSF wants. I do think the entire academy initiative was MLS throwing a bone back to Gulati for this subsidy. But they have never changed any of their rules that make it unlikely for Americans to break in or ever be sold on. So, you have an Academy system with no path past U17, except at 2-3 clubs.

There is a serious battle going on inside MLS now as to whether it wants to be a develop and sell league or a buy players with TAM league. Can only hope Cordeiro pushes them towards the former. Although, with the way the league is evolving with big money teams really leaving smaller revenue teams behind them, you could have the also rans all set up like RSL and sell to Europe and to the bigger MLS teams. Not unlike how it works in most of the world.

MLS conducts itself like the EPL. Another league where U23 domestic talent can't get minutes. Another league where the 16-20 year olds are bypassing the league for other leagues. For the USMNT interest, MLS would need to operate like the Brazilian league.

 

I'm just cross-posting this quote because of its relevance. USSF needs to get its act together w/re to overseas player developent and scouting. A nativist coach should not have been able to dismantle all of that.

 

Players from MLS academies can play USL ball.

 

MLS is probably the most useless domestic league in the world and probably in US soccer history. Right now the US talent level is the same as the 1980's with the exception of Pulisic and a few Euro players that wouldn't be able to make the move pre-Bosman ruling. If a league doesn't develop talent, doesn't play young Americans, makes half-assed efforts to improve, is non-competitive, and worst of all, is just one club with 23 squads what's the point of MLS existing? Not only MLS puts raw sewage quality soccer on the field and scams people for money, it's ruining the US national team that has unscrupulously funded them through SUM. MLS is not a real league; it's literally ONE CLUB with different squads playing intramurals in a phony "season" and all owners sharing revenue like a marriage!

 

No, seriously I want MLS to improve and be a successful league but after following them the past 2 years it's hard to stay positive. They're still taking baby steps when everyone else in the world is making dramatic changes or overhauling their programs.

 

He still makes good points.

 

Er, not really. Right now the US talent level is the same as the 1980's with the exception of Pulisic and a few Euro players.

 

Yeah, maybe not talent levels but the US is getting results like the 1980s when they were worse than Central America and Caribbean sides. I bet the 1989 USMNT would get better Hex results than the 2016-17 one.

 

The team had one bad half of a cycle, in which non-footballing aspects played a significant role in its demise. Don't get carried away.

 

Honestly US soccer would be better off if MLS folded ASAP. There are plenty of lower leagues and clubs that want to improve and raise their levels. Without a path to D1 there's no incentive to invest or improve and MLS is both keeping itself and lower divisions in mediocrity with no pro/rel and a relationship with SUM. Are you upset about the number of lower division clubs folding or have folded in the last 10 years? They wouldn't fold in an open system that allow them to move to their appropriate levels.

 

I don't believe I know enough about the other teams in the league to add value to the league level convo I'll stick with what I do know.

I feel that the Sounders development system is young but has a few early wins (Yedlin is the obvious example) and is moving forward at a good pace. We keep adding affiliate youth teams and more and more S2 signings are from our Academy and they are younger and younger. Look forward to that first Academy-S2-Sounders product.. Might happen this year with Sam Rogers.

Morris is an attacking player that we had a large hand in developing that could be elite. Question is was his rookie season a fluke or last season. If the later and he can build on his first year then he will likely go to a top league in Europe if he wants.

Even guys that aren't necessarily from our Academy we've had a hand in developing. Every year that he was at the UW Cristan Roldan maxed out his NCAA allowed hours training with the Sounders (same with his brother while at SeattleU). Since being drafted he earned minutes and seems to be constantly growing his game. I don't think he is currently elite but until he reaches his ceiling I won't rule out the possibility.

 

Assuming this is true, it pretty shocking the support USSF is providing MLS.

I'd be interested in staunch MLS supporters perspective as well as Invididual11's.

 

I want desperately to be interested in the MLS but I'm not. Don't have to drop it because I never fell for it.

 

Morris a good dude, athletic, etc. But he's a mediocre soccer player.

 

I11,

Assuming it's true that USSF is effectively funneling significant cash to MLS via SUM, how does that change your question of whether MLS has a responsibility to develop American talent?

At the very least, it should give USSF huge leverage in their negotiations with MLS and it would be improper to have MLS have a large voice at USSF due to the obvious conflict.

 

I11,

Assuming it's true that USSF is effectively funneling significant cash to MLS via SUM, how does that change your question of whether MLS has a responsibility to develop American talent?

At the very least, it should give USSF huge leverage in their negotiations with MLS and it would be improper to have MLS have a large voice at USSF due to the obvious conflict.

 

Possibly. I think we need to wait a bit longer before we write him off. This season will be major test. It looks like the Sounders FO will give him the first half a season to show he can build on his first season (Rookie of the Year, 12g/4a) and that last season was just a combination of trying to play through injuries and bad luck.

 

This has been a fun thread to read through. Interesting title, wonderful premise.

As to the title, no MLS has not been a failure. It is a financial success, which is necessary for the future of soccer in the US.

As for the premise, a top-flight league is a requirement for a strong US national team, which is why USSF helped start MLS. MLS may not have fulfilled this promise yet because it has been struggling to obtain its long term sustainability, which requires financial success.

To turn the discussion, where would US soccer and the national team be without MLS? Kids would play club soccer, go to college, play NCAA soccer and then most would disappear from the sport. A handful might have gotten noticed by someone from Europe.

Now, because of MLS, and what USSF have been able to put together, kids play club, most go to college, some get picked up by USL teams, many of which have development agreements with MLS clubs. There is now a nascent third tier league. From there, players can go on to MLS, if they are good enough. In the future, this is where the US will get most of its players for the national team.

A recurrent theme in this thread is that the best American players should go to second tier European teams to develop. That may be the case today, but that is not how it should be. America's best shouldn't be second tier, our best should be playing in top league, which should be the MLS, and MLS needs its own player development channel.

The US is on the right path, its just taking a little longer than one would like.

 

Morris and Wood are quite terrible strikers, truth be told.

That one is in MLS and the other in Europe doesn't matter: we're in trouble up front.

 

This is the single most ridiculous statement I have read on Big Soccer in the last 5 yrs. You raise a significant issue but then shit on it with extensive exaggeration.

 

I lean toward the view that MLS is doing the heavy lifting in the deal.

It provides a consistent, steady and reliable source of content that the broadcasters can plan around.

If they split MLS, USMNT and USWNT all up I am confident in saying that all will lose out but that MLS has the potential to retain the most value.

What many fail to realize is that SUM came in offering the best deal to USSF and they continue to do so.

Just look at what USSF was getting before SUM came along.

You can go with another option. So far no one has put up a better deal.

The large surplus in USSFs bank account largely came from SUM winning the rights for the Copa America.

You could have another company doing this, at that point you likely have a very similar deal but all profits go to that company who is not reinvesting it in soccer in the US. SUM will still likely be winning contracts for future tournaments in the US.

SUM has proven to be a very competent and well run business. That won't change and I personally am convinced US Soccer is lucky to have them vs the alternative options that were/are out there.

From a business perspective, you can't do everything in house. So you look for companies that can bring you the best value. USSF had some shitty deals before SUM came along. And now no one has come along with something better.

I suppose some would have been happy with traffic sports simply because it wasn't SUM.