I don't know why anyone brings up the German-Americans being sons of servicemen, as though this makes them especially American or even prevents them from trying to play for Germany (which many did). No one questions their eligibility. The question is how much of the team should be made up of players that've never spent much time in your system or country.
The question should be "Will this player help the team?". If the answer is "yes", let him play. You don't want the best national team, I suppose. Because if you did, you wouldn't need to ask any other questions. You want a national team that meets other criteria aside from simple eligibility. What is that criteria? Can we still call in Christian Pulisic? Nagbe spent most of his development in Liberia and Germany, can he get caps? Manneh came here at 16, but many people here think most of your development is over by then, so really he's spent the most crucial years being developed in Gambia, so can he get capped? Mix Diskerud spent his Summers in Arizona with his grandparents, so is he "grandfathered" in?
Re: Jond's comments today. I've always been against MLS's expansion, though a recent addition like Atlanta so far proves me a bit wrong. But, if money went to developmental academies within the original MLS clubs rather than into expansion, I don't think we'd have seen the USMNT's failure to make it to WC 2018. In addition, MLS expansion won't necessarily improve soccer culture in the US. A stronger, smaller MLS might.
Soccer in the USA is a business because there's no grassroots interest in it. In other countries, soccer evolved into a business but started as a grassroots movement. In the USA, soccer only exists as a business and if the business-minded approach were left out, it'd die a quick death because far too few people care about the sport outside World Cups. At any rate, that's the excuse given as to why we have settled franchises, no pro/rel, a unified corporate entity running the league, and all SUM/MLS/USSF colluding to keep things going. From that POV, the bottom line is that soccer in America is a financial project, the goal is to make profit, because otherwise there would be nothing, being as it is that the average Americans rather watch paint dry than a soccer game (outside the World Cup).
That POV is outdated and meshes poorly with facts. The USSF makes plenty of money. Pay-for-play clubs make plenty of money. The idea that we "need" MLS suits to keep everything on cruise control so they can squeeze a couple more bucks out of people is absurd. The audience is here, the money is here, the consumers are here. The sleeping giant of American consumers has awoken, but MLS pretends it's still asleep, so we need to keep pinching pennies and keeping innovation at zero.
I suspect as much. But let's not deny reorganizing things to make them the way they are done elsewhere may be jumping into the void. There is some risk involved. Thing is, at this point we either take the risk and start emerging, or we continue with our unique model and the six berths for CONCACAF may not be enough by 2034.
I'm not denying that there is risk. I am well aware that there is risk, which is why we need to talk about how we should reorganize and what needs to be fixed. And yet I'm in an argument with @MPNumber9 who says "Whatever structural issues you think MLS has in the meantime are beside the point, really.", and "If we're talking American soccer as a whole, MLS has indisputably grown the sport in this country, which makes your claim that expansion fees or whatever are hurting growth essentially incorrect.", which is exactly the kind of head-in-the-sand thinking that ruins companies. MLS is doing the bare minimum, it needs to actually try and do things right, instead of taking the easiest money and holding tight on the purse strings.
There is a serious conflict though between growing the league as a product and expanding the quality of the American player pool. Other countries participate in the global soccer market,partly as a source of revenue and partly because homegrown talent is strong enough that the domestic league is still able to be an incubator for developing young pros for the global market. American soccer chooses to maintain high barriers for departing players,partly because MLS doesn't need the outside money,and partly because American talent alone is not near enough to maintain a viable D1 league.
Whether a player is "in our system or country" is irrelevant. They're American citizens. Virtually every nation on earth is using their diaspora of eligible players throughout the World. Every nation in CONCACAF certainly does. Heck, the FMF probably has more full-time scouts in the US than the USSF does. All the USMNT needs to do is call the guys up and see if their heart is in the right place. When one listens to interviews with John Anthony Brooks, Terrence Boyd, Jermaine Jones, and others that they take pride in representing the USMNT. Thomas Rongen gave an interview once when he talked about this with regards to the USYNTs. They called kids into camp. If they felt like they weren't in it for the right reasons, they weren't called back in. You just give the guys the chance to prove themselves, and go from there. I think the problem that some had during the Klinsmann regime wasn't that he was calling in so many foreign-based players. They would have been fine with it if they thought his assessment of MLS-based players with foreign-born players was a fair one. They felt he was biased against the MLS-based players. Whether that's true or not is open for debate.
MLS doesn't owe its existence to anybody. The league was founded as a requirement to land the World Cup bid and, more importantly, because it isn't viable to have any sort of soccer culture without a strong domestic league -- so it seems you have it perfectly backwards as to whose job it is to grow and sustain what. I'm also very skeptical that "no other country has an interplay of interests" that the US does or why this would be seen as negative in general, if it were true. For instance in Germany the leagues are explicitly subordinate to the DFB in a way that is probably not possible in the US. Every other country understands that having a strong league is crucial to NT success and the core of soccer culture, not a burdensome after-thought. In the US we merely have it backwards because the NT rose to prominence while there was no real league. The US Men and Women combined play maybe 30 competitive matches a year? That isn't a sustainable engine for significant long-term growth and as a soccer nation we've reached the limits of how influential those forces can be in terms of creating passionate, engaged and informed American soccer fans. By contrast, MLS plays about 400 competitive games a year. Not only does that give more American fans more opportunities to see matches (especially live) and talk about those matches with other fans, it employs 100s more Americans as trainers, referees, analysts, journalists and, quite crucially, coaches. That's how culture grows. The goal is to build fans of the sport, not fans of the NT. "2 decades of stagnation" implies the league is in the same place it was in 1997, I don't think you believe that. In fact, it's not even the same place it was a year ago, let alone five. It's logical to believe that each of those people had access to the locker room either directly or through relationships they have with people who were there directly. There was nothing vague about what any of those people alleged and there is other evidence to corroborate it. I'd expect Bedoya to stick up for his teammates in any case, but it doesn't disprove the initial claims. I want the best national team that we can field with players we develop. But I also don't think you can sustainably achieve good results using players mostly born and developed abroad, anyway; I don't see many top squads doing that.
And similarly, the USMNT should have no ties to the MLS or it's players. They are divergent entities. Sink or swim on your own.
Well, it's easy to talk about risks others should take with their money. What's harder to do is actually come up with a viable spending plan that generates both near-term operating revenues and long-term asset valuations, while also investing in real capital infrastructure, which is all crucial to running and sustaining a sports league. This forum is full of armchair commissioners -- many of whom haven't even bothered to risk a single season ticket's worth of their own money -- who are convinced "MLS" isn't doing enough and have great ideas about how to spend other people's money on things that're mostly irrelevant to the league's success (like reorganizing to have pro/rel). It's a rudimentary way of looking at things in general to assume that just throwing money at everything solves problems and creates growth.
mls's job is to worry about mls not us soccer development and since you get that very basic thing wrong its easy to see why you struggled with the rest.
Whether MLS assumes the responsibility of developing for our NT or not doesn't really matter. In the end the domestic players it offers to our NT is a reflection of how well the league develops talent. And that talent this past cycle led by the league's best coach of all time was 5th best in CONCACAF and only 5th best because an 18 yr old largely put everyone else on his back. We played T&T twice in the Hex and managed three goals, all by Pulisic. In other words the rest of our entire player pool combined couldn't score a goal on T&T.
That's one of the problems with SUM. MLS in some respects actively works against the NT and our player pool yet due to SUM it rides the coattails of the NT for profit in the packaging of the tv deals. MLS tv rights would fetch far less without the packaging yet worse is that SUM not only gives MLS revenue from the NT but that no other clubs/leagues across our landscape get any of it. Someone explain to me why the SJ Earthquakes should benefit from the NT's revenue but FC Cincy should not simply because they're locked out of a closed system. I have no problem with first division teams/clubs benefiting from tv rights as long as it's merit based. It's not here. MLS owners buy into SUM to profit off SUM. I don't blame MLS for this btw. I blame SUM/USSF.
You explained it yourself: it is a closed system. A small group of owners are protected because grass roots leagues failed before. Take the case of India where their I-League wasn't making enough to survive. Now they have copied the MLS model in the Indian Super League, with a small set of wealthy owners investing in it (no pro/rel, and an arrangement of funding through the federation similar to SUM, I've been told). Basically, a closed system is the answer when the culture just isn't there, and there are not enough fans to make things self-sustaining. Is now the right time to break free from the survival model and enter the regular model the soccer-mad world uses? Who knows. But I think it's time to run the risk.
At 32 MLS teams you can have 2 16 team divisions. Pro/rel between 1 and 2. It's brilliant because you can maintain the cartel status-I mean, ensure solid ownership in each city.
I agree with you. Perhaps a country like India, which is 167/234 nations in the Elo ratings, has no choice but to play in a closed system. The US has been in the top 30 nations for a long time and should have considered a more open system before now. It's because we still haven't developed a soccer culture that there's been no development in such a direction.
We have a soccer culture. It is fringe in terms of the mainstream.It largely sees a division 1 college scholarship as the end goal for all but very few with the drive ,family support ,and commitment to become a pro in a country with a soccer culture which is interwoven with society at large.
None of these views make sense and lack an understanding US soccer history... The fact MLS was requirement of the 1994 WC implies that they owe its existence to USSF and AEG, the Hunts, etc who funded it. I doubt countries think about the prominence of their league determines their national team success. They have had leagues for ages and understand that for the teams to be successful in the leagues they need to sign and develop talented players. The national team rose to prominence when kids who grew up with a huge grass roots movement, NASL and Soccer Made in Germany were of age to play. I’d much rather watch 10 USMNT games and 100s of Dortmund, Schalke, and other teams that Americans play on than go to low quality MLS games. I’d save season t8cket budgets on a trip every few years to see a big derby in England, Germany, Argentina, etc. The families that have a culture of producing talented players weren’t big MLS fans and have decided to skip the league. Our two most accomplished u20 players were able to spend time abroad at young ages and followed top players in the world. The two decades in stagnation is at the national team level. MLS has improved by signing foreigners to improve the level of play and created much more average players athat aren’t good enough for the international level. There can always be issues in the locker room. The MO of the team should be that the best players eligible and will give us the best chance of being the best team. Any player that is worried about some quota can opt out based on their beliefs. People continue to say this but the number of dual nationals isn’t drying up and the number of kids going abroad is growing. I could see us having the most talented team we’ve ever had in the next couple years that didn’t include a single MLS player. This group seem to not get the impact that CP will have on the next generation. The same will be said of others who reach that level.
MLS job is to be a successful business and produce an entertaining product. I don’t know how they do that without focusing on development of American soccer players. If that isn’t enough, they should realize how they benefit from US soccer development. If their stance is that it isn’t their problem, US soccer should begin to regulate them as such. US soccer should stop protecting them and begin to allow competition with them. They should begin to make development of American players a requirement to be a division 1 league.
Maybe u need a larger set. It's all calm over here whatever your issues. We have a limited pool. Green has a WC goal and has a solid start to his NT career. No one is suggesting he needs to be a starter for the NT.
The good is that Green has become a starter at his club. The bad is that his club is relegation candidate in a second division. Green himself is just ok: easy to dispossess, disappears for long stretches of the game (well, expected, as he is often a wide forward in a team that mostly defends), and his decision making is very suspect --I've seen him run right into the defenders instead of going for the pass to the open man. Frankly, if we're including him in our 23 at this point, the situation is desperate.