The Punch List

I like the idea of tying volunteer coaching to a lowering of fees....rebate or what have you. Potentially that could help in one or both of two areas: improving the coaching at the basic rec levels (AYSO etc) and potentially lower the cost of club soccer....at least at some levels and for some clubs. I expect that it will have very little or no effect for some clubs but especially in certain areas new clubs may be encouraged to form that are largely volunteer based (admin and coaching) with only uniform, field use and game/tournament costs to consider. (I know that field use fees can be pretty high in some areas so it wouldn't be a complete solution and there will still be a market for the high dollar clubs but it will give more of the players with less money an opportunity to play at a higher level)

 

The bolded is absolutely correct. Your interpretation of the result is different than mine. If a baseball team has 3 potential all-stars than it is in their best interest to develop those players and use them in a way to improve their team as much as possible. They can improve their team by playing them if they are better than the player they are replacing. They can improve the depth of their team by bringing them up and playing them as backups. They can improve their team by trading them for another player of equivalent level but different position that is an area of weakness. Probably a couple of other choices too.

The choice they make (assuming that the GM is astute) will be the one that provides the most benefit to the team. If a player is providing depth (either sitting on the bench or in the minors), he does not help as much as he does playing every day, In this situation, trading for a player of similar ability that WOULD play every day (different position) is one way to maximize the benefit to the team from that player. If the player is better than the starter but is still sitting that is a different argument. I am not saying that hording of players can't or doesn't happen but I am suggesting that it is not the result of the minor league system. The motivation and mechinism for player movement is there.

The second part of my post is a question: you replied to a comment on minor league system vs. pro/rel but did not say anything about pro/rel. Are you saying hording of players does not happen in pro/rel? If so, I disagree. How many top quality players are not regulars at the super clubs? If I am not mistaken, there are more than one. How much time was James getting at RM? It wasn't very much was it? I know he is now with Bayern Munich but don't know how much he is playing there. Is he a backup or starter? I honestly don't know.

 

Good point about the field fees, which in some areas are beyond ridiculous. And anything we can do to lower some of the travelling teams costs, opens up the game which is important.

 

Just out of curiosity, I assume that your list is not ordered by importance. What would your top three items be? If you would like to list more, feel free. Yoiu can leave out anything already done (Arena, Gulati) but if you consider 9 and 13 important enough and the action insignificant enough you can definitely include them if you wish.

Thanks

 

One thing I'd like USSF to address is to help our players with the tough decision that elite U-18 players without a Euro passport have. Here are there choices:

• college
• the local MLS team who will be incentivized to make them sign a 3-5 year contract which will make it difficult to transfer.
• USL (Haji Wright)
• Wait until they turn 18

Things that USSF can do

• lobby FIFA to allow waivers for transfers between G8 nations for those ages 16-18
• Provide a system that allow players to have multiple MLS teams vie for the youth
• Negotiate with MLS at the top level to make sure that these players are allowed to go at age 18 (needs to be tied to solidarity/TC)
• Work with top international programs so that there is a support network at many of the elite programs so that the transition isn't as difficult culturally.
• Reinstitute the "Bradenton" team (where we put our best youth players together) but have them compete at the USL level

 

Thank you

 

The problem I have with at least some of your suggestions is that I feel the long term solution is to improve the developmental system in the US for the 17-22yr age group. I may have misunderstood your stance but I feel that the primary goal you are looking at is how to move players on to Europe. We have a few noteworthy players that will probably do quite well over there but other than that, most of our development will come from our domestic program.

The focus should be on what is the best path to achieve that goal. Bradenton failed before and if USSF takes it on again it'll fail again. Who is the coach going to be? Ramos? On one hand, it seems people want USSF to eliminate support and ties to MLS but they want USSF to support European teams by making it easier to transition to Europe, transfer to Europe etc. If the problem is MLS, than perhaps the real solution is USL. Maybe USSF should support or encourage regulations that encourage the development of USL so that it becomes the primary league for players 16-22 and then after that players are sold up the ladder. If a Euro team buys them so be it. If MLS buys them great.

Additionally, everyone is down on MLS for not playing young players and their record so far has been abysmal even when there have been players that have deserved minutes but I am not convinced that is a permanent situation. I firmly believe that they will begin playing younger players with greater frequency if for no other reason than not doing so would be a huge waste of the large investment that some teams have made. When a company spends large amounts of money on infrastructure and labor as they have in Kansas City, for example, they want to see a return on their money.....unless it is only a money laundering operation.

I think that the elite talent will find it's way to Europe on its own. European clubs (Germany especially) are already stepping up their aggressiveness in pursuing young Americans. With some of the top players, MLS is going to see that they cannot compete and find a way to minimize their losses. I susptect that the recent partnership between Bayern Munich and Dallas is really about Dallas getting something out of their investments. In the short term, there will still be McKennies but MLS will find a way to get something out of them. If done properly it will be very beneficial to the player as well because they will not have to choose between going without a club until they reach 18. I strongly believe the elite players have leverage and will be able to demand contracts that will benefit them and allow them to transfer at an early age (buyout clause etc).

 

Matzo1,

All the suggestions I have do not do anything to long-term harm the developmental system in the US for 17-22 but rather create options for players who currently have very limited options. If MLS can adequately respond to competition where they are effectively required to give either playing time or flexibility to our elite youth than that's great for both the USMNT and MLS in the long run. Creating more flexibility and optionality within the MLS system would be a huge step - instead we have a system where youth players only have one professional option of where they can play - how does that help anyone other than the local MLS club?

To address one of your points, I am a intrigued by the concept of USSF supporting the USL and creating optionality for our most talented youth. I think it would be great if we could create an environment where there's a nexus of highly talented youth who get the chance to play together (a la FC Nordsjælland in the Danish Superliga).

To address another of your points, right now there is a systemic disadvantage for elite US players who don't have a Euro passport - they cannot "find their way to Europe" easily unless they are willing to forgo their 16-18 period or sign with a local MLS team who has every incentive to sign them to a contract beyond when they reach 20 years old. If we can provide an effective bridge for that extremely important time period, we can provide pressure on MLS so we can have solidarity/TC payments.

 

I think there is a great deal of potential for USL to fill in the gap that the elite players face by not signing until 18. Most young players (with passport or without) will begin in the youth ranks anyway. If USL can fill the role of a development league and partially finance themselves through sales to European teams that is a possible avenue. I think a possibility will be European investment in USL which will allow them to sign and poach players from MLS. If Bayern or Dortmund have USL treams, players with aspirations might sign with them instead of the local MLS team. That may be a way for them to get around the fifa mandates against young transfers. (pre 18yr old).

The fact is that MLS may have every incentive to sign them past 20yrs of age but when it comes to elite players they do not have the leverage that they do with lesser talents. It is true that they can hold over their head the threat of not training them but the player can still hold out. I believe most teams would rather take a million or two (or whatever) compared to zero. The player can absolutely have that written into his contract if he has enough ability so that the top clubs are competing for his signature. I would personally be very surprised if some of the young players don't already have contracts that allow for transfers. (it could be a buyout clause, relatively short contract) or something creative that guarantees the player the chance to move abroad if the interest is there while still guaranteeing that the club get a return on their investment.

Lessons like those McKennie and EPB dealt to MLS will not be ignored. It may take a while before the MLS' change in behavior is evident but I predict that it will change and I believe there have already been far more changes than we are aware of.

If you see guys like Adams, Paxton, Carlton and others fail to get playing time and, if successful, move on a free then you will know that MLS has not learned a thing. Right now, however, all of those players are quite young.

Another thing I predict is that the numbers of players signing in Europe will increase significantly as they try to find other Pulisics and McKennies but because they are going a bit deeper into the talent pool, the success rate will fall off. Until Pulisc and McKennie, how many young players did we have that were successfully developed in Europe? I don't count players that are foreign born. I don't think our national team is filled with players that fit that description and I don't think it was ever true. There was John O'Brien but other than him I'm not sure who fits the category. Did Europe suddenly get better at developing our players or is the quality being sent over better now? Ironically, many (most?) of those players being sent over now are the products of MLS academies.

 

This is still the dumbest thread on this site.

 

Hey! I forgot about you.

That is bold statement and would appear you don’t read many threads around here. I’m sorry the team is still with Nike and using the old crest.

I think this thread serves many purposes. It isn’t one for regular discussion, but to keep track of improvements in the categories below, especially after such a big failure highlighted many of the deficiencies. Some of the item are probably more important than others, but they all fit together. It is sad how big everyone of these issues still is, how little has been done in last 5-6 months, and that fans continue to be sold superficial items and the large folks that buy into it and have faith in our leadership and league.

• accountability...
• infrastructure...
• Access to play....
• player development (at multiple stages)...
• “freedom” of player movement...
• Scouting...
• transparency/conflict of interest...

 

There is having too high expectations and being impatient and there is blind faith that many around here seem to have.

In the last 6 months months the only decisions I’m aware of are keeping on Arena’s staff, getting one game for two international windows and the annual January camp, creating a role of GM (not sure what responsibilities are) and began interviewing, a few June friendlies and just heard of Italy late in the year, and extending Sarachan’s contract. As far as the new president who said he was prepared to hit the ground running, he has accomplished virtually nothing with 38 days left in his first “100 days”.

The only six month periods I can recall less happening were after the 2006 WC and olden times where the second half of a WC year resembled that of 2006. 2018 doesn’t compare well to 1998 either. Project 2010 was actually written before the World Cup and Arena was hired before the end of October.

I don’t think anyone expects for all these problems to be solved by now, but I don’t see any progress and not even sure if the fed acknowledges them as issues. Meanwhile, MLS is marketing Zlatan, other foreign DPs (already derailed careers of the US internationals they could), expansion teams, new stadiums, etc (comment: a couple of teams finally took the CCL seriously and made best results ever... congrats). I’ve interpreted the tracking of the list to be about having some expectations of progress and to begin make the expectations known if they aren’t met.

Not making the World Cup is a huge failure that is hitting many constituents financially. 2017 made it readily apparent some huge issues with soccer in the US that have been around for 40+ years. I wouldn’t call it a crisis, but when you embarrass yourself and lose tens of millions of dollars, you go into crisis mode and figure out what the problems are, how you solve them, who needs to be included, and put a plan in place to remedy the problems. My expectations were apparently too high and for now I’m going to downgrade them to simply them “just doing something”. I’ll revisit once they meet that initial lofty goal.

 

You expected stupid things to happen. They didn't. Be grateful!

 

Why don’t you move on. You have already refused to add anything constructive to the conversation. The only stupid things in this thread have come from you. You might disagree with some (in your case all???) of the items on the list and there are obviously challenges with some, but they are intended to address major issues which a just listed yesterday morning.

 

Possible adds:

a.) Men's youth team coaching jobs: Still vacant and under indefinite freeze
b.) NWSL commissioner now sitting vacant for: 19 months
c.) US Women's GM: Still vacant, but they plan to start to pre-screen candidates sometime this month or maybe the next one; end of the year, promise.

d.) But is the USSF's next major marketing campaign all ready to go and releasing on schedule:

Of ********in' course.

 

A lot of those bullet points are going to take a lot longer to happen than just one year even if they started planning the day after T&T.

 

Of course, it doesn't help that most of the bullet points are stupid and would do nothing other than appease stupid people while having no impact on the national team.