One of the most controversial topics in the aftermath of the USA's World Cup performance has been the role of MLS in the national team's lack of success. By now, everyone knows of Arena's comments exhorting the best American players to go to Europe, and everyone knows of the reaction from some quarters of the US soccer establishment (although I think the headline misrepresented the reaction by quite a bit). There is no doubt that Major League Soccer has had an effect on the national team, but has that effect been helpful or harmful to the side? I don't want to appear as if I'm dodging the question, but I think the answer to the question is "Both."
I think MLS has helped the national team in one important way: it has significantly increased the pool of suitable players since the mid-1990s. The creation of an environment for local players to refine their skills at the highest level was the primary reason for establishing the league. No longer forced to go abroad to start a professional career, American players could remain Stateside and have a better chance of playing regularly for a top-division side. I wasn't able to quickly find records on the clubs that the players were playing in at the time, but my recollection is that about two-thirds of the 1994 national team were playing in Europe, but that number had dropped to around 60% by 1998 and near parity by 2002 and 2006. Again, I need to do a more detailed analysis of the squads, but I am confident about the overall trend, which indicates the increased contribution of MLS to the national team.
That point leads to another question: Is the contribution to MLS to the national team one of quality, or merely quantity? This question touches on issues such as the quality of league play and the league's players. I think the quality of both elements has improved greatly since 1996, though not necessarily in a linear fashion. There have been periods where the level of play has stagnated, especially after expansion, but I do think the quality has improved. (I think Chicago will be the only team to win the MLS Cup - much less a league/cup double! - in its expansion year.) There are more players who have gotten looks by the national team because of their performance in MLS, such as Chris Armas, Clint Mathis (and Dempsey), Eddie Johnson, and Taylor Twellman, to name just a few. There is a difference between getting looks and making the final roster for a World Cup. In the run-up to Germany 2006, 73 players were in the national team pool. Below is the breakdown between the players at MLS- and European-based clubs who made the final roster:
MLS-based European-based
National Team Pool 50 (68%) 23 (32%)
USA WC Final Roster 11 (48%) 12 (52%)
Percentage making cut 22% 52%
Now, this breakdown may not be fair to MLS. After all, in the run-up to the finals Arena had much easier access to players who were based in the USA, so it made sense that a majority of the players in the pool were MLS players. There were much fewer opportunities to see European players, so it also made sense that they formed a minority in camp. The point of these statistics is to show that although MLS gave more players an opportunity to display their skills on the international level, a smaller proportion of those players went on to be selected for major international tournaments like a World Cup. It might be a matter of quantity over quality, although one needs more data to support that point (which is difficult in a complex and subjective sport like soccer).
That last sentence segues into what I believe are the shortcomings of MLS: the quality of play, and the lack of meaningful matches during the season. Again, I believe the quality of play has improved since 1996. I also believe that the quality is underestimated by foreign observers who haven't seen the league up close. (I've taken some foreign colleagues to MLS matches since 2000 and almost all of them were pleasantly surprised by the standard of play.) However, the play in MLS lags behind that of the major European and South American leagues. That's to be expected - MLS is barely a decade old, and all of the major leagues (except Germany) have been around for almost a century. I've claimed in previous posts that MLS teams tend to lose possession too easily, that attacking players find it difficult to break down defenses, and that scoring opportunities are not fully utilized. I should add to the list that it sometimes takes players too long to make decisions in the run of play, and that results in either a errant pass or a blown scoring opportunity. All of those defects are fatal in international play, where defenses are tighter and close rapidly, scoring chances are at a premium, and lost possessions could easily cost a team a goal. That's not so fatal against teams in CONCACAF (with the exception of Costa Rica and Mexico), but it is against top European and South American competition, and those are the levels that MLS supporters like to compare themselves to.
Another shortcoming that I see is the lack of meaningful matches in league play. Currently the league season is split into a 32-match opening phase that narrows the competition from 12 teams to eight, then the playoff phase with a two-match series to reduce the field to four, then knockout semifinals and finals. If we count all of the playoff matches as meaningful (and they are), that's four important games. If a squad is trying to enter one of the final slots for the playoffs, you could add six to eight additional games; if qualification has been assured with matches to spare, maybe four to six. Regional derby matches might add four more at most. And let's pretend that MLS clubs take the Open Cup all that seriously, so that's an additional 2-3 games. That's an estimated total of 14-19 meaningful matches, from a 32-40 match season - a ratio that barely crosses 50%. I'm willing to guess that in the major European and South American leagues, and even in the minor national leagues on those continents, the ratio approaches something like 80% or more. There is something to be said about playing in an high-pressure environment, consistently, over the course of several years. It serves as excellent preparation for the tournaments that really do matter, like the continental club/country championships, or the World Cup finals. I don't see MLS providing that kind of environment right now.
So, what can be done? Realistically, not much. There has been talk of reducing the playoff field from eight to six (and some on MLS' special committee have suggested just that), but the idea of having a large playoff field has always been to keep teams and their fans interested in the season for as long as possible. (It's possible to argue that a playoff field of 75% of the teams decreases interest among supporters of teams who are way out in front.) I think that the league is counting on expansion to reduce the percentage of teams making the playoffs, but even then the league has to be careful about possible dilution of the standard of play. As for the overall standard, I think the league is making strides in the right direction with the establishment of reserve teams (who need to be playing more games, IMO). Raising the standard of play has a lot more to do with the development of young talent, and there appears to be tension between the youth soccer and professional factions of US soccer over the administration of youth development. The sooner development is professionalized, with the establishment of youth academies not just by MLS teams, but USL Division 1 clubs, the better for developing young talent and eventually US soccer as a whole.
So I think that MLS has helped the national team as a whole, but has some shortcomings that will affect its success. Unfortunately I don't think those shortcomings will be addressed soon, because of a mixture of politics and some structural defects in US soccer. There's some more I want to write about this issue, but this post is already very long.
Anyway, I do appreciate any comments/contributions to this topic that you might have.
