The difference however is that, when Jamie Vardy is bid on by Arsenal, Leicester is countering that by offering Vardy the same/similar wages as he would make at Arsenal, thereby removing financial considerations from playing a part in the decision making process. What MLS often does is to offer a raise but not anywhere close to what the player might be getting from his new club and, in exchange, it also requires a contract extension without the buy-out option. Oh and I am not sure I'd go to an Israeli club at this stage of his career but Steve probably had a nice chat with Aaron Schofield and is looking at Israel as an intermediate step only.
No. Clubs don't want to lose value. They regularly release those who don't have any value either due to insufficient performance (aging or very young players) or an excessively high contract relative to performance. Older players often retire; youths often drop out of the game without ever fulfilling their dreams. But for those in their prime, the practice is different. Since contracts are guaranteed, an under-performing player is often loaned to a lower tier club/league to offset and partially recoup costs associated with salary and the initial transfer amount. Should he decline a loan, he can be then made to practice alone with full pay. Winston Bogarde aside, a majority of players will take a hint and chose to ply their trade somewhere else. Birnbaum, as was the case with Kitchen a few months ago, is deemed to be nearing his prime. Moreover, as a prospect on an upswing, his value is also expected to grow. Thus, losing either Perry or Steve on a free was/would be a poor economic decision.
My disagreement is that MLS is not fully integrated into the economic market of world soccer. Players who come in through college have much lower wages and most MLS players are lightly valued in transfer contexts. My guess is his transfer value tops out at $1 million. Once you get into players taking a cut and the cost of identification and negotiation, any comparable replacement will at the least cost close to that because of higher wage commitments, assuming they can be brought in for free.
I am not sure we're disagreeing much. NCAA players, unless extraordinarily talented and proven on the U17/20 international stage, have very little negotiating power. That's why so many of them took those $13,000 jobs in the early days of MLS.
but it's more that than the PL. It doesn't seem to shame Belgium or the Netherlands as feeder leagues. They earn that $$$ and help their NT players compete with the best
It is and it thinks are different things. MLS strives to be a top league. They say it over and over again. Locking players onto contracts and negotiating for every dollar. I would like to see them aim to be the best league in CONCACAF and a feeder club to Europe. Aim to be a Belgian or Netherlands
but why? an unrealistic ambition might be challenging the PL and expecting to be on its level in 20-30 years. maybe 50 years we can match them
I'd imagine he meant that without being in the EU, we will never be able to move players on to European leagues like Belgium or Holland do.
There are three basic options for a league 1) Develop and sell. 2) Develop and pay. 3) Neither develop nor sell. In which case, you don't have to pay much either. MLS is #3. That's a purely PR driven bullshit. To be a top league, one needs to develop several dozen of players to the "Top 5" standards annually and MLS is basically not even developing players capable of directly advancing into the staring squads of the non-bankrupt second tier (Netherlands, Portugal, Russia, Ukraine) teams. With all the respect to Kitchen and Birnbaum - and to Scotland and Israel - those aren't even the mid-level Euro leagues and that's the current ceiling for a fringe national teamer*. * Let's not start the "but I bet Zusi can play for Chernomorets" line of arguments.
No, it isn't. The costs of scouting MLS would generally be prohibitive, but the digital presence of the league is so good that the base costs are reduced significantly. The major issue would be EU work permits, but good enough players can get around those.
It's unrealistic because it flys in the face of everything the league has done and will continue to do. The league wants to become a top - top league and will pay players multiple times there European value to come and play here... It's not going to become a Belgium or Netherlands. Michael Bradley is here because he is paid at least x3 what a European club would pay him Same with Altidore and other players they've retained in recent years or brought back. Dutch and Belgian clubs don't pay absurd salaries for old players or locals to come and play there. MLS wants to keep quality players at most all costs and Belgian and Dutch clubs are known for their willingness to sell. The U.S. hasn't figured out how to produce high end talent on a consistent basis but neither have most countries in the world who have been working at it just as long if not longer. You can count the countries in the world that consistently produce very high end talent on your fingers and toes and that goes through cycles too. You may want to see the MLS become a feeder league but it clearly doesn't have an interest in that.
Whether MLS has any interest in becoming a feeder league is pretty irrelevant given the current salary structure. Yes, they can overpay for locals and aging talent, like you said, but they can't do that for everyone. If there are enough players coming through at the level of guys like Zardes, Miazga, Birnbaum, etc. (and I think there both are and will be going forward), and the salary restrictions aren't eased to a huge degree, those players are going to price themselves out of MLS.
MLS doesn't sell very often and has paid dudes like Gonzalez, Zusi, Besler, Zardes and Birnbaum enough to stay... some dudes like Holden and Miazga are determined to leave but that doesn't constitute you as a feeder league.
Gonzalez left, Zardes is linked with a move to Turkey, and Birnbaum is linked with moves to the Netherlands and Israel. Zusi and Besler are designated players. You can't give contracts like that to everyone. I reiterate the point: if the talent level continues to rise and the salary constraints aren't loosened, MLS will become a feeder league.
The salary cap has gone up over the years. It's not set in stone and will continue to go up. The academies need to produce the quality to demand high salaries and they haven't done that on a consistent basis yet. Gonzalez was a salary cap sacrifice he was only sold to make space and not for a desire for the cash. Zardes signed a new contract relatively recently and has been linked with moves away for a long time Birnbaum hasn't moved either. Players are linked with clubs all the time. That doesn't make the league a feeder league. If you're good enough and don't demand to leave the league will pay you competitive wages to stay. In no sense is it a feeder league.
Dr.Phil said he would like to see MLS become a feeder league and I pointed out that is totally unrealistic and supported that with facts.
MLS spends a very low % of league revenues on players but right now the average club revenue is less than 1/3 of Ligue 1. With the way MLS builds their rosters big market teams will have aging stars, they will split top American internationals with some of the smaller market teams, the rest of the DPs will be South/Central Americans and Africans. Then there will be some mid-range players from the above mentioned regions, Asia, and Northern Europe. If MLS starts spending more on players they can carry more of those mid-range players, guys who are on the bench on smaller teams or starters in 2nd tier leagues. They could then afford to keep more of the above average American starters. So the differences between this structure and a feeder league are: 1. Huge portions of player budgets going towards marketable fading stars and some top locals. 2. Budgets not dependent on a transfer surplus. 3. No player development history and little demand for those produced.
Like being a feeder league is a bad thing. It would be a dream come true if MLS could get to the finance and game play level of the 2. Bundesliga and consistently stay there. The occasional aging superstar taking a victory lap would be nice icing on the cake.
But it's not accurate. MLS isn't "selling" much now as its talent fits into its very low, on a global scale, salary structure. The real money is reserved for big names from abroad and a select few USNTers. However, most times we see a 3M+ bid for an MLSer, he's gone. I think even Omar was sold for like a 700K fee. Point being, you can't argue MLS isn't a feeder league by intent when it's not producing talent others are willing to spend much on. MLS isn't turning away 3M, 4M, 5M bids. Not selling some MLSer for 500K -1M doesn't equate to not being a feeder league. Simply put, with the way the global market works combined with MLS' wage structure, when we start producing real top level talent, that talent will see bigger and bigger fees and be on its way overseas. As we produce better players and increase the demand for them on the global market, they will gravitate up the global pyramid.
Then you can classify every league as a feeder league by your understanding/explanation Every league sells players. What constitutes a feeder league from a non-feeder league? I would maintain a "feeder league" is a league where talent is developed with the understanding and the goal that they will sell that talent on and even encourage that talent to leave. The MLS fights pretty aggressively to keep talent up to and including matching wages for players with ambitions to leave. That is not something you see in "feeder leagues" Feeder leagues don't overpay domestic players to stay and or come back to the league to improve the quality of play. The MLS doesn't depend on money coming in from transfers to maintain their viability like clubs in feeder leagues do. Does MLS sell players? of course. And so does every single team in the world.
It's an economic pyramid. The highest bidders/richest are at the top and it's tiered downwards from there. Even a big club like BVB is a feeder to Bayern Munich and the EPL. The strength of a feeder league is designated by the strength of player development. More talent you produce, the more is sold and the more moves upward thru the global system. And given we're an immature and untapped market for the most part, as we produce more talent and mature, more will be fed upwards. We're already seeing it in our youth ranks with the majority of our youth internationals getting overseas interest. Pulisic is only going to increase it. The more successes we produce, the greater the spotlight will be by global scouts. A feeder league isn't intent but more a byproduct of your place in the global pecking order and how much quality you develop.