Yes the US needed a division 1 league and yes the MLS filled that need but the MLS has failed to be the best league it could be and it continues to fail leading to the failure of the USMNT. The MLS was better than the bad we had before but better than bad does not equal good at all. Shoot, in the MLS teams are not even really punished for having bad seasons. They just play along and hope for next year.
On the other hand SKC and RSL aren't going to spend $60-$80 million on academies/training centers only for a few untimely injuries to drag them into oblivion. Be careful what you ask for.
Tough fought round of 16 loss to Brazil. What players has MLS developed that are better than Wynalda, Reyna, Harkes, Ramos, etc? NASL did more to grow the sport than MLS has. It was poorly run from a business standpoint but it was a spectacle that helped grow the game.
Actually it was a rather perceptions fall starting with the US' finishing 16th in 1934 and then withdrawing in 1938 and finally, for a long time an OK 10th in 1950. (There were no WCs played between 1938 and 1950) After that we did not qualify until 1990 and since then we have been bouncing around between early exits and a couple of advances to the knockout rounds. Then, almost soddenly, we began to under perform and fell to the point where we crashed out of qualifying almost without a whimper. At this point, due I think to incompetence at the top, we are continuing in the doldrums of bad to average soccer that will jeopardize our qualifying chances if it continues.
Here's an opinion: many people claim their arguments prove their point but my position is that there are very, very, very few things we argue about that can be proven.
Unless I'm mistaken, I don't believe any of those players spent any time in NASL. Giving credit to NASL for developing those players is like giving credit to MLS for developing Pulisic or Sargent. McKennie, while not a product of playing in MLS was certainly helped by FCD, throw in Dempsey who passed through, Holden who had his career resurrected before returning to England, Adams and others and I would say that it is hard to argue that NASL had an more effictive role in actively (or inactively) developing young Americans than MLS. As to your point about growing the sport...you are absolutely correct. NASL was massive in changing the soccer landscape in the US. If I remember correctly, I read an article where Ramos told of his experience as a ball boy with teh Cosmos. NASL was far from perfect but we are lucky to have had it and we wouldn't be where we are today without it. By the same token, MLS is far from perfect but I believe we arfe lucky to have it and I firmly believe that it is improving in many ways. Youth development is gaining more emphasis and some teams really seem to be getting results. One of the areas of improvement seems to be in the skill areas. Last year there were almost no Americans getting any time, let alone regular time in the skill positions. the complaints often centered on the fact that we had piano carriers rather than piano players. This year advances have been made. 2019: 7/11 U21 players with 1000 min or more are midfielders (6) or forwards(1) Ferreira (00), Pomykal (99), Aarronson (00), Mihailovic (98), Amaya (00), Basset (01) 2018: 3/10 players were midfielders. Adams (99) Durkin (00), Yueill (97) MLS is far from perfect but I do believe it has contributed to a very large degree to to the growth of soccer in the US. I think that claims it has actually hurt growth is unfair and avoids many truths. There have been missteps and there will continue to be missteps but it is here to stay and I believe the level of play will continue to improve and the academy system will also continue to grow and develop.
Keep in mind that half of MLS has been founded since 2011, with more clubs on the way. The MLS academy and homegrown initiative only started in 2007, and most clubs really didn't get started until much later than that. So the truth is that the quality of player produced now is about the same as the quality of player produced prior to MLS. When it comes to player development, most of MLS Is still in its infancy. But we're starting to see teenagers come out of MLS academies that European teams covet. They're not signing with MLS, but they're products of MLS. These are Ledesma and Gloster at PSV, Mendez at Ajaxx, Soto at Hannover, LLanez at Wolfsburg, Richards at Bayern Munich (he signed, but never played for FCD), Booth at Bayern Munich, Reyna at Dortmund, the list goes on and on. Johan Gomez of FCD just left for Porto. The others like Pulisic and Sargent weren't products of MLS, but of the USSF DA. Which of course is the same league that MLS academies play in. There's also a whole lot of nostalgia about those players you mention. Weston McKennie and Tyler Adams are still really young. I suspect that this year both will pass the number of top Euro first division games than John Harkes played in his career. Both of those kids are products of MLS...…………………. Tyler Adams is 20 and has played over 200 career first team games. John O'Brien played less than 100 career club games, and never played at a Bundesliga level. That's the real world. Not fantasyland.
I think MLS has been good for US soccer but it’s an open question of what the landscape would be like if we didn’t have it. Has MLS’ system simply poached the best players from the pre-existing soccer structure all while leading international academies are scouring the world for talent (not just the US)? Or is it raising the level of our best players compared to what they would have been at the regional/national club? Maybe it’s adding depth?
I would say that as of right now......................the pool is simply much deeper in USMNT-eligible players. Up until now the quality of the USMNT-eligible player produced hasn't been greatly different. HOWEVER, we have this wave of kids now starting to come out of MLS/DA academies that seem to be indicating a potential quality change. Back-to-back-to-back U20 World Cup quarterfinals appearances. There is talent on the way, and that talent MIGHT be at a different level than before. This is sorta the Pulisic/McKennie crowd and younger. MLS doesn't develop talent by itself. The problem was that the development pathway from the youngest of age groups thru the development academy thru reserve teams, thru the 2nd/3rd divisions in the country, etc. had to be developed as well. Investment in those areas keeps being ratcheted up, but results weren't going to come overnight. Or even over a decade. There's still a long way to go. Even the clubs that got an early start had major gaps. For instance FC Dallas didn't get their reserve USL team going until this season. And even now, the quality of that USL League One competition is really poor.
here's a question: why is MLS/DA developing more depth as you stated? Is it getting more kids playing soccer at an advanced level? if no, what is driving the increase in the size of the pool of USMNT-eligible players? Is it better training of our top end relative to Bradenton and pre-existing major programs? If yes, what drove the increase in kids?
I would say that turning pro making $56,250 at 17 is a much more attractive proposition than being drafted at 22 making $11,700, which was a typical scenario in 2006. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/sports/mls/longterm/2006/mls.salaries.html
You think that making $56K at 17 vs. $11.7K at 22 is making pre-teen kids decide to play soccer? or maybe focus on soccer vs. other sports?
It means that instead of going to college, then dropping out because they can't afford to play, teenagers are turning pro on a living wage, and staying in the game long-term. It also means that kids who couldn't afford to attend pay to play academies can get professional coaching in their teens. There are more kids playing because there are more opportunities to play. The work being done by the US Soccer Foundation and MLS Works is helping with that. And now MLS and USL have abandoned territories, even more will get a chance. Stats wise, if you take into account falling enrollments, the number of high school boys choosing soccer is up 40% since 1990 while the number choosing baseball, basketball and football is down 20%.
Whatever the failings of MLS, the success of our local league is going to be paramount to our advancement in soccer. There are many reasons that make the USA ever becoming a "feeder league" nearly impossible. Also, having a "feeder league" is not enough to reach the very top. The last time a "feeder league" nation won a World Cup is going to be 20 years ago by Qatar. The last four countries to win the World Cup have been Italy, Spain, Germany and France. Only England is missing to make the point that the top leagues win the top prizes. It's vital for us that MLS succeeds, even if it's a project that needs other 50 years to reach maturity.
Sorry if I don't understand. You think that there are more kids choosing to play high-end soccer than 10 years ago? I'm not sure that the argument that (1) excludes falling enrollment and (2) starts at 1990 is enough to say MLS has led to more kids playing soccer at a higher level but I don't know what the exclusion means. Is the total number of boys kids playing soccer increasing? Wouldn't a baseline of 5 years or so be about right, given how nascent MLS' efforts have been? Here's a NYT article: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/14/sports/world-cup/soccer-youth-decline.html Over the past three years, the percentage of 6- to 12-year-olds playing soccer regularly has dropped nearly 14 percent, to 2.3 million players, according to a study by the Sports & Fitness Industry Association, which has analyzed youth athletic trends for 40 years. The number of children who touched a soccer ball even once during the year, in organized play or otherwise, also has fallen significantly....U.S. Soccer Federation officials acknowledge that the sport is losing players at a time the federation itself is undergoing critical transition. Ryan Mooney, the federation’s chief soccer officer, said strengthening participation was the foundation of building elite national teams.
BS - you are now saying that COMNEBOL teams and netherlands, Croatia, etc. cannot win the world cup even though they've been finalists that just missed. If we need to have a top 5 league to win the World Cup, we are never winning a world cup.
I'm not sure which of our pool players would fall into this category but I'm not familiar with the youth setup. Do we think that the ledezma, Lainez, Reyna, et al quality players would have gone to college or is it next levels down where we are seeing it? Thanks
I think that is a good question that we will never be able to answer. My guess is that there are two things that are pretty certain: The implementation of a professional league would not have happened as quickly as it did. I believe that we would have a professional league by now. Beyond the fact that I believe we would have a professional league, I don't think there is much else that is certain. It could be the 2nd or 3rd version after failed attempts. It could be bigger, better and stronger than MLS or it could be barely hanging on....or anything in between. My guess is that given all the options, and knowing miracles don't happen often, we are at least closer to the best case scenario than we are to the worst case scenario. My answer to the question about MLS poaching/raising the level is that it is far more complex than that. MLS obviously has benefitted from the existing soccer structure but I believe there is more of a symbiotic relationship than a parasitic relationship. None of the academies in MLS (or the world for that matter) start from ground zero. They all build upon the level of player that enters into their academy. The soccer culture has been growing over the last 5-6 decades and recently (last 1-2 I would say) there has been a significant increase in that level which is only now becoming apparent. MLS has provided a place for players to develop in a professional setting in those years that US players have traditionally fallen behind. Considering that it has been doing so for only about 10 years, that means there are literally no players over the age of 24 or 25 who could possibly have benefitted in that way. Only now are those players making themselves known. The initial "products" of MLS academies spent 1-2 years at most (Yedlin for example) and probably spent much of that time at a college team. Now we are starting to have players that have been in the academy system from a young age and playing for several years in that system before making it to the senior team. The biggest single issue is that we all want progress to happen faster than progress happens.
The difference is two-fold, IMO: accessibility to world soccer culture and professional-style preparation. When I played in the 80's and 90's, to see professional soccer I had to know someone who had access to VHS tapes of games. I still remember buying Diadora cleats in a specialty shop and picking up a Benfica pin as a child...I had know someone who knew where the shop was and what I could get there. Now you can access literally everything online. You want to see what Nedved looked like against Milan? You can possibly find a video edited to contain his every touch. You can see positions in the context of formations. You can see what different cultures value in positions and formations. You can see which players transcend their cultures and compete at the highest levels. You can discern why they succeed and others don't. You can see what a bent ball can do. You can see the rhythm of one touch football at the highest speeds of the game. You can discuss all of this with friends and coaches...have debates, etc. We didn't have that throughout most states in the 1980s and 1990's. I had access to some Mexican league games and the World Cup, but those were always special events on TV. If I wanted to watch soccer right now, it would take me literally less than 30 seconds to find exactly who and what I wanted to watch. The growth of US soccer culture has also been a buffer that prevents players who may have once chosen to play other sports in high school (Jordan Morris, Mason Toye, Aaron Long, Matt Miazga, Tim Howard, Zach Steffen, Oguchi Onyewu, Reggie Cannon, Weston McKennie, Jozy Altidore, etc.) to become drawn in to the fabric of the sport and to find a social reason to pursue the sport that they enjoy rather than the one that will get them the cheerleader girlfriend. That was a real pressure on my generation...to leave soccer to play American football, baseball, or basketball. I don't think that pressure is as strong today. I had to play my soccer "on the side". Ha. I also think that the academy system has refined the club system to include a more professional-style preparation where you can learn physical conditioning, nutrition, and game management in addition to learning tactics and player expectations at a higher level than existed in most places until the last 10 years or so. That stuff matters.
The players you mentioned above may or may not have gotten to their current level without MLS. If they had not played with MLS (in the academies), they may or may not have been identified by European scouts. (obviously some benefited more than others) That being said, the type of player that benefits the most is not the wonder-child that is identified at 8 or even 17 but rather the later developing player that really can use a bit of time. Dempsey was one that initially had a lower profile. Would he have had the same success if he had to do it all on his own without MLS? Eddie Lewis (not in the same category as Dempsey) is one that comes to my mind as somebody that benefitted from MLS. In the past, about the only way Europeans got to know young players was through the USNT (youth or men's). If it was still currently restricted to that pool where would we be now?
15 years ago there were two routes to professional soccer, either get drafted after graduating from college, or go to Europe, if you can get past their visa restrictions. Today there are under 12 teams in the US development academy system. If you're not in the academy system at home or overseas you're probably not going to make it. The college system is now actually a wonderful fall back in the US which other countries don't have,
The visa system isn't a problem for Germany or netherlands (there is a pay restriction on foreigners though). My question is whether or not these leading German/Dutch programs would be actively recruiting in the US as they are now, or is it due to MLS? How did the Dempseys of the past develop as they weren't in the academy system when they were developing? Weren't there active club programs in NY/NJ, metro Dallas, southern LA and other areas with top notch coaches? I THINK we see that boy's soccer participation is down dramatically and it may be that MLS is helping make something out of those horrible demographic trends via better coaching cascading down through the age levels. I think that's a more believable argument than they're growing the overall pool.
The big difference that seems lost if that MLS being not as ideal as it could/should be is a far cry from MLS being detrimental to player development overall, especially considering the wasteland that existed before MLS. Just coming up with some good examples of where MLS could be better doesn't mean we'd be better off overall without them.