From yesterday's USA Today Finances keep young stars at home http://www.usatoday.com/sports/soccer/mls/2002-07-31-europe-finances_x.htm This is a stance I am definately against. "We're not doing player movement for money. If a player wants to move from MLS to Europe, we certainly look at it, provided we get an offer that's reasonable," says MLS deputy commissioner Ivan Gazidis, who handles contracts. "It has to be a serious commitment. We've had enough players go overseas and sit on the bench." IMO, assuming the price is right, it is entirely up to the players to decide if a team is right for them or not. Not the MLS. If this is their stance it is entirely understandable that players are starting to get a little frustrated with the situation.
If a player wants to move, and MLS gets its price, the story ends on the dotted line. A player siting on a bench doesn'ttarnish MLS's image, if that's what the worry is all about. The image is not so lustrous as to warrant so much concern. Taking the "high ground" on a cut and dried business matter only makes one look amateurish, foolish, and as sophisticated as a camel jockey at Churchill Downs.
I think the worry is the players development, while a nobel consideration, not one the MLS should concern itself with. Of course "the right price" has been hard to find this summer, but if this playing time issue has been preventing players like DMB, McBride and Mathis from making the move, they really need to start speaking out. Young players are better off in the long run signing with a second division Norwiegn team, than signing long term with the MLS.
When I saw this thread, I thought "great another bone head idea from a BS.com poster"...What's scary is that it comes from MLS or at least that's how the reporter spun the comments. MLS has no responsibility for players once they leave the league. Why should they and how can they? Especially, if the league is considering guarantees for playing time. Isn't that something the player and his agent have to worry about?
Well, I think you all are being a little too literal, as the main point of Gazidas is that the price be reasonable. But MLS appears to be an organization that bases its plans on the long term and, from that perspective, it is important that its products -- specifically the players it sells -- perform well in order to keep the future market strong. In other words, it would be penny-wise, but pound-foolish, to make a couple of sales at marginal prices into situations where the player won't play, thereby reducing the value of MLS's assets. I still think it is a minor consideration in comparison to the price, but hardly irrational as some claim.
Also, don't forget that a high transfer value means a player is more likely to get a hard look for first team than a cheap buy. Money equals strong interest. It's easy for MLS to take this high road, and still be interested in nothing more than the jack.
Well. No. Not really. The MLS is not a smart business venture. The people who have been losing money on it knew they would be, they didn't become serious investors in the league with dreams of high profits and such. Many of these investors (such as Kraft who went to SK for the WC) are big soccer fans, many who strongly support the USMNT. This question goes down to the basis of the MLS, was not one of its purposes to develop and nurture young American soccer talent which otherwise would have no where to play? If that wasn't a goal the MLS has been a complete failure as it has done nothing but bleed money, contract teams, and achieve moderate at BEST success in advancing the game. However the MLS has helped produce young Americans like DMB and Donovan. But perhaps most importantly it gave players like Mastroeni, Armas, Wolff, Llamosa, Agoos, and Mathis a place to play. These players probably would have had limited chances to play at best in Europe and some probably might never have gotten a chance. So if you view one of the MLS' goals as to develop American talent I fail to see how the MLS shouldn't care whether a player goes overseas and sits on a bench instead of playing consistently and getting better. But thats just my hypothesis. $1 million here and there isn't important to the people behind MLS right now, and it certainly isn't more important then a player like McBride, Beasley, or Mathis.
I agree with you on the first part and that's also what MLS has to do: developing talents. But for sportive reasons the top players have to leave - though of course I know that MLS wants to keep their stars. That's legitimate, but on a long term base probably not too clever. I'm afraid that a more or less 'All-MLS-team' at the next WC can't survive the group stage and there the current boom would be over. US soccer needs a healthy mixture of European experience and MLS talents. It is also legitimate of MLS to demand good transfer sums - but they shouldn't close their eyes to reality. They can't expect 5M or whatever for any MLS player at the moment. Already with Mathis before the WC they were speculating and failed - and they should learn from that. After all, MLS also got a responsibility for their players. It is a giant difference for the whole life of a player if he's earning 2M a year and you don't allow him to earn another M at a different club in comparison to a player earning 80K while he could earn 400K.