The Question is, do MLS sell and make money or let EJ leave for nothing. Because he has made it clear he is going to Europe eventually.
Sorry, I was only going on what I had read. I was under the assumption that he was an average forward when Manu plucked him up and turned him into a brilliant defender. My bad.
Im sorry but im sick of so many saying Spector wasnt anything special before he went to ManU. Anyone that saw him during the u17 world championship in Finland could telll that he was an elite defensive player. Enough already ManU helped his progress a large amount but the talent was there. Playing against top level talent from around the world just brought it out faster with expierences that he could gain at only a small amount of clubs in the world. On the age your right its different situations, though we shouldnt even think of ManU because he cannot qualify for a work permitt yet
No, the real question is whether MLS will be able to develop itself because of players like EJ, or will this league roll over and evacuate its rising stars as it does its top talent.
Well, what might be in the best interest of MLS(keeping EJ) might not be in the best interest of the U.S. national team. So ask yourself, which is more important to you? I'm selfish, so I want E.J. to get his grownAss over to Europe and become a great player. What's good for the Nats, is good for me. I still want MLS to do well, but not at the expense of the national team.
Would they? Yes they might lose a transfer fee worth a few million, but if they take the first decent offer for every good young player (and it appears we're developing more and better ones of these each year) couldn't you then argue that the long term effects this would have on the league would be of equal or more likely greater cost? There's a cost for every sale of a player. That cost is whatever future value that player would bring to the league if he was not sold. It would be very easy to reach a point where these costs become as or more significant than the transfer fees one might receive for them. Remember, Phil, Lamar, the Krafts, Kroenke, Checketts and Vergara all are not short on funds. Most of the smaller leagues around the world sell because the sales are an absolutely vital source of capital. The money may eventually only even out in the long run in terms of profits and franchise values measured against the transfer fees received. But transfer fees are money received now, whereas the costs come later. For most leagues in the world, this is a critical factor in their willingness to sell players. It is not an important factor for a league like MLS which has infinitely more available capital than league-wide expenditures.
MLS will be subject to cycles with respect to talent coming and going. It's really not that big of a deal for McBride, Boca, Mathis, Donovan, Beasley, and possibly EJ going off to Europe as pretty soon we'll see guys like Reyna, Keller, Lewis, McBride, etc. coming to MLS from Europe...and the league and its young talent will be all the better for it. Those who complain about MLS losing its best young talent must remember that the door swings both ways. The more young guys that leave MLS to perform well in Europe, the more young guys MLS will be able to sign. In addition, as MLS's reputation grows around the world, the more likely it is for the world to pay (and I mean pay as in $$$) attention to it.
Don't assume the league owners want to continue losing money. Eventually, earnings will have to out-pace expenses. They are businessmen first, and philanthropists after.
Yes, but it doesn't always work that way, nor has MLS particularly hampered the development of many players either. I think ultimately, if the player can get good 1st team playing time, or goes their early enough (that point is already passed for Eddie I think) then yes Europe provides somewhat of a developmental advantage over MLS for a variety of reasons. But those are some big ifs, whereas a guy like Clint Dempsey can step in with MLS and get right down to brass tax. And that's one advantage of MLS. If Europe was as huge a developmental advantage as it is often made out to be here, you'd see a much greater % of the post-1996 Euro developed players on the National Team. But instead it seems that there's plenty of Bryce Wegerle and John Thorrington and Grover Gibson and Raul Palomares and David Johnson and Alex Yi types to go around. MLS certainly has its share as well, but my point isn't that MLS develops better, just that it doesn't appear the development gap is near as large as it's often made out to be. Most of the countries that are better than us at the senior level now are better than us at the U17 level as well (or would be if they attempted to field full squads like we do). Similarly most of the non-African countries worse than our senior team are also worse than our U17s. I would venture that a significant percentage of the causes for the strength of national teams are due to factors that occur in development before the age of 17. Johnson going to PSV at 21 comes a good deal after that point, so I think it's fair to at least question just how much extra development would occur at this point for Eddie in Europe over Eddie here. I don't think I'd say "none," but then I'm not sure I'd say "a bunch" either.
I like Roehl's viewpoint. Ultimatly I think we need to be exactly what he supports. A domestic league that develops and keeps its talent at home and thus builds a stronger more skillful league. I think that day will come eventually once the league can sustaion payrolls that are large enough to keep these guys here. In the mean time, this is how things will have to be...not thats it entirley bad..look what it has done for Brasil's national side. So far we have had new guys come up to take the spots and it appears that trend will continue, but if we really want MLS to be a major international league we are eventualy going to have to consolidate our talent instead of ship it.
Don't assume they actually are losing money (I mean in the real sense, not in the "our accountants say so" sense). Vergara and Checketts sure didn't seem to be concerned about it.
I'm not entirely sure selling players to Europe has been the catalyst to Brazil's success. In fact until 2002, Brazil's World Cup history seemed to be far more positive in the era where more of their players stayed home. Brazil's U17s (not a Euro in the bunch) mobbed a US U-17 team that had Freddy Adu, Danny Szetela, Eddie Gaven and Jonathan Spector on the field at the same time. Brazil is already significantly better than us before an age where the players move to Europe. Indeed one could argue that we're far more competitive with Brazil at the senior level than at the youth levels, which would somewhat counter the argument that selling adult players to Europe substantially helps development. What Europe has for adult players (professional soccer), we actually do have here in the US as imperfect as it may be. We do not, however have things like pick-up soccer, professional youth training and nationwide high level scouting. Selling adult players to Europe might help in that regard if we used it as incentive to invest in some of those things as a means of getting greater returns on those sales. But since we don't have those things now, any sales made wouldn't likely be directed to those sorts of things. In any event, I remember Kaka before he headed over and let's just say he was plenty good before he had set foot outside of South America.
Thats why I want MLS players moving to Europe. I want MLS to have to look for good, young players which will drastically improve our Nat Team. Look at Ireland - 4million people - but able to compete with countries that have a much bigger base of players. The difference is English clubs sc out like hell in Ireland, everywhere football is played there are scouts, until US players are scouted more efficiently we will miss out on potential American Damien Duffs, Roy Keanes, Robbie Keanes, etc.
That has nothing to do with selling or holding on to players.In Brazil, young boys under 17 are playing soccer and soccer only. In the States, teenagers are playing football, baseball, basketball etc. (most of our young soccer stars played multiple sports). Also, the Brazilian boys are constantly facing tough competition whereas American boys are much better than their schoolmates and don't need to exert themselves as much. Therefore, the Brazilian boys are much more polished than the Americans at the same age. Players like Eddie Johnson, DaMarcus Beasley and Landon Donovan were extremely raw when they were 17 years old. MLS has given them the platform to develop their skills and expose them to the riggers of being a professional athlete.. However, in order to take that next step and produce world class players we need to be sending them to Europe. You could say that DMB and LD should've gone to Europe two years ago. But that's water under the bridge but we shouldn't be a league that holds players back and prevents them from reaching their true potential IMO.
It's better for the US national team to have players starting in Europe; not only does it help those players, but it also opens up a spot for a guy in MLS. We're not at the point yet where MLS attendance is contingent on any one player, aside from you know who which is a special case. We have the potential to be a top 5 country in the world due to soccer's current status as well as our population, and we're already top 20 at least. This can only help our ascent.
How is moving players to Europe going to influence MLS' scouting decisions? Scouting may affect how much MLS will get from Europe for players, but that's the case right now and MLS still outsources most of its domestic scouting to the NCAA and US Soccer. It appears MLS does not see the positive cost-benefit relationship of investing on this right now instead of sticking with the sources they use now. MLS may start scouting if any, some or all of the following occurred: a) US Soccer (or another independent actor) subsidized part of it; b) Teams were allowed to benefit from scouting for youth players instead of being somewhat limited in this regard by the draft; c) Shortfalls in scouting would leave teams hopelessy behind others on the field; d) MLS teams directly benefited from future transfer fees instead of those revenues accruing to the league; e) MLS teams had development plans to go with it. Youth scouting without youth development or vice versa is only a fraction as effective as the two working in unison. These things currently are not (AFAIK) scheduled to occur in the near future for MLS. Europe would be in play under these scenarios, but Europe is in play now so... 2005 Dallas without Eddie Johnson would look a good bet to be like 2004 Colorado; a team that non-partisans will have a difficult time wanting to watch. There are costs every time this league loses an exciting and talented player like Eddie Johnson and too often these costs are ignored in transfer discussions. Maybe ultimately the costs are less significant than the gain in transfer fees, but I think there at least should be discussion and argument (in the good non-trolling sense of that word) on that point instead of glossing over it.
I disagree with most posters here & think EJ should definitely stay in MLS for another year. Hopefully that year will continue his development - his skill level and his professionalism. I can't believe he has nothing left to learn from MLS. DMB, McBride, Bocanegra, especially Donovan are a totally different story. They needed to go. His time with the national team should be much greater if he stays at home - we've all seen it's easier to call in those good MLS players regularly. He needs that time with Bruce & his US teammates & that would more than make up for not sitting on the bench in Europe (see Bobby Convey). The same goes for Dempsey. It is obvious that MLS should resist transferring him right now. Keeping the exciting, young talent here is crucial. Let them go when they're ready, but not before. We should not get so excited with these training sessions & be so hasty to send these young guns overseas. MLS is perfect for them, and for every one MLS rookie (I know EJ was not a rookie, but it was his first good season) that succeeds on a good European team, 9 will fail. They need to be so good when they go that they will force themselves into the starting lineups. Otherwise, forget it. The last point above from Shaster about EJ not being able to make the pass - THANK YOU! I noticed that too, and I was thinking that even Adu would not have missed those two crosses to Donovan in the Jamaica game. Just one of the things EJ should work on, in the US!
TOTALLY agree with this point. And FC Dallas has a new name, a new stadium - they are going to need their star(s) to step up & win in order to succeed. A failure there would reflect on the whole league. EJ should score 25 goals, and Ronnie O is one of those players who can serve up a good ball to his strikers from time to time.
Let's not forget that Dallas has a new stadium opening next year and will try to recover it's attendance drop since the Southlake (high school stadium) debacle. Johnson scoring goals won't hurt. No way do I think Johnson is ready for Man U. He'd play with the reserves all year. But of course he's not work permit eligible (but was Howard? - Man U often gets what if wants), so he'd probably have to play a couple years somewhere else. At a big club, I think Johnson wouldn't get many minutes for a couple of years. So if that's the transfer, I say stay in MLS at least 1-2 more years. He wasn't even getting starts every game in MLS 1 year ago. No way I think he'd get playing time at Man U in the next 2 years. RVN. Rooney. Alan Smith. Saha. Who thinks he'd make the bench in 2 years? Playing on the reserves isn't THAT much better than MLS IMO. If MLS gets offered 5 million and he wants to go, sell him. Otherwise I support him staying 1 more year.
and then So which is it? Selling players to Europe has nothing to do with their developing World Class players, but somehow it does for us? If World Class players are developed at 17 and under, how does selling players at 21 help achieve that goal? 13 of Brazil's 23 WC winning players were playing domestically at the start of the tournament. Now some of those had gone to Europe and come back but nevertheless Brazillian football was sufficient to house a team that has a historically easy time with its competition. One of its best performers had been in Europe for less than a year (Ronaldinho) and had more than established his bona fides while still in Brazil (most notably in the 2000 Confederations Cup). You can give Paris-St. Germain a bunch of credit for Ronaldinho's development if you want, but I'd lean in the direction that Ronaldinho was already a hell of a lot better than anybody we have before he even got there. I have nothing against these players going to Europe because it's frankly not my choice to make, it's theirs. If that's what they want, it would be unfair to stop them. But on the other hand, I see no reason (from MLS' point of view) to facilitate or encourage it either. If MLS takes actions that encourage a player to stay here and ends up convincing that player, I don't understand the often shrill and harsh response that player gets on these boards.
It's probably true that EJ's MLS market value is at its peak. But man, the league has lost aLOT of marquee value in the last yaer. Donovan, GAM, Beasley, McBride, Convey (let's not start that argument, and just acknowledge his MARQUEE value.) I have alot of confidence in the US' ability to replenish the supply, but damn, that's too much to make up in the short term. Of course, there's a pretty good chance Mathis and Stern John will be coming back, so it's all good. Almost.
GAM hasn't left yet now. Donovan leaves as Ching emerges. Mapp will be good IMO. Buddle is stepping up. Gros can fill the "star power" lost in Convey (he had little). I'm not that concerned yet. If MLS all of a sudden sold of every player training in Europe, then I'd start to worry. It's not about getting new palyers to me, it's about players emerging. Gaven for Mathis. Dempsey, even Adu and Szetela shortly IMO. The only player I haven't seen "replaced" is Bocanegra and Chicago struggled. League wide though Marshall and Cochrane are looking good. And I think Chicago will recover next year. Donovan and Nelsen will be hard to replace. I hope teams use their allocations wisely (though yes it looks like DC won't get one for Nelsen).
FC Dallas can't let EJ go before the start of this season unless it's for an obscene amount of money. I would negotiate a deal today to arrange a sale for Eddie at the earliest for next August and only for a good chunk of change. MLS has him for two more years but I don't see him playing in MLS in 2006 unless he really falls off. But FC Dallas REALLY needs him to open their stadium.
there are so many incorrect statements and silly opinions in this thread, i don't have time in my day to answer them all, but... are you deranged?!? this may be the stupidest s*** anyone has said on this whack-a-mole forum in months