Right now much of the uptick MLS has seen in quality of play is due to bringing in foreign attackers. MLS eventually, at some point, whenever that is, becoming a top league doesn't equate to having a top NT. It could help, but how much it helps can vary widely. The EPL is the most obvious example of that. Obviously FIFA rankings aren't the end-all, be-all, but 1) Belgium 2) Argentina 3) Spain-top 4 league 4) Germany-top 4 league 5) Chile 6) Brazil 7) Portugal 8) Colombia 9) England-top 4 league 10) Austria And the WC Final 8: Brazil Germany-top 4 league France Colombia Argentina Costa Rica Netherlands Belgium The current #1 and #2 ranked teams don't have top domestic leagues. While the likes of Arg, Chile and Brazil are top 6, their leagues aren't top leagues and their best/brightest gets bought at young ages. Much of South America's success in international competitions proves being a developer of attacking talent is far more important than being a legit top league. That's not to say being home to the Bund or La Liga doesn't help those countries, obviously it does, but it also says it's not a requirement to being a top country. And with the money in the top leagues as well as UCL, the pinnacle of club competition, the top quality outside a few exceptions will always gravitate there, unless there's some unforeseen change in the global economy which isn't really worth discussing. Maybe aliens will invade and occupy Europe in 2030 too but I'm not wasting time contemplating unlikely what ifs. What I see is whether it's South America or countries like Belgium, Portugal, Netherlands, domestic development and development of top tier footballers is far more important than claiming you're home to a top 4-5 league. And it's simply because the top tier footballers you develop will go to those leagues anyway and receive the value of playing in them. There's a difference between wanting a top domestic league and needing a top domestic league as a necessity. It's proven you don't need a top league to develop top footballers and being a top 10 nation and frankly, it's easier to develop elite footballers than it is to develop elite footballers and be home to a top league. My preference is to concentrate on the former first and because of the former, the latter will gradually rise. But the whole "we need a top league to develop good footballers" doesn't make any sense. And if our domestic development doesn't improve rapidly and instead a large amount of MLS' improvement comes from imports, whether younger South Americans or older DPs, we're trending more towards copying the EPL than most of these other nations. I'd prefer a goal of of being on-par with the top leagues in the Americas, on the backs of domestic development with our top players going to big clubs and succeeding, and having some younger big name DPs filling out our MLS rosters than attempting to claim top league status on the backs of imports. A more beneficial goal is top be a top league in the Americas and win Copa Libertadores with mainly young America talent.
It will happen when MLS drops its "minor league" perception (that some/many/most hold). It will happen (for the players in MLS) when MLS is a globally strong/dominate league. (And I recognize some will think "that" will "never happen" or won't happen in their lifetime, or whatever.) MLS will create and retain its own stars. (This is arguably already kinda sorta happening, and will only improve with time, imo.)
On the other hand, since South America has become primarily an exporter of attacking talent, they haven't won a World Cup (14 years so far). Second, we cannot copy their model. Their players can be obtained in bulk, cheap, because their leagues pay peanuts. Their leagues pay peanuts because the cost of living over there is much lower. It's a probabilistic issue here: if the Euro clubs get 200 South American players in a given year, for cheap, chances are a handful of them are going to evolve into very good players. With us, they're only going to pay the prices demanded for the very top ones, hence the potential for failure is much greater: they go over there already hyped, with a short time to adapt and start producing. Plus, the extra pressure is not good news for any young player.
Well, two out of four of the world cup semifinalists were from S. America, and one finalist. So they aren't exactly struggling.
Ignore that little bit of cherry-picking and focus on the rest of the argument. The key part being this: "Second, we cannot copy their model. Their players can be obtained in bulk, cheap, because their leagues pay peanuts. Their leagues pay peanuts because the cost of living over there is much lower." This isn't a model that we're suited to copy, and it hasn't been of much benefit to CONMEBOL nations, anyway. They're not doing better internationally now than they were before they began exporting their talent en masse. Brazil and Argentina are still perennial powerhouses as they were and no better, really (Brazil you could say has even been in a bit of a lull by their standards) and none of the others have joined them. Colombia, Chile, Uruguay, etc are still dependent upon Golden Generations to reach the next level, temporarily, just as they had been. (Ditto the West African nations, who haven't truly risen to the rank of perennial powerhouses, either, despite the fact that European leagues have showcased a ton of West African talent, and they've been exporting heavily for a couple of decades, now. We're not well-suited to follow their model, either. Our situation is just too fundamentally different.)
Certainly. The point, however, is that they used to do better before. The emphasis on exporting talent has had the undesired side effect of making young players always go for attacking roles, the ones the Euro clubs want from S. America. PS: And today, Arsenal starts only one English player. Wonder how many Mexican players will America start against Seattle?
NYCFC have brought in some Latin American youngsters this season, who should also reduce the average age. Rónald Matarrita (age 21) Costa Rica - defender Diego Martínez (age 23) Argentina - defender Federico Bravo (age 22) Argentina - defensive midfielder (on loan from Boca Juniors) It makes sense given Viera's experience in mentoring young players.
Inapplicable argument. Winning the WC isn't the only barometer. Far from it. You've got to become a legit top 10 nation first, then worry about executing every 4 years. South America still has some very elite teams and therefor a better chance at winning a WC. I'm not suggesting copying their model either. That's a bit of a strawman. We're the US, home of franchises, no pro/rel, single entity, an NCAA draft, ridiculous expansion fees, the NBA/NFL/MLB, we're not copying anyone's model. My point and the reality is however, that having a top league isn't a necessity for having top talent or a top NT. That's factual. My other point is even though we're not copying anyone we certainly can and will pattern ourselves after some leagues more than others and the development of the domestic player doesn't equate to having a top league and I'd prefer concentrating on the former than the latter. Concentrate on the former, you'll have elite American footballers on the global scale and a top NT, whether or not MLS is a top league. Concentrate on the latter without the former, and we'll be patterning ourselves more after the EPL than anyone else, a mistake. There's a constant theme around here our best should stay in MLS to make it the best league it can be because MLS being a top league is necessary for a top future NT. It's false. Most of MLS' marketing around its improvement is which big name DPs its signed and will sign. A successful NT isn't dependent on that. The rush to be a top league is quite different than the rush and ability required to develop top talent and they're two different issues, something argued incorrectly around here. And while we'll never see the exodus of talent abroad like South America sees due to both the economy and that a number of them count as locals in parts of Europe, top talent going abroad isn't a negative for a NT even if it is for a domestic league as again, one isn't dependent on the other. It's odd so much concentration on BS is to make MLS the best league it can be as if it's a requirement for the NT. Whether it's Arg or Brazil or Belgium or Chile, among others, their concentration is on developing talent instead, not chasing the top league ghost as it's more than a bit fanciful. And once we can develop talent like they can on a world level, then we can start talking about being a legit top league. Too many want to skip steps.
This is a big, broad and rhetorically vague statement that means little without qualification. What do you mean by "do well with talent"? Let's take Conor Casey who went to Germany in 2000. Would an MLS club AT THAT TIME have "done equally well" with his talent as Dortmund? Or to put it another way would be have developed into the same player if he stayed Stateside? It is just one example and by no means the rule but to say that Europe has not provided a good proving ground for American-born players is incorrect. It all comes back to the individual player, his talent and the application thereof.
At that time, I'm inclined to agree with you. I'm speaking more of the recent past. The US Soccer DA was formed in 2007, and in that time, compare results. What's more, I think that every single one of us agrees that the DA is still not where we want it to be, with very significant room for improvement to be made. Some clubs have actually begun to put their resources where their mouth is on that, and given these players opportunities, and more have been looking to more recently. Every player has to make his own decisions based upon his own situation and best interests, but quite clearly the better "national strategy" is to focus on domestic development. If once in a while Europe gets their hands on an American prodigy and turns him into a superstar, wonderful. It's not something that we can ever look to as a sustainable situation.
They used to do better than providing 2/4 semifinalists, and coming within a Messi botched finish of winning the World Cup? I'm not sure I can agree with that. I also cannot agree that there is a straight line of causation between S. American players seeking attacking roles and what Euro clubs want. S. American soccer culture always emphasized attack. That's why Brazil's goalies were uniformly below average until Dida, and have not been great since Dida.
We've had quite a few players who have had succes in Europe. Off the top of my head... Obrien, Reyna, berhalter, Davies, Bedoya. Who has Europe "destroyed"? Our players are improving and so are the opportunities. MLS hasn't proven to be good for our players either. What evidence? Something new can't happen? All perennial world powers have promotion/relegation... Does that mean we have to adopt that? I thought the US was different? What is the age that it is ok for players leave and be a world power? Why does it matter if it is 16, 20 or 24? France won the World Cup in 1998 starting only 2 players from its league... A goalkeeper who soon went to England and a striker who also spent some time abroad. I suspect we'll end up with more than a one off or two in the next 5 years. Their motivations are to win games and make money. If our players are talented enough they'll get a shot and there also the marketing angle that we've seen, which should only increase as the the popularity increases. Argentina didn't start one player from its league in the finial in 2014. Gago came on as sub to represent bocanegra juniors, but only returned to Argentina after 6 years in Europe. Of those 14 players, 10 of them went to Europe between 20-23. There were two that went in their mid twenties and Aguero at 18 and messi much younger. The two world powers that aren't from Europe have quite a bit of players in Europe and significant number of their team is made up of those players. So if you want to use that model, then we need to improve the development of our players AND get a lot of them in Europe. Those two things can occur simultaneously. I count 115 Brazilians and 90 Argentinians in top 5 leagues. http://us.soccerway.com/players/players_abroad/brazil/ http://us.soccerway.com/players/players_abroad/argentina/
You're forgetting Damarcus Beasly, who was one goal from being the first Yank in a CL Final. It was ment that we Dutch were to win that years CL Final, but Fabregas of Arsenal kicked PSV player Kone out for the rest of the season and that was a vital player in the attack. Would that noy have happened, we would have won the Final, as the Liverpool team was weak and a Dutch team always wins the Final when a new James Bond makes his entry. Just imagine the US media frenzy DaBeasly would have ignited as a winner of the most important soccer cup for clubs.
So... my suggestion of annexes of the other Dutch academies like Ajax, AZ, PSV in the States like Feyenoord has with the St Louis Gallaghar is the best way to get the best development locally with a direct connection to entrance in a league renowned for its development qualities.....Sounds tempting, promising, doable..?
That sounds like a good idea to me. Why stop there? Why not French, German, Italian, Belgium, etc clubs as well? I'd guess there are some that would be against it, but I think MLS would also greatly benefit from it.
How would MLS benefit? are you thinking of some sort of partnership? Even with a partnership I don't see it being beneficial except possibly in the short term.
An&anything that helps usmnt or popularity of soccer in the US can help MLS. Your analogy doesn't work for me. You don't think Nowitzki has helped the interest in basketball in Germany, or Ming in China, or Gasoline in Spain, or Parker in France? Increased number of well trained players. The competition for MLS to up its game. Both would raise the level of the players at the bottom of their rosters. Increased number of coaches and approaches to development in the US. Those running programs have children or their children are nationalized.
I was thinking purely in terms of the MLS not having a talent compared to having one but I do agree with the bolded. I don't think having a single star playing overseas ala Ming et al will make that much of a difference in the popularity of soccer in the US but if he truly does turn out to be the type of talent that can help us reach the next level with the national team then he will have a significant impact on the popularity of soccer in the US but it may not benefit MLS a great deal if he does not play in MLS. Look at the last world cup when huge viewing parties sprang up across the US. The world cup undoubtedly benefits MLS but many of the viewers only join the party every four years or so. If Pulisic became a huge star and the US did well (looked good advancing into the round of 16 or beyond) some of that would rub off on MLS, many (possibly much more) would follow Pulisic's team in Europe and many others would simply wait four more years to rejoin the party.
the bolded is the key! It's not going to be one thing but a bunch of things that pushes it over the top here. If it turns out to just be a single star it will still open doors and interest in our players that isn't there now. There is definitely some truth in what you say about how people would respond but there would be some, maybe very small percentage, that would increase their interest in MLS. It still would further the culture here, which would result in better players down the road.