With due respect, I completely disagree. Right now, MLS is somewhere between the 10th-20th best league in the world IMO (I put us in the tier behind Mexico) and there's a pretty big gap from the best teams in the world to MLS both in terms of talent and coaching. In addition, there is a direct correlation between the total number of minutes played in Champions League by a team's players and teams that make it to the World Cup semi-finals. So if we really want to compete for the World Cup, we need to have players who play at that level every week and as of now, MLS isn't very close and MLS' current strategy of trying to take on the Big 4 head-on bears significant risk IMO. Furthermore, MLS is not trying to emulate other strong football nations who are not the Big 4 by focusing their efforts on developing their internal domestic talent and then selling them to the best teams in the world. In fact, it's the exact opposite in that MLS is giving the vast majority of its money to players, most of whom are not Americans, who are on the backside of their career. It would be one thing if we were emulating the Brazilian and Argentinian strategy but MLS is hell-bent on trying to challenge UCL head-on. Why would we spend USMNT efforts on developing MLS' go-for-broke strategy? By doing so, we're effectively saying that not only will MLS become equal to the Big 4 in terms of level of play, but even more important, it will do so while playing Americans in key positions rather than importing the most talented in the world. Maybe the first part happens but I have no faith that the second one happens concurrently and that puts us in a terrible position. To be clear, I'm not a believer that going to an equivalent tier 2/3 league (e.g., BL2, Belgium, Norway) is a better play automatically but at least there's a track record of top players from that league going on to play for UCL semi-finalists.