I'd vote for Eric Wynalda. He's the Trump-like candidate, sex scandal and all (John Harkes slept with his wife). Wynalda is a no-BS populist that I think the federation needs. I absolutely believe that the entire federation from the bottom to the top needs cleansed and redone and if anyone would do that, Wynalda seems to be the guy to do it.
Who would you vote for for USSF President
- Thread starter Sean Miller Fan
- Start date
Definitely not Hope Solo...after those disgusting pics of her surfaced online. Haven't seen them? Google it. Yikes. Plus...she's a domestic abuser.
No he doesn't play but he's on tv often as a commentator.
Btw...Harkes daughter just signed a NLI to play at Elon yesterday. She has quite the pedigree.
I was so hopeful when I heard about those pictures, and than I saw them.
There are plenty of former players in the coaching ranks who have been part of the early 90's rise into becoming somewhat relevant. They may have a finger on the pulse of youth soccer, development, and the true needs to become a top 10 nation. We have every resource in the world, but the system needs to be revamped.
Wynalda might be one of the better choices.
You guys might be interested in this. Baltimore are club, Celtic, they won national championships, and also let their kids play for their high schools and 13 signed at D1 schools, not bad, they must be doing something right?
http://www.baltimoresun.com/sports/high-school/bs-va-sp-celtic-soccer-signing-0208-story.html
http://www.baltimoresun.com/sports/high-school/bs-va-sp-celtic-soccer-signing-0208-story.html
I’m not of the opinion that US Soccer is as broken from a senior national team standpoint as everyone thinks. It was a bad cycle. Inexcusable result. Heads needed to role.
But this is a giant organization with many layers and constituencies and responsibilities that range from grassroots growth of the game to major revenue generation.
I know she is seen as “more of the same” because she has Gulati’s endoresement, but Kathy Carter is really impressive and has been involved in the game her entire life as a player back in the infancy of women’s soccer and as the head of Soccer United Marketing. People need to step back and look at what has happened in this country in just 25 years. Soccer is a big player and we need to stay on track with what has been working culturally and organizationally with the game.
To me, Carter has the best resume and knows the business end of the game better than anyone. That’s a big job that’s way above the head of Harkes, Wynalda and the like.
I’m pulling for Carter.
But this is a giant organization with many layers and constituencies and responsibilities that range from grassroots growth of the game to major revenue generation.
I know she is seen as “more of the same” because she has Gulati’s endoresement, but Kathy Carter is really impressive and has been involved in the game her entire life as a player back in the infancy of women’s soccer and as the head of Soccer United Marketing. People need to step back and look at what has happened in this country in just 25 years. Soccer is a big player and we need to stay on track with what has been working culturally and organizationally with the game.
To me, Carter has the best resume and knows the business end of the game better than anyone. That’s a big job that’s way above the head of Harkes, Wynalda and the like.
I’m pulling for Carter.
Here's the thing. The growing popularity and financial soundness cost us a World Cup bid. No question about it. Having all those players come back to MLS for big contracts and training against guys who are Riverhounds-level cost us the bid. To make matters worse, pretty much all the guys who scored against us and the guy who put Panama in over us with a stoppage time goal are MLS guys. Does MLS really need that many CONCACAF players? Are their no other countries that play soccer?
I don't have all the answers but drastic changes need to be made.
The other big thing is pay for play. The top athletes have to be identified at an earlier age: 8 or 9 and they should not have to pay for higher-level coaching/training. That eliminates 90% of potential players. USSF has a $150 million surplus, it has to figure a way to restricture youth development.
So are you saying individual MLS teams should not go after the best players they can get to avoid giving CONCACAF players having a better option than their home country league? Personally I think it's good for MLS to get the best players they can.
And I doubt that 90% of kids can't pay to play. And before high school, don't you have to pay to play football or baseball or basketball too on the travel type teams?
MLS limits international players to 8 per team, which are often 8 starters, which I think is another problem. If it were me, I would make a rule that at least 6 Americans have to start. Considering that the Americans are of lesser quality, that would make owners put more value on 6 of the 8 international spots to compensate which means brining in better international players and not just marginal CONCACAF players. I'd also limit the number of CONCACAF players (besides Mexicans) 1-2 per team. There are good players everywhere
Our best players need to go where the best players in the world play, and it isn't MLS. The MLS is growing with interest, but is it really growing with quality of play on a world scale? I see MLS similar to the idea comparing Alabama football to Pitt football. You take the top leagues in the world, and MLS sits well below. Top level pro players around the world only come to MLS when they are close to retirement and other teams have stopped forking over huge contracts. Only MLS will pay big because of name alone.
Soccer is far more expensive to play as a youth and at a higher level youth wise than almost any other sport. The key is to have our MLS teams identify every top level kid early on and just cover all costs with the intention that once they reach a certain age they play pro, not college. Instead of playing in college, you send them to Europe. Have partnerships with lower division clubs or even higher division clubs if the kid is good enough, but you keep them away from college. 18-22 is absolutely crucial for developing into a productive pro. That's when they should all be signed professionally, not playing college student athlete.
As long as our players are in the MLS, we will continue to struggle against the best in the world. We were far better when our players were in Europe, Dempsey was a hell of a lot better when he was in England. You have to be around the best and play against the best, pretty simple.
Then how will the MLS ever get better if you always send away anyone any good? It's not only about winning a world cup, personally I want to see good games and teams here, because I can't get myself to watch European teams that I don't care about. I have a buddy that is devoted to Liverpool the way I'm devoted to the Steelers, I can't do it! JUST CAN'T! I've become a DC United fan just because they are nearby, and they play cities I can relate to, like NY, Philly, LA... it's just that simple for me. I want to see the local teams get better, it's not only about doing good in the world cup.
I stated a partnership with other leagues. Get a variety of experience, but because of a contract with MLS you are due back after a period of time. Similar to loaning a player. You do it early when someone is very young. Get them experience. The MLS isn't attractive to foreign players. It's how it is. And that's how it will always be.
The NBA will always be the premier league in the world, that's how it is. Look at it's popularity in Europe and China. Top leagues will stay top leagues because they draw the best players. But it is far deeper than that, it also goes with development and grooming players very early in the players life.
No, what he's saying is that the US lost because they had too many players playing in MLS, and the Central American countries that beat us out won because they have a lot of players playing in MLS.
Don't try to make sense of it, just nod your head and move on to something else.
Pretty much. MLS provided Costa Ricans, Hondurans, Panamanians, and Trinidadians a much higher competition level than they would have otherwise gotten and they were playing in their domestic league. Its not just me. You hear guys like Alejandro Moreno say the same thing. The MLS lowered the competion level for US internationals and rose the competition level for Central Americans
To fix American soccer you need to get rid of the pay for play system the best athletes are drawn to other sports. If America as a country wants to compete with the Brazil Argentina and Spain's ofvtge world you need to get the Lebron James, Christian mccaferty, Antonio browns of the world interested and willing to stick to it and be able to continue playing without the prohibitive costs. And it may sound stereotypical but most of the best athletes come from backgrounds where money is not there to provide 1,000 dollars or more to play travel soccer
And the fact that you don't understand just how dumb that is is kind of funny.
While I am all for liking for ways to keep costs reasonable, just about all sports are pay to play. And very few pros grew up poor.
Getting good at anything requires competition and coaching. Money is one way to make this happen. Others are playing with older kids, girls playing against boys, and having volunteer (parent) coaches. For soccer, outside of immigrant communities, parent coaches weren’t option even 35 years ago.
This system appears to be entrenched. Heck, based on fkthomas’s statements, being on the best teams in the Pittsburgh area wasn’t enough to get a look from Pitt as these teams didn’t play on the ‘right’ leagues.
Did it help or hurt our best players to play in the MLS instead of the top European leagues?
Did it help or hurt tiny CONCACAF nation’s to have their players playing in the MLS?
Answer these questions and you will realize SMF’s position isn’t dumb.
The go pro early path is a great path for many. Due to child labor and immigration laws, it is also easier said than done for those without European citizenship.
I also thing the college route should play a big role. If athletes can go to college and become great baseball, hockey and basketball players, late developing soccer players ought to be able to do the same.
Europe has it nailed down, as do other nations not named USA. The local teams identify the best players and groom them. Often no cost to the families, it's an investment that those programs can handle. When I played in Belgium I played for a program that had a top level pro team, the cost to play on their development teams was not there like it is in the US. Virginia Tech men and women don't take local kids because the local kids aren't good enough. VT doesn't really do much to support local kids anyone other than allow them to use fields and pay $500 to attend a summer camp, gee that helps.
Our MLS teams are working hard to develop youth, and give opportunities to be groomed, but to even get identified by them when you are older in teens means they saw you somewhere playing where you already are investing thousands of dollars.
If the US Soccer bank account is as large as stated, that we need to take some of the yuppy and high dollar gets you places out of it. For generations the Brazilian players were all poor kids who were identified early and instantly taken care of when they saw talent. Those places also have a different passion for soccer as it often means getting out of the shitholes and getting some opportunities to make money.
The US also needs to understand college soccer is useless for developing players for the next level. It's too much time away from top level training. College is 4-5 crucial years that would be best spent with pro teams developing. If you don't hack it or can't make it at the top level you play lower level and go to college later. But this idea that you have to go to college and get a degree isn't the same mentality around the world.
I agree with a lot of what you are saying, especially that the primary path should be full time in the late teen age/ early adult years. I just think due to size, the USA would be wise to adopt the caviar rather than the panda model. Cast a wide net and allow for different development paths, if for no other reason than necessity. European clubs and South American clubs/ agents profit from player snuccess. In the US, these aren’t allowed. 18 year old Europeans can play on second or third division pro teams. American citizens of similar ability could never get the required work Visas.
There are only a couple of guys on the US national team that had been playing in Europe who still have enough quality to play over there but came back here to play instead. Michael Bradley came back a few years ago because he couldn't find a job at any league anywhere near the top. Jozy Altidore came back because he was a multi-year failure in England. Clint Demsey came back when it was obvious that he was getting too old to play regularly in England, and that was a couple of years ago. What US players that are playing in MLS right now could be playing at a top level league in Europe but are turning that down to play in the US? When you start to think about it, your list is going to be very, very short.
Then add in the fact that the US could call in more than half a team of guys who are playing in top leagues in Europe, and yet for the most part didn't do that. The US has guys who are good enough to be playing regularly in England and Germany who rarely got called up to play for the US. The problem isn't that the US doesn't have better players that most of the other CONCACAF countries, it's (in part) that they brought in a coach who thinks that guys who are good players in MLS are playing the game at a level above what the guys in Europe are playing. It's absurd, and yet it was the knock on Bruce Arena when he was the coach here the first time, and he continued to think that way in his second go round here.
Very few of the best Mexican players play in Europe, and yet somehow Mexico is the dominant team in CONCACAF. And the Mexican League is much, much closer in quality to MLS than it is to the Premier League or the Bundesliga or La Liga. If the problem with the US is guys playing in a lower league than what they theoretically might be able to play at why has that never, ever been a problem for Mexico?
SMF point is dumb.
There's that stupid argument again! LMFAO! If LeBron had played soccer from childhood, there's no guarantee he'd be a pro soccer player or even a D1 player, let alone a national team player. This idea that the great athletes in basketball or football would automatically translate to soccer is just plain stupid, Some would and some wouldn't.
Aren't most little league baseball and pee wee football parents coaching? Even many travel soccer teams have parent coaches, although often they are certified some way.
2-0 losses an needing a late US goal to make the last World Cup suggest Mexico isn’t dominant. Perhaps letting players from the small CONCACAF nation’s play in the MLS has just Mexico as well?
Klinnsman has a (IMO correct) Eurocentric view. That also failed or Arena never would have been hired.
So long as some members of the USMNT are hurting their sharpness playing in a lower league for a ton of $$$, his other point stands. I am not claiming the MLS caused the US to miss the World Cup. I just agree with SMF and others that giving our players a soft option hurts our nation’s all-star team.
His point isn’t dumb
You also have to consider, for how many kids is dropping out of school to play in a lower level pro league worth it, over playing college ball? For most I am sure, it's super long odds to get to even MLS.
But then do you blame a guy, who say can make $4million in NY vs. $500K in Spain? Is he supposed to care more about having a super longshot chance at a WC over his personal career?
I blame US soccer for letting the MLS avoid pro/ eel and keep the DP rule.. Once upon a time, the MLS needed star power to get established. That time is long gone.
I refuse to believe that a world class athlete in any sport such as football basketball wouldn't be world class in another sport if they had been playing that sport since age 4 or 5 no matter what you say I refuse to believe that if levron James had played soccer since age 4or 5 he wouldn't be one of the most dominant players in the world right now.agree to disagree I guess lol
He would be. But the key is identifying a LeBron-type athlete, at age 8 or 9 and offering him free coaching and travel on some elite teams ip through 18
You are wrong and just because you can find other people who agree with your wrong idea that doesn't make it right.
Mexico just went through the final qualifying group of ten games a lost exactly one of them, the last one, when not only had the cliched a spot in the World Cup but they had also clinched the top spot in the qualifying group (which doesn't actually get you anything other than bragging rights). And for the record, players from the other CONCACAF countries have been playing in Mexico a hell of a lot longer than they have been playing in the US. So try again.
And yeah, Klinsman was more Eurocentric. If for no other reason that it would have been very, very difficult to be less Eurocentric. But Klinsman also had his favorites, guy who got called up no matter how or if they were playing, and he had other guys that he simply would not call in for any reason. Throw in the fact that he was never really all that good as a coach (he was, however, good at picking Joachim Low as his top assistant) and you've got the recipe for disaster.
But since you think that the US has all these guys on the national team that could and should be playing at a higher level, name them all. Name all the guys who have been regulars for the US who are playing in MLS that could be playing regularly in Europe for a team in a top league. As I said before, your list is going to be very, very short. The "big three" who came back from Europe all did so because for various reasons they couldn't play there any more.
Michael Bradley isn't playing in MLS because he was looking for a big payday at an easier level, he's playing in MLS because no one in any of the top leagues in Europe had any interest at all in signing him. He went to Italy and couldn't get any games there. He got loaned out to an English team and basically never got on the field there. His two choices were to come back to MLS for good money, or play in a lower European league for peanuts. That isn't a choice that's going to be hard for anyone to make, and it's not like the competition level is top notch in those second and third tier European Leagues.
Altidore came back because he was a multi-year failure in England. And that was at a bottom of the table team. There wasn't any top flight team in Europe that was going to sign him to play for free, let alone offer him a big contract. Clint Dempsey was simply too old to play at a high level in Europe any more. Who are all these other players who are good enough to be playing in the Premier League or Serie A or someplace like that who are turning those opportunities down to play in MLS? There must be a bunch of them for you and SMF to be correct, so start naming them all.
Seriously, do we really think that those guys would be better soccer players by any significant degree if they were playing at Aberdeen in Scotland or Vienna in the Austrain League or Grasshoppers in Switzerland?
Well I refuse to believe that it's a given, I think it's possible that LeBron MIGHT be a pro in soccer, MAYBE, dominant? I'd bet against it. It's totally possible that LeBron playing soccer since age 4 might make the USAMNT, or maybe not be good enough to get a D1 scholarship. Agree to disagree.
