What happens after the US is out of the World Cup?

[JayBell]

The most significant thing about the former, more rigid system is that it was not going to produce players like Messi, Neymar or Ronaldo.  Or even top players below them like Van Persie, Robben, Falcao, Balotelli, etc.  The US has been producing world class goalkeepers and then good, but not great, field players.

Altering the youth development system is about opening it up to emphasize skills more than wins.  Too many youth coaches have cared about winning too much with teams of 9 and 10 year olds.  We're seeing a shift to more skills-oriented development, which is producing a golden generation of attacking talent right now.

[JayBell]

Great stuff Duke!  I've been lurking and learning in the Soccer thread, even though I haven't posted there, yet.  Unlike my past failed attempts, I've been able to google for most of my answers this time, but I'm sure I'll have plenty about Arsenal for you.  I liked them before I realized that Zelahem is on the team, so that's just a possible added bonus.

Btw, I read that Tottenham Hotspur is Arsenal's biggest rival, so I'll guess that you don't like them, either?

I actually researched all the teams playing this year, and have a few others I'll watch, too, but I'm heavily leaning toward Arsenal at this time.  So far, the team I dislike the most is Chelsea, but I'm sure that'll change.

A big part of it is emotional, so you can't always explain it.  I've never had a specific team that I pull for in the EPL, but my father and I have always had an affinity for Tottenham Hotspur.  Some fans latched onto Liverpool, Manchester United and Chelsea because they were always successful.  I like Arsenal's style and the attacking verve of Manchester City, but I'm also always going to pull for Everton, where Tim Howard currently plays.

The Toffees are kind of like the (San Antonio) Spurs of England because they go about things the right way.  I used to really enjoy watching Aston Villa (where Brad Guzan plays) and Fulham because they always had several Americans on the team.  I don't think it's any coincidence that the Cottagers were relegated the first season in a decade that they didn't have any Americans on the team.  The good thing now is that American 18 year old Emerson Hyndman will likely be able to get first team minutes with Fulham in the second division.

That said, many Americans have also become fans of Newcastle, Blackpool, West Ham United, Swansea City, etc.  Jozy Altidore is stuck at Sunderland, which might have the dumbest most crass fans in all of England.

[JayBell]

If you want to pick a team in MLS, obviously you might want to pick the closest team in the region.  If you're in Arkansas, FC Dallas will let you down.  They field a good team at times, but the stadium in Frisco is in the bottom half of the league in terms of quality and atmosphere.  Sporting Kansas City and the Houston Dynamo have much better stadiums, fans and traditionally better teams.

If you just want teams that are fun to watch, the Los Angeles Galaxy, Seattle Sounders, Real Salt Lake, New York Red Bulls and now Toronto FC field some of the most talented teams in MLS.

[DukeOfPork]

Great stuff Duke!  I've been lurking and learning in the Soccer thread, even though I haven't posted there, yet.  Unlike my past failed attempts, I've been able to google for most of my answers this time, but I'm sure I'll have plenty about Arsenal for you.  I liked them before I realized that Zelahem is on the team, so that's just a possible added bonus.

Btw, I read that Tottenham Hotspur is Arsenal's biggest rival, so I'll guess that you don't like them, either?

I actually researched all the teams playing this year, and have a few others I'll watch, too, but I'm heavily leaning toward Arsenal at this time.  So far, the team I dislike the most is Chelsea, but I'm sure that'll change.

Sure, I dislike Spurs, but I'm not going to pretend that I have some burning hatred for them like I would if I lived in North London, where the two clubs' supporters intermingle with (and harass) each other on a daily basis.

I loathe Man United and Chelsea much more than Spurs.  We basically own Spurs, so I find it hard to be as passionate about them.  There's really nothing to like about ManU, in my mind.  And Chelsea and Man City have risen to prominence through egregious overspending by billionaire sugar daddies, so they are very easy to root against.

I would gladly root for Spurs against any of those clubs.

[JayBell]

If this is true:

that is a good measure of how far MLS has come.

It is very true.  I've been to several of them, Dallas included.  Pizza Hut Park was one of the earliest stadiums and corporate sponsored deals in MLS.  It was huge back in the day.  But it was also built in the same mold as other early MLS stadiums such as Crew Stadium in Colombus, Ohio; Toyota Park in Bridgeview, Illinois; and Dick Sporting Goods Park in Commerce City, Colorado.  Those stadiums were built in the suburbs, away from downtown populations and with concert stages at one end of the field.

That model is dead and gone.  Red Bull Arena, Sporting Park, Rio Tinto Stadium, BMO Field, Providence Park, BBVA Compass Stadium, Saputo Stadium and PPL Park were all designed specifically for soccer and creating a great atmosphere for the home team.  That's the model NYC FC, Orlando City SC and a potential team in Miami are trying to follow.

CenturyLink Field in Seattle and BC Place in Vancouver are football stadiums, but they undergo huge changes for soccer matches to shrink the setting to match the smaller crowd for soccer.  That is the model Atlanta will follow in Arthur Blank's new sports mecca.

[JayBell]

The last great battlefield for MLS legitimacy is getting the New England Revolution and DC United into their own damn stadiums, preferably in downtown.  Soccer clubs in downtown Boston and D.C. would have outstanding support.  Attendance could easily top 20,000 at both of them.

When that happens, you'll probably see a shift to a true MLS 3.0 with great home support everywhere in the league and higher spending on everything, including player salaries.

[TX HOG]

If this is true:

that is a good measure of how far MLS has come. 

Frisco is a fun place. Right outside Dallas. The rangers AA squad is there, nice stadium. Also, I think the Cowboys are moving there facilities out there. If FC Dallas would put out a good product and promote it, it would draw good crowds.

[JayBell]

Frisco is a fun place. Right outside Dallas. The rangers AA squad is there, nice stadium. Also, I think the Cowboys are moving there facilities out there. If FC Dallas would put out a good product and promote it, it would draw good crowds.

They get good crowds at times, but FC Dallas is definitely one of the worst in the league at advertising and connecting with fans.

The good thing is that the growth in the DFW area will make Frisco a prime soccer location in about 10-15 years.  Maybe the organization or its new owners will learn how to fix it by then.

[Deep Shoat]

Classy.  Go ahead and resort to insults even though everyone who actually knows what they are talking about are telling you that you're wrong.

So you are telling me we don't need better athletes with better skills?

Your argument is ridiculous.  If you give great athletes the training you are talking about, they will be better than the current crop.

As to "it doesn't work for Africa", they neither have American talent nor American resources.  As for Brazil, they actually PROVE my point.  That's why they are consistently in the top few teams in the world.  And the best athletes in Brazil are still inferior to American athletes.  Probably approximating our 2nd tier.

Take superior athletes and give them lifelong training (i.e. Take soccer to the ghetto) and you get a world class team.

Arguing otherwise is just plain stupid.

[DukeOfPork]

So you are telling me we don't need better athletes with better skills?

Yes, we absolutely need players with better "soccer skills". 

But we already have "athleticism" that is comparable - or superior - to the teams that are beating us.

Possessing "soccer skills" appears to have very little correlation with race.  Raw athleticism is a big plus, but it is way down the list of priorities when putting a soccer team together.

Would it be a benefit to us if we could magically get inner city kids to be obsessed with soccer?

Absolutely. 

And I do believe that is one component to improving the USMNT.  But I'm just as interested in small town schools across the US fielding teams and developing players because great soccer players are just as likely to come from other places. 

I just don't see us being able to "racially engineer" our USMNT.  If participation levels were the same across all demographics, I don't believe you would see one race dominating this game in the way that you see with basketball and football.

How do I know this?  Look around the world and you will see tremendous diversity among the elite players.  A group of white dudes just smoked the entire world and won the cup, despite not being as "athletic" as other teams.

[Deep Shoat]

Yes, we absolutely need players with better "soccer skills". 

But we already have "athleticism" that is comparable - or superior - to the teams that are beating us.

Possessing "soccer skills" appears to have very little correlation with race.  Raw athleticism is a big plus, but it is way down the list of priorities when putting a soccer team together.

Would it be a benefit to us if we could magically get inner city kids to be obsessed with soccer?

Absolutely. 

And I do believe that is one component to improving the USMNT.  But I'm just as interested in small town schools across the US fielding teams and developing players because great soccer players are just as likely to come from other places. 

I just don't see us being able to "racially engineer" our USMNT.  If participation levels were the same across all demographics, I don't believe you would see one race dominating this game in the way that you see with basketball and football.

How do I know this?  Look around the world and you will see tremendous diversity among the elite players.  A group of white dudes just smoked the entire world and won the cup, despite not being as "athletic" as other teams.

It's truly like you guys are only reading a tiny portion of what I am typing. 

Obviously skill overcomes athleticism, as long as a certain level of athlete is in play.  But, if you combine that athleticism with a similar level of skill, then the pendulum would swing the other way.

And that is why we need soccer to matter in Pine Bluff and Detroit and Miami-Dade more than we need it to matter in Y City and Poteua and Muleshoe.  Because, ultimately, if you just get the same type of athletes as the Germans, there technical brilliance and years of experience will keep winning.  Or Brazil will, because they have lifetime dedication and better athletes. 

We change the paradigm by reaching into the areas where we have the best athletes, and taking the kids who aren't quite good enough to play football or basketball, and training them. 

Athletes with skills.  Who knew...

[DukeOfPork]

It's truly like you guys are only reading a tiny portion of what I am typing. 

Obviously skill overcomes athleticism, as long as a certain level of athlete is in play.  But, if you combine that athleticism with a similar level of skill, then the pendulum would swing the other way.

And that is why we need soccer to matter in Pine Bluff and Detroit and Miami-Dade more than we need it to matter in Y City and Poteua and Muleshoe.  Because, ultimately, if you just get the same type of athletes as the Germans, there technical brilliance and years of experience will keep winning.  Or Brazil will, because they have lifetime dedication and better athletes. 

We change the paradigm by reaching into the areas where we have the best athletes, and taking the kids who aren't quite good enough to play football or basketball, and training them. 

Athletes with skills.  Who knew...

95% skill
5% athleticism

Sure, I'm all for maximizing that 5% as much as we can.  But I'm more interested in maximizing the 95%.

And for that, you need to cast a wide net, which includes Detroit and Miami as well as rural and suburban areas.

[DukeOfPork]

Excellent article in the Guardian today about the US:

http://www.theguardian.com/football/blog/2014/jul/15/america-world-cup-brazil-soccer

[Hogsooey]

As for Brazil, they actually PROVE my point.  That's why they are consistently in the top few teams in the world.  And the best athletes in Brazil are still inferior to American athletes.  Probably approximating our 2nd tier.

Almost all male Brazilians play soccer.  As Leandro Barbosa said, if you are not playing soccer in Brazil, people think there must be something wrong with you.  Oh yeah, Barbosa is an NBA player who gave up soccer and was considered one of, if not the, fastest and quickest players in the NBA in his 20s.  Anyway, it's been claimed that something like 10,000 Brazilians play soccer professionally around the world.  With most of their athletes playing soccer (and then volleyball... they've dominated the World Championships lately), how did you arrive at your opinion that their athletes are inferior to American athletes and are second tier (whatever that means)?

[DukeOfPork]

A couple more Guardian links for US fans here.

Guardian picks Beckerman as a good value for EPL clubs needing midfield help:
http://www.theguardian.com/football/blog/2014/jul/15/world-cup-2014-transfer-transfers-premier-league

Kyle Beckerman, USA and Real Salt Lake
Beckerman stood out for the USA, and not just because of the incredible dreadlocks. He was one of the most impressive holding midfielders, with precise passing (89% accuracy), high work-rate (covering 11km per game) and diligent tackling (his 18 tackles were the fourth most by any player in the tournament despite only playing three games). At 32 he's no spring chicken, but equally that means he won't break the bank and offers the chance to crack the potentially lucrative US market, offering a useful short term midfield fix to a host of Premier League strugglers.


Tim Howard makes the Guardian's "Best XI" from the World Cup:
http://www.theguardian.com/football/blog/2014/jul/15/world-cup-statistics-best-howard-messi-neymar-robben-muller

"...one of many standout performers, with Tim Howard's heroic display in USA's last-16 clash with Belgium among the most memorable of the tournament. The Everton keeper made 15 saves in one of the finest matches at this World Cup – the most by any keeper in a single match – to earn one of only two perfect 10 ratings at the tournament."

[JayBell]

A couple more Guardian links for US fans here.

Guardian picks Beckerman as a good value for EPL clubs needing midfield help:
http://www.theguardian.com/football/blog/2014/jul/15/world-cup-2014-transfer-transfers-premier-league

Kyle Beckerman, USA and Real Salt Lake
Beckerman stood out for the USA, and not just because of the incredible dreadlocks. He was one of the most impressive holding midfielders, with precise passing (89% accuracy), high work-rate (covering 11km per game) and diligent tackling (his 18 tackles were the fourth most by any player in the tournament despite only playing three games). At 32 he's no spring chicken, but equally that means he won't break the bank and offers the chance to crack the potentially lucrative US market, offering a useful short term midfield fix to a host of Premier League strugglers.

It shows how crazy good Beckerman was that, at age 32, he's drawing the first significant interest of his entire career.  And he's been on the map in US Soccer since he was 17.

I guess it was a good decision for Klinsmann to bench him against Belgium...

[JayBell]

Tim Howard makes the Guardian's "Best XI" from the World Cup:
http://www.theguardian.com/football/blog/2014/jul/15/world-cup-statistics-best-howard-messi-neymar-robben-muller

"...one of many standout performers, with Tim Howard's heroic display in USA's last-16 clash with Belgium among the most memorable of the tournament. The Everton keeper made 15 saves in one of the finest matches at this World Cup – the most by any keeper in a single match – to earn one of only two perfect 10 ratings at the tournament."

I'm so glad that Howard got to "make up" for four years ago.  He was good in South Africa, but he was hampered by his injury.  He was able to show Americans and the world the true breadth of his greatness.

The exclusion of Howard and Ochoa from the final three of the Golden Glove award was disgraceful.  They should at least clarify that you have to make it to the quarterfinals to be considered if they're going to screw over two of the best GKs in the tournament.

[JayBell]

It's truly like you guys are only reading a tiny portion of what I am typing. 

Obviously skill overcomes athleticism, as long as a certain level of athlete is in play.  But, if you combine that athleticism with a similar level of skill, then the pendulum would swing the other way.

And that is why we need soccer to matter in Pine Bluff and Detroit and Miami-Dade more than we need it to matter in Y City and Poteua and Muleshoe.  Because, ultimately, if you just get the same type of athletes as the Germans, there technical brilliance and years of experience will keep winning.  Or Brazil will, because they have lifetime dedication and better athletes. 

We change the paradigm by reaching into the areas where we have the best athletes, and taking the kids who aren't quite good enough to play football or basketball, and training them. 

Athletes with skills.  Who knew...

Unfortunately, we are reading all of it.  It's painful, but we're reading it.

And you're reducing it to racial and economic talking points that are not accurate.  You say US Soccer NEEDS soccer "to matter in Pine Bluff and Detroit and Miami-Dade."  It doesn't.  Plain and simple.

The US could trot out a bunch of "preppy white boys" in 20 years and have a chance to win the World Cup as long as they receive the best training.

[JayBell]

That's the appeal of soccer.  You don't have to be an elite athlete to be an elite soccer player.  There is not a direct link in soccer with athleticism as there is in football and basketball.

What US Soccer needs is for more kids to understand that you can make millions of dollars playing soccer right here in America.  Between the financial appeal of a pro career and the lower risk of catastrophic injuries compared to football, you're going to see more and more participation.

What US Soccer needs is for all of the 5'8", 140 pound kids to give up on their NFL and NBA dreams a lot sooner in life and realize that a viable soccer career is far more attainable.

[coastalrazorback]

SB Nation put up an article titled the 2014 World Cup made soccer mainstream. There are quite a few interesting statistics in how the ratings for this year's cup compared to the other major sports in America, you can read it here:

http://www.sbnation.com/soccer/2014/7/15/5899727/world-cup-2014-ratings

My favorite quote comes at the end. It is in reference to the people that loudly proclaim that they are happy that the nation will go back to not caring about soccer again:

"Sure, go ahead and stop paying attention to soccer; just don't expect the rest of the country to join you."

[redeye]

A big part of it is emotional, so you can't always explain it.  I've never had a specific team that I pull for in the EPL, but my father and I have always had an affinity for Tottenham Hotspur.  Some fans latched onto Liverpool, Manchester United and Chelsea because they were always successful.  I like Arsenal's style and the attacking verve of Manchester City, but I'm also always going to pull for Everton, where Tim Howard currently plays.

The Toffees are kind of like the (San Antonio) Spurs of England because they go about things the right way.  I used to really enjoy watching Aston Villa (where Brad Guzan plays) and Fulham because they always had several Americans on the team.  I don't think it's any coincidence that the Cottagers were relegated the first season in a decade that they didn't have any Americans on the team.  The good thing now is that American 18 year old Emerson Hyndman will likely be able to get first team minutes with Fulham in the second division.

That said, many Americans have also become fans of Newcastle, Blackpool, West Ham United, Swansea City, etc.  Jozy Altidore is stuck at Sunderland, which might have the dumbest most crass fans in all of England.

The emotional part is what I have to develop, because I have no affinity for any team, yet.  You named most of the teams on my list to follow, so now I just need to build a connection.  Following players on the USMNT will help in that regard.

With MLS, I'm interested in Kansas City and Seattle, so I have a competitive team in each conference.  Might also check out Montreal and Vancouver.

[redeye]

Sure, I dislike Spurs, but I'm not going to pretend that I have some burning hatred for them like I would if I lived in North London, where the two clubs' supporters intermingle with (and harass) each other on a daily basis.

I loathe Man United and Chelsea much more than Spurs.  We basically own Spurs, so I find it hard to be as passionate about them.  There's really nothing to like about ManU, in my mind.  And Chelsea and Man City have risen to prominence through egregious overspending by billionaire sugar daddies, so they are very easy to root against.

I would gladly root for Spurs against any of those clubs.

So, they're the New York Yankees of the EPL?  I caught your post on that in the soccer thread and that's one of the reasons why I don't think I'd like Chelsea.

[redeye]

Almost all male Brazilians play soccer.  As Leandro Barbosa said, if you are not playing soccer in Brazil, people think there must be something wrong with you.  Oh yeah, Barbosa is an NBA player who gave up soccer and was considered one of, if not the, fastest and quickest players in the NBA in his 20s.  Anyway, it's been claimed that something like 10,000 Brazilians play soccer professionally around the world.  With most of their athletes playing soccer (and then volleyball... they've dominated the World Championships lately), how did you arrive at your opinion that their athletes are inferior to American athletes and are second tier (whatever that means)?

Brazil also has a population that's two-thirds the size of the US, so it's not like they're a small country, either.

[redeye]

Your argument is ridiculous.  If you give great athletes the training you are talking about, they will be better than the current crop.

As to "it doesn't work for Africa", they neither have American talent nor American resources.  As for Brazil, they actually PROVE my point.  That's why they are consistently in the top few teams in the world.  And the best athletes in Brazil are still inferior to American athletes.  Probably approximating our 2nd tier.

Take superior athletes and give them lifelong training (i.e. Take soccer to the ghetto) and you get a world class team.

I agree with you on one thing.  We have players with enough athleticism to win a World Cup.  We also have the resources to make that happen.   But I don't think you have the respect for the skills needed to accomplish that goal.

It's not something you can just teach and then expect the player to grasp well enough to become a world class player.  I think that's the attitude we've had for years and we hit our ceiling long ago.  We often hear about football players with skills that can't be taught and I think that's always true for a world class soccer player. 

[redeye]

Excellent article in the Guardian today about the US:

http://www.theguardian.com/football/blog/2014/jul/15/america-world-cup-brazil-soccer

There's an interesting comment for that article and it relates somewhat to our discussion here.  The first part/sentence is a quote from the article:

Most Americans who follow soccer now wouldn't quibble with the idea that the United States will win – or at least play in – a World Cup final in our lifetime.

I think that's up there with Pele's "an African team will win the world cup before the end of the 20th century". Semi-finals maybe.

[redeye]

That's the appeal of soccer.  You don't have to be an elite athlete to be an elite soccer player.  There is not a direct link in soccer with athleticism as there is in football and basketball.

Elite athletes may be faster, but they still can't outrun the ball.  That's probably more applicable with soccer then any other sport.

[DukeOfPork]

So, they're the New York Yankees of the EPL?  I caught your post on that in the soccer thread and that's one of the reasons why I don't think I'd like Chelsea.

Yep.  Man City = Chelsea = NY Yankees.

Except buying a championship in the EPL is more of a sure thing than in the MLB.

[redeye]

SB Nation put up an article titled the 2014 World Cup made soccer mainstream. There are quite a few interesting statistics in how the ratings for this year's cup compared to the other major sports in America, you can read it here:

http://www.sbnation.com/soccer/2014/7/15/5899727/world-cup-2014-ratings

My favorite quote comes at the end. It is in reference to the people that loudly proclaim that they are happy that the nation will go back to not caring about soccer again:

"Sure, go ahead and stop paying attention to soccer; just don't expect the rest of the country to join you."

I'll disagree somewhat with this part:

The games, it should be said, weren't be played at the most convenient times either. For every weekend game, there were five in the middle of the week and for every game comfortably after work, there were two smack dab in the middle of the day.

I've watched too many WC's in the middle of the night to agree with that statement.

[redeye]

Yep.  Man City = Chelsea = NY Yankees.

Except buying a championship in the EPL is more of a sure thing than in the MLB.

Eh, hate to hear that it's so easy.  Is there a salary cap for players and/or teams?

[coastalrazorback]

I'll disagree somewhat with this part:

I've watched too many WC's in the middle of the night to agree with that statement.

Russia in 2018 is going to be a pain.

[DukeOfPork]

Eh, hate to hear that it's so easy.  Is there a salary cap for players and/or teams?

No salary cap.  Europe has just recently started to implement "Financial Fair Play" rules (FFP).  There is a lot of skepticism as to whether this will actually rein in the outlandish spending, but it can't hurt.

You still have to manage the big money primadonnas, so it isn't "easy".  And you have to beat the other top spending clubs.  But if you aren't one of the big spending clubs, the likelihood of winning the EPL is almost nil.  Arsenal are the only financially sane club that remains within reach of the top on a yearly basis, but they have not won it for 10 years now.  Arsenal remained top of the table for over half of the season last year, but faded badly after injuries. 

Here is a Net Spend comparison of the clubs from 1992 to 2010:



Man City has continued to go nuts, so those numbers are different now.  Over a selected 5 year period, Man City spent £430 million while Arsenal spent -£31 million (yes, NEGATIVE).  Yet City only have one championship during that time.

http://hereisthecity.com/en-gb/2012/03/29/the-staggering-disparities-of-the-premier-league-top-10-by-net-s/

We all know Manchester City are flush with wealth, but until the figures are laid bare, it is often difficult to appreciate the scale of their spending power.

Here is the Premier League table alternate top 10, by net spend, for figures over the past five seasons, from 2007/08 to 2011/12.

Manchester City: £430.77 million

Chelsea: £159.7 million

Liverpool: £99.25 million

Sunderland: £57.6 million

Tottenham Hotspur: £49.4 million

Manchester United: £47.25 million

Swansea City: £8.25 million

Everton: £5 million

Newcastle United: -£30.25 million

Arsenal: -£31.3 million

[coastalrazorback]

Do the other major European leagues such as La Liga, Serie A, Bundesliga, etc. have the same structure as the EPL or is there more parity?

[JayBell]

Do the other major European leagues such as La Liga, Serie A, Bundesliga, etc. have the same structure as the EPL or is there more parity?

European leagues have always been top heavy, but the glass ceiling for smaller teams has risen over the past 20 years because of the Champions League.  It pumps money into the same clubs year after year after year.  Sometimes there is more parity, especially when a major club falls off, but it's nothing like American sports.

You know that pretty much every season only 3-5 teams have a legitimate chance of winning the league:
EPL, England: Manchester City, Chelsea, Liverpool, Arsenal, Manchester United.
La Liga, Spain: Barcelona, Real Madrid, Atletico Madrid and maaaaaaaaybe a push by Sevilla or Valencia.
Bundesliga, Germany: Bayern Munich, Borussia Dortmund, Schalke and maaaaaaaaybe a push by Bayer Leverkusen.
Serie A, Italy: Juventus, AC Milan, Napoli (Inter Milan dominated the league for the longest time, but has fallen off).
Ligue 1, France: Paris Saint-Germain, Lyon, Marseille, Lille and now AS Monaco because of a rich foreign owner.
Eredivisie, Netherlands: Ajax, Feyenoord, Twente, PSV.
Portuguese Liga, Portugal: Benfica, Porto, Sporting Lisbon.
Jupiler Pro League, Belgium: Anderlecht, Brugge, Standard Liege.

It's the same in Greece, Turkey, Russia, Ukraine and the rest of Europe.  That's why I put MLS ahead of most of those leagues because there is quality across all 19 teams in MLS.  Some of those leagues, Portugal for example, have some truly great top teams. Benfica, Porto and Lisbon can compete with the best clubs in the world.  The middle and especially the bottom teams are truly, truly horrid.  But that's what makes the Champions League so competitive is that the top teams from across the continent can compete with each other.

The league with the most parity in Europe is probably Denmark, but I think MLS has passed it in terms of quality over the last five years.  Tons of American players used to play in Scandinavia because they could get paid more and compete at a similar level.  MLS offers a better situation now.

[DukeOfPork]

Do the other major European leagues such as La Liga, Serie A, Bundesliga, etc. have the same structure as the EPL or is there more parity?

No.

Here's an interesting concept: Americans are OBSESSED with stamping out socialism.  When Obama was running for President, all you heard was "Socialist!!  Socialist!!" 

Yet when it comes to sports, we run ALL of our leagues as socialist systems.  We absolutely embrace that ideology.  We even penalize winning teams in the drafts by making them pick last.

The rest of the World doesn't see socialist principles as being evil like we tend to, yet when it comes to soccer leagues every single one of them has a couple behemoth clubs that absolutely dominate their "fiefdoms".

Man United, Chelsea, and Man City are the only EPL winners in the last decade.

Real Madrid and Barcelona dominate La Liga.

AC Milan, Inter Milan, and Juventus have always dominated Serie A.

etc.

MLS is the only soccer league in the world that tells their clubs how much they can spend.

[coastalrazorback]

Thanks for the info Duke and Jay. Do you think that there will be a significant cap increase for the MLS in the near future?

[JayBell]

Btw, since the discussion about development drifted towards skills and athleticism, we never mentioned the No. 1 factor in soccer development: the archaic "pay to play" model.

Soccer for a lot of kids in this country has been too expensive for their families.  That doesn't just eliminate kids from the ghetto, but the financial constraints have kept a lot of middle class kids from playing as well.

Soccer players have faced similar obstacles at the college and minor league level.  A guy on Twitter said last night that he turned down an offer from USL Pro a couple of years ago because he did not see it as a sustainable career decision, financially.  Other people commented that it cost them thousands of dollars every year to either play club or college soccer.

My favorite comment was from @tempofreesoccer: "@FutbolIntellect we absolutely have a Robben playing PG at a JC and a Kompany working at Home Depot."  It speaks to the difficulty of not only developing top soccer talent, but also finding it in the first place and keeping them in the sport.

We need to remove all of the financial obstacles that keep others from sticking with the sport longer to create a deeper talent pool.  Again, I think those moves are being made.  They just take time.

[JayBell]

Thanks for the info Duke and Jay. Do you think that there will be a significant cap increase for the MLS in the near future?

Yes, the next CBA negotiations are coming up at the end of this season.  They were able to increase the salary cap to $3.5 million in 2011.  That's really low, but MLS' complicated system allows for a ton of exemptions, including homegrown players and Designated Players.  So, realistically, Toronto FC's payroll is like north of $16 million, but they're under the salary cap.

The thing is, the value of MLS clubs has drastically increased over the last 5 years.  The Columbus Crew, one of the lowest valued teams in the league, was sold for nearly $70 million last year.  The league bought Chivas USA back from its terrible owner for $75 million, I believe.  The expansion fee for NYC FC was $100 million.

The league can't act like it doesn't have any money anymore.  Mexican teams probably spend an average of $15 million on salary.  Only the lowest EPL teams spend less than $20 million per season.

The salary cap will get a bump this year, but it's probably not going to go up as much as we all want.  MLS likely will not be able to meet some of its lofty expectations until the salary cap is at or around $10 million and the number of Designated Players per team is increased from 3 to 5.

[DukeOfPork]

Jay, you are totally right about that.  But kids sports in America are a huge industry. 

I have friends who have a son that is an excellent baseball player.  They spend thousands and thousands of dollars traveling for 4-5 months each year, playing in meaningless tournaments with huge entry fees who then charge the parents admission to watch their kids play.  They will spend two days doing round robin play and then NO TEAMS GET ELIMINATED.  They then seed them and play double elimination even though you already know who is going to lose.  They just want you there for more days so they can make more money off of your ridiculous competitive nature.

This team he is on had had their @sses handed to them all Summer, yet they are going to something called the "World Series" in Iowa today. 

How did they "qualify", you ask?  Because they paid the steep entry fee.  It's a racket.

This is American kids sports.  It is an INDUSTRY that is based on people making money.  Soccer is just another sport that has been exploited in this way.

[JayBell]

Jay, you are totally right about that.  But kids sports in America are a huge industry. 

I have friends who have a son that is an excellent baseball player.  They spend thousands and thousands of dollars traveling for 4-5 months each year, playing in meaningless tournaments with huge entry fees who then charge the parents admission to watch their kids play.  They will spend two days doing round robin play and then NO TEAMS GET ELIMINATED.  They then seed them and play double elimination even though you already know who is going to lose.  They just want you there for more days so they can make more money off of your ridiculous competitive nature.

This team he is on had had their @sses handed to them all Summer, yet they are going to something called the "World Series" in Iowa today. 

How did they "qualify", you ask?  Because they paid the steep entry fee.  It's a racket.

This is American kids sports.  It is an INDUSTRY that is based on people making money.  Soccer is just another sport that has been exploited in this way.

Great points.  I think it just affects soccer more because it's not as institutional and readily available as football, basketball and baseball.  Those three sports are generally available at every single school district.  That isn't the case with soccer.

It's about casting a wider net if we're going to compete with Brazil, Spain, Germany, Argentina and Italy.

[DukeOfPork]

Great points.  I think it just affects soccer more because it's not as institutional and readily available as football, basketball and baseball.  Those three sports are generally available at every single school district.  That isn't the case with soccer.

It's about casting a wider net if we're going to compete with Brazil, Spain, Germany, Argentina and Italy.

Yeah, that's my thoughts exactly.  The diamonds in the rough are eventually unearthed in baseball, football and basketball, regardless of socioeconomic status due to the institutionalization of those sports on the high school level.

Soccer doesn't have that.  I can see where a lower income family could get priced out of the market in soccer, whereas a great football player can at least play high school ball for next to nothing and get noticed by colleges, where he could in turn get noticed by the NFL.

[coastalrazorback]

Jay, you are totally right about that.  But kids sports in America are a huge industry. 

I have friends who have a son that is an excellent baseball player.  They spend thousands and thousands of dollars traveling for 4-5 months each year, playing in meaningless tournaments with huge entry fees who then charge the parents admission to watch their kids play.  They will spend two days doing round robin play and then NO TEAMS GET ELIMINATED.  They then seed them and play double elimination even though you already know who is going to lose.  They just want you there for more days so they can make more money off of your ridiculous competitive nature.

This team he is on had had their @sses handed to them all Summer, yet they are going to something called the "World Series" in Iowa today. 

How did they "qualify", you ask?  Because they paid the steep entry fee.  It's a racket.

This is American kids sports.  It is an INDUSTRY that is based on people making money.  Soccer is just another sport that has been exploited in this way.

There was recently an elite girls basketball tournament in Nashville with $2500 entry fee for the teams, and $500 fee for college coaching packets (allowing college coaches to do scouting more or less). Approximately 100 teams entered. Highway robbery.

[coastalrazorback]

Coastalrazorback,

Jay and Duke have pretty much answered your question but one thing I'd add to this is FIFA's Financial Fair Play (FFP).  Click here for a bit of info on this recent change. 

FFP is an attempt to return (at least a modicum) of financial sanity to the game.  As Jay documented earlier, a good number of leagues really have only a handful of teams with the resources to win the league (resources including, but not limited to, access to cash).  FFP (among other things) is an attempt to decrease the likelihood of a team 'buying its way to a title'. 

Spain's La Liga is in a financial mess because Real Madrid and Barcelona pretty much spend money like drunken sailor on liberty.  Other teams in the league have nowhere near the resources these two teams do and a day of financial reckoning is thought to be at hand.

FFP is an attempt to address the financial issues faced by the European leagues.  The problem is, FFP (on its own) may not be a sufficient solution.

As an aside, while I hate citing Wikipedia for anything, check this out for more info on FFP.   

Thanks for the info, and never be ashamed to use wikipedia. 

The debt that some of those teams are going into is shocking.

[redeye]

No.

Here's an interesting concept: Americans are OBSESSED with stamping out socialism.  When Obama was running for President, all you heard was "Socialist!!  Socialist!!" 

Yet when it comes to sports, we run ALL of our leagues as socialist systems.  We absolutely embrace that ideology.  We even penalize winning teams in the drafts by making them pick last.

The rest of the World doesn't see socialist principles as being evil like we tend to, yet when it comes to soccer leagues every single one of them has a couple behemoth clubs that absolutely dominate their "fiefdoms".

Man United, Chelsea, and Man City are the only EPL winners in the last decade.

Real Madrid and Barcelona dominate La Liga.

AC Milan, Inter Milan, and Juventus have always dominated Serie A.

etc.

MLS is the only soccer league in the world that tells their clubs how much they can spend.

I've noticed the irony with American political views and sports, but didn't realize money was such a big factor for success in Europe.  So, is it purely pay to play?  MLB has farm systems and salary restrictions that prevent the wealthiest clubs from winning every year, but there's nothing similar in Europe?

I'm learning a lot here.

[JayBell]

I've noticed the irony with American political views and sports, but didn't realize money was such a big factor for success in Europe.  So, is it purely pay to play?  MLB has farm systems and salary restrictions that prevent the wealthiest clubs from winning every year, but there's nothing similar in Europe?

They're trying to curtail it with the FFP stuff, but it's not working yet.  If it ever does work, it'll be a while from now.

Right now Chelsea can pay higher transfer fees and wages than most everyone else.  They have so much money that they end up loaning up literally dozens of their players to other top players.  Chelsea, Manchester City and some other clubs own the rights to enough quality players to fill the rosters of multiple Champions League teams.

[DukeOfPork]

They're trying to curtail it with the FFP stuff, but it's not working yet.  If it ever does work, it'll be a while from now.

Right now Chelsea can pay higher transfer fees and wages than most everyone else.  They have so much money that they end up loaning up literally dozens of their players to other top players.  Chelsea, Manchester City and some other clubs own the rights to enough quality players to fill the rosters of multiple Champions League teams.

Yes, this is a concept that is very difficult for American fans to grasp.  It is extremely common for big clubs to buy up emerging stars that they don't currently need and then loan them out to get experience.

Embrace that, Redeye!

[DukeOfPork]

I've noticed the irony with American political views and sports, but didn't realize money was such a big factor for success in Europe.  So, is it purely pay to play?  MLB has farm systems and salary restrictions that prevent the wealthiest clubs from winning every year, but there's nothing similar in Europe?

I'm learning a lot here.

Here's another way that foreign soccer leagues are more "American" than American sports leagues are:  RELEGATION.

If your club doesn't cut it and finishes in the bottom three spots of the Premier League, you go down.  You have to demonstrate an ability to compete or you are cast aside.  If you don't compete in the lower league, then you go down another level: two leagues down, etc.

Meanwhile, American sports franchises have a cushy position where their owners make loads of money and never have to even pretend that they are trying to win.

I grew up as a KC Royals fan.  They were good when I was a kid, but then the owner died.  When Wal-Mart's David Glass took over, he ran it like Wal-Mart, slashing salaries, acting as a feeder club for the Yankees and others, offloading players when they entered their prime, and keeping the team at THE VERY BOTTOM OF THE LEAGUE.  Essentially, putting out an inferior product and filling his wallet in the process.

Why?  Because he could. 

He has made a personal profit of millions of dollars every year because he gets a fat check from MLB that comes out of the Yankees, Red Sox, and other spenders' luxury taxes.  It's corporate welfare of the highest order.

Let's put the Royals in an English Premier League situation.  Year One, they finish at the bottom of MLB and David Glass' team gets relegated to Triple-A baseball.  The value of his franchise plummets overnight.  He has to drop ticket prices.  By Year Two or Three, he finishes at the bottom of Triple-A and gets relegated to Double-A baseball.  Now the Kansas City Royals are taking road trips on a bus to play Tulsa and Springfield, MO.

It is survival of the fittest.  A truly Darwinian structure.  Deadbeat owners like David Glass pay a heavy price in every country but the US.

Yet we seem to have no problem with it.

You will find this next season that the relegation battles can get almost as exciting as the championship race.  It's life-or-death for the clubs at the bottom and it makes for outstanding drama.

[redeye]

They're trying to curtail it with the FFP stuff, but it's not working yet.  If it ever does work, it'll be a while from now.

Right now Chelsea can pay higher transfer fees and wages than most everyone else.  They have so much money that they end up loaning up literally dozens of their players to other top players.  Chelsea, Manchester City and some other clubs own the rights to enough quality players to fill the rosters of multiple Champions League teams.

I apologize for my hasty post, but I wanted you guys to know I was listening.  If I'd had time to read all the new replies, I see now that I wouldn't have had to ask if the EPL was pay to play.

So, if the EPL came down to Chelsea and a team with Chelsea loans, could Chelsea just recall the loan at any time?  Or do contractual obligations, FFP regulations or something else prevent this from happening?

I've never cared for the financial side of sports and prefer that all teams begin on equal footing.  However, this free market approach is very interesting.  Duke's hypothetical on how MLB would work with relegation leaves me pondering the good and the bad.

Part of me wonders if MLS should do away with it's salary cap.  As a quickly growing league in the wealthiest nation on earth, would ending the salary cap allow it to grow faster, with the better players it would afford?  But then I'm reminded that decreased parity would probably leave some teams struggling to fill seats, and without the hierarchical setup found in Europe, relegation wouldn't pressure owners to spend more, either.

In regard to the caste-like system of youth development, that's something I don't really understand.  I played for YMCA and school teams, which were available in the LRSD from the 7th grade on up.  There was a travelling soccer club, but I never knew how much it cost, because I didn't have the transportation to participate.  Considering how soccer is such an inexpensive, and safe, sport to field, I'm surprised this is even an issue today.  I'll guess it's the result of a widening division in the middle class, because I don't know how else to explain it.

[redeye]

Typically, the terms under which players are loaned from a club include language which restricts the player participating in matches against the club who loaned a player.

Hypothetical example: Man U loans Tim Howard to Everton.
The terms of the loan would likely include a clause saying Howard cannot play in matches against Man U.

Thanks!

[JayBell]

In regard to the caste-like system of youth development, that's something I don't really understand.  I played for YMCA and school teams, which were available in the LRSD from the 7th grade on up.  There was a travelling soccer club, but I never knew how much it cost, because I didn't have the transportation to participate.  Considering how soccer is such an inexpensive, and safe, sport to field, I'm surprised this is even an issue today.  I'll guess it's the result of a widening division in the middle class, because I don't know how else to explain it.

Like Duke said, it's just part of the carnivorous industry that is youth sports.  That's why the USSF is having to step in to make changes.

If I remember correctly, the gist is that all youth teams affiliated with US Soccer have to do away with the pay-to-play model.  That way we're casting a wider net, which is one of the most important factors to growing soccer in America.

[JayBell]

Part of me wonders if MLS should do away with it's salary cap.  As a quickly growing league in the wealthiest nation on earth, would ending the salary cap allow it to grow faster, with the better players it would afford?  But then I'm reminded that decreased parity would probably leave some teams struggling to fill seats, and without the hierarchical setup found in Europe, relegation wouldn't pressure owners to spend more, either.

We're still at least a decade away from it making sense for MLS to drop the salary cap.  And we're probably actually at least two decades away from it making sense.

You'd end up with a system where LA, New York, Seattle and Toronto could outspend other clubs by factors of 10.  Those four clubs could absolutely field teams with payrolls north of $50 million, sell out their stadiums and be set financially.  But that would either lead them to dominating a bunch of teams with payrolls of $5 million or other clubs spending $50 million to try to compete and bankrupting themselves, which is what happened in the old NASL.  And, those four clubs could easily outspend themselves and go belly up.

MLS is a multi-billion dollar league now, but it's still not financially strong enough yet to remove all spending restrictions, not in the wonky international soccer market.