I think they would have to work around the challenges of MLS' strategy (which again is well within MLS' rights). For example, USSF could lobby FIFA hard to allow G7 countries to sign kids within the the G7 nations as early as 16 as the stated intent of the current rule is to prevent established nations from taking advantage of kids from emerging countries IIRC. if that doesn't work, provide access to overseas jobs for parents of talented kids so that it gets around the <18 age restriction (as kids can move as long as their parents have a job and it's not specifically related to the child's soccer career) provide a detailed network of support services for our youth who are training overseas so that they still feel connect and supported. I am thinking about having a couple of full time staff in each city where elite programs are targeting US raw material. There could also be financial support to house family members of overseas youth as well. provide counseling for domestic youth so that the decision to sign a youth contract with MLS isn't based upon geography at all but rather how that youth's talent fits within the needs of each MLS franchise (i.e., not get stuck like Carelton). there could also be a financial support to house family members of MLS youth who live far from home as well. provide consulting services so that youth players are fully aware that they should never sign deals with MLS that go beyond the age of 18.
That's the first obstacle as all 28 EU countries share the same labor laws. so you'd need to convince 31 FA's (depending on the UK's Brexit strategy).
Are these hypothetical or actual suggestions as to what you believe USSF should be doing? Perhaps I am misunderstanding. I can't really see any of them being feasible for various reasons. USSF has many purposes. the most visible but far from the most important is developing the USMNT. While most if not all of the stakeholders would probably like to see the USMNT do well and improve, they don't want resources spent on the USMNT if it negatively affects them. MLS stands to lose financially from some of your suggestions and the others would cost a great deal which would leave less money for domestic programs. Even if it doesn't actually take away monies from Rec soccer etc, how do you justify spending large amounts of money to benefit individuals while organizations go lacking? How do justify spending money overseas to benefit a few players while players in the inner-cities lack facilities and funding? I can't really see MLS or any of the other major players in the USSF (youth soccer etc) having any real interest in this issue to the point where they would like to see their money spent lobbying fifa to allow the signing of young Americans. I know I wouldn't want USSF to get into the business of providing jobs or assisting parents of "talented" kids in foreign countries. All else aside, can you imagine the potential for corruption? who decides which kids are talented enough to get their parents a job? It is not USSF's job to oversee, counsel or in anyway get into contract negotiations between the player and any professional club (foreign or domestic). Aside from that, how is USSF supposed to know which teams will provide the best fit for each player? Are they going to provide the same guidance for foreign teams? Regardless, I wouldn't trust the guidance of USSF anyway. Again, providing financial support to house family members of MLS youth who live far from home...will this be provided to everyone? just a few? who decides? Provide consulting services advise against never signing deals that go beyond 18? Really? Basically you are saying that MLS should be a developmental league that has no leverage at all in signing or selling players. (you want them to pay players up to 18 and then allow them to go for free to Europe? I must be missing something? I fully believe that the best young players already have leverage and they should be able to get contracts that end at 19 or 20 so that they can be assured of either moving to Europe (with the team getting a transfer fee) or resigning with the MLS teams if the player decides. If they are good enough, they should be able to sign a USL contract and get professional minutes until 18. a player like Sargent didn't even have to sign with a USL team because the USYNT cycle provided him with sufficient training and games to keep him sharp but not all players will have the same timing and would have to play USL. (the big disadvantage for the player is that by signing with a USL team they presumably wouldn't be going to Europe on a "free" but the advantage is they get pro minutes and don't have to sit (MLS teams really aren't going to want to finance too many players development with zero return).
I know this was a dud of a tournament for the US, but if anyone wonders why I have a hard time getting excited about youth national teamers... Came across USMNT’s 2009 U-20 World Cup media guide. One player from this squad had a significant impact on the 2018 WC cycle (Villafaña): pic.twitter.com/yZoY2zoh95— Paul Carr (@PaulCarr) July 18, 2018 FWIW, the roster for the 07 tournament where they played like world beaters was just basically Jozy and Bradley (and Freddy) and not much else.
I agree with you, no one played or talked about soccer when I was growing up. But at the same time, you wouldn’t ever see soccer on at a bar when I was growing up, either. Its still a work in progress, but we definitely have a soccer culture now. Hopefully, Americans weren’t crying when we didn’t make the World Cup because we are in a better psychological state and have a better view of what is really important in life Many of those other countries don’t have nearly as good of quality of life as us. In that aspect, I hope we never get to the point where one of the only things we as a nation have to be proud of is our soccer team. If we lost the gold medal men’s basketball game, no one would cry about that, either. Look, we have a soccer culture. Percentage wise, we probably aren’t on par with many other countries in the world. But if you go by numbers, we probably have more soccer fans than most countries in the world. But we are also one of the biggest countries in the world area-wise. Just because our soccer fans are spread out doesn’t mean they don’t exist. And our fans and culture are still growing. I guarantee a good showing in qualifying will lead to a lot of excitement over 2022. And a good showing in 2022 will lead to a massive showing of fan support in 2026.
In other countries, people don't support a club just thinking how that club helps the national team. That's something you only find in the USA and with Chivas & Pachuca fans in Mexico. You support your club because you love your club. Whether that is good for the NT or not, it's irrelevant. In countries with a solid club tradition people even root against their NT if they have several players from a rival club, or if they play a NT with some of your fave club players. Interestingly, that sort of organic support for club-above-country seems to result in the type of culture that promotes the growth of the sport from the bottom up, and helps the NT in the long term more than trying to engineer the local league to improve the NT.
I don't think you know what a soccer culture is. If you go to Newcastle in the northeast of England for instance, everyone 50 miles north and west of the city will ask you what you thought of the game. You'll stand at a urinal in a pub and the guy next to you will ask you about the result. Kids grow up playing soccer in the streets, in the playgrounds, in parks. When I was 9 or 9 I would play soccer during 15 minute morning and afternoon breaks, eat my lunch as quickly as possible so I would have time for another game and stay after school. After tea (dinner) we'd kick a ball about in the street or if there was no-one around I'd kick the ball against a wall. There was cricket and rounders (softball) in the summer and time for hide and seek and the other games kids played when they went outside but mainly it was soccer. And nearly everyone had the names of soccer teams on their school books and drawn in thick black marker pens in their bags. When I went to school near Sunderland there were days when Newcastle and Sunderland fans had stand-offs in the school tennis courts as the teachers watched helplessly. As the Newcastle fans were in the minority it was usually one of their lads that got caught and kicked, or their school blazers ripped and then we'd all go back to school. Soccer supporters are called fanatics for a reason.
yeah because the word fanatic is a play on the word fan. oh you thought the use of the word fanatic was unique, sorry.
Again, if that’s what being a fan is, then I hope we never get there. I’d choose civility over a sport any day. Your point about playing all day, every day is only valid in certain areas. If you want to go to Bell or South Gate just outside of downtown Los Angeles, there are guys playing from about 2-10 every weekday and all weekend long. I’ve seen similar things about Atlanta’s culture. But I’ll agree that we need more of those types of areas. The reality is that we are not England and never will be. I’m sure if LA and San Jose were 21 miles apart, like Newcastle and Sunderland are, then the rivalry would be much more heated. But they’re 300 miles apart. Our soccer culture is not going to be England’s and we need to stop acting like that is something we need to strive for. We are our own country and will always have our own culture. It’s still evolving, but if I had to guess, I’d say it will eventually look like the NFL from a fan’s perspective.
I watched FC Cincinnati vs. Charlotte last night and one positive I noticed compared to the World Cup was the general lack of petulance and play acting. It was quite a breath of fresh air to see players just getting on with it after a month of the antics you see at the highest level.
Mahtzo1, I appreciate the good faith response. If I could, I'd summarize your general position as: 1. MLS is a big stakeholder and the USSF shouldn't do anything that impacts them negatively. 2. USSF shouldn't allocate money "to benefit individuals while organizations go lacking" I strenuously disagree with the first point and the entire purpose of my post is what to do when the interests of MLS and USSF aren't aligned. Furthermore, any decision that the USSF makes that involves MLS shouldn't have any MLS votes on it as they should recuse themselves from that discussion/vote. If MLS' goal is not be a developmental league (which is exactly what they have stated and have shown by their modest interest in selling players), then the USSF needs to provide alternatives for our best young players. As for the second point, I strongly believe that USSF subsidizes MLS substantially through the SUM contract and we can use those fund in much better manner now that MLS is a viable stand-alone entity who's interest may be diverging increasingly from the USSF (although it is clearly in USSF's interest to have a viable league IMO.) Lastly, the USSF already has spent significant money on select individuals: what else is residency camp?
Here's a point by point I think they absolutely should be doing some portion of this. This is an area where USSF's interest (which is creating as many top notch nationals as possible who receive the best training in the world) and MLS' appear to be diverging as MLS wants its players to stay in MLS for as long and as cheaply as possible despite the fact that it's nowhere near elite in developing talent (which as Clint Eastwood repeatedly stated, shouldn't be expected for quite some time given the newness of its efforts.) USSF subsidizes MLS substantially via SUM IMO (lots of acronyms here!) and has already spent significant money to benefit a few players via Bradenton and other residency programs (formerly). This is merely a new allocation of such money. Missing World Cups costs the USSF and youth programs dramatically and having an improving USMNT is a money maker as far as I'm concerned so I think of any concept that actively works to improve the USMNT as an investment. the same team that decides on chooses our youth teams and formerly chose residency programs. Completely disagree. USSF should absolutely be a huge resource to our players and should provide valuable input and support to the player and his family about which situations offer opportunities where they can improve as rapidly as possible. If a better situation requires a "scholarship" and support, this may be a very good place to invest. At the very least, they should be providing as much optionality as possible to the player and his family so that they're not "forced" to only negotiate with a local MLS team. I look at the Jordan Morris situation where the main leverage his had vs. MLS was going to Stanford, which IMO wasn't an ideal situation for his development (but not terrible either.) This is no way keeps MLS from competing for talent - it simply levels the playing field. Hopefully, MLS will be a viable opportunity for them although MLS will have to compete with options around the world. If MLS doesn't want to be a developmental league (i.e., doesn't want to sell its players at a reasonable price as determined by the marketplace), then this is what the USSF should do. None of this would be required if MLS was a developmental league (like pretty much all the other minor leagues in the world) but that's not where their head is at, for good or bad, so it's USSF DUTY IMO to provide alternatives.
The US ranks 17th in the quality of life index behind the likes of Switzerland, Sweden, Denmark, Belgium, Germany and Holland.
...And yet, that's higher than Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, Costa Rica, Croatia, England, Egypt, Iran, Mexico, Morocco, Nigeria, Panama, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia, South Korea, Spain, Tunisia, and Uruguay. Does 23/32 teams qualify as "many" for you?
That has nothing to do with my point. "Many of those other countries don’t have nearly as good of quality of life as us." My point was that economic status has nothing to do with whether people become emotional about soccer matches. Scotland fans taunt English fans about Bannockburn (1314) while England fans tease the French about Agincourt (1415) and tease Germany about the results of two world wars. When Norway surprisingly beat England in a 1981 WCQ the commentator screamed emotionally down the microphone "We are best in the world! We have beaten England! England, birthplace of giants! Lord Nelson, Lord Beaverbrook, Sir Winston Churchill, Sir Anthony Eden, Clement Attlee, Henry Cooper, Lady Diana, we have beaten you all, we have beaten you all".
I think you are misunderstanding what I said...at least to some degree. My main point, above all others, is that the major stakehlders with the most power would not stand for some of your suggestions. for your point number 1. I would say that in general USSF should be avoid harming any stakeholder when possible. At times, when the interests of two or more stakeholders conflict USSF may have to take a stance which will hurt one or the other. As to the interests of USSF, I would say that based upon it's mission statement, the USMNT is actually a very small portion. Mission Statement: " the Federation's mission statement has been very simple and very clear: to make soccer, in all its forms, a preeminent sport in the United States and to continue the development of soccer at all recreational and competitive levels." https://www.nchpad.org/Directories/Organizations/2100/United~States~Soccer~Federation~~USSF~ Of course that mission statement is pretty vague and could be almost anything but I think finding jobs for parents in foreign countries might not sit to well with a lot of people (not just MLS) for various reasons. As such, the stakeholders that would rightfully be If anything, a case could be made for reducing spending on programs that only benefit the USMNT and or USYNT. (Primarily the USYNT because the USMNT is a money maker). The promotion of the professional leagues definitely falls under the mission statement as does recreational soccer but I don't think it is appropriate for the USSF to spend money (grants, extra programs etc) that benefit a for profit entity. Those funds should be earmarked for non profit entities and should be aimed at groups rather than individuals because, ultimately, that fits in much better with their mission statement. I also do not think that USSF has any business advising players on which professional path they should be taking. I They should not be advising any player on which team or league that they should be signing with. The closest I could see to something that fits this would be purely informational without any recommedation attached. They shouldn't be adivising for Europe vs MLS, MLS vs USL, Professional vs College. I sure wouldn't want USSF giving advice to my son but that is beside the point.
Then how do countries like Spain, Belgium, and Croatia (or other continental European countries) crank out so many smaller, technical players despite having such a small population? They rarely play big, super athletic type players. I really do think it’s an Ango cultural phenomenon. I lived in England for 6 months. Compared to other European countries, its the most lazy, boring, least innovative and creative country I’ve been in. They place zero emphasis on aesthetics - whether it’s culture, fashion, food, or how they look and take care of themselves (Brits are super ugly and their food is disgusting). Their playing style is a reflection of their culture - boring and lazy coaching without trying to putting in the hard work needed to play creatively. Compare that to French, Spanish, and Italian culture that places a high emphasis on creativity, gastronomy, arts, etc. You can see how a country’s playing style is a reflection of its culture.
Is it fair to say that you think the USSF cannot or should not take actions that negatively affect MLS in a material manner? Even if MLS pursued policies that are detrimental to the USMNT?
No. I am saying that those particular actions that you mentioned should not be taken based primarily ethical reasons. I am also saying that regardless of the ethical reasons, I find it hard to believe that it would ever come to fruition because it is such a direct attack on MLS which is one of the major stakeholders in USSF. You mentioned recusal but MLS has enough power and it is important enough to them (I believe) that they would find a way to influence the decision even if they did recuse. I addition, I fail to see how the actions positively influence the advancement of the mission statement of USSF. At best it is neutral (hurting MLS while helping , short term at least, USMNT). As far as policies detrimental to USMNT, that is too broad and vague. Many things that MLS does may affect the USMNT in varying degrees. I am saying that the USMNT is not the be all end all when it comes to advancing soccer in the US. It is a very large part but it would be difficult to argue that professional soccer (with MLS being the preeminent professional league in the US) is any less important in advancing soccer in the US. As such, USSF should not be favoring one over the other. Futhermore, USSF has a pretty pisspoor record of developing players themselves. should they be the ones giving advice to our players? Europe is being pushed by many as the be all end all of development nirvana but the European track record for developing young Americans is inconclusive at best. For every Weston McKennie, Pulisic and John O'Brien how many others have names only the most devoted fans remember. (Remember we are speaking of young players....) It may very well be that skipping MLS and going to Europe at 18 turns out to be the best option for all of the Americans that have the opportunity to do so but I doubt very much that that will be the case. I do not want USSF making those recommendations...especially when you are talking about kids and their futures. Forget about the national team for a minute. We are talking about kids who are about to make a decision that could affect the rest of their life. Do we want USSF giving advice based upon what is best for the USMNT or do we want the kid and his family deciding what is best for his future. I am not saying that I believe Europe is a bad place for our best players but I do believe some would be best served by starting in USL and or MLS before moving to Europe (if at all) and others would probably be best off if they can move to Europe as early as possible. In the case of the latter, USSF would best serve the kid, MLS and the USMNT by finding a win win solution that allows something in the contract that allows the player a buyout option or something that will still allow the team to profit and at the same time allows the kid to move on if there is sufficient interest from Europe. Edit: I would also like to add that those that are the best players are not automatically going to be best served by starting in Europe. There are so many other factors and it could be compared to Junior Colleges and Universities. One of the major factors determining whether or not a junior college is a better choice for a kid is maturity. Not how good of a student they are. In the same way, a great prospect could begin in Europe while USL or MLS is a better place to begin. Do we really want USSF making those decisions or recommendations?
The lower you go down in age, the less you see of that. It’s almost non-existent in the u17 DA games.
I think Miazga and Palmer-Brown especially, have hurt themselves by signing with big money clubs. I think our current up and coming centerbacks are overrated to an extent. They've proven very little at the first team level. Carter-Vickers needs to move on from Tottenham already. Last one, not unpopular really... but Tyler Adams needs to play right wing back.