With the 2013 season in the books we can now start to analyze how well the first season of the USL – MLS partnership went, and what needs to be addressed going forward as more teams affiliate next season. In general the partnership worked pretty well. As the regular season standings show three of the top four teams (Richmond, Orlando, and Harrisburg) had an affiliate. Most of the guys on loan from an MLS club made huge impacts on their team and in matches, some players even setting league records. While on the field the USL – MLS partnership was a clear success, on the administration side of things it’s a little muddier.
This is going to be Orlando focused since their affiliation with Sporting Kansas City made the biggest splash in both good and bad ways. The other teams had fairly quiet seasons, and fewer problems, as far as affiliation is concerned.
How Many and How Long
Probably the biggest issue this season is the definition of “long term loans,” and how many players actually abided by this “requirement.” Back in January the announcement of the partnership on both MLSSoccer.com and USLSoccer.com state that affiliating with an MLS club “will include at least four players on long-term loan from the MLS parent club to its USL PRO affiliate.” SportingNews.com even went so far as to say it would be “season-long loans.” Now SportingNews may have over stated it by saying season-long (though see below for a good reason to call it that), but with the USL calling it a “long-term” it’s not unreasonable to assume the players will be on their respective USL teams for the majority of the season. After all this is how loans tend to work elsewhere in the soccer world.
If you look at the players who were loaned out this wasn’t really the case. Sporting Kansas City loaned out six players to Orlando City over the course of the season. Only one player, Duke Christian, actually played in more than 50% of Orlando’s games. [Note: To be fair- Jon Kempin played nine games, and if he didn’t get hurt he probably would’ve been over 50% too.] The other players were Dwyer – 13 games (50% even), Songo’o – 12 (before he was cut), CJ Sapong – 4, Kevin Ellis – 4. You could argue Dwyer’s 13 games should be considered “long-term”, but I’m not sure I would. Either way on the surface this doesn’t meet the minimum of four long-term loans promised by the USL and MLS.
The other three teams didn’t quite make four long-term loans either. For instance here are Richmond’s loaned players (they did do better than Orlando)-
Andrew Dykstra – 21 games, Joseph Ngwenya – 20 games, Michael Seaton – 15 games, ConorShanosky – 14 games, Taylor Kemp – 5 games, Casey Townsend – 4 games.
Harrisburg and Rochester have similar numbers.
I understand some of the guys may have been sent on loan late in the season so they didn’t have the chance to play many games, and that’s fine, but it’s still not what was promised when the partnership was put into place. More often than not you have guys like CJ Sapong who yo-yo’d his way to four games by only coming to Orlando for occasional weekend stints. [Note: There is some discrepancy if he played four or five games]
The USL also needs to clarify if “four players on long-term loan” are supposed to be on the roster concurrently with each other, or just four overall. We had instances this season where Orlando only had two guys on the roster, and many times Harrisburg only had three.
Then there is this quote on MLSSoccer.com from Peter Vermes, Sporting Kansas City’s manager, when CJ Sapong and Kevin Ellis were sent to Orlando for the first time in July-
“We will continue to re-evaluate and manage all of the guys on our roster, to maximize team and individual performance and growth. There is no set timeline for how long our players will be in Orlando, but this is precisely why we were so excited to enter into this agreement with Orlando City SC to get our players matches.”
When did long-term loans turn into “no set timeline?” I understand the occasional sudden need to recall someone, but this sure doesn’t sound like their planning for anything long-term.
Roster
One of the biggest stories leading up to the Championship game was Dom Dwyer being sent back to Orlando. This came as a surprise as Dwyer was called back to Sporting Kansas City in early July and hasn’t played with Orlando since. It also raises all sorts of questions.
Why was Dwyer still on Orlando’s roster? He hasn’t been part of the club for over 2 months. Was he still considered on loan this whole time? At what point when a player is recalled should he be removed from the roster / not considered on loan?
Let’s Do Some Learning
I’ve come across the operations manual for the 2010 USL season. While being a couple years old, the rules for MLS to USL loans & transfers line up with what we’ve seen this season. This leads me to believe they haven’t changed much if at all. At the very least it’s the basis for the current system. Let’s go through a couple relevant bullet points.
Each loan must be executed for an entire playing season.
I think this one changed but ever so slightly. I think instead of the “entire” playing season it’s probably something like “executed for the remainder of the playing season from when the player is selected.” This gives the USL wiggle room when they say “long-term loans”. Dwyer may have only played in the first half of the USL season, but I bet his loan contract went all year no matter his status was.
Players are permitted to move between teams during the period of the loan per FIFA rules, however it is encouraged for these players to be regular members of the USL team for the season.
And here is what makes the yo-yo-ing, the recalls, and Dwyer’s return possible. The USL is set up so a loaned player doesn’t have to be on the team for the duration of the loan contract. This also gives the USL an excuse when there are complaints about having less than 4 loaned players on the USL roster. Sure there are only 2 on the roster at this time, but we have 4+ loan contracts between these clubs!
A MLS loan player must compete (defined as actually appearing in the game beyond being listed on the game-day lineup) in at least five (5) matches for a USL2 or PDL Professional team in order to be eligible for that particular league’s playoffs, four (4) of those games must occur PRIOR to the Roster Freeze. This is further subject to the player being properly listed on the final Master Roster submitted at the respective league’s Roster Freeze date.
We know for a fact the 5 match rule still exists. CJ Sapong was sent to Orlando during the first weekend in August to get his 5th game so he could be eligible. Dwyer definitely played 5 games and all of them were before the roster freeze. The roster freeze was on July 30th this season. Presuming the roster posted on the USL’s website is the one at the time of the freeze Orlando kept all of their loaned players on the roster. This plus the second bullet point allows them to get Dwyer for the playoffs.
Quick Note on the US Open Cup Issue
During the Open Cup this year Orlando ended up taking on Sporting Kansas City. Sporting recalled all of their loaned players for one match so that they wouldn’t compete against their own club. On the surface this is a really crappy thing to do, and I wanted to complain about it, but this seems par for the course in other leagues. FIFA doesn’t have a specific rule about it, and neither does the MLS or USL (though with the league integrating more they may have to). This looks like it’ll be a team by team decision for now. For instance the New England Revolution didn’t care about Rochester using their guys. The one good thing about it is since the loaned players already played for Orlando in a previous round, they were “cup tied” to Orlando. This means they weren’t eligible to play for Sporting Kansas City even though they were recalled.
To Sum Up
The USL – MLS partnership had an interesting first season that lead to great play on the field. On the other hand the administration side isn’t really all that it’s cracked up to be. I’m not anti affiliation, but seeing how it works in practice left a bit of a sour taste in my mouth. Hopefully the USL will clarify (officially) how the partnership will work and address the various first year kinks. If not the issues we saw are only going to become larger as more teams join in.
