Lower the Number of International Slots in MLS

Yup, a national team is in fact a thermometer of how your national football is doing at a given moment. You've got to deal with what you've got. Unlike club football you cannot buy yourself into the top and as such it's of a greater integrity.
Tat's why I got heated discussions about my dislike of pundits and certain fans to select players that got the Dutch nationality after playing here for years and having the right to get a passport. I didnot want the Orange squad to become a kind of mercenaries team. The Orange squad is the expression of our Dutch footballing culture. Including players not brought up in that culture, just for the opportunistic reason they're a better option than a real Dutch players horrifies me.
My message is that when at a given moment the players pool isnot good enough, live with it and work towards the next quality generation.
That's why I donot value certain World titles at all as those teams were filled with mercenaries. Italy with Argentine players is an example.

 

McKennie and Pulisic will still be younger than Messi and Ronaldo are today. But hopefully MLS and foreign leagues will have produced more players that can compete for those positions by then.

Edit: if Carleton lives up to his billing, and given he plays on the left, wouldn't it be great to see a midfield of Carleton, McKennie, Adams and Pulisic by 2022.

Are there any promising left-backs out there? Beasley will be 40 by then.

 

SKC has been playing u-nat J. Lindsey, 18, a right back, at left back, and with encouraging results. That said, the experiment is now three games old. Still, he certainly has talent.
Also, i realize Puli and McK will still be in the primes of the professional careers, but I imagine four cycles is a bit much to ask for Puli. Yes, they are younger than the two greatest players of this generation. Obviously, those guys play if they want to. Messi looked exhaused in his first time out (as he has a right to be). CRon is unreal.

 

This should be stickied in all USMNT fora.

Repped for truth.

 

I think Holland and maybe Germany are exceptions when it comes to aligning league and national team priorities. I don't think the coaches of Barca, Madrid, Juventus, Manchester City or Chelsea, etc, would ever put country ahead of their teams' priorities. After all, their jobs are on the line.

 

Right but there were only 10 domestic players in the squad, so I don't see how aligning club and national tactics made much difference in the short-term. If academies play the Dutch national team style from academies upwards I'm sure it would make a difference in the longer-term.

While we are at it we should note that only 1 Dutch team has made it past the group stage of the UCL in the last 5 seasons and the Netherlands failed to qualify for the World Cup.

 

I think it's brought forth for Germany because of the fact (I guess) that top German players hardly ever leave the BuLi before being an established name in both club and national team. So both club and nat team interest align nicely.
For the Netherlands the fact only PSV and Ajax and by a far lesser extent Feyenoord can afford to buy reasonably good players, but not players at the top of their capabilities. Plus that quality Dutch leave very early. So playing youth and young players is forced on us by the circumstances, which incidentally helps of course their development when playing with returning stars like van Persie acting as mentors.
The aligning of league and clubs in the Dutch setting is triggered by the deep rooted footballing culture of the 70ies that is very alive and kicking.

 

There's no difference between the core philosophy of the clubs=academies and the Orange squad. It's the same. What differs is the practical stance within clubs and the loony approach of Hiddink/Blind arrogantly playing the traditional 4-3-3, while the players capability didnot match the requirements. Clubs, except Ajax under Bosz, play 4-3-3 when possible, but morph into variations of it when needed.
Under Koeman we will see this club approach adopted in the national team.
It's not like club or national team dictates how we play. Our history does.

 

See the reasons for that in my last three/four posts.

 

How do you determine that a link that that is even relevant? One is a league, one is a national team. Whoever has the marketing rights doesn't matter.

 

Do you even know why SUM existed in the first place?

 

I thought the prevailing wisdom was that MLS was ruining the national team by making American players soft by not making them struggle for their minutes. Admittedly, that was largely a Klinsmann theory, so I can understand why it might be disavowed now.

If American players are cheaper and playing more of them would have no effect on quality, wouldn't the money-grubbing owners want to play them? Not to mention they tend to be more marketable. And if they are homegrown players then MLS teams can sell them on for a greater share of money than if they are foreign players. So it seems like all the financial incentives are in place that, talent being equal, MLS teams should be playing more Americans. But they aren't. Which suggests that talent isn't equal and reducing the number of internationals would in fact lower the quality of play.

Now, the MLS rules are a patchwork of different eras and seek to appease owners who want security as well as owners who want to grow the league rapidly. There are bound to be inefficiencies and friction through all these changes and negotiations. The rules keep evolving. The players union makes new demands each contract. I'm sure player movement will continue to change and MLS will continue to give teams reasons to invest in developing American players. A blunt solution of just forcing teams to play more Americans now doesn't seem likely to work. The development of the American soccer player (or, better, the lack of development) has been an ongoing problem for decades and is one that no one has been able to solve so I doubt that the solution is 23 more fringe MLS players getting a free pass to playing time.


BTW I am a USMNT fan and my vote is for no international player limit. American players will always be at an advantage in America (see Bradley's insane contract), just like English players will always be at an advantage in England, because all else being equal, teams will prefer to play players that are marketable to the fans, that are familiar, and that likely did not require a transfer fee. American players don't need further advantages codified into MLS rules, they just need to be good enough to get on the field. The academies are where these problems are fixed, not the starting lineup of a team competing for a title.

 

Schalke has a first team roster of 28, 16 of those are not Germans. Should they change that setup to benefit the German National Team? Should they cut Winston McKennie because, you know, Nat teams matter?
BDort hjas a roster of 28, 15 are not Germans. Is it only right and proper that they cut lose Pulisic? Were they wrong to bring him in when a German kid could have had that spot?
This is the argument you are making.
It is a losing argument.
MLS is a single entity. USSF is a separate entity. they have a relationship. They do not control one another.
USSF and the US MNT had the players and had options that could have been successful for this past qualifying run. They failed to take advantage of that. Christ, Bob Gansler would have killed for the available talent pool for the cycle.
The fault lies not in our stars, but in USSF.
MLS teams are not forced to sign 8 ints, they can chose to. If young US players are convincing enough, why wouldn't MLS clubs sign them instead? They are cheaper than int players, aren't they? Nothing in MLS roster rules says they have to sign a single international player. Reducing their options makes no sense.

 

But Adam Tash's theory is they shouldn't have to fight for their places.

Money grubbing? Owners that have invested $billions with very little return.

The most marked if they are homegrown players then MLS teams can sell them on for a greater share of money than if they are foreign players. [/quote]

That's simply not true. The most marketable players are the best players like Ibrahimovic, Giovinco, Villa and Vela.

The best Americans play overseas, which benefits the NT.

English players are not the most marketable. De Bruyne, Hazard, Coutinho, Aguero, Ozil are among the most marketable. Alli and Kane make the grade but in general fans would rather support their own players, wherever they come from.

But HGPs in England can include EU players from other nations like Fabregas.

And this is why $100 millions are being spent by "money grubbing owners] on infrastructure to expand and support academies.

And around 70% of Premier League starters are foreign compared to 56% in MLS.

 

"Money-grubbing" was being used ironically. If all MLS owners care about is making short term profits then by Adam's own claims that Americans are under paid they should be happy to play the cheaper American.

I said that Americans in MLS and English players in England are at an advantage if talent is equal. Obviously the most talented players are most marketable. If there was a young American as talented as Giovinco, then he'd be more marketable than Giovinco in America. Adam's claim is that Americans are at a disadvantage despite being talented enough to replace their international counterparts. If talent isn't a factor, though, then the cheaper and more marketable player would be the one playing. There's no logical reason to play an international player over an American other than talent.

 

As it is, I'm getting tired of refuting Adam's assertions with actual statistics, only to see him repeat those exact same assertions the next day as self-evidently true. I'm talking about the one about DPs always starting when healthy. Again, fully a third of the DPs in MLS's history have spent half a season or more outside their club's regular starting lineup, and some (such as Gonzalo Veron, Carlos Rivas, and Yura Movsisyan) have even had two or more domestic players ahead of them in their club's depth chart at some point.

 

That's what he does, in every thread he's in. He has a belief and he doesn't let facts get in the way. Best to not engage.

 

There is no restriction on the number of non-English players in the EPL. There are restrictions on players from outside the EU.

Anyone with an EU passport can be a EPL HGP. Under EU law all EU citizens are treated equally. This may change after Brexit but I can't imagine Premier Clubs would close their employment borders without a fight.

The rules are that a 25 man Premier League squad must have 8 home-grown players. A squad of 23 can have 6 home grown-players, A squad of 21 can have 4 home grown players. Effectively HGPs are numbers 18-25 in a Premier League roster.

Chelsea's home-grown players in 2017/18 included Cesc Fabregas (Spain), Victor Moses (Nigeria) and Andreas Christensen (Denmark). The other senior HGPs included Ross Berkeley (Everton academy), Gary Cahill (Aston Villa academy) and Danny Drinkwater (Man United academy.

Despite being unable to develop their own HGPs, Chelsea had 36 players out on loan last season, 18 of whom are English.




.

 

Yes, the EU is a single market for labor, That reality does not change the fact that top Bund clubs have as many or more non-German players in their first teams than Germans. This is the exact thing you are complaining about regarding MLS (too many non US players, or actually USMNT eligible players). MLS rosters have more US/Can players on their rosters than Bund teams have Germans. MLS rosters have more US/Can players on their rosters than English Prem club have English players.
Yet Germany somehow won the last world cup and have a young player pipeline that is the envy of many nations. They aren't the envy of the French, who do just as well. Look at their top clubs and they have more international players than MLS clubs, often twice as many. If you look at clubs such as PSG Monaco and Lyon, which are essential to both the quality and depth of the French national team, they're filled with top level talent not from France.
What this means is that when French players make the field with these sides, and the best do, they are top level players themselves.
That's how you develop succesful players. That's where a successful US MNT team comes from.
Your point, that everyone should get orange slices at halftime, a pizza party after the game and the same trophy at the end of the season misses the point that the professional game is a meritocracy.
Esp for national teams, the cream will rise. If if doesn't rise, it wasn't cream so who cares. Why do you want a bunch of mediocrity in the US player pool?
Also, since all available evidence shows that by every definition MLS and USSF are separate entities, please provide counter evidence. Stating that 2 + 2= 721 does not make it so.

 

Foreigners account for 61.2% of Premier League minutes (that doesn't include 30+ Welsh, Scottish and Northern Irish players).

http://www.espn.com/soccer/english-...st-reliant-on-foreign-players-in-europe-study

American players account for 57.8% of MLS minutes (that doesn't include Canadians).

http://www.espn.com/soccer/major-le...ice-aspirations-are-limiting-domestic-players