if we want to compete and win on the worlds stage we need our federation (and professional league(s)) adopting best practices from those that hold the gold standard. The decisions and policy at the top filter all the way to the grassroots. It’s why we have inexcusable events like not qualifying for the WC in the easiest qualifying competition on the planet. The bottom line is, as the good people at 3four3 constantly go on about, MLS is a single entity with franchises. Barca/Real Madrid/Man U these are fully independent clubs. Clubs like Ajax can develop and sell players for tens upon tens of millions. We have nothing with those financial incentives and the product on the field is a direct result. We are getting better no doubt and progress has/is being made. But MLS hold on USSF keeps us way behind. And until that changes soccer in the US is going to continue to suffer. Continue to get held back. But no problem -our best players will continue to flee to Europe and get properly developed in an environment that absolutely no DA (MLS or otherwise) can match.
You lost me at: the good people at 3four3 constantly go on about. We've discussed the Kleiban's on this site for years and bottom line don't think their direct cause and effect have the overall context on US soccer that they do. Mentioning the best teams in the world and comparing them to any lower teams makes no sense. The top 8 teams aren't the greatest only because they aren't in a single entity. It has alot to do with decades of history, culture, and $$$$$$. Tell me why Barca is better than Moscow Lokomotiv or Birmingham? They're both 'free'.
there are some excellent non-MLS clubs and some excellent coaches in these non-MLS clubs. crazy for anyone not to recognize it. These clubs have fine coaches that in many cases make more coin than their MLS counterparts. programs like crossfire in washington, as one example. and there are many more - albion, bethesda, gottschee, sockers, vardar, weston fc, just to name a few.
Moscow Lokomotiv has every possibility of climbing the ladder and becoming a Barca one day. Chicago Fire (as of now) has absolutely no shot of becoming a Barca. Zero. Less than zero perhaps. Understand the distinction?(take that literally and not condescendingly) Why Darby County isn’t Man United has nothing to do with the opportunity they’re both afforded. Opportunity that thousands in US Soccer landscape will never have a shot at with the monopoly that is MLS and MLS pulling along USSF by the short hairs.
I have no idea why anyone engages the embarrassingly basic Econ 101 arguments presented here against single entity or MLS in general. MLS isn't perfect, but the argument presented here is so incredibly naive, it's not really worth debating. There would be no professional leagues in the US without MLS-style economics. There would be no professional academies, no DA. And as we sit in the middle of a global pandemic which is going to claim many a soccer club financially, I find it weird to see economic stability, a collective approach to funding and business, and an ownership base with a massive warchest of capital as an inherent weakness in the system.
Have you seen how bad the product on the field is? Honestly zero interest in getting in the pro/rel - mls/euro snob thing. Cheers.
It's not world class quality, but it's fast-paced, pretty good quality, attractive, aggressive soccer. It's honestly much more exciting and fun to watch than anything but the top European clubs. MLS is pretty damn entertaining if you get past being a Eurosnob. Which I doubt you can as a Barca fan who unironically says cheers.
I only watch MLS for the players on these boards, so I wouldn't call myself an MLS fan, but I support the league. It's steadily improving, and going a little too slow is better than going a little too fast, having a team fold, and then having to restart the entire soccer culture of a city that was built with MLS. If you think that taking the handrails off the thing and letting MLS compete with other teams in America, I'd support it in a sporting sense but it just isn't posslble. Teams would fold and there'd be no avenue to rebuild a team. There aren't enough loyal fans to pull a Rangers or Wimbledon in any city here except perhaps a handful. You need to slowly build or else to return to 0. You want MLS to open it's market? That'll take a competing league like it did with the NFL or NBA, and the ones that work in the way you want (NASL) have broken down while the ones the work like MLS (USL) have made strides. There's definitively a correct path here, and it isn't the one you're describing. You can't just throw money at this and say "there, now we have a Barca." It takes time, and that's what MLS is doing. You can get mad at specific owners, and that's fine, but saying the whole league isn't working and it should be torn down is just plain silly. Just wait for the dozens of teams in England, Germany, Spain, etc. to declare administration this summer and you'll see why the pro/rel system isn't everything it's chalked up to be. And Lokomotiv Moskow becoming Barca? Really? There are simple economics that prevent that. Don't be daft.
I’ve heard whispers about some really huge news coming out of US soccer regarding youth. There’s some cryptic tweets nodding towards a major announcement next week. Reading between the lines it sounds like the end of DA related? Anyone heard anything?
To think any Euro team (Moscow Lokomotiv in this case) can become a Barca "at any day" is just plain laughable.
That's where we differ. Moscow and Derby County will never become a top club period. You want a Barca today in the US and I just want soccer to logically grow in the US for one day well in the future to release restraints to have top teams and top players. Overspending tomorrow puts at higher risk of diminishing soccer than it is to have a Barca in the US. Your cause and effect is wrong and knowledge of the history of the game in the US. You continue to ignore that if we didn't control spending we would have lost soccer all together 15 odd yrs ago and this conversation wouldn't have happened.
I disagree. Further my Barca comment is being wildly misinterpreted. It’s about access and free markets - two things that are denied in the US marketplace. let’s agree to disagree
But it's really not is it? Teams that are perpetually in Champions league get a lot more money and use it to beef up their rosters that allow them to stay in Champions league. Teams not in it have a very tough time jumping past those that are. Since only a few in each league are in CL they are usually at the top of their domestic leagues year after year. MLS is using the American sports model where every team has a chance. Yes, there are no super clubs to send off against the best other leagues have but the worst teams are much better than in other leagues and that makes every game tough. MLS is improving slowly but that also means every team is also improving slowly. It won't be a world powerhouse anytime soon but it is on a slow, continuous climb and it is slowly closing gaps. Times like this where there are big financial problems worldwide show exactly why it was setup the way it was and how it will be one of the few leagues that has no teams in financial distress.
It's not being misinterpreted. This is what I meant when I said your opinion was simplistic and naive; econ 101 rearing it's ugly head. It doesn't matter that there's some theoretical world generated by the European system where Moscow can be Barca. Those same "free market" system also institutes practical, real world barriers that are as strong as some of the things people lament in the US. The revenues and resulting payroll disparity in European soccer means almost no real movement. When real movement does occur, it's because a corporation or rich individual buys a team and massively overinvests. Which ain't all that different in practice than what MLS does. Using Russian Blood Money, Thai Duty Free money gotten through connections or Middle East Oil Money to buy big payrolls to make your team big isn't really different than David Tepper buying an expansion franchise for Charlotte. It's very similar to how people rant against socialist policies because it blocks opportunity and free market -- except social mobility IN PRACTICE is much higher in countries with those policies than "purer" capitalist markets. You can view competition a lot of different ways. MLS distorts competition some by limiting the number of players ... but the salary cap and revenue sharing mechanisms increase competition on the field. The European model has a lot of theoretical competition, but very little ACTUAL competition, because they let money distort the on the field product to extremes.
Oh, and just one more thing while we're on it. The effects of single-entity in and of itself are way overstated. At its heart, single entity is largely about a structure intended to be an advantage in legal disputes involving labor and anti-trust actions. What's actually important from a competitive and growth standpoint is actually the revenue sharing and salary cap / cost restriction controls. The NBA is not single entity, but they have revenue sharing of national media, they have league approval of trades and signings, they have a centrally negotiated salary cap, they have leagues sponsors that can't be overridden, they have a central jersey supplier, and so on. They have a closed system without single entity. The mechanisms that are in place to drive some level of parity of opportunity, have a strategic unified growth plan and control costs exists in other North American leagues that aren't MLS. Single Entity is a legal thing (and perhaps a tax thing; I'm not sure). Restructuring MLS to not be single entity will not necessarily make it an open system, eliminate the salary cap or reduce revenue sharing. And keeping it actually doesn't eliminate the latter two of those things. Single Entity doesn't even eliminate the possibility of closed pro/rel.
A lot of group think going on here. You’re fans of MLS and are (somewhat) pleased with their progress. Ok. But you all are right about one thing: MLS adopting a US based sports model that no other country in the world follows. Thank you for admitting to that. And yes the obscene money in the game is another issue to be sure. But this ebbs and flows and it most certainly doesn’t guarantee wins if they don’t manage it properly. Thanks all, zero interest in talking about MLS further. Open your barrels again, get it off your chest and I look forward to reading about promising youth -99.9% of which agree with me - MLS is a joke.
Definitely understand what you are saying and agree with the overall idea. As a league, it is gradually improving. Then I look at teams like Dallas or Houston and I'm not sure they are better off today than they were in the past. There are many aspects to consider. Something could be said about their facilities maybe but the end product on the field (first team) is NOT better than what it was in the past. As far as the academy goes (since this is an academy thread), a similar comment could be made specifically for Dallas.
Says the person whose only arguments are parroting what people like the Kleibans say on twitter. Gee. Absolutely no one denies that. That's not a point in your favor. The modern US Market is also completely different than every other market in the world currently, and is MASSIVELY different than the marketplaces that every other league in the world grew up in. Ummm, where are these ebbs and flows? When the EPL was formed and aggressively pursued global expansion (smartly), it kicked off an arms race that has not stopped and will not stop. Sure, there are some high payroll teams that don't win all the time ... but that doesn't mean low payroll teams can compete for titles. I'm not sure what your point is here. That the market is wildly distorting by money but because the correlation isn't 1:1 perfectly it's all right? You keep saying you have zero interest and yet you keep posting. The people refuting you are doing so with detailed, fact-based arguments. You keep responding with comments like "MLS is a joke" and "These other people agree with me" without even sourcing anything ... welcome to America, where logic, reason and facts won't get in the way of you having a strong opinion! Go on back to rooting for Barca, so you can bandwagon on a winner. I'm sure you're such a real hardcore fan ... as long as they keep winning.
None of us except for a known few are really fans of MLS. I watch probably 90% European soccer compared to MLS. If the possibility of the league folding, like every American soccer league before it, wasn't so high, then I think a majority of us would be in support of taking the handrails off right now. Instead, this slow and steady growth seems like the most logical way to get to the end goal. We're all on the same side even if it's gotten a bit heated in here. I couldn't care less what's going on with our domestic leagues if the US wins the World Cup one day. I simply believe that MLS's current trajectory is at least fairly close to the best way to help get to that goal.
Appreciate the reasonable reply. I’m 100% in agreement re: winning the World Cup. We can do it. We have the talent from 10-16 and then they die on the vine unless they can get to Europe. Thankfully we’ve never had a larger stable of talent over there that will only continue to grow because the best players want to play in the best leagues. This is the most positive thing to come out of US Soccer in decades and I think we can give some credit to our Federation for setting up the DA program. Far from ideal (and #worldclass) but positive development.
Are you suggesting the end of the DA season or the end of the DA in entirety? I wouldn't doubt that the season may be over. Professional leagues are having to consider this option, so it's not surprising that amateur leagues may be considering the same thing. I highly doubt the entire DA would be going away. MLS teams might be losing some money, but I don't see how thats an expense it makes sense for the teams in MLS to cut and for the league to sign off on.
I'm a fan of MLS but watch a lot of European soccer. However, I'm not the type of person who can just be a fan of Barca because they win all the time. I like a league where I can root for a local team, or even any team, and have the possibility of winning a title. So on that side, I'm invested in MLS' salary cap and revenue sharing. Frankly, most European leagues are boring in terms of races. People talk about the opportunity in Pro/Rel and simultaneously have no issue with the fact that the vast majority top European leagues are won by the same team or couple of teams YEAR AFTER YEAR AFTER YEAR. Boring. While there isn't access to the top level easily for lower level teams except through expansion ... what MLS does bring is a league where RSL or SKC can compete for a title legitimately. I get why Ryan the Barca fan doesn't give a crap about that, but if you are a fan of the other teams, or are trying to build a league in more than one or two cities, that's important. On the business side, I'm fascinated by the incredibly difficult task MLS is trying to pull off and think their overall business plan is kind of brilliant. Starting a successful new sports league in this day and age is incredibly hard and incredibly expensive. Facilities, payrolls, academies, etc. all are way more money than revenues come close to justifying. I think people are incredibly naive to think that switching to an unrestrained and less strategic model actual creates MORE investment. The reality is that they level of investment in MLS stadia, academies and payrolls only exists because of future cash flows -- which the MLS model creates -- and not current. You'd see a lot more teams not investing than investing. The Open / Club model worked as a growth model in places where: a. other competitive sports largely refused to professionalize and were small competition b. there wasn't radio or often even newspaper coverage of other leagues, let alone internet broadcasts of every game ever c. with revenues restricted to local gameday revenue, the labor market grew in pace with revenues of basically every team d. by the time any real competition came to local soccer, there was a long history of fandom and community built up In the US, MLS has to compete with: a. the massive amount of sports entertainment options that are local, are more established and are more popular. No other league in the world competes with the NFL, NBA, MLB and NHL equivalents for local revenue. Not to mention things like UFC, etc. b. MLS also has to compete with Liga MX, the EPL, Champions League, etc. When the English league was establishing itself, it never had to contend with a much more developed Bundesliga with every game available. c. These other leagues grew up with a much less developed labor market. If this were 1910 in England, Christian Pulisic likely doesn't leave for Germany but helps the Union dominate MLS for a few years. It's just a completely different situation, and applying an already flawed model to a completely different situation ... when that model has already repeatedly failed, is absolutely CRAZY. I understand the arguments against MLS, but I think it's crazy to think an open system would have succeeded better and generated more investment up to this point or even in the immediate future. We've seen the graves of other leagues all the way. I get when an LAFC or Atlanta United fan bemoans the salary restrictions, but I actually don't get when a USMNT fan does. Americans have a hard enough time competing for jobs right now in MLS at the current salary levels -- and you want to raise them quickly. Even if every team could (they couldn't), that money would do what? Bring in more South Americans, taking more slots from Americans. And the maybe bring back a rare top American from Europe, which also seems counterproductive. MLS could do PLENTY of things better. There are tons of good criticisms and effective tweaks that could be made. But the hur-dur "competition " "pro/rel" "Europe does it this way" argument is weak and flawed and demonstrates a complete lack of critical thinking.