Soccer Thread 2017-2018

[ISiddiqui]

And the 2nd and 3rd and 4th best teams in CONCACAF, or did you somehow happen to miss that entire discussion?

Those European leagues are also dull as dirt with the same damn teams constantly hovering at the top, with the every once in a blue moon winner that convinces folks that the leagues are up for grabs. You don't grow a sport in a country that hasn't embraced it by promoting dynasties based on who has the most money that result in folks' local teams have no chance of championships. American fans have rebelled against that a long time ago - with baseball the only support without salary caps (though they did put in place luxury taxes to try to balance things out).

[RainMaker]

I would rather have some dynasties over a league where the owners don't want to compete with each other.

You can also find a middle ground where owners are actually trying to compete with each other while having a few safeguards in place so one team can't steamroll the continent (although that would at least get people to care about MLS).

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

You can also find a middle ground where owners are actually trying to compete with each other while having a few safeguards in place so one team can't steamroll the continent

Which is exactly what MLS has done. I'm pretty sure Arthur Blank (owner of Atlanta United) would be quite shocked if you told him he wasn't trying to compete against other teams. Same with Maple Leaf Sports & Entertainment (the owners of Toronto FC) or City Football Group (owners of NYCFC). They have simply counted team and league stability as part of parity aspect, which it most definitely is (safeguards to prevent teams from steamrolling the league also have to take into account that teams that fold end up concentrating power in the hands of the successful teams - well until the league falls apart).

Of course you've still had some dynasties (D.C. United in the start of the league, LA Galaxy in the early 2010s).

[ISiddiqui]

Let's take an example. You are upset that MLS teams can't use all of the funds they receive from a transfer to upgrade their team. How do you allow that but also have a salary cap, which has been the most effective way that sports leagues have found to have a safeguard to prevent one team from steamrolling the rest of the league? You can't.

If Atlanta United sells Miguel Almiron for $20mil and uses all of it to upgrade their team, how does one put 'safeguards' in place? Then the rich teams will compete to try to sell their young players (NYCFC maybe try to match it by selling Harrison and Herrera, etc) and you have the same haves and have nots as they do in Europe. What safeguards do you have when you basically toss out salary caps?

[RainMaker]

Not many people want to watch mediocre teams (which everyone is now thanks to parity) play in the 12th best league in the world. The league is scared to death that a team might actually become good that it has to punish anyone who dare try.

So how does MLS and US soccer get better? The owners don't want to spend money on players. They don't want to give any incentive toward developing homegrown talent. And they seem pretty hellbent on diluting what little talent they have in the league by constantly expanding for a quick buck.

Are we just waiting for the big soccer revolution come that for the last 30 years everyone claims is right around the corner? Because it sure seems like MLS is just a bad league that a few 30-somethings from Europe can come to at the end of their careers to embarrass MLS backlines.

[ISiddiqui]

Yeeeah, you aren't actually paying attention to any our arguments and are trumpeting tired already countered points. Hell, you completely ignored the amazing growth of numbers on the renewing of the Adidas deal when confronted with the numbers or the average age of players numbers that Marc referenced. (Yes, I know CrescentMoonie warned me)

Have fun enjoying whatever leagues you watch. I'll be over here watching entertaining soccer in MLS in Atlanta, led by exciting young players like Miguel Almiron and Josef Martinez wondering how anyone can think Arthur Blank doesn't want to spend money on players or develop young talent like Andrew Carlton, Chris Goslin, etc. All the while looking at other teams who are spending on young talent (esp from Central and South America) and building really good academies.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

If Atlanta United sells Miguel Almiron for $20mil and uses all of it to upgrade their team, how does one put 'safeguards' in place? Then the rich teams will compete to try to sell their young players (NYCFC maybe try to match it by selling Harrison and Herrera, etc) and you have the same haves and have nots as they do in Europe. What safeguards do you have when you basically toss out salary caps?

A salary cap won't work in this sport. It works in the NBA and NFL because those leagues have no competition. They are the only game in town. MLS is competing with leagues around the world that are better than the product they are putting out.

You can put some small safeguards in place such as minor revenue sharing on the backend. Rules that don't allow owners to take on too much debt. But ultimately to make the product better, you need competition. You need owners fighting to make their team better. Rewarding success and punishing failure. Otherwise you just end up with a bad league that no one cares about.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Yeeeah, you aren't actually paying attention to any our arguments and are trumpeting tired already countered points. Hell, you completely ignored the amazing growth of numbers on the renewing of the Adidas deal when confronted with the numbers or the average age of players numbers that Marc referenced. (Yes, I know CrescentMoonie warned me)

Have fun enjoying whatever leagues you watch. I'll be over here watching entertaining soccer in MLS in Atlanta, led by exciting young players like Miguel Almiron and Josef Martinez wondering how anyone can think Arthur Blank doesn't want to spend money on players or develop young talent like Andrew Carlton, Chris Goslin, etc. All the while looking at other teams who are spending on young talent (esp from Central and South America) and building really good academies.

The Adidas deal is good. I truly hope it goes into increasing the quality of play in the league and not an owners pocket.

Atlanta is one of the few bright spots in the league. KC is fun. So is Portland from what I've seen. Seems like the expansion teams are at least putting in some effort. Rest of the league is boring.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

the amazing growth of numbers on the renewing of the Adidas deal

Good for MLS short term, bad for them long term if that money is relied on to prop up what is rather clearly a pretty run of the mill product.

Adidas won't be dumb as fuck forever (theoretically at least).

[stevew]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Adidas won't be dumb as fuck forever (theoretically at least).

They did just release the D Rose 8...

[CrescentMoonie]

Stop feeding the troll. He's either brutally stupid or trolling on purpose and neither is worth the time.

[sovereignstar v2]

Says the guy that called the EPL the 5th or 6th best league in the world.

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by murrayyyyy

Wales made the Euro semifinals in 16 and Iceland qualified for the World Cup this year. A country with the population of Corpus Christie or Lexington just qualified against tougher competition.

#28 in the world shouldn't lose to #99 in the world. Ever...

That is one of the joys of soccer - its unpredictable and a well organised minnor can have their day.

PS - That being said people should NEVER take the FIFA rankings overly seriously, they're a bit of a farce tbh ... if you look into how they do them they're seriously messed up.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

The academies are nice but the whole MLS system is designed to discourage teams from developing young talent. The league takes a big chunk of the money if a player is sold overseas and gives it to the other clubs that don't give a shit. So why would a club put money into developing young talent? What's the incentive?

Maybe you should ask the ones developing talent. The system is more egalitarian than I'd like, but your talking points are ridiculously outdated.

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

(Arthur Blank, Merritt Polson are the good owners, Robert Kraft is a bad owner).

Sad, but on the soccer side quite accurate

Too bad Boston politicians & NIMBY's pushed back against any SSS in Boston, and Kraft was put in a corner where using the Revs as a tax write-off to help Patriot Place pay off makes more sense than growing a fan base. I don't give him a pass, but I genuinely think he wanted to have the soccer team play in Boston before he went senile.

[CrescentMoonie]

Originally Posted by sovereignstar v2

Says the guy that called the EPL the 5th or 6th best league in the world.

It's 4th at best right now. La Liga, Bundesliga, and Serie A are all definitely better. Ligue 1 is closing the gap.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by CrescentMoonie

It's 4th at best right now. La Liga, Bundesliga, and Serie A are all definitely better. Ligue 1 is closing the gap.

Serie A? Pass. Which Ligue 1 teams are worth watching?

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Unfortunately owners don't have a lot of control over who's on their team.

LoL wut?

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Imagine how much more young talent we could send overseas if teams didn't have to pay the MLS tax and could actually use the money to field a better team.

The league might even get..........better.

So if MLS teams didn't have part of their transfer fees spread out amongst all MLS teams, MLS as a whole would be better?

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Those European leagues are also dull as dirt with the same damn teams constantly hovering at the top, with the every once in a blue moon winner that convinces folks that the leagues are up for grabs. You don't grow a sport in a country that hasn't embraced it by promoting dynasties based on who has the most money that result in folks' local teams have no chance of championships. American fans have rebelled against that a long time ago - with baseball the only support without salary caps (though they did put in place luxury taxes to try to balance things out).

I don't want to end up like Spain or especially France, but I think dynasties can drive interest.

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Not many people want to watch mediocre teams (which everyone is now thanks to parity) play in the 12th best league in the world. The league is scared to death that a team might actually become good that it has to punish anyone who dare try.

MLS probably is around the 12th best league, and the quality does lack in comparison to Real, Bayern, PSG, etc who are often on TV, but until transatlantic travel is good enough & US money is too much to ignore that they include a US team in the Champions League there's no way any team on it's own could reach that level. How's the Chinese Super League doing with it's outrageous spending? Oh, it's still poor quality, nobody outside the country & few in it care about it, and their national team is laughably worse than ours.

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

That is one of the joys of soccer - its unpredictable and a well organised minnor can have their day.

PS - That being said people should NEVER take the FIFA rankings overly seriously, they're a bit of a farce tbh ... if you look into how they do them they're seriously messed up.

Excuse me.Sir, are you saying Haiti isn't actually the 48th best team in the world?

[AlexB]

Originally Posted by sovereignstar v2

Says the guy that called the EPL the 5th or 6th best league in the world.

Based on European competition results, you could argue that Spain & Germany are better than the EPL, as all have multiple teams that do better

Italy has Juve, France has PSG & Monaco, but nothing else close, so I would put the EPL probably #2 just ahead of Germany due to depth of quality, but wouldn't argue with #3 in Europe behing the Bundesliga.

Dont know enough about the Brazilian & Argentinina leagues to know where they would fit.

While I think some are going overboard in criticism, the standrd I have seen from MSL is tbh more League 1 than Championship, and any league where Bradley Wright Phillips is one of the best players isn't great - he always scored goals at League 1, but struggled at higher levels.

But its a fledgling league, needs to first establish itself on a sound footing, in a competitive market, and can then maybe use the attraction of the USA to lure better players (although that attraction is somewhat diminished for the next 3-4 years at least, maybe 7-8 )

[AlexB]

Dola - its also something that needs to be said (and its very much the same with England before I get accused of hypocrisy) that the US national side has over-achieved for a while now, base on one or two decent players, but overall its muscles over finesse.

Eventually that catches up with you - for us we have a history and relative depth to other European countries that qualifying is usually fine, but we get found out early in tournaments when the average level,of opposition increases, for the US this is the first time for a while that the team has under-achieved a little, so not only has a bit of reality levelled out results, but under par performances have exacerbated it.

It's not quite as bad as some are saying, but it was also never as good as many thought a few years ago (that statement covers both the US and England!)

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Atlanta is one of the few bright spots in the league. KC is fun. So is Portland from what I've seen. Seems like the expansion teams are at least putting in some effort. Rest of the league is boring.

Now I KNOW you haven't followed the league in years . SKC has a great stadium and fans, but they play really dull, albeit effective soccer. Think the tactics of Athletico (when playing Barca or RM) or Leicester - they sit back 80% of the match and counter. They've scored the 4th fewest goals in the league this year.

The rest you mentioned are fun, but you missed Toronto, NYCFC, Chicago and Houston. Among others .

[Arles]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

You're spot on but that's not what MLS is setup to do.

First, when a player is sold MLS takes a 25%-33% cut off the top and gives it to the other teams for I guess existing. Also, the team is only allowed to use $650,000 of that sale toward new/replacement players. So there isn't a ton of incentive to move players overseas. Especially if the goal is to make your team better. You're better off trading the player to other teams in the league for allocation money. You see MLS wants to punish you for your success.

So, you're saying that if an owner finds a star, sells him to Europe for $10 million - the following happens: $3 mil goes to the MLS, $650K goes to his current team's cap and $6.3 million goes into his pocket. Yet, there's no incentive for owners...

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Now you could say that a savvy capitalist might look at those rules and see the owners get to pocket a chunk of the cash and decide to development young talent for the purpose of selling for large transfer fees. Unfortunately owners don't have a lot of control over who's on their team. So the idea of throwing a bunch of money into scouting and development is pointless.

With the new "Homegrown Player" process, there is direct control. If I find a kid in my youth academy, he doesn't go into the Superdraft anymore - I get his rights. You can even identify an under 16 international kid, bring him to your academy and own his rights. There are tons of incentives for teams to have good youth academies. That's why teams like FC Dallas, Real Salt Lake and the new Atlanta team have put such a large investment into their academy.

Originally Posted by RainMaker

And that's the problem with MLS. You're punished for being good. You're punished for developing young talent. You're punished for selling young talent to better clubs where the players can develop. The system is setup so that owners don't have to try and compete. There is no incentive to be good.

I don't see that paying a 30% tax on selling a $10-$20 million player to the league as "being punished" for developing talent. You could argue that the MLS is the most owner-friendly league in the world. You look at other major leagues and there's a huge impetus on teams to reinvest most (if not all) of the transfer fees they receive into new players. In the MLS, you must keep atleast 50% of every transfer fee and aren't allowed to reinvest it in salaries.

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Not many people want to watch mediocre teams (which everyone is now thanks to parity) play in the 12th best league in the world. The league is scared to death that a team might actually become good that it has to punish anyone who dare try.

So how does MLS and US soccer get better? The owners don't want to spend money on players. They don't want to give any incentive toward developing homegrown talent. And they seem pretty hellbent on diluting what little talent they have in the league by constantly expanding for a quick buck.

Are we just waiting for the big soccer revolution come that for the last 30 years everyone claims is right around the corner? Because it sure seems like MLS is just a bad league that a few 30-somethings from Europe can come to at the end of their careers to embarrass MLS backlines.

I don't even know where to begin with this. MLS and US soccer get better by continuing to invest in youth academies and selling promising young players to Europe. I also think that the league can improve the international loan process and try to get younger players into the league (like lower level England clubs). Because the season is from March through October, a team like Arsenal or ManU could loan a kid to the MLS who didn't play much and still have him back by the winter for their season. The league does need to make this process easier.

Overall, the MLS is in a good position. There are a ton of incentives for teams to invest in youth academies, as well as bring over polished international players to improve the overall product. If the system continues to grow and follow this plan, you could end up with the following:

1. The top talented US youngsters getting sold to European teams better equipped to develop them from 17-22. Plus, the cash from those sales reinforcing the investment into more/better youth academies.
2. The MLS roster comprising a combination of older European players, younger loaned out European players (who wouldn't see much time at their parent club), talented central and south American players and some of the better US college talent.
3. Teams in every major market to continue to find young talent, develop younger players from international clubs and a landing spot for older European players relegated to backup roles on bigger teams.

This process will continue to grow the pool of American players and improve the MLS product as a whole.

One final thing I would like to see is a "B team" for international competition made of mostly domestic players. Guys like Wood, Pulisic and Geoff Cameron have to leave their European teams and fly across the world to do these qual matches. You end up with a disjointed group of tired club players from Europe. Instead, setup a team of MLS and/or younger domestic players who practice together more often, play more friendlies and work better together. That group should be fine in Concacaf qualification. Then, you can supplement that group with the full squad for the major events (Olympics and WC) - when they will be all together for months competing.

[Logan]

Allow me to ask a dumb question, and apologies if I missed this discussed: why is our women's team so good comparatively?

Is it as simple as men's soccer got such a late start here compared to the rest of the world, while our women's team was on a much more even playing field (or maybe even ahead) than women in other countries?

[CrescentMoonie]

Originally Posted by Logan

Allow me to ask a dumb question, and apologies if I missed this discussed: why is our women's team so good comparatively?

Is it as simple as men's soccer got such a late start here compared to the rest of the world, while our women's team was on a much more even playing field (or maybe even ahead) than women in other countries?

Nobody is playing internationally. Other countries were much later to the women's game and some still haven't really begun. It's only starting to get competitive now because other countries are putting money into their women's national teams.

[ISiddiqui]

Yeah, even now in some countries women's soccer is considered a joke even if they have created a league for it. The US actually was one of the vanguard countries for the sport.

[Arles]

Plus, women's soccer is a top 2-3 women's sport in the US. Soccer is one of the more popular women's scholarship options for college as well. For the men, basketball, football and baseball are all much more popular. In terms of college scholarships, soccer ranks well below the top 3 for men.

For men:
Football - 18,000 (10,200 Div 1 FBS scholarships plus 7,800 Div 1 FCS)
basketball - 4,500 Div 1 scholarships
baseball - 3,500 Div 1 scholarships
soccer - 2,000 Div 1 scholarships

For women:
soccer - 4,500 Div 1 scholarships
basketball - 4,000 Div 1 scholarships
softball - 3,400 Div 1 scholarships
volleyball - 3,300 Div 1 scholarships

So, you basically have double the Div 1 athletes in women's soccer than you do in Men's.

[digamma]

You may be making a different point, but I was under the impression that the majority of the men's team did not go to college because they were playing overseas, professionally or in academies.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by digamma

You may be making a different point, but I was under the impression that the majority of the men's team did not go to college because they were playing overseas, professionally or in academies.

It's been a fairly recently development. A lot of players went through colleges until the last 5-10 years or so when academies started to get invested in quite heavily. Before that there were a few academies but they only took a few players (for example, Michael Bradley and Jozy Altidore came through the IMG Academy players, while Darlington Nagbe and DeAndre Yedlin played college soccer in Akron).

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Now I KNOW you haven't followed the league in years . SKC has a great stadium and fans, but they play really dull, albeit effective soccer. Think the tactics of Athletico (when playing Barca or RM) or Leicester - they sit back 80% of the match and counter. They've scored the 4th fewest goals in the league this year.

The rest you mentioned are fun, but you missed Toronto, NYCFC, Chicago and Houston. Among others .

I like the long passing game. It's different in a league where most of the teams play the same.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

LoL wut?
So if MLS teams didn't have part of their transfer fees spread out amongst all MLS teams, MLS as a whole would be better?

This is a league that still has a draft. You have to go through a bunch of hoops to sign someone from overseas. A salary cap that prevents you from signing who you want. You don't have much control over your club.

And yes, I think if transfer fees went to the clubs it would incentive development and the moving of young stars overseas to better leagues.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by digamma

You may be making a different point, but I was under the impression that the majority of the men's team did not go to college because they were playing overseas, professionally or in academies.

That's true now, but 10-15 years ago the youth academies weren't really there. The elite players (Dempsey, Howard, Bradley, Donovan) got found - but a lot of US players were college grads. If you look at the 2006 world cup, 16 of the 23 members went to college. We probably missed a ton of youth players who didn't either have the grades for college or get found by college scouting in the 1988-1996 timeframe.

For my own experience, there was no youth system in Illinois when I was in high school (1990-1994). Brian McBride was a few years ahead of me and he was an elite world player. He ended up going to St. Louis U on a scholarship, but he really should have been in Europe or some youth system before HS. He never was part of a professional system until he was 22 - and he ended up playing for Fulham for 5 years in the EPL and scoring 30 goals for the national team. I was part of an all-star team in the St. Louis area in the early 90s and our options were to go to a smaller college on a scholarship or play club soccer for a bigger university. Neither Illinois or Arizona (my top two school choices) have Div 1 men's soccer. So, I ended up playing club soccer at Arizona on an academic scholarship.

So, for the 28+ crew, Div 1 scholarships were a big factor in US team participants. Given the women have had 4500 (to the men's 2000), you can see why the current women's soccer veterans had a bigger pool of talent than the men's. As we move forward, more kids will come from the academies - so we should get back to having a bigger net. There were a lot of really good soccer players I played against in the early 90s who either didn't have grades for college or didn't want to go to a directional Illinois school (ie, Eastern or Northern) on a scholarship. So, they went to a bigger university to do something else or just went on with life without soccer.

[CrescentMoonie]

[MrBug708]

And we forgot all about him

[ISiddiqui]

To be fair, he DID play in a World Cup. He was the substitute for Jozy Altidore in the first US match of the 2014 WC. Of course since that WC he's been injured quite a bit. He's played, what, 15 games total in the last two seasons and only once (all of 3 mins) this season?

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Arles

So, you're saying that if an owner finds a star, sells him to Europe for $10 million - the following happens: $3 mil goes to the MLS, $650K goes to his current team's cap and $6.3 million goes into his pocket. Yet, there's no incentive for owners...

Why would you sell a $10 million player for $7 million? How do you fill the hole of a $10 million player with $650k? And how does an owner being forced to pocket the money help the league in any way?

Originally Posted by Arles

I don't see that paying a 30% tax on selling a $10-$20 million player to the league as "being punished" for developing talent. You could argue that the MLS is the most owner-friendly league in the world. You look at other major leagues and there's a huge impetus on teams to reinvest most (if not all) of the transfer fees they receive into new players. In the MLS, you must keep atleast 50% of every transfer fee and aren't allowed to reinvest it in salaries.

Of course it's a punishment. It's like charging a 30% fee to sell a stock while others don't pay it. An owner has to accept under-market value for the player (70% of his value).

And again, if the team can't use that money to replace the player they sold, it makes the team worse.

Originally Posted by Arles

This process will continue to grow the pool of American players and improve the MLS product as a whole.

I'd disagree with this. If anything the pool of American players has gotten worse. Despite the MLS "growing", the country doesn't have any 22-27 year olds worth a shit. The U-23 team can't even make the Olympics.

Looks like the U-20 and U-17 aren't bad so maybe there is some hope down the line. But if those kids stick around MLS, it won't matter.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Why would you sell a $10 million player for $7 million? How do you fill the hole of a $10 million player with $650k? And how does an owner being forced to pocket the money help the league in any way?

Because he isn't paying the player he sells a ton of money. The max salary is $500K. But let's take the worst case. Let's say you sell one of your 3 "designated players" who's making $5 million to a club for $20 mil. You end up getting back $14 million and you can use all $14 million to go sign his replacement. If, however, you sell a youth that is making $500K, you can pocket the 70% return and use that to either upgrade one of your 3 designated player spots, improve your youth academy or invest in more scouting to keep the wheel moving.

Of course it's a punishment. It's like charging a 30% fee to sell a stock while others don't pay it. An owner has to accept under-market value for the player (70% of his value).

It's the cost of doing business in the MLS. But, it's hardly a prohibitive cost. And, again, with the cost certainly of MLS rosters (outside of the 3 designated player spots), you end up with a much higher profit margin than other clubs who would need to immediately sign a replacement for millions. You can sell a younger kid for millions and then go out and get a very experienced, high caliber current player for $500K.

And again, if the team can't use that money to replace the player they sold, it makes the team worse.

But they can if it's a key player. If it's not a designated player, they sell a kid they were developing for a bunch of cash and still sign a max salary replacement.

I'd disagree with this. If anything the pool of American players has gotten worse. Despite the MLS "growing", the country doesn't have any 22-27 year olds worth a shit. The U-23 team can't even make the Olympics.

Looks like the U-20 and U-17 aren't bad so maybe there is some hope down the line. But if those kids stick around MLS, it won't matter.

Again, the 25-35 year olds were from a time when we didn't have the best infrastructure for developing/finding US talent. It's really only been in effect for the past 5-10 years. So, it makes sense that our 15-20 year olds look a lot better than the 23-30 year olds.

[MrBug708]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

To be fair, he DID play in a World Cup. He was the substitute for Jozy Altidore in the first US match of the 2014 WC. Of course since that WC he's been injured quite a bit. He's played, what, 15 games total in the last two seasons and only once (all of 3 mins) this season?

Yup, such disappointment. I know when Jozy got hurt, the system didn't fit Bacon the same way. Taking one striker that has Jozy's skillsets was a disaster and just one of many reasons why Jurgy was a bad fit

[RainMaker]

You still only have 3 designated player slots. If you're a team that is using those slots, what's the point? And I'm sure it is a nice way to produce higher profit, but it doesn't help the product on the field or US soccer. It just helps mitigate risk for bad owners.

For all the talk I hear about how they handle development and transfers just fine, Jozy Altidore still remains the top transfer a decade later. Is this because the talent level is so garbage or because MLS doesn't want to become a sellers league? Why are guys like Larin still in this league instead of being moved to higher levels of competition where they belong?

[CrescentMoonie]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

You still only have 3 designated player slots.

You really are stupid or trolling and I'm no longer convinced it's trolling.

[RainMaker]

Is that wrong? I was under the impression you could only have 3 designated players on your roster.

[jbergey22]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Is that wrong? I was under the impression you could only have 3 designated players on your roster.

No worries. I have no idea if you are right or wrong. Soccer is so confusing unless you follow it regularly. Different rules to try to attract big stars at a reduced salary cap rate and all that sort of stuff. Kind of gimmicky if you ask me.

[bbgunn]

I will man up and walk back my comments about MLS being a ponzi scheme. I love the MLS, but I thought it wasn't really set up to develop young talent so much. I thought the league wanted (a) stabilization and (b) money, money, money. I've been really enlightened reading the debate going on here about MLS. I thought I was one of the bigger MLS fans, but I guess I don't know nearly enough about the inner workings of the league.

EDIT: I do know that (unless it's been changed, because I know there was talk about increasing the number) teams are allocated 3 Designated Players spots, but those spots can be traded to other teams. So it's possible that a team could have 4, 5, or even six DPs.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by bbgunn

EDIT: I do know that (unless it's been changed, because I know there was talk about increasing the number) teams are allocated 3 Designated Players spots, but those spots can be traded to other teams. So it's possible that a team could have 4, 5, or even six DPs.

No, you can't trade a DP slot. You can trade international spots, GAM, TAM, but the one thing you can't trade is a DP slot. And you have to pay a little extra money to the league to 'unlock' the 3rd DP slot.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Arles

Because he isn't paying the player he sells a ton of money. The max salary is $500K. But let's take the worst case. Let's say you sell one of your 3 "designated players" who's making $5 million to a club for $20 mil. You end up getting back $14 million and you can use all $14 million to go sign his replacement. If, however, you sell a youth that is making $500K, you can pocket the 70% return and use that to either upgrade one of your 3 designated player spots, improve your youth academy or invest in more scouting to keep the wheel moving.

Actually the team gets more than simply 2/3 of the transfer fee. The team gets to take all that they spent on the player back first before the MLS gets it's 1/3rd. So with a DP, say you bought him for $8mil and then paid him a $2mil salary and then flipped him for $20mil (yes, I'm basically describing Miguel Almiron and the rumors of his sale) - you get your $8mil transfer fee, the $2mil in salary you spend on him and only THEN does what is left get divided. So MLS gets $3.3mil and the team gets $17.6mil ($8m + $2m + $7.6m) in this hypo. $650k becomes GAM and you get roughly $17mil which, yes, can be entirely used on another DP's transfer or salary (or perhaps also your other current DPs salary, but not sure on that one).

It's the cost of doing business in the MLS. But, it's hardly a prohibitive cost.

Indeed. It's part of the single entity system that keeps the clubs on secure financial footing (remember that MLS pays every salary in the league aside from the DPs above a certain amount). More money that flows to MLS from DP sales further justifies increased TAM amounts or dramatically raising the salary cap in the next CBA negotiations (rumors were that the owners were preparing to do just that, but then the players went super hard on free agency and so that happened instead - the owners basically raised the cap through TAM, which is a temp measure, instead; it allowed them to raise the salary spend without hamstringing them in CBA negotiations).

[Marc Vaughan]

The entire concept of the DP's is sound imho - one of the big concerns with the MLS was a single team coming in and spending large and basically causing the league to go bankrupt as other teams follow in an unsustainable arms race.

Having DP's limits this as no small group of players alone can guarantee winning the league and as such it limits what owners are willing to invest in them ...

This prevents the sort of thing you're seeing presently in the Chinese league where they're effectively bribing players to play there with ludicrously high salaries and over-paying for players in an attempt to boost their profile ..

[ISiddiqui]

Well technically you can replicate the same thing in MLS as they are doing in China. DPs don't count against the cap, so not much is really stopping some nutty owner from dropping $50mil a year to get someone - aside from the fact that owners in MLS are interesting in making money.

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Well technically you can replicate the same thing in MLS as they are doing in China. DPs don't count against the cap, so not much is really stopping some nutty owner from dropping $50mil a year to get someone - aside from the fact that owners in MLS are interesting in making money.

Yeah they 'can' spend money but you can't easily buy a title with a handful of players - one of the things I love about soccer is that while a star player or two can make a difference its the team as a whole who win things ...

If you purchased Messi and had him play in the MLS then yes he'd be a very good player, but it wouldn't be a guarantee that the club would do that much better than without him because intelligent opposition would cut off his supply etc.

[ISiddiqui]

Oh most definitely. Toronto had to learn this. They could drop a lot of money on players like Altidore and Bradley and then Giovinco, but it took them investing in depth players (and some intelligent coaching - they are the only team in MLS that mostly plays a 3 back, which works best for their talent pool) for them to be THIS good.

[MrBug708]

Now that the US is out, I can switch to my club side, Crystal Palace..

[MrBug708]

Arena just resigned

[Arles]

Originally Posted by MrBug708

Arena just resigned

Imagine how one character changes everything:
Arena just resigned

Change it to:
Arena just re-signed

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by MrBug708

Arena just resigned

Not like there's much reason to continue staying on through the end of his contract, but at least he did the decent thing. Now the American Outlaws etc need to put the pressure on the real problem and figure out this byzantine election system before February. Sunil Gulati Says He Won’t Resign as President of U.S. Soccer - The New York Times

“I take full responsibility,” Gulati said of the World Cup failure before adding, somewhat incongruously, a beat later, “No, I don’t plan to resign.”