Here's an interesting question I have never seen asked. When a Mexico match is held in the US what is the distribution of the money generated? I assume that the USSF, Mexican Fed, and the stadium all get a share but I wonder what percentages?
I continue to have a nonchalant stance on this stuff as it relates to dual nationals. Basically: 1. Relax. If European clubs continue the trend of the last few years in turning the U.S. into a hunting ground, then it's less necessary to get worked up about a single player (most of the time). It's just a fact of life that our neighbors on the North American continent will be pursuing dual nationals that develop in U.S. We're going to lose players. That's fine. It's great to see US Soccer be on the verge of having a soccer version of a "First World" problem. 2. At the same time, limit dumbass errors (idiot youth coaches, racism, etc.). There's no need to have official quotas for Spanish-speaking staff for the youth teams, because if you are going to do an adequate job of covering the U.S., then most of these teams should already be doing that. At the same time, there's no need to make it easy for Mexico and let them play year-round in the U.S. I mean, CONCACAF will host the Gold Cup and Nations League finals here anyways, so it's not that big of a loss to them. But if it turns out that USSF is utterly dependent on the funding provided by Mexico matches in the U.S., then they won't be going anywhere.
I assume this is the number on the USSF income statement that includes payment for international matches played in the US: International game revenues 3,198,406 (2019) International game revenues 4,669,534 (2018) There are probably other revenue streams from the Gold Cup and other Concacaf activities that make their way onto the balance sheet. SUM usually sets up the Mexico matches, so some portion of that money has historically made its way into the USSF coffers. For an organization faced with hefty legal bills, this money is fairly important. For Mexico's cut of the action, you can assume it's pretty substantial. This article from 2014 talks just about sponsorship from the US: Neither the Mexican Football Federation (FMF) or its corporate partners in the U.S. release just how much those associations with El Tri are worth, although marketing analysts maintain annual sponsorship revenues in the U.S. are likely double the $25.4 million U.S. Soccer reported in sponsorship revenues last year, according to Internal Revenue Service documents. https://www.ocregister.com/2014/06/07/mexicos-el-tri-is-a-marketing-machine/
I guess my real point is how much the USSF gets vs Mexico. I am not a fan of letting Mexico host games in the US period. But IF (and I have no idea) the Med Fed gets more money doing this that the USSF the I a strongly opposed to doing this.
Of course, I understood what you asked, but it's not going to be readily available. This is the overall number. And Mexico is going to make more than USSF because USSF doesn't have to do much work & has no risk.
So we should not be doing it. As far as risk. What risk? Fans wont show. When was the last time there was a Mex game in the US when their fans didn't show. Time to stop this practice.
Fans won't show to what? Mexico can't play an official match in the US without USSF permission (and payment). And USSF needs money (and it's easy money).
1. There is no risk to the Mex Fed for a game in the US. Their fans will always show in numbers. 2. I know its easy money. Don't care. 3. If it helps the Mex Fed more than the USSF then I really don;t like it. Has anyone considered how this actually hurts the US program? What a recruiting tool for them especially in TX and CA. Get to tell families that half their "home" matches will be in the US.
The crazy thing is, the guy is apparently leveraging his status to press for a call up. But, if we actually call him up, there will be a chorus of poster yelling "predatory!"
The rivalry needs "sweetening?" I don't know if you've been keeping up with current events, but Mex has been the dominant team in the Fed for forever. And, every time we play them, a US player gets choked. "Sweetening" is the last thing I want to see.
With the U-20's, imo, part of the problem was that he was receiving the ball too far from the box. He had the moves to beat 2 players, but not the speed to press the advantage. Defenses were recovering against him. With OM, he was receiving the ball deeper, and driving toward the endline more so he could slot in passes. He was used better, tactically.
Probably hyped up by their dolt getting elected, wasn't that game a couple of days after that racist sack of ---- got elected <looked it up just now> Yep, 3 days afterwards, plus it was played in a state he won in that election. I know, politics, doesn't belong here in general, but it does relate to the specifics of that incident and the topic of dual nationals. A "Build the Wall" Chant taking place at a game 3 days after that piece of excrement was elected when we're playing the nation the moronic catch phrase was associated with was not a coincidence. While it could crop up again, it seems much more deeply connected to that moment than to generalized sentiment, though clearly this country, well, I don't need to say it....anything could happen at this point at a game, in an election, in anything at all.
This was all of a piece with the generalized failure of the entire program. Everybody identified, scouted, and developed failed at a much higher rate than in any previous decade going back until well, I suppose the late fifties or early sixties. We hit at higher rates with guys born in the sixties, seventies and eighties across the board than with our '90-'95 cohort. It wasn't a Mexican-American problem, it was a systemic problem. I should note a poster made an interesting note, I can't remember who, that supposedly the '13 U17's/U20's cycle was largely a product of trying to emphasize soccer skills above athleticism for a cycle or two, and we hit our nadir at exactly that point. Maybe not a coincidence, then again it happened for a good five years, and it happened with multiple crops, and it happened to such a degree that explaining it is beyond any simple one explanation: it remains utterly baffling to me that just as soccer finally took root in 1990, the least talented players in decades upon decades would be born over the following five years. It feels like something systemic went wrong, so maybe a change in scouting approach really is the only explanation that makes any sense. I refuse to believe that kids born and having the opportunity for the first time ever to easily watch the game, were then our worst ever generational cohort comparatively speaking since the days of Eisenhauer and Kennedy. I honestly don't know what the hell happened other than that it was system wide, everywhere, because the failure with 1990-1995 birth years was orders of magnitude worse than anything we'd seen in decades. That 1990 WC team and '94 team were largely built from guys born during the Johnson and Nixon Administration, the one's that followed them in the aughts were Carter and Reagan era kids. How could we go from kids born in era's where soccer was utterly irrelevant culturally, who succeeded anyway, to kids born into an era when the USMNT made the World Cup 7 straight times, and built its own domestic league who couldn't tie their own shoes metaphorically on a soccer field? Again, I have no idea, I have suspicions, but little idea. But as for the Mexican-American players, they were, to me anyway, a reflection of the system wide failure. If nearly all the soccer players of non-latino decent developing from that age cohort also largely failed, I don't look at those Mexican-American players as any different than the cohort in general. The whole group failed, no matter the ethnicity, with only a handful of exceptions. The new cohort is succeeding, both Latin-Americans, and non-Latino's alike.
I wonder if those guys 90-95 put in less work. Were less committed. Like "hey! there's a league! I'm going to be a pro!" w/o considering the work that it takes. I know it's a crazy theory. But, I'm recovering from surgery. Got plenty of time for floating crazy theories
Nah, the tide has turned (again) and the US is the top dog for the foreseeable future. We know it. They know it.
I'm glad you're so confident after 2 matches, so now we should be throwing them players for the fun of it. I don't think so.
I think the dip (1990-95) coincided with an awkward period when US soccer was still relying on Bradenton to develop young talent and the MLS clubs were also taking their first steps toward taking on this function. There were some players who showed some real promise as U-20 but didn't pan out for whatever reason. I remember the team that had Brek Shea, Agbossoumonde, Diskerud, Danny Cruz, Anthony Wallace, Sheannon Williams, Sean Johnson, Dilly Duka. That's a pretty good assemblage of talent and normally one or two would take those extra steps forward to become a big contributor on the senior team. But it didn't happen. Agudelo is another very talented player whose development also stalled out. Is there a common denominator? If I was to name one it would be that MLS had not yet learned how to develop their young talent and give them the opportunities they needed to take off. I remember watching Agudelo when he was still in his teens. He was a handful for physically mature defenders. But the effort and focus were not always there. To me he had star written all over him. Since this is the dual national thread, it is worth recalling he was born in Colombia. But I don't think there was much doubt as to who he was going to play for.
This probably deserves a topic of its own, but only 2 out of 55 US players with 50 caps were born in 1990 or later: Yedlin and Zardes. Even in a world without COVID-19, they're likely still the only two. I think that illustrates the problems of that early 1990s group. The US is a national team that hands out a ton of caps to the top performers who are consistently healthy and available, and other than Yedlin really, no other young player in the US player pool achieved that until Pulisic appeared. (An interesting piece of trivia is that Zardes missed the entire 2016-17 Hex, because of injury/form).
A little memory jog. The squad that played in the 2011 CONCACAF U17 tournament (all from the 1994 and 1994 birthyears). Goalies: McIntosh, Pina Defenders: Acosta, Carroll, Fehr, Nathan Smith, Souders Mids: Allen, Amon, Dunn, Guido, Pelosi, Estaban Rodriguez, Mario Rodriguez, Salkicic, Serna Forwards: Arriola, Koroma, McBean, Oliver