I took it to mean 1000 minutes per team as well. Over the course of a, what, 20 to 30 game (?) season that isn't really very much. Whether you want to have that sort of quota at all is a separate question, of course.
Minutes is more flexible than an actual starting quota. Makes a ton of difference for our U20 pool and national team. When Mexico U20 team comes on the pitch, most of them already have first club minutes while our teams are mostly in the MLS academy teams. No wonder they're ahead. CPL main goal is to develop Canadian talent, with that goal in mind, it makes sense. If you get guys like Alphonso Davies, any coach would be happy to dedicate most of those 1000 minutes to him.
It would work, especially if they had links to L1O etc. so that they had a lot of young players available to try. Also, at the level that the CPL will be starting at, they don't need an Alphonso Davies type player to usefully fill those minutes.
It's exciting news, we're in uncharted territory. If your good enough, you're old enough and I think some of our U20 will surprise people once they are given the stage to perform at the top level. The truth about Canada is that we don't have the whole picture of what we have in terms of talent in the country. CPL helps by providing a clear path to the top league motivating players to play soccer and keep playing. CPL will eventually cover the huge gap in scouting in this country. I think it's a New Brunswick university that has won the national tournament. I promise you that Montreal Impact aren't scouting there and the CSA scouting system is insufficient. Future looks bright for Canadian soccer As for Davies, we just want him the hell out of Vancouver, ASAP
I hate the minutes quota idea......as I said above. That said if they believe in it they should believe in it and make the number of minutes meaningful. The suggestion I responded to that it was 1,000 minutes league wide would make absolutely no difference in player development.
Isn’t that over half the planned CPL season tho? If it is, I would imagine it is going to pretty miluch force teams to have the U20 player as their full time player.
Could be 11 guys getting 90 minutes each spread over a season......or could be 1 guy getting 90 minutes 11 times......or a huge array of equally offensive combinations.
Well, that depends on the length of the season. I would think from a player development pool standpoint, that having 1-2 u20's per team playing starter minutes would be desirable. Maybe 2-3k U20 minutes per team would make sense.
I'm not sure its an offensive combination. A lot of teams have a couple of guys who get the odd start and more frequently get subbed in for the last twenty or thirty minutes of a game. For TFC, who I happen to follow, last season this would be the Edwards/Hamilton/Chapman types. I'm sure they racked up over 1000 cumulative minutes on the first team. Again, it's different if you're being forced to do it under a quota (and you might consider that requirement "offensive") but it isn't an unusual thing for a team to do without a quota.
It is the forced nature that I find offensive. As you note, good teams are always working young players in........it makes sense.......the concept of forcing minutes by quota is offensive. (To me)
like most things CPL it is unclear. Their latest exec throws out a 1,000 minute comment.....some speculate it meant 1,000 minutes per team.....some think it means league wide (presumably split equally over the teams so 100 each if 10 teams or 125 each if 8)
The initiative is better than nothing. For year 1, it's reasonable and as Clanachan pointed out, adjustments will be made depending on how it goes. CPL seems pretty unified on the mission of developing players, for all we know, ownership might either agree to it or have proposed them themselves. I don't think they are being "forced". They are obviously still discussing the right number. The only thing I've heard regarding ownership pushing back was a domestic quota. They felt that it would inflate the value on Canadian players and risk the quality of the league. Since then, Beirne has been talking of international restrictions instead. Seems like ownership won that round.
I think there was the intention to have teams start Canadians. I doesn't sounds like it anymore. That's number 1 Number 2, I'm no expert in this but "supposedly" the term quota=inflated price for Canadians, while using the term "international restriction" instead doesn't do that to the same extent. I could see how it makes a difference in contract negotiations.
It depends on how you define "Canadian", I suppose. MLS, for example, doesn't have a quota of American citizens (because that would be illegal), it has a limitation on the number of players that require the hiring MLS team to get them a visa.
National origin discrimination is illegal in Canada, too. I agree with you that the CPL should work to develop Canadian players. I don't agree with you that discriminating against non-citizen legal residents of Canada would be okay (or in line with Canadian values).
There is none. Quick example: Quota: 6 Canadians must be on 16 man game day roster. Restriction: each 16 man game day roster may have no more than 10 non-Canadians The end result is exactly the same....you must sign 6 Canadians and you create an inflated value around the league for the 60 mandatory Canadian jobs you just created by rule.
Then how can MLS count Americans as domestics for the Canadian teams, while not counting other non-permanent, non-citizen players as domestics? It would seem that this rule would run afoul of national origin discrimination..
Man.. CFL is strict. https://www.cfl.ca/game-rule-ratio/ Even if a non-Canadian becomes a Canadian citizen after they are signed to a CFL contract, they still wouldn't count as a National Player.
You know, I don't know. It seems truly bizarre to me that Canadian law would allow an employer to discriminate against permanent residents of Canada in favor of American citizens.