I don't really know where else to put this exactly, but it is the kind of thing that constantly concerns me in terms of the conflicts of interest at play here. Copa America was successful. $46 million was reported as USSF profit, USSF made a lot of money. Did they make as much money as they should have? Where did the rest of the money go? Who individually (corporations are not people), profited? https://leastthing.blogspot.com/2018/04/seven-questions-for-us-soccer-on-ca2016.html In 2014 the US Soccer Federation, a non-profit charity registered in New York, created a subsidiary non-profit related to the hosting of the Copa America Centenario soccer tournament. Specifically, on 29 October 2014 the USSF set up a single-member LLC, called The CA2016 Local Organizing Committee LLC. The CA2016 reported $190 million in revenue in 2016 (specifically $189,681,375). CA2016 reported providing a grant of $64,941,805 to the USSF (Schedule I, Part ID, d). USSF 2017 IRS 990 (PDF) reported receiving $50,000,000 from CA2016 (p. 68, Part V (1)). Question #1: Why is there a $14,941,805 discrepancy between the two numbers? CA2016 employed 24 people in 2016 and reported $5,144,749 in compensation, salaries and wages (IRS 990, Part IX, lines 5 and 7) plus $548,815 in other employee benefits (IRS 990, Part IX, line 9). This results in an average pay of $237,232 per employee. Question #2: What were each of the 24 employees actually paid? CA2016 reported “fees for services” paid to non-employees of $15,403,641 (IRS 990, Part IX, line 11a, “Management”) and $46,858,610 (IRS 990, Part IX, line 11g, “Other”). Of this latter amount Schedule O explains that $31,192,095 was for “service agreement total fees” and $15,506,572 was for “hosting agreement total fees.” Question #3: To whom (organizations and individuals) were the $15.4m in management fees paid? Question #4: To whom (organizations and individuals) were the $31.2m in service agreement fees paid? Question #5: To whom (organizations and individuals) were the $15.5 million in hosting agreement fees paid? There is plenty more in the article, like $16,328,000 in travel expenses. It just seems simple to me that at this point, with the size of revenues, the security of the domestic league and the necessary apparatus and organization to run all of this that we have well outgrown the need for this intertwining of relationships and interests and the federation and the league can and should be separated, or at the VERY least, real conflict of interest safeguards put in place.
Damn, I should quit my job and go work for the USSF. Seems like the quickest way to get that 8 bed/6 bath house with a pool and two yards I want.
So then I thought, what would the process to put in place real conflict of interest safeguards entail exactly? Turns out that would go through the Nominating and Governance Committee at USSF, guess who chairs the Nominating and Governance committee responsible for trivial things like conflicts of interest? The Don. https://medium.com/@joshwesterman/ussf-nominating-and-governance-committee-537ed7c0a427 In fact, the Nominating and Governance Committee of USSF’s Board of Directors looks like a total sham. Not only has the former President of USSF served on the Committee, but the Committee has been chaired by Board member Don Garber, who happens to be the head of both Major League Soccer (MLS) and Soccer United Marketing (SUM). Respectively, MLS is a league whose business depends on USSF sanctioning it as division 1 and benefits from USSF de-sanctioning it’s competition at the lower levels, and SUM is a marketing business owned by the MLS team owners that happens to derive significant revenue from USSF relationships and also happens to be the source of roughly half of USSF’s revenue. Think about that. Don Garber is without a doubt the least independent or impartial (i.e. the most conflicted) member of USSF’s Board, and yet he has been installed as the head of a key committee of the Board that is somehow trusted to put the interests of the organization above all else. In the words of Taylor Twellman, “What are we doing?!” And if you’re wondering if USSF is receiving fair value in the SUM relationship, don’t worry because the Committee is also responsible for reviewing conflicts of interest of the directors and for implementing processes to deal with them. Oh, and from USSF’s side of things, its top employee, well, the Committee is in charge of his performance evaluation and for setting his compensation. That’s right, Section 5 of Bylaw 431 puts Garber (who is absolutely conflicted with respect to SUM) in charge of navigating the SUM transaction on USSF’s behalf and of setting the compensation of the USSF employee with responsibility for negotiating USSF’s side of the deal against Don’s own company. That’s marvelous. “What are we doing?!” The whole article is fascinating... and depressing. These are completely unethical conflicts of interest aren't they? Is there any sincere argument to the contrary?
The clown show aka as the USSF decided to cut Byer's program. Last year, the Tokyo-based Byer signed on to conduct a pilot program in Seattle based on his Soccer Starts At Home philosophy, which involves working with parents and kids to acquire basic soccer skills between the ages of 2 and 6. The pilot program was being funded with $75,000 from U.S. Soccer and $25,000 from the Washington Youth Soccer association. The hope was that it would serve as a model for states around the country to scale up Byer’s program and change the culture of soccer in the United States. The excitement over Byer’s long-awaited work with U.S. Soccer was also stoked by a story on HBO’s Real Sports. But, as Byer explains on the new Planet Fútbol Podcast, the departure of former U.S. Soccer president Sunil Gulati—who had championed Byer’s program—took away his support inside U.S. Soccer, which chose not to extend its funding for the program after the initial six-month contract ran out at the end of December. https://www.si.com/soccer/2018/05/24/tom-byer-us-soccer-pilot-program-canceled It's actually amazing to witness how horrendous we are at developing skillful footballers. Then to observe that the only coach to ever win the Golden Boot for coaching is American, and we want little to do with him.
who made this decision? is there any reason for it other than money? https://www.ussoccer.com/stories/20...mexico-come-to-nashville-on-september-11-2018
Been saying it on here for years. USS will go nowhere until it is no longer a subsidiary of MLS. The interests of USS, MLS and SUM do NOT coincide. They can overlap in spots (and in those spots appropriate contractural relationships are possible), but no way should USS be a "joint venture" with MLS and Sum the way they are now with everything intertwined like it appears to be. Garber should head MLS, not be "on the Board" (let alone head of Committees that have the kind of power described in that article) for all 3 entities. Each organization should have its own discreet governing body that is charged with looking out for its own interests and all transactions amongst the 3 should always be at arm's length. This whole set up is so corrupt it is redic. In fact it is a microcosm of the entire football world, unfortunately. Where is the DOJ on THIS one? Yes they took on totally corrupt FIFA, but are ignoring what is going on in their own back yard.
I’m not sold on Bobby Warshaw being not sold on Weston McKennie. Thank you for posting so I didn’t give him a click.
I can't speak for @jond but I think it's here to represent the idea that MLS writers/staff/personnel are hoping the USMNNT favors domestic players so they are marketed more - more eyeballs/money on MLS. I personally think this is just an awful take by Bobby, some of the other MLS guys tho...narrative city
It’s starting to flip, where I take a journalist hot-taking or just hating on something as being a sign of that thing’s strength. Everybody hating on SUM/MLS for the success it has become is ignoring the necessity behind its genesis, or is just so young that they’re reacting idealistically from a place void of substance. It’s plainly ironic and counter-productive to their utopian goal of Detroit City being Leicester City, as if they don’t realize that preserving consequence-free quasi-amateurism isn’t where they already stand. As if trophies are possible anywhere on the globe without committed investment. They’re not wrong in the long view. It isn’t a long term solution to have Don Garber be so unilaterally authoritative from the perspective of the USSF, but come to the table with a solution or you’re hate is just feeding it. At the moment the Pro/Rels againss SUM are just empty water bottles being casually tossed into the recycling.
I care as I'm still waiting for them to do something about the situation we are in. since they have a large surplus they dont know what to do with, I'd think they would be focused on the game. That is what is going drive long term money. Friendlies in Europe would much better for competition and convenient for our top players.
So you think it is not competitively optimal that we are playing Mexico, Brazil, Argentina and Colombia at home this September and October and making money? But you’re ok with us playing at Italy and England in November because they are road matches? And your reasoning is because playing on the road in friendlies is more competitive and USSF should prioritize road friendlies over money-making friendlies? Are you ok with the money that SUM made on Mexico playing Wales in Pasadena last week or should we forego that cash so Mexico can play that game in Guadalajara? I’m not really sure what you mean. I don’t think you know what you mean.
are these real games or hypothetical ones? My comment was about playing mexico. I'd love for us to play friendlies against top south American sides and think it would make sense for both teams to play those games in Europe. I'd also be for us playing lesser euro teams in challenging settings. The money made off Mexico friendlies in the US means that we dont need to be in them. I could be wrong, but think I know what I typed. I might make a mistake and change my view, but this seems like a.decision that has no plan.
Yeah, those are real games this Fall: Brazil, Mexico, Argentina, Colombia, Italy, England. Does that meet your standard for quality competition, provided we come out of it broke of course?
It's either an awful take or an employee of MLS on their website pitting their latest hyped asset against the top perceived yank abroad outside Pulisic. It's so awful I'd lean towards the latter. Pulisic was a terrible thing for the MLS marketing machine. He highlighted much of what's wrong with their structure. Now here comes McKennie, about to be a UCL player in a matter of months and it seems to me the MLS marketing machine had one of its minions try to slag on him while propping up their own. And it's documented that the more money MLS makes, the more SUM makes. This isn't out of the norm for MLS though. Remember this? https://www.mlssoccer.com/post/2016...lisic-or-jordan-morris-whos-more-important-us Or this? From a pure soccer standpoint it's ludicrous. It's not serious. MLS and SUM both know if MLS is seen as a clearly inferior producer of talent and our top players are overseas, it's a bad look for them.
While the two issues have many of the same proponents, anti-SUM and Pro/Rel zealotry don't have all that much to do with one another. As to the former, the solution is to dissolve and cash out SUM. It's neither likely nor easy, but it's very simple.
The midfield struggled, but they think mckennie is the weak link? Some other head scratchers in there. Wil Trapp (5) – The Columbus Crew SC skipper was solid enough on the ball for his role, but it became progressively easier for the home side to knock on the gate to the defense as the game went on. The question of whether Trapp can provide enough steel to play defensive midfield at this level remains wide open. Tyler Adams (5) – The New York Red Bulls ace had his stray moments of excellence on both sides of the ball, but his influence vanished for long stretches. Aside from a worthy set-up move near the hour, Adams was often invisible after the break. Weston McKennie (4) – The best of McKennie's attributes went missing for most of the night. He wasn't standing Ireland up in midfield, had too many cheap giveaways and wasn't breaking the lines with his usually incisive passing game https://www.mlssoccer.com/post/2018...ings-not-much-celebrate-sobering-loss-ireland
I am all for us playing high level opponents, for a number of reasons. But I look at our upcoming friendly schedule this year (including France this weekend), think of that group of teenagers that we're rebuilding around, and think "Daaaaaaaaaaaaaamn. We want to test ourselves against good teams, yeah, but are we overdoing it just a little, maybe?"
Speaking of the other MLS guy, why was there no link included and just selected screen shots? https://www.mlssoccer.com/post/2018/06/01/us-questions-start-tyler-adams-and-weston-mckennie-middle "MATT DOYLE: Wow, you and I have very different reads on McKennie’s comfort with – and especially comfort with receiving – the ball. The first thing that jumped out at me about his game was exactly that: You can give him the ball in tight spots and know that he’ll be able to make it work. I’ve repeatedly compared him to former US playmaker Claudio Reyna and it’s specifically because of that skill." Did the MLS/SUM check not clear? Did one guy read the talking points more closely? If someone had a passing familiarity they'd know that Warshaw has "unique" takes.
What is this a solution to? It's one thing to say that the USSF should not sell their rights to SUM (I disagree, but I understand the position), but USSF rights are just a part of what SUM does and not even the biggest part. Somebody has to sell MLS rights and the rights for teams outside the US. SUM has more expertise at this than anyone else in the US.