Next manager after Poch

I would have liked to think we had some sort of tactical pivot ready for the knockouts, but no.

Why couldn’t we just sit in a mid-block when they started press-baiting us and using Courtois to pick on Ream and set Belgium up to win second balls? We did that against England four years ago with pretty much the same players.

Why weren’t we dumping the ball into the channels for Balo when we needed an out ball?

 

it’s OK, that a lot of people here discount and diminish the advantages of hiring a domestic coach.

Here are the advantages:

1. It’s a bit like promoting an employee already working for the company. It would boost morale and shows confidence in the company product and system.

2. A domestic Coach would already the requisite understanding and alignment of culture: They possess an inherent understanding of the country's football culture, traditions, and psychology “inherent understanding of their country's football culture,” The American culture is quite complex, of course.

3. Poch freely admitted early that he was not familiar with the player, pool: Homegrown coaches often have a better, long-standing grasp of domestic talent pools, strengths, and weaknesses.A domestic coach would bring his network with him.

4. A sense of national pride. A shared nationality can inspire greater passion and motivation, which is critical in short, high-pressure tournament formats “tap into national pride,” This is entirely different than creating a false narrative.

5. It’s tough to argue with results. In the 22 editions of the men's World Cup, no foreign head coach has ever won the tournament In fact, only two foreign managers have ever reached a World Cup final: Englishman George Raynor with Sweden in 1958 and Austrian Ernst Happel with the Netherlands in 1978.

6. There’s a better understanding of the domestic media. Potentially shielding players from unnecessary involvement and managing expectations. An appropriate example and It’s just my opinion, but I don’t think Poch handled the recision of the red card well and I believe that impacted the team’s performance against Belgium.

7. I posted this earlier on another thread, but these are the coaches in USMNT history with the best winning percentage:

Coach Tenure Matches Wins Losses Losses %
B.J. Callaghan 2023 7 5 0 0.00%
Gregg Berhalter 2018–2022, 2023–2024 74 44 1722.97%
Bruce Arena 1998–2006, 2017 148 81 35 23.65%
Bob Bradley 2007–2011 80 43 25 31.25%

8. There are also some intangibles that might be difficult to measure. just as it’s good to have American players as role models, it’s good to have a coach for American coaches. Poch will ultimately end up back in Europe, and he will take all of the experience he generated with him. An American coach would be expected to train other American coaches, as each of the coaches listed above has. Licensing, speaking engagements, creating an American coaching tradition.

Anyway, these are the benefits that an American/domestic coach might bring, that I could think of. Sure there must be more.

 

People keep talking about a coach needing to "understand" the US soccer culture. But, how many of our players for 2030 will be playing in Europe and will have been playing there for an extended period of time? I think we will always have MLS players in the pool and team and it would be nice for the coach to be familiar with our culture and MLS before they get hired. But I don't think it's a prerequisite.
Isn't one of the reasons MLS is changing their calendar to align it with the transfer windows so it's easier to sell players to Europe?
If most of our top players, say 18 of 26 roster players have been playing in Europe for the past 5 years or more, why exactly would the coach need an in depth understanding of US culture?

I'm asking these questions sincerely, not sarcastically.

And I could go either way, a US based coach or a foreign coach. My opinion is the younger prospects getting to Europe and playing regularly for big clubs will have more of a positive effect on 2030 than whoever the next coach is. The more "Freemans" we have the better.

 

With who? Other coaches? People within US Soccer? I don't think I single player would see a morale boost or some sort of confidence in themselves as a result of hiring Jesse Marsch or something.

This is probably the best benefit listed here. Cultural differences are real, and in many cases a cultural gap and misunderstanding can cause problems.

That said, it doesn't always cause problems, and in this last cycle, the change of style may have been beneficial.

This is by far one of the more overplayed positives.

For one, the pool is not so big that it's particularly hard to catch up.

For two, knowing the player pool can be a weakness -- all these coaches come with assumptions and biases. To use your company example from point one, often a company WANTS an outside perspective to come in and evaluate. Especially when it needs to change. A domestic coach is far less likely to shake up the existing crew, and far more likely to have "old tape" on a player that no longer applies.

For three ... does every domestic coach have this? I can understand someone like Callaghan, who was in US Soccer. Does Pellegrino Matarazzo? He's never coached any of these guys. Does even Jesse Marsch? He's coached like three of them and it didn't go well.

I thought Poch tapped into this pretty well. What I do think a domestic manager gives you is much more of a guy you can tap to be a program head -- lead the youth coaches, work on other projects, etc.

It's easy to argue with results. There have been very few top teams with foreign managers -- this English team with Tuchel might be the best ever? Top teams have a domestic pool they almost exclusively pull from unless there's bad results (see Ancelotti with Brazil).

The US is not in anything of a similar position. It's a quirk of covariance, not a driving force.

Meh. Largely unimportant. People whined about Berhalter; people hated Arena with the press, etc., etc., We should not be selecting a coach for their press conferences.

I think the Trump stuff affected the team, but I don't think it had much to do with Poch.

We're not exactly rolling sample size, here. And all of this is without context of talent, level of competition, and even the winning % are pretty blunt instruments. I mean, the Callaghan Gold Cup was pretty damn ugly, but losing on pens (and winning on pens) means ties, not losses to teams we shouldn't lose to.

But you know, still a loss. The "A penalty loss is a tie even in knock out play" is one of the dumber things about soccer stats.

Sure. And the level of tactical nous or instruction methods that a better coach brings might directly rub off onto the other coaches at US Soccer.

But none of that is the issue with you argument. There are good benefits to being a domestic coach: I'd put culture / ability to motivate and their personal motivation at the top.

But the strong counter-argument is simple:

You're completely ignoring many of the things you'd select a coach based on and putting whether they are foreign or domestic in a primary spot.

No one is saying we need a foreign coach because they are foreign.

I want a coach who:

• Continues the high level tactical / strategic direction we are on
• Brings a culture that prioritizes focus, intensity and competitive culture -- help this team get mentally tough and ready for 2030. We have a chance at a Pot 1 seed in 2030; we have the talent to dominate our region; but we need to find ways to get mentally stronger
• Can influence and control the "star" talent -- and ideally make them understand that they aren't
• Can bring "the next step" tactical elements that Pochettino brought to our build up and attack, but add to that the low block / passive organization we were clearly lacking
• Can teach and communicate those tactics in a short time; knows when to stop but also knows when he can add small wrinkles that give an edge.
• Makes effective in game adjustments
• Can evaluate the pool quickly and effectively for needed talents to fit the core and dual national recruit as needed -- find hidden gems and figure out who fits
• Is not afraid to play young talent and does not fall back on veterans when anything goes wrong
• Not quit and leave us in the lurch.

It'd also be great if he'd work with the youth coaches and be a good promoter, but those are secondary for me.

Nowhere does domestic or foreign come up.

Perhaps some domestic coaches will have an edge with communication and motivation due to cultural dynamics. Perhaps some domestic coaches will know the hidden gems better and have an edge with dual national recruiting. They certain do have an edge that they seem less likely to run for greener pastures.

But the reason people want a foreign coach considered is not that they are foreign. It's that there are foreign coaches who are better tactically than pretty much any American coach. That there are coaches like Pochettino who have enough clout that they tell off Christian Pulisic -- the idea that BJ Callaghan is going win any kind of spat with Christian is ludicrous. And there are foreign coaches with FAR more success even in the international realm than any American coach.

I don't see any of your advantages being insurmountable. Or even always an edge.

In the end, I think Pochettino partially got the cultural element of this team back on track, but it is too soon to tell how well that was "fixed" or how permanent.

I think he added a TON tactically to the offense and managed to do so with limited time. But clearly, defensively never took to the level of even a risky Pochettino team -- this was pure breakdowns at points, not "we took a risk and got isolated one on one." Was this an error by Poch or a problem with the pool? Did he simply need more time or would other coaches be much quicker?

What I do not want in the name of domestic is a coach who completely changes the tactical direction (Marsch, for example) or a coach who does not have the acumen or aspiration to push the team -- basically anyone who more or less agrees with the idea that we can't compete, we need to defend, defend, defend.

Pick the best coach. Factor in all the benefits. But don't limit yourself to domestic (or foreign).

 

One lesson i learned as a manager years ago is that you don't hire the best person for the job. You hire the best person available for the job.

 

We will never have the cohesiveness that Spain does and likely no other national will either since they get most of their players from 2-3 teams from their own country. I see France as the closest in terms of what we could achieve. A lot of different races together and of which a lot are very athletic. We don't have the talent they do but we could start getting closer and do seem to be trending that way. Of course every team is better with a true super star to bail them out but even the teams that had those just lost to the cohesive team. Will Spain disappear again for a few cycles or have they figured out how to keep playing that way and will be the team to beat for a while now?

 

The thing is we did adjust but the goals we gave up were basic defensive breakdowns not questions of tactics.

 

The interesting thing about Spain is both their runs have been mostly driven by surges of talent at Barcelona. The 2008-2012 run was Barcelona developing an insane group and this current run is a lot of youth players Barcelona was forced to give opportunities to because of their financial issues. Though the current team isn’t as Barcelona centric as the previous iteration.

The thing is it’s still a super young team that will be back in 4 years and they were still missing a cutting edge in the final third (which may have been different if Yamal and Nico Williams were fully healthy). But imagine for instance if this Spain team had an elite 9.

 

Pulisic is getting stick because he had his worst game in the shirt in literally the biggest game of his career and it's not the first time. He was supposed to be the fulcrum, he was supposedly Captain America (I know, big laugh), and he had his worst game, in our biggest moment. He actually does deserve a great deal of the punching because he completely and totally ---- the bed, he turned in a comically bad performance, and he was a turnover machine (what was it, 11 turnovers in one half?!?!) that did the worst thing you could do to a compromised, struggling defense, and that was basically constantly create transition opportunities for a team smelling blood. He was freaking awful, just like Ream, and just like Dest.

Maybe Belgium knew this or that, and you're right there, possibly, but the biggest problems were what we smelled from the very first minute, which was a team that simply wasn't up to the moment, like the not remotely good enough Giants when the played the Ravens in the Super Bowl in January of 2001, they had no business being there, and in this moment, while our team had plenty of right to be there, they were not remotely playing like it, they were a team begging for an --- kicking, scared as hell, not ready for the moment, and inconsistent in terms of their mental makeup in the moment, something we'd seen from the jump 4 years earlier against the Dutch, and against Uruguay two years earlier. The defense was to blame, Freese was to blame, Dest was to blame, Pulisic was to blame, McKennie, Adams, all of them.

I put the most blame on the guys that carry the biggest rep, and thus get the credit for the good things, because this was the third time in 3.5 years they completely wilted in the moment, and turned in horrid performances, some of them weren't there for Copa America like Dest, others were like McKennie and Adams and Pulisic.....

So I guess I disagree with you. I don't agree this game was lost in the game planning stage, which is a critique that would lay at Poch's feet, because the truth is, they have done this innumerable times before, and there are ways you can overcome it. They overcame nothing, they just crumbled. Again, I'm sure if Belgium had scouted us up and down and figured us out, that probably hurt, but lets be straight, Iran, and Egypt handled them w/no problem whatsoever, so that's really no excuse at all, the only teams that looked hopeless against them really of any quality in years were us and New Zealand. Great company.

 

Yep, and I would add that if the culture they need to learn is the approach of these current players, then I want to flush the culture down the toilet.

I think the argument that makes more sense w/culture, is just the bizarre reality of development, and how our leagues work, and why our windows are the way they are (non-fifa date games, camp cupcake), and as we learned with Pulisic and Poch, why A Team players would think that a B year Gold Cup wouldn't matter, which caused all manner of chaos a year ago. Is an international coach going to understand why Pulisic felt totally fine in begging off the '25 Gold Cup, and why he wasn't really wrong to feel that way?

People who are pissed off at me saying that should just look back over USMNT history and really quickly you will realize that this approach has been true for 20 years, going all the way back to the '05 Gold Cup and the '09 Gold Cup, and the reason back then was that one Gold Cup guaranteed a ticket to the Confed Cup, and the other didn't, and so quite often, maybe always (when we had lots of Yanks abroad anyway), we'd leave aside the Gold Cups that didn't bestow Confed Cup tickets, and in the Pulisic generation the reason has been a combo of no Confed Cup, and the arrival of the faux tournament Nations League. As a result, Pulisic and the vets prioritized the NL, because that's what the coaches wanted and probably because it required less of them during their summers off then a six week Gold Cup camp would require. So Pulisic and Musah in many ways were just doing what had been true their entire careers, the Gold Cups of '21, '23 and '25 were perceived as a domestic based players tournament, while the Nations League was reserved for the full A team.

Poch didn't agree w/this, and same w/some of the fans, but its totally understandable why those vet players thought this, as it had always been true w/their generation because of Nations League, and its finals being in the summer in '21 and '23, and because of the prior reality where pre-WC Gold Cups were always backups/B Side domestic tournaments, and it is totally understandable, and you can even add that it would be weird because why are we having Gold Cups every other year, especially when we also have nations league twice or three times a cycle, literally 4-6 confederation tournaments a cycle in a joke confederation like ours, why!?!?! Even CAF has ended their multiple AFCON's a cycle approach, after Conmebol did a few years ago, and Asia seemingly always has, why do we persist w/this many freaking tournaments?

So yeah, to me, in terms of culture, the only real relevant to me, is the weird little peccadillos and realities that can lead to issues like we saw with Pulisic and Poch, where they both made assumptions which lead to a communications break down, when the reality was both of their view points were totally understandable (Poch would be wondering why he wouldn't want to fight for a Concacrap crown AND Nations League did not have any games Summer '25 anyway, so it wasn't a double tournament summer like '21, and '23 were)......

So yeah, I don't really care about the culture argument because I think its less applicable to us anyway, I just care in the sense of avoiding fights like we had summer '25, where Pulisic, Poch, Musah etc weren't wrong, but were also in a fight for totally understandable reasons.

 

Pulisic's form was just a continuation of his club form. He only had 8 goals for Milan in 2026. He was bad and it just continued.
I hate to say it but I think Trump interjecting himself into the Balo issue and the team becoming the personification of FIFA and Trump corruption really got to them ( and I can't blame them for that happening). Foreign fans were loving how they had been playing and we'd won a lot of them over to our side but then it was easy for the team to become the face of all that is hated about FIFA and the current administration by foreigners. And I don't blame them either for rooting against us due to that crap.

 

Spain in the context of a national style of play is a largely pointless discussion and somewhat missing the point. We're not Spain, we're probably never going to be Spain, and no one is seriously proposing that.

But that does not mean we should be the exact opposite -- a team without a cohesive plan that survives coaching changes or has no connection between youth team and senior team.

You can always allow for adjustment for talent or opponents; you do not need to be dogmatic or play an extreme style. But likewise, it's not going to be productive to hire coaches that cannot build off each other.

Find a consistent set of skill and ability requirements and consistent base style of play. I don't mean formation necessarily; I really do mean style. Let coaches build on a continually strengthening foundation. They have so little time to add value; we're better off with a lesser coach who can add to what's there than trying to have a greater coach tear everything down every 2-4 years.

If there's something to be learned from other countries and domestic coaches, it's not that they are domestic.

It's that we've seen a wave of youth coaches get promoted and do well. In large part, I think, because they not only know the players themselves but are working off a known foundation.

 

Who could take over as USMNT manager if Pochettino leaves?@TomBogert, @Oeste and @IFTVMarco weigh some potential options for the Stars and Stripes 🇺🇸 pic.twitter.com/Z9SSA5DfGR

— Golazo America (@GolazoAmerica) July 22, 2026

 

I think this is a nice goal, but I also think it’s much more difficult to implement than many believe.


For one, who, apart from Spain over the past few years, has a national playing identity that connects their youth teams to their senior team? France and England have a ton of talent, but their senior teams basically play conservatively and bide their time until their attackers produce a moment or two of brilliance.

also, the game changes so frequently that I think that many playing styles go out of fashion in the time it takes a player to go through a youth system and get into a senior team.

Pep-Spain’s tiki taka style was all the rage when he was at Barcelona. Then the klopp/german gegenpressing and more direct style came in. Now, we are seeing the top managers have less and less of a definable style. Klopp and Pep had clearly defined styles when they came into the epl, but by the time they left, they were much more similar and less distinguishable.

I think that what we are seeing with Spain is somewhat more simple than some well-thought out plan that’s been rolled out intentionally over time. I think that de la Fuente has a unique approach that lends itself well to the international game (he hasn’t done much of note as a club manager), and that Spain has the quality and depth of talent to implement it well. As a bonus, this group is also pretty selfless and willing to put in the work and share the glory (would Mbappe put in the work off the ball to make this system work for France?).

 

I know I'm not your only audience, but I haven't watched the NFL since the mid 90's. For me, you might as well be talking about cricket. But, like I said, I know I'm not your audience

 

Crocker was hired because he built the "England DNA." I'd say it's worked pretty well, and one could argue only broke down because Tuchel decided to go too conservative. But they absolutely have a general style of play they try to play across the levels, and it was especially so under Southgate. Who, it should be noted, was far more successful than his predecessors.

I think lots of teams have something like this, actually. Sometimes it's cultural; sometimes it's just the result of a senior team that is relatively stable and static over the years. The Swiss, for example, have kept the same coach and many of the same players and continually execute at a high level. Japan does this.

If we have that floor, you can build and adjust. But we don't seem have the basics down at times.

The mention of these means I'm not getting my point across well. I'm not asking the team to commit to only one style, or an extreme style that's all the rage. The mere mention of tiki taka tells me I'm not doing a good job.

Let me try again to phrase it in a way that isn't a national style of play.

National Team coaches have very little time with their charges. Having a common language, figuratively, and a baseline set of tools that everyone is competent at starts every coach at at least a floor.

We should have a very general set of expectations for our style of play that allows for flexibility but always fits a certain floor of being able to, but not restricted to:

• Having a plan of attack when in possession of the ball that isn't possession agnostic. This does not mean we don't counter and it doesn't mean we can't play direct. Pochettino's system was pretty direct. What it means is that our players can play out of the back well, break a press, possess the ball for control of the game and generate attacks against a bunker. We should not have a coach whose primary plan with the ball is to cede possession for counters or to press and attack with such risk that we are agnostic whether we turn it over or not.
• We need players who can smartly and efficient play a coordinate, compact defense in a passive state. We should have a base set up that plays this at times throughout the youth ranks and with the national team. At some point, we will be on our back foot. We need to have a team that can do that, but not a team that can only do that.
• We should also have a team that can counterpress and press. It should not be wholly reliant on this, but these are very valuable weapons that our players should be able to and willing to do and without re-learning. Any coach is going to bring their own spin; but we should not be in a situation where we can't counterpress because our striker can't understand how to press at the right angles to cut off passing lanes. We may need to adjust to cover for a defender who can't defend in space if they are truly good enough, but our bias should be to players that allow for this flexibility. And so on.
• Culturally, we should constantly drive to an aggressive, competitive, high work rate style. Is this the best style in the world? Not necessarily, but it fits the American culture and our talent level is not likely ever to be good enough to sit back and pick guys apart. For now, this is our best bet.

The knock on from this is simple:

• At the youth team level, we prioritize players who have the capabilities to execute against these priorities, and we challenge players to learn these skills. We challenge players to develop skills their clubs may not need of them right now.
• With youth teams, we run a set of basic patterns of play on offense, whether in the build out or in attack to help build a common set of instincts and understanding of where your teammates are likely to be. I know people will say "oh, they learn this at club" but it's pretty clear from this last cycle that no, not everyone does, and each club may prioritize different styles and patterns. And no, these will likely be more varied and more subtle at the senior team level, but those adjustments are easier.
• We should be running very similar presses and low block defenses at the youth level. Again, cohesion and coordination is key. Sure, the senior team coach may not run a press ever, or run that press. But the tool is in the toolbox at a basic level.
• When we hire a senior team coach, they must agree with the basics in the first section above. No one whose game model does not allow for beating the bunkers and weaker teams we will face. No one whose game model does not allow for us to take advantage of our generally higher athleticism and work rate. No Jesse Marsch. No bunker and counter guys. But also -- no one who doesn't have a plan for facing teams that can hold the ball against our press.

Nothing here excludes us hoofing it up at times if we get a great target striker and that's the best play. Nothing here requires we press or play tiki taka (as if we could).

I think this accomplishes three things:

• It sets a consistent standard for younger players to understand what they need to be able to do (and what to work on) if they want to play for the US. This will shape their development and priorities indirectly
• It creates a pipeline of players with certain common tactical commonalities and skillsets that will make it easier for senior team coaches to coach off of -- and to plug and play players more closely at times.
• Keeping a more consistent senior team strategy allows for building cohesion and team play over time while allowing for more sophisticated adaptions rather than spending limited time on complete reinventions that are largely only necessary because they are what the coach "knows."

On that last point, let's be honest -- what reinvention is necessary? If we hired Jesse Marsch tomorrow, would it be because we were all convinced Red Bull was the way to go long term, or are we suddenly reworking everything because that's what Jesse knows?

 

I don't know if this is different, but Emma is focusing on a "National Team Style." She's having robust U-X camps, where everyone is learning the same principals. She's apparently trying to create a system where you can call someone up from a U-X team and they already have the playbook memorized. I don't know if that differs from a national style, but I like it. And, by all accounts, she is trying to drill that system down deeper and deeper, to the youngest NT's.

 

This sounds nice but it’s not true at all. The idea that everyone needs to chill out and eventually we will produce super athletes with high iq’s by just doing what we are doing and that any nation has ever been successful with that model is a narrative that needs to end.

I don’t know the intricacies of Croatia and Switzerland but I guarantee you they probably mirror Belgium, which I know all about.

Again one guy, one vision, buy in and support, commitment, top down ideas from the FA etc. Technical Director of the FA Michel Sablon, studied the proven models, adapted them for Belgium, changed everything, yada, yada, same exact story for every successful nation I’m aware of.
https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/27827569

I know, I know, we are so different, exceptional even.

 

A coaching staff headed by a foreign coach could understand the talent pool well depending on who the assistants are.

 

Thanks for the details on Belgium.

That's not what I was saying. The takeaway from my post should have been "There's no getting around we need to produce better players (tech/IQ/athletic) regardless of whether we have an identifiable national style like Total Futbol/Joga Bonito/etc, or if we're like those other teams that are just way more competent than we are currently. "

There's no cliched thoughts about Belgium/Croatia/Switzerland, they just seem to be doing really well for the past decade.

They're better than us.

They can play one & two touch soccer for longer stretches without taking a bad touch, needing extra touches to settle than we can. If they're playing direct they can get downfield in 3 passes that find people in stride, in space going in the right direction more often than we can, where the pass is too far or someone has to back track, etc.


We need top down direction from the USSF to improve the youth environment so that we have way more technically/tactically competent inputs to the MLS academies, and hopefully soon USL and independent MLSNExtPro academies, where they can be further refined and finished.

So far our "one guys" haven't been that successful - prior to Crocker I don't think any of them were high enough on the org/influence chart. But it seems he balked at untangling the youth soccer alphabet soup of leagues mess for a more rigid nation with a cleaner slate.

There's a lot of noise coming from the former MNT guys, esp. Donovan, but I'm not sure I've seen anything that makes me believe they're the guy(s).

The latest marketing around "USSF is going to fundamentally change youth soccer..." coupled with the news about how private equity is circling in the soccer based waters has given me pause. Given how PE has handled other things that used to function not sure getting them involved with youth sports, even youths with future professional potential, is a good idea.

 

It's a disaster. With the caveat that there are actually good PE firms that invest in companies and help them grow ... I am dead certain that's not what is going to happen here.

The business plan for youth sports will be easy for them. Buy it up, create as much of a monopoly as possible, drive artificial scarcity through supply constraints to push up the price. I'd expect some benefit actually, as they move to a higher education pricing model -- much more expensive pricing for the elite but they will give scholarships. All you have to do is give them all your financial statements so they can determine EXACTLY how much they can bleed you for.

You know there's some finance asshole out there noting that the 5k he pays for his kids' team is at at least 15k too low.

 

I think the biggest problem is soccer in the US doesn't generate as much per capita as it does elsewhere so it's harder to get money to cover the whole nation. France has what 8 regional and one national center? Well we have the national one now but would need something like 64 regional centers to copy their model. Unless Musk or some other sugar daddy donates a fortune there's just not enough money.

 

A wild card in the discussion is the NIL scenario in college. This, combined with the fear of consolidation in D1 football (there is all kinds of talk about the rich leaving the poor behind), Schools are feeling more pressure than ever to be successful in football. Success takes money. Sports that lose money are going to suffer: fewer scholarships awarded, entire sports getting eliminated.

Men's soccer will be an easy one to cut or cut back. It won't be missed at many schools.

If that is the case ..... it's my theory that what drives a huge chunk of club soccer, volleyball, softball is the parents' hope that their kid will earn a scholarship. I don't think there are a lot of parents out there whose kid is playing club soccer that is not affiliated with an MLS team, who think their kid will go pro.

If men's college soccer programs are slashed, that dream of a scholarship, or easier admission because they'll be on the soccer team is also slashed.

If that dream is slashed, then that wildly reduces the motivation for parents to pony up for club soccer.

We'll see.

 

Isn't the lack of an enforcement mechanism for solidarity payments a huge obstacle, too? Clubs can't collect if a player they train moves on to an MLS contract. So, there is no reason to offer scholarships, right? And, my impression is that MLS would never pay a solidarity payment to a US club, anyway. They'd move on to the next prospect before they did that.

MLS could scout clubs looking for players and offer solidarity payments or sell on agreements. They could do that voluntarily. It wouldn't cost them much, and it seems like it would surely motivate the clubs to be scouting for talent to develop.

 

Yeah though Belgium looks like more of a single golden generation versus a steady runway of talent at that level. Not that they have bad players but they’ve definitely taken a step back overall.