For most FC Dallas fans, losing out on former Academy player Weston McKennie was always seen as a major blow to the club. The two sides never got on the same page about a Homegrown deal in 2016 when the midfielder turned 18 and opted to go to German’s Schalke instead.

McKennie has continued to some success in Europe, having spent several years with Schalke and, more recently, with Juventus in Italy.

But it appears that his time in Italy is coming to an end. His new manager, Thiago Matta, told him he ‘doesn’t plan to rely on his services’ for the 2024-25 campaign, reports La Gazzetta dello Sport.

There are reports that McKennie could be returning to America with FC Cincinnati. The Ohio-based club is looking to make an incredibly ambitious offer to Juventus to secure the US national team player.

Even if Cincinnati is able to make their offer work for McKennie, they will have to secure one small thing first: his MLS player rights from FC Dallas.

According to The Athletic’s Tom Bogert, per the league’s rules, since FC Dallas made a Homegrown offer to McKennie back in 2016, they have retained his MLS rights and will have to be compensated as a result.

This likely means that FC Dallas will secure some general allocation money, or GAM, as a result of any potential transfer for McKennie.

The sum of that will be very interesting to sort out. Some of the higher player’s rights trades in MLS history include D.C. United acquired (now current FC Dallas midfielder) Paul Arriola’s rights from the LA Galaxy in 2017 for $300k in GAM as well as $200k in TAM (targeted allocation money).

First of all, MLS player’s rights are a really dumb thing that teams are still trading around in 2024. But for these purposes, we’ll play the part. Some may recall that when FC Dallas signed Petar Musa earlier this year, they had to send some GAM over to New England for his discovery rights. So, it is kind of along those lines here with this.

Secondly, I think it would be a massive shame that FC Dallas isn’t at the table to discuss trying to bring McKennie home as a player. I get the potential transfer money, which would be tough for the Hunts to get behind after shelling out nearly $10 million earlier this year for Musa. As of this writing, we don’t know what Cincinnati is preparing to offer Juventus for McKennie, but seeing as how they paid a reported $22 million for the Little Elm native back in 2011, it may be a pretty high fee for any MLS side to do.

Lastly, as much as I would love to see a player like McKennie in MLS these days, I don’t think his time in Europe is complete. Personally, I would love to see him go back to Germany or maybe even France for a couple of seasons before returning to America. I always assumed a guy like him would make his way to MLS after the 2026 World Cup. That timing makes more sense than in 2024.

For the most part opinions about the Dallas Cowboys are the same among people. It is generally agreed that this is a talented roster but that it likely has a ceiling on it that could have been risen with a bit more help over the course of the offseason. Perhaps the team will break through that ceiling and finally do the thing, but odds are stacked against them cause of, well, everything.

Sifting through the national media can be difficult in this sense because opinions get so farfetched and silly. Standard and normal conversations about this team are far and few between on that level because they create such attention with opinions at either end of the spectrum.

As we get closer and closer to training camp we are starting to see the waters calm a bit here, which is something that we talked about recently what with how PFF ranked the Cowboys roster as just inside of the top 10 at number 9.

Somebody has Dallas even higher than that.

ESPN ranked the Dallas Cowboys roster just outside of the top 5

Whether or not you believe the Cowboys should have been more proactive with one or another contract extensions is up to you. Whatever your degree of upset-ness in this regard, the lack of extensions do not change the makeup of the roster for the 2024 season.

The fine folks over at ESPN assessed each roster in the NFL looking ahead to the upcoming campaign specifically and apparently think quite highly of the Cowboys.

Dallas comes in at number 6, the third team in the NFC trailing the San Francisco 49ers (1) and Detroit Lions (5).

Biggest strength: Edge rusher. One of the league’s top defenders, Micah Parsons has led the position in pass rush win rate each of the last three seasons. In fact, since his arrival in 2021, Dallas sits first in pass rush wins (809) and fifth in sacks (3.0 behind first). DeMarcus Lawrence is now 32 years old but hasn’t lost a step — he posted one of the top tackle rates and pass rush win rates among edge rushers last season. Sam Williams returns as solid depth, and the team added Marshawn Kneeland in the second round of April’s draft. — Clay

Biggest weakness: Running back. This wasn’t a tough choice for a pretty good Dallas roster that very clearly decided to deprioritize running back this season. Out is Tony Pollard and in is soon-to-be 29-year-old Ezekiel Elliott as the lead back. Elliott is a franchise legend, but he’s no more than the football equivalent of an innings-eater at this point in his career. That was further evidenced last year in New England, when he posted his fourth straight season with below-average yards per carry and yards after the catch marks. Additionally, there’s not much to get excited about behind Elliott (Rico Dowdle, 179-pound Deuce Vaughn and Royce Freeman). — Clay

X factor for 2024: Rookie offensive linemen Tyler Guyton and Cooper Beebe. Assuming they start, they’ll play a critical role in protecting QB Dak Prescott. And it’s a bit of a scary proposition for a team with Super Bowl aspirations. Most rookie offensive linemen — even first-round picks — are below average in Year 1. Dallas needs its picks to overcome the odds. — Walder

Advertisement

Nonstarter to know: Linebacker DeMarvion Overshown. The Cowboys’ 2023 third-round pick didn’t see the field as a rookie because of a torn ACL from the preseason. He’s a patient linebacker with elite speed and strong (ex-safety) awareness in coverage. Don’t be surprised if he’s getting snaps ahead of Damone Clark by midseason. — Schatz

These are interesting categories to break the roster down into in terms of specific blurbs and each one obviously requires a bit of context.

Let’s get into them.

Biggest strength

ESPN listed Micah Parsons as the biggest strength of the Cowboys and that is very difficult to refute given what he has done through the first three years of his career.

It is worth mentioning that gone is defensive coordinator Dan Quinn who Parsons has praised repeatedly over the last thousand days. Will he remain the same player? Can new DC Mike Zimmer utilize him in the same way?

Biggest weakness

If Cowboys fans agreed on anything universally it seems like it would be this. The running back position is… unique, to say the least.

But if you have to have a weakness and obviously everybody does, is it not even mildly encouraging that it is a position that many people believe (for lack of a better term) doesn’t matter? To be clear running backs and the run game specifically do matter, but there are obviously circumstances beyond the position itself that matter a great deal relative to the overall cause. Being “weak” here feels like a rich person problem, so to speak, regarding the overall roster.

X factor for 2024

In a similar sort of vein, if we had to blindly trust the Dallas Cowboys on one thing, wouldn’t that one thing be offensive line evaluation?

The track record here is not just very good but sterling. History (the last decade and change) shows us that the Cowboys know how to find premium offensive linemen and turn them into all-world type of players. It is a risky thing to bet on but they know this game and almost have it rigged against the house.

A different sort of x-factor might be that Trevon Diggs and DeMarvion Overshown are both returning from serious injuries. The floor of the defense should theoretically improve there. Speaking of!

Nonstarter to know

I suppose that DeMarvion Overshown classifies here, but I think we all think that he will wind up starting the majority of games. Still though it is a fair choice.

Expanding the parameters a bit to what we will call “role player to know”, how about whatever tight end winds up surprising? Assuming that happens of course.

John Stephens Jr. could become a thing. We did see it in training camp and the preseason last year, after all. Hopefully the options here only continues to grow and we look back upon a massive list of contenders.

We’ve worried for some time that our Dallas City Council is becoming disconnected from the people of this city. Now the evidence is in, and it’s damning.

Most of the 15 proposed charter amendments the council is scheduled to debate today demonstrate that too much of the council is out of touch with what residents want this city focused on and what they think of the job the city council is doing setting policy for Dallas.

The charter review process presented the council with a golden opportunity to look seriously at the function of local government and to recommend to voters reforms that could increase efficiency, lower cost, raise voter participation and improve Dallas’ standing as a city on the rise.

Instead, the amendments on the table largely serve to give the council more power, more money and less accountability while also indulging progressive pieties.

The first proposed charter amendment on the council’s agenda is a rambling “preamble” to the charter that promises Dallas’ commitment to “justice and equity for all residents.” Modeled on a New York statement and dripping with language ripped from a cultural studies seminar, the proposed preamble is not the inclusive statement its authors intend it to be.

From the holier-than-thou land acknowledgement that disregards the complex local history of indigenous tribes, to the commitment to relieve systemic inequities, to the assurance of providing “trauma-informed child and youth educators” and “trauma-informed health and mental health care,” the statement makes promises it cannot keep while emphasizing racial and class divisions.

Even as we wrote this editorial, there was a behind-the-scenes scramble to soften the excited undergraduate tone, but the effect appears to be the same.

From there, it’s on to the money, for the council naturally. Some council members want a big raise, from $60,000 a year to $125,000. No one doubts that serving on the City Council is hard work. But it’s also a volunteer role, or at least it was intended to be.

The people who formed Dallas’ strong-manager government did so to avoid creating the sort of professional political class that has corrupted so many American cities. The current council appears to want to reverse the intentions of those who created Dallas as we know it — a place with a government that has proved surprisingly resistant to the sort of endemic corruption that plagues cities with highly paid council members and aldermen. (Chicago pays its aldermen six figures, and need we say more?)

Some council members argue they deserve the money, and they work for it. But a council member is not supposed to be a miniature city manager, resolving code complaints or negotiating zoning deals. We’ve reached a point where some council members carry two phones — one is just for constituents trying to hop the line for service that comes too slow from City Hall.

It can’t be that way. The council must set policy, and the bureaucracy must implement it while handling the day-to-day concerns of residents. The role of the council has become distorted in practice, requiring more time from council members. The answer is not to reward the distortion, but to restore the appropriate balance between what city management does and what council members do.

Meanwhile, council members want to answer to voters less often, switching the charter from four two-year terms to two four-year terms. There is some value in this debate. So few eligible voters cast ballots in municipal elections that we might get more participation with fewer terms.

But debate is the key word here. We would be more inclined to support two four-year terms if the council agreed to hard term limits. Once a person has served eight years on council, they shouldn’t be able to run again for that council seat or for any other council seat other than mayor. There are examples of people doing eight years on council, then sitting out a term or so and running again, pushing out fresh voices with new ideas.

The next substantial item the council wants to try to force on voters is the diminishment of citizenship in local government. Voters already rejected this idea the last time it was raised. The planned amendment would eliminate the provision that members of the city’s charter-required boards and commissions be registered voters, qualified voters or qualified taxpaying citizens.

All residents of Dallas deserve to be heard. But boards and commissions are invested with important powers that affect the governance of the city. Such a power is appropriately reserved to citizens. Citizenship has been a cornerstone of democratic governance since the creation of representative government. Dallas voters made their support for that principle clear in 2021, when many members of this council were serving.

Some council members would also like to make it easier to govern by referendum by extending the time period from 60 to 120 days to collect the required signatures for a referendum and to reduce from 10% to 5% the total number of registered voter signatures needed to call a referendum.

Referendums are usually bad ways to govern. Government works best when elected representatives consider policy carefully, weigh pros and cons, and work through compromises. Referendums more commonly empower populist sentiments, or throw so much sand into the gears of government that nothing gets done while a referendum is debated and voted on.

Another bad amendment would reduce the mayor’s power to appoint committee members, giving the council veto power over mayoral appointments. The mayor is the sole person elected by the entire city and committee appointments are one of the few charter powers the mayor enjoys. It should remain vested in the mayor.

With so many bad amendments, we are left with little room to focus on good amendments that got left on the cutting room floor. First among these was a plan to put the office of inspector general in the city charter to provide greater independence and more oversight to prevent fraud.

As the council begins debate today, this looks like a do-over. The amendments on the floor are, by and large, either divisive statements of activism or self-serving sops to the council itself.

There are good ideas out there, but what the council has decided to debate is largely bad. It’s time to begin again and get it right. Or if these are our only choices, do nothing and do less harm.

We welcome your thoughts in a letter to the editor. See the guidelines and submit your letter here. If you have problems with the form, you can submit via email at letters@dallasnews.com