PDA

View Full Version : Salary Cap



K1nG
05-17-2009, 07:12 AM
Greetings Red Patch Boys:

I have joined you all today to discuss the MLS Salary Cap. Although I do agree that a Salary Cap is beneficial to lower revenue clubs due to the fact that it allows them to put a competitive team on the field and not lose Phoenix Coyotes money – I feel that it is inhibiting the growth of the MLS into a major worldwide Football League. I understand what the MLS is trying to do. It is trying to ensure the long term sustainability of the league. It is trying to create a balanced distribution of talent. Not good, in my opinion. I elaborate.

Every European league has its golden boys. Since I am Portuguese I will use the Super Liga as an example. FC Porto, SL Benfica and Sporting CP. These clubs have economical advantages over the rest of the league and naturally use that in their favour. Without the league preventing them from spending more than their competition, the Super Liga`s big three are free to spend whatever they desire. In doing so they have consistently been involved in European competitions and for the most part done fairly well. Potential signings take all of this into consideration (wages, stature of the league, Champions League). Porto, Benfica and Sporting are the foundation on which the Super Liga was built. I digress.

The MLS needs a foundation. I believe that Toronto FC, LA Galaxy, CD Chivas and Sounders FC can be that foundation. (eventually include Montreal for the MLS big 5) I am not saying that these clubs will go out and pay tens of millions for player transfers but a few million might not be out of the question. In addition to purchasing world class talent these clubs will be able to hold on to the Freddy and Maurice Edu`s, the Sam Cronins, the Stefan Freis, the Freddy Monteros, and the Osvaldo Alonsos. Maybe this would make the Fabio Cappellos of the world say ``Hey even though the MLS season ended a few weeks back, Beckham was in great form for LA, I`ll give him the cap v Estonia.” That way Beckham wouldn`t miss half the season in order to play in Italy - ``where Internationals earn their caps.`` (sarcasm)

Yes I know this would create an unbalanced playing field in which small market teams like Kansas City and Columbus would not be able to compete for the league title every year. To bad for them, at least they don`t have to worry about relegation. Look at Southampton`s fortunes.

I bid you adieu,

K1nG

The views and opinions expressed in this thread do not necessarily reflect those of the Tribal Rhythm Supporters Club or my mentor.

tfc007
05-17-2009, 07:16 AM
yeah,okay!

K1nG
05-17-2009, 07:18 AM
yeah, okay! in what way tfc007? If you disagree tell me why.

David
05-17-2009, 08:54 AM
Greetings Red Patch Boys:
I bid you adieu,

K1nG

The views and opinions expressed in this thread do not necessarily reflect those of the Tribal Rhythm Supporters Club or my mentor.

You do realize that you come off very very odd? Your well written but with this mentor crap, and disclaimer, it probably makes people avoid your posts, and not fully get into the point you are trying to make. At least it does to me...

In regards to your actual point, a salary cap would do wonders for this league...but only for the teams that can afford it like you said. With teams like the crew who still can't get numbers in their stadium when they're the defending champions, how would keeping teams like that at the level they are not eventually lead them to dropping from the league? Salary cap, although it is very inconvenient, among with the rest of the shady rules of this league definitely-for lack of a better word- suck, but for now I think it's something we're going to have to live with. At least until teams like the crew can get their attendances/merchandise sales (profit) up consistently.

Beach_Red
05-17-2009, 09:36 AM
The MLS needs a foundation. I believe that Toronto FC, LA Galaxy, CD Chivas and Sounders FC can be that foundation. (eventually include Montreal for the MLS big 5)


You may be right, but always remember the model for MLS is the NFL - a parity league in which any team has the chance to win the Championship.

If there are a "big 5" in MLS then it will likely be a 5 team league.

jayeden
05-17-2009, 09:41 AM
The views and opinions expressed in this thread do not necessarily reflect those of the Tribal Rhythm Supporters Club or my mentor.


Iiiiiiiiiii don't wanna work, i just wanna bang on my drum all day :drum:

K1nG
05-17-2009, 09:47 AM
^
Interesting, I did not know that the model for the MLS was the NFL. It does make sense. They are trying to fabricate parity. Perhaps that has been successfull thus far, however; I predict that in the future it may hold back MLS franchises such as the potential (Big 5) from accomplishing great things both domestically and internationally. And as such, hold back the league with respect to the respect given to it.

It is hard to compare my native Portuguese Super Liga to the MLS but in some respects it is quite simple. When the big three (Porto, Benfica and Sporting) come to town, the attendance always increases drastically. When Juventus was playing in Serie B - attendance skyrocketed. Perhaps this is something that can correlate to the MLS with respect to cities like KC seeing increased attendance whenever any of the big clubs come to town.

K1nG
05-17-2009, 09:50 AM
You do realize that you come off very very odd? Your well written but with this mentor crap, and disclaimer, it probably makes people avoid your posts, and not fully get into the point you are trying to make. At least it does to me...

If you think I am odd, you should see me in real life. I am even odder. Thank you however, for the compliment on being well written. I have been considering posting in poetry from here on out.

Beach_Red
05-17-2009, 10:03 AM
^ Maybe, but it's unlikely. Maybe attendance goes up a little when the Yankees come to town, but I'm not sure.

The NFL is the model because they took on baseball at a time when baseball was so far ahead no one thought it could ever be caught. So, the NFL realized very early on (well, when the AFL and NFL merged) that the only way to have a successful league, coast to coast, was for every team to have the same chance of winning. They share the TV revenue, which is by far most of the revenue and they have a salary cap.

There would have to be some very major changes to the sports landscape in North America for a European style "big team" league to work, I think. The closest we have is baseball and most moves being made there are to try and even things out so that small market teams have an equal chance of winning or they will lose too many fans to other sports.

And soccer in North America is no baseball, you just have to accept that.

But I think the NFL model will work very well. Americans don't care about competing internationally yet. Maybe someday they will, but none of their other sports are concened with international play, so it's a new concept and will take some time to become accepted.

Until then, MLS needs to establish as many teams in as many markets across the US as possible and get the TV ratings up.

rocker
05-17-2009, 10:27 AM
look at it this way: the cap KEEPS US from being out of the running financially.

Everyone who talks about removing the cap and creating a Big 4 or whatever always lumps TFC into that discussion. But what if TFC is NOT one of the Big 4 spenders. I see a lot of "MLSE SUCKS!" talk on this board, but then in this conversation it's assumed MLSE would just go out and spend more than the rest. Maybe they would, but look at what happened with the Jays: when they were owned by Labatt they spent and spent, and did well. Then they got sold and became cheap.
Watch MLSE get sold by the teachers pension plan and suddenly we're being run by cheapskates. Then we get outspent by the LA Galaxy. ugh.

If you want to increase MLS's stature in world soccer, just raise the cap to a point that you can draw some of the better Euro talents away to North America.
Imagine if MLS ever gets to a point where the cap is 50-80 million per team (NHL and NBA levels). May take 25 years, but if that ever happens, you can be sure every team in MLS would be on par with some of the best in Europe.

troy1982
05-17-2009, 10:42 AM
Since the poster is Portuguese, lets look at attendance of the Portuguese league with it's big clubs

For this season

1 SL Benfica 38.561
2 FC Porto 37.301
3 Sporting CP 27.881
4 Vitória SC Guimarães 17.009
5 SC de Braga 10.585
6 CF Os Belenenses 5.243
7 A Académica de Coimbra 5.022
8 CS Marítimo Madeira 4.532
9 Leixöes SC 4.199
10 CD Trofense 3.407
11 Rio Ave FC 3.096
12 A Naval 1º Maio 2.604
13 Vitória FC Setúbal 2.540
14 FC Paços de Ferreira 1.842
15 CD Nacional Madeira 1.686
16 CF Estrela Amadora 1.317

Overall 10.380
without the big 3 it is 4.852

http://www.european-football-statistics.co.uk/attn/current/avepor.htm

As you can see almost 10 clubs have attendance below 5K.
If this happened in MLS the 10 clubs below 5K would fold and no more MLS or TFC.
The only reason it works in Portugal is because the teams don't have to fly 4,000 Km every other week.

EAsoccer
05-17-2009, 11:35 AM
look at it this way: the cap KEEPS US from being out of the running financially.

Everyone who talks about removing the cap and creating a Big 4 or whatever always lumps TFC into that discussion. But what if TFC is NOT one of the Big 4 spenders. I see a lot of "MLSE SUCKS!" talk on this board, but then in this conversation it's assumed MLSE would just go out and spend more than the rest. Maybe they would, but look at what happened with the Jays: when they were owned by Labatt they spent and spent, and did well. Then they got sold and became cheap.
Watch MLSE get sold by the teachers pension plan and suddenly we're being run by cheapskates. Then we get outspent by the LA Galaxy. ugh.

If you want to increase MLS's stature in world soccer, just raise the cap to a point that you can draw some of the better Euro talents away to North America.
Imagine if MLS ever gets to a point where the cap is 50-80 million per team (NHL and NBA levels). May take 25 years, but if that ever happens, you can be sure every team in MLS would be on par with some of the best in Europe.

Yea unfortunately I dont see the salary cap being totally removed or even be on par with the the best leagues in Europe.

The MLS will stick to their original plan, as being a league where American players can develop their skills and move on to Europe at a later stages in their career while helping the USMNT improve and eventually win the World Cup. Until this happens, the best we can hope for is the MLS slightly increasing the cap every so often. But, higher salary cap essentially means less American players.

I think the biggest myth is that if the MLS raised their cap to 50-80 million that MLS teams will be on par with the best in Europe. Removing the cap, doesnt mean equality with Europe. Europe still has the history, the better clubs and the $$$. Good example is Arshavin taking a pay cut, and moving from Zenit to Arsenal, why? Because the EPL is arguably the best league in the world.

I see only a few teams LA, Chivas, and New York being able to spend in that range regardless. No salary cap, will lead to smaller markets with lower attendances not being able to compete in the MLS due to not being attracting top players and owners possibly pulling out or folding due to loss of revenue. NASL all over again. The last thing MLS needs is a 5 team league. I think the MLS would rather have a league full of American players helping the USMNT grow and succeed than one of the world's top and wealthiest leagues.

Pookie
05-17-2009, 11:58 AM
Absolutely not. Here's why:

"Forbes estimates that MLS is not yet profitable, with its 13 teams posting an operating loss (in the sense of earnings before interest, taxes and depreciation) of $20 million on revenue of $165 million. In 2007, the three teams that were in the black–Los Angeles Galaxy, Toronto FC and FC Dallas–had a combined operating profit of $6.7 million."

- Forbes Magazine - MLS Team Valuations

Now, in order to compete in an open salary world $6.7M in profit is not going to do it. Players you will attract are not going to improve the quality of play to be on par or comparable to any of the top leagues.

Further, in order to pay for those players you are going to need to increase revenues.

MLS has been around for years and they do not have a national TV contract. Clubs have to generate income off of gate receipts, merchandise and local TV. Toronto FC for example has revenue totaling $17M (Forbes) and a profit of $2.1M (Forbes).

Without a TV deal, where do you think that revenue is going to come from?

Look to the NHL for your answer. It too is a gate driven league and to pay the outrageous salaries, it needs to sell tickets to a corporate audience.

It has built a false economy. Corporations buy the seats because their customers want to go.

However, as more and more fans are alienated from the sport, they stop wanting to go.

The NHL can't turn to a national TV contract because it can't get one. They can't expand as teams are going bankrupt. They can't re-sell that corporate seat to the average fan because $16,000 plus a personal seat license fee isn't really in the budget.

Let's also look at the level of competition in leagues without a cap. With the odd exception, MLB's World Series is likely to come down to the team with the highest payroll.

Does anyone doubt that Man United will challenge once again for the EPL?

Contrast that with the NFL where a city like Green Bay can experience a championship or a city like Buffalo can at least get to the dance 4 years in a row.

I like the structure the MLS has. It is parity. It is solid competition. I don't go looking for celebrities and superstars. I go to see the game.

So, no thanks.

rocker
05-17-2009, 12:05 PM
Yea unfortunately I dont see the salary cap being totally removed or even be on par with the the best leagues in Europe.

The MLS will stick to their original plan, as being a league where American players can develop their skills and move on to Europe at a later stages in their career while helping the USMNT improve and eventually win the World Cup. Until this happens, the best we can hope for is the MLS slightly increasing the cap every so often. But, higher salary cap essentially means less American players.

I think the biggest myth is that if the MLS raised their cap to 50-80 million that MLS teams will be on par with the best in Europe. Removing the cap, doesnt mean equality with Europe. Europe still has the history, the better clubs and the $$$. Good example is Arshavin taking a pay cut, and moving from Zenit to Arsenal, why? Because the EPL is arguably the best league in the world.

I see only a few teams LA, Chivas, and New York being able to spend in that range regardless. No salary cap, will lead to smaller markets with lower attendances not being able to compete in the MLS due to not being attracting top players and owners possibly pulling out or folding due to loss of revenue. NASL all over again. The last thing MLS needs is a 5 team league. I think the MLS would rather have a league full of American players helping the USMNT grow and succeed than one of the world's top and wealthiest leagues.

I agree with what yer sayin... but on a few points:

25 years is a long time. I'm just postulating a sort of "what if?" thing. The EPL wasn't the EPL 25 years ago either. Much can change in 25 years.

The fact is, if you look at salaries today, 50-80 million per team is more than most teams in the world pay their squads. Only the greatest of the great pay their teams more than 80 million. there are teams in the EPL who don't spend 80 million on salaries.

I don't think we should shoot to be the greatest league in the world. that's too expensive and the market won't handle it.
but I don't see the Greeks complaining that their league isn't the best quality. I don't see the Norwegians complaining. Yes I'd like to see quality improve but that'll come as soccer gets more popular, revenue increases, caps go up.. this takes time. But having a big 4 won't help.

Beach_Red
05-17-2009, 12:41 PM
I don't think we should shoot to be the greatest league in the world. that's too expensive and the market won't handle it.
but I don't see the Greeks complaining that their league isn't the best quality. I don't see the Norwegians complaining. Yes I'd like to see quality improve but that'll come as soccer gets more popular, revenue increases, caps go up.. this takes time. But having a big 4 won't help.

The American market can handle it. For all the talk of recession, the American market is still huge. Americans just don't think of themselves as second-rate. If they get behind soccer, they won't want to be Norway or Greece, they'll want to be the best in the world.

Of course right now that's a big if.

Awhile ago I read an article (I can't find it now, sorry) that said if the US does really well at the World Cup that will go a long way to increasing interest in soccer in the US and I think that's true. Americans just aren't that interested in watching the best in the world if it isn't them. However you feel about it, that's just the way it is.

Maybe it's changing, maybe the international aspect of baseball (and basketball) is changing Americans' view but right now you could bring in the best soccer players in the world and American fans won't be as interested as they are in watching Americans play American football.

For soccer to be really big in America, Americans will have to lead the way. And it's not impossible, but it will take some time.

(and the world will be pissed off that they ever got the Americans interested ;)).

K1nG
05-17-2009, 01:31 PM
As you can see almost 10 clubs have attendance below 5K.
If this happened in MLS the 10 clubs below 5K would fold and no more MLS or TFC.
The only reason it works in Portugal is because the teams don't have to fly 4,000 Km every other week.

I am not sure what you are saying here. My point is that if a salary cap is lifted - teams such as Chivas, LA, Toronto and to my suprise Dallas could purchase better players or at the very least have the ability to keep their players when Europe comes knocking. I don't see the smaller clubs that don't spend as much as the biggest folding. Look at the Portuguese League, you just cited their attendances, horrid for some of the lower teams. Yet they survive, why because their expenditures do not surpass their net profits. If Nacional can survive with under 2000/ game, I think MLS clubs could with 8000/game.

As for flying 4000 km every other week. Santa Clara, Nacional and Maritimo fly from the Azores and Madeira Islands to mainland Portugal every other week. Nacional does this on the revenues from less than 2000/game. So I don't quite see the logic behind your arguement.

The views and opinions expressed in this post do not necessarily reflect those of my mentor.

Pookie
05-17-2009, 01:40 PM
I am not sure what you are saying here. My point is that if a salary cap is lifted - teams such as Chivas, LA, Toronto and to my suprise Dallas could purchase better players or at the very least have the ability to keep their players when Europe comes knocking.

TFC made a profit of just $2.1M

Which group of better players are you going to purchase and still make a profit WITHOUT raising ticket prices to NHL levels?

Beach_Red
05-17-2009, 02:26 PM
I am not sure what you are saying here. My point is that if a salary cap is lifted - teams such as Chivas, LA, Toronto and to my suprise Dallas could purchase better players or at the very least have the ability to keep their players when Europe comes knocking. I don't see the smaller clubs that don't spend as much as the biggest folding. Look at the Portuguese League, you just cited their attendances, horrid for some of the lower teams. Yet they survive, why because their expenditures do not surpass their net profits. If Nacional can survive with under 2000/ game, I think MLS clubs could with 8000/game.


They are barely holding on now. If their roster is made up of inferior players they will fold. Soccer has not gotten very deep into the culture in America yet. If the whole MLS folded tomorrow it would barely be mentioned in most American media.

A sports league in the USA needs to be national to survive because it needs a national TV contract and it can only get that if all the teams have very close to an equal chance winning championships.

You're just going to have to make allowances for American culture and traditions and history. You cannot compare anything about soccer in Portugal with soccer in the USA (or Canada).

Inswingingwingman
05-17-2009, 02:29 PM
Ah, a celery cap. Does it come with veggie dip?

Goes good with beers.

K1nG
05-17-2009, 02:40 PM
I am suprised that they only made $2.1 M in their inaugural season. I assume it would have been higher last season due to the exclusion of start up/mobilization costs. Toronto also had the highest average concession stands ticket at $15/fan and a $2 M television deal. Between the $2 M in television rights, $15 in avg consessions and being sold out almost every night - I am positive that Toronto made more than 2.1 M last year.

Anyhow, for the sake of arguement lets say they netted 2.1 M last year, add the fraction of Edu's sale to the mix and they can easily afford to invest a cool million on a transfer payment or a higher salary. If it means Toronto get a striker who can take them deep into the Champions League or the MLS Playoffs that can add a half dozen games or more of ticket sales, TV revenue and consession sales. A wise investment.

Juanito
05-17-2009, 02:44 PM
IN THEORY, it would benefit us. However, the average North American won't stand for a domination of teams. It happens in sports, like baseball. However, the system is designed so that you can fall off your perch in a few years.

If the league turns into a league like in most other countries, I'm not sure we will have enough interest to sustain the league. I can see franchises folding, and that is also different, we have franchises, not clubs.

Kaz
05-17-2009, 03:04 PM
I see a few issues with a Salary Cap being removed.
First these leagues are fairly old, or have a fair bit of tradition in nations where Football is the top sport.
In North America we need to grow the sport, and the best way to do that, is wait for the expansion period to end and raise the cap slowly. Also the goal of the league right now should be to help develop domestic talent.

Hockey and Baseball are systems to strive to emulate, the minor league development system for both sports have worked to bring about quality players, and coach's to both sports. We can build that domestic talent in North America and slowly raise the salary cap over 10-20 years to bring about a stronger league and to keep domestic players here.

There are several good decent Canadian players in Europe right now getting several million dollar deals, like Iain Hume for example, or Ali Gerba that choose to stay in England to play in League One over play in San Jose.

The key is allowing a salary cap to get high enough so not to bankrupt smaller clubs, but entice players to choose MLS over second or third tier leagues in Europe, once the league isn't in yearly expansion.

Pookie
05-17-2009, 04:10 PM
I am suprised that they only made $2.1 M in their inaugural season. I assume it would have been higher last season due to the exclusion of start up/mobilization costs. Toronto also had the highest average concession stands ticket at $15/fan and a $2 M television deal. Between the $2 M in television rights, $15 in avg consessions and being sold out almost every night - I am positive that Toronto made more than 2.1 M last year.

Anyhow, for the sake of arguement lets say they netted 2.1 M last year, add the fraction of Edu's sale to the mix and they can easily afford to invest a cool million on a transfer payment or a higher salary. If it means Toronto get a striker who can take them deep into the Champions League or the MLS Playoffs that can add a half dozen games or more of ticket sales, TV revenue and consession sales. A wise investment.

See my post above. The numbers come from Forbes magazine.

You assume that the other franchises could afford to operate in a "free market" system. Forbes indicated that 13 teams lost money. Would there still be playoffs?

I'm not going to re-type my entire first post on the economic impact of that strategy on ticket prices and competition. If you want to debate further, please have a read and get back to me :)

S_D
05-17-2009, 04:17 PM
The one thing that Forbes didn't take into account was that the stadiums make money by holding events such as concerts . They aren't owned by the clubs, but by the club owners so the revenue from that isn't accounted for, so we really don't know how much cash they make or don't.

Pookie
05-17-2009, 07:18 PM
The one thing that Forbes didn't take into account was that the stadiums make money by holding events such as concerts . They aren't owned by the clubs, but by the club owners so the revenue from that isn't accounted for, so we really don't know how much cash they make or don't.

I think the City of Toronto claimed $900k in revenue from BMO (read that in the Globe but can't find the reference). It owns that 50/50 with MLSE but I'm unsure if that $900k figure was for events outside of TFC games or if that included it.

billyfly
05-17-2009, 07:35 PM
IN THEORY, it would benefit us. However, the average North American won't stand for a domination of teams. It happens in sports, like baseball. However, the system is designed so that you can fall off your perch in a few years.

If the league turns into a league like in most other countries, I'm not sure we will have enough interest to sustain the league. I can see franchises folding, and that is also different, we have franchises, not clubs.


Very good point my Iberian brother.

Mojo
05-17-2009, 07:40 PM
In a perfect world there would be no salary cap, every team would sell out their 50,000 seat stadiums for every game, and North America would have a 3-tier relegation system filled with successful clubs.

And there'd be grass at BMO.



But it isn't.

Gazza_55
05-17-2009, 09:17 PM
TFC made a profit of just $2.1M

Which group of better players are you going to purchase and still make a profit WITHOUT raising ticket prices to NHL levels?

MLSE SAID they made $2.1m but that's only because they have to give a portion to the City of Toronto. Judging by the gameday revenue and merchandise I think they made over $8m. And that's not including the money from SUM.

mclaren
05-17-2009, 10:41 PM
Call me a traditionalist, but I hate the cap and this rubbish parity mentality. It just fosters mediocrity and means there are no storylines of the underdog defeating the big clubs or a big club showdown. In short, it makes things very dull.

K1nG
05-17-2009, 10:49 PM
Call me a traditionalist, but I hate the cap and this rubbish parity mentality. It just fosters mediocrity and means there are no storylines of the underdog defeating the big clubs or a big club showdown. In short, it makes things very dull.

Spoken like a poet!
____________________
The views and opinions expressed in this post do not necessarily reflect those of poets.

K1nG
05-17-2009, 10:54 PM
See my post above. The numbers come from Forbes magazine.

You assume that the other franchises could afford to operate in a "free market" system. Forbes indicated that 13 teams lost money. Would there still be playoffs?

I'm not going to re-type my entire first post on the economic impact of that strategy on ticket prices and competition. If you want to debate further, please have a read and get back to me :)

I read your post and I also read the article in Forbes, hence the pointing out that 2.1 M was the figure in the inaugural year.

Pookie
05-18-2009, 06:26 AM
Call me a traditionalist, but I hate the cap and this rubbish parity mentality. It just fosters mediocrity and means there are no storylines of the underdog defeating the big clubs or a big club showdown. In short, it makes things very dull.

Here's the unescapable truth. Only 3 teams in the MLS turned a profit.

I would think that a lack of revenue sharing and a free market system would make for a very dull 3 team league.

On the plus side, we might make the playoffs

Beach_Red
05-18-2009, 08:35 AM
Call me a traditionalist, but I hate the cap and this rubbish parity mentality. It just fosters mediocrity and means there are no storylines of the underdog defeating the big clubs or a big club showdown. In short, it makes things very dull.

Traditions are great, but TV money has changed things too much, made the gap too wide when it could have closed it.

From what I can see you have two choices - European leagues where 2-4 win every year because they spend the most money (I don't know the history of these leagues, was it always this way, even before the big TV money?), which works if you have a hundred years of tradition invested in every team and lots of fans don't expect their teams to win, or...

... you have the NFL in which there is parity, but some better managed teams do win more often. Pittsburgh don't spend any more money than Detroit, they just spend it smarter and win a lot more often.

It's extremely unlikely a hundred years of tradition will build up around consistently losing MLS teams. People here are freaking out that TFC isn't winning every game in its third year.

james
05-18-2009, 12:32 PM
Some of the leagues in South America such as in Argentina and Brazil are more like MLS where any team can win. In recent years it seems like teams like River Plate in Argentina can win the league 1 season and then come in last place the next. It seems in those leagues its very interresting and exciting not knowing every year what teams are gonna win the league like in most Euro leagues where the same dam teams win year after year, i find those leagues getting rather borring.

Pookie
05-18-2009, 02:24 PM
...
It's extremely unlikely a hundred years of tradition will build up around consistently losing MLS teams. People here are freaking out that TFC isn't winning every game in its third year.

Add to it that we bring in revenue in CDN$ and pay out in US$.

Many Canadian hockey fans got really cocky about the financial health of Canadian based teams in recent years.

They seem to have forgotten that the CDN$ was almost on par with the US$ at the time.

Franchises such as Ottawa, Edmonton and Calgary which were either bankrupt or talking about running lotteries to keep the team going suddenly became overnight successes. They could easily go the other way again.

Take TFC's thin profit of $2.1M and combine it with a .60 -.70 dollar. You think they'd be big spenders?

james
05-18-2009, 04:15 PM
Add to it that we bring in revenue in CDN$ and pay out in US$.

Many Canadian hockey fans got really cocky about the financial health of Canadian based teams in recent years.

They seem to have forgotten that the CDN$ was almost on par with the US$ at the time.

Franchises such as Ottawa, Edmonton and Calgary which were either bankrupt or talking about running lotteries to keep the team going suddenly became overnight successes. They could easily go the other way again.

Take TFC's thin profit of $2.1M and combine it with a .60 -.70 dollar. You think they'd be big spenders?

i think quite a few teams make more profits then the reviews show. I mean an example Toronto FC selling Edu to Rangers for $5 million. So really there profit is more like 7.2 million.

MLS teams selling players for millions to Euro Clubs seems to be happening more often now.Beckham going to Milan is bringing in millions to MLS. It might become a trend for clubs to make more $$$ other then just ticket sales and merchandise.

Pookie
05-18-2009, 05:08 PM
i think quite a few teams make more profits then the reviews show. I mean an example Toronto FC selling Edu to Rangers for $5 million. So really there profit is more like 7.2 million.

MLS teams selling players for millions to Euro Clubs seems to be happening more often now.Beckham going to Milan is bringing in millions to MLS. It might become a trend for clubs to make more $$$ other then just ticket sales and merchandise.

Edu's money is a one time thing. They do not have a revenue stream that generates 7.2M each season. Their operating income is 2.1M.

The Beckham money is great... except they had to pay him millions too.

That's an interesting example because the reality is that MLS teams have the ability to reach beyond the cap and sign superstars. In essence, the kind of system that the OP suggests would be beneficial.

Yet, not many make use of the DP. Those that do, do not get Beckham like talent because they can't afford it.

Oldtimer
05-18-2009, 05:20 PM
The salary cap is actually a great idea, it keeps costs under control. Some Euro leagues look at MLS's finances in envy, because of the cap.

The only problem is that the cap is too low. Adding a couple of million would make a huge difference to the quality of players and play.

Pookie
05-18-2009, 06:21 PM
The salary cap is actually a great idea, it keeps costs under control. Some Euro leagues look at MLS's finances in envy, because of the cap.

The only problem is that the cap is too low. Adding a couple of million would make a huge difference to the quality of players and play.

Agreed on the salary cap front.

However, if it were to rise in this league which is heavily dependent on gate receipts, what level would ticket prices have to rise to in order to afford the cap bump?

Would that have a negative impact on the vast majority of markets which draw less than 15,000 per game (11 of the 15 franchises draw under 15,000)?

james
05-18-2009, 07:19 PM
what can be very surpising is that many leagues, in Europe or South American is how low the average attendence often is. I mean just look at some of the leagues average attendence:

Argentina - 17,300
Netherlands - 15,802
France - 19,846
Portugal - 7,380
Croatia - 2,650
Brazil 10,900
Mexico 23,500

and what does MLS average like 15,000??

Some of these leagues shown here have very cheap tickets to, and there attendence still isnt great. So what i dont get is why do most these leagues have much better players on the field? so why is there such a big gap between the skill level in other leagues compared to MLS? I dont get why MLS cant compete much closer then they currently do.

Yohan
05-18-2009, 07:26 PM
^I'm going to guess revenue from TV contracts and other sponsorships

Oldtimer
05-18-2009, 07:27 PM
Agreed on the salary cap front.

However, if it were to rise in this league which is heavily dependent on gate receipts, what level would ticket prices have to rise to in order to afford the cap bump?

Would that have a negative impact on the vast majority of markets which draw less than 15,000 per game (11 of the 15 franchises draw under 15,000)?

Good points. It's hard to know exactly where each MLS team sits financially, but Paul B. said that Forbe's figures were off. Based on the level of expansion fees, I would guess that most MLS clubs were profitable last year. It's been estimated that TFC's profit was more like $10 mil. in year 2. However, this year, attendance has tanked in MLS, just like most sports, and I wouldn't be sure that a majority of teams are still making money. It takes at least 12-14k attendance to break even, with your own stadium, and very tightly controlled spending.

mighty_torontofc_2008
05-18-2009, 07:31 PM
No salary cap = NASL = death to football again... football needs a salary cap world wide not just in MLS//but MLS needs to raise the minimum wage to at least $50,000
and a increase to the roster to 22 players.

Shway
05-18-2009, 07:35 PM
what can be very surpising is that many leagues, in Europe or South American is how low the average attendence often is. I mean just look at some of the leagues average attendence:

Argentina - 17,300
Netherlands - 15,802
France - 19,846
Portugal - 7,380
Croatia - 2,650
Brazil 10,900
Mexico 23,500

and what does MLS average like 15,000??

Some of these leagues shown here have very cheap tickets to, and there attendence still isnt great. So what i dont get is why do most these leagues have much better players on the field? so why is there such a big gap between the skill level in other leagues compared to MLS? I dont get why MLS cant compete much closer then they currently do.


The reason is because these countries/leagues produced way more players than MLS

james
05-18-2009, 07:36 PM
i think if MLS clubs gotta raise salary to like $5million just to compete in Concacaf Champions League.

james
05-18-2009, 07:39 PM
The reason is because these countries/leagues produced way more players than MLS

but they seem to spend alot more money tho to, and im just wonderring how can they afford that without lossing money with dirt cheap tickets and attendence still just as good as MLS is.

Sponsors maybe help alot and TV deals, but even with that still i dont get it. I dont get why we cant even compete at the same level as some of the leagues.

Cashcleaner
05-18-2009, 11:54 PM
Hmmmmm... I can't say I disagree with much of what you've said, K1nG. I do believe a salary cap is necessary to maintain some semblance of reason with regards to talent purchasing in the league, but I totally see where you're coming from as well. I don't like the fact that the cap is more or less dictated by the fortunes of the least monetarily successful clubs. Like you said, if you're club isn't getting the crowds it needs to turn a profit, it shouldn't be up to the more profitable clubs to subsidize for any more than a few seasons.

Someone also mentioned how North Americans don't typically like to see the same one, two, or three clubs dominate one particular league and I think that's a pretty accurate observation. In the case of MLS, I really think people would start to pay less attention to the league as a whole if the season were to become a two-pony race.

Ossington Mental Youth
05-19-2009, 12:15 AM
i think if MLS clubs gotta raise salary to like $5million just to compete in Concacaf Champions League.


as well as raise the size of the roster

Pookie
05-19-2009, 11:42 AM
Let's put some reality to this equation.

What are the quality of players you are hoping to attact and how much would it cpst? Because the MLS has a DP rule, you can get an idea of what it would take to bring players over to the MLS and have them forego a career in Europe (or other major markets).

Players and salary:

Beckham (LA) - $6.5M
Blanco (Chicago) - $2.7M
Angel (NY) - $1.8M
Ljundberg (Seattle) - $1.3M
Schelotto (Columbus) - $775k
Emilio (DC) - $758k

Chivas is arguably the best team in the league as of this afternoon and they have no DP. Columbus, NY and LA are not in a playoff position. DC, Seattle and Chicago each are in a playoff position with 15 points (8 behind Chivas) and just 2 up on our boys.

Do you really get any value for what you spend?

If it takes 6.5M to land a Beckham quality player and have him give up on being in his own national spotlight, I'm not sure you can make that sustainable.

If it takes over 700k to land a Schelotto or 2.7M for Blanco, I'm not sure that you just aren't driving up salaries artificially with no real significant impact on the quality of play.

Nuvinho
05-19-2009, 11:52 AM
Cap at $4M
Roster of 30 players (24 seniors, 6 developmental)

developmental salary min. = $35K
senior salary min. = $65K
DP counts $400K

That leaves on average $140K for each senior roster spot.

flatpicker
05-19-2009, 11:58 AM
this is why a two-level salary cap needs to be in place.

They should keep the current cap, and raise it when league revenue allows.

But they should also have a second level of spending that comes out of a teams own pocket.
Kinda like the DP situation, but maybe it doesn't have to be spent all on one player?
Or maybe there should be 2 DP's allowed per team that do not count against the cap at all?

I understand there needs to be some control of spending.
And I understand that you don't want the same 2-3 teams winning every year.
But let's be honest, having a 2 or 3 powerhouse teams isn't always bad for a league.
Just look at MLB... baseball is still popular even though the NYY and Red Sox spend so much time dominating.

If MLS had a 2-3 teams spending more to add one or two top-quality players, it would actually put more people in the stands during road games.
Fans in places like KC or Columbus might be more inclined to attend a game if TFC or LA were in town and had more threatening lineups.
People like showing up to jeer and boo the Evil Big Clubs.

The wealthier teams would have a slight edge, but it wouldn't be enough to completely unbalance the table as it does in the English Prem.

A few better teams = more fans showing up on game day to jeer them while on the road.
More fans = more revenue.
More revenue = higher cap
Higher Cap = better quality throughout MLS
Higher Quality = bigger following and better tv contracts.

You gotta spend money to make money!

spark
05-19-2009, 11:59 AM
^
Interesting, I did not know that the model for the MLS was the NFL. It does make sense. They are trying to fabricate parity.

Sorry if someone already poster this - Garber does come from the NFL so it's not surprising at all that there is a very 'americana' feel to the way the league works.

Yohan
05-19-2009, 12:03 PM
Let's put some reality to this equation.

What are the quality of players you are hoping to attact and how much would it cpst? Because the MLS has a DP rule, you can get an idea of what it would take to bring players over to the MLS and have them forego a career in Europe (or other major markets).

Players and salary:

Beckham (LA) - $6.5M
Blanco (Chicago) - $2.7M
Angel (NY) - $1.8M
Ljundberg (Seattle) - $1.3M
Schelotto (Columbus) - $775k
Emilio (DC) - $758k

Chivas is arguably the best team in the league as of this afternoon and they have no DP. Columbus, NY and LA are not in a playoff position. DC, Seattle and Chicago each are in a playoff position with 15 points (8 behind Chivas) and just 2 up on our boys.

Do you really get any value for what you spend?

If it takes 6.5M to land a Beckham quality player and have him give up on being in his own national spotlight, I'm not sure you can make that sustainable.

If it takes over 700k to land a Schelotto or 2.7M for Blanco, I'm not sure that you just aren't driving up salaries artificially with no real significant impact on the quality of play.
arguably though, individual players do make an impact
so far, all those DPs (except Becks since he's not playing in MLS atm) are worth their money if their ind numbers are any indication

Pookie
05-19-2009, 12:13 PM
arguably though, individual players do make an impact
so far, all those DPs (except Becks since he's not playing in MLS atm) are worth their money if their ind numbers are any indication

But the goal isn't about individual stats, it's about team success.

You can throw money at players and some may take the bait. But what kind of player are you going to get?

Players that would choose to play here probably fit in one of three categories:

a) just too much money to pass up
b) local ties (ie. US or Canadian)
c) poor future prospects in other leagues

If you think in hockey terms, it would be like the Canadian kid who gives up on the NHL to sign and play in Russia's KHL or the Swedish Elite League.

I'm generalizing here, but a European born player is not likely to give up on his Premiership (Serie A, Bundesliga, Primera) dreams unless he is getting a boat load of cash and/or sees no future because of some issue (ie. branded with a poor work ethic, injury, etc).

They don't dream of winning the MLS Cup. They dream of titles, of Champions League, of World Cups.

I don't think paying these kinds of players more does anything significant to improve this league.

Yohan
05-19-2009, 12:26 PM
But the goal isn't about individual stats, it's about team success.

You can throw money at players and some may take the bait. But what kind of player are you going to get?

Players that would choose to play here probably fit in one of three categories:

a) just too much money to pass up
b) local ties (ie. US or Canadian)
c) poor future prospects in other leagues

If you think in hockey terms, it would be like the Canadian kid who gives up on the NHL to sign and play in Russia's KHL or the Swedish Elite League.

I'm generalizing here, but a European born player is not likely to give up on his Premiership (Serie A, Bundesliga, Primera) dreams unless he is getting a boat load of cash and/or sees no future because of some issue (ie. branded with a poor work ethic, injury, etc).

They don't dream of winning the MLS Cup. They dream of titles, of Champions League, of World Cups.

I don't think paying these kinds of players more does anything significant to improve this league.
we're talking about specific players here.

given the right type of player, they do put up the numbers that is expected of a DP

the question is whether the rest of the team is built as a winning team, and DP added as a final piece.

Beach_Red
05-19-2009, 01:03 PM
Blanco (Chicago) - $2.7M
Angel (NY) - $1.8M
Ljundberg (Seattle) - $1.3M
Schelotto (Columbus) - $775k
Emilio (DC) - $758k


What would TFC's playoff chances look like with any one of those guys added to the roster?

Pookie
05-19-2009, 01:06 PM
the same as the Crew or the Red Bulls with those guys?

Fort York Redcoat
05-19-2009, 01:22 PM
Can someone explain how the salary cap is interesting? It's this NA thing that really helps little and not so little leagues and the biggest leagues in the world talk about it and parity as possibities but it seems like it's become this element of being a huge fan now that you know how teams (sometimes not even your own!) balance their books. It obviously dedication to the NA sport involved but other than that, what's the interest? To me it seems like a shift of focus from the game being played.

ExiledRed
05-19-2009, 01:26 PM
Seeing as anything that doesn't follow the north american model is apparently doomed to fail.

Can somebody tell me what the salary caps are in the NHL, NFL, MLB and NBA please?

Also fill me in on whether the teams or the league pays the wages in those leagues.

Beach_Red
05-19-2009, 01:52 PM
Also fill me in on whether the teams or the league pays the wages in those leagues.


Without the league there is no team.

The NHL is a disaster, a league in dissary with many teams facing bankruptcy. When the league contracts to 24 teams with eight of them in Canada it'll be okay ;).

The other three US leagues are doing pretty well and the salary caps are something that came about after TV revenue started to be greater than ticket sales. Because most of the money is generated by TV, the home team can't very well keep it all, can it? It took both teams to generate that money.

Baseball is the closest to European soccer in that there's a hundred years of tradition in many of the teams and was the last to adopt any kind of salary cap.

In order to compete with baseball and its entrenched position as "America's pasttime", the NFL and later the NBA looked for ways to make their whole league stronger, rather than just a few teams, so that it would appeal to a national TV audience.

So, if you want to introduce a new sport to North America, you can copy the NASL or the NFL.

Which one would you pick?

Pookie
05-19-2009, 01:52 PM
NHL, NFL and NBA have caps. MLB has a "Luxury Tax" if you spend over a certain limit you pay a "tax."

Teams pay for salaries in each of those leagues.

----

FYR - the salary cap is interesting in the same sense that "fantasy pools" are interesting. You build a team within parameters.

I've been defending the cap system here on the basis of competition. Truth be told, the cap is not as important as revenue sharing is.

You can have a system in which there is no cap. If you have revenue sharing, each team is on an equal footing to use the revenues to attract players. The league as a whole remains strong in all markets which helps to drive TV contracts and properity for all.

That is the NFL model (though they also have a cap).

If you have no cap without revenue sharing, you get the NHL pre-lock out. Big spenders took all of the talent and smaller market teams saw players leave once they became free agents and teams thought of folding (Ottawa, Edmonton, Calgary, as an example).

That is great for the owners in big cities but ultimately, the league suffers and when that happens, your ability to get alternative revenue declines.

Selfishly, I like the MLS model of salary caps, revenue shares and single entity ownership. It should keep ticket prices affordable and competition should be strong in any given year.

Fort York Redcoat
05-19-2009, 02:00 PM
So, if you want to introduce a new sport to North America, you can copy the NASL or the NFL.

Which one would you pick?

As much as they want to make MLS and soccer a North American style league tournaments like the Vcup and Champions league have no precedent here. Once more people realize that it might be more interesting testing skill outside of one's league instead of endlessly trying to depreciate competition they might see a future in it and the world wide game.

Beach_Red
05-19-2009, 02:17 PM
As much as they want to make MLS and soccer a North American style league tournaments like the Vcup and Champions league have no precedent here. Once more people realize that it might be more interesting testing skill outside of one's league instead of endlessly trying to depreciate competition they might see a future in it and the world wide game.


Well, if there are going to be American teams in international play, there'll have to be an American league - in order to have an American league there will have to be teams in every TV demographic to get a national contract and in order for that to happen the teams will all have to be competitive.

Americans (and I would say most people) aren't all that interested in "testing skill," they are really only interested in winning. If all goes according to plan, the USA will develop more and more players of higher quality and MLS salary cap will rise (because TV ratings will get better) to keep more of them in the league and they'll do better internationally and a proper foundation will be built and the league will thrive.

So far, the draft picks from the NCAA are looking like they're improving every year, don't they? If the NCAA can produce the world's best athletes in most other sports, from swimming to track to golf and tennis, there's no reason they can't in soccer if they want to.

Fort York Redcoat
05-19-2009, 02:25 PM
Well, if there are going to be American teams in international play, there'll have to be an American league - in order to have an American league there will have to be teams in every TV demographic to get a national contract and in order for that to happen the teams will all have to be competitive.

Americans (and I would say most people) aren't all that interested in "testing skill," they are really only interested in winning. If all goes according to plan, the USA will develop more and more players of higher quality and MLS salary cap will rise (because TV ratings will get better) to keep more of them in the league and they'll do better internationally and a proper foundation will be built and the league will thrive.

So far, the draft picks from the NCAA are looking like they're improving every year, don't they? If the NCAA can produce the world's best athletes in most other sports, from swimming to track to golf and tennis, there's no reason they can't in soccer if they want to.

NCAA take to long with players who should already be playing and finished with acadamies. Even when soccer keeps growing and stealing kids from other NA sports the kids coming out of these schools are held back from an overprotective NCAA and MLS.

BTW parity weakens support of a club.:)

Beach_Red
05-19-2009, 02:32 PM
NCAA take to long with players who should already be playing and finished with acadamies. Even when soccer keeps growing and stealing kids from other NA sports the kids coming out of these schools are held back from an overprotective NCAA and MLS.

BTW parity weakens support of a club.:)

I've become fond of the Steelers-Lions comparison - they may have the same operating budget because of the revenue sharing, but they sure have different won-lost records.

Though somehow the Lions don't suffer too much for support. Maybe soccer fans are just far more fair-weather than NFL fans who stick by their team....

;)

NCAA will likely only ever fill in what someone on here called "middle-class" players and the really special ones will go straight from high school to the pros as they do in basketball. The system has some flexibility.

Fort York Redcoat
05-19-2009, 03:19 PM
I've become fond of the Steelers-Lions comparison - they may have the same operating budget because of the revenue sharing, but they sure have different won-lost records.

Though somehow the Lions don't suffer too much for support. Maybe soccer fans are just far more fair-weather than NFL fans who stick by their team....

;)

NCAA will likely only ever fill in what someone on here called "middle-class" players and the really special ones will go straight from high school to the pros as they do in basketball. The system has some flexibility.

Well our acadamies have a ways to go before they can trump the lure of a free education over here. But from your lips to God's ear.

As for your throwbawl comparison you're right soccer fans are more fairweather on the whole on this continent because of things already mentioned. Lack of history, size of the league and no tv. NA wants to know if their not the best league they better be the biggest. Wonder if MLS will raise the cap before they hit 40 teams.

ExiledRed
05-19-2009, 03:20 PM
Which one would you pick?

Actually neither, I don't believe they are the only choices.

NASL failure is as much to do with it's time as it is to do with anything else. i.e the product could not be and wasn't marketed internationally, existed before satellite TV, the internet, video games and hyper merchandising. The mistakes of the NASL aren't inevitably going to be repeated without a salary cap, that's absurd.

Beach_Red
05-19-2009, 03:31 PM
Well our acadamies have a ways to go before they can trump the lure of a free education over here. But from your lips to God's ear.

As for your throwbawl comparison you're right soccer fans are more fairweather on the whole on this continent because of things already mentioned. Lack of history, size of the league and no tv. NA wants to know if their not the best league they better be the biggest. Wonder if MLS will raise the cap before they hit 40 teams.


Yeah, if only those athletes actually graduated, but that's another issue for off topic, what does Jesse Jackson call it, "March madness and May sadness ;)?

I disagree though, that NA want the biggest leagues. If that were true, they'd have five divisions and promotion-relegation. North American leagues are exclusive clubs that require huge fees to get into.

I've only been following MLS since TFC got into it. I went to a couple of NASL games in Montreal a long time ago. I think MLS is taking a more realistic approach. It's very hard to get into the over-crowded sports market in America - it's easier in Canada, with no real competition from college sports, but that's another issue, too.

Why did NFL Europe fail? Was it because of the sport itself? The fact none of the best players were from Europe? Not enough teams? Playoffs? How different are the challenges for MLS?

Right now I'm optimistic that if MLS continues the way it's going it will get into the "big-four" of US sports (sorry NHL but MLS will surpass hockey within ten years).

Beach_Red
05-19-2009, 03:33 PM
Actually neither, I don't believe they are the only choices.

NASL failure is as much to do with it's time as it is to do with anything else. i.e the product could not be and wasn't marketed internationally, existed before satellite TV, the internet, video games and hyper merchandising. The mistakes of the NASL aren't inevitably going to be repeated without a salary cap, that's absurd.

there are people on here who know a lot more about NASL than I do and they seem to think that for a time it was successful and on its way to being more successful - then the salaries took off and only a few teams could keep up.

If there's no salary cap - really revenue sharing is the better plan and what the NFL does, but that's only because they have so much TV revenue to share - then I don't see why only a couple of teams will spend the most money and dominate the leagues - just like they do in Europe.

Fort York Redcoat
05-19-2009, 03:44 PM
Yeah, if only those athletes actually graduated, but that's another issue for off topic, what does Jesse Jackson call it, "March madness and May sadness ;)?

I disagree though, that NA want the biggest leagues. If that were true, they'd have five divisions and promotion-relegation. North American leagues are exclusive clubs that require huge fees to get into.

I've only been following MLS since TFC got into it. I went to a couple of NASL games in Montreal a long time ago. I think MLS is taking a more realistic approach. It's very hard to get into the over-crowded sports market in America - it's easier in Canada, with no real competition from college sports, but that's another issue, too.

Why did NFL Europe fail? Was it because of the sport itself? The fact none of the best players were from Europe? Not enough teams? Playoffs? How different are the challenges for MLS?

Right now I'm optimistic that if MLS continues the way it's going it will get into the "big-four" of US sports (sorry NHL but MLS will surpass hockey within ten years).

Wow. That Jesse Jackson quote says loads to the argument that acadamies should if not will replace the strangle grip NCAA have on sports in NA.

Good comparison with NFL Europe/Europa (like the new name of UEFA cup:D). The sports landscape was saturated with supporters not willing to convert or share the market with the one or two sports that rule those countries. Look at where it drew it's last breath. Germany has one of the highest numbers per capita of people attending live sports. I've been interested to see the redirection of the NFLs billions into a second tier league. NFL2 or will they dance with the CFL again.

Beach_Red
05-19-2009, 03:49 PM
I've been interested to see the redirection of the NFLs billions into a second tier league. NFL2 or will they dance with the CFL again.

Or will college football always play that role?

This is off topic, but I was talking to an Irish guy who mentioned a line in the movie Friday Night Lights, before the final game the coach saying to the players, "For some of you, this is the last football game you will ever play." I hadn't thought about it, but there isn't really beer league football in the US, is there? I'm not sure if that says anything about the sporting culture or not.

Fort York Redcoat
05-19-2009, 04:04 PM
Or will college football always play that role?

This is off topic, but I was talking to an Irish guy who mentioned a line in the movie Friday Night Lights, before the final game the coach saying to the players, "For some of you, this is the last football game you will ever play." I hadn't thought about it, but there isn't really beer league football in the US, is there? I'm not sure if that says anything about the sporting culture or not.

I assume there must be some but due to the frequency of injury in that sport...I'm curious to know for sure since here people play hockey (and soccer) till the knees, joints or whathaveyou goes.

Oh yeah and to get back to topic I still wish we didn't need a salary cap.:D

Beach_Red
05-19-2009, 04:06 PM
I assume there must be some but due to the frequency of injury in that sport...I'm curious to know for sure since here people play hockey (and soccer) till the knees, joints or whathaveyou goes.

Oh yeah and to get back to topic I still wish we didn't need a salary cap.:D

As long as sports teams continue to be owned by billionaires, we'll need to keep them in line somehow - they really can't be trusted ;).

TFC FORZA RPB
05-19-2009, 06:10 PM
on a side note, how in the world did K1nG get back on the board

:flare::drum::scarf:

haha lol

Cashcleaner
05-20-2009, 01:12 AM
Before we hop on the bandwagon to bash North American sporting conventions, let's look at the numbers here from Forbes. Out of the top five profitable sports leagues in the world, three are from the United States:


Overall Profits (2008)
*National Football League - $984.5 million
English Premier League - $513 million
*Major League Baseball - $496 million
Formula One Racing - $435 million
*National Basketball Association - $205 million

I think it's safe to assume that when it comes to operating a sports organization, the Yanks are as good as they come. Could one of the reasons of their profitability be chalked up to league-mandated financial restrictions? I would say yes.

At the end of the day, those three leagues are making money hand over fist and, well...I guess the numbers speak for themselves.

Fort York Redcoat
05-20-2009, 06:56 AM
Before we hop on the bandwagon to bash North American sporting conventions, let's look at the numbers here from Forbes. Out of the top five profitable sports leagues in the world, three are from the United States:



I think it's safe to assume that when it comes to operating a sports organization, the Yanks are as good as they come. Could one of the reasons of their profitability be chalked up to league-mandated financial restrictions? I would say yes.

At the end of the day, those three leagues are making money hand over fist and, well...I guess the numbers speak for themselves.

Cash. C'mon. We're not hopping anywhere. We BUILT that wagon.;)

What I was hinting at is that these leagues were made and played in a bubble, competing only as entertainment against each other so caps and parity was influential and necessary and possible. If other countries were competing with them teams wouldn't be so quick to restrict. I think we can agree the Yankees are more impressive with restrictions than the large amount of baseball history that had the richest city and the richest team.

Fort York Redcoat
05-20-2009, 07:06 AM
.


FYR - the salary cap is interesting in the same sense that "fantasy pools" are interesting. You build a team within parameters.

I've been defending the cap system here on the basis of competition. Truth be told, the cap is not as important as revenue sharing is.



That is great for the owners in big cities but ultimately, the league suffers and when that happens, your ability to get alternative revenue declines.

Selfishly, I like the MLS model of salary caps, revenue shares and single entity ownership. It should keep ticket prices affordable and competition should be strong in any given year.

If salary cap restrictions were only as simple as fantasy pools and half as interesting. I appreciate those who are keeping up with these ridiculous rules that change every year so our league can improve by centimetres.

I maintain the eventual goal should be less NA style to dominate our region and move on so more Americans can point at world competition and say with fragile egos intact that their clubs can compete.

But that day will arrive far from now, if ever, so I think you can enjoy the low ticket prices and all the lovely rules that keep them that way.

Oldtimer
05-20-2009, 07:56 AM
there are people on here who know a lot more about NASL than I do and they seem to think that for a time it was successful and on its way to being more successful - then the salaries took off and only a few teams could keep up.



Us "oldtimers" remember the NASL.

There were many problems with the NASL. The salary problem was the biggest. However, the salary problem was caused by one club, the NY Cosmos. They overspent so that their team would win. Win they did (they had a 66% win rate), though they bled money. Other teams had to spend to keep up, and it ended up as an arms race that bankrupted the league.

Beach_Red
05-20-2009, 08:54 AM
Cash. C'mon. We're not hopping anywhere. We BUILT that wagon.;)

What I was hinting at is that these leagues were made and played in a bubble, competing only as entertainment against each other so caps and parity was influential and necessary and possible. If other countries were competing with them teams wouldn't be so quick to restrict. I think we can agree the Yankees are more impressive with restrictions than the large amount of baseball history that had the richest city and the richest team.


It's a good point that the American leagues only competing against each other. I guess you could say in soccer that regional teams only compete against each other, too, first in domestic leagues and then in the European or CONCACAF Champions. Of course, they compete with each other to sign players, but a few teams are clearly leaving the rest of the pack behind.

Fort York Redcoat
05-20-2009, 09:19 AM
It's a good point that the American leagues only competing against each other. I guess you could say in soccer that regional teams only compete against each other, too, first in domestic leagues and then in the European or CONCACAF Champions. Of course, they compete with each other to sign players, but a few teams are clearly leaving the rest of the pack behind.

You mean in our region? Not in MLS, surely. There are favourites in Mexico that are far richer but the league fluctuates in standings more than the big European leagues. As the countries (and islands) get smaller in our region clear favourites appear which will keep the country competitive longer in the region. This different system doesn't need to change since they don't have the distance and breadth of USA and Canada, though.

Cashcleaner
05-20-2009, 12:35 PM
Cash. C'mon. We're not hopping anywhere. We BUILT that wagon.;)

What I was hinting at is that these leagues were made and played in a bubble, competing only as entertainment against each other so caps and parity was influential and necessary and possible. If other countries were competing with them teams wouldn't be so quick to restrict. I think we can agree the Yankees are more impressive with restrictions than the large amount of baseball history that had the richest city and the richest team.

Haha! Fair enough. I think we can all agree on the fact that the more MLS teams play others in CONCACAF or SuperLiga, the more owners and league officials will be exposed to the more competitive nature of their Mexican and Caribbean counterparts.

ExiledRed
05-20-2009, 01:18 PM
Before we hop on the bandwagon to bash North American sporting conventions, let's look at the numbers here from Forbes. Out of the top five profitable sports leagues in the world, three are from the United States:



I think it's safe to assume that when it comes to operating a sports organization, the Yanks are as good as they come. Could one of the reasons of their profitability be chalked up to league-mandated financial restrictions? I would say yes.

At the end of the day, those three leagues are making money hand over fist and, well...I guess the numbers speak for themselves.


Which of those north american leagues have a salary cap at about $2-3 million, and sell their best players on for more than they pay two full rosters?

Beach_Red
05-20-2009, 01:40 PM
Which of those north american leagues have a salary cap at about $2-3 million, and sell their best players on for more than they pay two full rosters?

Certainly not the ones with the national TV contracts and full stadiums in every city.

But MLS could get there if it doesn't shoot itself in the foot. It's certainly a balancing act and most likely the league will proceed too cautitiously - let's hope not so cautiously that it loses fans.

But that's part of the balancing act - MLS may consider losing fans in Toronto if they gain fans in Texas and California as a success.

rocker
05-20-2009, 01:58 PM
MLS may consider losing fans in Toronto if they gain fans in Texas and California as a success.

i don't think it's a case of gaining fans in Texas and Cali and losing fans in toronto.

We could gain a lot more fans if the quality went up a lot.. but if we only get better slightly every year in quality, as I think has happened since 2007, we aren't gonna lose the people we got.

I certainly am not in this because i'm waiting for the quality to improve. I just love my local team, which has a good enough quality that i can get behind it.

also, if suddenly they put the cap to 50 mil, and drew in premiership quality players, and suddenly all those who didn't give a shit about MLS came on board, you wouldn't have big enough stadiums to meet the demand, so it'd be a waste. Now, TV ratings might improve a lot, but then you'd have to wait to renegotiate those longterm TV deals to see a benefit. It's a large organism, this MLS, with many factors that go into its success.

Cashcleaner
05-21-2009, 12:46 AM
Which of those north american leagues have a salary cap at about $2-3 million, and sell their best players on for more than they pay two full rosters?

Oh don't get me wrong, MLS financial controls are currently ridiculously tight. I'm just advocating that we do maintain some semblance of fiscal order. A lot of good ideas have been tossed about here and elsewhere, and I do think the league is listening and working on changes to the cap.