Exclusive: US Soccer Federation President Sunil Gulati On India's Goal 2011 Project
 

  With the entire buzz surrounding Goal 2011 Project, which shall see 25 players being under the umbrella of the All India Football Federation (AIFF) to play only for the national team and not the I-League, Goal.com’s Greg Lalas catches up with the President of the US Soccer Federation, Sunil Gulati, who helped initiate a similar program more than a decade back.

  In the run-up to the 1994 World Cup, the US Soccer Federation and then coach Bora Milutinovic signed several dozen players and had them train and play together for two years. It worked out pretty well as surprisingly, the US advanced out of the group stage.

  India national team coach Bob Houghton and the AIFF have a similar program before the 2011 Asia Cup, Qatar. Can India learn from the experience of the US?  

Lalas: What was the thought process behind the residency program where the national team players trained and played together in the early '90s?

Gulati: We had had situations before where we had paid players fulltime. That actually happened as far back as ‘89. Back then we were paying them for weeks at a time. We were paying them fulltime salaries, monthly stipends and insurance and all that. But they weren’t living together.
  Nobody was playing overseas at that point in terms of American players. Obviously, in our situation [in the early 90s], we needed to get as many of our players focused, training, and committed to being able to earn a living with the national team as we could. And so the notion of putting the players in fulltime residency was going to happen sometime prior to the World Cup [in 1994]. Bora [Milutinovic, the US coach from 1991-1995,] comes on and says, "I definitely want to do this."

  We wouldn’t have had to do it if more of our players were playing abroad or if we had a league, obviously. So it was a means to deal, in an artificial way, with our specific circumstances.  

Lalas: Did hosting the 1994 World Cup have an influence on your decision to have a residency program?

Gulati: I’m not sure we wouldn’t have done it if we were playing abroad. I don’t know that. Clearly the emphasis was greater because we were hosting. 

Lalas: But hosting the World Cup also meant you had fewer competitive games.

Gulati: Absolutely right.  

Lalas: So what worked about the program?

Gulati: Obviously, the players had a professional environment to train in every day. Not the same that they would’ve had if they were playing at a European club, but what it meant was they had a national team coach as if he were a club coach, training them every day, being able to manage their schedules as if they were professional athletes.
  They didn’t have to worry about another source of income. They knew when training was going to be. They weren’t going to be flying anywhere. They were living at home because their families moved to be with them. They had as close to a normal life that we could give them under the circumstances.  

Lalas: Could you make changes, based on form, to the set of players registered with the Federation?

Gulati: Sure, we could make changes. We didn’t make lots of them on a short-term basis. They were longer-term contracts. But yeah, people could make changes.
  In a club, you can always buy and sell players. Obviously, in this case you can’t do that. So the number of changes, whether you like it or not, is going to be far fewer. Clearly you’re limited to American players on the inbound, and on the outbound, you’re not sending players anywhere else. 

Lalas: Any players bought to bring home?

Gulati: No. I don’t think so. The prominent ones that were playing abroad at that time, after the World Cup in '90, or by '93 when we really started the fulltime residency program, were obviously Tab [Ramos] and John [Harkes].

Lalas: India has a league and are planning to take players away from their clubs. Would this work as a model?

Gulati: Well, this kind of thing becomes a necessity if you believe that what you are already doing isn’t good enough. So they’re not going to be the first ones to do that. Other people have done that for different periods of time. I don’t’ know what defines residency. If you’re in a small country and everyone’s an hour away. Is that residency?
  It is if you’re not playing on your club teams. Korea did a version of this prior to the World Cup in 2002. We obviously did it. Mexico did a version of this prior to the World Cup in 1986, with the Mexican national team. So different people have done it for different periods of time. In our case, with the distances involved, the fulltime residency program was the best of our options. 

Lalas: India is planning on 30 international matches over the next two years.

Gulati: That’s not enough. Clearly not. But my guess is what he means is 30 international matches. Plus a whole bunch of other games. But if the whole bunch of other games aren’t against people who aren’t good enough, that will pose some challenges.  

Lalas: If you were head of the AIFF, what would you do?

Gulati:  I don’t know enough about the level of Indian soccer to make that judgment. But if the Indian federation and their top people and the coach believe it’s the only way to prepare their team appropriately to take the next step, then fine. But they have to do it realizing it’s an artificial step. You’re losing something by taking your best players out of clubs. You’re trying to raise the level of clubs, trying to raise the popularity of clubs, and if you pull all the best players out, there’s a negative effect to that. We know that.
  One of the concerns for us has always been the balance between promoting club soccer and what you are doing with the national team. So when Major League Soccer started [in 1996], there was a concern that I think was justified—that the level of the league would not be of the level we needed to support the national team’s development.
  But we made the decision not to continue the residency program because we needed to help promote the league. India is taking a different position, because they have a league. Clearly [this program] is not in the best interest of the league. But the other side of that would be: If the national team does very well however you define that—that will give the league a shot in the arm, in terms of promotion and recognition of the game and sponsorship and all that.