PDA

View Full Version : Would a NBA-style salary cap benefit MLS (overall) or hurt MLS (overall)?



Dust2
06-11-2009, 02:40 AM
Could MLS grow faster if it follow the NBA model? Teams with high growth potential like NY, LA, Tor, Sea, Van, Chicago, DC, Houston, Philly are allowed to grow. At the same time, they will pay a hefty luxury tax for the privilege of spending more than the low-to-mid level MLS clubs. These low-to-mid level clubs benefit from the luxury tax payment.

http://www.nba.com/news/salarycapset_080709.html


The National Basketball Association today announced that the Salary Cap for the 2008-09 season will be $58.680 million.

The tax level for the 2008-09 season has been set at $71.150 million. Any team whose team salary exceeds that figure will pay a $1 tax for each $1 by which it exceeds $71.150 million.

The mid-level exception is $5.585 million for the 2008-09 season and the minimum team salary, which is set at 75% of the Salary Cap, is $44.010 million.

In a nutshell, salary cap at $58.69 mil. Minimum salary (75% of cap) $44.01 mil
Luxury tax start at $71.150 mil ($1 per $1 over).

In 2005-06, the New York Knicks' payroll was $124 million, putting them $74.5 million above the salary cap, and $62.3 million above the tax line, which Knicks owner James Dolan paid to the league.


1. New York Knicks
$94,842,168
2. Dallas Maverick
$92,758,122
3. Cleveland Cavaliers
$91,650,943
4. Boston Celtics
$80,659,701
5. Portland Trail Blazers
$80,600,059
6. Phoenix Suns
$75,626,030
7. Houston Rockets
$75,469,051
8. Los Angeles Lakers
$75,255,408
9. Sacramento Kings
$73,129,886
10. Detroit Pistons
$72,076,423
11. Toronto Raptors
$71,965,453
12. Milwaukee Bucks
$71,421,682
13. Washington Wizards
$70,259,475
14. Indiana Pacers
$70,036,797
15. Denver Nuggets
$70,478,826
16. Miami Heat
$69,865,650
17. San Antonio Spurs
$69,299,039
18. Orlando Magic
$68,713,618
19. Oklahoma City Thunder
$68,533,648
20. Chicago Bulls
$68,520,301
21. Golden State Warriors
$68,461,515
22. Philadelphia 76ers
$68,393,588
23. Atlanta Hawks
$68,012,336
24. New Orleans Hornets
$67,866,515
25. Minnesota Timberwolves
$66,066,569
26. Utah Jazz
$65,632,827
27. New Jersey Nets
$62,609,434
28. Charlotte Bobcats
$61,787,680
29. Los Angeles Clippers
$60,775,937
30. Memphis Grizzlies
$55,705,279



If MLS follow NBA salary cap model, it could look something like this:

Salary cap at $3.2 mil
Minimum salary cap (75%) at $2.4 mil
Luxury tax ($1 for $1 over) starting at $4 mil

(the actual number will be up to MLS to decide, the above is just an example).

MLS would pay salaries up to $2.4 mil and each team owner will be responsible for the rest. Or MLS could change its regulation and make each team pay salary instead. For me, there are two important objectives for MLS: 1) cost certainty---allow all MLS teams a chance at profitability 2) allow MLS high revenue teams and teams with high growth potential to grow. The current level playing field/hard cap hinder the potential of the very teams that could push MLS forward.

NY, LA, Tor, Sea, Van, Philly could have a $8 mil wages (and pay $4 mil in luxury tax). This would allow them the ability to grow at a much faster rate. I wouldn't be surprised if Seattle could average 40,000 if it could spend $8 mil in wages instead of $2.3 mil. Same with Toronto, Vancouver. And of course, New York and Los Angeles have the most growth potential because their markets are the biggest.

MLS would do better in the Champions League. Its image and reputation among existing soccer fans would increase. Its TV rating would increase because of high profile match-ups. A team like NY,LA,Sea,Tor could have $1 mil/year type players like Donovan, Cooper, Altidore, Kljestan, Angel. That team probably need about $8-10 mil cap (and pay about $4-6 mil luxury tax).

The current US National team rosters have 16 out of 23 players playing abroad. Could MLS use some American national team members like Bocanegra, Dempsey, Freddy Adu, Altidore, Michael Bradley, Tim Howard, Brad Guzan, Benny Feihaber, Onyewu, Beasley, Danny Califf? Just some of them staying in MLS would be good for the league. The J-league has 23 out of 28 Japanese national team players playing in the J-league. This definately help the league grow. With $8-10 mil wagse, a few teams will retain/get US internationals and for Van/Tor Canadian internationals.

Shakes McQueen
06-11-2009, 05:48 AM
While as a TFC fan I'd love that kind of model, I think it would be bad for the overall health of the league.

Giving already-strong markets a leg up over less wealthy owners, and weaker markets, will kill a lot of those markets off before they have a chance to grow stronger. Both conferences will become like the AL East in MLB - teams like LA and Seattle becoming the Yankees and BoSox in the West, and teams like Toronto and New York becoming their counterparts in the East.

Meanwhile teams like Dallas and Columbus would disappear, in all likelihood. And while weak markets closing up shop happens in other leagues, MLS isn't entrenched enough of a product to survive that kind of instability right now.

Some years down the line? Sure, I think it'd be a great idea.

I favour just raising the cap a sensible amount - or doing what the NHL do, and raising the cap to reflect league revenues every year. For now, while I think they need to raise the cap significantly, I think slower, cautious growth is the way to go.

- Scott

Fort York Redcoat
06-11-2009, 06:19 AM
I don't understand this model for NA sports. As discussed in other threads, these teams are only competing with each other not foreign teams as well. So while this builds giants in their respective league it trivializes weaker teams in smaller areas.

I'm not really concerned about other sports leagues but it's too soon for MLS. After expansion is done.

That said, I think your numbers proposed are reasonable, Dusty, and I hope vehemently that it comes to pass in the near future...

Pookie
06-11-2009, 06:53 AM
Your thread starts with a question, could the MLS "grow faster?"

What do you mean by grow faster?

- adding more teams?
- growing revenue?
- improving quality of play?

If you are talking about more teams, consider that there are 3 new ones coming by 2011. Expansion needs to be controlled to balance the risk of diluting the overall product (which please don't forget is the league itself). Owners are lining up to get a franchise because of the cost certainty of this model. The investment risk is less in this climate than it is with other leagues. That is very appealing.

A more fruitful idea would be to look at teams that have continually struggled and consider relocation to hungrier markets. ie, move KC to Montreal. That would have more of an impact on the collective health of the league.

If you are talking about growing revenue, an NBA Luxury tax with the spending you've proposed (+$12M for Toronto) is absolutely ludicrous in my opinion. Toronto would have to raise revenue by over 176% off current numbers to be able to afford that.

That would equate to over $1,200 extra per season for a holder of two seats in the Supporter's Section. You also bring into the mix the idea of Personal Seat Licenses. That's a tough sell.

If you are talking about improving the quality of play, I think yes, you would attract some "better" players.

Though, as I've said in other threads, they will not be players that North American fans would relate to therefore would likely not be enough to justify the extra expense ($1,200 for a Red Patch Boy with 2 seats, in my example above). It wouldn't have a positive impact on the financial health of the league.

Improving the quality of play is something that we both want. It will be done through the long term development of North American talent.

Where I think your idea does have legs is in establishing a minimum salary. If any future cap increase can be put into raising the minimum salary instead of paying supposed "top talent" a little more for the same work (ie. giving a raise to Guevara), I think you will encourage more kids to think of the MLS (or Pro-soccer in general) as a career option.

Give the North American public guys who are hungry to grow, play for their national teams and at a reasonable price from cities and towns they know... that sells.

Suds
06-11-2009, 06:59 AM
The current US National team rosters have 16 out of 23 players playing abroad.


Interesting stat considering one of the goal of the MLS is to develop US talent to bolster their national team.



I think in the longer term a model like the NBA should be considered by the MLS. Just not sure the league is there yet. I recall a posting on here that only a small number of MLS teams are profitable at this stage. I think that percentage needs to increase.

It's a fine line of spending money to make money and spending that just results in a higher debt load on the teams. The timing of any increasses to team spending is going to be key to how successful it is.

An increase in the cap is definitely needed. To what amount is the right amount is debatable; but I think most will agree it needs to be increased.

Fort York Redcoat
06-11-2009, 07:21 AM
Interesting stat considering one of the goal of the MLS is to develop US talent to bolster their national team.



I don't think MLs are so dumb as to believe their skill level or $$$ are close to competing abroad. With a little $$$ added it means keeping that prospect for another year or maybe one on the bubble chooses to stay. We'll see.

rocker
06-11-2009, 08:16 AM
i'd like the thread author to explain what this NBA system has done for the NBA?

It just looks like a different system. But what has been its outcome on improving the NBA? How would that be better than the NFL system, for example?

Also, on this comment:

The current US National team rosters have 16 out of 23 players playing abroad. Could MLS use some American national team members like Bocanegra, Dempsey, Freddy Adu, Altidore, Michael Bradley, Tim Howard, Brad Guzan, Benny Feihaber, Onyewu, Beasley, Danny Califf

15 of the 23 players on the US national team members have played or are currently playing in MLS. So I'm not sure what this point says other than MLS produces national team talent. There's no indication whether any of the players who left MLS would want to come back or whether the NBA model would bring them back.

I just don't know about all these various permutations of proposals for the cap. The connection between a certain proposal and a specific outcome seems to tenuous to me. All I can trust is as long as MLS raises the salary cap, we will probably see improvement in quality. Just raise the cap across the board. Simple. Maybe the league could also remove the protective rules, those rules that protect teams from fucking themselves with bad decisions. Then superclubs could develop not based on spending more than the other guy, but on consistently making good decisions. Maybe they could take off the restriction, for example, on the max salary against the cap. So you could conceivable sign a 600K player against the cap, which is taking a risk. But if it fails, you're screwed. Teams that don't fail at risktaking could potentially do much better than others.

I believe in equality of opportunity but if it leads to inequality of outcome, due to mismanagement, then that's fine. I love the idea that every team has the same money to spend, because then it means teams have to win by thinking better, training better, scouting better, etc. But maybe MLS has toooo many rules now to enforce parity, to the point that they overprotect that decisionmaking. For example, the draft. I understand the point of the draft. But even if they did away with the draft, no MLS team under a cap system could scoop up all the best college players. And even if they did, they'd be leaving open a lot of other players the remaining teams could sign (both college, and foreigners). The discovery claim system is similar. The cap + single entity ensures that a "bidding war" between MLS teams for foreigners probably couldn't happen, so why bother with discovery claims? Removing the draft and the discovery claim system would place a greater emphasis on smart management.

Beach_Red
06-11-2009, 08:27 AM
What I like about this thead is that everyone beieves MLS will continue to grow and prosper, and the question is how to manage that.

When the league started it had, what, one owner because no other investors could be found. Now people are paying close to $40 million to get into the league.

We're complaining that the growth isn't fast enough but this is the first successful start-up sports league in North America in decades - and lots have failed.

Fort York Redcoat
06-11-2009, 08:36 AM
^That's a lot of money considering how little they can spend year to year. This CBA next year will be quite the indicator how hungry for growth the league really is.

Cuz
06-11-2009, 09:45 AM
I've said this before on this forum and I will say it again.. Salary caps kill teams! Especially the god ones who have all the money in the world and can't spend a fucking dime of it due to the cap! With the support TFC has we could an probably one day will become the richest team in footy in North America. And as long as there is a cap on the game then we will suffer the same way the Leafs do every year because of the cap! The Leafs are a prime example of how salary caps kill teams! The Leafs are #3 in the world next to Manchester United and the New York Yankees in profitability and yet they can't even compete in today's NHL because we aren't allowed to spend our own fuckign money! Instead we have to pass it around to the rest of the failing teams. I realise the Leafs prblems are way worse than just the cap, bu it's still a major part of the problem. Imagine how fucked football would be in Europe if there was a cap?

Yohan
06-11-2009, 09:52 AM
Imagine how fucked football would be in Europe if there was a cap?
they wouldn't be in a multi million dollar debt that it is in right now, and even bigger teams won't go into administration

Beach_Red
06-11-2009, 09:56 AM
And as long as there is a cap on the game then we will suffer the same way the Leafs do every year because of the cap! The Leafs are a prime example of how salary caps kill teams!


The Leafs suffered long before there was a cap in the NHL - you really can't blame their problems on that.

What kills teams is bad management. In the NFL some teams are consistently better than others, not because of the size of their local market but because of their management skill.

Is a sport really more interesting if the only thing that seperates winners from loser is money?

Fort York Redcoat
06-11-2009, 09:56 AM
they wouldn't be in a multi million dollar debt that it is in right now, and even bigger teams won't go into administration

I think we make a bigger deal of that here than they care about it there. The devotion to their leagues aren't as replacable as they are here.

-"[random hockey team]'s losing. Oh well how are the [random basketball team]'s doing? "

T_Mizz
06-11-2009, 10:15 AM
While I get what people are saying about the cap being in the best interest for the league I would like to see TFC staying at the top and the best way for that to happen is through spending more.
However that is very selfish of me and the league is going about things the right way. I think if they just grow slowly but surely raising the cap every few years then eventually (i'm thinking a few years after I'm dead) we could see the MLS as one of the top leagues in the world just because whe a sport catches on in the states it tends to become THE league because of the money that gets thrown around on this side of the atlantic.

Pookie
06-11-2009, 11:08 AM
When discussing a cap, people forget that there is no cap whatsoever on management, scouting, player development, coaching, training facilities, etc.

Teams with money still can have a competitive advantage over other clubs even in a very restrictive cap system.

Interestingly, while there are some pro-free spenders here... I'm not seeing any commentary regarding your season tickets going up by $1,200 for a pair to fund this spend (as proposed above). Am I to assume you've got your chequebook ready?

Beach_Red
06-11-2009, 12:46 PM
Most sports leagues that failed in North America expanded too quickly or didn't have too tight a grip on expenses. Maybe for the WHA the probalem was there just wasn't a big enough market for hockey. The USFL started out as a summer league and did okay signing a lot of guys out of college, but they really wanted to take on the NFL in the fall and failed.

There are few different theories on here why NASL failed, but free-spending in some cities and not others was probably one of the reasons.

So, looking into the way caps work for the other successful sports is good, but you might want to do some research into why leages failed. Even NFL Europe failed.

Fort York Redcoat
06-11-2009, 12:54 PM
When discussing a cap, people forget that there is no cap whatsoever on management, scouting, player development, coaching, training facilities, etc.

Teams with money still can have a competitive advantage over other clubs even in a very restrictive cap system.

Interestingly, while there are some pro-free spenders here... I'm not seeing any commentary regarding your season tickets going up by $1,200 for a pair to fund this spend (as proposed above). Am I to assume you've got your chequebook ready?

Pook now I'm of the mind you work for MLSE and are just taking polls for the next price hike. Don't you know they're watching?;)

I would never say (especially type) that I want to pay more but I understand the reality you speak of.

Dust2
06-11-2009, 01:46 PM
While as a TFC fan I'd love that kind of model, I think it would be bad for the overall health of the league.

Giving already-strong markets a leg up over less wealthy owners, and weaker markets, will kill a lot of those markets off before they have a chance to grow stronger. Both conferences will become like the AL East in MLB - teams like LA and Seattle becoming the Yankees and BoSox in the West, and teams like Toronto and New York becoming their counterparts in the East.

Meanwhile teams like Dallas and Columbus would disappear, in all likelihood. And while weak markets closing up shop happens in other leagues, MLS isn't entrenched enough of a product to survive that kind of instability right now.

Why would Dallas and Columbus disappear? They have their own stadium and if they can sell about 7-8k tickets a game, they will be fine. Many of their fans are soccer moms, family type who go for a nice day out. With a $4 mil luxury tax revenue, they can be profitable.

Can a $2.5 mil wages team compete with a $8 mil team? I think so. MLS also have the playoff which tend to give lower revenue teams a good shot at advancing. The J-league 17th in spending is right now third in the table after 13 games (salary of $3.6 when many J-league teams salary are $8 mil or higher).

Beach_Red
06-11-2009, 02:19 PM
Why would Dallas and Columbus disappear? They have their own stadium and if they can sell about 7-8k tickets a game, they will be fine. Many of their fans are soccer moms, family type who go for a nice day out. With a $4 mil luxury tax revenue, they can be profitable.

Can a $2.5 mil wages team compete with a $8 mil team? I think so. MLS also have the playoff which tend to give lower revenue teams a good shot at advancing. The J-league 17th in spending is right now third in the table after 13 games (salary of $3.6 when many J-league teams salary are $8 mil or higher).

You may be right that in some cities - if the tickets remain cheap enough - the soccer mom-day out kind of fans will continue to come whether their team has a realistic chance of winning a title or not. Afterall, as their kids get older they'll stop going but there will always be a new generation of soccer moms. Some of the kids may continue to go to games as they grow up to see the more powerful LA and NY teams. It could work.

The problem would be trying to get a national TV contract, but the NHL will never get one and they certainly have higher payrolls than MLS teams.

I think the league has more ambition than that right now, but you may be right, that may be the best they can settle for. Unfortunately for us, MLSE will go after the easier to please soccer mom market so TFC won't be one of the big teams, but like smaller European teams we can be happy to see the better players on the big teams when they come through town.

Pookie
06-11-2009, 03:01 PM
Can a $2.5 mil wages team compete with a $8 mil team? I think so.

You know Dust, I give you full marks for trying.

However, isn't the whole premise of your theory that by spending more you'd raise the quality of play?

How then could a lower spending team compete with a team that has almost 4x it's payroll?

Doesn't the very fact that you conclude that it would be competitive indicate that increased spending would have a marginal (if any) impact on the quality of play across the league?

Dust2
06-11-2009, 08:38 PM
You know Dust, I give you full marks for trying.

However, isn't the whole premise of your theory that by spending more you'd raise the quality of play?

How then could a lower spending team compete with a team that has almost 4x it's payroll?

A $2.5 mil team will compete against 4-6 teams about the same payroll and 4-6 teams with $3-5 mil payroll and maybe 4 teams with $7-8 mil payroll. In order to get $8 mil payroll, a team has to pay out $4 mil in luxury tax. Only a few teams have that kind of cash. It's not like one $2.5 mil team against seventeen $8 payroll teams. MLS could also do $2 luxury tax for $1 over starting at $8 mil. So if NY want to spend crazy, it will be charged twice as much. So a $12 mil payroll could cost $12 mil luxury tax ($4 mil + $4 mil x 2).

(1) Urawa Reds - 1,250,000,000 Yen = $12.5 mil
(2) Gamba Osaka - $10.5 mil
(3) Kashima Antlers - $8.3 mil
(4) Vissel Kobe - $7.3 mil
(5) Kyoto Sanga FC - $7.0 mil
(6) Oita Trinita - $6.5 mil
(7) Jubilo Iwata - $6.4 mil
(8) Kawasaki Frontale - $6.2 mil
(9) Kashiwa Reysol - $6.1 mil
(10) Shimizu S-Pulse - $5.9 mil
(11) Nagoya Grampus - $5.8 mil
(12) FC Tokyo - $5.6 mil
(13) Yokohama F Marinos - $5.2 mil
(14) Omiya Ardija and Sanfrecce Hiroshima - $5.1 mil
(16) JEF Utd Chiba - $4.8 mil
(17) Albirex Niigata - $3.6 mil
(18) Yamagata Montedio - 250,000,000 Yen = $2.5 mil

17th in spending and third in the J-league table. 15th in spending Hiroshima and 6th in the J-league table. J-league does not have playoff. MLS does. Playoff gives more chances for teams to compete. With 8 teams playoff, even a $2.5 mil team would still be in it if it play well throughout the season. Tampa Bay did it in baseball and went to the World Series on a low payroll.



Pts Pld W D L GF GA GD
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Kashima Antlers 29 P 12 9 - 2 - 1 18 8 +10
2. Urawa Reds 25 P 13 7 - 4 - 2 17 12 +5
3. Albirex Niigata 22 P 13 6 - 4 - 3 20 14 +6
-----------------------------------AFC CL---------------------------
4. Kawasaki Frontale 21 P 12 6 - 3 - 3 23 15 +8
5. Gamba Osaka 20 P 12 6 - 2 - 4 26 16 +10
6. Sanfrecce Hiroshima 20 P 13 5 - 5 - 3 24 17 +7
7. Nagoya Grampus 19 P 12 5 - 4 - 3 16 14 +2
8. Shimizu S-Pulse 18 P 13 4 - 6 - 3 13 14 -1
9. Jubilo Iwata 18 P 13 5 - 3 - 5 20 23 -3
10. Kyoto Sanga F.C. 17 P 13 5 - 2 - 6 12 14 -2
11. Vissel Kobe 17 P 13 5 - 2 - 6 17 20 -3
12. Montedio Yamagata 16 P 13 4 - 4 - 5 15 13 +2
13. Yokohama F. Marinos 16 P 13 4 - 4 - 5 18 17 +1
14. FC Tokyo 16 P 13 5 - 1 - 7 15 22 -7
15. Omiya Ardija 14 P 13 3 - 5 - 5 18 22 -4
------------------------------------Relegation to Division 2---------------
16. JEF United Chiba 12 P 13 2 - 6 - 5 13 19 -6
17. Kashiwa Reysol 9 P 13 1 - 6 - 6 16 27 -11
18. Oita Trinita 4 P 13 1 - 1 - 11 9 23 -14


Doesn't the very fact that you conclude that it would be competitive indicate that increased spending would have a marginal (if any) impact on the quality of play across the league?

Nope. Quality of play will increase because a payroll like this would attract better talents than the current MLS payroll system ($2.3 mil cap with DP).

NY and LA: $8 mil payroll ($4 mil luxury tax)
Sea and Tor: $7 mil payroll ($3 mil luxury tax)
Vancouver, Philly, DC, Chicago: $6 mil payroll ($2 mil luxury tax)
Portland, RSL, Houston: $5 mil payroll ($1 mil luxury tax)
the other 7 teams: $2.5 mil - $4 mil payroll (receive luxury tax)

T_Mizz
06-11-2009, 08:49 PM
^wow 6th place on 15th spending?
Would it be terrible of me to say Hiroshima's the bomb?

Dust2
06-11-2009, 08:52 PM
Salary cap at $3.2 mil
Minimum salary cap (75%) at $2.4 mil
Luxury tax ($1 for $1 over) starting at $4 milIf the above is deem too expensive then MLS could do something like this:

Salary cap at $2.8 mil
Minimum salary cap (75%) at $2.1 mil
Luxury tax ($1 for $1 over) starting at $3.5 mil
Luxury tax ($1.5 for $1 over) starting at $7 mil
Luxury tax ($2 for $1 over) starting at $ 11 mil

My projection of what MLS payroll might look like from the above scenario:

18 teams league

NY and LA: $8 mil payroll ($5 mil luxury tax)
Sea and Tor: $7 mil payroll ($3.5 mil luxury tax)
Vancouver, Philly, DC, Chicago: $6 mil payroll ($2.5 mil luxury tax)
Portland, Houston: $5 mil payroll ($1.5 mil luxury tax)
Chivas, RSL: $4 mil payroll ($0.5 mil luxury tax)
the other 6 teams: $2.5 mil - $3.4999 mil payroll (no luxury tax)

That's $31 mil in luxury tax revenue to be shared. As I stated, it will be up to MLS to decide who pay luxury tax, who receive luxury tax, and how much. The above is just an example. Could it be worth it for NY, LA to pay $5 mil luxury tax in exchange for $8 mil payroll? Maybe. If the owners want to spend that much, I say let's them. Keep in mind that LA generated $36 million in revenue according to Forbes in 2007. I believe LA would love to pay the $5 mil luxury tax to get its payroll to $8 mil instead of $2.3 mil. With a potential winning, higher quality team and Beckham, LA Galaxy could have increase its attendance, sponsorship, merchandise, TV rating. Galaxy reputation, image would rise instead of falling because the team would do generally well instead of sucking so bad on the field. And MLS would benefit from a successful, winning, higher quality Galaxy instead of the current 'horrible-tie heavy-sucky Galaxy.' Who know, maybe a Galaxy game on ESPN2 would get better rating.

As for marketing reason, I think if MLS implement the above scenario, it should allow each team a DP like before. The DP will cost $0.5 mil in salary cap. That way, MLS could have players like Ronaldinho, Henry, Figo, Schevenko coming to play. All teams benefit from a well-known DP like Ronaldinho, Henry like all MLS teams got a boost from Beckham.

Dust2
06-11-2009, 09:05 PM
^wow 6th place on 15th spending?
Would it be terrible of me to say Hiroshima's the bomb?

Another impressive showing is the bottom in spending Yamagata Montedio at $2.5 mil while most J teams are $5.8 mil or above. This side was in the third division a few years ago. It just got promoted to the J-league this year.

And it has a respectable 16 points (only 6 points off from 3rd place) after 13 games played.

Pookie
06-11-2009, 09:14 PM
A $2.5 mil team will compete against 4-6 teams about the same payroll and 4-6 teams with $3-5 mil payroll and maybe 4 teams with $7-8 mil payroll. In order to get $8 mil payroll, a team has to pay out $4 mil in luxury tax. Only a few teams have that kind of cash. It's not like one $2.5 mil team against seventeen $8 payroll teams. MLS could also do $2 luxury tax for $1 over starting at $8 mil. So if NY want to spend crazy, it will be charged twice as much. So a $12 mil payroll could cost $12 mil luxury tax ($4 mil + $4 mil x 2).


I dislike circles.

You indicate that you need $ to attract better players and conclude that will have an impact on quality of play. You then indicate (in a previous post) that regardless of the payroll, teams will be competitive with each other.

If a 2.5M team can compete with an $8M team... I have to assume that their quality of play is similar. So, why spend $8M if you can get the same results as a 2.5M spender?

At best you are suggesting marginal improvement. Otherwise the team with 4x the payroll should hammer the lower spending teams if all this talent is coming for the cash you are going to throw around.

I also dislike theories that have holes in them.

The biggest hole in all of this is revenue. Only 1 team makes more than $30M and that team has an asset that is going back to AC Milan. Their attendance is down 22% this year.

The next highest earner is TFC with $17M.

Only 3 teams have a positive operating income and one of those, Dallas, has just $500k to play with.

Every other team has an operating income in the negative.

It's all well and good to say, "$8M payrolls would help the league and this city will draw 40,000 and that city will increase to 25,000 and so on."

You might as well come out and ask whether people would support the idea of getting $1M for every season ticket they buy.

Neither supposition is based on a realistic picture of the resources available.

Where is this revenue coming from to support your spending proposal? It's not there now. It isn't in the ESPN TV deal that is in place till 2014.

It's in the ticket prices isn't it? Until you address the impact of ticket price increases... rapid and significant ticket price increases necessary to pay for your idea in 2010.... I'm not buying. I think it's reckless. I think it's foolish. I think it's unnecessary and will not result in the long term development you and I both seek.

(respectfully, I'm not trying to come off as harsh... as they say, put 10 economists in a room and you'll get 11 different opinions... I think we are in different camps here)

thisisinternetclash
06-11-2009, 09:20 PM
Just a quick, ignorant question about the NBA cap:

Why is the luxury tax threshold significantly higher than the salary cap? What does the cap represent if a team can exceed it by millions without incurring any penalty? Shouldn't the tax simply be imposed as soon as a team exceeds the salary cap?

Cuz
06-11-2009, 09:25 PM
I see alot of Gary Bettmans in this forum and not enough Jim Balsilles! If our market is strong and the other ones are weak, then too fucking bad for those assholes! Cuz if we have cash then we should be able to spend it as we see fit. How is it our fault that the MLS decided to put clubs in markets that they knew full well were going to fail? And now want to initiate a cap to protect those teams from getting their asses handed to them?

It's pretty sad when the game is about the $ and not about the fucking game anymore!

Juanito
06-11-2009, 10:28 PM
I see alot of Gary Bettmans in this forum and not enough Jim Balsilles! If our market is strong and the other ones are weak, then too fucking bad for those assholes! Cuz if we have cash then we should be able to spend it as we see fit. How is it our fault that the MLS decided to put clubs in markets that they knew full well were going to fail? And now want to initiate a cap to protect those teams from getting their asses handed to them?

It's pretty sad when the game is about the $ and not about the fucking game anymore!

There's a fundamental element you seem to dismiss or not have realised. MLS teams are franchises and not clubs. The franchises are there to improve the overall quality of the league. This is a very North American model, however, it is what it is.

Also, soccer is not that popular, compared to baseball, basketball, and football (and to some degree hockey) in North America and if you have only a handful of teams being competitive, then the league will collapse. Once you have enough STRONG teams, you can let go of the deadwood,, but until that happens, the overall health of the league has to take precedence. I for one, would love to see Toronto FC spending mad cash and signing top-quality players, but we are VERY far from that.

From what I have read, the NASL failed mainly because the league was too biased on one team, the New York Cosmos. They were financially, and thus athletically the strongest team. This made the league too lop-sided and smaller clubs closed shop.

The North American model on sports is that every franchise is designed to have parity so that the little guy can succeed.

Pookie
06-12-2009, 06:29 AM
I see alot of Gary Bettmans in this forum and not enough Jim Balsilles! If our market is strong and the other ones are weak, then too fucking bad for those assholes!

Ironic that you would bring up the NHL.

When the NHL was free spending, did the quality of play improve? Were the 90's "better hockey" than Gretzky and the Oilers? Or the Original 6 if you were old enough then?

To the fan coming into the game in 2000's, would they know if the league's quality of play had improved?

Essentially, all free spending did was make players rich who didn't really deserve it. $3M for Robert Reichel? It drove up costs for the average fan and has resulted in a corporation dependency that suffers in an economic climiate such as this.

Yes, the NHL now has a cap. But that cap was falsely tied to league revenues that jumped significantly (on paper) when the Canadian dollar rose. You essentially have a free spending situation in the NHL as some teams can't make the minimum payroll and others are nearing spending levels pre-lock out

Fort York Redcoat
06-12-2009, 07:10 AM
I dislike circles.



I also dislike theories that have holes in them.

I think it's reckless. I think it's foolish. I think it's unnecessary and will not result in the long term development you and I both seek.

(respectfully, I'm not trying to come off as harsh... as they say, put 10 economists in a room and you'll get 11 different opinions... I think we are in different camps here)

If you dislike circles so much Pook, stop looking at the thread like it's a bullseye.
If you dislike theories with holes in them. Try and propose something of your own.
I'm not trying to be harsh either but it's been threads since you stood on your own soapbox we forget what it looks like.
Please correct us if it's not simply "MLS is perfect the way it is."

Oldtimer
06-12-2009, 07:28 AM
I don't think that a soft-cap with luxury tax would work.

We just need a higher cap in MLS. That would take care of most issues.

Fort York Redcoat
06-12-2009, 07:38 AM
I don't think that a soft-cap with luxury tax would work.

We just need a higher cap in MLS. That would take care of most issues.

That would be a start. It would most likely be less stress ont he league as well.

Juanito
06-12-2009, 08:07 AM
^^

A couple more million could make the difference between signing average and good players. Also, if you can afford paying kids decent salaries, they will not have one eye abroad.

Pookie
06-12-2009, 03:35 PM
If you dislike circles so much Pook, stop looking at the thread like it's a bullseye.
If you dislike theories with holes in them. Try and propose something of your own.
I'm not trying to be harsh either but it's been threads since you stood on your own soapbox we forget what it looks like.
Please correct us if it's not simply "MLS is perfect the way it is."

First, I believe the MLS has the right ownership and operating structure to be successful. It's not rocket science. It's based on a tried and true model in the NFL system though does have an element of risk with the DP. The strength of the league is bigger than the strength of an individual franchise.

The structure of league does not need to change, I don't think I needed to start a thread based on that to satisfy your desire to see me on a soapbox. Dust started a poll asking for agreement or disagreement. I disagreed, as I think is the point of a poll, and offered a counter opinion.

In terms of improving the quality of play, I've offered a number of conceptual ideas outside of throwing money at (unknown) players. But they aren't sexy. They are long term.

They involve skill development at the youth levels. They involve education in terms of career paths for young players. They involve structure from the CSA/OSA in terms of standardization of levels. They involve marketing our own "products."

They involve a minimum salary for the MLS that enables a player to make a living. I'd rather see increases in the cap (and yes, I still want a cap) dedicated towards the minimum salary as opposed to paying the same calibre of player more money.

Should I start a new thread?

Southender
06-12-2009, 04:41 PM
First, I believe the MLS has the right ownership and operating structure to be successful. It's not rocket science. It's based on a tried and true model in the NFL system though does have an element of risk with the DP. The strength of the league is bigger than the strength of an individual franchise.

The structure of league does not need to change, I don't think I needed to start a thread based on that to satisfy your desire to see me on a soapbox. Dust started a poll asking for agreement or disagreement. I disagreed, as I think is the point of a poll, and offered a counter opinion.

In terms of improving the quality of play, I've offered a number of conceptual ideas outside of throwing money at (unknown) players. But they aren't sexy. They are long term.

They involve skill development at the youth levels. They involve education in terms of career paths for young players. They involve structure from the CSA/OSA in terms of standardization of levels. They involve marketing our own "products."

They involve a minimum salary for the MLS that enables a player to make a living. I'd rather see increases in the cap (and yes, I still want a cap) dedicated towards the minimum salary as opposed to paying the same calibre of player more money.

Should I start a new thread?

Sure, start a new thread! Everyone who thinks they have the next greatest idea in the world does, so why shouldn't you? :rolleyes:

Dust2
06-12-2009, 05:38 PM
Also, soccer is not that popular, compared to baseball, basketball, and football (and to some degree hockey) in North America and if you have only a handful of teams being competitive, then the league will collapse.


Teams only collapse when they fail as a business. Many MLS teams have SSS now that allow them to good chance at profit. In the NBA-style salary cap, the uncompetitive teams will receive $3-4 million a year in luxury tax revenue. In addition, MLS share revenue from national tv (worth about $18-20 mil a year), national sponsorship (worth about $20-30 mil a year). There is also SUM profit distribution. A team like KC, SJ will receive about $6 million from luxury tax and revenue sharing before any team revenue is added. Surely, they can be profitable if they only spend $2-$2.5 mil in wages even if the team only draw 7000 fans.



From what I have read, the NASL failed mainly because the league was too biased on one team, the New York Cosmos. They were financially, and thus athletically the strongest team. This made the league too lop-sided and smaller clubs closed shop.

The North American model on sports is that every franchise is designed to have parity so that the little guy can succeed.Two things: the NASL did not have a salary cap. It was free spending.
Second, the NASL did not have a luxury tax. If the Cosmos wanted to spend big, it will cost them big and profit the NASL's smaller teams by millions in luxury tax.

I bet you if the NASL has something kind of salary structure similar to this, it would not have collapse: (not the same number obviously since it was in the 1970s....but the same structure).

Salary cap at $2.8 mil
Minimum salary cap (75%) at $2.1 mil
Luxury tax ($1 for $1 over) starting at $3.5 mil
Luxury tax ($1.5 for $1 over) starting at $7 mil
Luxury tax ($2 for $1 over) starting at $ 11 mil

Salary cap is a very modern invention. NFL only had it since 1994. After the league has grown and matured. Salary cap is good for the owners since they can keep salary cost down. Bad for the players since teams are no longer free spending.

noochie
06-12-2009, 06:21 PM
At the end of the day... the poorest teams remain the poorest teams. Just because they have more money than before doesnt really get them anywhere as they still have less than everyone else. It comes down to scouting (something you can't put a cap on).

Pookie
06-13-2009, 06:38 AM
Hey dust, do you have any info on "revenue sharing" as it is currently structured in the league?

I read a reference that said that 49% of all revenues were shared but that was from a 1998 article. Perhaps it has changed?

profit89
06-13-2009, 07:23 AM
The NASL didn't go under because of the Cosmos. In fact, the Cosmos were the only reason the NASL was even relevant. To this day, they are still remembered globally by many.

Communism failed for a reason, it only works when you have a closed system (ala the NFL); that is, when there are no competitor leagues. But when there are hundreds of leagues, all weaknesses are exposed. The answer lies in the middle. A hard cap is a terrible idea for soccer as it's to extremist. Rather a soft cap and/or luxury tax system ala NBA/MLB is the way to go.

To think that the philosophy of "the best team is only as good as the worst" will make MLS relevant on the world stage is living a lie. Under that philosophy, MLS will never make it. It will die a slow, boring death as fans eventually figure out that the product is total garbage.

profit89
06-13-2009, 07:38 AM
Like all communist regimes, when you try and equalize everyone they equalize at the bottom.

Pookie
06-13-2009, 08:37 AM
Communism failed for a reason, it only works when you have a closed system (ala the NFL); that is, when there are no competitor leagues. But when there are hundreds of leagues, all weaknesses are exposed. The answer lies in the middle. A hard cap is a terrible idea for soccer as it's to extremist. Rather a soft cap and/or luxury tax system ala NBA/MLB is the way to go.


What business owner would not drool at the idea of controlled labour costs?

The MLS has cities lined up in Seattle, Portland, Vancouver and Philly, willing to pay millions in expansion fees because of the economic model they have instilled. I dare say that the only soccer we'd be watching is on Setanta if there was any other system.

I think people are missing the boat when it comes to a discussion of cap vs non cap.

The most important factor, IMO, that drives the NFL and WILL drive the MLS is the idea of single entity ownership and revenue sharing.

The NBA has 8-10 teams that are losing money and the gap between the haves and have nots is growing. The NHL is in the same boat, as are teams in the coveted EPL and other major professional leagues. Some have a soft cap. Some have a luxury tax. Some have nothing at all.

The thing they all have in common, aside from long term risks to stability and competition, is that have minimal to no revenue sharing.

The NFL shares over 75% of its revenue and markets its teams as single business. Owners buy into the league and it's operating structure.

That's what MLS owners are doing when they weigh their investment options. The MLS is a good investment because of its structure.

It isn't communism. It's essentially a franchise model that has worked incredibly well for companies. Look around; Exxon, Wal-Mart, McDonalds, Home Dept, Starbucks, Tim Hortons, Staples, etc, etc.

Beach_Red
06-13-2009, 09:10 AM
It isn't communism. It's essentially a franchise model that has worked incredibly well for companies. Look around; Exxon, Wal-Mart, McDonalds, Home Dept, Starbucks, Tim Hortons, Staples, etc, etc.

Americans have no idea what communism is - or socialism for that matter.

But sports team competition is unique - each team needs the others to survive. Home Depot doesn't care if Rona goes bankrupt.

What's different about US sports model, from what I've seen, is that many of the team owners realize that they need all the other teams to be competitive. When the old AFL and NFL merged and got it's first TV contract the owners realized that the baseball model that existed wouldn't work for a new league trying to get established (I think sometimes people forget how small and regional a sport pro football was into the 1960's - the Rose Bowl was a far more important game than the NFL championship game), so they agreed to share the TV revenue. It was probably the single most important thing that allowed the NFL to become what it is today.

So why wouldn't a start-up league try and copy that? When so many other sports leagues have started and failed in the USA, there's one model that's been wildly successful.

profit89
06-13-2009, 09:12 AM
No one is advocating a no cap system. You're missing the mark. Everyone I think agrees a "cap" (of some form) is needed. What form the cap takes is a different story.

http://soccer365.com/us_news/story_81208190400.php

With no goliath, david has no one to slay.

profit89
06-13-2009, 09:14 AM
Again, arguing against the hard cap doesn't mean endorsing laissez faire. The world is filled with gray. Not black and white.

Beach_Red
06-13-2009, 09:23 AM
With no goliath, david has no one to slay.

This is a good point. Even the NFL has its Davids and Goliaths. Of course, the difference between the Lions and Steelers isn't their operating budgets.

Anything that gets more tickets sold to MLS games will be good and anything that improves TV ratings will be good. I can understand the league moving slowly given how many leagues have failed, but how much damage will they do if they move too slowly?

rocker
06-13-2009, 09:29 AM
The problem is, Goliath only shows up to your home stadium once a year... and if there are 2 or 3 Goliaths, that's only 2-3 games at home per year. So attendance bump is minimal.

I'm not sure whether the presence of the New York Yankees, for example, helps the Cleveland Indians when the Yankees are not in town. I'm not sure the presence of the New York Yankees in the World Series helps baseball TV ratings in Cleveland.
It's great for the New York Yankees though.

Anyhow, why can't Goliath's be built with solid management rather than spending money?

It's also hard to know what "damage" is done by moving slowly when you wouldn't know what would happen if they moved quickly.

I believe rather than "spectacle" it's best to have all teams compete on the same financial ground. It's better to build strong communities of support, even if it's just the diehards, in communities than let 2-3 teams move away thanks to the spending of money. MLS's slow growth method is best, in my opinion, because it doesn't depend on spectacle or big clubs to work. It gives fans everywhere a hope, and that draws in, and keeps, interest in the sport.

Just because a team has higher revenues doesn't mean they "deserve" to be able to outspend other teams. No 2 markets have the same population or the same inherent market interest. Why punish teams that, for example, don't have 3 million citizens to draw from?

The solution to growing the league is simple: raise the cap.
Then you'd increase quality, and eventually people in all cities would have a solid product, comparable to Euro soccer, in their backyards.

profit89
06-13-2009, 09:51 AM
The solution to growing the league is simple: raise the cap.
Then you'd increase quality, and eventually people in all cities would have a solid product, comparable to Euro soccer, in their backyards.

Easier said then done under a philosophy that embraces a complete arm-in-arm effort. You can only move as quickly as your weakest link. And therein lies the essential problem. How much longer does MLS allow the bottom dwellers to hold back the potential "bigger" boys who want to compete on the world stage. And a couple of teams in MLS could truly compete on the world stage. But it must be done in such a way that they don't leave the little guy to far behind.

If MLS can only move as fast as the KC and Columbus markets allow, MLS will never get there. That I guarantee you.

profit89
06-13-2009, 09:53 AM
The answer perhaps lies in the two-tiered cap system proposed by Snowden. It's the best model I have seen to date. No system will be perfect mind you, including the current one.

Beach_Red
06-13-2009, 10:04 AM
If MLS can only move as fast as the KC and Columbus markets allow, MLS will never get there. That I guarantee you.

It is quite possible that soccer will never make it into the top four team sports in the USA.

I like to think it can, and that progress is being made. When basketball first started as a pro sport there were a lot of small market teams in places like Syracuse and Rochester that didn't survive. The same may happen to teams like Columbus and KC as more bigger cities like Seattle and Philadelphia come into the league.

It's early days yet...

Pookie
06-13-2009, 02:51 PM
Again, arguing against the hard cap doesn't mean endorsing laissez faire. The world is filled with gray. Not black and white.

In some ways though, we already have grey. You have a cap system along with a Designated Player. It's why LA has both Buddle and Beckham wearing the same jersey.

The cap also does not apply to any management, coaches, trainers or front office staff. If you wanted to back a truckload of money into Sir Alex's backyard and try to entice him over... go for it.

The other thing about MLS rosters is that while International spots are tradable, the idea is that you have a mix of Domestic and International talents.

Cap, no cap, luxury tax, whatever your preference, this rule does indeed influence the type and quantity of players available. It hasn't really entered into this debate but probably has an equal influence over the players that sign in this league (and subsequently the quality of play).

This isn't "free market" at its peak... this is a controlled system in terms of both cost and domestic quotas. While I bring it up, I'm not sure that as a developmental league based in North America the "quota" is necessarily a bad thing for the future of the game.

Dust2
06-18-2009, 01:11 AM
If MLS salary structure is as followed:


Salary cap at $2.8 mil
Minimum salary cap (75%) at $2.1 mil
Luxury tax ($1 for $1 over) starting at $3.5 mil

Each team can have at most 1 DP (can't be traded). A DP is defined as a player who cost $0.5 mil in salary cap and $1 mil in luxury tax. My guesstimate of what MLS payroll might look like:

NY and LA (with 1 DP): $7 mil payroll ($4.5 mil luxury tax)
Sea and Tor (with 1 DP): $6 mil payroll ($3.5 mil luxury tax)
Vancouver, Philly, DC, Chicago (with 1 DP): $5 mil payroll ($2.5 mil luxury tax)
Portland, RSL, Houston, Chivas: $4 mil payroll ($0.5 mil luxury tax)
SJ, KC, Colorado, Dallas, Columbus, NE: $2.1 mil - $2.8 mil payroll (receive luxury tax revenue)

Total luxury tax revenue: $28 mil

I would suggest that 50% of luxury tax revenue ($14 mil) will be shared by teams that do not cross the salary cap limit. 50% of luxury tax revenue ($14 mil) will be shared by MLS smallest revenue teams.

Dust2
06-18-2009, 01:14 AM
http://soccer365.com/us_news/story_81208190400.php
Splitting the Cap By Richard Snowden


This new system would feature not one salary cap, but two – a "soft" cap and a "hard" cap. The soft cap could be set at, say, $3 million, to be drawn from the league's coffers under MLS's single-entity structure. The hard cap, in which the balance would be funded solely by each team's owner, could be set at $10 million, allowing each team to beef up its roster by spending up to $7 million extra on players at each owner's discretion.

To see one clear advantage of such a cap system over the DP Rule, one need look no further than the Los Angeles Galaxy. Despite boasting Beckham and Landon Donovan, the Galaxy has missed the playoffs three years running, often playing poor soccer due to being forced to surround their two outstanding players with a cast composed largely of poorly paid players whose performances too often matched their paychecks.

With a two-tier cap system like that described above, teams would have far more leeway to build their rosters than under the DP Rule. If Galaxy chief Tim Leiweke wants to keep Beckham and his $6.5 million salary, for example, he can still do so, but he could also choose to offload Becks and instead use the $7 million of extra cap space to sign seven players at $1 million each, a move that would surely make his club far stronger.While Snowden's idea of a two-tiered salary cap would help MLS teams with the greatest potential (LA, NY, Sea, Tor) grow and prosper, it will not help MLS's small markets teams in term of revenue. A cap like the NBA will help small market teams in term of luxury tax.


As Gazidis rightly points out, "Bear in mind, as a fan, everyone wants to see the best on the field, of course." In this respect, one could argue that the DP Rule has come up short, for it will likely be of little long-term value for MLS to attract extra attention (an area where DPs have been helpful) if the new fans who show up see an unattractive on-field product (an area where DPs have made little difference).

As has been noted previously in this space, our nation today has a sizeable population of passionate and knowledgeable soccer fans who have proven to be a hard sell for MLS, a fact not lost on Gazidis.

"The biggest area where the league needs to progress is in acceptance by the soccer community," he said. "There is a real soccer community in the USA that is vibrant and smart, and the challenge from day one has been developing bonds with that audience."

To date, a large portion of this community has ignored MLS, viewing its on-field product as substandard compared to the top circuits of Europe and Latin America. Drawing and keeping these fans will be vital to the league's future, as MLS has already largely tapped out the so-called "soccer family" demographic and learned that marketing itself to the often soccerphobic mainstream sports fan is a failed strategy.

This being the case, the league's main mission – having achieved long-term stability – must now be improving the quality of its on-field product, a goal that can only be met by investing substantially greater sums in attracting outstanding talent.The perception of MLS as a poor quality league is common among many existing soccer fans. MLS's poor showing in the Champions League only proved their long-held belief. MLS teams got beat by 6-1 on aggregate by a team from Trinidad and Tobago and 3-1 on aggregate by a team from Panama came as no surprise to them. To those that ignored MLS, it only proved that MLS is on par with leagues from Costa Rica, Panama, Honduras.

Would 3-4 MLS teams having a $6-8 mil payroll (paying $3-4 mil luxury tax) help improve MLS competitiveness in the Champions League and the quality of play? Would more existing soccer fans tune in and watch MLS?

rocker
06-18-2009, 10:10 AM
The poor quality issue the author in that article raises is simply solved by raising the cap for all teams. If certain teams have an advantage in that regard, it might negate the gains of the improved quality of non-highspending teams (in other words, the lesser spending teams will certainly see a quality improvement too (maybe enough to suck in the fan who won't get into MLS til quality improves), but then they'll get beaten more often by the higher spending teams anyways, so what's the point?). As well, what if Columbus and KC moved to big markets in America, and you suddenly had parity by accident rather than design (16 owners who could take advantage of all the advantages of high revenue). Then you'd still have parity. The assumption of the divided cap scenario is that some teams would not be able to, or would not be interested in, taking advantage of the opportunity to spend more. But down the road, maybe enough owners would take advantage.

Second, as much as we want to attract the Euro or South American fan in America who hasn't latched on to MLS yet, what would it take to get those people interested? If we need to have UEFA CHampions League quality to get them on board, then we might as well just give up. Second, right now MLS needs to fill stadiums of the 20000 seat variety. The question for MLS is what level of quality do you need to fill 20000 seat stadiums and see a bump in TV ratings... not some quality level of Europe or South America. Third point: I'm not so sure quality is the only variable here for success, because TFC and Seattle have shown quality is not directly correlated to attendance. TFC and Seattle have effectively co-opted people who have a great interest in the high quality of play of Euro soccer (my father, for example). Other variables are in play.

My opinion? one variable in Seattle and TFC that MLS has to continue to build is the community variable. Teams should not be first and foremost about quality of play bringing people to the stadium or showing interest. We know that in second division in England, attendances are very high even though the game is not the highest quality (the EPL is the highest quality). But people come out cuz the team represents the community. Community variables need to be emphasized.

Just some more rambling thoughts on the issue.

Pookie
06-18-2009, 01:08 PM
^ I think you are bang on about community. You can't market yourself based on stars that are likely to leave.

Any model with a cap increase doesn't seem to address the other side of the coin which is the revenue necessary to fund such an increase.

Any increase in spending eats away at profits and only 3 teams are profitable now (one, Dallas at $500k is just barely over the break-even point).

What level do ticket prices have to be to fund an increased spend? I've estimated that the average RPB would have to pay $1,200 more per year for a pair to raise TFC's revenue to the spends proposed throughout this thread. Is the quality you may theoretically get going to offset that jump? Remember, what looks good on paper doesn't always translate well on the pitch.

Further, are you absolutely certain that you could attract better players for more money? Are your top flight guys going to choose the MLS over playing in their home countries? Are they going to give up the chance to play in established leagues with years of tradition?

Or would you simply be paying players already partial to the MLS league more money as the inflationary impact of increased spending takes its toll? Are you simply going to pay Guevara more money to do the same job, in much the same way that Robert Reichel of the Leafs earned a lower salary relative to his peers but was incredibly overpaid?