InTheValley
SILVER
Instead, they deal with the economics of reality and Sac Republic stays where it belongs next to the River Cats. Funny how capitalism actually works.
I’m certain my plan makes more financial sense.
US SOCCER
- Thread starter Dominic
- Start date
Instead, they deal with the economics of reality and Sac Republic stays where it belongs next to the River Cats. Funny how capitalism actually works.
I’m certain my plan makes more financial sense.
mahrez
SILVER ELITE
A last place team losing 5million+ a year on only 34mil in revenue with a bankrupt sponser makes sense, yeah that's a good capitalist plan. Please
Dr. Richard Hurtz
SILVER
Ok look... I’m tired of this pay to play issue being brought up as an excuse for Americans underperforming. That’s not why.Ok back on topic
Why isn't the U.S. better at soccer? It's all about the Benjamins
https://www.yahoo.com/sports/isnt-u-s-better-soccer-benjamins-153935158.html
"America has either priced out or spooked out many talented children from diverse backgrounds. That’s according to an array of coaches, top players and soccer parents Yahoo Sports spoke with for this story.
“People of different incomes and diversity groups are being left out,” says Michael Fitzgerald, who runs the Saints Soccer Academy only a few miles from Nike headquarters in Oregon. “A lot of families are priced out.”
Fitzgerald has made a concerted effort to make his club affordable to everyone, whether through volunteer coaches or scholarships for players, but he sees obstacles ranging from immigrant groups who “don’t want to be on record” to language barriers to simple perception.
“Some of the Hispanic community here, they have access but they don’t pursue it,” Fitzgerald says. “Because of the perception that it’s a rich man’s sport. They don’t chase it. They see all the rich kids playing soccer. They say that’s not for us. There’s no pathway.”
A study on the subject that was referenced in Time last year cited the “maximum” cost to a soccer family as $5,500 per child, but it was not hard to find families with promising kids whose costs blew way past that. One soccer mom in North Carolina, who asked to remain anonymous so she could speak openly about family finances, said she spends $5,200 per year on club fees alone for her 14-year-old boy. That doesn’t include costs for uniform, health care and summer training. “You can keep going and going and going,” she said.
The women’s national team is far more successful than the men, winning the World Cup in 2015 and likely favored again next year, but that doesn’t mean the same issues don’t arise on that side.
“I don’t think it’s any secret or any surprise to anybody that soccer in America has recently been a very affluent, suburban sport,” said Crystal Dunn, who has played for the national team and now stars for the NWSL’s North Carolina Courage. “The next level of growth is to include everybody in urban and rural populations and make sure everyone has access to the game, both boys and girls.”
Dunn is African-American, but she grew up in a mostly white neighborhood.
“For me, everyone I saw was white,” she said. “That’s just the reality of it. My parents made good money and worked really hard and it’s not always that way for people, I think, of my complexion. I think I was really fortunate.”
Her former teammate, goalkeeper Hope Solo, made headlines recently by calling soccer in America a “rich white kid’s sport.” She said if she had come up in this era, as a working-class child from Washington state, she would have been looked over or priced out.
U.S. national team star Alex Morgan had not heard Solo’s comments, but she didn’t disagree.
“I do feel like there is a problem in the U.S. with younger kids having to pay to play,” Morgan said. “I wish it was more available to all kids.”
There are many efforts underway to reach across barriers. Operation Pitch Invasion is dedicated to building soccer fields in non-traditional places “so that kids of all ages have high-quality and safe playing surfaces to enjoy the beautiful game.” America Scoresoffers a unique combination of “soccer, poetry and service-learning” to give inner-city youth better after-school options.
But it’s not just about introducing and developing the game at the grass-roots level. It’s also about helping talented kids compete in a world that’s top-heavy in top-earning families. “I don’t know if you have to be traveling all the way to California for good matches when you’re 14 years old,” says U.S. national team member Heather O’Reilly, who contributes to America Scores.
The U.S. is a capitalistic society, proudly, and the goal for many is to be profitable as well as to be helpful. So as the interest in soccer increases, so will the interest in the business of soccer. That may make the effort to diversify even tougher, when it seems like it should be the opposite.
This might be the No. 1 challenge for new U.S. Soccer president Carlos Cordeiro. He was born in Bombay and moved to Miami as a teen, but he’s considered an insider in the soccer world. He attended Harvard Business School and he was a partner at Goldman Sachs. As part of his platform, he wrote about the need to “invest new resources to make soccer more affordable for youth, especially in our cities and underserved communities.”
It’s only been a few months, but Fitzgerald hasn’t seen much of a change yet.
“I wish there was a bigger braintrust focusing on this,” he said. “I haven’t heard a single word about it since our new president took office. There are a ton of kids who are getting overlooked. And this is Portland; I can only imagine what L.A. is like.”
Find those kids in those cities more frequently, and the U.S. might still be playing at this stage in the 2022 World Cup. After all, the populations of L.A. and Portland add up to roughly the size of Croatia.
Can someone google how many kids here in America are registered to play youth soccer this year? I’m guessing it’s a hell of a lot of kids. It has to be a huge number. My point is... we have so many kids who are registered playing soccer that you can’t tell me that only the poor kids who can’t afford it are the only good players; and that’s why America sucks. Anyone who believes this as the reason for the United States failures don’t know shit about soccer. Yea, I said it.
InTheValley
SILVER
This keeps getting better and better for the guy who’s looking to invest in the future
of soccer in America. You pay $350 million build a stadium and another $150 million to start up your new soccer club. There’s a 10% chance you will lose your entire investment every year, unless you pay an additional 100 million a year to players good enough to protect your investment but even then there’s still a 5% chance you’ll go bankrupt by way of relegation. But this is definitely a sound investment because you’ll generate $30 million in ticket revenue if you sell out every game at $30 a ticket. If every single person in Sacramento also buys 5 jerseys at $5 profit per jersey, and you add in your $2 million share of the tv deals with MLS, you’ve almost made payroll for the players. No idea how you pay debt service, taxes, adminstration, utilities, $4 million for an academy, etc.
If you have a system of P/R, it isn’t possible to ever get past paying beer money to Albion Pros, who are playing in front of maybe 1000 friends, family members, the local youth club that got free tickets, plus a handful of crazy dudes whose idea of a good time is to get drunk and bang on some drums. In a P/R system in the US, the value of a professional soccer club is about $0. You can never obtain players of sufficient quality to obtain a tv deal, which is the lifeblood of a successful sports league.
My idea of buying the NFL still makes the most financial sense.
InTheValley
SILVER
You really are stupid aren’t you. How much do you think that little plot of land they’ve got is appreciating? How are Albion Pros doing with their field. That’s right, they’re renting.
You’re also lying about their losses. Regardless, a last place team averaging 20k fans a game and $34 million in revenue seems like the best possible argument against relegation. Let’s see Albion Pros do that.
You've hit the third leg of the stool which is transfer fees. The European system only works because of a 3 elements: P/R, transfer fees, loose salary caps. A small club can shove off stadium costs on local government (and get nothing too fancy....besides they are mostly built now in major/medium markets) and make it's business off the transfer fees.
And as outlined in "Soccernomics", soccer is not a good investment. With a handful of exceptions for the winning/dominant clubs, they are a money losing proposition. The remaining teams in contention exist because of dumb money looking to smooth an ego. That exists in the NFL and NBA too...Clippernation anyone?
mahrez
SILVER ELITE
Yeah your right their losing even more $ on the financing of the stadium and the +$4 million in losses since Avaya hasn't been paying for the sponsorship.
Who cars about Albion pros, if it wasn't for the sunstone investors and there other profitable real estate holdings the quakes would be facing bankruptcy just like there main sponsor.
Hardly anybody body but locals care about San Jose quakes or the Oakland A's either but at least there near the bay area. Too bad there both one of the wrost draws in the league on the road. Heck Minnesota United in thier 2nd yr outraws the quakes but don't let the facts interfere with your perceived reality. Oh yeah 100m in construction cost for that stadium not 350.
Your right. Pay to play is not the problem. It’s so much more. But it does serve as a filter.
@InTheValley I feel you are missing the point about P/R and Albion Pros. The whole Albion Pros is a hypothetical example of a grassroots program ran by a savvy businessman, I mean after all NG is the poster child of all tracksuits! Albion Pros if P/R would happen won't jump overnight into D2 or D1(MLS). They would have to move their way up from D5 which is what they are now and along the way they would need to make right investments and attract the right sponsors. Maybe Primos won't be able to sponsor them past D3, but Classy has the revenue along with other local VC's that have close ties to NG.
NG built the entire Albion empire out of nothing, he sugared up thousands of families to believe that giving him a mortgage payment and putting at risk their children alongside gophers and pervs in the shithole known as Robb Field, just imagine what he would be able to do if P/R was a thing. And getting to what I'm trying to convey is that there are many situations like this in which a small group of people are passionate about their local team and eventually makes it to the bigs, and because they started from scratch, their economics are not as complicated as you have many times communicated that are the factor why MLS has to protect the investment of the current members.
NG built the entire Albion empire out of nothing, he sugared up thousands of families to believe that giving him a mortgage payment and putting at risk their children alongside gophers and pervs in the shithole known as Robb Field, just imagine what he would be able to do if P/R was a thing. And getting to what I'm trying to convey is that there are many situations like this in which a small group of people are passionate about their local team and eventually makes it to the bigs, and because they started from scratch, their economics are not as complicated as you have many times communicated that are the factor why MLS has to protect the investment of the current members.
You are right! However between cronism, politics and mid level club raiding is causes the lack of exposure to some kids that are just as good as DA players.
The ship started sinking when Klinnsmann made the stupid decision to leave Landon Donovan out of the WC in 2014 in favor of Julian Green.
younothat
PREMIER
Ok enough with the P2p, getting old but ever articles has to mention it.
Here's the real reason why the US men's soccer team didn't qualify for the 2018 World Cup
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opin...ccer-team-youth-kids-sports-column/768826002/
"Pundits may place blame at the highest levels — the president of the U.S. Soccer Federation, or the coach of the national team. But maybe the problem is not at the top. Maybe it's at a local field, where kids practice in fancy uniforms under the eyes of anxious parents, hands-on coaches and vigilant referees. Kids stand in line kicking balls through cones, listening to lectures about technique and tactics.
They are not playing soccer, they´re practicing it. But soccer is a game. To learn the beautiful game, they need to play it"
Many kids are left behind in a pay-to-play system that excludes huge swathes of America´s youth. Those who can pay find themselves in ever fancier uniforms, participating in ever-more-tightly organized practices. Our kids travel for hours, often across state lines, and even across the entire country in search of “outstanding” competition, sometimes spending more time travelling than playing. What skill are they learning?
How to sit in the car.
Of course some may obtain a college scholarship, which in men´s soccer might cover the cost of books. An even tinier sliver may make it to the pro ranks. But any fan watching our men's national team in action can recognize that the products of America's "soccer industrial complex" lack the creativity and skill on the ball to be world-class.
This could be the solution
Just maybe, the keys to getting a U.S. men’s team to the World Cup and a child’s happiness are the same. Perhaps the quest for perfect equipment, perfect fields and perfect competition in an adult-driven system has prevented our kids from developing the skills, instincts and creativity to master the beautiful game.
To become a soccer-playing nation, we need to rethink how the game is learned and played at the grassroots level, even if it means not playing on grass at all. Because what we´re doing right now isn't working. No wonder participation has declined by around 24% in recent years.
With soccer, less may be more. In the early years, forget the drills, equipment and travel. Let the kids play on the speedy blacktops, concrete and hard-packed dirt abundant across the fruited plain. Let younger kids learn by copying older kids. The simple supervision of a YMCA, parks and recreation program or local club is all the organization needed.
The same countries where kids first learn a "shoeless" game have carefully controlled systems at higher levels. But at the grassroots, their kids are playing. Ours are not. Their kids are winning. Ours are not.
The solution is simple. The cost- and time-savings are staggering. And the organization and infrastructure already exist. Let's strip off the gear, throw out the expensive system and take soccer back to the creativity of the streets. Like Pele, let's go "shoeless."
MLS math not adding up
http://www.latimes.com/sports/soccer/la-sp-soccer-baxter-20161029-story.html
- Major League Soccer says it drew more than 7.37 million fans this season, ... Although the league has yet to turn a profit in 21 seasons, it says ..
Here's the real reason why the US men's soccer team didn't qualify for the 2018 World Cup
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opin...ccer-team-youth-kids-sports-column/768826002/
"Pundits may place blame at the highest levels — the president of the U.S. Soccer Federation, or the coach of the national team. But maybe the problem is not at the top. Maybe it's at a local field, where kids practice in fancy uniforms under the eyes of anxious parents, hands-on coaches and vigilant referees. Kids stand in line kicking balls through cones, listening to lectures about technique and tactics.
They are not playing soccer, they´re practicing it. But soccer is a game. To learn the beautiful game, they need to play it"
Many kids are left behind in a pay-to-play system that excludes huge swathes of America´s youth. Those who can pay find themselves in ever fancier uniforms, participating in ever-more-tightly organized practices. Our kids travel for hours, often across state lines, and even across the entire country in search of “outstanding” competition, sometimes spending more time travelling than playing. What skill are they learning?
How to sit in the car.
Of course some may obtain a college scholarship, which in men´s soccer might cover the cost of books. An even tinier sliver may make it to the pro ranks. But any fan watching our men's national team in action can recognize that the products of America's "soccer industrial complex" lack the creativity and skill on the ball to be world-class.
This could be the solution
Just maybe, the keys to getting a U.S. men’s team to the World Cup and a child’s happiness are the same. Perhaps the quest for perfect equipment, perfect fields and perfect competition in an adult-driven system has prevented our kids from developing the skills, instincts and creativity to master the beautiful game.
To become a soccer-playing nation, we need to rethink how the game is learned and played at the grassroots level, even if it means not playing on grass at all. Because what we´re doing right now isn't working. No wonder participation has declined by around 24% in recent years.
With soccer, less may be more. In the early years, forget the drills, equipment and travel. Let the kids play on the speedy blacktops, concrete and hard-packed dirt abundant across the fruited plain. Let younger kids learn by copying older kids. The simple supervision of a YMCA, parks and recreation program or local club is all the organization needed.
The same countries where kids first learn a "shoeless" game have carefully controlled systems at higher levels. But at the grassroots, their kids are playing. Ours are not. Their kids are winning. Ours are not.
The solution is simple. The cost- and time-savings are staggering. And the organization and infrastructure already exist. Let's strip off the gear, throw out the expensive system and take soccer back to the creativity of the streets. Like Pele, let's go "shoeless."
MLS math not adding up
http://www.latimes.com/sports/soccer/la-sp-soccer-baxter-20161029-story.html
- Major League Soccer says it drew more than 7.37 million fans this season, ... Although the league has yet to turn a profit in 21 seasons, it says ..
It's just one data point, so to be taken with a grain of salt, but the shoeless nations didn't do so well in the World Cup (if that's the goal). Brazil and Argentina are hardly shoeless anymore and have increasingly been switching to an academy system but neither made it to the semis. The true shoeless ones in Africa (though many of their players have picked up European training later in their careers) all got snuffed. Panama and Costa Rica didn't do great, and largely have brought up their game in recent years because of the participation of their top players in the MLS (which is attractive to them because for them those salaries are high, unlike our players).
It will be very interesting to hear all the arguments if it winds up being England v. France in the finals. France plays a possession style (but not like purists Spain that set a possession record but was unable to penetrate) also heavy with the counterattacks. France's success has largely been credited to immigrants and the academy system. England's gone the other way in recent years. Their youngers play worse boot ball than ours (I've posted video's from my son's little English friend before (Henry Save-all)...they are all about the punting at very young ages). Where their focus and scoring has been has been on set plays (which much of the world, including many of our coaches, ignore). The coach even credits the NFL/NBA for inspiration. https://sports.yahoo.com/nfl-nba-helped-inspire-englands-world-cup-semifinal-run-072743703.html
I'm really hoping England advances (they probably won't because I want them too). Not only will we see a recreation of the 700 years war, but it will lead to fantastic arguments over the next 4 years and a reevaluation of the possession game. Besides, France v Croatia would probably be a snooze fest.
The European model has serious challenges in the American market (and a 150 year head start). While each of the 1000's of clubs across Europe has their own beginning story, many sprung from Sporting Clubs. These Sporting Clubs were community organizations, owned by the community focused on providing the youth and adults an opportunity to meet, socialize and exercise. Others clubs started as just small community based businesses, financed by a few community leaders and many even offered shares to the citizens of the town. They all played in local leagues and the "investments" were minor in the grand scheme. 100's, then 1,000's would watch the matches, and the stadiums grew gradually from a few bleachers, to a few more, to a few more.
When the English Football League was established in 1888, it started with the idea of "election" to continue in the league (a form of pro/rel) in order to compete with the other leagues and to market the league as providing best/better teams. The EFL was not closed and would add clubs to fill the holes if clubs were not elected. In 1889, a competing league was formed, the Football Alliance, which later merged. The EFL made up the 1st division and the FA became the 2nd division, later in 1920, the Southern League merged and became the 3rd tier. There wasn't pro/rel yet, but the system required reelection.
What made all of this work were two factors: (1) investment into the various clubs were equal; and (2) each of the clubs were "independent" entities, competing against the other clubs. The idea of "re-election" was fundamental to being part of the league, thus, investors in the clubs assumed this risk and managed the risks appropriately. Please note, the MLS doesn't do this.
Over time, re-election turned into pro/rel and other leagues were added to the pyramid, which each league and club coming in having similar facilities and similar investment to the tiers above and below. The owners of these various teams/communities bought into in the FA's concept of the football pyramid.
U.S. Soccer / MLS - USL
Professional soccer in the US is really getting started about 110 years after the soccer party started. The MLS began play in 1996. The NASL had a run but folded because it was an economic disaster for its owners. It's model was that investors "owned the team" and played within the league. If the teams didn't turn a profit they were sold to another investor group and/or folded. The league eventually folded.
Because the sporting culture of the US is not a "soccer" culture, the European model of similarly financed community clubs coming together in local leagues and forming a soccer pyramid through mergers, etc., is a non-starter.
Former USL's Pro/Rel Petition System
The USL in its previous form did adopt a Pro/Rel system of sorts in that it was voluntary. Clubs that couldn't make it financially at the top level (due to financial demands of being at the top level) could petition to go down. Clubs at the lower levels could petition to move up. Kinda based on merit, but more out of financial stability.
MLS is a single closed entity
Unlike the rest of the world, the MLS formed in 1995 with the intent to actually survive by taking into account the problem with the NASL ... controlling costs, its growth, sharing most of the profits (if any) between the teams through a single entity model, and eventually engaging in a pyramid scheme funding model (franchise fees rise and are shared with the senior members). Its a "slow growth" model designed to ensure survival for its multi-millionaire and billionaire investors. These Owners made their millions/billions because the are actually pretty smart, they know how to manage risks and will fight tooth and nail to preserve their investments.
Arguing ... heck ... even considering the thought that the MLS ownership would adopt Pro/Rel with and risk their investments in the current landscape is absurd. Its a non-starter (in today's economic environment). Unless and until the MLS perceives an economic threat to its model it has no motivation to change.
Role of the USL
Could the USL provide that threat? Not for a very, very long time because its owners are not on the same financial level as the MLS owners. Moreover, the USL is infected by the MLS. This was not by accident. The MLS understood that the only potential threat is the USL and have placed their second teams (Galaxy II, NY Red Bulls II, Real Monarchs, etc.) AND its mutually beneficial to the MLS to work with the USL because it allows MLS teams to hang on to talent that it couldn't under the MLS roster rules.
Pro/Rel in the USA - A Potential (but unlikely) Option
The current landscape is not fertile for the idea of Pro/Rel to take hold. The only way that I see it happening is that the another independent league, unsanctioned by the USSF must be formed in the U.S. by billionaires with the goal of taking on the MLS. The only potential investors in this league are going to be European clubs that bring the Pro/Rel model and attempt to capitalize on existing goodwill of their international clubs and attempt to capitalize on the USSF's failure to adopt FIFA training and solidarity payments, which fosters the P2P system for elite athletes.
This will not happen until one of two things occur:
1) the US is ready for it. It will require MLS stadiums to be filled with 40k fans, TV contracts to be in hundreds of millions (and not $60M per year) and the 2nd level to be profitable, or
2) the MLS collapses and leave a void, at which point the top European teams and Latin American teams owned by billionaire groups enter the market (at a much lower price) and offer a deal to the USL owners to join as the 2nd level.
Ultimately, soccer in the US has to stand on its own as a business model. Until it does, its not a good investment and the smart money will sit on the sidelines.
When the English Football League was established in 1888, it started with the idea of "election" to continue in the league (a form of pro/rel) in order to compete with the other leagues and to market the league as providing best/better teams. The EFL was not closed and would add clubs to fill the holes if clubs were not elected. In 1889, a competing league was formed, the Football Alliance, which later merged. The EFL made up the 1st division and the FA became the 2nd division, later in 1920, the Southern League merged and became the 3rd tier. There wasn't pro/rel yet, but the system required reelection.
What made all of this work were two factors: (1) investment into the various clubs were equal; and (2) each of the clubs were "independent" entities, competing against the other clubs. The idea of "re-election" was fundamental to being part of the league, thus, investors in the clubs assumed this risk and managed the risks appropriately. Please note, the MLS doesn't do this.
Over time, re-election turned into pro/rel and other leagues were added to the pyramid, which each league and club coming in having similar facilities and similar investment to the tiers above and below. The owners of these various teams/communities bought into in the FA's concept of the football pyramid.
U.S. Soccer / MLS - USL
Professional soccer in the US is really getting started about 110 years after the soccer party started. The MLS began play in 1996. The NASL had a run but folded because it was an economic disaster for its owners. It's model was that investors "owned the team" and played within the league. If the teams didn't turn a profit they were sold to another investor group and/or folded. The league eventually folded.
Because the sporting culture of the US is not a "soccer" culture, the European model of similarly financed community clubs coming together in local leagues and forming a soccer pyramid through mergers, etc., is a non-starter.
Former USL's Pro/Rel Petition System
The USL in its previous form did adopt a Pro/Rel system of sorts in that it was voluntary. Clubs that couldn't make it financially at the top level (due to financial demands of being at the top level) could petition to go down. Clubs at the lower levels could petition to move up. Kinda based on merit, but more out of financial stability.
MLS is a single closed entity
Unlike the rest of the world, the MLS formed in 1995 with the intent to actually survive by taking into account the problem with the NASL ... controlling costs, its growth, sharing most of the profits (if any) between the teams through a single entity model, and eventually engaging in a pyramid scheme funding model (franchise fees rise and are shared with the senior members). Its a "slow growth" model designed to ensure survival for its multi-millionaire and billionaire investors. These Owners made their millions/billions because the are actually pretty smart, they know how to manage risks and will fight tooth and nail to preserve their investments.
Arguing ... heck ... even considering the thought that the MLS ownership would adopt Pro/Rel with and risk their investments in the current landscape is absurd. Its a non-starter (in today's economic environment). Unless and until the MLS perceives an economic threat to its model it has no motivation to change.
Role of the USL
Could the USL provide that threat? Not for a very, very long time because its owners are not on the same financial level as the MLS owners. Moreover, the USL is infected by the MLS. This was not by accident. The MLS understood that the only potential threat is the USL and have placed their second teams (Galaxy II, NY Red Bulls II, Real Monarchs, etc.) AND its mutually beneficial to the MLS to work with the USL because it allows MLS teams to hang on to talent that it couldn't under the MLS roster rules.
Pro/Rel in the USA - A Potential (but unlikely) Option
The current landscape is not fertile for the idea of Pro/Rel to take hold. The only way that I see it happening is that the another independent league, unsanctioned by the USSF must be formed in the U.S. by billionaires with the goal of taking on the MLS. The only potential investors in this league are going to be European clubs that bring the Pro/Rel model and attempt to capitalize on existing goodwill of their international clubs and attempt to capitalize on the USSF's failure to adopt FIFA training and solidarity payments, which fosters the P2P system for elite athletes.
This will not happen until one of two things occur:
1) the US is ready for it. It will require MLS stadiums to be filled with 40k fans, TV contracts to be in hundreds of millions (and not $60M per year) and the 2nd level to be profitable, or
2) the MLS collapses and leave a void, at which point the top European teams and Latin American teams owned by billionaire groups enter the market (at a much lower price) and offer a deal to the USL owners to join as the 2nd level.
Ultimately, soccer in the US has to stand on its own as a business model. Until it does, its not a good investment and the smart money will sit on the sidelines.
No, no, no and no. The real reason the US men's soccer team didn't qualify for the 2018 World Cup is because the players that were chosen for that team did not represent the "best" US National players. Bruce "go with what I know" Arena chose MLS players instead of the better and more qualified US nationals playing Internationally. Articles like this simply demonstrate the idiocy of sports writers in America and the fact we are blind to the level of substandard play the MLS represents compared to International soccer.
Here is the USMNT that played against Trinidad Tobago and lost:
25 Players - 15 that play in the MLS and 8 that play Internationally.
Here is the USMNT that played against Ireland and France and took France to a draw:
https://www.ussoccer.com/mens-national-team/latest-roster#tab-1
24 Players - 4 that currently play in the MLS and 20 that play Internationally.
With regard to the rosters for Trinidad and then France:
Starting 11 for the USMNT against Trinidad Tobago (MLS players in Red):
USA: Howard; Yedlin, Gonzalez, Besler, Villafaña; Nagbe, Bradley, Pulisic, Arriola; Altidore, Wood.
Speaking of that French game (https://www.ussoccer.com/matches/mnt/2018/20180609-mnt-vs-france#tab-1), there was no question that the US wasn't at the same level from a time of possession and shot differential, but did well enough that is soccer.
The lads that actually played the game (note, MLS players are in Red):
USA: 12-Zack Steffen; 18-Shaq Moore (2-DeAndre Yedlin, 74), 5-Cameron Carter-Vickers, 3-Matt Miazga (14-Erik Palmer-Brown, 57), 21-Tim Parker, 17-Antonee Robinson (19-Jorge Villafaña, 82); 4-Tyler Adams, 20-Wil Trapp (capt.), 6-Weston McKennie; 16-Julian Green (8-Joe Corona, 70), 7-Bobby Wood (13-Josh Sargent, 74)
Substitutes: 1-Bill Hamid, 11-Tim Weah, 15-Eric Lichaj, 23-Rubio Rubin
So what we can reasonably conclude based on the rosters and results is that playing no more than 4 MLS players might get us a tie against top competition. Playing 6 or more MLS players and we lose. It therefore follows that since the players on the field are the ones that actually play the game (not youth academy players) that building a USMNT from International professional players is good, more than a few MLS players is bad.
The bigger lesson here is that the MLS is only as strong as its weakest link. Our National Team is as strong as its weakest links. The players train and play against each other. We have great talent in the MLS and that talent is wasted and doesn't improve at the same level versus our talent that moves to International level 1 teams/play.
Croatia, a country of 4 million (same size as the City of Los Angeles) can field a World Cup semi-finalist team because its National team players are forged in top level leagues with top level player that play top level competition.
Good news, is we now have a GM (Ernie Stewart, a soccer guy with significant international experience), we have a new President that appreciates what he doesn't know (Gulati was delusional and a legend in his own mind) and we will have a coach that understands the MLS is a B or C level league from an international perspective and will encourage US nationals to go play with the big boys Internationally.
Thank you. Promotion / Relegation sounds great to the soccer purists. But I feel it would mean the collapse of MLS (some may say this is a good thing). It would put pro soccer in the US even further behind until it catches up again.
There just isn’t the community support of 2nd and lower tier soccer. Especially in markets that already have an MLS team. The OC Blues (I think this is the team that plays at the great park) aren’t going to sell out stadiums. In some smaller markets, without MLS teams you will get decent attendance. Much like you will for a minor league baseball team. But it’s more of a novelty than anything. If ticket prices for Detroit FC increase to a level of other sports and there is no superstar player- those stands will be empty.
Now transfer fees and training compensation could have s serious impact on soccer in the US. But likely not for a long time.
InTheValley
SILVER
What is the point again? To make up the least realistic way to make the US better at soccer? I thought I did pretty well with my NFL idea, other than it seems more realistic than the Albion empire saving American soccer.
I get your point. Your point is that money grows on trees, although you call them “sponsors.” Of course the economics of fantasyland aren’t complicated. They’re whatever you want them to be.
InTheValley
SILVER
I think you forgot the land value when you did your property assessment, boss.
That fact about Minnesota selling slightly more tickets than the Quakes would be a really brilliant assessment except for the fact that the average Quakes ticket is almost 3x that of a ticket in Minnesota. Why don’t you try out a little math to figure which is better. I’ll give you a hint, which is it’s almost 3x better.
My point is that there is a difference between executives that expect to make 9 figures a year of a product than executives that will be happy with 7-8 figures a year and provide a quality product. MLS current system just protects greed on the top.
Now Timmy was kind enough to point this out: "There just isn’t the community support of 2nd and lower tier soccer. "
I got to say that you are not wrong by any means. We just disagree in different aspects of economy.
The Costa Rica Game:
USA: 1-Tim Howard; 19-Graham Zusi (18-Jordan Morris, 84), 20-Geoff Cameron, 14-Tim Ream, 2-Jorge Villafaña (8-Clint Dempsey, 65); 10-Christian Pulisic (21-Paul Arriola, 87), 6-Darlington Nagbe, 4-Michael Bradley (capt.), 23-Fabian Johnson; 9-Bobby Wood, 17-Jozy Altidore
Subs not used: 12-Brad Guzan, 22-Nick Rimando, 3-Omar González, 5-Matt Besler, 7-DaMarcus Beasley, 11-Alejandro Bedoya, 13-Dax McCarty, 15-Eric Lichaj, 16-Kellyn Acosta
Head coach: Bruce Arena
5 MLS players started that game and during play, 2 International players were replaced with 2 MLS players. Thus, MLS 7 and International 6. So, yes. We have to find a way to limit the mediocre MLS influence on the National Team.
Ironically, Klinnsman understood what the players needed ... stay in International leagues:
The Mass Return Of USMNT Players To MLS Was A Catastrophic Mistake
https://the18.com/soccer-news/jurgen-klinsmann-mls-criticism
Klinsmann was involved in an infamous feud with MLS commissioner Don Garber following Dempsey’s decision to sign for Seattle and Bradley for Toronto.
“[MLS] is getting better and stronger every year, which we are all very proud about, and I want everyone to grow in the environment,” said Klinsmann, “but the reality also is that for both players, making that step means that you are not in the competitive environment that you were in before.
“I made it clear with Clint’s move back and [Bradley’s] move back that it’s going to be very difficult for them to keep the same level that they experienced at the places where they were. Reality is that both players making that step means that you are not in the same competitive environment that you were before. It’s not easy for Michael, and it’s not going to be easy in the future.”
“[MLS] is getting better and stronger every year, which we are all very proud about, and I want everyone to grow in the environment,” said Klinsmann, “but the reality also is that for both players, making that step means that you are not in the competitive environment that you were in before.
“I made it clear with Clint’s move back and [Bradley’s] move back that it’s going to be very difficult for them to keep the same level that they experienced at the places where they were. Reality is that both players making that step means that you are not in the same competitive environment that you were before. It’s not easy for Michael, and it’s not going to be easy in the future.”
Let me try to draw an analogy to Youth Soccer:
Premiere League and Division 1 Leagues across Europe are like CSL Premiere, SCDSL Champions, the DA, National League. The elite players are constantly playing and challenged by other elite players.
The MLS is like CSL Silver, SCDSL Flight 2, Presidio AA-A, AYSO Matrix/United. The top players have an easy path. They are not challenged day-in and day-out. Their positions are secured and their skills stagnate.
The USSF/MLS SUM deal means that the USSF is soft on the MLS (especially Sunil G.) because we are kinda partners from a marketing standpoint. When Klinnsman and Don Gerger (MLS Commish) had their war of words, the USSF didn't get behind Klinnsman and say "Preach it brotha." Instead it told Klinsmann to keep his trap shut for the good of the MLS.
The MLS will improve over the next 10 to 20 years, but the players in the MLS that have talent must rethink their priorities and move to International play if our USMNT is going to improve and compete.
mahrez
SILVER ELITE
Now your comparing the bay area to Minnesota? Housing is what 4x, entertainment 3x, and so forth so what. The population density is much different so is the cost of living, so what? No comparsion, the bay area alone is worth more than the whole State of MN and almost everything is more expensive.