Soccer Thread 2017-2018

[ISiddiqui]

I was actually going to submit Atlanta United and Arthur Blank's spending in general as exhibit A as to why saying MLS is an ponzi scheme is so ridiculous. Unless one thinks he hasn't yet been led to the inner sanctum of league finances to realize that revenues are only based on expansion fees . (Toronto can be exhibit B)

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

And those guys who can't make it in Europe are the one's who can't qualify for the World Cup as it is. Doesn't seem to be helping much.

That's actually not at all true - a lot of the smaller qualifying nations don't play in the top leagues at all.

Northern Ireland have NO players playing outside the UK and none in the English Premiership, one in the Scottish Premiership ... what they do have is good coaching and organisation.

You need to play in the top leagues to perform at the top level and win tournaments, but the US isn't there yet - they should be aspiring to be consistently reaching quarter/semi finals and qualifying for competitions at present ... the unrealistic expectations don't help them any more than they do England.

The U17 thing is nice but if most of those guys stick around MLS it doesn't matter.

U17 is very young - but its a bright spot and a lot is down to training, the MLS isn't a bad league by any stretch and I think you chaps sometimes have a downer on it.

I'd rate it on a par with the English Championship - it's quite exciting but technically not quite up there with the best.

As a breeding ground for talent I see no reason why it can't work, especially if it focussed on technical skills and movement - the Dutch league isn't the best in the world but Ajax have successfully created some superb players in their time ... because they focussed on the important skills required to compete at the top level*.

The aim is to continually improve your situation surely - that is actually easier with a well supported domestic league, yes your best players will do well to play in the best European leagues, but its unlikely in the short-term that you'll have more than a handful able to do that and its no worse them playing in the MLS than in the English Championship imho.

*I was really disappointed when Adrian Heath left Orlando City tbh because I could see what he was trying to do in terms of passing and movement in the side, the players were quite up to the style he wanted to employ - but the approach wasn't getting bad results and it was improving the players technically and when it worked it looked absolutely amazing

[bhlloy]

Bringing up Atlanta United, let's look at the lineups for their recent game vs Minnesota. Two Americans in the starting lineup and that was a 33 year old and a goalie.

It might not be a Ponzi scheme or designed to fail any time soon, but I don't see how you can argue that MLS is doing a good job of developing young American talent. Can we really not develop an American striker better than Kenwyne Jones, who last was getting run out of a lower league English championship team for not giving a shit enough (trust me on this one). Tyrone Mears played 28 games in 3 seasons for Bolton before becoming a starter in MLS. If MLS can't bring through young players better than that, is it really a good thing for US soccer?

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

I was actually going to submit Atlanta United and Arthur Blank's spending in general as exhibit A as to why saying MLS is an ponzi scheme is so ridiculous. Unless one thinks he hasn't yet been led to the inner sanctum of league finances to realize that revenues are only based on expansion fees . (Toronto can be exhibit B)

You could say much the same of most leagues in the world tbh; look at the English Premiership, most of the top teams are bankrolled by rich individuals and make no pretense at having balanced budgets ...

(Real Madrid and Chelsea are the worst offenders imho)

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by bhlloy

It might not be a Ponzi scheme or designed to fail any time soon, but I don't see how you can argue that MLS is doing a good job of developing young American talent. Can we really not develop an American striker better than Kenwyne Jones, who last was getting run out of a lower league English championship team for not giving a shit enough (trust me on this one). Tyrone Mears played 28 games in 3 seasons for Bolton before becoming a starter in MLS. If MLS can't bring through young players better than that, is it really a good thing for US soccer?

Depends on the team - average starting age is between 25-27 which considering some of the veterans in the league (age 37 etc.) isn't that high and is actually lower than some other leagues (Liga MX etc.)

Team Average Start Age Average Roster Age
Atlanta United FC 26.09 25.10
Chicago Fire 28.61 25.63
Colorado Rapids 27.61 26.54
Columbus Crew SC 26.15 24.73
DC United 27.76 26.65
FC Dallas 25.15 23.76
Houston Dynamo 27.58 26.50
LA Galaxy 26.09 26.00
Minnesota United FC 27.97 27.30
Montreal Impact 30.15 26.52
New England Revolution 26.73 26.48
New York City FC 27.36 25.27
New York Red Bulls 27.58 25.21
Orlando City SC 2 27.27 25.35
Philadelphia Union 27.27 26.32
Portland Timbers 27.55 25.88
Real Salt Lake 28.36 26.31
San Jose Earthquakes 27.70 26.30
Seattle Sounders FC 28.09 26.12
Sporting Kansas City 28.27 25.31
Toronto FC 27.61 26.22
Vancouver Whitecaps 25.79 25.93
(disclaimer - data is around 6 months old)

PS - If you contrast active Americans in the MLS to active English players in the Premiership I think you'd be pleasantly surprised .. 43% are American in the MLS, 31% of Premiership players are English.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by bhlloy

Bringing up Atlanta United, let's look at the lineups for their recent game vs Minnesota. Two Americans in the starting lineup and that was a 33 year old and a goalie.

It might not be a Ponzi scheme or designed to fail any time soon, but I don't see how you can argue that MLS is doing a good job of developing young American talent. Can we really not develop an American striker better than Kenwyne Jones, who last was getting run out of a lower league English championship team for not giving a shit enough (trust me on this one). Tyrone Mears played 28 games in 3 seasons for Bolton before becoming a starter in MLS. If MLS can't bring through young players better than that, is it really a good thing for US soccer?

Jones was only starting because Brandon Vazquez (a 20 year old American) was suspended for the game. Of course neither would have started if Josef Martinez wasn't on international duty.

Mears isn't a starter either. He lost his job to another Englishman - Antoine Walkes.

FWIW, Jeff Larentowitz, another American, is usually a starter as well (at CDM).

In addition, the usual LB was injured, that's 26 year old American Greg Garza.

Add to that 3 of the U17 starting team is from Atlanta United's academy - Andrew Carleton, Chris Goslin, and Justin Garces.

Now, the coach Tata Martino is an Argentine, so he brought in a bunch of Latin American players. As he gets to know more of the younger Americans, I can see him rotating them in (esp Carleton and Goslin before they leap to Europe).

MLS has a requirement that that a certain number of players on each team are 'domestic players'. Now these are tradeable but I believe that it averages out so each team only has 8 international spots for 22 total spots. And some domestic players have green cards so can't play for the US. But there is an emphasis on having US players on the roster. In order to develop good players you have to play against the best you can get.

[bhlloy]

I'm not sure that the English national team and Premier League is really a model you want to aim for to be honest, but sure.

And as pointed out earlier England has really competitive leagues further down the chain, which many good young players are able to get experience in while young before breaking through at Premier League level. In the US it's get MLS experience or bust and I don't think 43% is a great number overall to be honest. I think it's time for the US national soccer program to think about whether they want MLS to make lots of money or actually be a place where they can develop young American players, because things like the designated player rule and the fact there are teams putting out rosters almost completely made up of mediocre foreigners tells me they aren't going about it the right way

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

No, we aren't the same as the 80s. We actually have a growing and actually profitable D1 league and cities are actually lining up to get franchises in it. If it was such an obvious ponzi scheme, I sincerely doubt you'd have so many lining up to be a part of it. Not to mention sponsors who continue to offer more than they did before (Adidas' re-upping of the kit deal being the latest example) No matter how much Bill Halsey and Ted Westervelt wish it to be true. Not to mention that expansion fees are in order to buy an equal share of MLS LLC to begin with and it's profitable contracts (including SUM, TV deals and sponsorship deals).

If you want to reinvent the wheel and find other owners who are willing to lose hundreds of millions to build foundations of a domestic D1 league, you are welcome to try to compete, but if you want to destroy MLS to do it, then you can count me out and I'll find another country's league or another sport to follow.

It's a minor league sport as long as broadcast fees are so small. Sure they've convinced some money marks but how long is that going to last?

The problem with MLS is that they don't care about competition and they don't care about quality of play. That leaves you with a bad league and bad leagues are not going to develop many world-class players. They produce Chris Wondolowski.

[bhlloy]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Mears isn't a starter either. He lost his job to another Englishman - Antoine Walkes.

FWIW, Jeff Larentowitz, another American, is usually a starter as well (at CDM).

In addition, the usual LB was injured, that's 26 year old American Greg Garza.

Add to that 3 of the U17 starting team is from Atlanta United's academy - Andrew Carleton, Chris Goslin, and Justin Garces.

Now, the coach Tata Martino is an Argentine, so he brought in a bunch of Latin American players. As he gets to know more of the younger Americans, I can see him rotating them in (esp Carleton and Goslin before they leap to Europe).

MLS has a requirement that that a certain number of players on each team are 'domestic players'. Now these are tradeable but I believe that it averages out so each team only has 8 international spots for 22 total spots. And some domestic players have green cards so can't play for the US. But there is an emphasis on having US players on the roster. In order to develop good players you have to play against the best you can get.

Not sure how 8/22 ends up with less than 45% of the players in the league being American, so I guess there's some creativity going on with Green Cards or something.

It's also worth noting that Vazquez played all his youth soccer in Mexico, but I agree it's good that a young product of the U17 national team is getting minutes in MLS at such a young age.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Jones was only starting because Brandon Vazquez (a 20 year old American) was suspended for the game. Of course neither would have started if Josef Martinez wasn't on international duty.

Mears isn't a starter either. He lost his job to another Englishman - Antoine Walkes.

FWIW, Jeff Larentowitz, another American, is usually a starter as well (at CDM).

In addition, the usual LB was injured, that's 26 year old American Greg Garza.

Add to that 3 of the U17 starting team is from Atlanta United's academy - Andrew Carleton, Chris Goslin, and Justin Garces.

Now, the coach Tata Martino is an Argentine, so he brought in a bunch of Latin American players. As he gets to know more of the younger Americans, I can see him rotating them in (esp Carleton and Goslin before they leap to Europe).

MLS has a requirement that that a certain number of players on each team are 'domestic players'. Now these are tradeable but I believe that it averages out so each team only has 8 international spots for 22 total spots. And some domestic players have green cards so can't play for the US. But there is an emphasis on having US players on the roster. In order to develop good players you have to play against the best you can get.

Sacha Kljestan almost won the MVP of the league last year. A guy who came to MLS because he wasn't good enough to play in the Belgian First Division anymore.

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by bhlloy

I'm not sure that the English national team and Premier League is really a model you want to aim for to be honest, but sure.

I wasn't meaning them to be - but a lot of the focus here appears to be on US players needing to play in 'top leagues' ... what I was trying to indicate is that its quality of play and a consistent style for the national team which is the most important thing.

Both Irish sides do the basics really well and for that reason punch consistently above their weight, England also take a similar approach - we're unlikely to win anything (in all honesty) but we're hard to beat and in most cases go down fighting.

The US National team has to decide if they want to accept an England situation which is where they had been heading, previous US teams had been well drilled and hard to beat but lacking the movement and creative spark to move up to the very best in the World ...

Moving up to that level isn't easy and will involve some painful years while the players adapt, I'm personally not certain that the mentality of supporters here can accept that ... the English definitely can't (our media wouldn't let them have the time required before forcing a change, just look at the negative press Southgate is getting after qualifying for the World Cup with a game to spare .. why because he hasn't done it with 'style' ffs ..).

And as pointed out earlier England has really competitive leagues further down the chain, which many good young players are able to get experience in while young before breaking through at Premier League level.

This is also why the English players in general aren't 'flair' players and don't have the spark to make us truly competitive in tournaments ... the lower leagues are very physical and as such we're unlikely to develop flair players like Messi while we dump our best and brightest off on loan to them during the crucial years of their development.

(its for this reason that the English FA have been mooting having the Premiership U23 teams involved in the competitive English leagues, the U23 leagues aren't truly competitive so don't push players enough but the lower leagues aren't technical enough ... personally I hate the idea of the U23's in the lower leagues .. but I can see it coming and it will probably help the National side)

[bhlloy]

Yeah, agreed on that last point. That will be the final death knell for the lower leagues in england which will be a real shame having grown up watching nothing but division three and division four.

Try asking my best mate who is an Orient season ticket holder about it and you'll get a few four letter words thrown back in your direction

[CrescentMoonie]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

It's a minor league sport as long as broadcast fees are so small. Sure they've convinced some money marks but how long is that going to last?

Attendance has skyrocketed in recent years. The current TV deal is worth about 6x what the previous one was. And "money marks" that are a hell of a lot smarter businessmen than you, aren't going to line up to buy into something like MLS if it's not a good bet. It's pretty obvious you've got no clue how the league is doing as most of your talking points are tired, ignorant, and just plain wrong drivel that wasn't even true 10 years ago.

It does need to get better at player development, but that should be much easier now that the league is on solid financial footing, academies are in place and producing players regularly, and the USL agreement gives them reserve sides to train players competitively at a younger age.

USSF needs to stop living in a dream world and give someone with intimate knowledge of the league, and a history of developing young players, a shot to run the national team. I still say Oscar Pareja is the obvious choice.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by bhlloy

Not sure how 8/22 ends up with less than 45% of the players in the league being American, so I guess there's some creativity going on with Green Cards or something.

Well, yes, green card holders aren't necessarily citizens.

It's also worth noting that Vazquez played all his youth soccer in Mexico, but I agree it's good that a young product of the U17 national team is getting minutes in MLS at such a young age.

And Pulisic played all his youth soccer in Pennsylvania .

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Sacha Kljestan almost won the MVP of the league last year. A guy who came to MLS because he wasn't good enough to play in the Belgian First Division anymore.

A guy who started for Anderlecht, the giants of Belgium, which won the league every year he played for them, which played in Champions League every year he played for them. Where he played for a few years with a guy called Romelu Lukaku. Get out of here with that "Belgium First Division" crap - you know he played for the top team in Belgium and there is a massive difference in quality between the top teams in smaller Europeans leagues and the rest of it.

And yes, when he hit 30 he decided to come back home as he was losing playing time moving from a starter to more of a rotation guy. No shame in that.

And he almost won MLS MVP because Kljestan was actually really good (less good this season, but likely due to the RBNY trading Dax McCarthy), which earned him a call up by Klinsmann. Where Kljestan played REALLY well and had great linkup play with with Pulisic. Arena should have called him up.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

The problem with MLS is that they don't care about competition and they don't care about quality of play. That leaves you with a bad league and bad leagues are not going to develop many world-class players. They produce Chris Wondolowski.

There has been no other Division 1 soccer league that has lasted this long in the US. None. Because MLS has focused mostly on stability. I'm sure they could have focused on 'competition' and had clubs fold like previous attempts. But I'm betting that doesn't produce anyone either. And MLS also produces Deandre Yedlin and Matt Miazga, but sure focus on one player.

I also may point out (again) that the teams that beat us are chock full of MLS players. Roman Torres, who scored the goal that sealed our fate, plays in MLS. We aren't losing to European players, we are losing to MLS players.

[Young Drachma]

The fact that Bruce Arena last night and others seemed to think nothing is wrong is really the biggest sign of how wildly off track the entire program is.

No real excuse for it, but as long as the cabal mismanaging things into the hole continue to do it, things won't change.

Filling stadiums isn't evidence of league success, nor is paying most players relative peanuts or "profits" or "cities desiring to join the league."

MLS is stable in the same way that Blockbuster was. When you're the only game in town and the game is rigged because of economies of scale, it's hard to lose. MLS is just hoping to run the clock out and last long enough that no one questions anymore why they're the only league in town at the peril of player development, competition and other models.

But shrug.

[MrBug708]

Bruce has to know he's going to be fired right?

[ISiddiqui]

His contract was only through the 2018 World Cup cycle, so he's basically terminated anyway.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by CrescentMoonie

It does need to get better at player development, but that should be much easier now that the league is on solid financial footing, academies are in place and producing players regularly, and the USL agreement gives them reserve sides to train players competitively at a younger age.

I don't think most people realize that MLS is doing all of this. First they needed to get on a solid financial ground and not lose a ton of money. Since that happened, they've been investing hard in academies and USL reserve sides - but that has only been fairly recent.

As some folks have pointed out there is a hole in US talent - there aren't a lot of good players between the ages of 22 and 27, but there are quite a few really good players under 22. The US seems to be sending a few players to Germany every season (Weston McKennie, a 19 year old, is starting for Schalke this year for instance)

[MIJB#19]

Originally Posted by MrBug708

Time for the FIFA NIT! Ghana, US, Holland, and Chile.

All aboard the Iceland bandwagon.

[Bisbo]

Originally Posted by MrBug708

Time for the FIFA NIT! Ghana, US, Holland, and Chile.

lol - or at least some tournament where they give out participation trophies.

[jbergey22]

Is the USA not qualifying all that surprising? They have been mid tier national for 50 years. Mid tier national teams do lose.

Now if Panama beat Brazil that would be news.

[bob]

Originally Posted by jbergey22

Is the USA not qualifying all that surprising? They have been mid tier national for 50 years. Mid tier national teams do lose.

Now if Panama beat Brazil that would be news.

I think the shock is combo of things:
- Soccer is generally see as on the rise in the US.
- We've made every WC since 1990.
- CONCACAF is generally seen as easy to qualify from for the US.
- ESPN and others listed us as 90%+ sure to qualify.
- We lost to T&T.

[Butter]

Mid tier from a world standpoint, but top tier in this region.

At least so we thought.

[murrayyyyy]

Originally Posted by jbergey22

Is the USA not qualifying all that surprising? They have been mid tier national for 50 years. Mid tier national teams do lose.

Now if Panama beat Brazil that would be news.

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...

[jbergey22]

Originally Posted by murrayyyyy

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

Maybe they shouldnt but they do...

They lost to a worse squad last year in Guatemala.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by Young Drachma

The fact that Bruce Arena last night and others seemed to think nothing is wrong is really the biggest sign of how wildly off track the entire program is.

No real excuse for it, but as long as the cabal mismanaging things into the hole continue to do it, things won't change.

Filling stadiums isn't evidence of league success, nor is paying most players relative peanuts or "profits" or "cities desiring to join the league."

MLS is stable in the same way that Blockbuster was. When you're the only game in town and the game is rigged because of economies of scale, it's hard to lose. MLS is just hoping to run the clock out and last long enough that no one questions anymore why they're the only league in town at the peril of player development, competition and other models.

Is MLS better at these things than any other league in the US? Is MLS better than it was 5 years ago, 10 years ago, 20 years ago? Yes, vastly (I guess you could argue quality of play for 20 years ago, since they brought in a glut of high profile players at the launch.) Academies differ greatly in production,
but clearly there are some good ones like LAG, NYRB,
Seattle, Vancouver, RSL, probably Atlanta though maybe they lucked into a golden generation, and especially Dallas.

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

I don't think most people realize that MLS is doing all of this. First they needed to get on a solid financial ground and not lose a ton of money. Since that happened, they've been investing hard in academies and USL reserve sides - but that has only been fairly recent.

As some folks have pointed out there is a hole in US talent - there aren't a lot of good players between the ages of 22 and 27, but there are quite a few really good players under 22. The US seems to be sending a few players to Germany every season (Weston McKennie, a 19 year old, is starting for Schalke this year for instance)

+1

MLS has its problems, but it's improving and it's not the biggest one here. That's USSF. MLS has helped the rest of CONCACAF more than us by giving a stable league for many above average CONCACAF starters (even Mexico benefits with players like Efrain Alvarez developing in LAG's academy). It's not perfect, I wish they'd been doing this type of youth development longer, and I'm still happy if elite players with dual citizenship like Pulisic choose to jump to Champions League level teams youth systems, but I don't understand the constant desire to blame MLS for the USMNT's failures.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by CrescentMoonie

Attendance has skyrocketed in recent years. The current TV deal is worth about 6x what the previous one was. And "money marks" that are a hell of a lot smarter businessmen than you, aren't going to line up to buy into something like MLS if it's not a good bet. It's pretty obvious you've got no clue how the league is doing as most of your talking points are tired, ignorant, and just plain wrong drivel that wasn't even true 10 years ago.

Attendance means squat, especially when their ticket prices are so low. Leagues rely on broadcast fees. The TV deal is minuscule and ratings for it have been dropping from their already sad baseline.

They're convincing people to buy into the league at crazy prices under the illusion that any day now soccer is going to take off and they'll have gotten in on the ground floor. Oh and they're getting taxpayer funded stadiums too.

The league doesn't make money and shows no signs it will. So it has to keep expanding so that current owners can get a check every few years to keep the lights on. It's a bad league with bad players filled with owners who don't want to compete with one another. What's the plan to actually make it good and something people want to watch?

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Attendance means squat, especially when their ticket prices are so low. Leagues rely on broadcast fees. The TV deal is minuscule and ratings for it have been dropping from their already sad baseline.

They're convincing people to buy into the league at crazy prices under the illusion that any day now soccer is going to take off and they'll have gotten in on the ground floor. Oh and they're getting taxpayer funded stadiums too.

The league doesn't make money and shows no signs it will. So it has to keep expanding so that current owners can get a check every few years to keep the lights on. It's a bad league with bad players filled with owners who don't want to compete with one another. What's the plan to actually make it good and something people want to watch?

Yeah, this is all pretty much wrong. The TV is small, but was a substantial increase over the previous one. Ratings have been actually going up (though very small). New ownership isn't about soccer taking off any day now, but about making revenue now (maybe 10-15 years ago it was about soccer taking off any day now - but that's why they had trouble getting people to sign on for a while). The league definitely makes money. The new Adidas deal was a substantial increase from the previous deal. The Audi and Target sponsorship were massive (Target actually stopped sponsoring motorsports, including Kyle Larson's NASCAR, in order to invest in MLS). SUM makes oodles of cash and every MLS owner owns a share of it. It's actually a pretty decent league with decent players (some of whom led to Panama and Honduras getting into the World Cup and the WC Playoffs respectively) and a mix of good and bad owners (Arthur Blank, Merritt Polson are the good owners, Robert Kraft is a bad owner).

[CrescentMoonie]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Yeah, this is all pretty much wrong. The TV is small, but was a substantial increase over the previous one. Ratings have been actually going up (though very small). New ownership isn't about soccer taking off any day now, but about making revenue now (maybe 10-15 years ago it was about soccer taking off any day now - but that's why they had trouble getting people to sign on for a while). The league definitely makes money. The new Adidas deal was a substantial increase from the previous deal. The Audi and Target sponsorship were massive (Target actually stopped sponsoring motorsports, including Kyle Larson's NASCAR, in order to invest in MLS). SUM makes oodles of cash and every MLS owner owns a share of it. It's actually a pretty decent league with decent players (some of whom led to Panama and Honduras getting into the World Cup and the WC Playoffs respectively) and a mix of good and bad owners (Arthur Blank, Merritt Polson are the good owners, Robert Kraft is a bad owner).

Yeah, but all those easily verifiable facts don't change the minds of people who are legitimately 10-15 years out of touch.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by CrescentMoonie

Yeah, but all those easily verifiable facts don't change the minds of people who are legitimately 10-15 years out of touch.

Good point. I was wondering if he had kept up with the league since 2005-07. I mean there was a reason that Salt Lake City is in the league and Toronto got in for basically free. They could barely give away new teams. Wasn't until Cascadia showed the revenue potential that other cities started to really perk up and take notice.

[CrescentMoonie]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Good point. I was wondering if he had kept up with the league since 2005-07. I mean there was a reason that Salt Lake City is in the league and Toronto got in for basically free. They could barely give away new teams. Wasn't until Cascadia showed the revenue potential that other cities started to really perk up and take notice.

Yep. Orlando added something substantial as well, but Atlanta is blowing my mind. It's telling that 12 cities made big pushes to get into the league this time around for probably 4 spots (unless Miami just doesn't happen).

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Yeah, this is all pretty much wrong. The TV is small, but was a substantial increase over the previous one. Ratings have been actually going up (though very small). New ownership isn't about soccer taking off any day now, but about making revenue now (maybe 10-15 years ago it was about soccer taking off any day now - but that's why they had trouble getting people to sign on for a while). The league definitely makes money. The new Adidas deal was a substantial increase from the previous deal. The Audi and Target sponsorship were massive (Target actually stopped sponsoring motorsports, including Kyle Larson's NASCAR, in order to invest in MLS). SUM makes oodles of cash and every MLS owner owns a share of it. It's actually a pretty decent league with decent players (some of whom led to Panama and Honduras getting into the World Cup and the WC Playoffs respectively) and a mix of good and bad owners (Arthur Blank, Merritt Polson are the good owners, Robert Kraft is a bad owner).

I don't know where you're seeing that ratings are up. I've seen it going up on Univision (which is a real small deal) but elsewhere seems to be down.

MLS TV ratings down 8% compared to last season - World Soccer Talk

The All-Star game drew poorly compared to other years too.

Regardless, we're talking low 6-figures. Barely above WNBA numbers.

You can talk about sponsorship deals but major sports leagues make their money on broadcast fees. The rest is gravy. The MLS will never be a good league until they can bring in a big TV deal. And that isn't happening for a bad league with owners who don't want to compete with each other.

And that TV deal has U.S. soccer in it. Not sure the exact breakdown but don't they get like 30-40% of that TV deal?

[CrescentMoonie]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I don't know where you're seeing that ratings are up. I've seen it going up on Univision (which is a real small deal) but elsewhere seems to be down.

MLS TV ratings down 8% compared to last season - World Soccer Talk

You said the ratings had been going down for years. It was actually the opposite. This year is down, but so is everything on TV.

Also, TV money has 1, maybe 2, cycles left before it's irrelevant.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I don't know where you're seeing that ratings are up. I've seen it going up on Univision (which is a real small deal) but elsewhere seems to be down.

MLS TV ratings down 8% compared to last season - World Soccer Talk

I don't think you actually read your link, which was from April and said "The biggest decline in TV ratings has been from Univision." which you just acknowledged went up in ratings. They were likely comparing early season MLS average ratings with the average for the entire 2016 season. This is a big mistake as ratings and attendance rise during the summer months.

You can talk about sponsorship deals but major sports leagues make their money on broadcast fees. The rest is gravy.

In addition to what CresentMoonie said, you aren't looking at what is going on with the sponsorship deals:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/sport...das/534865001/

Originally Posted by USA Today

Major League Soccer announced Wednesday that the league has extended its partnership with Adidas through 2024.

The deal is worth $700 million, according to Forbes.

...

The extension provides a lot more money to the league than the last extension, which was signed in 2010 for $200 million. The two companies have been partners since 1996.

The six-year contract makes Adidas the official supplier for the league, its clubs, MLS youth academies and youth affiliated clubs, the league said.

It went from $200mil over 6 years to $700mil over 6 years from one contract to another. In other words from $33mil a year to $116mil a year. That's quite substantial.

And that TV deal has U.S. soccer in it. Not sure the exact breakdown but don't they get like 30-40% of that TV deal?

Remember how we were talking about each MLS owner owns an equal share of SUM? Though for official competitions (Gold Cup, World Cup, etc) there are separate TV deals, although SUM is the marketing arm for those as well.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

I don't think most people realize that MLS is doing all of this. First they needed to get on a solid financial ground and not lose a ton of money. Since that happened, they've been investing hard in academies and USL reserve sides - but that has only been fairly recent.

As some folks have pointed out there is a hole in US talent - there aren't a lot of good players between the ages of 22 and 27, but there are quite a few really good players under 22. The US seems to be sending a few players to Germany every season (Weston McKennie, a 19 year old, is starting for Schalke this year for instance)

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?

This leads to MLS squads filling their rosters with middling journeymen who don't require the resources to develop and are not a threat to go overseas. Grab an over-the-hill star from a top league to sell tickets and you have a formula that leads to a national team bringing on guys like 34- year old Chris Wondolowski in pivotal qualifiers.

As long as the league is structured so that teams don't have to give a shit, they will continue to not give a shit and that isn't going to create quality players.

[ISiddiqui]

Yeah, you have no idea how MLS rosters are put together these days. Marc showed earlier that the average age for MLS rosters is less than the EPL (or many other leagues)

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

[Arles]

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?

But isn't that the point of the academies? Cast a wide net on young players and potentially sell them to European clubs if a few look promising? If anything, I'd say the "greed" of the MLS is potentially good for US soccer long term as the MLS clubs are much more likely to take a European payday than try to develop the players domestically. Which, in turn, is good for the player as the US coaching/developing level is considerably worse than what a player would get overseas.

The best course of action for US soccer is for the MLS to spring up a ton of academies with the sole focus of showcasing under 17 talent. Then, let the rest of the world develop that talent from age 17+. If I ran US soccer, I'd put all my resources into youth academies and paying young players to attend. I wouldn't worry one bit about training/developing/finding talent over the age of 20. The world can handle that.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Yeah, you have no idea how MLS rosters are put together these days. Marc showed earlier that the average age for MLS rosters is less than the EPL (or many other leagues)

The MLS All-Star team had two players under 26 on it. Most of the guys in their 30's. How many great young players does the league have? How many great young players are they sending overseas to get better?

[ISiddiqui]

All Star games are always something that is skewed due to fan voting. The latest 24 under 24 is a better representation of the league:

https://www.mlssoccer.com/series/24-under-24/2017

The aforementioned Weston McKennie was from FC Dallas's academy. Matt Miazga was from RBNY. DeAndre Yedlin was from Seattle. Eric Palmer-Brown (on the list) is going to Man City. Josh Sargent is from Sporting KC's academy. So yes, the league is developing and sending young players overseas (heck, there are rumors that Atlanta United's 23 year old Miguel Almiron, who is Paraguayian, is getting $15-$20mil offers from Inter Milan and Arsenal - who tried to sign him before he came to Atlanta).

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

[MrBug708]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

The MLS All-Star team had two players under 26 on it. Most of the guys in their 30's. How many great young players does the league have? How many great young players are they sending overseas to get better?

The All Star game is not indicative of talent, it's indicative of popularity. I think last year, Dos Santos was on it before he even played an MLS game.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Arles

But isn't that the point of the academies? Cast a wide net on young players and potentially sell them to European clubs if a few look promising? If anything, I'd say the "greed" of the MLS is potentially good for US soccer long term as the MLS clubs are much more likely to take a European payday than try to develop the players domestically. Which, in turn, is good for the player as the US coaching/developing level is considerably worse than what a player would get overseas.

The best course of action for US soccer is for the MLS to spring up a ton of academies with the sole focus of showcasing under 17 talent. Then, let the rest of the world develop that talent from age 17+. If I ran US soccer, I'd put all my resources into youth academies and paying young players to attend. I wouldn't worry one bit about training/developing/finding talent over the age of 20. The world can handle that.

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.

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.

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.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

All Star games are always something that is skewed due to fan voting. The latest 24 under 24 is a better representation of the league:

24 Under 24 - 2017 RANKINGS | MLSsoccer.com

The aforementioned Weston McKennie was from FC Dallas's academy. Matt Miazga was from RBNY. DeAndre Yedlin was from Seattle. Eric Palmer-Brown (on the list) is going to Man City. Josh Sargent is from Sporting KC's academy. So yes, the league is developing and sending young players overseas (heck, there are rumors that Atlanta United's 23 year old Miguel Almiron, who is Paraguayian, is getting $15-$20mil offers from Inter Milan and Arsenal - who tried to sign him before he came to Atlanta).

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

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.

[MrBug708]

Kinda wish the beta for FM2018 comes out soon, I'd like to start another career up, but would rather just wait until the new version. I'm liking the superficial add ons they have in this next version with squad harmony

[ISiddiqui]

That 1/3 on top of expenses the team has paid helps stabilize the league, which, of course pays all non DP salaries (money which has lead to greater spending on salaries though things like Targeted Allocation Money). I am not interested in a free for all if it means teams fold. Because soon after the league goes under with it. We've seen that beat before with the NASL (and with the new version of the NASL as well). The single entity has helped to create an actual stable D1 league for the first time in US history. That stability has allowed for teams to be able to spend large amounts of money on academies and USL reserve teams. The development has arisen directly out of the stability that single entity has created.

I am not willing to give that up for pipe dreams.

Obviously, of course owners don't agree either because they are dropping tons on acadamies. Because anything beyond the $650,000 of General Allocation Money in their part can be used to pay DPs or to defray costs of investment into new academies and training facilities (that part you ignored in your calculations). Now MLS may decide to increase the GAM amounts in the future (balancing those concerns against league parity, of course - which is essential to the growth of the league in the US IMO), but I am perfectly fine with player sales benefiting the league as well as the team.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

[jbergey22]

Originally Posted by MrBug708

Kinda wish the beta for FM2018 comes out soon, I'd like to start another career up, but would rather just wait until the new version. I'm liking the superficial add ons they have in this next version with squad harmony

How was 2017 by the 3rd patch? Bought it and hardly played it. Match Engine end up being good?

[MrBug708]

I've enjoyed them all but i like them for the environment. I wish I could just truly be a director of football

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

That 1/3 on top of expenses the team has paid helps stabilize the league, which, of course pays all non DP salaries (money which has lead to greater spending on salaries though things like Targeted Allocation Money). I am not interested in a free for all if it means teams fold. Because soon after the league goes under with it. We've seen that beat before with the NASL (and with the new version of the NASL as well). The single entity has helped to create an actual stable D1 league for the first time in US history. That stability has allowed for teams to be able to spend large amounts of money on academies and USL reserve teams. The development has arisen directly out of the stability that single entity has created.

I am not willing to give that up for pipe dreams.

Obviously, of course owners don't agree either because they are dropping tons on acadamies. Because anything beyond the $650,000 of General Allocation Money in their part can be used to pay DPs or to defray costs of investment into new academies and training facilities (that part you ignored in your calculations). Now MLS may decide to increase the GAM amounts in the future (balancing those concerns against league parity, of course - which is essential to the growth of the league in the US IMO), but I am perfectly fine with player sales benefiting the league as well as the team.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

I don't think a league can grow in a system where teams are punished for being good and given no incentive to scout and develop their own talent.

If the league and owners don't care, why should fans?

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I don't think a league can grow in a system where teams are punished for being good and given no incentive to scout and develop their own talent.

And yet it has grown and teams are scouting and developing talent in droves while pushing for parity. Because a lot of us don't see it as punishment for being good, but rather making sure every team has a chance to succeed rather than a handful of teams dominating and everyone else getting left behind as happens in every single European league.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

And yet it has grown and teams are scouting and developing talent in droves while pushing for parity. Because a lot of us don't see it as punishment for being good, but rather making sure every team has a chance to succeed rather than a handful of teams dominating and everyone else getting left behind as happens in every single European league.

Those European leagues produce quality players and tons of money. The MLS produced the 5th best team in CONCACAF.