There seems to be some question these days about what exactly Major League Soccer's responsibility is as a developer of American players for National Team duty.

To be honest, I don't understand why there's a question.

I've never believed that it's the league, ostensibly a money-making enterprise, who is ultimately responsible for developing young American players. Sure, a part of Major League Soccer's original mandate may have been to help improve the Nats, but I would hope that we're past that at this point.

If the U.S. is ever going to be serious footballing nation, we need to stop expecting our domestic league to be a "training ground" for American players just because they're American.

The National Team pool will be deeper and of higher quality when clubs, rather than high school and colleges, take on the burden of developing the next generation of players.

Over time, I've become a staunch opponent of the SuperDraft. Until the safety net of the draft is taken away and MLS clubs are forced to develop their own talent, the development of American players will stagnate. The current situation allows MLS teams to dip into the college ranks for new players every year, rather than scouting for talent the way clubs abroad do.

The draft was (and perhaps still is to a point) a necessity. At the outset of MLS play, American soccer simply didn't have the infrastructure in place to allow for a traditional academy system. Money concerns rule, and I'm willing to allow the league and its clubs some leeway; but we're coming up on fifteen years of competition, and we've yet to see a player rise through the ranks and contribute to the senior club in any significant way. That simply doesn't seem right to me.

American soccer is a hodge-podge of programs, high schools, and club teams. None seem to be able to do the job individually, and even collectively often come up short. By the time college players are ready to contribute (or are ready to be drafted) on a professional level, they're already used up a few years of their prime. It's inefficient and disturbing, if only because those players are already two to three years behind their European, South American, and even Mexican counterparts.

As Americans, we seem to be comfortable with allowing soccer players to follow a time line that handicaps both them and the clubs. Training time in a structured professional environment, without the distractions of college life, is invaluable. The status quo is allowed to pervade because it's the "easy" and cheapest way to do business. Both MLS and its member clubs seem content to let the American college system do the work, then pluck players who may or may not be ready to contribute at an age when they should much more advanced.

MLS teams seem unwilling or unable to properly scout this country. I refuse to believe that American players would be held back, or that the talent pool would be diluted by expansion, if the situation changed and clubs did a better job of finding American talent. Too many American kids are either ignored or missed completely. MLS teams, without incentive to fill up academies with talented local youngsters, go abroad for talent first.

Bottom line? The number of international roster spots is not the issue. In the short term, some American players may lose their jobs and be forced to catch on in USL. But if USSF and MLS move in the right direction and step up the academy system, more American players would be ready to contribute as professional at an earlier age, mitigating the need to look abroad. The Nats pool would deepen and improve, and everyone would be happy. Right?

For the time being, I suppose the foreign player issue could be argued either way. If you put more into the USMNT than you do your club, you may prefer MLS to be the Nats development program, remaining a overwhelmingly American league. If you want a strong league better positioned to compete on an international level, you might prefer more of a foreign presence.

I'm not sure why those two things have to mutually exclusive.

We won't actually know if they are until club academies become the predominant development method for American players. Until then, it's impossible to know if allowing MLS to become more "foreign" (which I don't believe is a foregone conclusion by the way) will be a detriment to our National Team aspirations.

I'm a bit all over the place with this, but I hope I managed to get some of my point across. Share you thoughts, let me know where I'm going wrong, or explain to me why a balance isn't possible.