Also consider that after he'd made it well known that he was leaving MLS, what was the incentive for SKC to play him? Only if he was the best option. We all know the deal with EPB. SKC loaned him to Porto in 2016 with a very reasonably transfer option included. I still don't know why Porto didn't exercise that option. Seemed like terrible business for them at the time, and it still does. But anyway, I don't think SKC actually expected him to come back. Once back he was stuck behind a current USMNTer and the MLS Defender of the Year. And of course he got injured anyway. I actually think there are much better examples for folks to use if they want to bitch about MLS' approach to young players than Erik Palmer-Brown.
Moving on a free is bad because players don't get first team time? At the clubs they go to or the clubs they've just left? It seems pretty obvious that EPB and McKennie were well served by their time in MLS. MLS might not have gotten everythning out of them they wanted, but the players developed and got great deals.
In some ways, both. But I’m specifically talking about the clubs they’ve just left. Doing what Haji Wright, Flores and Sargent have done of having to twiddle their thumbs waiting until they’re 18 to sign abroad is not ideal
I wouldn’t have benched anyone. I would have traded or sold one of them... most likely EPB. They negotiated a buyout clause. Once they didn’t exercise that option, they made another offer that SKC/MLS declined.
That, for most of US footballing history, very few Americans had gone on to successful careers in the top leagues of Europe would indicate maybe the players weren't really worth signing to significant deals. The situation may change over time.
MLS does make it difficult to leave it, it's like a swamp. On the other hand, for 50 18 and under kids we send on a free, we may get one or two who manage to play league games consistently in a place better than MLS.
It may have already been mentioned before but with the signings that a team like Portland has made, how are they able to field so many foreign players. I think they will have 10 non-USA or Canadian players in their projected starting 11. Unless they have 10 international slots.
Ah wasn’t aware green card holders don’t count. I don’t see this problem going away unless some of the academies start churning out strong talent consistently that can prevent extensive foreign signings. The league is going to spend more $ each year collectively, and they’re going to prefer playing the talent they spend $ on to feel like they’ve justified the spending.
What what was the incentive to not sell him for whatever they could have gotten for him? Seems like anything over $1 million is a no brainer. I think EPB is a great example of how MLS isn’t a great place for young players. It is also a great example of the arrogance of the league to make believe they are much better than they are. MLS/SKC looks to have made more and worse business decisions about EPB than Porto. MLS/SKC lost money on a player they paid nothing for and less than $100K a year that they believe was worth $2M.
Who on here is privy to SKC's financials? If they didn't feel like selling him, so what? It's not as though transfer fees have ever been any kind of important part of MLS's business. EPB is now under contract with Manchester City. He trained with best defenders in the league. On the basis of that training, he did extremely well at the Concacaf U20s and WC U20s. He got a chance to test the waters in Europe before going over there full time.
To you, yes. $1 million is a no brainer to you. To SKC, under MLS rules, they could pass on ~$1million (and he might have fetched more in the last six months before he could sign a precontract, but as they'd negotiated a deal for $2m that was rejected it is doubtful) and retain his rights if he want to return to MLS. EPB left SKC on good terms. They liked him, he liked them. He's a local kid of immense talent and potential, and if he decides he wants to come home they thought that whatever the offers may or may not have been, holding on to his MLS rights was the better option. SKC wished him well as he left. Leaving to try Europe was not seen as a traitorous act. He did not see his inability to beat out Opara and Besler last season to get more field time as an attempt to ruin his career. He's an elite athlete. They compete. The SKC backline was a step too high given his circs last season. If he'd quit and whined like a little bitch, he obviously would not be the player he is. He used the competition to push himself and get better.
Only in the MLS bubble is it a good move to let a quality player leave for free. Glad you can read his mind too! Selling him to Porto, at a reduced price, with a sell on clause would have probably been the right move. I love how MLS fans will use the league's convoluted rules to defend the individual franchises against criticism ("they wouldn't have been able to find a replacement or use the money for one or have cap space"); then turn around in the next paragraph and say the rules don't prevent clubs and players from doing business; then the icing on the cake is to say his future rights (again, a crazy MLS rule) in the league are more valuable than cash now. Constantly playing both sides of the fence. Then the cherry is to say MLS rules don't hamper development of young Americans. Having your cake and eating it too. I must be hungry with all these food metaphors! EPB was an asset that was not monetized by SKC. Doubt future CBA will allow SKC to keep his rights in perpetuity anyway. We will just have to disagree about this Mscho...your mind is not going to change. On to some other topic.
Agreed. We’ve thrown mountains of data on the lack of MLS teams playing youth domestics and given cases of funky MLS rules getting players in some wacky situations. People want to believe what they want to believe, it is what it is. Moving on to other threads
Shrug. Both sides of the argument are right. EPB had been at SKC since 2009 when he was 12. They developed him into a player that won player of the tournament at the 2017 U20 CONCACAF Championships and was signed by arguably the best club in Europe right now. So folks saying that SKC has mistreated EPB or failed to develop him are missing that basic perspective. He left on a free as a 20 year old. That's not a sign of the apocalypse. Its not even a sign of terrible business to SKC. I personally think SKC decided that one year of EPB in the rotation (and then leaving on a free) was more valuable to them than the transfer fees offered. On the other hand its obvious that MLS has trouble providing playing time for young players. That's not rocket science. Nobody can disagree with that. We can say that EPB is stuck behind Opara and Besler. Yes..............but they're the ones who went out and signed Opara. As a front office they could have devised a strategy to provide playing time for EPB. Maybe instead of Opara, they could have signed a bridging veteran on a 1 or 2 year deal to rotate with EPB. For instance, FC Dallas could go out and sign a right back better than 19-year old Reggie Cannon right now. They have the salary cap space to do so. They have the roster slots to do so. They have the GAM/TAM to do so. But they're apparently not going to do that. They want to give Reggie Cannon a chance to win that job. They do have some veteran MLS options to take over should Reggie prove that he's not ready. Those are Ryan Hollingshead types. I personally think that folks blaming MLS rules and regulations for youngsters not getting playing time are missing the point. Its MLS owners, front office personnel, and managers that need to make youth and player development a primary component of their business models. You have to WANT to do it. And that's the case for any league or team in the world. A Premier League team like Everton or Southampton can field a roster of 18 Belgians if they want to. They don't because they want to develop young players from their academy. Its part of their business model.
SKC's backline, which includes two MLS Defenders of the Year, have been all or mostly American. It's not like the club have been bringing in a bunch of foreigners to cock-block US youngsters. The 'data' don't tell us whether US youngsters simply aren't good enough or are actually being shut out of deserving minutes. Young players in other leagues get more minutes. But those young players tend to be considerably better than ours both in quality depth and at the top end.
People are only blaming the rules and regulations because people are using that as defense for why SKC did what it did. The majority of the league doesn’t understand that developing players is the one true advantage this country could have. If they wanted to do it, they’d be doing it and would have already changed the rules and regulation to provide incentives.
The league's establishment of academies and its work with the USL would seem to indicate that player development is a priority. The league has already some incentives in regards to youth development, though more could be done. Folks should take the time to do a bit of research.
In the way of improvement, I would like to see: 1. Academy players being able to sign with any MLS team they want, with the 'home' team getting a standard compensation. 2. Solidarity training compensation; there is an ongoing court case which might resolve the matter. 3. Changing the rules to disallow situations such as SKC getting homegrown rights on Josh Sargent without ever having him in their academy.
I may be a little late to the party here, but I think there's a crucial issue here that should be addressed. There is a prickly chicken or egg dilemma going on here. In the last decade or so, MLS has a checkered record of talent development, and in particular has struggled to develop quality domestic attacking talent. I think it's clear that young domestic prospects are wary of signing with MLS, because they feel, rightly or wrongly, that they may be mired in a poor development environment from which they cannot escape. This clearly hurts MLS's ability to sign some the best prospects (prospects without dual-citizenship are often left with little choice but to play in MLS, regardless of their talent) which hurts their chances of developing a prospect simply by virtue of picking from a less-talented pool. But, two of the ways to demonstrate that you're developing players is byt playing young players, and by selling players to higher-quality European teams. Both of which are lacking. MLS does not play young domestic players. MLS does not transfer many players overseas to higher-quality leagues. And, something that I don't believe has quite been brought up is, American prospects that "flop" in Europe are routinely scooped up by MLS and perform just fine. So where's the downside for American prospects with European options? Rubio Rubin was a pretty big flop in the Netherlands and Sweden, yet had MLS suitors. Lletget had effectively no senior squad experience, and fitted seamlessly in LA. Zack Steffen, homesick, went from Frankfurt bench/4th division games to lock-starter in Columbus. Brek Shea, Juan Agudelo, etc. The list is long. If MLS wants to be able to retain top prospects like McKennie, Pulisic, Booth, etc, it seems clear to me that they must demonstrate a significantly better development track record first. Once they do that, the top domestic prospects will stay, and much the hand-wringing about MLS teams seeing a lack of return on their academy investments will go away.
It's depressing how four out of those seven "top prospects" seem to be going nowhere fast. Let's hope Sargent gets a fair shot.
Time lost. You see, in South America, you already know if a guy has a good future by the time he's 19. Because he's playing somewhere that is "not too shabby." Here, we keep the illusion going, even if the guy is 22 and still with the reserves.
The "time lost" is time spent in an environment that doesn't "fail" to prepare them for an MLS career. If you fail in Europe, you are highly likely to land in MLS and still be a professional soccer player. If you fail in MLS, are you likely to continue your career overseas? That's what I'm saying with that point. From a cost-benefit perspective, you could tank in MLS and never amount to much. If you do so, you're probably not going to be a professional soccer player anywhere else in the world. If you tank in Europe, you stand a good chance of playing in MLS. So, if I'm a youth prospect, that makes European opportunities much more attractive, even if there are hurdles, and even if I am less-likely to succeed there. The skewed American perspective of the age-range of a "prospect" (because of our college sports system and other sports' definitions of a "young" player) is another beast entirely.
It's about level. If a player fails to make it with West Ham, there is the possibility his talent is still enough for a good MLS career. If he fails with Sundsvall, then he's not likely to do so well in MLS.