MLS teams are reluctant to loan each other top prospects, but that could change (2024)

Major League Soccer, like most pro sports leagues, is full of copycats.

A single success begets a trend and that trend evolves as each team brings its own ideas and perspective. This year, for example, a wave of young South American players are joining the league as teams search for their own Miguel Almirón.

Before there can be the copycats, however, there has to be an original idea. And as more attention is paid to the dearth of young American talent finding its way on to an ever-more competitive MLS playing field, there is a chance for some teams in MLS to be the first to open a new pathway for those players to play.

There have been only a few intra-league loans in the history of MLS. The Colorado Rapids sent Tony Cascio to the Houston Dynamo and Chivas USA acquired Eriq Zavaleta from the Seattle Sounders in 2014. Ryan Meara went on loan from the New York Red Bulls to NYCFC. Three years later, Minnesota United acquired Brandon Allen on loan from the New York Red Bulls. This season, Seattle sent Aaron Kovar to LAFC.

But as more fans clamor to see young American talent—and especially homegrown players—on the field, there may be opportunities for players to get those opportunities on loan with other MLS club. Teenagers like Paxton Pomykal and Andrew Carleton (pictured above), for instance, may not be able to break in to Dallas or Atlanta’s first teams, respectively, but they could be the perfect addition for teams like Chicago or Minnesota that are looking for more attacking talent.

Intra-league loans would theoretically give young players a chance to develop in MLS, provide a short-term solution for teams looking to turn things around quickly, and provide another developmental outlet for teams with top academies.

Plenty of challenges stand in the way, however, and perhaps none is bigger than finding teams willing to make this a regular part of roster building. To find two teams brave and creative enough to involve homegrown talent may be a bigger obstacle.

Several MLS general managers said it may be some time before we see that happen.

“I just don’t think we’re there yet,” D.C. United general manager Dave Kasper said.

Why teams are reluctant to make these kinds of loan deals

On the surface, loans make a lot of sense. MLS teams in need of help can get a one-year stopgap. Teams with deep rosters can provide their kids with vital minutes at a level higher than USL. But MLS general managers see multiple barriers to these deals, including league roster and budget rules, sell-on clauses, and an aversion to move young prospects within MLS because the gap between rival teams is so small.

The biggest issue is a perceived gulf between what would make a deal attractive for the loaning team versus the receiving team. Multiple general managers interviewed for this article said they would want an option to buy attached to any intraleague loan, and they thought the idea of selling a prospect within the league would prevent teams from agreeing to loan deals.

“What we need to find out is when you are loaning a homegrown player, just like loaning an international player, I need an option to buy,” Portland Timbers general manager Gavin Wilkinson said. “This is a league of parity; this isn’t Manchester City loaning to Watford. In Europe, they will generally take a player back [after a loan] and there are no perception issues. If a player goes into a market here and does well, we need the ability to keep him.”

Setting a sell-on price would not be easy.

There is no consensus on the value of young or homegrown prospects, either for a loan or a potential buy-on fee. If Benny Feilhaber was traded for $400,000 and Justin Meram went for $1.05 million, how much is Carleton, Pomykal, Miles Robinson or Chris Durkin worth on the MLS market? And can any MLS team match or surpass what those players might fetch on the international market?

If those issues can be navigated, there are more salary budget problems for teams to face. According to MLS rules, a player must be 24 years old or younger at the time of the loan. Many top young players on MLS teams, including all homegrown and Generation Adidas players, are on the supplemental roster, which means they do not count against the salary budget.

A quality off-budget player is not an easy find, and the replacement costs for such depth is often too high. That is especially true in the TAM era, when finding cheap or off-budget depth is often a higher priority than signing veterans on $300,000 deals. Teams that have superior depth on the supplemental roster have more budget flexibility, and thus more money to spend on higher-end players. Loans would provide no cap relief for the team sending out a young player and the replacement costs would be too high.

The cost-benefit dilemmas of intraleague loans and the challenges of how to structure deals provide enough barriers to seeing more exchanges happen in MLS, but there are other factors that keep more loans from happening.

The first is the league’s parity.

There isn’t a huge drop-off between the top and bottom teams in MLS, meaning there are fewer teams willing to take on another team’s prospects and fewer teams willing to provide MLS rivals with aid.

A common refrain among GMs interviewed for this story: Why would Team A want to develop a player for Team B with seemingly no long-term benefits? It would make more sense for Team A to search outside MLS for a young prospect whose rights it can own than to take a player on loan with no option to buy.

In addition, in today’s MLS, teams like Atlanta United and the New York Red Bulls, who are flush with talent, might prefer to use their USL teams to develop their young and homegrown prospects.

“I just don’t think there’s enough of a disparity yet between MLS clubs to structure deals that way,” Orlando City general manager Niki Budalic said. “Maybe MLS will get to that point. But it’s not like Chelsea loaning out players to Bournemouth. … When you have such a big disparity between the top and bottom of the leagues you can bring in prospects you want to develop and put them in the shop window to sell, or to see if they can break through and have a chance to break through in your first team.”

In addition, there are anxieties about whether a team will actually develop the player they receive on loan. For example, the New York Red Bulls sent Brandon Allen to Minnesota on loan only to see him manage a total of nine minutes with the Loons in 2017.

There are ways to mitigate these concerns, however.

Teams sending a young prospect on loan could pay the receiving team staggered levels of allocation money based on how many minutes their loanees play over the course of the season. For example: $100,000 in TAM for 1,000 minutes, $150,000 in TAM for 1,500 minutes, etc.

That would incentivize a team to actually put the loaned player on the field.

They could also include an option to buy on the back end of the loan that included a hefty percentage of the players future sell-on fees. Say Atlanta is reluctant to sell Miles Robinson. If they loan him out with a buy-on clause of $500,000 in GAM and 50 percent of any sell-on, it would provide major insurance if the receiving team opts to purchase Robinson at the end of the deal.

Budalic said he thinks it is more likely to see an increase in loan deals to European leagues, pointing to former D.C. United homegrown Michael Seaton (who was loaned to Örebro SK) and Vancouver Whitecaps product Sam Adekugbe (Brighton & Hove Albion, then IFK Göteborg) as examples. Those type of loan deals give MLS teams a chance to sell players for profit in Europe rather than move them within the league.

“Instead of loaning to USL for free, you send them to Scandinavia for free and put them in a different market,” Budalic said. “No matter what, if you’re in a market more easily scouted, it helps. Nobody from Europe is going to scout USL—let’s be honest. If you put them in the first division in Norway, the level’s not a huge difference, but they can get more noticed there than here.”

With so many impediments in the way, it seems frequent use of intraleague loans, especially involving homegrown players, is far off. But Chicago Fire general manager Nelson Rodriguez said his team has at least discussed this type of loan in the past, and he’s confident it is all about finding two teams willing to make a deal—and the confidence to be the first to break the barrier with a top-notch prospect.

An evolution toward more loans

MLS may not be there yet, but the league is moving in that direction.

This offseason saw two prominent college standout homegrown players moved via trade. D.C. United sent Eryk Williamson to the Portland Timbers and Orlando City acquired Cam Lindley in a trade with the Fire.

In both cases, the players were not good fits with their hometown clubs, and both joined teams that have struggled to develop homegrown players consistently, either because they operate in a less talent-laden homegrown territory, or the sheer infancy of their development academies.

In an era where more international players are being signed to Targeted Allocation Money deals, MLS teams do recognize the value of young American talent. Especially because homegrown and Generation Adidas players can contribute while staying on the supplemental roster. Both Orlando and Portland saw opportunity in searching for young American talent elsewhere in the league as they continue their own efforts with academies back home.

“There’s a benefit to carrying homegrown players that can help the first team,” Wilkinson said. “We decided to invest in Eryk Williamson for the short-term and the long-term. We needed a greater number of American players on the roster, and we want to play a more active part in developing the American player. We scouted Eryk and felt he fit our program well.”

The trades also set the market for the mid- to high-level homegrown talent. Chicago and D.C. got strong value for their homegrown players. Portland sent D.C. $100,000 in GAM, $100,000 in TAM, an international slot, and a second-round draft pick for Williamson. D.C. also maintained 50-percent of Williamson’s sell-on rights.

The Chicago Fire, meanwhile, received fullback Rafael Ramos and $100,000 in Targeted Allocation Money for Lindley.

Those deals show that, at present, it’s easier for clubs to sell players who don’t fit their plans than it is to loan out a player to a team where they don’t control their development. It also shows a market is starting to open up for young American prospects.

It may only be a matter of time until we start to see these loans begin to occur—time, and a change in mindset among decision makers around the league.

(BrettDavis-USATODAYSports)