But then you don't get to claim to have "called it first." For the sports journalist side of things, extreme opinions always get more clicks, right or wrong.
From St Louis City, but no, I think it would cost them quite a bit more unless Garber intervened (which he might in this case). Prospects go for that; I think St Louis would understand their leverage there. It would take a lot more. Still manageable, but St Louis would rather have no Sargent in the league and no money with the chance he plays for STL one day than $50k.
I thought discovery rights were a fixed price. If a club wants to sign a player on the Discovery List of another club that has higher Discovery priority on the player, it may offer that club $50,000 in General Allocation Money in exchange for the right to sign the player. The club with the player on its Discovery List will then have five days (or three days during the Secondary Transfer Window) to either (i) accept the General Allocation Money and pass on the right to sign the player or (ii) make the player a genuine, objectively reasonable offer.
Two things. This is a special thing given to St Louis because they killed the allocation list, which was used for USMNT players in particular, right when they entered the league (and St. Louis would have had first choice). It's not a Discovery rights thing in actuality. And two ... St. Louis likely would make the player a genuine, objectively reasonable offer. Or there would be enough threat of it that they would be able to get more from Toronto. I'd think $300 if it were Discovery rights -- but the first point may make this leverage even stronger. FC Cincy has made a killing off these things.
The question for me is: If St. Louis owns his MLS "rights," would they be willing to match Toronto's transfer fee? Or beat it? They apparently tried to sign him last year if my memory serves me correctly. Josh Sargent: The pride of soccer rich St. Louis #SLSGnation @TaylorTwellman Maybe St. Louis has prioritized other needs in this window. I don't know.
They don't need to match or beat Toronto's transfer fee in terms of MLS rules. Now, Norwich may reject anything below it, but St Louis likely just needs to make a "reasonable" offer, which, you know, who the hell knows what that means. But the point of the mechanism is specifically to avoid MLS bidding against each other, so we likely know that could bid something lower than Toronto and still have it be reasonable. Or there'd be no point for the mechanism. I really doubt St. Louis puts together a $20M offer or meets Josh's salary requirements, so I could see them selling his rights. But I suspect it is for more than $50-75k.
We essentially have the situation right. Also......................TFC wouldn't submit this kind of formal offer for a player without knowing that they have access to his MLS rights. So that's probably already been worked out between the clubs. Josh Sargent has a Right of 1st Refusal attached to St Louis City. This means the club has the chance to match the Toronto FC $18M bid or will be compensated by TFC before the deal can be completed. 🍁🇺🇸 #TFCLive [📰 @tomtimm]STL added Sargent to their discovery list in 2023. https://t.co/RRAvLOLH6W pic.twitter.com/2SGKmGydni— Toronto FC News Outlet (@tfcnewsoutlet) January 12, 2026
The high profile bad case was Brian McBride. That's always the one that comes to my mind. Chicago wanted to sign McBride, which was a high profile return for a USMNTer to the league. TFC, however, held the top spot in the "allocation order," which was the mechanism Chicago was going to need to sign McBride. They held it hostage for much longer and at a higher price than should have been necessary. Chicago ended up trading Chad Barrett, a first round draft pick, and "future considerations" in order to get that top spot in the allocation order. It was all a bad look. McBride had no connection whatsoever to Toronto. But those were the days. That allocation order doesn't exist anymore. Another brick in the single entity wall that's come down.
Wouldn't today's equivalent of McBride be a "Special Discovery Player" as a marquee player over the age of 27?
McKennie forces an own goal Weston McKennie inspires Juventus’ fourth goal of the night as the Bianconeri continue their dominant display 💪 pic.twitter.com/QjEEK9ihOz— CBS Sports Golazo ⚽️ (@CBSSportsGolazo) January 12, 2026
McKennie scores Weston McKennie perfectly placed to officially get his name on the scoresheet 🪄What a ball from Pierre Kalulu 🤝 pic.twitter.com/K7SzHjFppF— CBS Sports Golazo ⚽️ (@CBSSportsGolazo) January 12, 2026
I don't have a strong opinion either way (whether Sargent should stay at Norwich City or be transferred to Toronto)...but the criticism that Sargent is getting is unfair. He clearly would prefer to stay in Norwich, where he is loved, and his manager's comments (that Norwich City has no desire to move him) clearly don't square with what leadership at Norwich wants. Norwich must get their story (sh-t) together - it's fair neither to their fans nor Sargent. The left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing.
Where have you seen that he would clearly stay in Norwich? The only report I've seen either way is that he sat out the FA Cup match because of transfer concerns ("things in his head" I think?). That doesn't seem like a guy who wants to stay. I also haven't seen anything about Norwich leadership wanting to move him.
It was his manager that revealed that he had refused to play on Saturday and promised consequences. But they do want to keep him.
Norwich is fighting relegation from the Championship for a reason.................... Sometimes dysfunction smacks you square int he face. There are going to be "consequences" for Josh Sargent sitting out the FA Cup game? What consequences? You're going o bench one of your best players during your relegation fight? You're going to spank him in front of his teammates? BY making those comments, the Norwich manager only made the situation worse. He could have kept that behind closed doors. That's what professional organizations do. He intentionally made Sargent the bad guy for no real reason. Ex-Norwich star: Josh Sargent went from 'hero to zero' by refusing to play His crime? Asking to sit out a match against a League 2 team that Norwich beat easily? Its not like the manager needed a scapegoat after the game. After his manager did that, do we think Josh Sargent wants to stay more or less?
Professional players earning 7 figures don't call their managers up the night before and say they're not willing to play.
I bet they do all the time for all sorts of reasons........................ Its just kept in-house and we never hear about it. All Clement had to say was "We decided to go with other forwards in this Walsall game. Josh got a break." He didn't actually have to throw Josh under the bus. He really didn't. It actually makes the tension at the club worse for no reason.
Agree to disagree. I didn't say he was likely to stay in Norwich - I said that (imho) he would prefer to stay in Norwich. My hypothesis (which could be wrong) is that news of a potential transfer unsettled him. But you might be right - any potential change (even to a place he might prefer) could have been enough to throw him off his game. Like you, I have no idea of the outcome. It doesn't seem clear that Norwich's leadership is on the same page regarding the desire to unload Sargent.