Talking to an MLS management figure about other topics and I happened to mention the Chivas thing to him. He seemed to feel that under current MLS rules a new teams could have mostly Mexican players anyway. I didn't write down everything he said but he mentioned internationals slots, allocations, discovery players and it seems like something else. He then noted you could fill out the roster with American players of Mexican descent. Anyone know the 1-2-3 on internationals and roster spots. How many players from a country could you get under the current roster rules?
It looks like you get three senior internationals, three transitional internationals and six developmental spots which can be any player under 23 including p40. You also can have players with green cards that wouldn't count as internationals. So the senior and transitional players and one cheap developmental player gives you seven right off the top. P40 would be a little trickier as they probably can't be Mexican citizens but could be dual citizens or players of Mexican heritage. Add in a couple of green card holders and older players of Mexican heritage and it would be easy to add a bunch more. Probably it would be easy to have 2/3's of the roster made up of Mexicans or players of Mexican heritage. I don't see how they would be able to go 100% or even be competitive if they did without a change in the rules.
Absolutely they could under current rules. And if Vergera's minions had just shut the fck up about it there wouldn't have been a problem. The fact that they publicly acknowledged that this is what they are trying to do cuts any potential "we were just taking the players we felt were the best available" legal argument at the knees. A player not picked up by any other MLS club would have had a hard time proving in court that it was his race, not his talent, that kept him from being employed. I hope they do attempt it. I also hope the Crew get to play them 4 times a year, because they will be unable to compete in this league if they limit themselves to a portion of the available talent (a portion that the rest of MLS teams can go after as well)
Re: Re: Couldn't Chivas have MOSTLY Mexican players under the current rules? Am I the only person nervous that the league won't allow the other teams to compete for those players? I mean, what if (for example) the league forces LA to make Memo available in the expansion draft? What if they force Chicago to make Carlos Bocanegra available?
Re: Re: Re: Couldn't Chivas have MOSTLY Mexican players under the current rules? Not that it would stop a league considering to make wholesale exceptions to the current rules, if the league follows the expansion draft rules of 1998, Memo would only be available if LA left him open on their roster long enough for him to be picked up. While I can't imagine LA doing this voluntarily, I can see a lot of back room pressure for this to happen. As for Bocanegra, you're assuming he isn't going across the pond this offseason. His contract will be up, so teams in Europe could pick him up without a transfer fee. If he does stay, I assume that anyone getting him would have to trade a marquis player slot to us.
thanks for the info on the rules. I suspect in the end, if he chooses to have a team (that's not quite certain yet, is it?), it'll be composed of a good number of Mexican players, but not entirely. I see tons of Salvadorians out to watch Cienfuegos at various stadiums. Hermosillo and Hernandez drew some big crowds of Mexicans on given nights, Jorge Campos too. A team wouldn't need to be ALL Mexican to appeal to the Mexican community in San Diego.
Although I've read in a couple articles a team is only allowed 2 TIs, the MLS rules(Ha Ha) actually don't state how many TIs a team could have or not. Here is the TI rules as written on MLSnet: Plus TIs count against the senior roster limit of 18, although it doesn't say that. There are currently 13 TIs right now. However, Diego Walsh(CLB), Albert Rizo(COL), Ronnie O'Brien(DAL), and Alejandro Moreno(LA) all become SIs next year because they turn 25. Which leaves 9 TIs next year. That means, if the rules stay the same, Chivas could bring in 11 TIs next year if they wanted and the league allowed it. Where do you find 11 internationals under 25, well..maybe on one of Chivas' reserve squads. Add that 11 with the 3 SIs and 6 development players(who can be foriegn or domestic) and Chivas can have 20 out a 24 man roster that are Mexican. Throw in a couple Mexican-American players and GC holders and you have 24 out of a 24 man roster all Mexican. Of course, following the rules would just be as bad as allowing them more SIs because it breaks with everything that MLS was created for. Plus it gives a bad view of MLS and Chivas as one that seeks to seperate our society. The great thing about soccer is it's supposed to bring people together not tair them apart.
Good point! They should have Beckham go to San Diego to appeal to the white people! Besides, San Diego has the second largest British community in the US.
Then let a Brit come in and finance a franchise. Vergara's using HIS money. As a result, HE wants some say in the makeup of the club. Good!
Herein lies the problem. MLS was formed to develop American talent. It's a key part of USSF's twenty-year plan to develop the game and win the World Cup. To allow one team to flout the rules would undermine said twenty year plan. Unless MLS are that desperate and things are not going to their plans, I cannot see why such a thing would be allowed. Either that or the MLS board and USSF will be at loggerheads.
It appears that Vergara wants "all" of the (not "some") say in the make-up of his club. And that just isn't possible in the current single-entity structure of the league. Vergara, like any investor, is actually putting their money in the league (and not only just their team), and must keep in mind the goals of the league, not just the aims of their one club. Of course he may create a new team with a heavily Mexican make-up, but everyone must remember that this is the US league.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: USSF needs MLS more than MLS needs USSF. MLS's top priority, no debate whatsoever, is its own survival. And if that brings it to odds with the USSF, than I am on MLS's side, as should you all.
The development of players for a national team is a by-product of Major League Soccer. A valuable by-product, but not it's raison d'etre. Does the NBA or NHL exist to develop players in basketball and hockey for national teams and world championship events? No. It's a by-product. If the Olympics went bust tomorrow, those leagues would get along very well. If the World Cup went bust tomorrow, would you all advocate MLS close up shop because it would have no purpose? Of course you wouldn't. Forget the aims or threats of the USSF. MLS justifies its own existance.
OK, you've misconstrued the whole situation and dragged in leagues that have no relevance or bearing to prove your point. Project 2010 and the original conditions behind getting World Cup '94 were based upon FIFA's desire to see top-flight football in the US. PLAIN AND SIMPLE. MLS exists because FIFA wanted to see the USSF have a league to develop players. If MLS died tomorrow, nobody would shed a single tear. FIFA would be annoyed, as FIFA are as obsessed with getting the game popular in the US as the NFL are obsessed with getting a franchise back into LA. FIFA has an obsession with having a World Cup winner from outside Europe and South America. Bear in mind that MLS means very little in world football. It's just another small time league with big ambitions, like Japan and Korea but without the money. However, it didn't stop FIFA brownnosing all of the above and giving them the World Cup. Fair enough, that's fine. We've already established what they want. In the world of hockey or basketball, the NBA and NHL are it. They pay the most, they are the most important leagues of their type in the world. They are also North American sports. Now basketball is big in Southern Europe, places like Spain, Greece and Yugoslavia. It also has a following in northern Europe, in Germany and Britain. However, the national leagues in these countries struggle. There isn't a true "world cup". These are not leagues that run that way. They run as "we are the big time and even the Olympics are small time". Look at the NFL. Nobody even tries to institute a world championship because nobody else has a pro league. OK, NFL Europe but does an American-owned league full of American players count just because they base teams in a foreign country? How can you use these leagues as a comparison? In a way, I see your point that player development is a by-product. However, this is not an organic league born out of necessity like the Football League (created so the big teams would play each other regularly), everything was created for a reason. That reason was to win the World Cup. That is MLS's original purpose. Yes, MLS should be concerned with survival but only because it needs to carry out that purpose. The more good players that are created, the better the standard of play, the better the National team do and the more interested the country becomes in MLS. Why? Because you lot love winners.
MLS.. MLS is the league I love to watch and follow not USSF.. So be it. I want a competitive League on the world stage. I want world renouned clubs in the USA. If We need Chivas (and I Belive we do) then so be it. We do what we have to do to succeed. I hear all this about growth.. but look at the numbers. Growth is just not happening at any rate. The rate the league is currently going, in 10 years your average attendance is going to go from 17,000 to maybe 18,000 a game. That is horrible compared to all other sports in the United States. Hockey draws more than 18,000 a game and they play Indoors in smaller venues. The League Needs Vergara and Chivas, Vergara does not need MLS. That is just how it is... I say, lets get Chivas USA in the league for "04" why wait another year.. That will just make it take that much longer. The Off season is plenty long enough for Vergara to secure all he needs to secure in order to compete. Even if Chivas is horrible, the Mexican pride will still shine through and watch there team play.. Something Americans should adapt.. You go and watch your team because you love them, not just because they are winning. That is just a bonus.
"Project 2010 and the original conditions behind getting World Cup '94 were based upon FIFA's desire to see top-flight football in the US. PLAIN AND SIMPLE." amancalledmikey Doesn't matter why it started, MLS is its own self now. It is not subsidized by USSF or FIFA, any more so than any other nations pro soccer league, as far as I know. Anyone have any hard information that my statement is incorrect please contribute it. MLS builds american soccer players. Part of that is including the talent of and competition by international players in the mix. It is no different in the big UEFA leagues, except the clubs often act as if they are the only entities that matter. As riverplate said "MLS justifies its own existance." Just like the Premiership, which broke off from the Football League for its own benefit, that is the benefit of its members, not for the good of Cardiff or Slough Town. But the great thing is, from my USMNT loving perspective, is that Chivas, free of any charge to us, is going to help develop the next generation of US Citizen soccer players to dominate CONCACAF and compete for a World Cup Title. As far as I can tell, Chivas USA isn't going to do much to develop Mexican talent that isn't already being done in Mexico. At the same time adding some real rivalry to MLS. What's not to love?