Well, I'm glad you recognize that clubs are developing more quality prospects. As I said before, there need to be bunches and bunches of quality academy players produced so that we can get a handful of them to pan out at a top level. The league is getting there and continues to improve in this area year on year.
this is the way it is in almost all minor leagues, irrespective of sport: the most important minor league players are the younger ones who are passing thru quickly rather than the statistical leaders. it seems only wrt MLS that we have fervent posters who simply won’t acknowledge it. let’s hope that Pomykal, Cannon, etc. make a move quickly.
Well that goes for most leagues and even happens within leagues. There are 16-17 clubs in the world with the resources and reputation to buy anyone. The rest are feeder leagues/clubs.
True. Even Dortmund is a feeder club. They're just where the best prospects go to advanced finishing school before making a move to the big time.
If we're defining Dortmund as a feeder club (and I agree they are in the sense that they wouldn't be viewed as an attractive final destination for a player with sufficient talent and ambition), then there are arguably only around 5-10 non-feeder clubs in the world.
To be attractive to the absolute cream of the players a club has to have these two characteristics: 1st and most important: be able to pay absurd salary. 2nd be able be to considered a CL cup winner contender 3d be one of the leagues champions candidates. To attract the not absolute cream/aka top players the 2nd requirement morphs into at least considered last 8 of the CL challengers.
Arguably right now there are only 6 or 7 teams that meet these criteria: Real Madrid, Barcelona, Bayern Munich, Liverpool, Manchester City (though maybe not right now if their European ban sticks), Juventus, and maybe PSG. There are other teams that can make a pretty good case for 2 of those 3 criteria, but fail on the third. However, if we want to define the feeder/non-feeder divide in a way that's relevant to MLS, then I'd say the distinction hinges on whether or not selling players for a profit is a very important part of a club/league's business plan or just a thing that occasionally happens without planning when a player attracts enough outside interest. Using that definition, there's probably a lot more than 16-17 non-feeder clubs.
Another big component is the quality of opponent - if you are playing in the Big 4 leagues, you get games against a high level of opponent and frequently go against absolutely top teams. That's very very different from the Championship, MLS, B2 level squads that simply don't get any of that.
As selling players and less so for what price, isnot a predictable revenue source, it isnot part of the allowed budgets to put forward to the KNVB by Dutch clubs for approval of their financial plans in a new season. I doubt it is allowed in other leagues. My guess is that potential sales revenues are internally used as a means to put together an incoming transfer budget.
That whole buying and selling MO perceived by American fans is non existent. They perceive the power structure of clubs and the activities as a result of that as a means for clubs, instead of an outcome of the power structure. Clubs in Europe act as businesses, but arenot. Dutch top clubs aim is to win Euro silverware, not selling players. That winning is overwhelmingly difficult because of the financial power of other leagues clubs that buy away the top players before we can profit of those qualities. But simple minded think Dutch clubs are successful in turning young players into expensive players and sell them, so that's why they do it.
I appreciate that information. Let me put it another way though, because I'm genuinely curious: could most Eredivisie clubs stay competitive in the league/Europe and financially viable without the revenue generated from transfer fees (even if they're just reinvested back into other transfers)? Because if not, I'd still consider them feeder teams, though perhaps there's a less insulting term to use for that?
Money gotten in from transfers can also be used for paying maintenance bills on stadium or the grounds. So you can lower your overhead costs with transfer fees too, but for budgetting you can only use what you can proof to be rather certain as revenues. Transfer revenues, especially at the lower end of the table clubs, when an exceptional transfer sum has been received isnot going completely in their transfer budget, because they still have to stay within their viable budget scheme and spending it all on new players would mean far higher paychecks total. So it contributes to making financial life more easy as lowering overhead costs gives more breathing space. An other thing with transfer results is that budgetting is one thing, but reality is another. So clubs can end in the red because of for instance not so good appeal to fans as expected (Dutch clubs depend about 60-70% on game day revenues) and in that case a positive transfer result can be used to plug the hole. The corona closing in that respect is causing headaches with that %% of revenues dependent on fans coming in. Edit: As most Dutch clubs spend all what they receive, whether within the season or spread out over multiple seasons, it de facto means transfer results are necesary to survive in the form they are in or they have to scale down.
Yes, when it comes down to Ajax, PSV, Feyenoord and AZ. These all budget without revenues from transfers or CL/EL matches. What they make from that is considered an extra.
Every dollar helps so sure player sales will help. But, the reason MLS lags behind top leagues in soccer abroad or other sports leagues at home is more about the massive amounts of TV money and money spent by huge numbers of fans for tickets, merch, cable packages and the like. Selling players to stronger leagues may well make MLS more attractive to young player and fewer of them would skip over the league entirely, it cold partially support the academies, but it's not going to put MLS teams in the same financial ballpark as the richer sports teams out there.
But what MLS has now is a bunch of ambitious billionaire owners who aren't going to sit around and watch their investment grow organically. The original set of owners managed to stabilize the league. The second set of owners sat relatively passively as their investment grew largely thanks to expansion fees. The latest set of owners will need to look for new ways to grow their investment and I don't think they'll be sitting on their hands. Back in 1991 nobody thought the Premier League would become so globally dominant over the next three decades but what drove growth was a new set of wealthy owners, who replaced local butchers, plumbers and politicians for whom owning a club was no more than a status symbol. According to Forbes, Atlanta United are already the 18th wealthiest club in the world between AC Milan and Everton and that's without the huge TV and sponsorship deals available in Europe. https://www.forbes.com/soccer-valuations/list/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/chriss...s-on-top-as-expansion-fees-sale-prices-surge/
I was sticking strictly to the criteria that feyenoordsoccerfan set. That poster didn't put a timeframe on it, but I assume the club has to have been 1) big spenders 2) CL contenders and 3) league title contenders at some point within the past 5 years or so, and not just at some distant point in the past. I said maybe PSG because they haven't even reached a Champions League semi-final since I've been following European soccer, let alone come close to winning it, so they're iffy on the second criteria, but I'll grant it since they have the resources and quality to be better than that. I did not include Manchester United because they haven't come close to winning the Premier League in the past 7 years now, typically finishing outside the top 4 -- and 19 points out of the title race even in the one season during that period where they managed to finish 2nd. Chelsea is borderline for me. Unless they can overcome a 3 goal deficit in Munich, they will have gone 6 years in a row without making it further than the Round of 16 in the Champions League, and they don't look likely to threaten for a Premier League or Champions League trophy anytime soon. But yes, if we just stick to my "attractive destination for the very top end talent" qualifier from before, I'd agree with Chelsea and Man United being up there.
First off, I apologize for the length of this post. I got carried away. Some of you might want to skip the first three paragraphs and look at the data...some of you might want to skip it all... When looking at numbers to gauge development, a few percentages comparing Erendivisie or Argentina vs MLS are pretty useless in my opinion. They are usesless for a few reasons but one of the most important, I believe, is that MLS is still such a young league and younger as a developmental league. If you were an investor, you wouldn't measure a young company with the same yardstick you would use for an established company like Nike or GM. It doesn't make sense here either. If you look at any established league, they are likely to be much more stable and while one stat will not give a complete picture, at least it does give some useable info because there are stats from years past (which are likely to be very similar) and monitoring just a few key stats could be useful. A young league or a league that is implementing a new policy needs to look much deeper. As a very imperfect example I have kept a few stats monitoring minutes to young players and the minutes. The players are all U21 because at the time we (Dave Marino-Nachison and I) began looking into it, the U21 players were those that would be eligible for the U23 tournament. From that time, I have kept the same age group so that comparisons would be possible. some comparisons and comments on the 2018 and 2019 seasons. (Obviously 2020 is pretty useless for data at this point) Cumulative minutes and Cumulative %: 2018 28,732 and 3.71% 2019 30,102 and 3.89%. Comment: not a significant difference...especially when you remember that 2018 had 23 teams compared to 24 in 2019. Individual Minutes (some context...based upon a spreadsheet created by @Dave Marino-Nachison, the average number of minutes in the 2017 season for a field player is as follows: 1-4 2570 minutes, 1-10 2200 minutes, 11-13 1292 minutes) Greater than 2000 minutes: 2018 5 players. 2019 3 players. Comment: on the surface, at least, it appears to be a slightly negative stat. Greater than 1000 minutes: 2018 10 players 2019 13 players. Comment: slightly more players reached the 1k mark (close to the "first off the bench" line) which seems to be a slight improvement but only slight. Greater than 500 minutes: 2018 11 players 2019 21 players. Comment: ok....significant improvement here but so what? 500 minutes is minuscule and certainly does not imply a top player within the team, let alone MLS or a USMNT prospect. Here's what: in 2018 there were 7 players that finished the season with 500 or more minutes AND at least one more year as a U21 (ie U20's). In 2019, there were 16 players with 500 or minutes. I call that a very significant improvement. It is also interesting where they come in...7 out of the top 10, 15 out of the top 20 and 5 out of the bottom 10 had at least 2 more years (this year) as U20's. The top ten and top 20 are important for (I believe) obvious reasons, but the bottom 10 is also very important in my opinion. If that bottom 10 is filled with players that have 2 more years to improve and some would likely be candidates to break through in a major way within a year or two. (Ferreira had 1 minute in 2018 and ended as the number one U21 with 2450 minutes....Pepi had 71 minutes last year). The bottom 10 can be a list of players with a future. Overall distribution: Max: 2018 3060 2019 2454 Q3: 2018 404 2019 922 Q2: 2018 163 2019 439 Q1: 2018 55 2019 92 Overall: Two years of data is not enough to determine a trend but it is pretty clear that there have been some significant changes recently. It seems pretty clear that the major shift in the last two years has been in the distribution of minutes from being VERY top heavy with a few players getting almost all of the minutes while most players got almost none (3/4 of the young players getting LESS than 404 minutes is pathetic) to a much more respectable distribution with more than half getting more than 440 minutes AND, those minutes are being earned by younger (sometimes much younger) players than the year before. What does this really tell us? Just like if you were researching a young company, it takes a bit more than just the stats. Some questions need to be asked about why the dramatic changes. the stats tell us what happened. We need to know why they happened before we can begin to make decisions. Why the improvement in the young player pool, for example. Is it due to chance (golden generation)? Is it due to a one time improvement which will allow the same improved level to continue but not increase (improved scouting etc)? Is it due to continuing improvement over time (improvement in player pool due to development at lower age groups and or improvement/growth in soccer culture) which will sustain itself for a period of time before eventually leveling out? Other? To
I was looking from the perspective of the number of players that leave Man United or Chelsea to go to a "bigger" club. There aren't many.
The biggest problem MLS has when compared to other leagues is the inconsistent distribution of talent across teams. Let's say a team has 2 DPs earning > $2 million and 3 TAM players averaging $1 million each. That leaves your starting XI with 6 players earning less than maximum salary and with injuries, suspensions and squad rotation that increases. A couple may be excellent home-grown prospects but you're still left with a bunch of journeymen and in most MLS teams they tend to be defenders/dms. By 2025 the average salary will be $500k, double the average in 2014, so we should see rosters strengthen dramatically between now and the 2026 WC.
At the moment epl top clubs are losing young talents to lower ranked clubs abroad, not to higher/equal ranked clubs.
Well Sancho left because Man City wouldn't guarantee him enough playing time, which is quite arrogant for a 17 year- old. Who else?
There is no point in having coaches? They are folding up shop and waiting until the new format is rolled out. They are basically giving up on the current group of kids. https://www.twincities.com/2020/06/...y-players-exit/amp/?__twitter_impression=true
Obviously Minnesota is but obviously the other academies mentioned are still recruiting. Der Ubergarber won't like this.