...if that's possible. http://soccernet.espn.go.com/news/story?id=768121&sec=mls&cc=5901 Finally, a structured path for U18 professionals that doesn't tiptoe around intercollegiate soccer, and the draft.
I would imagine most players would still go to college first anyway. Pro sports, MLS especially, are a crapshoot, and the salary these guys would be getting isn't nearly enough to justify passing on a free or less expensive education + game experience. If MLS brings back a reserve league, then maybe teams will start using the Homegrown Rule more. Why would you give up on the opportunity to get a college degree only to make $30,000 a year and sit on the bench year-round? Now, for the hispanic kids that maybe don't tend to get recruited as much for whatever reason, but still end up in academies, this is a much better route to the pros. Let's face it, there aren't many kids that age in the US who are good enough to be playing in MLS. They could forseeably be loaned out to a USL side, but then they aren't even getting coaching from their team, so the coaches can't really oversee their development as a player. I would imagine the impact of this rule on college soccer will be minimal. We may see a few more of the top players going pro instead of going to college, but the top players don't all play at MLS academies as it is now.
The old one did (regardless of whether they flame out or not); I'm not sure if the new reworking of the system with the homegrown spots will. Regardless, I still think there needs to be a reserve league for this to take any kind of toll on college soccer. Seems like it would be better to play for four (or however many) years than sit on the bench for that time.
MLS Minimum salary for all players is now $40,000. Thats around (slightly below?) the average salary for a college grad IF you get a job.
Yeah, the college draft is clearly irrelevant, given how many new straight-to-MLS players have established themselves as regular contributors in the last few years. Like Nana Attakora, and....uh, is that it? As far as I can tell, there hasn't been one clear American straight-to-MLS success story since Altidore went pro in 2006. Having a few guaranteed roster spots for homegrown players is not going to suddenly cause all those homegrown players to become any good. Unless we've recently developed the technology to clone youth soccer prodigies in vats, somebody else is going to have to fill all the other hundreds of roster spots. Seriously, how can people say things like "the college draft is irrelevant" with a straight face?
It's easy. In a system that's now purposely designed to effectively strip out 64 of the top U18's per year, and get them under multi-year contracts, how long do you reckon that it's going to take before the needs of the league for young professionals are pretty well satisfied? The entire reason for the approach is to reduce reliance on the college draft, and get players into the league, and under contract, at the youngest possible age. As far as MLS is concerned, there is no longer any substantive benefit in a lottery crapshoot for one-and-done, or older players, when clubs can ultimately be in control of their own fortunes, and the international marketplace sets the standard otherwise.
If it's purposely designed to do that, it will fail. It will fail because: 1. Many of the best U18s are not at MLS academies 2. Many of the best u18s who are at MLS academies will continue to pursue college or foreign opportunities 3. Many of the players that we think are the best u18s actually aren't. Decades. None of the three things I mentioned above are likely to change in the near future.
But of course, none of that will make any difference because: 1. There will be enough "best U18's" for the limited MLS opportunities available 2. When they're under contract as U18's, MLS has a fully vested interest in them 3. They'll have 1-3 years head start in a professional environment over college players. 4. The remaining U18's not in MLS academies invariably won't be considered "the best" 5. MLS wouldn't bother to do it if failure was as certain as you suggest. 6. Unlike football or basketball, there's no marketing reason to link college soccer to MLS It's all about putting MLS ultimately on par with the international transfer market, and that starts by owning and cultivating players at the earliest possible age.
And you honestly think that 40k or 32k if you're a develop player, (even if your arugument that the best U-18's are in Academy settings is correct) is going to do that? Get real. Without a big bonus to sign and, without a promise of playing time or a reserve league to get playing time, you're looking at many years down the road. Maybe you'll scrape a couple of kids per year to sign that don't care that much about an education or an Altidore talent once every 5 years, but the MLS is going to have to do a heckuva lot better than 40k. That doesn't even pay for one year at most schools these days. Besides, your argument that the MLS draft is worthless is way off base. Looks like several rookies just in the last couple years who went to college are making a difference for their clubs. Not just end of the roster guys. One could argue that MLS teams should start paying more attention to college programs.
Yes. They'll get the players. Particularly considering the economic climate for the foreseeable future. You could, but they won't, because when they've got money invested in their own pool of U18-U21 players, training in their own system, they're not going to be inclined to pay as much attention (sic) to college programs. That's a simple Business 101 proposition.
Sure, if we want to reduce the MLS level of play to a USL-2 standard. Even the small and supposedly elite group of American teenagers that have recently signed with MLS have struggled to find significant playing time. Why on earth would a coach want to fill his roster with the also-rans? Furthermore, the select few teenagers who turn into strong players will tend to find themselves in Europe sooner rather than later (like Bradley and Altidore). In general, most straight-to-MLS pros have either been disappointments (the majority) or have soon left (a few cases). Either way, they generally don't have much long-term presence in MLS starting lineups. FC Dallas' vested interest in Blake Wagner may have led them give him 40 appearances, but they eventually decided he wasn't very good and dumped him. Vested interest didn't do anything for the pro careers of straight-to-MLS "stars" like David Arvizu, Nik Besagno, Memo Gonzalez. etc. Vested interest doesn't turn a mediocre player into a solid pro. The magical development powers of the pro environment often seem to be exaggerated. See, for example, the long list of P40/GA MLS flops. Of course they will, if they prove it at the club and international level. Nobody cares that Gil or McInerney didn't come from MLS academies. No comment. No clue what this is supposed to mean. Baseball also draws extensively from college, despite having a minor league development system that dwarfs anything that MLS is remotely capable of.
Currently, there is no development in the MLS. People complain about college soccer but the players get in many cases 25 more games then bench players are getting in the MLS. Is "training" every day with MLS players better than getting games at the college level ? Have you ever watched an MLS training session ? Four goal soccer with four teams of four or five, followed by 7 vs. 7 with three teams to goal with a plus one thrown in. That's it. If you are not a starter or regular player you get zero games. If the reserve things gets started playing college teams, USL teams and local MLS teams then OK I can see it, but some players get NO meaningful games. No matter what the quality of the training, you can't replace games. The rest of the world has reserves, lower divisions and places to play. We don't. If you don't make it here by 22 or 23, it is over. All the 18 year olds scooped up by MLS, where are they getting games ?
Why are Americans so stubborn? "Soccer" isn't Basketball or American Football. Why can't the MLS follow the European divisions way of doing things. There are so many issues I do not understand. Why the hell do MLS own the rights to the players not the clubs? Why is the college season only four/five months? Why are there restrictive rules on how much you can train? Because of education? If you want to be a pro you sacrifice getting a degree end of story. If you want to get a degree you can't be a pro. You do not have to do both. http://internationalasa.com/index.php Top IMG players are now signing up to receive an American degree in the UK whilst playing all year round focusing on developing the player and improving rather than winning pointless stupid college games.
The mentality towards soccer in the US is not a reflection of Americans being stubborn. It's a reflection of rational economic decisions. If you haven't figure it out yet - there is still no money in American soccer, for owners or players. For god's sake, the only reason they started the league was because FIFA required it in order for the US to host the 1994 World Cup. Everyone who got in at that point chose to invest in a long term project that would not yield profits for a long time. Consider all investment in professional soccer north of the Rio Grande to be economic speculation - the hope that it will generate profits in the future. Until American professional soccer is a consistently profitable economic enterprise, it is going to look a lot different than Europe. This is not a secret we've been keeping from you... More non-secrets: European leagues fill their stadiums, sell merchandise, and make money. Many of their clubs started as local, amateur, and recreational clubs with the development of professional teams occurring later in their histories. The remnants of their recreation clubs days are visible largely in their youth academies, where many will develop players and eventually sell them like merchandise to make a profit and to stay afloat economically. MLS clubs started under an American professional sports team model hoping that they could market it to the typical American sports fan. Because they new they were going to lose money for a long time, the business model (after all - professional sports aren't about sport, their about money) was designed to limit how much money they would lose. That's why the league owns the contracts - to keep costs in check and prevent the league from becoming the reincarnation of NASL (or Portsmouth). Your critique of college as the natural pre-professional step: 1. It will thrive until players believe they will be able to make real money as professional players. Until then, they will seek the relative economic security of the college degree that is prerequisite for most well-paying careers in the US. (Rational decision - not stubborn at all.) 2. It also thrives b/c middle and upper-middle class American culture says you go to college after high school. Most upper tier soccer players in the US come from those economic classes, therefore college is an assumption for most of them; making a living playing professional soccer is not an assumption for them. Again, rational - not stubborn. 3. Many young American soccer players want the American college experience as much as they want the degree. Neither stubborn or rational; perhaps we could call this one cultural. 4. Newsflash - soccer players can go pro AND get a college degree! What they can't do is go pro and then play college soccer. (i.e. playing soccer in college is not a prerequisite to getting a college degree.) NCAA rules governing student athletes and schedules - why? - so the players can get an education. Colleges exist for teaching and research, primarily, so it is not unrealistic that they would insist that the students on their teams be subjected to that evil teaching and learning stuff. That's not being stubborn - that's about priorities. Disagree with them? Go to Europe and pursue this wonderful option you highlight. (It's obviously such a wonderful option - as evidence by most US players staying stateside.) I found your reference to stupid pointless college games interesting because, obviously, winning in the Leeds City League, aka the "West Yorkshire Football League" (in which your prestigious International Academic and Soccer Academy plays) is clearly just one short step from Champions League glory... (If you hate stubborn American soccer so much, then just tune back-in to FSC and GolTV this weekend. Maybe one of them will broadcast an IASA v. Field Sports & Social derby.)
codyjarrett is right in his critique of the 'Leeds' league. Coming from england i can guarantee that the level of competition in that league will not be anywhere near the standard need to 'develop'. The whole set up seems poor. Why do you think there is a huge influx of english kids like myself coming to the states.
Ummm... to flee the crushing oppression of a poor economy, rampant immigration, political correctness, bourgeoning social programs and adolescent drunkeness?
How About this? I didn't think this warranted a new thread but I was thinking on how to improve the system, and my suggestions and opinions are below. Below is a basis of what I think could and would improve the standard of player throughout the US, without having the knowledge or same general views of the people of America as I am a coach in the UK and have grown up in a completely different system, academic (and athletic) wise. Also don't see it as me being for everything in Europe etc and against the US. -I do not know a lot about the other major sports in US and the college system and how they work so I am only making points for soccer and what I know. I understand if you do one thing for one sport, the same principle can apply for the other sports but im not thinking about the other sports - In England you graduate from high school at sixteen years old. You can then get a basic job. You can take a training course in construction etc, and then go onto a job in construction after two years for instance. You can attend a local two year college, where you study A-Levels or a practical based course, which will allow you to go onto university at 18/19 and study a degree. More importantly if you are with a professional club's academy when you are 15, you spend one day a week in the school week training with the club. When you reach the leaving school age, you may be offered a two/three year full time youth contract. You train full time, and ALSO study a basic qualification that will allow you to further you education in the future. After or during the youth contract you may be offered a professional contract. If you don't then you can find another club or go back into full time education. Before you reach the school leaving age, you will train three evenings a week and play one game a week. If you are not good enough or haven't been signed to a pro club or even been released from a pro club at 16, then there a number of academies that run at local colleges (16-19). You study a normal full time qualification, but also find time to train virtually full time, similar to the US college system without the boundaries/restrictions. I think the US HAS to adopt a similar system. Places like the IMG Academies are fantastic but there needs to be similar places and cheaper as well. If you want top class professionals then they need to train and focus there time on the sport. They can study as well but the main focus in on the sport. In the UK you only train at the very maximum four hours a day. On a rest day or afternoon, a few classes take place. There are no restrictions. I do not entirely understand the NCAA rules or why they have them in relation to soccer. It is unheard of in England especially between the ages of 17-23 to play matches/games in such a short space. For instance, correct me if im wrong, some of the most important days of the season, games in the college cup, are played over a weekend. The semi-final on a Saturday and the final on a Sunday. How are the players meant to recover in time? During the season there are games every 3/4 days. In the time, how are the players meant to develop and work on skills and techniques? They spend there time recovering for games, and tactics for games. At that age the players should be focusing on developing and improve and preparing themselves to step up, not focusing on just winning games. It doesn't make sense for clubs to start from scratch with academies considering how long it takes for a successful structure to be built. Could a system be put in place, where MLS and pro clubs officially partner/link with college set-ups. NCAA restrictions should be lifted. Maybe the clubs could help fund the programs and they could separate entirely from the colleges. Players can then train with the first team if they are good enough. Also to play in a competitive match they do not have to be on a professional contract. Clubs could employ the whole program's infrastructure. Games/matches should be played once a week over the course of a long season, from August to May. If clubs want to train everyday in the spring then they should be allowed to. There shouldn't be restrictions. Instead of scholarships clubs could offer youth contracts with a basic wage and also some college credit courses. After two years or so, the best players, for example 2/3 out of 12 get offered full time professional contracts. The rest get released. That's tough. They either can then go back into serious full time education or find another club. You may ask what about the players that are not good enough to play for one of these joint MLS/College programs? If there not good enough there not good enough, simple. They can play club soccer, or something. There's not enough professional clubs to partner with all the colleges? The top programs form with the top professional clubs? The rest partner with the correct standard of program. They can form an elite division if you like, the rest can carry on with the traditional college way. At the moment the US system seems like a good opportunity for players from abroad who haven't broken through in there own countries but not the best for US based players. Does anyone agree with the points I have made or disagree? I would love to know you views.
Re: How About this? The US system is probably hard for someone in Europe to understand, but it has it's own logic. First, you cannot be a professional athelete and have a scholarship to a college in that sport. This is a rule (well, it's actually a little more complicated than that, but close enough for our purposes). The "powers that be" do not want this to change. Now, the rule might evolve over time, but it's going to be because of other sports, not soccer. Second, a larger percentage of people in the US go to college than in Europe. For a lot of players, although not all, their family has an expectation that they will get a college degree. So, if the choice is to go play in MLS for $40,000 per year, or get a scholarship to college (perhaps a very expensive or exclusive college), MLS is going to lose. Third, it makes little sense for teams to spend a lot of money on youth development. Sure, an MLS team could pay for a player to go to college but it wouldn't be worth it. The cost of the college fees would probably exceed the value of the player to the team.
Re: How About this? Thanks for the reply. I completely understand the desire to get a college degree, but maybe that's where there is a difference between the kids and families in the US and Europe. Maybe its because there is more money in the game over here, but a lot of players will do everything and sacrifice everything and anything for a chance of a professional career. If they do not make it or get injured then they can still complete a degree. My basic opinion on it, is that your playing career is very short, and you may be spending nearly a quarter of it in college, but then there's there upside of the security of the degree, experience of college, and time for longer development rather than getting released at 18 in the UK and playing part time. Would the MLS clubs not be able to provide a academy for players when they graduate from high school. For instance Seattle Sounders sign up a squad of youngsters, employ one club lecturer/tutor who teaches general and basic classes, but enough for some decent credits. I don't know maybe im leaning towards the MLS academy system because that's the system I know, but maybe there would be problems with who the youth teams would face as a MLS Academy League is out of reach I would of thought because of the clubs being so far apart.
Re: How About this? It's partly about the money and partly about the society. What you say is exactly true for other sports here, such as basketball and football, because kids see these guys on TV making millions of dollars. It's a shame, since so few of them will become professional athletes, but it's the way it is. Most MLS players make the same as a good accountant and how much are you willing to sacrifice to be an accountant? American soccer players truly do it for the love of the game. Yes and no. It's a mix of money, regulations and distance; although mostly money. MLS experimented with a reserve league (basically players who were on the team but not playing ) but got rid of it because it was too expensive. The MLS teams do have youth programs (see here for the Galaxy's), but they are amateur programs. They could make these professional, but it just wouldn't be worth the money. Say that they brought in 10 post-high school players each year and they stayed for 2 years, so 20 players in all. They paid them $30,000 per year and paid for their community college tuitions (community colleges are local two-year schools - basically the first two years of college). Aside from coaches etc, we're probably talking $700,000 per year. Not much? You would be lucky if two of those players made the senior roster team each year (senior rosters are only 20 players). That's a lot of money for in a league where the average salary is probably around $100,000 and the minimum salary for a player on the senior roster is $40,000. And what about the players who didn't make it? The second division is just trying to stay alive and pays a lot less than MLS. There just aren't many soccer jobs in the US. Someday, this would be a decent model. But we're a long long way from that now.
Re: How About this? I think a lot of it, like you said does come down to funding. For instance many lower league clubs, who probably make less than MLS clubs manage to fund academies etc, but they get a lot of funding and grants from the Premier League, Football League and the FA. A 16-18 full time youth contract player at a lower league club will earn anything from expenses only (Fuel money, transport money- i.e train tickets etc) to around £80 a week. These things do take time to set-up and run efficiently. I think Arsene Wenger at Arsenal said we will only see the the true benefits of his academy in a few years when players have been there since it started in 1998 so from 7/8 year olds till now. The benefits of these systems are that if you can get a good player you have produced on a contract, he does well, and you sell him off you have made a great investment. When Rio Ferdinand left West Ham to go to Leeds for a lot of money, I remember someone saying the funding/fees from that transfer has just paid for the next 25 years of the academy. Somebody looking in on the system like myself from Europe would think "What the hell are they doing over there etc" but after a lot of research and reading, I know how difficult it must have been to create a league/structure from scratch. Over here we have had everything in place for years. I was born in the 60's, and grew up watching Arsenal, and even then whilst the money weren't great, we still had around 80 professional clubs. Its going to take time for the US, and I am interested in how the situation develops. I think maybe things like MLS meeting with EPL officials and discussing how to progress etc would help. I think the NCAA and MLS could do with some more input from FIFA and big names on how to improve the quality and the set-up's. With the exposure that soccer gets in the US there are opportunities there. If a player here in high school scores 80 goals in one year for his high school team, nobody would find out or know outside of the school and maybe a few scouts. I think coach education is a big one, but again it's completely different because I don't know anything other than soccer, whilst soccer isn't the biggest or most popular sport in the US. One thing I have noticed is that, in the UK coaching is too focused on physical aspects such as strength, size and speed. In Spain, Holland etc, they focus on Skill/technique first. It seems like in the US you have the same problem, whilst South America produces more skillful players. Another thing, I've been amazed by some of the costs of playing soccer in the US. At camps, tournaments, academies etc. US fees for education seem somewhat higher than the UK. For instance the IMG soccer academy costs over $30,000 per year. Over here I doubt more than 10 families in the whole of the UK would be able to send there budding player there. Soccer is a very low cost sport here.