YNT-Eligible MLS Players: 2018 In-Season Thread

#MLS is considering removing homegrown regions, a move that could result in more competition to scout and develop top prospects, writes @PaulTenoriohttps://t.co/0mgGbTCbKo

— The Athletic Soccer (@TheAthleticSCCR) October 24, 2018

"Major League Soccer is considering eliminating homegrown academy territories, according to multiple team technical directors, a move some believe could significantly improve the country’s domestic player pool. The technical directors cautioned there is still plenty left to decide regarding how such a change would occur—most believe there would still be some sort of protections in place for MLS teams within their markets—but they are confident that the change will occur in the near future.

“It will happen,” one technical director said."

...

"The change would likely not be introduced until at least the latter half of 2019, when the 2019-20 development academy season begins, or perhaps not until the start of the 2020 MLS season."

 

I like this. Force the big markets (HOU, LAG, CHI) to capitalize on their talent pools or risk smaller markets like FCD, SKC, RSL having access to more of the most talented domestic youngsters. Would certainly be a big step in MLS joining the "world market" for domestic players especially to counteract the trend of nats jolting abroad (not that this is necessarily a problem). Letting the teams interested in development expand their footprint is a huge step for the development academy.

 

Love it. This might be a response to talent heading to Europe. Players might be more inclined to stay if they can pick a team that’s going to prioritize their development.

 

What does protections within their markets mean? Thats important. Is it monetary compensation? Is it making the radius smaller of the protected areas?

If we still have a system that doesn't allow a player like Carleton to sign with Philadelphia or Pomykal to sign with Salt Lake, the system still won't work.

 

My guess would be some allocation money for the team that loses a player from their territory. Still dumb, but better than the current system.

I’d be cool if MLS awarded allocation money to clubs that lose players abroad depending on how long that player was in the MLS club’s academy.

 

maybe (allocation money for players signed by other MLS teams).

As for awarding allocation money to clubs losing players abroad, that isn't going to happen...ever.

MLS wants MLS teams to sign Americans...not lose them to European teams. Allocation money for players going abroad would give MLS teams less incentive to sign young players. Fewer players signed at a young age will lead to more players heading over seas at 18.

 

Anybody have a The Athletic password they want to lend me via DM?

 

How does giving more allocation money not get incentives for developing more talent?

Imagine if RSL got at least $500k for Soto, Ledezma, and Booth for the next couple years. That wouldn’t discourage them to develop.

 

It would encourage them to develop kids but it would discourage them from signing those same kids.

Or maybe that would incentivize helping academy kids they don't want to sign get signed by foreign clubs, which would be good... but is the Finnish third division going to pay out the same in allocation money as Bayern? If yes, teams would game the system. If not, that would require creating another complex system, something MLS gets enough criticism for already.

In any case, there's no point in going further down that hypothetical rabbit hole that's not based on any info from the article... a lot of things "might be cool", or they might have unintended consequences.

 

As long as MLS has strict rules with recruiting and signing players directly from another MLS Academy the system will work without any territorial barriers.

If an MLS Academy has to worry about both European Teams and MLS Teams from signing their top prospects out from under them it will never work.

 

This sort of system would be tough to implement.

Lots of prospects go to European Academies (or Liga MX) every year, but their is a difference in losing Sebastien Soto versus Zyen Jones versus JJ Foe Nuphaus.

I think the best proposal that I have seen is that US Soccer awards money to American Youth Clubs say $10,000 per year from ages 12-18 at the first US MNT Cap and then another award of say $25,000 per year ages 12-18 at 25 caps basically if a player becomes a regular.

You could make the first cap have to be Gold Cup, WC Qualifying, etc., so we are eliminating the payout for Camp Cupcake type call-ups and caps.

 

It could just be that at 18, a player can sign anywhere. Before 18, HG territory still applies. This gives the local team the ability to still lock up players at 15-16 without any competition.

I doubt MLS will be giving any player, unsigned currently or not, more free agency. What they would want is a better chance for the league to get the players signed rather than leave for free. In other words, maybe Sargent would stay if given an offer from Red Bulls.

 

I never said that.

I said it would be a disincentive for SIGNING young players.(precisely for the reason that you indicate....ie losing those players does not hurt as much). MLS wants young Americans to be developed and PLAY in MLS.

I think the main effect would be on those that are borderline decisions on whether to sign or not. The truly elite would still be chased by MLS teams (and of course European teams). MLS' best chance is to sign them early (14, 15, 16). Those that are more of a difficult decision (are they good enough?) will be the group most affected. A team may hold off on signing a kid knowing that the risk of losing him to Europe has been reduced or eliminated because they will be compensated either way. As a result, more of the talented maybe second tier elites slightly below would wait to try their luck in Europe. I think it would be great for the players and some teams (primarily those that have academies but no USL team) might welcome it with open arms because it would give a way to benefit from an academy that isn't a pathway to MLS.

 

I think that the biggest force behind this move is that dividing up regions is too complicated given that expansion clubs throw a monkey wrench in the works all the time. Market forces for expansion do not naturally align with talent pools and things are getting too complicated. Second, if the training compensation issue is ruled in favor of US youth clubs then we will have a method that works in the rest of the world. Third, clubs can't just rest on having a good region anymore. There are clearly clubs like DC and Revs who do nothing but still bring in valuable players. From a single entity point of view this is not fair to clubs like RSL who work hard.

 

I like how you called FCD a "small market team."
FCD should be a big market powerhouse....………………….its the 4th largest metro area in the country (after only NY, LA, and Chicago).

FCD should be in the category of big market teams needing to provide opportunities to youngsters in their market or risk losing them to the SKCs and RSLs of the league.

Perhaps they'll just be allowed to sign a certain number of youth players from within the territories of other MLS clubs. Who knows. Or they'll have some sort of rules about the number of moves a kid can make. Whatever they do in this regard, it'll be a step in the right direction.

With RSL getting hosed this off-season with Mendez, Booth, Ledesma, and Ochoa leaving...…………….clubs may not want to invest in youth development as much as people think. Would an MLS club invest in building a huge residential academy if all of the "best" kids are just going to leave for Europe anyway? No, they wouldn't. That's what I worry about. I actually think this whole issue with homegrown territories is nowhere close to as big of an issue for the health of US youth soccer than finding a resolution to the training compensation issue.

For all of RSL's work...………...they're going to miss the playoffs AGAIN. At some point somebody in management is going to say "our investment in youth isn't working." Our best kids are all going overseas, and the ones we're left with aren't good enough to get the job done in this league. ​

I personally think an outcome of eliminating homegrown territories will simply allow the rich to get richer in academy terms. Which is fine from an FCD fan's point of view. Most of the FCD kids don't come from their territory as it is. Kids like Richards, Roberts, Servania, and all of the El Paso kids aren't from an MLS homegrown territory at all. They could have gone to Philly, NYRB, or RSL if they wanted to. They didn't.

I think what'll happen immediately if homegrown territories are lifted is clubs like FCD continuing to build their youth affiliate alliances. All of the El Paso kids that do so well for FCD's academy aren't recruited out of thin air. They're already under the umbrella. So FCD could start academies in Oklahoma (currently in SKC's territory), and across the RGV.

Sure, there will be cases of the high profile recruits moving (the top 1%ers that we really care about like Carleton and Pomykal). That'll happen, but be kinda rare. Those kids want to move to Arsenal.............not Real Salt Lake. The real benefit will be providing clubs with the incentive to scout, develop, and provide opportunities to kids everywhere. SKC already has a huge network of clubs in the Midwest. They could expand even more into Illinois, etc.

 

Fair point. As far as I was describing is the level of salary spending which ilI know doesnt include the academy investments. FCD is in the category of teams still building with relatively low salary outlay. Similar to RSL (although Rusnak has changes that somewhat) and SKC.

 

Germany did something like that. Someone posted about a while back, and it's been one of my favorite ideas for what they should do with the surplus.

 

I think this is a case of correlation not proving causation.

NYRB and SKC are just overall well run clubs. They have awesome soccer specific stadiums, an excellent USL team, they spend a lot on their youth programs, and their first teams have clear and coherent styles of play because of a coach (for NYRB, an ex-coach) who really knows what he was doing. Both teams do almost everything right from our perspective, and youth development is just one key piece.

That's a reason why people who care about youth prospects and people who don't will still agree which clubs in MLS are good ones, and which ones aren't.

 

I think there are people who argue that.

They disagree with the criteria of "best team". I believe what they argue is that what is most important is how good are the clubs are at developing young players, which may actually mean not being a "better" team. They support their argument with the number of young players come through their club and end up at top leagues/clubs and have solid careers.

The best current example is Jonathan Amon. I believe there are many that believe he is in a very good spot. Time will obviously tell. I dont care much for rankings so not sure how good these are but they had Nordsjaelland at 678th globally, 386th in Europe, and 4th in Denmark going into this season.

https://footballdatabase.com/clubs-ranking/nordsjaelland

 

I think this is a pretty good point. I can't say where Amon will matriculate to next but whether a player is in a good place or not really is extremely subjective and it is based upon many factors, one of which is the players current level.

A good position, in my opinion, would be a team/league that offers good preparation for the next level (based upon where the player is currently) and also offers mobility through exposure, connections and other factors to that next level.

For a player like Sargent or Carlton, I don't think that the 400th best team would be likely to be the best option but I can definitely think of many situations where it would be better than one of the top 100 or top 50. For Amon, my guess is that he should be moving on up to the east side pretty soon.

(that doesn't imply that he was in a bad place but that perhaps he is ready for the next step...which would be a compliment to the development path he has taken)

 

Well, yeah, but that is because Nordsjaelland shows a real commitment to youth players, not simply because it is in Europe. My point is that "anywhere in Europe" is not necessarily better than "everywhere in the US."

 

Now that is an argument very few are making. There are however quite a bit of clubs all over Europe that are committed to developing young players and maybe a handful in MLS. I guess there are some in the US outside MLS, but isnt clear that the coaching, competition, etc would be ideal for devlopment. Im watching the Cincy/NYRBII game and keep thinking how this is the area we need to grow. We could hundreds of more teams at this level and tiering such that jumps young players need to make are much smaller than they currently are between USL and MLS.

I'd think the best place for a young player would be a club that is committed to young players and pick the one that is the best fit for them personally and their game that gives them the best probabilty to be as good as they can be at 21/22. That could be somewhere like Dortmund, Nordjaeslland, NYRB, etc.

 

Yeah, it is very subjective. It is why I am so against the "rules" people use in various arguments on BS.

I think that is good set of criteria to start with and I think consistent with how Ive tried to articulate it. To make this even more challenging is that the measure I have suggested to determine how good environments are for young players is incredibly subjective. How much did a player improve over a year or two or three and how much could that player improved?

Where do you think would be good for Carleton? I know many are convinced that ATL has been bad for him, but I'm not convinced yet. I wasnt overly impressed in his recent game, but thought he had improved in a number areas of his game. In a year or so, we will likely have a better idea.

 

I think we will have a better idea next year how good a fit Atl is for Carlton. If he was with a top Euro team (I know he doesn't have a passport) he would likely have been playing at the U19 or Regionalia level. Possibly this year he would be ready for spot minutes with the first team or a B2 loan. I'm not convinced he lost much if any by playing with USL and getting a few minutes with ATL. I definitely feel that he was improved at the end of the year compared to the beginning.

As far as coaching is concerned, Carlton spent a great deal of his time training with the first team under Tata and, I assume, was monitored by Tata when with ATL II. There is definitely no guarantee that he would have received better or more attention in Europe. I'm not sure he was hurt as much as many claim. I do believe that he would have benefited from more minutes and believe he should have gotten more. (It would have been easy to give him 20-30 min in many of the games that ATL won easily). I also think he should have recieved a couple of starts here and there (at least), because he did pretty well when given the opportunity.

As far as other teams in MLS? I am very positive that he would have gotten more time with many, if not most of the teams in MLS but I still think that next year will help determine how good his situation is. Would playing more games under Petke, just to pick a name, be more valuable than the minutes in MLS plus USL under Tata? Quite possible but Im not positive.