I'd like MLS to be able to create their own Neymars (eventually, or actually sooner rather than later). That's going to be a tougher row to hoe if all the best young talents (Hyndman, Rubio, Zelamen, whomever) immediately/always bypass MLS. It helps the USMNT by US-eligible players seeing successful internationals signing with and competing in the domestic league. It gives young Americans the idea that they can play in "their" league and grow the game here and be a "star" on the global stage. A strong MLS, that can produce and retain players like Eddie Pope and Landon Donovan (and now maybe guys like Morris and Miazga) creates and sustains an improved MLS (in both reality and perception) and it creates a destination for more young players coming up and striving to play in and improve (specifically) within the domestic league. It strengthens the whole system, much more so the the option of seeing these guys go on trial with Bremen (and potentially signing there) and not committing to MLS after coming through the academy systems here. I can appreciate that each player will do their own thing. And I can certainly understand and appreciate the career paths that players like McBride and Cherundolo and Beasley and Dempsey and Bradley have all taken. And I can understand the reality now that a "Zelamen" is more likely to (immediately) "become" a "Neymar" by getting into an "Arsenal-type" club ASAP, but that again is the route that short-cuts the needed work MLS is doing by trying to create more of the Morrises and Hamids and Trapps and Yedlins and others that "improve" what MLS is and what it is doing. Again, I prefer the "clear path" of improving MLS itself. It sure beats the idea that MLS isn't (or won't anytime soon be) a "top league" or one that should be and is a "desirable destination" for top players. Make MLS a league that is among "the top level." Seems like a no-brainer to me. I can understand that the work needed to get there in the long term doesn't fully (or might not at all) align with what is best (now) for the USMNT, but it (improving MLS and the players that do commit to it) needs to be a consideration certainly.
Thanks for fleshing out your perspective. I disagree with sacrificing USMNT results for the sake of building MLS but to each their own. To clarify, I also would like US players to build MLS but only after they've played at their highest level possible (and I'm assuming that we're going to have multiple players who are UCL-level players - hopefully soon). Once we do, I want them to have trained with the best (which means certain Euro programs) and play at a level above MLS for a significant period of time. Once they've plateaued, they should return to MLS and that's when they build the league. At the same time, our "B" level youths train in MLS academies and I'm sure that several will have good USMNT careers as this will capture late bloomers. Finally, I'd be grateful if you could specifically address two areas: 1) why do you think the Brazil/Argentina/Mexico/[France]/Belgium model isn't one that MLS should emulate? What's the downside? 2) for the next [5-10] years, is it ideal for the US' best players stay in MLS, irrespective of their talent ceiling?
I don't think it "sacrifices" USMNT results by having good players play in MLS. ymmv. I have no idea what the downside is. I know that the US/Canada markets are unique, and I can appreciate that MLS is taking interesting (and perhaps) unique approaches to the business it is running and the league it is building. I think MLS is indeed actually focused on being "among the best" leagues in the world, and I don't think it will get there by only/primarily being some "feeder league to the "big 4" of UEFA. (And that is not to say that all of "Brazil/Argentina/Mexico/[France]/Belgium" fit into the "model" of being feeder leagues.) I will note that MLS apparently has bigger goals, and seems very focused on doing what it can to improve itself. And that is a slow and painful process at times, and there are a lot of conditions that place MLS and the work it is trying to do within a very challenging reality. I'm not really certain of the timeline, but I can appreciate that to improve MLS, that kind of change/focus for "the US' best players" will come in to place. And from my perspective as a fan, the soon that happens the better. (Or maybe it is an unrealistic goal, and maybe MLS will always be secondary and will never be among the primary/big "leagues of choice" for players.)
Fair enough but I firmly believe that keeping players in the ~20th best league in the world when they are good enough to play significant UCL minutes is bad for the USMNT. This is more theoretical as we currently don't have many players who have that ability IMO but I know that others here think that multiple American MLS players are good enough to play for these type teams.
Fair enough. And I think you're continuing to focus on the "wrong end" of the issue. The work should be on raising MLS to a spot above "the ~20th best league in the world." To collaboratively work to make MLS into a league that is viewed as a top quality league and one that is full of "these types (of globally top-quality) teams" and players. That approach would help all parties, imo.
I don't watch these leagues or have much of an inkling about them. Out of curiosity, on what do you base this opinion? Do you watch the leagues? Are you looking at rankings somewhere?
No, just my opinion. I asked myself two questions. 1. How many players from these leagues have gone to play in Europe's top teams. 2. How would their league champion do against our MLS champion.
I think it's hard to compare league's top teams vs. MLS' top teams as MLS values parity and most other leagues (i don't know the ones you specifically mentioned) are biased toward super teams. For illustrative purposes, what does it mean if the foreign league's top three teams are better than our best teams but our middle pack teams are better than their middle pack/low-end teams?
I also agree that work should be done to raise MLS to above ~20th but if we were around 10-12th (where I think we'll end up eventually even without foreign DPs, given the size of our TV market and population) and were solely focused on domestic players (both early in their careers and returning to MLS after they've peaked in the top 1-10 leagues). This is what I believe that Brazil, Argentina and Mexico do and IMO MLS' current goal of being among the top 5 (or so) leagues isn't productive for USMNT soccer.
It is splitting hairs, but targeting being "Top5" seems like an all around better approach (or potentially even an "endgame") than would be just targeting being "Top10-12." But honestly, the process is just as important as the result(s), given that the process is always ongoing and being tweaked. Again, not that it really matters or could be accurately quantified, but "among the best" leagues in the world seems like a fine long-term approach and one that would (best) help the USMNT program also/consistently be "among the best" in the world as well.
One of the problems with current MLS is that they are following old models. E.g. Concacaf cup. E.g. expand in the "20 prime media markets", etc. I don't think Euros want to admit it but they are probably drifting away from Cup ties and towards the American playoff system which is what Champion's League really is, right? The way forward for MLS should be a 60 team league, one winter one summer with staggered inter/intra league play and playoff system which means we ditch FIFA Concacaf cup in favor of developing lesser markets where a great deal of excitement is generated because the populace does not have a major league team, in season at least. Instead of being promoted or relegated, a team makes or doesn't make the extended season of playoffs. I wouldn't even care if we honored FIFA dates if we had that kind of league. The idea is to create greater excitement for the sport and culture at local level because that is where we develop domestic talent. Baseball doesn't need that. Soccer does. Most of the good ideas in MLS get killed at the top level where NBA/NFL types just want to see rents for their stadiums and monopoly rents from a dying broadcasting system. Imagine if MLS were being created anew on a clean sheet of paper. You could go the quick route and have 20 teams with zero American players (like Portland) and make sure NYCity and LA franchises are stuffed with cash capital so they can have the best teams and maximize media ratings. That would be the globalist model. Alternatively you could design a more nationalist model.
That league would still need stadiums and broadcast partners/deals as ways to attract and retain customers. You can't design a more nationalist model that isn't primarily dependent on real estate and media dollars. This is a business, however anyone would want to format/organize the league(s)/team(s). (In this market, the fact of the matter is that the "NBA/NFL types" actually do kinda know what they are doing.)
The impact goes both ways. There goals aren't aligned and the disconnect is larger than I think it should be. I think the two should work to find as much common ground but neither "should be coordinated what the other is doing". I think it would definitely harm the player pool. MLS has not shown it can consistently do a good job with players 18 to 22. Most times I see complaints about MLS, there is a rebuttal that brings up the profitability of the league. If that's the case, then they are many steps away from where they claim to want to go and I question how they intend to get there. They need to be able to take of the training wheels of operating in a vacuum. They need to carefully spend money to make money and the two areas if focus on would be player development and paying players to attract better talent. Every other top league develops tons of talent and I'm still not sure they get the importance of this. Every lesser league develops talent and sells it to maintain profitability. This just seems like good business, but MLS doesn't want to do this because of perception? Why can't MLS develop enough players such that a team like NYRB are signing 4-6 players every year to replace the 1-3 players they sell. Those players continue to improve the bottom end of the roster and the money made on sales and improved play can be used to improve the middle and high end of the roster. As this cycle continues more and more US players will want to stay or come back at an earlier age. I don't see this approach as slowing MLS from becoming a top league, but see significant advantages to our player pool.
In what respects developing players, I think we should look not just at Germany but also to Russia. Although they're not exactly doing much better than us, but some of their ideas are easier to apply since they also have to deal with huge distances and low population density in most areas. As for exporting players, the model is probably Japan. Australia managed it for a while but is has stopped. Japan is still sending players to Europe but faces similar problems, with many of their best choosing to stay instead of leaving because they're doing well enough in the J-League (Konno, Morishige, etc.). The problem is, of course: why go abroad if you can make as much money at home. Why leave when you have a good, perfectly working society, with your friends and family around, and could eventually make very good money in your local league? We're never going to export talent like the South American or African nations because of that. There's no pressure to leave to make good money and escape an unstable political situation. Why would a club pay 600K for a MLSer when they can get the same from Ghana or Ecuador for 100K? Japan's bloom in Germany may be just as short-lived as Australia's in the Premiership back in 2003-2007. Already they have several of their kids in the academies choosing to return and play there. And their NT has not improved during the golden age of their players in Europe, all the contrary: from 2009 onward, when they had their peak in German clubs and academies, their NT has been at its worst.
I guess, it boils down to what constitutes a better league. Is it the top 3 teams or the most midrange teams in a league? If you use the top 3, then Spain is probably the top. If you say the most middle teams, then probably MLS would be up there but then you start to see the fallacy in that logic.
If I may join your duologue: I suggest that it is entirely possible that the experience of a USA-bred player training w/top Euro clubs is not identical to that of a player from a soccer-dominant sports culture. Therefor it is not terribly hard to see how building MLS could be done without any sacrifice in results for USMNT. Sort of the same answer from me here. That is a different question than "sacrificing USMNT results", would you agree? "ideal" is a very strong word. So for me the answer to your question, as phrased, is no. Players are individuals. Some are suited to thriving as young men while undertaking a drastic change in their day-t0-day life and their cultural surroundings (living abroad). Others equally talented may not have that social skill. To try to keep this discussion in context of Jan camp: it isn't the presence of the NCAA guys that's at issue in my eyes, it's the notion that the birthdate-specific confines of u23 eligibility is affecting which players get this chance (whether they are bound ultimately for MLS or Champions League).
We see things differently; I asked myself just one question: 1. How would each of the league's quartiles, from champs to relegation fodder, compete against the comparable quartile from MLS? For a league to be notably "better" in my opinion, they would have to have a clear advantage in at least 3 of these quartiles. There are certainly 7 leagues in the Americas* whose upper quartile is superior to MLS. And there are probably also 7 leagues that meet your criteria as well. Call it semantics, but I don't agree that the measurement you've proffered is the measurement of "better", it seems more to me of "accomplished", because it seems to me more of a measurement of how well the league's best have done, with no evaluation of the league's totality. And if I may anticipate criticism of my position, I am not trying to create a backdoor homer argument in favor of MLS's single entity model or its (apparent) goal of parity. I just truly thought that a "better league" referred to all the teams in the league, not just the top of the table and/or the wealthiest clubs (who would likely have the best players). * this was the original number made by a poster to which I responded. I don't know if that number is significant in any way, but I am sticking with it.
Agree that the first paragraph is true but I don't really see the connection with MLS. Assuming tht MLS's stated goal is to compete with the top leagues in the world, they cannot be primarily a "selling league". Of course they won't always have a choice. Agree that "renting" foreign DP's takes away time from young American players but I do think it has been an effective way to raise the quality of play, raise the stature of the league. The quality of play could also be raised by increasing the ovrall quality of play (as opposed to having a very unbalanced quality of play) but, in my opinion, that would not sell quite as many tickets because the star quality would be lacking. Without the Beckhams, Keanes, Drogbas etc fewer people would be as interested here and abroad. People love stars. As the league matures, we are starting to see a few American players being given DP status. (admittedly very few at this point). 10 years from now, I expect that the DP's will be much more evenly divided between foreign and American talent. I think your point about Lance Armstrong is good but I disagree. The soccer equivalent, of course, would be a Messi, Neymar, Ronaldo etc. I believe we have a much better chance of getting there with a strong domestic league. I believe that the local connections are extremely important and I believe that seeing local players in person and on tv is extremely important as a motivator to young players. I definitely agree with your last paragraph. I feel like a player in a high quality league operates somewhat in vacuum in the sense that they improve their own play but have very little effect on the quality of play of other Americans. By playing in a domestic league, they can serve as mentors, role models and they can raise the quality of play within the league to give young Americans a higher level of competition. As far as Bradly's season in Toronto, I'm hoping that he will do better this coming season and validate his decision while proving his detractors wrong. Last year may have been mostly a failure but I'm not ready to write him off quite yet.
The reason it makes no sense to speak of "emulating" other leagues in the first instance is that USA has demographics non pareil. Gainesville Florida is a small town by most metrics but its metro area is north of 250K pop. Greece has a pop of 8 million but half of them live in Athens and the 2nd city Salonica has 385K, the third is Patras with 200k which is less than Gainesville Florida. Gainesville doesn't even have a downtown, by all reasonable measures. Bremen is the 2nd biggest city in North Germany with a population of 500K which is about like Colorado Springs. San Antonio has 1.5Million. The MLS is set up to follow a blueprint in which a few oligarchs get together and control the top 20 media markets in the US then shut out the competition like triple A baseball. To do this they use the economic clout to hire high impact players (DP's) and fill out the supplementary roster with a good dollop of outsourcing which also keeps the player's union weak, while pointing at other US Soccer as inferior, dumpster league, etc. (Nota bene, I don't favor players' unions personally so I am not here to shill for them). I think what they are missing is the change in which media operates. They rely on ESPN to maintain its monopoly at their end which I don't think will last. MLS should change its objectives and use their demographic power to build a soccer powerhouse over 20 years that exploits demo advantages and local cultre rather than looking forward to a dismal future of "stealing" Ronaldo from Europe for $50M and upping the cable bill to pay for it. Do the farmers of Omaha have any interest in Ronaldo anyway? Maybe, if they had their own major league team.
Farmers in Omaha might prefer it (from a truly patriotic angle) if players like Ronaldo played for a club like LAFC or Miami rather than at Madrid or ManU. That reality (in part) why MLS is actually on the right path.
It certainly is possible but IMO that would indicate that the USMNT has hit a ceiling and that we will not be in contention to win a world cup. To wit, my thesis is pretty simple. 1. To win the world cup, you need to have some of the best talent in the world. 2. Currently, almost all of the world's best players play for teams that are highly competitive in the UCL. This is why the direct correlation between WC semi-finalists and total minutes played in UCL is so important. No country goes deep in the WC without having multiple players at that level. Why? Because it's the highest professional level that exists and it's night-and-day ahead of other league levels. While I respect the tremendous strides that MLS has made and enjoy watching games, the difference between MLS and UCL is far far bigger IMO than the difference between the NFL and NCAA. 3. therefore, we need to get players who can compete at that level. Since MLS has zero track record of developing field players who go deep into UCL, our best players will maximize their potential by going to proven academies where they compete with other great youth candidates while sharing facilities with the world's best players (at their peak). If they're good enough to shine there, they have the ability to play in the UCL. Also, part of being good enough is being hungry enough and not satisfied with a mid-level career in a far-less competitive league. 4. MLS will still have plenty of domestic players in our academies and they can develop them as best possible: hopefully we'll have a lot of success, particularly with late bloomers. However, our best talents should compete against the best on a daily basis and the best are in Europe and South America right now. Not to use a single example as proof but it's clear to me that Adu would have been much better off as a teenager vying against other top youth as opposed to how he was developed in MLS. If our players aren't comfortable pushing themselves and settle for a less competitive albeit more comfortable existence, it's unlikely that that they'll be among the best in the world and this will prevent the USMNT from winning the world cup. 5. Equally important is that our star players, who have proven their mettle by rising through the most competitive programs in the world, return to MLS and take on leadership roles with teams. Once we exclusively bring world-class level American players back home instead of non-Americans as DPs, then it should be the right time to push for our best youth players to stay at home.
Perhaps I can clarify: I certainly agree with the need for a strong domestic league but I think we already have one or are, at the very least, close to the level that provides us a base to win the World Cup. Therefore, it's all about having some of the best players in the world and I think that we should work within the global competitive paradigm rather than try to disrupt it by creating our own super-league.
The business of MLS disagrees with you. MLS is (perhaps) going to become a super-league (eventually) because of business. MLS doesn't really care about the "the global competitive paradigm" of leagues/clubs. But MLS certainly wants to see its players (from the USA and elsewhere) succeeding on the NT stages at Fifa international competitions.
I'll give your point some deep thought as I don't think I quite get what you are saying. Here is a way in which we could nominally do away with FIFA/Concacaf dates/play. 60 teams, 3 leagues each 20 teams, seasonal scheduling for each (one Summer, one Winter, one Dual) Brief outline, 52 weeks total 19 Home and Away fixtures = 38 weeks. Player rest Vacation = 4 weeks Remaining 10 weeks. Top 16 in each league play lucrative post season (in lieu of "relegation"), 48 teams, 16 groups of 3 (Team A,B and C each from different league). Team A plays away to B and Home to C and C plays home to B. This takes 2 weeks (Play Sat, Wed, Sunday). 8 weeks remain. Top 2 finishers in each group proceed to 32 team Super Cup which proceeds like WC, with draw of 4 teams in 8 groups. There are 8 weeks to complete so should not be a problem. Actually scheduling the whole thing would be daunting. We'd have to go Deep Blue.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_Blue_(chess_computer) This kind of set up is more friendly to new media/locavore culture and would be a juggernaut compared to other sports.