So, sign the kids. These kids don't want to be locked up for 5 years making $80K a year. So, offer them shorter deals. Bump players up when they do break through. Tim Parker will leave for free because he has been playing for peanuts for years. I think some MLS teams have already adapted and signing players to different deals and signing them younger. If these owners were protected somehow and kids forced to sign with MLS, it would still be team friendly deals for peanuts. Plus lots of kids sitting on the bench and never actually developing past 17.
I can't speak for other clubs but I'd bet FCD makes money off their academy. They aren't just paying for free DA teams but they have 50+ other youth teams whose parents shell out good money for little Johnny and Susie to play. Now does Dallas, RSL, LAG, etc wish they were getting paid for their best DA players, absolutely but let's not act like youth soccer as a whole is costing MLS teams money. It's not and the 2nd tier players that stay and sign are still cheaper than draft picks and free agents. I'm all for training compensation and signing then selling those who wish to go, see Chris Richards, and probably Thomas Roberts, but if MLS demands 5 years of control then signing 15 year olds is about all they can expect and many kids/parents aren't going to do that. The 3+2 MLS contract is one of the biggest impediments to players and parents. Not to mention that remaining eligible for college soccer is also alluring.
American soccer is lucky that Phil Anschutz was around for the first 10-15 years of the league. Why these owners in this business if they arent interested in player development? They created the model or at least knew it when they joined. Then we are lucky you arent an owner. We already have enough shortsighted owners that dont realize that the growth of the league is dependent on player development and that it could be extremely profitable for them. Not investing in development is horrible for the teams brand and if owners decide to not do it, it looks like foreign teams might come in and do it. If that happens they will have no chance at the top players and possibly the level below. Instead of whining about it not being fair because they thought they signed up for a league where they have full control, they should begin to accept that it is a global game and how to fit into. Their priority should be do develop the "elite" players they do sign, so players see it as an actual path and raising the level of the "second tier talent" doing the same in terms of them improving from the youth level to a full professional. Instead of worrying about the few that got away, focus on the hundreds that they need to create a competitive league and do the best they can with those that they sign. I completely disagree with your simple assessment. It isnt rocket science but general economics. There is a huge supply of cheap players in the US and more and more foreign clubs are realizing it.
I liked the sequence of these posts. First one says ownership has no rights to these players then the very next post hints at how much money ownership has spent and doesn't even add that the best players aren't paying anything for the coaching that has enabled them to go make their living elsewhere. Owners need to recoup their investment or that money will go somewhere else. None of us have the right to dictate to any owner that they must toss away thousands or millions. Unless you are ok with any other random message board dictating how you spend your hard earned money.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: MLS clubs should start offering academy kids contracts with transfer release clauses set at fair prices.
They have no right to a player they havent signed. The federation has the right to dictate that they invest in youth programs. If a club wants to throw that money away, they can. It seems that a smarter club would make it one of their top priorities and figure out how to profit off it.
Instead of MLS trying to be a great league by buying players, they should follow the model of the Netherlands and use their league to not only develop players, but recruit players like Martinez and sell on for profit. Obviously they like profit. If they would play fairly and make it known that they want to develop and make profit, they would be better off. As for MLS, the league may, probably definitely, lose popularity because of the perceived level, but I feel it would help our players, in the long run. It is a catch-22. You can buy a league and invest in academies, but in the end if you want to win in the league, you have to have top players. Those you must buy. It's a question of balance. This is why I hate the Yankees. They buy a winner. Not every year!!
I think the problem that many clubs are encountering is kids (and their parents) just don't want to sign any deals. Every week at FC Dallas we hear that Player X, Player Y, Player Z have been offered homegrown deals. They don't want to lose NCAA eligibility when they're younger (Weston McKennie for instance) and the future isn't as clear. They want to leave all options open when they are approaching their 18th birthdays. Can you blame them? No. I would do the same if I had a son in the position of say...............Beni Redzic at FC Dallas. Why sign any deal right now unless you're just desperate for the money? Keep all options open. We've been thru it a bazillion times. The problem is the lack of training compensation payments. The rules/laws on that were laid down prior to the homegrown/academy initiative.................when enforcement of them them would have been a big money loser for the league. That was a time when the league was hanging precariously onto its sheer existence. Now it would probably be a net positive for the league. They'll figure it out......... We can look at Uly Llanez of this particular team as a perfect example. What would have been the incentive for Llanez to sign a deal a year ago with the Galaxy? He wasn't going to play in first team games. To play in USL games? He's already playing in USL games. Best to wait until his 18th birthday and decide what offers are out there relative to a Galaxy deal. Clubs need to keep finding avenues to entice kids to sign those deals. That Bayern deal that FCD signed is a perfect example of that. So far they haven't sent a kid there that didn't sign a contract (they did send Cappis, who would have signed if not ruled ineligible). Roberts is probably next to go on a 6 month loan to the Bayern U19s. He reportedly impressed them when he was on his 10 day trial. They are reportedly starting a USL-level affiliate in Mexico. Another attempt to entice the large number of Mexican-Americans into signing. Give them an opportunity to start their careers in Mexico..................... People act like if Richards had stayed in the US he wouldn't have been given a chance with the first team. Hello? He's not actually eligible for the FCD first team until 2019. So no, they wouldn't have. And to be fair, he's playing for the Bayern U19s. He's not playing with a first team in Germany either. If he returns to Dallas for the 2019 season, he'll be in the rotation. FCD only has two centerbacks under contract for next season. Figueroa, Cano, and Reaves are all out of contract. Maybe they bring back Reaves, who showed something prior to having hernia surgery.
I agree the problem has to be resolved by training compensation to clubs as the HG system will not allow MLS teams to capitalize on the money they put into their academies. It comes down to the main problem for the MLS being they have an inferior product and/or opportunity for youth prospects to going overseas, or at least that is the primary perception. Having spoken to a number of parents of kids in the 15-18 range that have a chance at HG deals or opportunities in Europe the question always comes down to: "Does your son want to play in Europe or the MLS?" The answer so far with the parents I have talked to is 100% in Europe. Therefore the MLS Academies have nothing to offer that these kids want. The kids are still going to get to play high level DA, have free training and then test the waters at 18. Its a no lose situation for the player to turn down the HG offer. An example is the Redzic situation at FCD where I believe he was offered a HG and turned it down. He is still starting in the U19FCD DA team, showcasing himself for other teams, and getting the best training around. No downside to turning down FCD and he can go to Europe at 18. The USL deal won't fix this problem unless they force kids to sign an extended contract in order to get to play on the USL team. LAG didn't require that and its doubtful FCD will either. Not sure if Seattle requires it. The MLS clubs need to fight for training compensation so the kids that don't sign the HG deals and leave ( probably their best players) will result in some type of compensation for the club.
Maybe there is some way that at U15/U16 players that are offered HG's and turn it down are asked to leave. That should be countered with either a pre-determined buyout figure and / or sell on clause. Both parties need to get their due. The players have the upper hand right now but if the clubs were willing to let go easily and the club essentially receives the same amount as they would with the rights fees then that seems fair. Of course the clubs better demonstrate that their training really does prepare them for a Euro move.
that is the next part of the problem, is assuming compensation is paid at market value for training when a Euro club gets an unsigned MLS DA player, will that put a halt on the sheer number of kids now getting a chance in Europe? As it stands now, Europe is getting US players completely free so they can take a chance on a lesser player with a big upside. If they had to pay for that player, would we see fewer US players getting to go overseas? Right now seems to be the sweet spot for players to get overseas. The doors are open and it costs euro teams very little.
Nice interview with Dest: http://www.americansoccernow.com/ar...-sees-huge-potential-for-the-u-s-u-20-team-aj
Adams is a bit faster, Dest perhaps a bit more comfortable on the ball. Both are nice prospects. We're expecting so much of this new crop of players (the U20s here & not here) because we're anxious to have them quickly fill in the holes in the USMNT that emerged because the 1993-1996 birth years produced almost nothing for the USMNT, and because the veterans got old in a hurry.
Has it become apparent yet that we have had several very good youth teams in a row? We are witnessing a level of quality and depth that has never been close to this level. The question is: Is this simply a golden generation, or is this the tip of the iceberg? I say iceberg...
We needed a centralized solution at that point because there were no youth club standards and no private investment in player development. The facts that the DA has increased the standards of youth soccer pretty significantly and that MLS has really started investing in youth development made a single central location vastly inefficient. The development of USL is the next major piece of the puzzle before we are straight up churning players out.
Updated stats, thru seven games. Chris Gloster - 6 games, 6 starts, 540 minutes, 0 goals, 1 assist Paxton Pomykal - 7 games, 5 starts, 488 minutes, 3 goals, 2 assists Alex Mendez - 6 games, 5 starts, 480 minutes, 6 goals, 4 assists Brady Scott - 5 games, 5 starts, 450 minutes, 2 goals allowed, 7 saves Mark McKenzie - 5 games, 5 starts, 450 minutes, 3 goals, 1 assist Ayo Akinola - 7 games, 5 starts, 448 minutes, 7 goals, 1 assist Juan Pablo Torres - 6 games, 4 starts, 374 minutes, 4 goals, 2 assists Frankie Amaya - 5 games, 4 starts, 361 minutes, 0 goal, 0 assists Brandon Servania - 5 games, 4 starts, 360 minutes, 2 goals, 1 assist Matt Real - 4 games, 4 starts, 360 minutes, 0 goals, 0 assists Justin Rennicks - 7 games, 3 starts, 322 minutes, 4 goals, 6 assists Samuel Rogers - 3 games, 3 starts, 270 minutes, 0 goals, 0 assists Jaylin Lindsey - 3 games, 3 starts, 254 minutes, 0 goals, 1 assist Ulysses Llanez - 5 games, 4 starts, 238 minutes, 7 goals, 4 assists Emanuel Perez - 4 games, 2 starts, 208 minutes, 1 goal, 1 assist *Griffin Dorsey 4 games, 2 starts, 198 minutes, 1 goals, 3 assists *Anthony Fontana - 2 games, 2 starts, 180 minutes, 4 goals, 1 assist Julian Araujo - 2 games, 2 starts, 180 minutes, 0 goals, 2 assists David Ochoa - 2 games, 2 starts, 180 minutes, 0 goals allowed, 2 saves ^Serginho Dest - 2 games, 2 starts, 170 minutes, 0 goals, 0 assists ^Sebastian Soto - 2 games, 2 starts, 169 minutes, 0 goals, 0 assists *Issac Angking - 4 games, 2 starts, 161 minutes, 0 goals, 1 assist ^Chris Richards - 1 game, 1 start, 90 minutes, 0 goals, 0 assists ^Added after the conclusion of the group stage *replaced after the conclusion of the group stage
After the second year of EJ, Quaranta, Convey Bradenton produced zero. Amazingly nothing. NT survived for a long time on pre Bradenton guys: Pope, Howard, Boca, Pablo, Dempsey etc. which were created by clubs coaches without any standards plus the first Bradenton class which spent there just a few months. After that 15 years of Bradenton didn't produce any impact players.
So if you dismiss the games against the minnows like St. Vincent and the USVI and just focus on the games against the more established national teams that have been to the World Cup in the modern era - T&T, Costa Rica and Honduras - the US outscored them in head-to-head match-ups by a combined score of 11-1. And did so without Adams, Amon, Weah, Sargent, Durkin, Carleton etc... If you'd have told us a month ago the US U20s would be without most of their top talent and still be +10 against the three best teams they faced in the qualifying tournament, I think we'd have all gladly taken it.
Making the United States 2019 U-20 World Cup team is going to be hard if they win the CONCACAF final. The team has played well. You're right in that the best age eligible roster would include seven players not on this team Adams, Amon, Weah, Sargent, Carleton, and Ledezma. It would be hard to replace seven players from the current 20 based on how they've played and the chemistry they've shown. Sometimes the most talented team isn't the best team. That being said, Ramos won't have to make seven changes because Sargent, Weah, and Adams have very little chance of playing with this team. So it's four changes. That's possible. I could see this Amon for Perez Carleton for Rennicks Durkin for Torres Ledezma for Amaya. But even then, it's tough. There WILL be injuries and there are always the players that breakout in the first few months or the year leading up to the U-20 World Cup. It could be players from MLS, Europe, Mexico, S. America, or even the U-18 or U-17 team (like Sargent). Again, it's going to be a tough team to make.
And another thing that would be kinda big if it happens. I could see Tab Ramos leaving the U-20 team soon to take the FC Dallas gig. It wouldn't surprise me if that happened. He checks a lot of boxes (works with young players, knows the league, speaks Spanish, etc). For a team that has a solid crop of youngsters coming up, Ramos would be a good choice for the club to build on that. I think Dallas will at least strongly consider making a push for Ramos. And it would be big for Tab too in order to transition to the adult ranks if he ever wants to get the USMNT job. Then the U-20 team will need a new coach and quickly take what Ramos has built and carry on with it.