after reading various websites, i'm pretty surprised at the number of yanks go overseas. and with the strong performance by tim howard, i guess it isn't suprising that more players would go overseas. i can understand how this may be troubling for some, as mls is stripped of some of its star players (e.g. mcbride, bocanegra), but i think that in the end it will help to make the u.s. national team stronger and more experienced. and it allows younger players the opportunity to come in and make a name for themselves in mls. i can also understand that having marquee players leave mls to play abroad may give the perception that mls is a 2nd-rated league. but in all honesty, it wouldn't be entirely fair to compair mls to the english premier league or the bundesliga. i certainly hate to see them go, but their getting a chance in a lifetime on the world's biggest stage. hats off and best wishes to mcbride, mathis, west, and bocanegra!
At the expense of MLS. But it's apparent no one around here really cares... Do you know why I keep beating this dead horse? Because in ten and in twenty years, at this rate, this league will be no better off than it is now if we keep leveraging our best players. There's nothing bittersweet about it, it is downright awful.
I beg to differ... Although I respect Mr. Sybing's opinions, I think that having 3 or 4 or 5 players cross over to Europe each year is not going to really hurt MLS too badly. I think we need to adopt the attitude of "Take as many as you wish, we'll make more." There's already been a pretty decent tradition of players coming from the bench of one team to start and become stars for another. And look at the number of players who came out of the draft in 2003 to play big time minutes. The rookie of the year in 2003 was drafted 39th. How about Nat Borchers? He wasn't even drafted. Jamal Walker? He came from pretty far out in left field. MLS is a league that gives players opportunities and there will always be some who take advantage of it. Despite the fact that players moving to Europe is inevitable, I think the long term effect will be to develop even more good young players and increase the player base for the USMNT. But I'd still like to see at least 100 players in residency-type academies like Bradenton. Hopefully that will come.
Re: Re: bittersweet ... I have a few questions for you: 1. Do you think MLS, with all its operating losses, can afford to pay market value for its top players, i.e. what European clubs are offering, and still stay financially viable? 2. Given that Howard, McBride et al wanted to play in Europe, do you believe MLS could sign them to long-term contracts without vastly overpaying them (i.e. more than what they would bring in increased attendance, etc)? 3. Knowing that these players won't re-sign with MLS when European clubs offer wage packets that dwarf MLS contracts, is it better to a) Keep those players until their contracts expire, lose bidding wars by a country mile and let them walk for free? or b) Sell those players, get something in return and give some promising players (Jonny Walker? Edson Buddle?) opportunity to play? Now, I understand your concern - you don't want MLS turning into a farm system for the European leagues. But with less than a handful of stars leaving each year, that's not happening now, and won't happen any time soon. What's more important is the long term survival of the league. MLS simply can't compete in the open market with richer European clubs, so it has to work the system to its advantage. MLS was going to lose Tim Howard sooner or later. By sending him last summer, not only did the league get a transfer fee, but it also made sure that he went to a marquee club and timed it with the ManU tour, generating publicity for itself. MLS wouldn't have had nearly that level of control had Howard left on a free transfer. Yes, we want to keep as many of our stars here as much as possible. But the league also has to control wages and generate revenue. It's a balancing act, and imho, MLS is doing an adequate job.
Re: I beg to differ... Doesn't help too much either, is all I'm saying. I think I'm looking for the term "treading water." I'm just going to say that I agree with skipshady that it is a balancing act, but as it is right now it is no balance when MLS loses players in their prime, only to get back hot prospects who are all potential but little accomplishment and accomplished but aging veterans. There is no reciprocity - none - when it comes to MLS dealing with Europe. Where is the balance? Right now this league needs players who are at their best, not untested draft picks or recycled has-beens, Lord knows we've been filling the rosters with them. Is it inevitable? Probably, I don't know. I think you guys have proven that I don't have the answers, but I shouldn't be the only one trying to look for them. By the way, I digress, but why am I the only one who has to look for the answers? How come MLS doesn't have fans that are just as passionate? Does it help the league long-term? Maybe, maybe not. 4-5 players leaving now could mean 20-30 players, possibly more, leaving ten years from now. We're not exactly helping our own cause by sitting idly by, especially when the whole lot of MLS fans prefer other leagues than MLS, I seem to be the only one who doesn't. The rest seem to be content to follow a club an ocean away than support a team across town. Hyperbole, yes, it's getting late, but don't tell me it's not the least bit true. And, by the way, US soccer is more than just the national team.
20 to 30 players leaving annually? That's more than a whole team. How could that possibly happen? If MLS can sell some players that want to go to Europe and make money from it, it's a great deal. Most transfer fees equal the team salary cap. So they can take that money and reinvest it in the league. For me it's a win win. I'm not going to stop watching MLS because a few players leave every year. There will always be hungry young American players ready to fill those slots, and that is what we need to grow MLS.
So you would be fine if MLS was just a farm league? Not just today, but tomorrow as well? That's fine, you can admit it. It's not what I want, but OK. I can understand the priorities, however backwards, of other soccer fans in this country.
MLS will never be big unless the best Americans are playing here. Before that can happen (and work), the perception must change that American players are second- or third-class. So if in the short term MLS needs to sell some players to prove that our guys are able to play with the best, that's OK with me. If in ten years MLS continues to sell a bunch of its best players every year, I'll probably tune out. I don't watch minor league baseball either.
Re: Re: bittersweet ... I agree 100%, and have said this a million times, but all those MLS knowitall's that know everything about the league think that there isn't money to keep players and its better to let the best in MLS go abroad... am i supposed to spend all my energy following the premeirship instead of MLS now???
Don't European fans complain when their top league imports players b/c it stifles domestic talent? I guess what you're arguing for is a balance. But I think MLS benefits more than loses by sending native talent abroad. It elevates the league's standing and therefore some young talent would choose MLS, like Adu and LD.
when I said MLS should consistently sell some players abroad I meant for the short term. They have to do this now to make the league financially viable. After the teams start making a profit then they can pay the players more and the need for them to go to Europe will not be as great.
Re: Re: bittersweet ... Two guys who were out of contract, and presumably didn't want to sign with MLS, and one guy who's been with MLS since its existance...
At this rate, with the league being so far in the red, we won't even have a league for it to be awful. That, my friend, would be awful. I personally don't think that all the top players have left MLS. Beasley and Landon, amongst others, are still around to make things rather interesting. Plus, the better our league gets, the more incentive for some of our big guns abroad to come BACK to MLS. They can still further their career but be at home w/ their family and friends. In due time, these guys WILL come back. Besides, w/ more and more success of our guys in Europe, the transfer fees will get higher and higher, to the point where we will groom stars and get enough $$ to buy a few So. American mid-fielders, which the league could really use. Although, even Mexico's 2nd tier league pays better than MLS, and the cost of living is way lower there. Meanwhile, more than half of MLS teams are in the most expensive cities. Truly what is more disturbing is the fact that the league routinely lets guys go b/c they can save $10,000 and pay somebody younger the league minimum. The A-League is fine by that, and they scoop up former MLS players who want to make more in A-League than they would in MLS. The talent is out there to replace guys that go abroad
Re: Re: bittersweet ... While I agree with you that loosing our best players is tough and does make it harder to market MLS to the typical (non-soccer fanatic) American, I do believe that soccer in this country has to make some difficult choices if the MLS is going to continue to grow. This maybe one of them. For instance, I find it terrible that the minimum salary in MLS is so low, it really should be around 100K, but the revenue is simply not there. Without larger salaries I don't think its fair for top US players to stay in the MLS, nor would it be smart to morgage the league's stability by paying players too much. Professional leagues in this country are all struggling with salaries and attendance. Soccer with a lesser share of the market has to deal with these issues as well. The NBA/NFL/MLB all thrive on lucrative TV contracts, and we know the MLS will not get such a contract in the forseeable furture. So if selling our players can be MLS's version of the TV contract so be it. I much rather have MLS survive until it has a larger fan base and TV ratings to support it... Ten years ago i doubted there would ever be another premier soccer league in the US and look where we are...in another 10 to 15 years maybe we'll be able to to afford to keep our players... but not right now.
Re: Re: I beg to differ... Interesting.... As a life long player of 20 plus years i have only recently become a fan of foreign teams because of US players playing on them. Different stokes... different folks...
Don't think that that is not lost on Euro clubs. Granted, it's not a lucrative cable contract, but extra merchandise sales in a very wealthy country are an enticing form of revenue.
Oh my gosh, I'm actually agreeing with uclacarlos. But what he said is correct. To the bigger Euro clubs, the US must look like a huge potential pile of cash just waiting to be grabbed. The richest country on earth, 280 million people who haven't yet commttted to a team. Yeah, I'm sure they're salivating. But I wonder how much money the NBA sees from all the Shaquille jerseys I've noticed in foreign countries. I found a store full of every team's kit in Panama, all by the same maker. (Inlcuding the LA Galaxy.) Maybe we should follow the international tradition and bootleg all the European shirts!
You may be one of the few people that understand my point of view. But I don't believe MLS gains more than it loses. What balance? We give Europe almost everything it wants, they screw us almost every time. For every Adu and Donovan that stays, we have four that go abroad. That doesn't raise the profile of MLS, it raises the profile of the EPL and the Bundesliga. The only people who pick up on the prominence of MLS, besides MLS supporters, are the managers of European clubs who want nothing but to swipe our talent away. Hey, if there was reciprocity, you wouldn't hear me complain. If I even thought that one day, ten or twenty years from now, there would be a balance you wouldn't hear me complain. But who was the last player that this league acquired that was playing in his prime AND didn't earn his first stripes in MLS (i.e. Guevara, Ruiz, etc.)? Is there anyone at all who fits that description?
Unfortunately, MLS is in a financial position where it loses players to the A-League as well as European teams because of salary. Put yourself in the player's position. Do you want your career to end at the level and pay that Wynalda's did? If you are the league do you want to tap into this revenue stream or not? Players have short careers so they must make what they can fast. Not selling players also keeps talent from developing. If the league held onto Stern John and McBride, would that be good for Buddle's developement? If the league keeps Friedel and Howard are there two less or two more starting jobs for American keepers in the world? Not only do the transferred players improve but thier replacements are generally younger and have more years to improve. As long as the league is losing so much money, our model should be the higher teams of Holland's Eredivise that make profits off the sales of talent as well as putting a quality product on the field. Players will always transfer away as long as the competition and paycheck is higher but what MLS lacks is a true developemental system.
Also consider that we have only 10 teams in an extremely large country in which virtually every kid plays soccer. The departure of less than a half dozen stars is necessary for a half dozen others to come through the system.
If the player wants to leave and MLS gets a fair transfer fee, then MLS should have no other choice but to sell. Beasley and Mathis had received transfer offers from Euro clubs, but several of the offers were way too low, and MLS correctly refused. If they really want the player, they will pay a higher fee (see the Howard transfer). It also improves the league by demonstrating to young players with offers from Europe that they can get quality playing time in MLS, but MLS will let them move if a club puts up a decent offer. If MLS refuses to sell young players, many won't consider MLS. I would like to be able to convince these players to stay, but right now that's impossible. However if Americans that developed in MLS play well overseas, more transfer bids will come, allowing MLS to make some money, which would hopefully lead to a higher salary cap, which could allow MLS to convince quality players to sign longer deals.
This from today's LA Times: It should be our GOAL to have players tranfer for these amounts. One such transfer would pay for all MLS salaries for TWO years!! Maybe then we could start paying what Mexico's 2nd division pays! How can we expect businessmen who truly are making sacrifices in their portfolio, to turn down money for some idealistic notion of the sanctity of the league? How can we expect players to stay when all their friends are making more $$ than them in the private sector?
Even the EPL loses players - Beckham to Real Madrid. The Dutch, Belgian, and French leagues continually loses players to the Spanish, Italian, and English leagues. South Americans and Africans play all over Europe. Like MLS, losing players helps support the clubs who can then develop more players. When MLS brings in the revenue and has the competitive strength to attract and afford the Henrys, Figos, and Owens of the soccer world, we will still lose players that want the European experience. MLS is slowly increasing attendance, national media exposure, and revenues; but it takes time. We're making progress.
Currently this is my big problem with how MLS is selling our players. US players are bargin bin shopping for the Euro leagues. There is no way Howard, (and to a lesser extent McBride/ Bocenegra) is less valuable and should have deserved a transfer fee with numbers similiar to those you mentioned. Hopefully this will change, becuase US National team starting players deserve to have transfer fees fit their ability and status.
Re: Re: bittersweet ... This was a free market exercise, and the market doesn't lie. Something is "worth" what a willing buyer is willing to pay for it. You were not putting up your money so what you think something is worth is meaningless.