https://www.mlssoccer.com/post/2018...ann-hints-mls-reunion-carlos-vela-los-angeles I just don't see this happening, at least not soon. Griezmann has a contract till 2023. By that time he will be 32. Although at that age it is possible he still remains in good form, I would prefer seeing him right now in his prime. But it is doubtful with his transfer fee. If, and that is a big IF, if it were to happen within a year or so it could be the trend to see some elite world class players make the jump from Europe to MLS. Griezmann and Vela at LAFC would be a pipe dream but realistically I don't see it happening.
Leaving your teammates during the Hex to go sunbath in SE Asia is where the disrespect lay. But it is interesting to play the disrespect card in favor of a quitter who himself proudly disrespected American citizens and their Americaness. Then again, Mexico is his team so who really cares at this point.
MLS is losing so many young American players to Europe. Players know the level is higher and that the league will be there as a fall back option.
that and it is so much harder to get to europe after signing with MLS first....might as well take the chance in europe when its there or risk never going at all.....
There's the rub. Lack of free agency, and that weird allocation order, make it difficult for players to sign or play elsewhere, both inside and outside of MLS.
We only have so many players with a bit of invention in their game in the final third. A guy like Lletget is always somewhere on my radar.
THe problem is..................... ...................what is the incentive for MLS clubs to continue ramping up their investment in youth development if all the best prospects leave for nothing? We talk about how MLS doesn't provide enough minutes to young players. Maybe the numbers would be significantly higher if more elite youngsters stayed at home. FCD has provided over 2000 minutes to a homegrown in each of the past 5 years (this year it's Reggie Cannon). And yet people think they wouldn't have given Weston McKennie playing time? Based on what? The fact that they haven't provided minutes to players inferior to Weston McKennie?
I think I mentioned him in my original post. Not sure why Long was selected and not Parker or Adams. Maybe because they had played the USMNT friendlies and NYRB asked that others be taken. Adams was added late as an injury replacement.
Alphonso Davies gives about 10 million incentives in dollars, US. MLS is getting roughly 50% of the top prospects. They need to develop them and sell them. EPB sold for $1 million would have funded the Academy scholarships for two years probably. NYRB started their entire youth organization from the sale of Jozy Altidore. If you can only take the absolute best talent and do nothing with it and then sell it because it is so great it overcomes your mess, then what are you adding? Develop Glad, Acosta, Saucedo and sell them. Do that before you moan that you didn't get the chance to stall the development of Ledezma and Soto. Develop Carleton and sell him, Goslin too. Can we see MLS develop and sell someone before we change everything to help them sign more kids to HG deals to not make the 18? MLS is getting all these kids for free from other youth clubs for the most part. Why don't they start paying for them if they want to be paid when they leave? it is hard to cry when the system lets you poach players for free when those players are then poached for free.
It's a chicken-or-egg issue. What's the incentive for young players to stay and rot on an MLS bench because they just spent 10 million on a player for their spot, thus ensuring that they will not only not play, but also not get a chance? Or maybe they just purchased a cheap MLS vet, who's free to go wherever he wants, while the younger players are bound by more restrictive contracts? Either way, MLS's history is that of deference to age and status. On the flip side, European clubs are scouting these guys, and they're clearly getting sold on the idea that they will be given the chance to compete. If I'm RSL, for example, there should be little issue in structuring a contract to be sweeter than, say, U19 Hanover minutes. Perhaps options to be sold abroad, more salary, guaranteed appearances, etc. These guys are good players, as evidenced by the European scouts. If MLS wants to keep them, they need to either demonstrate an ability to develop players (by and large they do not), or structure their contracts such that players are given opportunities. Right now, they are mainly long-term contracts with no incentive to sell a player making a pittance of a salary. And if you're going to play the "investment costs lost of money" card, you can't also condone the purchase of extremely-pricey DP's as just "part and parcel of competition at a club". Either money's tight, and the club can't afford either, or money's available, and the club should be able to afford both.
I forgot about this part, but it cuts right at the heart of the hoopla surrounding the academies. MLS teams partner with expensive DA programs, then try to get the kid on a HGP contract and playing with their reserve or first team. But, in theory, it's Ballistic United Soccer Club, not the San Jose Earthquakes, that were paying for Akanyirige's development from youth (whatever age he started playing) to 16 years old*. *Under the assumption that he grew up in Pleasanton, he might or might not have been on the travel team, but BUSC still does all the rec stuff.
you nailed it. I would add that MLS teams that arent playing a HG player have no incentive to get that player onto an MLS team that would actually use them....like might happen in England or Germany etc.... If Chelsea or Everton or Bayern have a player that wont feature they loan him out to hamburg or nurnburg or wigan or nantes etc......USL is great and all but it's not what it needs to be i.e. an alternative to first team time. I personally think a lot of MLS teams with HG players they are not using would MUCH rather see that player become nothing in MLS than become something in MLS for another team. I'd like to see MLS teams start to trade for HG players that arent in the plans of their original MLS team...but I think we never see this b/c the team that isn't using a HG player would never want to allow another MLS to have a HG player they couldnt other wise get...they'd much prefer to let that player not develop....which is is a big hole in the development of US players in MLS and a big reason for US youth to sign in EU before MLS, imo.
Do you actually believe this to be true? Try to run the numbers on this, and see what results you get. I did this yesterday, and it was about 50% of the best prospects who leave to Europe.
Yup. So MLS loses 50% of their investment............for nothing. Its not good. As USMNT/USYNT fans we want as many of our elite young prospects heading to Europe as possible. I don't think anybody is arguing that we want them all to stay in MLS. MLS clubs would probably be fine with being "feeder clubs" to Europe for these prospects. But they have to be compensated. Fernando Clavijo has stated that the lack of training compensation/solidarity payments is a threat to the current MLS academy system. And it is. Its not actually MLS HQ and MLS clubs that are the roadblock to that system. Dan Garber has stated his support and plenty of MLS front offices as well. FCD would probably be fine giving a cut to a club like Houston Texans as well (in the case of a Chris Richards). THe USSF seems to think its a settled legal matter. We'll see............ What I do know is that the other American sports leagues have a close eye on this situation. There is no way in hell that NFL, NBA, MLB, etc. clubs are going to be paying training compensation payments to youth clubs when they acquire players. No way. The difference is that these non-MLS youth clubs like a Ballistic United Soccer Club are not-for-profits in the eyes of the IRS. Same for all of these clubs like Dallas Texans, Sockers, Crossfire, etc. that sued the MLSPU and current USMNTers...................so that they could profit from their transfer fees. They are basically the Boy Scouts or the 4H club. And yet they want to profit from their work with the kids. It doesn't work. And never will work. Its like the Boy Scouts demanding compensation when one of their former members takes a high paying job as a CEO. "Hey, we helped prepare that guy to be the person he is today! We deserve a cut!" Idiotic. Will never work. Ever. Just so we're all on the same page, Ballistic United doesn't spend a dime on the development of their players. The players themselves pay. Hence the whole pay-for-play concept that people hate so much. So the players have to pay, and then when they're sold abroad.................the club takes a cut of the fee? Hence why the MLSPU has been opposed to training compensation payments. If Ballistic United wants to be business, then they can start a USL team.
You realize Atletico is far more likely to sell Griezmann before that contract expires, and the most likely time would be after the 2022 WC, when he has 1 year left and is likely post-prime?
why cant non-profits be reimbursed/strengthened by donations/payments? i hate the logic that b/c an entity is non-profit it can accept no money ( especially after actions it undertook led to that money being there in the first place) all about the us gov collecting taxes...well they have enough money i couldnt care less about that i.e. us soccer development. enforced poverty for what? to maintain the illusion that these entities are operating outside of the monetary system? (they aren't anyway)
As I said above..................its important to remember that these local clubs don't actually pay for the development of the players. It's pay for play. So the players pay. Hence the iodicy of these youth clubs then demanding to make a profit when the players are sold. Hey, free money!!! I want a slice!!
well cant the money be ear-marked to funnel down to the players in many ways? i.e. scholarships for underfunded players, better facilities, travel costs etc etc...on down the line.... yeah these clubs are charging players to play but I see the solidarity payments as a way to ease the system away from that model not a way to just give free money to the "owners" of these clubs (though if they are getting their youth into the pro ranks, then I'm personally fine with them getting a "slice").... should the focus then be finding a way to make the use of solidarity payments regulated towards better player development?? and attaching the proper strings to the money....if done right....everyone could win.
SURELY this time it will work out. I mean, anytime you have the opportunity to pay money for a post-prime striker who's washed out of three different teams in Europe and had one very good year in an arcade-style league, you have to take it.
The incentive is twofold. Clubs like FCD make money on their academies regardless of whether they sign one HG or not. They field dozens of pay to play teams. While that's nowhere near the money they'd have made if they could have sold McKinnie or Hyndman they aren't losing money. Second even though the very best are leaving the secondary players are getting better, good enough that one or two every other year are good enough to sign to a a HG deal. Even if all they are is squad players, they're cheap and don't count against the cap for the first few years of their deal. So MLS teams are still profiting. Now they aren't maximizing that profit by any means. 5 year deals are a huge red flag, deal breaker to any decent prospect with European desires so MLS has to either offer shorter deals for more money (which still isn't enough for guys like Soto) or speculate and sign kids earlier not knowing how a 15 year old will turn out. The only other option is to make training compensation and solidarity payments core issues for the owners during the next collective bargaining negotiations.
Yep, the process with him mirrors what I recommended over in the YNT MLS thread. You sign the best prospects young (15, in his case), get them early time in USL (15 again) then transition them to the main team as quickly as justified. You then sell them a few years later as high-potentials to Europe. Busio and Bello are two young Americans that are on a similar schedule. Carleton too, if his developmental plan had gone more smoothly. You also pressure them to sign early and withhold training opportunities if they won't do it. You have the most leverage at 15-16 because many will be stuck without good alternative options for 2-3 years. The closer they get to 18, the more that leverage goes away and they're likely to wait it out for Europe. It's in our best long term interest that a reasonable balance is struck between the best prospects going to Europe (which is optimal for the national team, and what most of us selfishly want) and MLS academies getting an acceptable return on their youth development efforts (which is what is needed to sustain, and hopefully increase, the investment)
I realize that, that is why I said he won't come any time soon. Not because AM won't sell him but because LAFC or any other MLS won't be willing to pay his high transfer fee. Like I said, he won't come right now but he will near the end of his career. Right now he still has an opportunity to go to another WC by 2022 so staying in Europe is his best choice. But hey, anyone can dream, right?