2019-20 Development Academy

Discussion in 'Youth National Teams' started by TheFalseNine, Jul 17, 2019.

  1. ussoccer97531

    ussoccer97531 Member+

    Oct 12, 2012
    Club:
    --other--
    I think that the vision is a lot more important than the raw talent in the area. Is the talent at Dallas' immediate disposal so much better than the talent at Houston's? SKC brings in players from North Carolina, RSL brings in players from Arizona and California. Seattle brings in players from California, Las Vegas, New Hampshire. Philly brings in players from Delaware, Ohio and Michigan.

    I'm not suggesting that the lack of talent in the area doesn't make it harder, but teams have done a better job with a lack of talent than absolutely nothing worthwhile in their first year and I also think that the lack of talent should be a factor against Cincinnati having a team. Why don't we put more teams in areas that have larger pools of talent and less in areas that have lesser pools of talent?

    I'd like to see Central California have another team (Sacramento). I think Texas could have another team (Austin). I think Arizona would be a good area for a team. South Florida will start to improve with Inter Miami. The South should improve with Charlotte and Nashville. Two teams for Ohio seems like a lot when you have teams in Kansas, Illinois, Minnesota and Missouri coming in 2022. Two teams in the Pacific Northwest seems like a lot when you also have one in Northern California. Do we need Colorado and Salt Lake? Do we need a team in mid-Jersey when Philly takes the best players in South Jersey and NYCFC takes the best players in North Jersey and and New York?

    I know that producing the best academies is not always important for MLS when awarding teams, but as someone that is not a fan of any MLS team or even the league, I am looking at this from the perspective of a fan that wants to see as many good academies as possible. I don't think Cincinnati looks to be on a good path for that, and I think a large part of that is logistically having two teams in an area that doesn't have much talent. We can give them more than a year to be too definitive in how it's termed, but they could definitely do more than they've done so far.
     
    Patrick167 repped this.
  2. David Kerr

    David Kerr Member+

    United States
    Oct 18, 2019
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I also agree with most of this, but saying an academy is the worst in the MLS after they have only been active for not even a year is a little harsh. I think they shouldn’t have been given a team there but to judge the academy when they’ve had this little of time is very unfair in my opinion. Unlike most other new MLS franchises, the Cinci academy also had no other legit DA’s they could absorb in their area like most new MLS academies did.
     
  3. SilentAssassin

    Apr 16, 2007
    St. Louis
    The local talent pool is pretty low on the list of factors for how they choose markets for MLS, if it's on the list at all. If the team is successful financially, MLS considers it a success. And theoretically, having a popular MLS team with a free academy should help to transform the local soccer culture and create more of a talent pool in the long run.
     
  4. gogorath

    gogorath Member+

    None
    United States
    May 12, 2019
    I mean, Sacramento and Austin are coming into the league, and Phoenix is a frontrunner for the next spot (so is Vegas).

    You aren't going to base a league based on youth talent. From the professional side, it's about demand to see the games.

    But even so, yes, there's more than enough potential talent in the NY area to warrant an academy in Philly, in North Jersey and in the Bronx. And with a USL team coming in Queens, them, too.

    USL will need to supplement in some of the other areas -- San Diego will have a team but could have several academies. LA could add many more. But if USL expands and MLS academies move towards the FC Dallas model (which has satellite campuses), it could accelerate academies in places where there's not enough demand for a strong professional team.
     
  5. ussoccer97531

    ussoccer97531 Member+

    Oct 12, 2012
    Club:
    --other--
    I didn’t suggest that will be the only criteria. In fact, I said it wouldn’t, but it should be a factor. Considering that the other NA sports leagues aren’t partly producing their own talent, as they pull from a centralized pool, that can’t be used as the idea for what MLS should look like. We need to look to what you see around the world. MLS won’t be an exact replication because there’s no open system where the best rises to the top, but I think you usually see that the areas with the best infrastructure for success are where the best teams in most countries come from.

    I think we should have an open system, but if we are going to have a closed system, I’d like to restructure where we have MLS teams because we all know the MLS academies have a built in advantage. What could San Antonio or Sacramento do with a right now that Portland or Cincinnati aren’t doing?

    As someone who only cares about the success of our NT, a restructuring would provide benefit in the short term future and I’m not sure the long term future would be any different. People can say that these organizations will eventually build out a good academy and produce good players, but that’s not always the case. You can only pull from the pool you have. You might get a few extra kids interested in soccer by having a team in their area, but this is a very big country. I think we should be trying to fill out the areas that historically produce a lot of talent on their own with MLS academies (MLS franchises) and disperse the academies in crowded areas. The way that should be done is an open system. Put in place incentives that make developing your own players a vital part of success in MLS, and let all of this work itself out over the course of a number of seasons. If we are going to work though with a closed system, there could be changes made to maximize player development.
     
    TarHeels17 repped this.
  6. ussoccer97531

    ussoccer97531 Member+

    Oct 12, 2012
    Club:
    --other--
    Another club MLS allows to do what they want, break the rules, and they aren't going to do a thing about it. This is why the closed-system with no pro/rel has to change. I'm not a pro/rel fanatic, but I've learned that this is the only way forward. MLS gives these clubs an exclusive pass into the league, and then they can do outright reckless things. What clubs in Germany, Spain, France, England are getting rid of their academies in full? They aren't, and if they did, it would eventually be reflected in the standings. They'd drop down multiple leagues over a short span. In MLS, the league doesn't do anything about it. We already saw how they had nothing to say about Chicago cheapening out, and deciding they wanted to get rid of one of their key-aged teams.

     
  7. gogorath

    gogorath Member+

    None
    United States
    May 12, 2019
    1. They aren't completely getting rid of it, at least per the Athletic. I won't say whatever replaces will be better or even good, as it feels like a cost cutting move, but there's a housecleaning element here rather than total abandonment apparently as they claim they will participate in the academy league.
    2. Pro/Rel and less corporate control wouldn't increase academy investment in the US anytime soon. The only reason some teams invest what they do right now is because of central MLS control -- if you put them in a situation where no one is forcing them to have one AND you put a strong short term incentive in the form of relegation, you'd see a lot less academies in MLS. That $2M might let me stay up rather than pay out 5-10 years from now.
    3. There's a massive misperception about Europe here. One, tons of European clubs don't take their academy seriously and don't invest a ton. They idea that everyone is invested in developing players or giving young players time isn't particularly true. But where the US lacks incentive to invest in academies culturally isn't pro/rel -- it's club/local ownership versus corporate ownership. More Euro teams are willing to operate an academy at a fundamental loss because they are a club and part of the community. If there's a problem with the American structure, it's not the lack of Pro/Rel, it's the profit motive versus a club model.
    I have no issues with Pro/Rel as a concept, but it's always touted as some incentive-driven miracle cure when economically, it actually encourages a decent amount of bad behavior.

    Pro/Rel increases incentives for short term solutions and fixes. It encourages buying veterans to finish five spots out of last rather than risking PT to give to the kids or investing in them. Why spend $15M on academy facilities or $3M operating each year when that could buy me a top flight striker to keep me up? The payout on development is erratic and spotty and even if it comes, it may come too late.
     
    Zamphyr, Lookingforleftbacks and Pegasus repped this.
  8. ussoccer97531

    ussoccer97531 Member+

    Oct 12, 2012
    Club:
    --other--
    I've seen nowhere stating that its a housecleaning measure as opposed to a cost-cutting measure. I've seen nowhere that states Minnesota United isn't completely cutting their academy. I've only seen reporters speculate that MLS doesn't like that, which should be obvious. How could it possibly be a good thing? If they then don't do anything about it, it can't be too big of an issue to them. If you'd like to prevent me some evidence to the contrary, I'd like to be wrong.

    Your defense of MLS's system is nonsense, in my opinion. You are essentially stating that no owner actually cares about their team, and building a real top-level footballing organization. They only want to be part of this "exclusive club" called "MLS."

    You don't seem to understand my point either. If you mandate which teams are allowed into your top division and which aren't based on who puts up a big initial base fee, what you will get is exactly what you claim pro/rel would be. You will get some teams where the owner is rich enough to pay a big initial fee to get into the league, mostly only wants into a league that is marketed as a major NA pro-sports league, and then has no impetus to build the club. They might finance a 2-3M signing of a fringe-NT level 27 year old player from Colombia or Belgium because that player will likely have success in MLS. MLS isn't that good of a league. That will likely help results, which will help their bottom line.

    When it comes time to building out the club with a more long-term initiative like their academy, investing in developing 13, 14, 15 year olds that might never play a game for their first team, thats too much of an investment. Thats the easy cost to cut for them. Remember though, they are in the club. They now have no need to put any additional money into building out the organization. If MLS won't do anything about them preferring to save money than properly investing into their organization, what you have is a system where MLS and its member clubs are actively blocking merit, financial dedication, sporting success, developmental success from mattering in the soccer pyramid of this country.

    The problem for everyone (except MLS) is that this a key part to establishing a structure of player development. It is no secret that in almost every country around the world, the best academies are the ones that invest the most into coaching, scouting, player development, facilities. Quality of work does matter, and I'm sure that'll be the excuse anytime MLS allows this kind of stuff. They'll promise that the quality of work will be high, and there's nothing to worry about cutting their academy or most of its operations. We already heard it from Nelson Rodriguez. The problem is that this is not believable. It's a very simple equation. With near uniformity, the biggest spenders in all regards to their organization will be the best, and will contribute the most to the system.

    However, if you eliminate all merit from the system, what great incentive does a club that isn't in the exclusive MLS club to invest a lot of resources into building out their organization? Can they become the Leipzig of the US? No, they cannot. They were not allowed in the initial exclusive club. The best they can attain is being the best in the lower leagues of a country where the top division still is nowhere near a top league.

    What you get is a system where there is no accountability or oversight or merit to the product of the first league. The clubs are not penalized for how their organization performs, except for the profits they make that come with sporting success (or lack thereof). They paid the initial fee. They are now allowed free reign to act in any way they want. The clubs in the lower leagues are told that it's too bad that they want to attain big heights. They are restricted by the decisions of MLS. MLS has decided they aren't allowed in. Thats it, and any improvement they want to bring to soccer in this country is not important enough to be seen through.

    I'm sure you (or someone) will say that you don't need to be in the top-division to be a top-level academy. However, we all know that the MLS teams receive a big boost that the other academies do not. They are allowed into foreign youth tournaments due to their affiliation with the top division in the United States. They attract top talents more easily. Their players play against better competition (MLS clubs mandated this to protect their struggling academies from being exposed), and these players are much more visible to foreign scouts.

    We already know the national federation doesn't care. They farmed out development to MLS. They are now only looking out now for their public persona. They are no longer concerned with being the main governing body of soccer in this country.

    We are also starting to see that the organization the national federation farmed out youth development to doesn't care either. This is very disconcerting for a fan of purely our National Team, and the success it can attain. In recent years, despite a great PR campaign of how much they are improving development, MLS has started letting their clubs make their own decisions about how much, how little (if any) investment they want to put into youth development. There's no longer a mandate that they have to put in a certain amount. That they have to have teams at certain levels.

    Chicago tested them. No penalty. Minnesota took note. Their investment or lack thereof will not matter. They are in the club, but the club is not one where the best and most dedicated have to work to build the development system, otherwise they will suffer defeats, and eventually be held accountable for their product. That much is clear by MLS after its members decided to test them, and they've sanded down. It's also clear by a system that allows certain investors into the exclusive club that they will not actually have to attain success to stay in. Development in this country is what will suffer.
     
    Patrick167 repped this.
  9. gogorath

    gogorath Member+

    None
    United States
    May 12, 2019
    From the posted Athletic article:

    I am not particularly hopeful that this is a great move, as I said, but they will be fielding teams in the new league.

    I said nothing of the sort.

    You love player development. It's all you care about. But that's not what a soccer club is in totality.

    A few MLS owners are absolutely there for the investment. But the vast majority are trying to win the league. That's primary goal.

    Arthur Blank CARES about his team. He's put hundreds of millions into it and has won a title and now wants to win CCL.

    He may not care about his academy. That doesn't mean he's some rich money-grubber. It just means he's spending his money and efforts on getting Barco and Pity Martinez and Josef Martinez because that wins games.

    There is no doubt that many soccer clubs are focused more on winning their league than player development, and that a 27 year old player from Colombia helps them to do that now rather than tomorrow.

    This choice is not just made in MLS, though. Leagues all around the world constantly choose established players to win now over youth.

    It's not a feature of Pro/Rel versus Franchise model to favor investing in current players over youth.

    In fact, I'd argue that the franchise model allows teams to be bad more and therefore take a longer view and take more risks with youth than a model where if you have ONE BAD YEAR, your income drops massively.

    MLS' model ENCOURAGES large long term investment. What the difference is that soccer was so underdeveloped in this country, the first of those investments was actually facilities.

    The second is academies. The fact that a few owners would rather not but are forced to is a feature of the system, not a bug. Academies haven't paid out for anyone in the US except maybe Vancouver right now.

    Would Dallas or Philly have been able to invest in their academy if they were scared of going down? Who knows?

    Why would pro/rel change that?

    Why would an investment that takes 10 years to pay out make sense when I could get relegated tomorrow?

    You say buzz words but there's no logical path from A to B.

    Even if there were a pyramid with massive financial incentive to going to the first division, like the Championship has, why would that incent player development?

    The teams moving up from the Championship more often are buying their way up with massive salaries, not developed players. A team like Wolves went out and bought a bunch of foreign players, not invested in their academy.

    Yes, investment is vitally important.

    Here's a hot tip -- MLS has managed to MASSIVELY overinvest in academies because the asset value of the closed system provides long term cash flow safety.

    If soccer teams in this country had to justify their academies through operating revenues, no one would have them. That's different than established academies.

    And yet, USL clubs are starting academies.

    That's because there is incentive. The route to moving up the pyramid is rarely player development in a world market.

    The incentive is to eventually sell players / get cheap talent.

    Like all pro/rel fanatics, you pretend that WINNING THE LEAGUE IS NOT INCENTIVE.

    You act like the penalty of fans not coming is non-existant.

    And you act like pro/rel means all soccer clubs in Europe is somehow SUPER motivated. Talk to fans of Newcastle. Just enough short term to stay up, but a massive fan and revenue base and never tries to actually contend. Doesn't have a great academy despite a LONG history of great English players from there.

    It's almost as there's motivation outside of pro/rel and that pro/rel doesn't fix anything.

    Good lord, you've taken a tweet and attached it to the entire league.

    I was unaware that FC Dallas, Philly, LAFC and a slew of other teams have suddenly bailed on their academy.

    We're in the middle of global pandemic, the league is losing a massive amount of revenue and a brand new expansion team is trying to throw in the towel.

    It's not great, but let's not go overkill.

    That last point is literally not true. There are requirements for the new leagues.

    Chicago, despite your ranting about getting rid of one team, has already signed a ton of homegrowns and increased investment in the youth.

    So you like to keep saying this but I'm not sure your point.

    This is just high drama.

    Aside from the ridiculous apocalyptic tone here, my point remains the same.

    If Minnesota United doesn't want to invest in youth today because the ROI isn't there, they aren't going to invest MORE if their SHORT TERM on the field performance means they could be demoted.

    If I am at risk for short term relegation, I do not put my limited resources in something that helps me in five years. I go out and buy a DP with my academy money.

    That's literally what Minnesota United has done -- their first team is actually pretty darn good.

    Giving them MORE incentive to invest in the now isn't going to help that.
     
    don Lamb, STR1 and Stupid_American repped this.
  10. bpet15

    bpet15 Member+

    Oct 4, 2016
    This is an embarrassing moment for Minnesota, but its even more embarrassing for MLS as a whole. In my opinion, Lagos had every opportunity to say that they will have an Academy and they are only making changes, but he didn't even come close to saying that. He beat around the bush like most soccer executives and spoke in extreme generalities.

    We can debate pro/rel as much as we want, but no one can debate that MLS structure is a hinderance to growing the league and US players. The very system that allowed them to initially succeed and build sustainability, will be the one that brings the league down eventually.

    It is also my opinion that MLS is in a terrible financial situation that has been masked by exorbitant expansion fees that do not add up from a true market standpoint. Just because someone is willing to pay $250M for a club, does not mean that is the correct market value. As expansion slows, the league is going to have to figure out a way to generate other sources of sustainable revenue. The first thing that comes to mind is developing players that are valued within the world market.
     
    PhillyFury repped this.
  11. Patrick167

    Patrick167 Member+

    Dortmund
    United States
    May 4, 2017
    Everytime the USSF or MLS does something that looks bad or is embarassing or against narrative or seems negligent, the US Soccer media will invent an excuse and print/say it as fact.

    Occam's Razor is that Minny just closed their Academy, learning from Chicago.

    A USMNT fan would not care except: Minnesota has "exclusive" rights to a large number of kids. Even before pro/rel has to be considered, simply getting rid of exclusivity in your Homegrown Market, would reward the best and penalize the worse. But, when you are part of a gifted monopoly, you tend to view everything as daughter monopolies.

    BTW, this is another area where the media will continually discuss, tell, talk about how these homegrown territories, "will end soon". They say this over and over. Nobody at MLS has ever said this. Recently, they've said the opposite.

    If Minnesota doesn't even have an Academy, they will probably have the rights to every kid in their area still. If one of those kids tried to go to FC Dallas, I bet MLS would block it.
     
    majspike, SCSAutism and STANDFAST repped this.
  12. kba4life1

    kba4life1 Member+

    Jul 14, 2010
    Irvine, CA
    Bingo. Yes, teams around the globe vary in caring or not giving a shit about youth development. But “homegrown territories” are hot garbage, and minimize player development in this country as a means of parity. Min Utd, ATL, Portland, etc are all well within their rights to half ass their academies, but players shouldn’t be stapled to their domain just because they are unfortunate enough to live in those zip codes.

    So stupid.
     
    David Kerr, majspike, SCSAutism and 2 others repped this.
  13. bpet15

    bpet15 Member+

    Oct 4, 2016
    This is the biggest thing for me. While I may want pro/rel, I can also appreciate that the structure currently in place protects our top league financially. I don't like it at all, but at least understand the reasoning behind it.

    What I can't accept is the "rights" that are given to MLS clubs solely based on a players address. If MLS is not sustainable enough to open competition in the league, than the least they could do is create competition in the player development area. This is the area that needs to be "opened" more than any other. In the end, it would make the league better, it would make American players better and it would remove those that aren't interested in investing in youth.
     
  14. gogorath

    gogorath Member+

    None
    United States
    May 12, 2019
    Homegrown rights are dumb. They will eventually go away, though I have no idea when.
     
    STR1 repped this.
  15. kba4life1

    kba4life1 Member+

    Jul 14, 2010
    Irvine, CA
    I’m not sure if they will. “Free agency” for domestic youth in the MLS web would be at direct conflict with the years of service requirements for MLS vets to be free agent eligible.

    FCD, Philly, Seattle etc are doing a good/great job of development, but I’m still skeptical of most teams in this league, and the overall barriers to entry the league puts forth.

    I’m glad indy USL teams are helping bridge that gap, as it’s quite large.
     
    Lookingforleftbacks repped this.
  16. Clint Eastwood

    Clint Eastwood Member+

    Dec 23, 2003
    Somerville, MA
    Club:
    FC Dallas
    #1241 Clint Eastwood, Jun 26, 2020
    Last edited: Jun 26, 2020
    To be fair.................RSL's homegrown territory is also trash. RSL, however, has invested a lot. SKC''s isn't particularly good. They've invested a lot. I can keep going.

    Homegrown rights are silly and will go away some day.
    However, FCD isn't the best academy in terms of homegrown products because of DFW. Servania, Tessman, Roberts, Richards, Pepi, etc. etc. don't come from FCD's homegrown territory. Those players were available to all of MLS. FCD invests in scouting and recruitment, just like clubs like SKC do.

    So don't tell me Minnesota or any of these clubs can't have a great academy or homegrown program because they don't have a good "homegrown territory." That's only part of the youth and player development game. Are Wisconsin, Michigan, etc. part of anybody's homegrown territories? What about Iowa and Nebraska. Indiana?

    How about this Minnesota? Get off your ass and do what SKC does with their youth affiliate program. They've set up youth affiliates across the midwest everywhere other than the Fire's homegrown territory in Illinois. FCD and SKC both have affiliates in Arkansas of all places. Why? Its a long-term play to set up scouting and recruiting networks. And then you can discover players like Thomas Roberts to bring into your academy. Its not

    upload_2020-6-26_18-41-18.png

    If the Athletic article is to be believed, this is simply about money. They were planning on doing this before COVID-19 hit. They claim that the money invested in their new stadium means less money available for other endeavors. Right now that's the academy. What's troublesome in that article is that there didn't seem to be any connection between the academy and the first team whatsover. What we know from successful development clubs in the league, is that close coordination of the academy teams and the first team is required. You have to behave like you're ONE big extended team. One family.
     
    Pegasus and STR1 repped this.
  17. ussoccer97531

    ussoccer97531 Member+

    Oct 12, 2012
    Club:
    --other--
    1276551741027254272 is not a valid tweet id
     
    Tactical Hipster and STR1 repped this.
  18. butters59

    butters59 Member+

    Feb 22, 2013
    Intriguing, huge and skilled? Has anyone seen this kid playing? Not a great video of someone who scored 100+ goals.
     
  19. ussoccer97531

    ussoccer97531 Member+

    Oct 12, 2012
    Club:
    --other--
    Yes. I thought the description was good enough though that it was worth posting here. I think the description and videos sold his skillset short. He’s a big goal scorer (always shooting) and also has positional versatility.

    He has some of the same skills as Tim Weah with a great combination of size, pure athleticism and goal scoring. I think Thaggard is more of a dribbler than Weah, while Weah is more of a goal poacher. Thaggard is more involved in the play.
     
  20. bpet15

    bpet15 Member+

    Oct 4, 2016
    #1245 bpet15, Jun 27, 2020
    Last edited: Jun 27, 2020
    This is absolute bollocks. FCD has done a good job finding the kids you mention, but make no mistake about it, they are the best because the talent in DFW. You obviously aren’t familiar with Richards or Tessmans story if you are trying to give FCD credit for going out and recruiting them. You can’t just name 5 of 30 homegrowns and dismiss what is one of the two best markets in the US for players.

    While we agree on not liking territory restrictions, we differ on solutions. Instead of having MLS clubs set up shop in Arkansas, Alabama or any other smaller markets, I would much rather have Minnesota be able to go into Dallas, LA or NY and compete for players.
     
  21. Balerion

    Balerion Member+

    Aug 5, 2006
    Roslindale, MA
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Well, maybe not a club that just fired its entire academy staff, but I agree on the principle!
     
  22. bpet15

    bpet15 Member+

    Oct 4, 2016
    Insert any MLS club name in for Minnesota.:)
     
  23. ussoccer97531

    ussoccer97531 Member+

    Oct 12, 2012
    Club:
    --other--
    #1248 ussoccer97531, Jun 27, 2020
    Last edited: Jun 27, 2020
    Fair enough. I wasn't aware of what was in the article, so it would've been nice if it was made clear initially, but I appreciate the follow up.

    Thats better than nothing. We agree about that.

    I think you did.

    You are saying that the fact that MLS artificially alters the structure of football (and its an artificial altering because I don't know of any other country where there isn't promotion/relegation) in a NA sports environment is why owners invest in the first place. You are saying that if they were subjected to the possibility of relegation that they would not put in the investment that they do, whether thats to the club in general or even a part of the club, like the academy.

    I disagree with that. I think there's an appetite for investment from current and prospective owners. I think there would be even more with an open system.

    I think you misunderstand the structure there is around the world. There is no top club in football that you can convince me doesn't put a lot of money into youth development, their facilities, their youth coaching, the players they bring in, their scouting. They all put enormous resources into that. In almost all cases, the most money. It doesn't however mean they will end up using those players in the first team eventually. A lot of them don't because its more lucrative from a sporting perspective not to.

    It's a misnomer though to make it seem like it's an either/or proposition. All top clubs with a lot of money put resources into all the important parts of the club. They would be stupid not to, and thats why they all follow the same formula with the money they put into the different parts of the club. The ones who don't do so are the teams that don't spend the same amount of money.

    We don't need to make it seem like there has to be a choice here between spending money on the first team and putting money into the academy. I also don't think Atlanta is a team that doesn't put money into their academy. There are things to criticize them for. They might be the worst offender with how they use young Americans in their first team, and I'm not completely convinced about the work they do with their academy (coaching/scouting), but I don't see any evidence that they don't put money into this side of things. I think this is also a completely separate discussion that has nothing to do with the discussion about Minnesota or MLS. There are "Atlanta's" in every country in the world.

    I'm sorry, but you are totally missing the point. This is not about choosing established players over youth. You are making this into an either/or proposition. What I am saying is that there are some owners in MLS that have the idea that once they pay the (big) fee to get into the league that they don't have to build out the club with a consistent stream of financial resources into making the club better in a lot of regards. Some of them think its enough to finance a 2-3M transfer once a season for these players mentioned.

    A 2-3M investment once per year is not anything significant to these owners. It doesn't make a dent on their bank account. They should not be applauded for making these investments into the first team and then lauded as spending money, if they don't have the desire to put financial resources into making the club a household name in MLS. They need to show a desire to invest in many regards. It's not only about buying one or two players a season that could help first team results. Some of these owners think thats enough, and there are some fans that laud them for doing this.

    What I think the system does is allows them to do this, and get away with it. There's no real penalty for what amounts to not investing into the club. The worst case scenario is that they finish low in the standings, and break even financially at the end of the year. They still will hold their place in MLS for the next season. In no other country in the world (or one's I can think of) does this type of system occur.

    I agree with some of this, and disagree with other parts.

    I think the concept that the lack of promotion/relegation should allow teams to take more of a longer view in many regards is correct.

    However, I think you are wrong to think that there is a long-term vision with all of these clubs to eventually start investing a lot of money into the club. I think MLS has created a very backwards model that is eventually going to hurt the league. MLS benefits from being the de-facto top division, but I don't believe it benefits from the system its created where they are against eventual promotion/relegation. They've locked themselves into an arrangement with some owners who see no obligation to build out their clubs, and make them anything close to a top or even a respectable club globally.

    You have the richest country in the world, and you've created a system where some owners who don't want to spend anything significant on their club are already into the exclusive club. If you had an open system, I think far down the road you would see the most valuable league become the US top division because the USA has the richest prospective owners who should theoretically be putting the most money into their clubs around the world.

    I also don't buy the idea that with a system of merit that teams wouldn't put money into their academies. Short term, that might be a byproduct. You might see some of the MLS teams that don't spend take the strategy we are seeing Minnesota take now, but how bad could it get? If we take MLS at its word, they will still require them to field an academy. They can cut costs at the academy level in the short-term, but then long-term they will probably be in the 3rd or 4th division eventually.

    In the long-term, I highly doubt that it wouldn't be a positive. The teams with owners that don't invest into the club and cut costs at the academy level and other important parts of the organization will see their club fall down the leagues table, and the clubs that do invest will eventually rise to the top. In the long-term, you have the richest country, and should have the richest set of owners of professional football clubs. I don't think the wealth (or lack thereof) of owners for professional football clubs in this country is a big impediment to the system.

    I answered this above.

    I also think you continue to miss the point. You are making this into an issue of teams not wanting to give young academy players a chance because they don't have the money to invest in academy players and established first team players, so they end up choosing the established first team players over the academy players.

    I view it from a less-focused approach. If clubs don't want to use young players in their first team, there will eventually be other solutions (MLS getting rid of the HG territories or players going to Europe to name two I can readily think of). There are definitely problems that need to be ironed out with this more-focused issue with the system. I don't disagree.

    My focus is on the resources that teams are putting into their academy teams. I think it's a great detriment if teams are cutting out teams, cutting coaches, cutting scouts, bringing in cheaper (usually worse) coaches, and not providing their players with state of the art facilities.

    There are definitely many issues and I would never try to distill this to one issue, but this is the most key one, IMO. What we can't do is go backwards on youth development in these age groups. If MLS wants to go backwards and can't get their act together, the best American players will bypass them (Pulisic, McKennie, Reyna). I'm not even taking an opinion on that because it doesn't matter.

    Further down the road, we'll let the results of the products of MLS compared to other mechanisms decide a referendum on the job MLS teams have done at the professional level with young American players. I think it's definitely important that you have your top division working well towards developing players for your national team. I don't think you can maximize development of players without that, but professional player development has other solutions. Thats why I think making this into the biggest issue is missing the point. Youth development cannot work in this country without MLS's full dedication to it, which is why I think that has to be the biggest issue and the main point.

    I think it's true that MLS clubs have yet to turn a profit in this regard. I don't disagree with you about that, but we can't put this all on that structure being broken. It works in many other countries.

    MLS teams in the past have failed in certain regards (utilizing players, developing players, selling players), and that accounts for part of why they haven't turned a profit in this regard.

    In some countries and for some teams, thats the only way they keep their club running. I'm not suggesting that's how it'll work in the USA. I think there's a lot more financial power with these owners.

    I also think we are starting to see some teams start to invest more into developing and utilizing young players. Hopefully we'll see them eventually sell players. I think turning a profit is definitely a possibility for every academy in MLS. I think the general improvement of young American players will help that and why they are better suited to turn a profit now than 10 years ago, but it's not such an easy thing to do. They have to put in the effort to doing so in many regards, and so far we haven't seen that on any wide scale.

    I'm not sure about this link you've made.

    They have an academy because that should be a basic function of a professional football club. Can you give me examples of countries where its not one of the basic functions of professional football clubs?

    Having an academy, and putting significant resources into it is not the same thing. I also don't see any USL club that we can say is anywhere near building out the product (on all or even some fronts) of the best in MLS, so until we see that, its all theoretical that they will want to do this to turn a profit. So far, we've seen no examples of it successfully working in USL.

    I'm not saying my theory about this is infallible, but until your theory has any examples of it working, you are speculating as much as I am.

    First of all, I'm not a pro/rel fanatic. I wasn't even for promotion/relegation until I saw that some MLS teams don't want to invest resources into their clubs. At that point, I realized that the only way forward was a system thats open, and where these clubs could be held accountable. Minnesota is a good example of a club that should be held accountable, but won't be.

    I didn't say that promotion/relegation will fix all ills of the system. There are many. What I do think it will fix is a system where certain MLS owners don't care about building their product. They are content to own what they view as a major NA sports franchise, and they'll sit on their product, spend little on it, and hope over the course of 10-15 years they luck out one or two years and can say they are a Champion.

    It's good for marketing their other businesses, as well. Most of them might not turn a profit with their MLS franchises, but I doubt they lose anything significant. They are content to essentially break even with their MLS product, and use it as a way to prop up their other investments and maybe gain some individual joy or professional prestige if a championship comes.

    If you think this is only about Minnesota, you are missing the point, once again.

    In the last year, we have two examples now of clubs that either want to cut key age groups or cut large parts of their academy staff. Those are examples that are known about and I can think of off the top of my head. There might be more. There probably is. MLS clubs also wiggled their way into a system where they are no longer required to even field a U-19 team, so I'm sure we'll see some more teams take the Chicago strategy. We don't know yet though which clubs will.

    I'm sure we'll see some clubs cut out U-13, U-14 age groups further, as well, if they haven't already. MLS is giving these teams more freedom, and we can be sure that the owners that don't care about building their product will look for every way out of youth development that they can get. I don't think more freedom is the way to go. I'd like to see MLS (or the organization that runs the main development league) lay out some basics that need to be stuck to. I'm not even suggesting all of these are vital.

    You can run a successful academy without a U-13 team or U-14 team, but these are small costs. It's nothing that'll make any financial difference for these owners. I'd rather see an over-investment, if anything, than an under-investment. Let's see MLS show that they are going to make youth development a priority and clubs that want to cut costs in this regard will not be allowed to.

    As to MLS running the new league, I think there are positives and negatives. Which organization is worse, USSF or MLS? Thats what it comes down to. I don't think it's clear cut, but I can't say that I think MLS is doing a great job either or that the new league system will be any better than the old one.

    Why was Chicago allowed to eliminate their U-19 team? Why don't many teams have U-13 and U-14 age groups?

    I'm not even suggesting that some of these things are egregious. As I've said, I don't think a U-13 or U-14 age group is absolutely vital, but the organizations that put the most into youth development around the world certainly have them, and don't cut these very minor costs that MLS has allowed clubs in recent years to cut or entirely never take on to begin with.

    Signing of HGP's is not as important as some people think. MLS teams often use it as a PR campaign, which is exactly what Chicago did. It's not completely worthless because it does allow you to get a sense of how teams rate certain players, which players they are capable of signing, and which players they might use in the first team in upcoming years.

    Around the world, they don't operate in HGP's. They have academy players that have a standard academy contract agreement. They move them to different levels of the club and they use them as they see fit. They don't need to sign a HGP contract to play for the first team. Let's see Chicago use some young players from their academy, and then I'll compliment them. We shouldn't give them huge compliments for signing a string of 15 year olds.

    No, the ROI is certainly there, if they take the steps to return the investment. If you think they've calculated that they physically can't produce players (with the 14, 15, 16 year olds at their disposal or they could recruit) to finance the cuts they've made to their academy staff (I'm sure not more than 1-2M, if even that) and eventual cuts I'm sure are coming to how they approach youth development, I think you are being extremely naive.

    Look at what the Union have done. They've taken players like McKenzie and Aaronson, two players with absolutely no prior pedigree, and turned them into players that will probably return them an eventual investment. Thats because they've actually worked hard to develop them, and have given them a platform to showcase their talents. Look at what the Rapids are doing with Bassett, another player with absolutely no prior pedigree.

    The ROI is possible for every club. For some clubs, they have to work harder than others. I don't however think the solution is to cut costs to vital parts of any football club (that wouldn't have made a dent to the owner financially), and not even try to make a ROI. It shows a lack of ambition, and it shows that they are comfortable being in the exclusive MLS club where they are not held accountable for doing something like this.
     
  24. Pegasus

    Pegasus Member+

    Apr 20, 1999
    Club:
    FC Dallas
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I wonder if there’s a way to reward teams for their academies. Perhaps as tie breakers for supporter’s shield or playoffs? Even I think reserving a spot in CCL for team with best academy that year (for one who would decide that) is a bit much. Maybe minutes played by HG’s or HG’s under a certain age would decide best academy every year and the rank of all teams to decide tie breakers?
     
  25. gogorath

    gogorath Member+

    None
    United States
    May 12, 2019
    @ussoccer97531 I'm going to be super hypocritical here, because I write novels as well, and just say I don't have the energy to read that whole thing. I also definitely would get sucked into responding point by point, and would die on my couch, writing the equivalent of War and Peace.

    That's on me.

    I will simplify the argument and then let you have the last word. I do understand your point of view at the high level. However, there are two points I will make and then go:

    1. Pro/Rel creates a strong incentive for teams to focus on the short term wins and losses of their senior team. If they invest in a 27 year old striker today, that gets them points toward promotion or away from relegation. If they invest in an academy, that gets them points five or ten years from now, and that's not useful. The lack of it allows teams to lose more now and invest in the future.
    2. The unique economic structure of MLS creates high asset values for the teams relative to revenues. This creates incentive for the owners to invest in long term assets like stadiums and, yes, academies, despite relatively low operating revenues. In an environment where asset values are not significant nor rising, all expenses need to be justified by operating revenues, and that's hard to to invest.
    Since MLS was starting from scratch, there's a lot more up front investment to do in comparison to keeping something already running.
     

Share This Page