How can a lack of "talent" result from signing highly priced and talented foreign players? Talent is inherent not learned. If you look at the U17 and U20 teams there don't seem to be many MLS forwards coming through and I'm not sure why that is. In the meantime Weah, Pulisic and Sargent will have to do. The lack of "talent" comes from not allowing young American players opportunities to play in their own domestic league. Talent is cultivated. You don't know what's causing it, but you're certain that my suggestion (that multi-million-dollar DP's are blocking access) isn't right? Let me know your best guess, and we'll see if it makes sense. There's tangible proof that teams are spending money. Look at the increasing number of home growns. If each team can produce one home-grown player I didn't say teams weren't spending money. I said the discussion is around how effectively they are spending it. Again, if players are good enough they'll get selected. ...Except we live in the real world, which is an imperfect system. Just like how some people are over/under paid for their jobs, players can be overrated or underrated. Players who are more expensive get more of a leash to succeed/fail, this is just a reality. Barco can bumble his way around and fail, because he's cost millions, while he keeps Vazquez and Carleton on the bench. The greater the investment, the more of an uphill climb for the substitute players to try to take that spot. I don't think the success of any team has been uniform. There are good owners willing to invest and there are the Hauptmans and Kroenkes. I think So how do we incentivize them? There are good and bad owners. How does the league incentivize the bad owners to be better? In terms of incentives, there are homegrown player subsidies, rosters have been expanded to 30 with places 29 and 30 being allocated to HGPs. In addition MLS teams will soon be able to keep 100% of the transfer fee for HGP, up from 75%. I'd rather see MLS teams keep more of their transfer fees, period, not just HGP's. And I'd like there to be more freedom of movement both in and out of the league, so that players can try to find places to play, and teams can be incentivized to sell players in the global marketplace. https://www.socceramerica.com/publi...ls-teams-spent-roughly-40-million-on-pla.html "FC Dallas technical director Fernando Clavijo recommends MLS has a rule that forces teams to give players raised in the USA a certain number of minutes, as used for a few years in Mexico. U.S. Soccer Federation president Sunil Gulati said guaranteeing homegrown players more experience could help the cause, but isn’t a panacea. “Over the long term you want a situation where they get through on their own, fighting for their playing time and not being given a spot,” he said." It's worth a debate but saying "MLS sucks!" is not a great starting position.[/QUOTE] Lastly, "MLS Sucks" is the position of the OP and nobody else. The rest of the BS community runs the gambit about how good MLS is on the global stage.
As for the MLS, again, it's not their purpose or duty to develop players for USMNT, it's to sell tickets, make money, and win to entertain their LOCAL fans. Washington fans don't care that Alex Ovechkin is Russian, they care that he won for their team, they don't care that the Caps aren't developing an American born winger to take his place, that's how I feel about soccer too, Local domestic league and USMNT are two different things.
You're absolutely correct! There is absolutely ZERO need for sports marketing firms. All leagues and associations should have their own in house marketing departments. Why pay someone else a fraction of what you need to pay to have your own department? Why wouldn't teams, associations and leagues want to cut into their revenue streams by raising costs? Why folks are so fixated on the media rights deal that SUM/MLS/USSF have is beyond me. You lot are so fixated on this one facet that you don't even know exactly what SUM does. It's ok, keep over hyping youth talent and proclaiming that they NEED to go to abroad immediately. Keep making wild assumptions about a players ability based off of a box score or blog post. Maybe folks should actually, you know, support the leagues in America. Actually attend and/or watch games on TV/Internet so they can actually see the young American players play.
I repped you previous post because while I didn’t wholly buy your argument, it was a strongly argued post. This post is just stupid,
The bolded is a poorly-constructed strawman. I can't believe one sentence has proven so hard to comprehend. You know how everyone gets mad about lobbying in American politics? SUM represents exactly the same kind of conflict of interest w/r/t USSF and MLS. When SUM advertises MLS, they co-brand it with USSF, and vice versa. Which would seem to fly in the face of "MLS just exists to make money, developing the American player should not be MLS's problem". You cannot have your cake and eat it too, and it's frankly absurd that we're still arguing about such an obvious double standard. Meanwhile, SUM and USSF just inked a deal to continue their relationship, buried within the tumult of the Presidential election, which makes Cordiero's bloviating basically moot. Everything's gonna change... just as soon as the contract we made in December 2017 runs out... that is, if the advisory committees made up of suits from MLS don't suggest to us to make another deal before that one is concluded! Cut the cord, and make the USSF and MLS stand on their own merits. USSF just needs to "sanction" MLS, that is, nothing. Then, MLS owes no favors, and USSF owes no favors.
They do? Huh.......I'll need to look harder for the USMNT promotion during the MLS adds then. The fact people are pissed that the USSF decided to extend an agreement that works for them is laughable. The extension is built into the agreement. If the USSF felt that they could get a better deal elsewhere, they'd have gone out and gotten one.
You've missed the point. MLS executives are the people who are advising USSF. And since MLS and USSF have been joined at the hip since inception of the league, executives and coaches frequently move between all three organizations. It's how Reyna can be a USMNT and MLS player, then serve as a director for NYCFC and on a (the?) USSF panel on player development. Without SUM, there is no problem. USSF should have domestic league representatives giving them advice. They're the people who are "on the ground" with soccer development in the US, particularly as the MLS Development Academies expand and the USL/MLS partnership grows stronger. But the USSF shouldn't be having the same MLS executive pool advising them where to spend their money when talking about a third-party organization like SUM, nor SUM executives advising them on who to hire/where to put their money, if one of SUM's clients is MLS...
So please explain how SUM makes this bad or negatively impacts the bolded part again? You are seriously reaching. We get it. USMNT first/only fans HATE MLS and believe it sucks. Nothing is going to change that opinion. Pointing at SUM as a reason to completely disregard all of the good MLS and the USSF has done for the game in our country is shortsighted, and creating a conspiracy theory in order to support the "MLS sucks & it's MLS' fault that the USMNT didn't qualify for the 2018 World Cup" narrative.
You make up more and more outlandish claims each and every response. That's fine, you're more than welcome to disregard reality and pretend like what I'm saying is some kind of anti-MLS conspiracy.
SUM is to a not insignificant fraction of US Soccer fans what the "Deep State" is to Glenn Greenwald.
To be the big issue is the numbing of USMNT player pool by pushing MLS players into the team, especially at the less sexy positions and for qualifiers. The best players should be in the USMNT, not the best MLS players. The job of the National Team staff is to build the best team, not prop up MLS by making their players look better than they are by awarding caps.
Though how much really is NYRB actually involved in the affiliate club? I ask this sincerely because I don't know, but also because of the original cynical Philadelphia Union "academy" concept that was little more than going to the local established clubs and calling "dibs".
Sorry but if MLS and USSF can each make $1 but combined they can make $3 why wouldn't they combine? You are arguing that MLS should devote more resources to supporting USSF while at the same time arguing that they should disassociate themselves financially.
I'd like to point out, yet again, that most MLS academies didn't have teams younger than U-16 until 2012. The very first U-12s to enter most MLS academies are still in high school.
I think this is really crucial. Half the league is only founded since 2007 in the first place. Other academies got a head start 10 years ago at the start of the development academy (LAG, NYRB, FCD, etc.) but even they mostly invest in the U18 and U16 levels at the time (now we call those U19 and U17). Development in the two directions from that: U14 and also 18-22 reserve teams have only recently been addressed by some teams. Others are still figuring it out. You can start age groups younger than U16, but who is doing the coaching at those levels? We can't snap our fingers and have a nationwide pool of elite coaches at that level. Teams are starting from scratch. By the way, the Philadelphia Union have a World Cup winner coaching the U14 level (Kleberson). FCD has two former MLS players coaching their U14s right now (Peter Luccin and Michel). I'm sure there are more examples throughout the league. These are good names, but that doesn't mean they know how to coach 12 year olds.
Flatly, NO. I'm arguing, EITHER USSF should exercise greater controls on MLS to incentivize them to develop American players, OR they should stop being used as an MLS marketing prop, and focus on doing only what's best for the American player. I do not believe they are capable of doing the latter when their executives are filled with people from MLS and SUM.
Yeah, and Carleton's going to leave Atlanta, because ATL spent millions on a mediocre-performing Barco, despite the fact that Villalba has had double Barco's production on an goals/assists per 90 basis. Carleton's gotten only bit parts so far, so it's tougher to gauge his G/A per 90. But talent's the only factor, nothing amiss here. And the fact that one American (Zarek Valentin) played for Portland is conveniently glossed over. As is the fact that Atlanta's HGP's are the ones not playing, Mr. Moving the Goalposts. We may as well just go our separate ways, we're not going to agree. Especially not so long as my specific and caveat-filled responses are going to be twisted into strawmen.
I dont watch a lick of MLS (scratch that: ill watch Columbus Crew in the playoffs, and I'll watch Zlatan), because the quality of play is absolutely terrible. I dont think MLS should be a farm league for USMNT. If the USMNT draw players mostly from MLS, they will be missing more world cups.