From MLSnet.com: Garber holds roundtable in Columbus "We have just given our teams the right to go out, set up academies, and keep the rights to those players from a developmental perspective. It is something that we are working out the details. We need to get our teams to go out and take responsibility to for developing the game here in this market."
I don't know if they are academies, but I know Chicago has partnerships with youth clubs. And, there was an agreement signed by FC Dallas to 'partner' with an organization once all of the construction is completed at its new facility.
All teams need academies. It will halp in player development, as well as building a fan base since many of the players will be locally born and bred if you can keep the rights to such players.
This is great to hear, now I hope the teams can do it right and create productive youth systems/academies.
Big question, though: Should a player be sold that a team develops through its academy system, where does the money go?
Most of it would probably go into the league kitty to pay for Donovan's contract, but some would stay with the team. The bigger question is what this would do for a player's college eligibility. What happens if a team signs some wunderkind at fourteen who doesn't reach the professional level by the time he is college age?
I think it would all go to the league kitty but the team would get something for it. I mean, if the league sells a player for a fee, that should result in a respective allocation. I'm sure they can sign kids to amature contracts. PDL does it all the time.
For a team to hold a player's "rights", there has to be some sort of contract between the team and the player, and the contract has to involve some sort of "consideration" to be valid. The "consideration" doesn't have to be monetary (it could simply be the roster spot, free training, travel expenses, etc), but I'd be hard pressed to understand how a team is going make a habit of keeping player's rights then selling them for a highly leveraged fee, without the issue of player compensation being involved sooner or later (and probably sooner). Further, it would require the type of contract with a professional club that the NCAA prohibits. Seems to me that this is the 1st step in creating a system that will force players onto the professional track by the time they're of high school age, effectively eliminating college as an option. Should be interesting to see how this pans out.
I would imagine what they will do is have a "designation" at some age. Or basically where the team comes to the league with the player before the player goes to the league (which will probably continue to happen.) That player signs a special MLS contract that designates that player as the property of whichever team wants to have him. (I seriously doubt that the league is going to release that kind of control to the clubs.) This, boys and girls, is going to raise the bar. All but DC, Metro, Chicago and FCD, you better get your teams up to speed asap because I bet this goes into effect next year. While it won't have a direct impact for a year or two or three, every year a team waits is a year of development lost. Imagine if Dallas had the rights to, say, Clint Dempsey. This definitely raises an issue about what to do about college. I would imagine that the MLS clubs will want control of their folk by 14-17. This is why I think those contracts will be amature contracts.
Not a chance. Other than for truly exceptional players, the collegiate system will become the dominant system of player development in the US. Why? 1st and biggest answer - 50 States, 350 million people, 12 MLS teams. Only 1 city with 2 MLS teams. Compare that to London. How many 1st or 2nd division teams in London. Even if the league grows to 20 or 30, there will not be enough academies to serve the soccer playing population. 2nd answer - Current soccer setup is geared heavily toward the identification of the best upper & upper middle class players in the nation. Pros and college can co-exist in an environment with 12 first division teams and only 20 to 30 high-ambition collegiate programs. As the coaching pool increases in depth thanks to the much higher level of experience among former players in this country, the level of competition will rise dramatically. Now an increase to 20 MLS teams may not make much difference. But if you go up to 100 or 200 colleges/universities where coaches have professional-level expectation of their players and a desire to be competitive, well then you get coaches willing to look more throughly for potential players, e.g., high school teams or locally-based (non-travel) club teams. Currently coaches can go recruiting at a few tournaments...but there's a lot of talent not going to those tournaments and if competition for players is tight they'll get out and find players on lower prestige teams (who will be getting better coaching, as coaching at all levels improves). So how's that affect MLS academies? Simple, a key reason parents are willing to pay big bucks for elite club soccer teams is the potential for scholarships and soccer beyond the club. As kids from lower-level programs start realizing these goals, you really have to wonder if it is worth it to spend $5,000 a year versus $500 a year for a game. Leading I believe to the inevitable decline of the club system in the US as the primary means of elite player development. So MLS will get star players in its academies, but college will become an important source for late bloomers, for players who would fit the bill as 'solid professionals', and for players from out of the way areas.
There are creative ways they could do this type of thing. It could be that they allow the clubs to claim rights to the player out of their academies, if the player signs before college, but if he goes to college, he's fair game when he enters the the draft. Another way would be to require clubs to give up a future draft pick if they claim rights to an academy player. Or give the clubs "right of first refusal" on their academy players, without having to give up a draft pick, but they would have to have an available roster slot.
The DC area has a great soccer community. I'd love to see DC United be able to tap into and hold players from it. I'd also like to see the incentive put into academies-not only clubs will take it more seriously, but it'll be big deals to the young players. Like y'all said I have to believe the NYC area is full of talent too but that I can't be sure about..... Sounds like a slight step away from single-entity. All in all a good move IMO, as was the choice to go w/reserve games. Costs $ but in the long run you get better product.
I like these ideas. They make sense and would be relatively doable. And the comment about the simple vast number of players is a great one - college soccer will still be necessary. But the talent pool will be diluted some.
Interesting. They could also cap the number of players that a team could sign out of its academy. The cap could cover some period of years. I'm not quite sure if that approach would leave enough incentive to develop players, but it would help address concerns of teams in smaller markets that they wouldn't be able to compete with the teams who would benefit from larger youth player pools in areas like Southern California or NY/NJ. I'm just glad that the league is moving toward allowing its clubs more opportunities to develop their own players. The details will sort out over time.
I understand the nuance. I didn't say that it was going wreck college soccer. What I said was that it was going to force certain youth players into professional careers and eliminate college soccer as an option. No doubt this will level the playing field for college soccer, but that's not the issue. The issue is that college soccer is still an option for virtually all elite level youth players, but probably no longer will be for those who elect to go the professional academy route.
To me, this seems like further evidence that Don Garber "gets it". Because it is yet another move to integrate Major League Soccer with traditional world football practices.
Re: Interesting. I don't think a cap would help in this area. What would be better for all parties, players and small market clubs, is a Rule V draft like they have in Baseball. Basically after a set number of years in the acadamy, say 4 or 5, the players that haven't earned full roster contracts are put in a draft. If selected, the team that picks the player up pays a set fee for that player and has to maintain the player on their full roster for 1 year or their rights revert back to the original club. That's the big problem I see with acadamies systems. Talented players sitting on the sidelines simply because they aren't in the plans of the club anymore and likewise the club doesn't want a talented player they developed to go to a rival team. Of course another way is to say when the players hit 18 or 20 the player is a free agent and can go where ever he wants if not signed before then.