I am fully aware of how MLS operates and I am not advocating the end of drafts or allocations. It makes perfect sense as a way for club owners to have equal opportunity to acquire players since those players are actually owned by the entire league. But will this forever undermine player development? Expansion Drafts Super Drafts Supplemental Drafts Allocation Order MLS single entity gives owners an incredible opportunity to have players handed to them for free. No other global league operates like this, so for international clubs the only path to find players is to either purchase them or develop them. Player development becomes an absolute essential aspect of the business model for almost all teams. I don't think that player development is an essential aspect of the business model for MLS teams, in fact teams are doing quite well by not developing players. For instance look at last year's MLS Best XI. Keller - allocation Dunnivant - Draft Gonzalez - Draft Olave - International purchase Beckham - International free transfer Davis - Draft De Rosario - D2 free transfer Donovan - Allocation Shea - Draft Henry - International free transfer Wondolowski - Draft 7 of the 11 players were handed to MLS clubs via drafts/allocations. Look at the transfers out as well...Altidore, Edu, Ream, Holden, Dempsey... The Superdraft has provided teams with an excellent source of free talent that they can flip for millions of dollars. Now I know you can point to MLS affiliated youth teams, and those are great but I wonder if they will ever be viewed as an essential part of the clubs business model the way lets say SSS were. In truth MLS isn't doing all that much development for their clubs anyway. For the large part MLS teams are sponsoring a youth club largely as way to bring in the best young talent in the area (who have been developed in pay-to-play club systems since they were kids) in order to give those players homegrown status in case they end up developing into something special at the youth level or in college. This is not the same as global clubs who see development as a main source of player acquisitions. They don't have drafts or allocations to hand them players for free, if they don't way to pay endless transfer fees then they NEED to develop players. Do MLS teams NEED to develop players? If you were a owner/businessman would you invest millions of additional cash to start up a youth academy when you can just be handed guys like Donovan, Dempsey, or Holden through drafts or allocations? We saw a rush for every owner to build a stadium because it was painfully clear that it was essential for the clubs to be financially viable. I think because of our system, player development isn't essential and that is why we haven't seen the kind of money thrown at development as we have seen money thrown at stadiums. Is there a way to make development essential for teams and still have ways to be handed players for free through drafts and allocations, or will it always be an afterthought?
I totally disagree with your 'view' of the academies in MLS. Your statement "This is not the same as global clubs who see development as a main source of player acquisitions." rings hollow. What clubs are developing their own talent? Any of the top 10 teams in the EPL? Serie A? La Liga? They are paying huge transfer fees to cover up for the fact that they don't. Look at the most recent 5 MLS clubs. Toronto FC has spent more than $20m and produce 2 regular first teamers in 3 years. The league is less than 20 years old - how many players do you think they should have developed given it wasn't until a few years ago that clubs starting building academies?
I see what you are saying here that basically we do not have a youth development program per club in the traditional sense because MLS teams draft college players. Interesting and you may have a point because I really don't see a lot of movement on the league front to really go for it in youth development. Makes me sad as I see the amount of money being dumped into player development into European countries, Mexico, Brazil, Argentina... you know the countries that actually WIN. MLS is going to linger in the talent cesspool for some time because of this I think. College level action DOES NOT prepare our up and coming players for the future well. Matter of fact many can argue the college system barely develops the skills needed at the earlier ages at all. If I were in high school and wanted a professional career I would try to skip college all together for now but I don't see MLS signing a lot of kids straight out of school either.
[quote="When Saturday Comes, post: 26253124, member: 204155" What clubs are developing their own talent? Any of the top 10 teams in the EPL? Serie A? La Liga? They are paying huge transfer fees to cover up for the fact that they don't. Look at the most recent 5 MLS clubs. Toronto FC has spent more than $20m and produce 2 regular first teamers in 3 years. The league is less than 20 years old - how many players do you think they should have developed given it wasn't until a few years ago that clubs starting building academies?[/quote] No no and no. You have to look at the sheer amount of development happening at the national levels for Argentina, Brazil, Mexico, and the rest of Europe to truly understand that top players are NOT easy to develop. With that in mind you really think COLLEGE is going to develop a lot of ready talent for MLS? Very few players step right into the pro level without a major kick in the ass to get up to speed. Top clubs buy top talent because they are proven players and they can afford the best. What clubs are developing their own talent? You ask. What clubs AREN'T? I say. Barcelona consistently develops amazing talent as does Real Madrid. Manchester United produce fantastic talent that often get sold or loaned out to other clubs if they don't need them. What happens if your team has an injury crisis? You call up some talent from the youth ranks. MLS does not have depth nor are they developing enough talent. National team talent and their respective national leagues go hand in hand quite often.
First of all I don't want to disparage what MLS teams are doing from a development perspective. While we don't have any Ajax/Barca level academies, at least someone is doing SOMETHING. So I give them credit, and I don't totally discredit NCAA. They have produced lots of fine players for the US (Reyna, Dempsey, Fridel, etc). There is no reason why NCAA soccer can't improve as well. More scholarships, more games, better coaching.... it can get better, I'm not a hater. That is not my point. My point is that if you look around the league at either the top players or the top transfers and they are almost all players that were handed to teams for free from our draft/allocation system. Other teams do not have these systems so they rely on either buying or developing talent. You only have to look at Mexico to see how well they've developed players through their clubs systems. I can see why Canadian teams needed to invest in improving the Canadian talent pool but for most MLS teams, why invest millions in youth? OK, set up an affilate U17 team and poach all the best talent in the area to play on your team so you tie them to your club via the homegrown rule. It makes sense. But does it make sense to invest millions each year for most clubs? When the Superdraft is handing you Dempsey, Ream, Holden, and Cameron to sell to Europe. Drafts/Allocations account for the majority of our Best XI too. From a business perspective does it make the same sense to develop players in MLS than it does Liga MX? What other league in the world have the majority of best XI coming to teams for free? No transfers, no development, just handed to clubs. Our system has made MLS business model work, and I credit them for making it work. But will we ever focus on development like other countries do? Will it ever be a vital part of the MLS business model the way stadium developments were?
LOL.. if those players are good enough, clubs all over the world would get them for 'free' as well, and those players would stay away from MLS. In fact if they were good enough they wouldn't stay in college in the first place. College is not for soccer. LOL.. Note: Donovan didn't play in US college, started pro-career in a German club. Several late boomer examples such as Dempsey don't mean much.
There are plenty of examples of international clubs signing players from schools around the world. I mean Arsenal signed Miyaichi after he dominated a HS tournament. This isn't another debate about college soccer. We can point out all the quality players NCAA has produced, how many USNT went to college, or compare today's quality to maybe 20 years ago and see its progression...it doesn't matter. That isn't the point. The point is that we have a system that hands you players for free. These players have went on to become MVPs, Golden Boot Winners, Best XI, Rookie of the Year, and up to 10M transfers. Does this discourage player development? Around the world clubs don't have a system that hands them players for free, so they are almost forced to develop. It becomes an essential part of the business model, because if you don't build your own players you have to buy your own. There really is only two choices, MLS has a third choice and that is to just get players through the system. These players through the system have been extremely successful as I pointed out, so does this discourage development? Let me put it this way...imagine a hypothetical situation where MLS eliminated all drafts and allocations. Then they significantly reduced the international player slots to 4. MLS teams would realize that their business model has changed. They are going to realize that their player pool is now very limited, the league itself is going to have a much more difficult time competing internationally, improving in quality, and even expanding in the future. Player development is now a crucial part of their business model, they really won't be able to grow without it. In today's reality, I don't think MLS owners view this as their reality. Why not just keep going with drafts/allocations because it has proven to work and keep costs low? Why not just increase international spots when the player pool gets thin? Do MLS owners really see development as a crucial step in their business? I really don't think they will as long as the system is going to hand them free players.
I don't understand what you mean by 'free'. Even if NCAA was to produce a good enough player, he's free to go to anywhere in the world, and any club in the world can get him for 'free' as you put it. MLS won't have right to him without competing with clubs around the world. So.. it's not free. Also what system? You gather together more or less not so much wanted players nowhere else, and stick them in MLS clubs? I hope MLS won't stay at that level for long time.
Look at any global club, especially from mid-tier leagues. Where do the players come from: 1. you develop them from your youth system 2. you obtain them from other clubs usually with a transfer but sometimes free Look at MLS clubs, players come from this path but the majority come to them from the system. That is mechanisms put in place by MLS to assign players to teams. 1. Superdraft 2. Supplemental Draft 3. Expansion Draft 4. Allocations You didn't have to pay any money to develop these players and you didn't need to pay any fees, you are awarded them for free through the MLS system. My point is that no other global clubs have this mechanism to fill up their roster so development becomes more of a crucial aspect of their business model. Now if you are an MLS team owners and you look at the league and see that you can get someone like Donovan through an Allocation or a Brek Shea through a draft, will that discourage you from investing into development. Imagine if those systems were not in place (I don't advocate it I'm just making a point) and you couldn't get Best XI level talent for free through the system and you couldn't get guys you can transfer for millions through the system (Altidore, Ream, Holden, Cameron) then wouldn't development be more important? Because teams will always have ways to fill their rosters with players without spending a dime, does that discourage spending massive amounts of money in order to develop your own players?
3. Do the same thing what MLS does = sign them out of US colleges or sign whatever players you can sign without transfer fee. Just don't expect great quality.
Not every league can, it depends on work visas. Also just look at the Allocation processes. If a team in Mexico wants a NT caliber player they need to either buy them or develop them. In MLS we hand these players out to teams for free through the Allocation draft. You can simply wait around long enough and you will get a player through the system. This is unique, it means you have to depend on development less. You can argue all you want about the quality of players in the system, but the fact is that if teams are obtaining the majority of their players through the system, what does that do for their need to develop their own players? I think until you see a team really benefit from their own development system, you won't really see it become a priority.
Again if there's a good player in US college, others can sign him too. Many countries in Europe don't even have foreign player limit. Work visa is minor issue. Good players want to go to Europe. You can fill up majority of your roster with leftovers more or less not wanted by others, and be happy. Big deal. I don't know what you are smoking. A player just out of college is rarely NT caliber player. What are you talking about?
I'm not going to bother to prove you wrong yet again on this same point. The other half-dozen times I've done it would be enough for any sane non-troll poster. I'll just point out that you saying "Several late boomer examples such as Dempsey don't mean much" doesn't actually prove your point. If you want to cherry-pick data any point can be proven. Hell, I'll state the Rapids are the best team in the league this year, and several losses don't mean much. It doesn't mean my statement is true.
Maybe not directly from NCAA but the team that played in WC2010 including from college: Bocanegra, Onyewu, Cherenudolo, Dempsey, Holden, Bornstein, Clark, Buddle, DeMerit, Guzan, Edu, Findley, Goodson, Feilhaber, and Hahnemann. That is 15 out of 23. I don't think you understand the fundamental aspect of the question. You are too caught up in your dislike for NCAA, and that is not what I am talking about. The Superdraft is not all about NCAA, they have sign players out of club teams (like Shea or Altidore) and even sign kids from international clubs like Plata or Cordozo. As MLS budgets grow there is no reason why they can't go sign better and better players to enter into the draft. This isn't about NCAA its about how MLS gives you opportunities to receive players for free through drafts and allocations. This is not the case in other leagues, you have to either develop players or buy them. Does being able to obtain so many players without development discourage owners from investing in player development?
Haha maybe that's why US FIFA ranking is only 36th. When 'MLS' buys players, where do the money come from? There's no such thing as free lunch.
MLS is probably only in the top 20-30 leagues in the world. Free lunch? This year if a team has a bad year because of a lack of scoring they have the chance to be assigned players through the Superdraft in the winter or pick up a NT player through the allocation. These are free players. Vancouver didn't have to go and try to recruit and convince Darren Mattocks to come to their club, he was assigned. You may despise the NCAA system, but it doesn't change the fact that right now if MLS clubs need players they can wait and simply be assigned them for free. This makes them less reliant on developing.
Let's take a look at this guy - Darren Mattocks. Other clubs in the world had chance to sign him, but nobody really wanted this guy until age of 21, at least don't want to pay enough. He's not worth anything much in the soccer market anyways. He becomes 22 soon, and now only makes $100,000 (plus $90,000 this year for signing bonus). He's far from developed enough at the age of 22. So MLS basically picked up a guy nobody else wanted, and stick them in a MLS club. Yea garbage is free. BIG FREAKING DEAL. And he was the 2nd best? I don't think you want to keep doing that, so development is really really necessary. Note: don't mean to insult Darren Mattocks. He's good enough for MLS for now I guess.
New York Red Bulls picked Tim Ream and got him for free. He had no choice but to go to New York. They paid him 65k a year for 2 years and sold him to EPL for 2.5M. They did something similar to Jozy Altidore but sold him for 10M. Where else on the world can you be ASSIGNED players for free that you can sell for millions? These guys aren't signing with clubs they signed with the league and go to any club that picks him. That is what I am saying, as a club owner who does nothing but look at the business of things...why invest millions into player development when you can just be assigned players for free? And these guys can go on to play in the biggest leagues in the world or make you millions of dollars. Of course I would never debate that player development is not important, I'm talking from an owners perspective.
That is part of development. Tim Ream didn't worth much, but MLS picked him up, developed, and sold. Hence MLS is often called a farm league to big leagues. EPL/LaLiga pick up a lot of players form Holland, Portugal, Argentina, Brasil ,etc too, but they do much much better job with development, hence make much much more money. You pick up someone at the age of 20 and develop, you end up only getting 1.5M. Brasil and Holland pick up good talent and develop them from age of 15, they hit jackpot. To make money, you need to take some risk and invest. If you want to stay at your comfort level, that's fine too I guess So...from owners perspective, they better do great job in development in any way - better quality MLS matches and also selling purpose. Nothing different, no free lunch in this global competition.
Getting assigned Jozy Altidore play him for 37 games and sell him for 10M, thats about a free of lunch that exists in world football. Of course I understand our placement in the global football world and of course all teams buy and sell that isn't the point. This isn't about any other league in the world, this is about MLS owners. If you can not be assigned an Altidore or Ream or Dempsey then MLS owners would have two choices, either buy them or develop them. But because MLS owners get allocated players they don't have to rely on development the way other leagues do. My fear is that MLS owners will always be quite content with building through drafts because it is cost effective and you can get really good deals like I've pointed out. Other leagues don't have that option, Liga MX won't have NT players just allocated to their teams for free, they have to develop. I don't think MLS owners feel the same way, that is why I think we haven't seen any serious investment into development. I mean we'd had project40 since 97 and the Q report since 98.
Altidore was in Generation Adidas program which is a type of development program. If MLS didn’t offer Gen Adidas benefit, he might have gone to other leagues. This cost MLS. There's competition, and not free. I stand corrected Darren Mattocks was also in Generation Adidas. So they were worth little more than other plain college players. MLS had to come up with generation Adidas development program to retain better young talents domestic, and have them spend less time in college, and not lose them to foreign competitions. If MLS didn't set up this draft stuff, almost all of those college soccer players are still there. Not going anywhere because nobody wants them anyways. So.. MLS clubs can just still sign them out of college. You are basically saying that bunch of lousy players come out of college, so MLS clubs can just sign them.
How? Players aren't allowed to sign internationally before they're 18 unless their parents have some non-soccer reason to be living in that country.
Like this? http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/blogs...ona-sign-11-old-japanese-messi-181137829.html or Messi or many other cases?
I don't know how Barcelona did that. Its expressly against the FIFA rules here on page 17: http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/affederation/administration/01/06/30/78/statusinhalt_en_122007.pdf
A few things... 1. Barca doesn't 'sign' these kids, and they didn't sign Messi either. They get invited to develop in the academy and they offer sponsorships to elite players to help bring their families over. They might try to help them get jobs or whatever but these kids aren't signed. 2. Gen Adidas isn't a development program, Project40 at least had a team that a team but that was abandoned long ago. MLS LLC has a 250M contract with Adidas, some of that money was allocated to help play for top draft picks to help MLS bring in better players. This is more of an example of how MLS single entity can leverage their money to bring in talent so individual clubs are less reliant on developing internally. 3. The Superdraft is actually evolving. Despite what some think, NCAA is improving and this can be seen clearly with the number of players today who go from NCAA to Europe compared to decades ago. MLS also bring in youth NT players from club teams and also brings in international talent as well like Plata or Cordozo. As MLS grows and as bigger budgets, there is no reason why they can't continue to evolve this program and sign better and higher quality international and domestic youth players. If you are a dollar and cents kinda owner and you come into MLS as an investor not as a lover of soccer, does being able to be allocated players through the system discourage you from developing your own. When Altidore, Ream, Holden, Dempsey, and Cameron are coming in through drafts and guys like Donovan are coming in through allocations, how do you convince an owner to invest millions of extra dollars on a youth program?