Current parity rules = garbage NYC_COSMOS parity rules (concerning youth academies) 1. All teams MUST have academies 2. Every year you don't have an academy you will be penalized either with reduced salary cap or allocation 3. Promotion from academy system is unlimited 4. Academies must provide some sort of college assistance. discuss.
5. Any youth player who attends even one practice with an MLS academy team surrenders his worldwide signing rights to that team until the player is 20.
If I understand it correctly, a team that calls up two players within a specified amount of time-- it might be two seasons-- exposes the other players in its youth system to the possibility of being offered a contract by another team. I'm having a hard time finding that rule, but I'm certain it was included when the youth academy set-up was first presented. If that's the case, it's a fricking atrocity, and is a severe disincentive to action. Does anyone else know anything about this?
I think you are referring to Ives column from earlier this year: Link: http://www.soccerbyives.net/soccer_by_ives/2008/01/three-mls-teams.html I hadn't realized this, but it does seem to be a huge disincentive to signing two players in a given year. And at least one blog has suggested that many teams, recognizing as much, are content to ride of the coat tails of the others. From Tom Dunmore: Link: http://pitchinvasion.net/blog/2008/05/01/youth-development-in-mls-the-promise-and-the-problems/
Ives once answered a question on his blog about this issue. He was told by people at league HQ that the current academy rules were in place for parity reasons. They were afraid if they let everyone sign any player they develop in the academy system the big market teams would dominate just due to the sheer larger number of potential prospects at their disposal. He stated they specifically mentioned the advantage the LA and NY teams would have.
Good thread. I'm just going to repeat something that's already been said, but it's shocking that he didn't know these things or didn't fully appreciate them before coming to the league. He wasted a lot of people's time and money. It doesn't speak whell of his character that he didn't take the time to learn those differences before entering the league. Complaining about them after the fact makes him come off like a prima dona.
Already a rule Won't happen. It'd make things awkward in the board room in NY Disrupts parity. Won't happen Spending other people's money is grand. Maybe that's why thieves tend to rob banks. Do you realize just how expensive college is, and the fact that it is getting harder and harder every year for the average joe to go to it?
Poorly enforced. Too bad, the league needs to become stronger than its members. At some point the commissioner needs to be able to punish teams that dont fall into line. No SSS, then less allocation. No youth academy then reduce the salary cap. Give all teams a compliance date and let them get to work. Nuff Said. Then what's the point of the system? If you are a small team then maybe investing heavily in your youth academy system will pay you off in spades. While big market teams can BUY their players. It's the typical big vs small team approached used throughout the world. NOTHING NEW HERE. I didn't say pay for college, I said college assistance.
I dunno about that. I know for a fact that LA, CUSA, FCD, HOU, DCU, NYRB, CHI all have academies. Perhaps others that I can't think of as well (COL, RSL, CMB?). Academies don't form over night and some markets are going to have a tough time getting one together (ie small markets). This has only been a rule for ~2 years now. By WC, everyone should have one up and running. You do realize that DG works FOR the owners of the MLS teams, right? Why would they allow that, or give him that much power? This isn't the NFL or MLB where the Commish has tremendous power. If DG gets power crazy, they'll simply fire the greatest Sports Commissioner in American History (or at least one of them) and get someone else. Punishing teams for not having a SSS is extremely unfair and short-sighted. Some markets have problems that others don't and some teams actually want a stadium where THEY want it more than just wherever anyone coughs up money (ie burbs). The point is to get the Academies up and running. Besides, you can't tell me that a city like Houston, with a metro area of 5 million, plus the academies set up in Southern Texas, don't have an advantage over a team like, say, Columbus or Denver with drastically smaller populations to work with. Sheer numbers give the Dynamo an advantage, no matter how much Columbus invests (not to mention LA or NY). That's why the system is in place. To borrow a phrase from a fellow BSer, it is set up so that the big markets don't sell off a bunch of talent for $1M+ each and have a huge advantage in salary cap and so forth while the small markets, with fewer people to work with (and, theoretically, fewer diamonds) get left behind. What kind of "assistance" did you have in mind? "Here is the pamphlet for UH. Now go get 'em tiger" Even if the teams offered to only pay for 1 year, that's still thousands and thousands of dollars per kid. That adds up real, real fast. Where is that money going to come from? Face it. MLS, right now, is a business looking to make a profit, not to go out and be a philanthropist and give away gobs of money so soccer can work in this country.
Trite, dismissive response that needs to be retired from discussion on Big Soccer. The point is that some observers are suggesting an investment that will eventually see a return. If your categorical answer is "shut up," then what's the point of a discussion forum?
As do people's answers to problems with "Why don't the owners/investors throw away millions and millions of dollars with little hope of getting it back because they should invest in soccer so I can be happy with my hobby". It's dumb, shallow and lacks any thought, original or otherwise. It's been dealt with so much on this forum that all that is left to do is to tell people to "Shut up" in one form or fashion or another.
I never said that they needed to form overnight but a team like NE HAS NO ACADEMY. That is something that needs to be enforced. Academies provide the cheapest and best way to secure talent. The president of this country works for its citizens but that doesnt mean that we have more power over him. In the past, the owners (hunt and AEG) more or less controlled the league. At that point the commish was a figurehead but now with more ownership groups, that power has diminished and the role of commissioner has increased in power considerably. If Garber doesn't learn to leverage that power now in favor of growing the league then his job needs to be given to someone else. Yes, they should be punished. I'm not ignorant of the difficulties in trying to build a stadium but certain teams like NE sit on their ass and do nothing. That needs to be addressed. How does a team with fewer resources beat teams with more money. They need to have the best youth academies in the league. Where the selling of one prospect ala Altidore will pocket them much cash. (yes yes yes I know all about the stupid rules of single entity, those rules need to change as well) I said DISCUSS, not that I had all the answers. Again the point of all this is to have a discussion. To make money you need to spend money. It just doesn't happen over night and it doesnt fall in your lap.
They shouldn't throw their money away, but that really is the essence of the argument -- why would any team invest heavily in its academy in order to develop players for other teams that don't commit similar resources?
It's possible Gullit is making excuses. It's possible Lalas was incompetent on explaining MLS to Gullit. And it's possible that Lalas explained it but Gullit didn't really listen or didn't really think it all through.
I sort of agree. On the other hand, how good of a prospect, realistically, is the 3rd best prospect in a given year? I don't see that player being of a high enough quality, year in/year out, to undermine a club's commitment to its youth program. As Beau pointed out on this thread, and tons of people have pointed out on tons of threads over the year, the youth soccer system in this country is geared toward earning college scholarships. Until Garber and the NCAA work out some kind of deal, MLS' youth programs are going to be operating under a significant burden.
Good point. By the same token, people who want to spend OPM need to justify the expense, or else what's the point of a discussion forum?
1) The US should never count on transfer income to support its soccer teams. Most European teams have restrictions or limits on the number of foreigners that can play on a team. And if those restrictions/limits were to vanish, do you think the Euro teams would be combing the USA - or Brazil or Argentina instead? 2) Transfer monies are the crack of international soccer. Once a team starts relying on them, they are doomed to be second rate.
Said that the league's players are fairly good and that the league has to change some of its policies for it to improve. Nothing new. But it definitely doesn't hurt the league that a high profile international coach credited the league with play that is better than what most think.
Let's not go to extremes people! having transfer money doesnt mean that we need to rely on it SOLELY. any good businessman will use it as a part of his overall business model to add to his ticket sales, tv, sponsorship etc etc as far as spending other peoples money, well every single post on these boards gives an opinion as to how to do this or that which revolves around someone else money. GET OVER IT.
There's little. I'm sure the Krafts and Kroenke's of the world will never do it when they can just leetch off everyone else. Allowing teams to sign any player in their academy will force those teams to invest in acedemys or they will fall way behind everyone else.