Garber & MLS “Better” About Allowing Players Go Abroad?
Posted on July 30, 2012 2:53 am
Are Don Garber and MLS serious about becoming a selling league? Are we under or over-valuing or players? Thoughts about Cameron’s move to Stoke. Tightshirt Twellman says he’s surprised Demerit hasn’t gotten another chance at the Nats–are you? On The Straight Red Card.
if MLS was smart they would become a selling league. The millions you get from selling players can be put into youth development and you will be stronger in the long run for it.
Give me one example in the last 20 years where a team or league has improved due to selling players. Not where a team or league stays in business by selling players, but one where its quality improves.
West Ham
Everton
Ajax
ASEC
KSV Beveren
Diambars
None of those teams is better off today than in 1992. West Ham is worse off and Ajax is no longer an automatic Champions League contender. Is Beveren still around?
Brazil
Boca Juniors, U de Chile, Sao Paulo, Santos, Corinthians,…
Football isn’t just “My League and Uefa.”
Isn’t the Brazil league a selling league. I don’t know the history of the Brazil league, have they improved in the last 20 years?
At the moment MLS has no choice in the matter. They have to be a selling league. The salary cap will force the young players with potential to move to where the money is.
Brazil’s league is starting to improve. . . because they’re selling less than they used to.
It’s a balancing act. You don’t sell just to be selling, because that diminishes quality. But if you are offered a decent price and the player wants to go, it’s a win all around, isn’t it?
yes. Especially for a young league. We should be a selling league because we need to build up our domestic player talent. The money from transfers can do this. It just takes time. And it would help the national team immensely.
I just look at Brazil and England. Brazil is a seller. They put the transfer money into development and then repeat the process. This is how they have the football factory. Their national team is the beneficiary. They could go the balancing act route but they are a poor country and people don’t have enough money to go to the games.
England is an importer. They develop players as well but they rely more on importing talent for their league. The pros of this is that they have the best league in the world. The con is that their national team suffers because they don’t have to rely on development.
for the USA we should be sellers at first and then eventually find a balance.
There isn’t a lot in MLS history to suggest that money from sales will be put into player development and not into bringing in mediocre Latin American veterans.
Popular Store Items
Popular Posts
Latest from the Forum
About Big Soccer
Copyright © 2011 Big Internet Group, LLC. All rights reserved. Click here for our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use. Views expressed by the bloggers and users of BigSoccer do not represent the views of Big Internet Group, LLC.