Minimum funding guaranteed by SUM, which I think is fine. Go ahead and make a surplus and decide where it goes. That last part is key, but you have to have a surplus to spend it.
Nope. There are now USMNT and USWNT technical director positions.....................who will handle the USMNTs and USWNTs needs. We already have a youth technical director that focuses on amateur and youth development, which is Tab Ramos. Its "to be determined" how his role will change. Presumably he will work hand-in-hand with the USMNT technical director. There is also the CEO of the USSF, which is Dan Flynn. Some of the roles people on here ascribe to the USSF president, actually are the responsibility of Dan Flynn. [Who is in a cushy position. Nobody blames him for anything. Gulati has been the punching bag. Most people couldn't pick Dan Flynn out of a lineup.] The point is. The President of the USSF is not going to be making "soccer decisions" on a day-to-day basis. USSF set to revamp president's role, create GM position - sources http://www.espn.com/soccer/united-s...idents-responsibilitiescreate-gm-role-sources
So Cordeiro’s job is to hire, fire, and manage these people. And he wants more people with more delegated roles and duties.
How did you get the impression that I thought Cordeiro was going to do all that himself? I think he said he's going to be hands-off.
His election means nothing aside from reinforcing the belief that same system in his place. The problem is that the entrenched system will not work because unlike the NFL, NBA, MLB, NHL MLS doesn’t have a near monopoly on global talent. MLS has grown because it started from nothing and there was a lot of room for grotg. Just like it’s easy to go from a lottery team to a playoff team but going from playoff team to championship team is several orders of magnitude greater. There’s a massive gap from where the MLS is now to getting to be one of top leagues in the world. MLS has already reached a point of diminishing returns.
It's getting harder to watch. That's a big problem. Maybe it's because of the increasing number of teams, or just that we don't have any Yank stars with Dempsey about to retire, same for Jones & Howard, Guzan playing unimpressive soccer, and Bradley/Altidore flopping for the NT. I had an easier time following MLS before. Now, it's a matter of willpower and focusing on a few players, usually not American, like Giovinco.
We can put a lot of butts on seats because: a) Outside Germany and England, all the other soccer-mad countries are not exactly as wealthy, which means fewer people can afford to go pay $40-$90 for a couple of hours watching men in shorts running after a ball; b) Soccer in the USA is still mostly a family affair, something that only happens in Germany and most everywhere else the game is ruined by chavs and their regional equivalents; c) We have very impressive infrastructure for sports, from comfortable stadiums to easy (by comparison) ways to get there --only China (that is already surpassing us in attendance), the Emirates, Qatar (both lack the population), England and Germany (the two leagues with the highest attendance) are at that level; d) USA is the third most populous country in the world. There're 2.5 times the people in Germany and England combined in the USA. This is perhaps the most important factor, the Indian Superleague is also about to overtake us.
Seems like from the national team perspective in particular, a whole lot will ride on who gets hired as the general manager. This could either be a great thing with the right person, or a giant mess with the wrong one. However, I do think that the odds are that whoever assumes the role will have considerably more of a soccer background than what Gulati had making those national team decisions and thus is likely to be at least some sort of an upgrade. Sadly, this doesn't look likely to mean much as far as opening up the youth system.
So many questions... Cordeiro is responsible for everything, he is the President, he has to call the shots, if not, why do we have a President? All the teams in the World Cup have pro rel, the best teams in the world have pro rel. Aren’t there mls teams losing money? Wouldn’t these teams be better off in second division? Ricardo Silva was willing to throw billions for a tv contract but he wanted pro rel... maybe he doesn’t know much about business... I just don’t see this league being a legit top 5 league without pro rel, the national team may get better as our best players will be moving out... I don’t see it, just being honest. Too many questions
MLS runs soccer in this country. Not USSF. Understand that and you'll understand why things are the way they are. For better or for worse. That being said MLS wanted Carter to win.
“I see the role of president of U.S. Soccer as more akin to the chairman of a board of directors,” Cordeiro said in the Soccer America piece. “It’s not an executive role; it’s not full time. You can’t confuse that with the role of a CEO." So do the worst. The valuation of MLS clubs is continually rising. Chicago Fire is worth $177 million according to Forbes, up from $102 million in 2012. Plus we don't know the impact of relegation because it's never happened. FC Bari's attendances dropped from over 20,000 to 6,000 when they were relegated. On the other hand English attendances only drop by about 15% after relegation. First of all the existing TV contract states that negotiations for a new contract can't start until 2021 and he must have known that. Secondly, I think, and many don't, that the $4 billion was dependant on revenue from domestic and overseas sales. I don't believe it was out of his own pocket. Thirdly, a change to pro/rel would have to be agreed by MLS shareholders and I don't think it's in their interests today and won't be for many years. Maybe if MLS becomes stagnant it would consider something new. I think Garber said top ten by 2022. Bleacher report suggests it's already there (I don't agree). There's nothing wrong with being selling league for now.In fact I think it's an intermediate step to becoming top league. France, Holland, Belgium, Argentina and Brazil's leagues could all be considered selling leagues based on the number of domestic players in their national squads, yet in Europe, anyway, it doesn't seem to affect domestic attendances. Home based players in national squads. France - 10/22 Holland - 9/22 Belgium - 2/22 Argentina - 4/22 Brazil - 3/22
These countries have something we don’t, soccer is their number one sport. Pro rel will help that and much more, I see too many positive things in pro rel for us to just let a few share holders do what they want, soccer is growing yes and I think in the long run, pro rel will be much more beneficial for the sport... I can list too many good things and the only legit argument I get is shareholders not wanting to do it, nobody see the bigger picture here? I’m not saying let’s do it tomorrow, I know is going to be a long process but the sooner we start the better it is, the soccer President have to be very influential about this. Maybe I’m just crazy but like I said, I see too many positives about pro rel, every small town in America will have a real shot of making it to mls, it doesn’t get any better than this... For example, Charleston Battery making it to MLS, we are going to have the whole State of South Carolina all over it...
But they play in a tiny stadium 17 miles from Charleston, so even if the finish top of USL it would be an expensive proposition to meet D1 standards. The potential for promotion may incentivise them to invest in their stadium and team but if they don't achieve it, they may end up in significant debt. That's what happened to Wolverhampton Wanderers, Chelsea and Leeds United in the 1980s who all struggled financially and dropped into the lower divisions after upgrading their stadiums. I think we need to try out promotion and relegation in the lower divisions first. Then you have to persuade MLS owners to risk their investments.
Whatever it takes, 20 years from now, we will only be as good as the changes we make today. I’m not saying we need to force investors, we need to find ways to make it work for them financially.
This is one of the ways MLS is caught in a bind. A common theme on these boards is that American stars should play in Europe and Garber is anti-USMNT for wanting to bring some of them back. And yet, a lot of people (reasonably) want to see American stars play here. As with many things in MLS, there isn't a simple answer; they have to balance competing ends.
The solution is the same as most European leagues. You try and keep them until they are 21 or 22 before you sell them to a top 4 league (or PSG). But based on what McKennie and Pulisic have said our coaching and level of competition from 16-18 just isn't good enough.
GRANT WAHL: In terms of Gulati, who's going to be on the FIFA council, and involved with the bid for the World Cup, are you guys cool? CARLOS CORDEIRO: Yeah, absolutely. I mean you heard the various members stand up this afternoon and commend Sunil for his years of service. Sunil will continue to be involved. He is a past president, he sits on our board and so we will be working together, absolutely. LAME.
And this is something pro rel will help with, 16 and 17 years old could play in top second division teams looking to promotion, too many positive things come with pro rel.
No 16/17 year-olds are in top-flight academies. The lower divisions are full of journeymen, foreign players, loaned players and academy rejects. I support a lower division team. Our strikers are 34 and 36 and our holding midfielder is 37. All 3 played in the Premier League in the 1990s. We just let our only home grown player go and our only players under 21 are on loan from Premier League academies. I looked at Brentford's squad in the Championship at random and they don't have a player under 20 in their squad. USL does a better job of developing players than the Football League.
Are there many teenage players playing on independent USL teams (not an MLS 2 team)? Are teenagers not signing to USL teams in hope for college soccer?
I think we've got a bunch of issues to address that are likely more immediate than promotion/relegation My biggest concerns are centered on getting more players involved in a meaningful way and stopping with the ridiculous notion that only players under the formal umbrella of the USSF are worth caring about. (worth taking checks from) However, I am open to the argument that what we really need to do is structure the game according to FIFA rules like everyone else and stop expecting to be able to just wave everything away with .... oh, this is America, we do things differently. Yeah, like having crap soccer teams for a country of our size and wealth. That's sure different. Different does not always equal good. Maybe we could start doing things the way the rest of the world does and see what happens. This would include things like paying attention to the FIFA calendar, paying clubs that develop players, and yes promotion and relegation. If promotion and relegation would help our young players get time in a competitive environment that would be great. I'm just not entirely convinced it would be the magic bullet where our not ready for prime time teenage prospects would actually get better development. They may well flounder there as well with teams still full of older guys getting most of the field time and having to deal with a less professional environment and likely even worse coaching and support than young players get in MLS. I mean, MLS still has a ways to go to create a professional environment close to what teams in more established leagues have to offer and I am highly skeptical of the environment players would experience in lower divisions in the US.