I was a US supporter for many years. I watched Caligiuri's Shot Heard Round The World live. USMNT fans overrate the strength of their team. Lots of other teams have more players in Europe than the US does.
Why do guys always make this statement in a discussion where nobody is overrating players? I didn't even think we were talking about players. I was talking about structuring the game differently to hopefully help develop players so we don't have to be average.
US sits 23rd with 30 players in the top 5 leagues according to FBRef. Most non UEFA nationalities in top 5 leagues Brazil 90 Argentina 76 Ivory Coast 49 Morocco 45 Senegal 35 USA 30 Nigeria 27 Mali 25 Ghana 24 Cameroon 23 Japan 22 Colombia 22 Algeria 21 Uruguay 20 Guinea 15 etc Others Canada 10 Mexico 5
I will talk more about pro/rel later. I thought I would just add that MLS fans reduce the popularity of the sport in this country.
“MLS” itself doesn’t really have any fans. Those that follow the league are fans of the teams or perhaps the sport of soccer in general. And they’re not meaningfully different from fans of any other sport in the US or soccer fans around the world. Very few people get so hung up on the MLS league structure or roster rules that it overtakes their desire to support their domestic soccer league or local team.
I beg to differ on all of it. No, behavior of its commissioner, its fans, and hurting our national team by favoring MLS is why don't follow MLS. I was a soccer fan and USMNT fan before MLS existed. MLS doesn't care about either. Their monopoly on the game in this country materially stunts our progress. Why would I support something that has hurt two of my passions? I support the USMNT, but stop monetarily supporting the federation in 2017 when its success wasnt their priority and won't until it is clear MLS isn't involved. In the feds attempt to rightfully prop up MLS, they have ignored the rest of the game in this country. Terrible decision by them.
How does having a stable, well-funded 30-team first division (and their academies) hurt the USMNT? It wasn’t pre-ordained that a top division league would eventually find its way to this level of stability and professionalism in the US. I’d expect some level of cross-support from USSF for the top level of club soccer in the country. But they’ve also shown an openness to other leagues, such as what we’re seeing with the proposed USL D1 league.
Why don't you start by telling me why you think it is good? Id bet anything you come up with will be offset by all the the damage those undeserving MLS players did the last two cycles. While you are at, is MLS good or bad for the rest of soccer in this country? I acknowledged that, but unfortunately it went way too far. They also haven't helped them at times. Allowing another D1 league would be great if pro/rel is required for it to happen. That would be a bigger deal than firing that ******** Berhalter.
I don't know why you're asking if you don't like the league and if you do like the league, why don't you know? This curiosity of coming to a thread or on social media and telling everyone you don't like something and no one else should either is a bit elitist and is finally just being dismissed. Sounds like you don't know what you don't know.
You’ve still never explained how pro/rel would accelerate the growth of the game in this country now, and you’ve actively avoided explaining how it possibly could have been implemented 30 years ago. MLS is an incredibly weird, inconsistent, and micromanaged league. It is also unequivocally the most important thing to happen for soccer in America literally since the founding of the USSF.
Having a stable top division encourages long-term investments in things like stadiums, training facilities, and academies. These take time to see the impact and the risk is more bearable if the league isn’t at risk of going under at any time. In turn, these investments create a professional atmosphere that pay dividends through internal player development and attracting a wider base of potential players, who want world-class coaching, facilities, and fields, rather than playing at a local high school (like A League in the 90s). Additionally, with long term stability, individual teams can build a fan base over time. Having an established top level league that looks and feels professional in the same way as the NFL, MLB, NBA, and NHL garners the teams respect in their cities. And it puts soccer on an even level in the public eye with the other “major” sports. Seeing top level pros making a living playing soccer can inspire kids to see a potential future in the sport. If we’re talking development and growth of soccer in the US, a professional league of 30 teams is only responsible for so much. No one expects the NBA to be solely responsible for “growing the game” of basketball in the US. But having a stable, visible, professional top level league such as MLS benefits the game of soccer as a whole in the US.
The job of MLS is to grow MLS and that's it, nothing more. The byproduct of MLS is growing the game, giving people opportunity and experience in the game and after that the market will take the game where it takes it. Its produced coaches, players, front office personal, revenue streams, communities all working outside the league after being employed by MLS.
This is incredibly naive and why I can't stand MLS and its fans. Working on another post addressing this, but felt this need a response.
I will come to the rest later (including other posters), but I thought this one was too important an idea. You didn't actually answer the question I I about whether MLS is good or bad for the rest of soccer in this country. My answer it is absolutely terrible. Having a ridiculously poorly run league that based on marketing gimmicks is horrendously bad for the game. This is just a narrative mindless MLS fans throw all along. Again, everything about the league mediocre and not about competition. You are correct about the NBA. Like the NFL, the sports are generally popular in the country but also have schools developing players. HS and NCAA is basically their academies. We do have a sport like soccer the the school pathways were considered inadequate. So what did MLB do? They didn't say it wasn't their responsibility and instead created farm teams. MLS sees the development pathway isnt sufficient and has said it isnt our problem. When these non-soccer people finally figured it out and most teams dragged their feet to create academies. When players they didn't own left for Europe, owners and the commissioner threatened to stop academies. So apparently MLS somebody to develop talent for them so they do what they are good at, real estate deals and dodging taxes. Once you then focus on the ecosystem that they depend on for talent, it is clear it is sufficient. It is a cluster ******** that hard to figure where a kid should play. I remember grassroots efforts in the 70s. It truly felt it is was about growing the game. Tons of different organizations and people have tried to monetize the game. Those in this ecosystem don't have much aspiration other than squeezing as much money out of soccer parents. Many used to have higher ambition, but is clear the only real upward mobility is somehow getting involved with MLS. When an MLS fan tells me that the league has no responsibility for anything but themselves, it is incredibly annoying. They are a monopoly sitting on top of mess and their monopoly stifles innovation and growth. MLS will always suck until american player development is improved. They have a huge financial incentive to develop better players, but instead they are focused on how they can take over rec soccer, taking money away from others, all just to market the league.
Before I head out, I want to speak about this bizarre take. MLS doesn't even happen without the NASL. It shocking how little you folks understand about this game. Obviously, there is no 1994 WC and consequently no MLS. Heck, the Fox Soccer Channel had more impact on soccer in this country than MLS. Trying to hype up a crappy soccer league that soccer fans go out of their not to follow just because it has been around for 29 years is some really shit. Where is social impact? It nonexistent or actually negative. The NASL transformed the game in this country and then generation followed took our national team to completely different level. MLS gave us top notch infrastructure that is warranted for the talent on the field. You people are really weird.
I'm not arguing that MLS doesn't have free academies. My issue is how many of those good youth players are giving a fair shot in the first time? Gio, West, Weah, Wright, and a few more. Left those academies very early or at 18 years old. Most players that you talk about are from NYFC, NYRB, FC Dallas, Philly, and Atlanta, Why don't we see players from LAFC, LA Galaxy, San Jose, Orlando, Inter Miami, DC, Columbus Crew, Chicago Fire FC, and the list goes on and on? Why does MLS have an academy if they are not going to be using the players? Tha'ts my issue
Because the primary goal of a soccer team is to win soccer games and not to hit arbitrary benchmarks for the number of academy players on the field?
Cade Cowell - San Jose Benjamin Cremaschi - Inter Miami Aidan Morris - Columbus Crew Chris Brady, Brian Gutierrez - Chicago Fire Just to name a few. Here's the thing with youth development: it's very difficult, and expensive. It takes a lot of time, and good coaches cost a lot of money. It's also a numbers game. So for every 50-100 players, a team may get 1 or 2 that earn a first team contract. The reason Philly, Red Bulls, NYCFC, and Dallas have academies that are consistently turning out professional level players today is because they spend a lot of scouting youth players, on youth and academy coaches. They put the time and money into it, and are committed long term. Red Bulls and City Football Group have global scouting and development networks to pull from. It took Philly a good 7-8 years before they started to really develop professional level talent consistently. Once Earnie Stewart was hired as Sporting Director, the organization really started to connect all of the dots. Ernst Tanner has continued that work and built upon it. So what exactly did the NASL leave behind when it folded? Pay to play youth club soccer? I understand that it inspired some kids to pick up the game when they watched Pele, Beckenbauer, Best, etc. What of my generation that was too young in the NASL's dying years to remember seeing it? There was no pro league to aspire to play in. Soccer was just that sport your parents made you play to get you out of the house between baseball, basketball, and football seasons. You say MLS is a horribly run league. What does that make the NASL then??? MLS is in year 30 and continues to grow both in quality of play, player development, and popularity. Horribly run leagues don't last 30 years. Leagues based on gimmicks certainly don't last 30 years either.
I'd like to massively, blowhardely say that is an incredibly simplistic view of professional sports. There are tons of other goals in sports. Its ok that you are uncoordinated and never played sports. Id ask that you please not act like you have any clue what sports teams actually do. I will add relative to another post of yours, I find MLS fans ridiculously annoying, but with Berhalter gone and a real coach, MLS and its ignorant fans are now irrelevant.
Before answer any of these, I think you have said you don't see how pro/rel improves soccer in this country. I have described how it would significantly improve non-mls soccer in this country and streamline a bunch of things the country struggled with. Do you disagree? Can you not see how that improves soccer in this country, including MLS?