Based on all the teams that have expressed interest, they sure are investing a lot of resources just in submitting a bid to MLS. Let me give you one example: Phoenix Rising FC. Just last year, the team was under different ownership with a different name and playing at a baseball stadium. MLS expressed interest in Phoenix and a new ownership group bought the club and rebranded it, secured land for a stadium and built the stadium in one year, are already talking about a youth academy, and signed Omar Bravo, Shaun Wright Phillips, Jordan Stewart. Not bad for a team that never even made the USL playoffs. The new ownership group has done all of this despite even a blog from this site ranking Phoenix as the 31st MLS team (if they even expand that far out) and not having a chance until 2022 to enter the league. So I'm sure they would be quite happy to have a chance at promotion. Yes there are owners all around the world who bought clubs, invested heavily in them, and made once irrelevant clubs very competitive. In a pro/rel league I could easily see a big investment in what would be a third-tier club, let's say Pittsburgh, and bringing them all the way to the top. I think you'll find this article that just came out on ESPN FC very interesting. Here's a quote: Keeping a closed system would likely mean more of the same: slow, managed growth in MLS with the expectation, or hope, that at some point media revenues grow to justify competitive bidding for the best players in the world. I'll just use this same article to answer that question: There is no doubt pro/rel would increase the value of all lower-division clubs. Given the opportunity to attain first-division status, lower-division clubs would be incentivized to invest more in their own infrastructure and in player-development programs. They would become more attractive to outside investors, and individually, the clubs would increase in value by tens of millions of dollars. Cumulatively, the positive impact could be in the billions of dollars for lower-division clubs and the sport of soccer. And, if done right, that increase should not come at the expense of MLS, U.S. Soccer or the Canadian Soccer Association. Indeed, if implemented well, MLS's value would also likely grow, and the governing bodies would see many benefits as well. Again I'll use this article to demonstrate that there are several ways to implement but like the article says, pro/rel with MLS at the top would be the ideal scenario. But based on what MLS has said, it would probably take a new league with a new vision. It's ironic that in a MLS player survey that came out the other day, 54% of players surveyed were for pro/rel and only 40% against.
A few pointers here... This conspiracy theory was obliterated by USSF's actions this closed season. They had every opportunity to end any competition with MLS by letting NASL fail. Instead they threw the leagye a firm lifeline and even did it a few favours. Consider also that NASL has struggled even to meet D2 standards for the duration of its existence, yet still decided to submit a D1 application. That application was frivolous at best considering the state of NASL at the time. The USSF had every chance and reason to dismiss that application out of hand. Instead, they kept it alive by putting it on hold. Finally, US soccer has an iron-clad precedent for sanctioning multiple leagues at the same level. In fact, by doing so with USL and NASL and not mandating a 3rd tier, they have set these designations not as a hierarchy but as a rating of sorts. Any league that has the backing to compete with MLS is free and clear to apply for D1 status and so long as they meet the minimum requirements, USSF is going to be hard pressed to find any reason to deny them without exposing the body to legal action. You've just given a huge example of the current system provoking substantial investment. Note that most of the truly transformational takeovers in world football have all aimed not to bring a small club from down the ranks to the top tier, but to buy as high up the pyramid as possible. Even RB Liepzig was the contingency plan after Red Bull failed to find a willing seller in the Bundesliga and 2.Bundesliga. After buying a club in the richest league in the world, Sheik Mansour elected not to pour more of his billions into other open leagues, but into the two highest profile closed leagues in the world in MLS and the A-League. There are also more pro soccer teams in the US today than at any time in modern history. We have a queue of owners seeking to join and it seems that the smallest factor in all these bids is the $150m expansion fee. There is little evidence to support the theory that effective investment is curtailed by a closed system. Nor by the way, is there any evidence that pro/rel is going to drive a massive boost in attendances, given that typical attendance for D2 and under, is no better than typical attendance for US minor leagues across sports. Could be. This is the issue with the claims about investment and youth development prompted by pro/rel. Might it prompt investment? Sure. How much? How long is a piece of string? If there is this much potential investment sitting dormant and what you describe is a clear effect of pro/rel, why haven't we seen even the slightest hint of an effort to build such a structure in rivalry with MLS? Given that there is mid-range MLS talent pushing for greater salaries, why isn't this superior system being attempted by believers, experts and backers? On player development, I point you simply to England. Perennial underachievers with literally thousands of clubs in its pyramid, just about every kid having at least kicked a football by the age of 7, the nation crazy about it, yet talent production languishes behind. Meanwhile, Germany, Uruguay and Belgium are just a few examples of federations that relatively recently reassessed their approaches to talent production and one-by-one came to the conclusion that simply leaving it to clubs was not effective enough. Instead, centrally mandated programs, inspired by Dutch evolution from co-operative amateur player development, are what is spearheading these revivals. You see, incentivizing something isn't enough. It also assumes a specific reaction that can't be guaranteed. The US has the bare bones of a centralized youth system. Unfortunately, it's got a lot of dysfunctional components to overcome before that becomes a reality. Early steps are being taken down that path though. The point is, you implement pro/rel to deal with what pro/rel was created for: logistical management of a larger quantity of teams of similar competitive quality (or a steady gradation of quality without significant gaps in levels) than a single league can handle. You don't implement it based on assumed byproducts.
And how many of those are PDL teams? If pro/rel the kind of investment you're claiming, then someone can create an entire pro/rel pyramid, and there would be so much money in it that MLS would be relegated to something like third-division status, right?
^ "If pro/rel brings in the kind of investment", etc. I keep accidentally deleting entire words or phrases typing on my phone.
There is no doubt pro/rel would increase the value of all lower-division clubs. Given the opportunity to attain first-division status, lower-division clubs would be incentivized to invest more in their own infrastructure and in player-development programs. To give you further ammo, EPL teams only had 38 active academy graduates in their first team squads in September 2016, including veterans like Terry, Noble, Downing and Zaha. In addition they've sucked up so much talent from other parts that most league clubs don't bother running academies. So despite all the spending on infrastructure and player development they'd still rather splash $15 million out on a 20 year-old African player than bring up one of their own.
You are conflating the two issues of player development and national team performance. Clubs have different agendas and priorities then national teams. How can you compare the two when there are no limits to the number of foreign players that a Premier League club can bring in? Each club has a limit of 25 players in the squad which must include at least 8 homegrown players. The 25 players do not include players from the academy. Also, homegrown does not imply that the players have to be English (or Welsh). They can be from any country, as long as they have been developed by the club's academy. Iceland, which beat England, had six starters that were on English clubs. Spain, which has had 5 out of the last 6 Champions League finalists and won 4 out of the last 5 Europa League finals, lost in the Round of 16 in the Euro's and couldn't make it out of their group in the World Cup. Italian clubs dominated the 90's and the Italian national team didn't win anything. So does it help player development? Certainly. Which countries it helps is entirely dependent on which players clubs select. For all we know, the biggest benefactors to a pro/rel system in the U.S. might be Central/South America and the Caribbean. Another big part in all of this is style of play. The quick, direct approach of English football with long balls over the top may be fun to watch and may have worked in the past but it is not conducive to international play. And the top English clubs that do play a more controlled passing game with creative playmakers all have foreign starters. The only remaining CL team, Man City, had 9 starters in their last CL game that weren't British. I don't follow your logic on this. From top to bottom I think MLS and all the other major sports leagues in the U.S. have greater parity under a closed system than any of the European soccer leagues do. Employing a draft like what American leagues do would actually create more balance than pro/rel. Pro/rel in the U.S. would be more about countering the level of support that the other sports have at the lower levels. Would the NFL and the NBA be as popular if no one followed those sports at the HS and college levels? I'm not suggesting that but I do think if NASL/USL/PDL formed a partnership to implement pro/rel, they'd be able to get much better attendance and TV ratings than they do now. I could see it becoming enough of a threat where MLS would want to eventually merge with them like the AFL/NFL. From fan surveys I've seen, the majority want pro/rel, and most said they would be more interested in soccer if it took place. The majority of players also want pro/rel. So it's really not that controversial.
A foreign kid can join an English team at 17 years and 364 days and still be classified as a HGP if he's at the same club when he turns 21. Cesc Fabregas, who learned his soccer at Barca's academy before joining Chelsea at 16, and Danny Welbeck are HGPs along with Michael Carrick and Wayne Rooney at Man Utd. The 38 are players who went to their current club's academy and have made a EPL appearance, so I used "squad" in error.
As soon as those owners "all over the world" are willing to spend the billions building a D1 IN USA OR CANADA that they can get relegated from then you have a point.
Leicester started with 6 non-English born players but one of them has lived in England since he was 5.
the american public needs to get wowed, the mls academies for all their good...do not produce magic...hence the mls has some attendence problems with many teams..everyone knows this. When Maradona deduted at 15 years of age..the coach's instructions were...nutmeg the first opponent that comes at you and enjoy yourself..the rest is history.. tactics can be learned so on and so forth later at around 16,17. But children should be encouraged to be ball hogs,the ones that have any talent will developed the rest can play recreational soccer. We all know bigger is not better in soccer... Who's tearing it up in the mls currently...the short,skinny kids from Argentina,Paraguay,etc..with an Argentine coach no less...that should be the model in developing magic,,,then and only then should it be paired with German engineered soccer. oh try getting grass fields in the middle of cities...
At what age do you think the divide should be made? Our system already pretty much works like this, except that "talent" is VERY poorly/inaccurately defined.
it's in the post 16,17 before that skill and flair should be emphasized. But as i understand it, mls doesn't think those elements are not important. I as a fan and observer of the game want to see those elements. Teams besides winning,should put out an attractive product,something fun, cause soccer is inherently a low scoring game,need some other elements.
One of the reasons is playing for a club team can be expensive. There needs to be more passion and better coaching at the youth level.
Maybe they can wear shorter shorts? Seriously though, regardless of your Maradona fantasies, the top academies in the world start emphasizing tactics around adolescence, MLS is pretty much following their example, and most of their academy coaches are either European or trained in line with those systems. The stories you're telling here are all in your head. And if you don't enjoy a low scoring game without lots of tricks then maybe you should switch to futsal.
So let me get this straight, playing club should be cheaper, but coaches should be better and have more passion? That sounds like fuzzy math to me.
No i meant we're missing out on kids that maybe can't afford to play in club. Good coaching is hard to find when you can't afford club. The passion thing is just in the culture, not many kids grow up loving the sport and give it up soon.
The good news is that MLS academies aren't charging anymore and have started affiliating with youth clubs. Atlanta Utd for example, has taken the successful Georgia Utd youth club into its system, paying its coaches and negating the need to charge. Portland Timbers & Thorns are actively involved in Oregon's youth network.
Effective soccer players know what to do OFF the ball. And that's much harder to learn. Footskills, individuality, creativity--players should learn that on their own, as U-littles and then playing pickup. The idea that youth clubs should encourage ball hogs and shuffle all the other kids to rec--implying that rec soccer is of little value--is pretty wrong-headed.
Clubs too often focus on travelling long distances in search of "better competition" and showcase tournaments. I think costs could be lowered with more emphasis on development and less on college recruiting. Now, how to get better coaches--that's the rub. I really think that's what we're missing.
Yeah i like that too, we've come a long way from playing amateurs at the WC. Now the best academy teams are holding their own against liga mx academies and even some European academies.
That's true, but high school basketball has McDonald's All-Americans. Showcasing kids is something that happens in the United States and won't change. College scholarships will be more important to kids than developing enough to increase (but not guarantee) their chance be an MLS level or better soccer player but not having the scholarship.
Okay, so exactly how are you proposing these passionate coaches make a living if the club they work for doesn't cost any money? And besides, any halfway decent club generally subsidizes talented players whose families can't afford the fees.