What's changed since U.S. failed to qualify for 2018 World Cup? Sadly, nothing

Agreed with a lot of what was said although it paints MLS as a league struggling to grow (without actually saying it) to then paint Garber as a desperate bad guy when the league is making signficant growth each year.

Garber is in complete control and I see no way that this changes. What isn’t considered is MLS becoming a viable platform for Europe with the growth each year.

However, the league does seem with okay with an increasing # of foreign and green card players. Garber needs to employ other changes besides 100% of homegrown sales to the selling team.

 

The objective is to make of MLS a top league, eventually, because it's never going to be a feeder league --the USA is just too wealthy a country and pays too high salaries for Euro clubs to take risks with our players.

A crucial part of that objective is keeping as much local talent at home as possible. The alternative is not going to play in Barcelona, but going to languish in the Norwegian league or in the 2.BuLi or with the U23 of some EPL club.

You have to follow their logic, which may not be correct, but is still logical: rather than having our players competing for playtime in a place where they are seen as naturally inferior, turn the local league into a challenge for them to obtain playtime.

There's no economic reason why the USA cannot have a top soccer league within the foreseeable future, the country is rich. The only barrier is culture, the fact that most people still don't really care about soccer.

Bringing in all those foreigners to MLS turns the league into more of a competition. If an American kid cannot get minutes in there, what are his chances of getting minutes in a league better than MLS in Europe? We're about to find out with the likes of EPB. What about just by-passing MLS altogether? They can keep doing it, regardless of what MLS does.

I'm not saying I agree, but there is an inner logic to what they are trying to do. The challenges of soccer in the USA are quite unique: wealthy country that has some trouble integrating minorities into the sport, good infrastructure that however lacks the local interest, resources to develop a proper national approach however lacking a culture that points the path from early childhood, large geographic area that makes it hard to form leagues when not that many kids take the sport seriously.

All those are challenges that make the American situation different: we're going to need something that has never been tried before. Becoming a feeder league is not going to work for us, and even when it works, it tends to produce unbalanced national teams.

If the objective is to some day win a World Cup, then a strong local league is a must. South America, that has been exporting talent by the truckload for decades, has already hit the glass ceiling of the feeder league: 2002 was the last hurrah, and from now on the very top, the best two or three teams, seems reserved for European teams with a top national league.

There is a path, but it's going to take some time. I'm not even sure they're not scamming us, maybe indeed all they care is to make as much money as possible from the sport and that's why there's no serious revision of the way the development programs work. That's the big problem for me: it looks like no one has taken charge of the entire 2 to 12 year old curriculum, and that we don't seem to have the will to give kids from poor communities a chance, beyond a few tokens.

But perhaps it will come with time, once the culture has been created.

As I said, I don't agree with what they're doing, not completely, but I can see the logic behind it. It's a very long term plan to shoot for the top in a world that, by then, will be completely ruled by the Euro money. Can't implement something that worked ten years ago or that is working now when your goal lies 30 years in the future.

But, as I noted with Klinsmann, mistrust those who promise paradise for some unspecified time in the future. And that's basically what USSF is quietly doing, without fanfare.

 

Wow. Hard to argue with much in the article. Would need more information on the pilot program in Seattle (I.e. what worked in a single culture nation - Japan - doesn't necessarily means it would work in a multi-culture nation as the US).

 

Hard to tell what's working in a program like this in just 6 months. Here's an article on the subject...

https://www.si.com/soccer/2018/05/2.../24/tom-byer-us-soccer-pilot-program-canceled

 

I beg to differ Sir Suy.

MLS pays poorly to Americans unless they already went abroad and made a good career of it. MLS' whole model is based on suppressing the value and salary of the American player while saving the real money for foreigners. Change after recent change leans more and more that way.

The America economy as a whole isn't related to this.

Being a feeder league point blank is a byproduct of having and developing young talent. You either have in demand young talent or you don't. MLS does not. It has not sold an American attacker who successfully transitioned to a top 4 league since Dempsey, a decade ago. A major part of that is due to its own restrictions which force the most talented abroad. MLS creates its own talent drain.

But no matter all of the above, if we had 18-22 yr true high level ballers and prospects on the global scale, fetching 15M, 20M, 30M fees, they'd be on the next plan overseas.

 

Couldn't disagree with this more, really. Especially considering all but 4-5 leagues even in Europe are feeder leagues as well. One of whose national teams is a perennial joke and another who didn't even make the tournament at all.

Having your domestic league be a talent incubator for export is absolutely a viable way to an elite national team, though I agree with your other points about why that may be a poor fit for the USA in particular.

 

PREACH

 

That's a great line, but my favorite is more simple:

"what’s best for MLS isn’t necessarily what’s best for the national team"

Add "and vice versa" and tattoo it on your foreheads kids. #BreakUpSUM

 

I got halfway through before deciding it was a mid-level bigsoccer hot take.

Yawn.

 

Thanks for the meta-hot take.

 

OK but why are we deifying Saief who plays in the Jupiter League?

They point out that Belgium squad in Europe has one player from their domestic league. The rest are with the big 5.

Why was one of our best players v. France an MLS lifer Tim Parker? Frankly, Wes didn't do much and he's in the UEFA C/L. Our other CL player couldn't be bothered to show up for the last two friendlies against Ireland and France.

I'm taking a 3rd way in all this brouhaha.

A. I want to see a tech department which acts as a technical authority which critiques USMNT in all its aspects, staffed with young, contemporary luminaries who have played for big clubs and the highest level interntionally. Schweinstieger comes to mind.

B/ I want to see the USMNT manager job go to a gunslinger who wins big games. Almeyda comes to mind. (Manager at Guadalajara who played for River Plate before being dealt to Serie A and playing for Argentina in the WC with a stint in Spain. ) He won the Concacaf CL cup as Manager of Chivas playing vs. Marsch's Red Bulls and Vanney's Toronto.

We need to mix things up.

 

What was so great about it then?

 

Go away Satan! MLS is going to be a top five league very soon and yes at $3 million salary cap, just ask my friend Donny G. He will tell you why it is a great idea to invest in Mickey League Soccer and with the future 40+ teams in which 35 teams make the playoffs there will be plenty of money to go around!!

 

Well, it's relative.

A decent player in MLS is making peanuts (for our standards): take the case of Odoi-Atsem, 23 year old, with DC, regular starter when healthy (not often enough). He's making $59,500 a year, which is low (for us).

However, an equivalent player from Chile is making two thirds of that income. Take the case of Osvaldo Bosso from the Audax Italiano. A player reported to do a bit over 2 million pesos per month, that's about 25 million pesos a year, or $39,000.

And, frankly, the 24 year old Bosso is superior to our guy. But he's also an almost-regular starter, young right back, and both share a lot of positional characteristics.

Now, if you're a club from Europe looking for not-too-expensive players abroad, which one would you take? The $60K guy from a country without a rep for exporting top players, or the $40K guy from a country with a much better rep?

And Chile is one of the more expensive feeder countries now. You can get even cheaper from Paraguay, Peru, Senegal, Nigeria or Honduras.

 

Our federation is run by soulless lawyers and bean counters who have no ambition whatsoever, so none of what you suggest will ever be implemented. All USSF cares about is enriching itself. The MNT is an afterthought.

Until the leadership changes, expect nothing more than MNT mediocrity.

 

Lets see. In the last 5 WC cycles :
2002: Quaterfinals
2006: Group Stage
2010: Knockout Stage
2014: Knockout Stage
2018: Qualifiers.

Mediocre for us is Knockout Stage?

 

That is some sobering sh+t.

American arrogance reigns supreme on these threads. At some point we need to get serious but I don't see it.

 

I guess something did change. TRAITOR?



U.S. great Landon Donovan urges Americans to raise glass for Mexico in World Cup

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sport...ndon-donovan-mexico-haugh-20180614-story.html

 

Guy grew up surrounded by Mexican-Americans, learned to play soccer with them, most of his friends are M-As, speaks Spanish, comes from an Irish background (and Irish, Italians and M-As mix a lot, much in common in those three cultures thanks to centuries of Catholicism), and lives in Mexico. Donovan is basically half Mexican already at this point, and his style of play had very Latin moments ("la pausa") reason why he's the only American player to make a blip in the Latin American soccer radar.

I wouldn't be surprised if one day he coaches El Tri, TBH.

PS: Deuce also hangs out a lot with Mexicans & Mexican-Americans. Another Irish-background guy, too.

 

Sounds like Donovan filmed a commercial for a Mexican beer company. How traitorous...

 

Well that's a major reason why I say winning the WC bid is a setback.

Now the fat cats in suits can sit back and rejoice in the massive profit they're going to rake in, unrelated to player development, our system and on the field product, and they'll double and triple down on their incompetence as there will be no real pressure or reason to change.

Why?

Profit reigns supreme.

2026 is a cash cow.

And when one looks at how MLS/SUM split their revenue, all fingers will be buttered. Establishment fingers that is.

The rich get richer while the American youth will need to fly economy class on Delta over to Deutschland for a shot at a legit career.

What's the fastest track to continued complacency? Give the cartel the WC and the hundreds of millions in profit which comes with it.

They'll call it a raging success while our midfield can't string three passes together. And if you demand quality they'll tell you to root for our real team, Mexico.

I'll say it again, when it comes to the revenue to player quality ratio, we're the worst on this planet.

Shameful really. But SJ has a nice beer garden. Check it out if you're in the Bay.

 

This is what I suspect too. They met their main goal which was get the WC for 2026. Lots of money will be made and everyone will be happy. The USMNT will have support regardless if they suck because the WC will be here. So they won't really be in a rush to invest to have a team prepared in 8 years that can be a contender, at least be among the best 4 for that WC, instead of having another team in a WC.

It will be really interesting to see in these 8 coming years how the US, Mexico and Canada work out to create or prepare to have a competitive team by 2026. I want to see what changes they do to their leagues (Canada is starting next year) to better prepare the up coming youth that will 22-25 by 2026. (That means anyone in the range of 14-17 today)