It’s not really though, is it? I think some of these kids and agents are getting smarter and going to environments where the player will get looks by scouts and other clubs. Porto is one of Europe’s best Academies and he will be surrounded by other youth that have hundreds of eyeballs in them. All it takes is one set of those eyes to notice him and he can make a live to a club where first team football is closer. Getting seen by scouts and other clubs is half the battle. Putting yourself right in the middle of that arms race is actually kind of smart.
Being in a place where you will be visible to scouts is a good thing, but if I were advising a player I wouldn't prioritize that ahead of being in a good place to develop. If you are good and develop well, you will move up the global ladder one way or the other. By the way, I'm not implying that Porto is a bad place to develop. It's quite the opposite — they've made an industry out of buying young players on the cheap and selling for a profit. But for all the $40m transfers out, there are scores of young players who weren't big enough fish for that pond and whose development wasn't prioritized. I honestly have no idea where Gomez falls on that spectrum, but to suggest there is no risk is silly. Just ask Samir Badr!
I hear you. I guess it depends on “what is a good place to develop” means to different people. I would think being surrounded by players who want the same thing you do - and essentially being in a kill or be killed environment will always force the cream to rise to the top. I think it’s the reason that USL is so important for young Americans. When the DA was the top level for kids before MLS - even the good teams were made up of players with entirely different goals. I would slightly disagree on the moving up the global ladder comment. All things being equal, a player than has already shown they can adapt to an entirely different environment of a foreign country is going to be looked at before a player that hasn’t proven that yet. Outside of the few exceptions, an American that is 22 and has 4 years of USL and a few first team appearances is not as attractive as the player that moved across the ocean at 18 and is already ingrained in European professional culture.
Here are the DA games I’ve been able to find on youtube from this weekend past. It's a paltry selection. Internationals v FC United (u19) Video: Game Report: http://www.ussoccerda.com/sam/standings/ss/view_game_report.php?eventId=6597306&teamId=11995488 De Anza Force v San Juan SC (u14) Video: Game Report: http://www.ussoccerda.com/sam/standings/ss/view_game_report.php?eventId=6605095&teamId=12121080 Chicago Fire v FC United (u17) Video: Game Report: http://www.ussoccerda.com/sam/standings/ss/view_game_report.php?eventId=6596484&teamId=12107640 Chicago Fire v FC United (u15) Video: Game Report: http://www.ussoccerda.com/sam/standings/ss/view_game_report.php?eventId=6595625&teamId=12107620 Chicago Fire v FC United (u14) Video: Game Report: http://www.ussoccerda.com/sam/standings/ss/view_game_report.php?eventId=6605094&teamId=12107600 Let's find more. Whatever you need to do. Call your Congressperson, bribe your magistrate, what have you.
The idea is never for a player to be in USL for four years. I think we are ideally talking about 1-2 years for top prospects. Put 2-3 very good years in MLS on top of that, and top players should be able to go to a team they want at age 20/21. One of the keys to this entire process that has not been mentioned directly is how the player is valued by the club. It can be hard for a player to really know this, but it might be the most important factor there is. While there aren't any situations in MLS better than a player being highly valued by a club like Dortmund or Ajax, I would take an invested MLS team over an uninterested Manchester United or Inter Milan every time.
I’d love to believe this were true, and honestly hope it gets there one day. Outside of Tyler Adams, who essentially transferred to a sister club - are there any example of these players? Also, I’m not convinced that having 2/3 good years in MLS gets a player their pick of teams to transfer to.
It's evolving quickly, so this is not something that has a long tradition. If you look at what is going on, though, it's obvious. Yes, Adams is one example. Davies is another. Richards shows that one club at least is willing to sell a player before he even played a minute (contrasted with SKC's unwillingness to sell EPB a few years ago for essentially the same deal). We will see what happens with Pomykal, but he definitely appears to be on that path (I don't believe that FCD will actually keep him past one or two more seasons). Other FCD players are likely. Almiron just played two years in Atlanta before a promotion straight into an EPL side. Barco seems to be in line to move sooner or later. Efra is a likely candidate. I could easily see guys like Araujo, Pepi, Leyva, Bello, etc. moving after a couple of really good years in the league. I could see Busio doing it after two more years in MLS at 19..... Reyna left the NYCFC academy and went into contention for the Dortmund first team... I don't think Garber was shitting us when he said that MLS will be a selling league. That is the only way to attract top young talent, and here is how this can take MLS to being a top league: The league develops and buys top talent to export, it invests in more young players to sell and the infrasructure it takes to develop more, and this goes on for a while before some of the top talent that went away at 19/20 comes back at 26-30 after years of playing at a top level thus supplementing an established line of player development, scouting and acquisition.
Of course not. But that's the case for young players at Anderlecht or Dinamo Zagreb or Porto or wherever. THis notion that American academies should operate as halfway houses for youth products is a singular American notion. That they should train them up until they're 18 and let them walk? Its a mindless waste of resources and will not continue. That's not how this works. That's not how any of this works. If kids don't want to be LA Galaxy players, then they shouldn't be at the LA Galaxy academy. THese are professional soccer clubs they're training at. Not after school programs.
I haven’t heard anyone say this. That said, MLS kind of dug their own grave the TC/SP payments years ago. Now that they will try to collect, it should help. In the end, the clubs need to be able to entice players to stay. That will come from either money or opportunity and in some cases both.
That is the entire point. From the players perspective, it is what is the best offer and where is the best chance to be a high level pro. All of these kids have to have the mindset they are going to be pros in Europe or they probably don't' have the confidence needed to get to the USMNT and be a valuable player. Gone are the days of the Beckermans, Zusi's, Beslers, Zardes etc. (MLS lifers. We pick those guys and dont' qualify for the WC. If a pro MLS can only offer a USL deal at 18 and porto or some other good euro club comes knocking, I doubt many, if any, of the hard charging elite players will pick the USL deal. Sure, its incredibly hard to make it in Europe, but that is the reason they need to be over there. As I have said before, just ask the likes of Pulisic, Mckennie, Richards and others about the difference between the attitude and stresses in Europe as opposed to US clubs.
As Pulisic notes, its about the training environment for young players in Europe as opposed to the US. In the US system, too often the best player on an under-17 team will be treated like a ‘star’ – not having to work for the ball, being the focus of the offense at all times, etc – at a time when they should be having to fight tooth and nail for their spot,” writes Pulisic. “In Europe, on the other hand, the average level of ability around you is just so much higher. It’s a pool of players where everyone has been ‘the best player,’ and everyone is fighting for a spot – truly week in and week out. Which makes the intensity and humility that you need to bring to the field every day – both from a mental and physical perspective – just unlike anything that you can really experience in US developmental soccer. Without those experiences, there’s simply no way that I would be at anywhere close to the level that I am today.” Not so much a knock on MLS and USL teams but more a realization they just don't have this type of environment. What Pulisici is suggesting is where we want our best players like Sargeant, Weah, McKennie, Richards etc. These kids will have had to face this pressure and competition for many more years than a kid in USL playing for a few hundred in the stands and low level talent. Weston's quotes: "If you have the opportunity to come to Europe, I would say for me how I did it? 100 percent take it! If it's the right choice, if everything fits, if everything makes sense, I would say come," he said. "You don't want to start in MLS and always have the question in the back of your head if you could have made it over there? I didn't want that. No offence to MLS or anything, but you can say that Bundesliga is a better league than MLS," McKennie told ESPN FC. "If he [Sargent] can come over, and make it, be successful and play his game, there is no doubt in my mind that he can go back to MLS -- if he wanted to. It's a little bit difficult when you start in MLS and come to Europe."
I think you are right and FCD will have a very hard time holding on to Johnathan unless they want to back up the truck of money and make it a very favorable first team deal and not a USL contract. His family is very savy and he has good advisers, like Johan did.
I feel like the issue I'm having with all of your posts is the false dichotomy you're setting up. These player trajectories and choices aren't binary, as you imply. It's not Pulisic versus Besler. It's not USL versus Porto. I'd argue it's more like a gradient. And nearly all of the choices a player can make fall into the middle areas (not the edges). For example, here's just a quick set of scenarios we've seen play out across the US in the last several years: 1. Non-MLS DA Player under the age of 18 joins Big Euro Club before 18th birthday by acquiring an EU passport (Pulisic) 2. Non-MLS DA Player under the age of 18 signs pre-contract with Big 4 Euro club, joins officially on their 18th birthday (Sargent, Reyna, Las) 3. MLS DA Player Joins Big 4 Euro Academy on their 18th birthday (McKennie, Llanez, Soto, Taitague, Gloster) 4. MLS DA Player signs USL deal (or plays in USL on loan), graduates to MLS, transfers to Big 4 Euro club before 21st birthday (Miazga, Adams, Davies, Durkin (loan), Ballou Tabla) 5. MLS DA Player signs MLS deal, transfers to Euro club before 23rd birthday (Yedlin, Najar) 6. MLS DA Player signs USL/MLS deal, lets first pro contract expire, signs with Euro club on a Bosman before 23rd birthday (EPB, Ian Harkes, Agudelo) There's a whole host of players that appear to be choosing paths 4-6 (e.g., Pomykal, Araujo, Pepi, Leyva, Bello, Efra, Trusy, McKenzie, Busio, D. Rodriguez, Ferreira, AOC) and some that are probably choosing paths 1-3 (KHF, Johan Gomez, Hoppe, Kayo). Some players (Zardes, Morris, Trapp, Kellyn) will not exercise any of those options, but - as you said - the collective hope is that those types of players aren't ones we'd rely on at the senior level in the future. They're fine players and I'm extremely glad there's a stable domestic league for them to play in (and get paid in), but none of us are suggesting that their choice is the one we want for MLS academy talents. And I feel like you're unfairly painting us in that way. This gradient grants players a healthy mix of options, none of which are hugely detrimental to their aims or ambitions. As a related aside, there are also advantages for a player who manages to achieve success in pathways 4 and 5. Namely, clubs that pay a transfer fee are much more likely to insert that same player into the first team straight away. This bias is well-documented across the Big 4 leagues, in particular. That's not to say that coming up through the academy ranks is impossible (obviously it's not -- as McKennie and Pulisic proved), but it's not a slam dunk either.
I would suggest options 1-3 are in fact the paths we should want and suggest to the best US players. The examples of players in 4-6 are hopefully guys we will not need on any senior national team if we are going to truly compete for a world cup. The Agudelo's, Ian Harkes, are not the players we want. Sure this sounds harsh but don't discount what Pulisic, who has lived it says above. Its about the envornment they are in from age 16-20 or for those without a passport from age 18-21. Sounds to me like you can't compare it. Will some make it out of the USL and MLS to a euro club, sure. But, yes, I would argue that is suboptimal based on the experience of our two best players and the overall value and competitiveness of the top 4 leagues when compared to USL and MLS. Nothing is a slam dunk for any pathway. Simply stating how I suggest it should be done based upon the leagues, training environments and competition a kid will be exposed to during his formative years. Supported by those that have done it. The MLS clubs will always have an incentive to have good academies. Even if they don't sign the johans and Llanez's of the world they will train those kids to age 18 and get Training Compensation. They will also convince some to stay and join USL teams and have the chance they pan out and can sell them.
I think I agree with most of your points here, but just out of curiosity, can you pick between the two choices below: Player A: Signs for a MLS team at 17 and trains with the first team getting random sub appearances and becomes a semi-starter at 18, and full-time starter at 19 or Player B: Goes to a European Club (let's say a Bundesliga 2 side) at 18 and plays for U21s, age 19 gets random sub appearances, and age 20 is a semi-starter, and full-time starter at 21
Probably not a good comparison because the kid going to Bundesliga 2 club might not be as good as the kid playing in MLS. Would prefer the kid good enough to get first team minutes in MLS leave at 17 or 18 and go to Dortmund, or Ajax or Schalke. I think the kid starting in MLS at 19 could be much more advanced by age 22 if he went to Europe to a good club at 17 or 18 than if he stayed in MLS. For example, would Pulisci be what he is if he started for DC United at age 18 and was still there at age 21 or 22? He didn't seem to think so. But to answer your question, I would prefer a player of equal ability be in the Bundesliga 2 and see where he can go from there.
Some interesting test cases to see how this pans out with Efra, Pomykal, Cannon, Robinson, etc. Didn't work out to well for Kellen Acosta to stick around in the MLS after being good enough to start for FCD at a young age. Wonder how he would have turned out if he was at Schalke at age 18. But perhaps he just wasn't that good.
Honestly, I don’t think anyone can answer the question with any certainty. I think this is why Wes took the stance he did. If you go Europe first and don’t make it, you can probably find somewhere else to play. You stay in the US and never get a move to Europe, the “what if” will always hang over a players head.
Can you name anyone going to Portugal and being minimally successful? Maybe Parker will end up at MLS level eventually. Is that a success?
Hulk turned out pretty good. CR did OK. Bernardo Silva, Jao Felix. All doing well from Portugal. Perhaps playing in their academies in Portugal this is the type of competition you face and not a USL 30 year old journeyman. Assuming a kid has the talent to begin with, are you saying it would be better to be at a USL team than playing for Porto B or even their U19s? Let's agree to disagree. Not sure who Parker is?
First, what’s your sample size on the Americans in Portugal failures. Second, what point are you trying to make? That Gomez should have stayed with FCD or their USL team?