Potowmack has made the SUMLS position clear. It's SUMLS profits above anything else. Now, consider that there is a massive, untapped, Mexican market in the U.S. As a business decision, steering a young Mexican-American dually to Mexico is a no brainer. If Efrain Alvarez develops into an international quality star, does MLS make more money if he declares for the U.S., or if he declares for Mexico? Annnnnybody that follows soccer in this country could tell you that. If MLS turns into a talent mill for Mexico, financially, that is SUMLS's wet dream. Potowmack will tell you, MLS academies *should* actively encourage their players to chose Mex when that option is available. Business-wise, they'd be morons not to. If you have a problem with that, Potowmack will tell you that you are part of a "vanishingly small percentage of American soccer fans who only care about the league insofar as it advances the NT." And, SUMLS has a major voice in what the Fed does. Why do you think the Fed is allowed Mex to have a recruiting camp in the U.S., courting young duallies? What federation would do that?
lol. 1. None of what you said has anything to do with what I posted. I’m happy for MLS to pursue its own interest - many of these overlap with the USMNT. In areas that they don’t, Garber has a fiduciary duty to STFU and not spout MLS propaganda when it conflicts with ussf. If he wants to be free to shill (and he does a good job of protecting MLS’ interest), he should resign from the ussf board. 2. as to your question about why you should care, why did Garber throw a hissy fit when told a simple truth about how good MLS is relative to other leagues? Why did he care? why do you visit this part of BIgSoccer if you don’t give a rats ass? There’s a whole section devote to MLS, I believe. 3. you need to let go of Klinsmann. I didn’t want him to get a second term as a coach, but it was a long time ago that he mortally insulted MLS.
There's nothing wrong with MLS pursuing its best interest even when they're in conflict with the USSF - they're a for-profit business. It's the USSF's job to identify those conflicted areas and counter-balance MLS' preferences - we can be clear that MLS is decidedly ruthless in pursuing its interest (which is not a pejorative as far as I'm concerned) and the USSF has to be resolute as well in these instances. The SUM relationship should be sunset-ted by the USSF for numerous reasons.
No, my position is that the MLS academies should encourage their players to make whatever is the best decision for their development as a player. If it makes more sense for a dual citizen to get capped by the Mexican NT, the MLS academies should advise that player to do so. Putting the interests of the USMNT over the interests of an academy player would constitute a failure on the part of the academy to take care of its players. I'd say, any federation that isn't full of xenophobes shouldn't care if another federation tries to recruit dual citizens. It's a free country, after all.
100% agree with this as long as we no longer have the head of MLS shrilly saying that MLS/USSF are "inexplicitly linked" - they're not just as stated here. Don't agree here. The federation absolutely should care and it should be trying to get as many players to play for the USNT as possible and there's no reason to assist other Federations in recruiting our potential players. We should use what legal resources are at our disposal to help the USNT - I'm sure that if Garber had the ability to block another competitive league from taking local resources, he'd take every step possible. In fact, I think he has done just that.
A) Its not MLS' responsibility to care about the USMNT. There are no other parts to the outline. MLS' job is to be a profitable business. Full stop. Now, happily a lot of what makes MLS a profitable business is what will also benefit the USMNT. What MLS is doing a great job of right now is increasing their investment in development programs. Year by year its growing. Most of those kids that folks are demanding that the USMNT call up from Europe.....................were developed in domestic and MLS academies. Ledesma (RSL), Llanez (Galaxy), Soto (RSL), Mendez (Galaxy), Gloster (NYRB), Richards (FCD). The list is endless. Weston McKennie, Tyler Adams, Tim Weah. There are very few of the "next generation" of youngsters that haven't spent time at an MLS academy (Pulisic, Sargent are two). Also there is NO WAY that a club like Dallas or Galaxy will ACTIVELY demand that their youngsters choose one national team program over another. Not happening. They can give recommendations or advice. But ultimately that USMNT versus Mexico (or any other nation) decision is just up to the kid. For FC Dallas most of the Mexican-American kids accept callups to both to get a feel for the two programs, and then make a choice. Some choose Mexico. Most actually choose the US (like Pepi, Carrera, the Gomez brothers). Ultimately, what the USSF needs to do is make the USMNT/USYNT the more attractive option for these dual national kids. MLS has nothing to with that.
Right. The MLS academies need to focus on developing the best players they can. Those players can then decide what national team they want to play for, if given a choice. If asked, the academies should give them an honest opinion on which national team would be better for the player in question. The MLS academies shouldn't be shills for the USMNT.
I remember an interview I read last year where a U.S. based scout for Mexico claimed the Mexican fed is often more cooperative with MLS teams when approaching one of their players for international duty, while the U.S. fed has more of an attitude that the player belongs to them and that's that. Of course it's just one guy's view and he has reason to sell one fed over the other, but if there's even a grain of truth to this I think it might be a good reminder not everything is always the fault of an evil profit first mentality.
What do you think a team should do with someone like Efra Alvarez? His parents want him to play for Mexico. He's probably uncertain. Should they say: you can't play for us unless you declare for the US? Ban him from talking to Mexican Fed officials at practice but not ban US officials? I expect that the majority of youth soccer players in Los Angeles have a parent born in a different country. (For that matter, the majority of young people, even leaving aside whether they play soccer and are interested in making that their primary focus when they are young). If you're going to run an academy, you need to have a neutral policy.
If MLS has no obligation to the U.S., then that is bad business, and you know that's not what's happening. MLS will make wayyyyy more money developing Mex stars. They are businessmen. If you don't think they'll encourage Mex/Am duallies to pick Mex, you're being willfully blind. Or, just lying.
Who is saying "ACTIVELY demand"? That's a strawman. Encourage is what I'm talking about. What is Ajax doing with Dest?
For the "no obligation to the USMNT" folks, should MLS have any limit on the number of non-domestic players it can sign/play? Are such limits xenophobic?
u I laughed when I read this....Sure didn't laugh then! Funny how time heals certain things.... I don't think I will ever laugh at our failure in T&T but it will get easier with time. (I know it is completely off topic...)
I don't see anything wrong with limiting foreign players (in principle). I don't believe it is practical in the US. We have laws that prevent that. I don't see it as xenophobic unless it targets or favors specific countries/ethnicities.
MLS already has a limit on the number of non-domestic players clubs can have on their rosters. So yes................... Now, the problem can be that its relatively easy after a few years for a foreign player to get a green card. Players with green cards dont' count as foreign players. I believe that's labor law. MLS can't do anything about that. The truth is that just like every league in the world, clubs can succeed with or without domestic development programs. Developing young domestic players has to be part of a club's business plan and DNA. Clubs like FC Dallas, RSL, Philly, etc. are doing that. Clubs like Portland and Houston aren't. If people don't want to be a fan of Portland because of it.................then root for Dallas instead. They're playing domestic youngsters, and cant get people in the stands to watch them. Young domestic kids don't sell tickets. Zlatan and Vela sell tickets. If Dallas signed Chicharito tomorrow, we all know they'd sell out. Instead they're giving minutes to an 18 year old (Ferreira; Colombian-American) and a 16 year old (Pepi; Mexican-American) at forward. Good for development? Yes. Good for the bottom line? Probably not..............
I'd be fine with MLS getting rid of the international player cap. If a team wants to fill out its roster with international players, and its fans are okay with it, why should anyone else care?
I agree that the league has never catered to people who have played at a reasonably high level. (I take this to mean that they don't target that demographic as being their most important source of fans. I believe that this is a good business decision. Obviously it can be discouraging to those that are int that demographic. By targeting the family, MLS was likely trying to follow baseball to a certain degree. (IMO). Seattle and Portland (LAFC, ATL etc) seem to have targeted a younger demographic (I would guess 18-30ish) and based much of their "in game crowd experience" on a "European" model. It seems to be working pretty well for them so it is hard to argue that they should try something else that has a pretty good chance of not being as profitable.
Just to clarify, MLS' international player rules limit the number of players who aren't American citizens, green card holders, or fall into a few other categories that allow them to work in the US without having to obtain a work permit. MLS does not, and cannot, impose a general roster limit on non-citizens playing in the league. That would be illegal under American US employment law. And regarding the Mexican federation setting up a recruiting operation in the US, I'm not really sure what the USSF can do to stop that. What power does the USSF have to prevent Americans/Mexican dual citizens from talking to whoever they want to talk to about their future career?
Generalizations can be dangerous is applied without much care. I happen to know quite a few fans of European soccer (Football) that know all the right keywords, so that if you aren't paying attention you might think they actually know what they are talking about. The same can be said for some MLS fans. I also know people from both groups that know what they are talking about...some know all the right terminology and some don't really care about the latest terminology but know the game.
Why should the league have a limit on non-domestic players? It's a business. What obligation does it have to have some U.S.- eligables on each team? Why is that a problem. If MLS is a business, with no obligation to the American player, or the USSF, or the USMNT, why is having ease of access to a green card a "problem"?
So, so everyone knows where you're coming from, you'd be fine if there wasn't a single U.S. eligible player in the league. And, based on your previously stated comments, why wouldn't fans be okay with it. You've said that fans who care that MLS has a positive impact on the MNT are a vanishingly small part of the fan base. "Don't let the door hit you in the ass."
Shrug. I'm OK with doing away with all foreign player restrictions. The Bundesglia doesn't have those restrictions, and they do fine. In the UK there are no restrictions on the number of foreign players that a club can use. They can use as many EU-eligible players as they want, and the non-EU players have to be work-permit eligible. What I'd like to see is the league give as many incentives to clubs that develop their own homegrown talent as possible. They already have some. For instance they get to retain 100% of the player sales of homegrown academy players. I'd like to see the league allow for unlimited signing of homegrown academy players outside of the roster size limits/rules. So if FC Dallas wants to sign 10 homegrown academy players this off-season to $100k contracts, then they can do that. Perhaps many will play on the USL team next season, but its good to get them all on the developmental pathway.
That's a nice slight of hand trick, that shows your disingenuousness in this discussion. We're not talking about "talking to whoever they want to talk to." We're talking about federation B coming into nation A. to hold a camp to recruit players for their BNT. A federation absolutely can control the organized actions of another federation within its borders. The USSF has to sanction every international match in the U.S., they would have the right to bar another Fed from setting up camp in the U.S. Could MexFed do it through a proxy? Maybe. But, they don't need to. SUMLSSF is happy to have them turning players in the U.S. The MexFan market is bigger than the USFan market, and almost totally untapped by MLS.
I would say that it could be a sound business strategy for the league to have a limit on non-domestic players because it is more difficult to connect with your hometown team as a hometown team if you don't share the same cultural background and or same nationality with a majority of the players. YOu might as well watch Euro or Mexican soccer. It is the basis for much of the criticism that many people had for NASL. It isn't an issue in MLB, for example, because all of the teams have a majority (as far as I know) US citizens. The occasional Japanese player or the more frequent Latin American player fit in without causing any issues. If we started to see teams that were a majority foreign in MLB I believe it might affect attendance. I feel that MLS, if it is working effectively, will be a strong asset for the USMNT. I don't feel that it should be actively trying to steer individual dual nationals one way or the other. It's primary business model (developmentally) should be to develop as many young players as possible. Most of the young players developed will be US citizens. Some will be dual citizens and some will be non-citizens (green cards). If MLS does a good job, we will increase the number of US citizens (both dual and single) but the number and quality of duals we lose will probably also increase somewhat (in the past, the duals we "lost" were mostly those that we didn't want...to Guatemala, El Salvador etc, while very few were really wanted by Mexico). Now we are entering a time where many (at least some) of our duals are coveted by Mexico. We will lose some of them regardless. Dest, of course is not part of this convo (not in MLS), but he is a completely different case regardless because he was not developed by us. He played with our youth teams but he was raised and developed by the Netherlands.
In the extremely unlikely scenario where there were no American players good enough for MLS, it wouldn't really bother me that the league was made up of foreign players. I mean, it's not going to happen, but whatever. No, I'm actually quite open about it- if the Mexican federation wants to open up a camp in the US to try and attract Mexican citizens to play in or for Mexico, I don't have a problem with them doing so. The players they're trying to attract are Mexican citizens, and those players have every right to choose to play for that country. Why would anyone care?