PDA

View Full Version : Could a soft cap with luxury tax work better for MLS compare to hard cap+DP?



Dust2
07-08-2009, 08:58 AM
My suggestion of the soft cap with luxury tax:

Salary cap at $2.5 mil
Minimum salary cap (75%) at $1.88 mil
Luxury tax ($1 for $1 over) starting at $3 mil

Each team can have at most 1 DP (can't be traded). A DP is defined as a player who is exempted from the payroll but cost $1 mil in luxury tax. Teams who are at or below the salary cap ($2.5 mil) will receive luxury tax revenue.

Why would this form of salary cap be superior to the current strict hard cap + DP (that cost $425,000 against the cap)? The answer is growth. All teams are not created equal. There are some teams that have much higher growth potential than others. However, because of the strict hardcap/level playing field, teams that have strong fan base and very high grow potential are not allowed to grow. Under a soft cap with luxury tax structure described above, a few MLS teams like NY, LA, Tor, Sea, Vancouver could have better players. As a result, they retain their current fan base and attract new ones. Potential attendance: Seattle (35,000) Toronto (30,000 in expanded grass BMO) Galaxy (27,000) NY (25,000) would push MLS forward to new height. Which could mean better media coverage, better TV rating. MLS image and reputation among existing soccer fans would increase from better result in the Champions League. Right now, the perception of MLS as a poor quality league is common among many existing soccer fans because of MLS's poor showing in the Champions League. Got beat by 6-1 on aggregate by a team from Trinidad and Tobago and 3-1 on aggregate by a team from Panama only proved their long-held belief.

Another reason why a NBA-style salary cap would benefit MLS overall is that it would give the expansion teams a head-up. They could come out the gate and do well provided that spend and pay luxury tax. The expansion teams have far greater potential than most older MLS cities because they have not gone through "brand damage" that most MLS teams have had. Having a level playing field/hard cap would hinder these expansion teams which have the most potential for growth. The very teams that MLS will depend on for further growth.

Season Tickets:

1996-41,995
1997-37,893
1998-38,683
1999-43,782 (league average was 3,649)

2005-48,300 (league average was 4,025)
2007: -------------5226 average

New expansion teams:

Toronto

2007~16,600 (with 15,000 waiting list)
2008~16,600 (with 15,000 waiting list)
2009~16,600 (with 15,000 waiting list)

Seattle

2009-~25,000

Philly 2010

2010--expecting about 12-14k (currently at 7,000 with 9 months to go)

Vancouver 2011 sold 5000 season ticket deposits within 48 hours.

Portland 2011 sold 4500 season ticket deposits within 3 days.

Batman
07-08-2009, 09:04 AM
Agreed.
Great plan. It allows teams to take advantage on the field with their popularity at the gate.
It helps the lesser teams solidify financially.

Yet, at the same time it generally discourages from turning MLS into the problem in baseball where some teams (Yankees etc.) are spending 10 times that of others.

I like it.

Technorgasm
07-08-2009, 09:05 AM
YANKEES.



~ I'll get my coat

Steve
07-08-2009, 09:06 AM
Is this all that you do? Stay up at night worrying about the salary cap? Because the only posts you've posted here are three difference suggestions on how to change the cap.

And in answer to all three (as well as all of the future suggestions I'm sure you'll post here with a poll) no. A hard cap is the best thing for MLS right now, and probably for the future as well. Parity helps a league like this, since the "haves" will always need competition to play against, and a 5 team league is no fun.

Also, we had 14,000 season's tickets in 2007, not 16,600

Dust2
07-08-2009, 09:16 AM
Under a soft cap with luxury tax model, small market teams will have these benefits that most small market soccer teams around the world would love to have:

-Luxury tax ($2-3 mil a year)
-Revenue sharing (equal sharing of 30% of ticket revenue, national TV, national sponsorship and league merchandise )
-Draft system that favor the weakest teams
-8-teams playoff that give each team in the playoff a legitimate shot at winning the title (when MLS have 22+ teams, it is most likely be a 12-teams playoff).

FYI: Red Bull company just bought a 5th division German team with the hope of doing a Hoffenheim. It is willing to put 100 million Euros into RB Leipzig over 10 years in order to get it promoted to Bundesliga.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/east-german-football-gets-the-kick-it-needs-1716000.html

The Austrian firm has announced plans to bankroll the club with an estimated €100m (£86m) investment over the next decade. Its aim is to catapult the side into Germany's premier league, the Bundesliga, by 2017 and lift east German football out of the doldrums where it has been stuck for almost two decades. Last season the only east German club in the Bundesliga, Energie Cottbus, was relegated; the rest are rich west German clubs.http://www.spiegel.de/images/image-362-bigimage420-xrjh.jpg
The team will play at this stadium after it got promoted to Tier 4. The stadium will be renamed Red Bull Arena. My point is that MLS should let the Red Bull pay $4 mil luxury tax if it wants a $6 mil payroll. The league would be better for it if its premier market, New York City, is successful.

My guesstimate of what MLS payroll might look like if MLS follow my suggestion:

NY and LA (with 1 DP): $6 mil payroll ($4 mil luxury tax)
Sea and Tor (with 1 DP): $5 mil payroll ($3 mil luxury tax)
Vancouver, Philly, Chicago (with 1 DP): $4 mil payroll ($2 mil luxury tax)
Portland, Houston, DC, Chivas: $4 mil payroll ($1 mil luxury tax)
SJ, KC, RSL, Colorado, Dallas, Columbus, N.E.: $1.88 - $2.5 mil payroll (receive luxury tax revenue)

The hard cap/DP system has not served the Galaxy well even though it spent 4 times more than the majority of MLS clubs. It could spend $10 mil in a much better way to field the best team possible. $6 mil payroll ($4 mil luxury tax). A $6 mil payroll LA would be a favorite for a playoff spot.

Galaxy: 11th out of 13 teams in the table (2007 season)---$9,179,949 payroll
Galaxy: 13th out of 14 teams in the table (2008 season)----~$9,200,000 payroll
Galaxy: currently 11th out of 15 teams in the table (2009 season)---$9,313,290.53 payroll

LA could put that money to much better used like Snowden suggested:

http://soccer365.com/us_news/story_81208190400.php
Splitting the Cap By Richard Snowden


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.

111_DrummerBoy
07-08-2009, 09:17 AM
YANKEES.



~ I'll get my coat

Damn it's already been said.

flatpicker
07-08-2009, 09:24 AM
Is this all that you do? Stay up at night worrying about the salary cap? Because the only posts you've posted here are three difference suggestions on how to change the cap.

And in answer to all three (as well as all of the future suggestions I'm sure you'll post here with a poll) no. A hard cap is the best thing for MLS right now, and probably for the future as well. Parity helps a league like this, since the "haves" will always need competition to play against, and a 5 team league is no fun.

Also, we had 14,000 season's tickets in 2007, not 16,600


He certainly does like discussing salary options... but that's ok, I think it makes for fun discussions.

I disagree about a league needing complete parity.

I think having some stronger clubs is actually better for marketing the league to the general population.

Especially if you want people to watch MLS when they don't live in a city with a team.
Those people need a team to get behind and they would be more inclined to put support behind one of the "Big Clubs"

Also, I think having a few stronger clubs makes some games more exciting.
The opportunity for smaller teams to cut big teams down to size would make for entertaining football.

I don't think giving advantages to some clubs would put them so far ahead as to assure them of a Cup.
They might be more assured of winning the Supporters Shield though.


Complete parity is kinda dull.
On one hand, it does put most of the emphasis on managing and coaching,
But that isn't quite as exciting to the average Joe as bringing in talent to the league.

Dust2
07-08-2009, 09:32 AM
MLS is a single-entity that have 18 teams with a few more to come in the form of expansion teams. Clubs that are more successful in generating revenue and profit should be rewarded. After all, they are the ones that contribute the most revenue to the league. They should be allowed to grow, not hindered. Some would argue that allowing these teams to become more successful would take away fans from the weakest teams. To some extend that is true. However, the weakest teams will be compensated in the form of revenue sharing, luxury tax, and a talent draft. Also, many existing soccer fans view MLS as below average in quality. A few strong teams will help improve its image and perception. As long as the revenue generated by the successful teams more than offset the loss in revenue incurred by the weak teams due to "less parity" in the league, the single-entity league as a whole benefit.

Some facts:

#1. LA attendance 2008: 26,009........2009 after 9 games: 19,292
#2. Columbus the defending champions: 13,056.....not much of an improvement.
#3. Each club provides 30% of their ticket revenue to MLS (Seattle is sending MLS 9000 paid tickets......wouldn't the league benefit if Seattle can continue this success?, same with LA...a drop of almost 7000 in attendance hurt the league....wouldn't the league benefit if LA average 26,000+?)

#4

HOME GAMES ROAD GAMES
DATES TOTAL AVERAGE DATES TOTAL AVERAGE
Chicago Fire 6 70,357 11,726 9 147,341 16,371
Chivas USA 8 122,494 15,312 7 97,364 13,909
Colorado Rapids 7 91,317 13,045 8 128,123 16,015
Columbus Crew 8 104,446 13,056 8 124,885 15,611
FC Dallas 9 83,756 9,306 7 101,057 14,437
D.C. United 8 118,491 14,811 9 135,570 15,063
Houston Dynamo 8 125,510 15,689 8 95,679 11,960
Kansas City Wizards 8 78,309 9,789 7 124,753 17,822
Los Angeles Galaxy 9 173,632 19,292 7 120,698 17,243
New England Revolution 5 57,557 11,511 8 114,049 14,256
New York Red Bulls 8 91,076 11,385 11 188,097 17,100
Real Salt Lake 8 128,357 16,045 8 122,633 15,329
San Jose Earthquakes 7 82,421 11,774 8 117,415 14,677
Seattle Sounders FC 9 267,435 29,715 7 98,614 14,088
Toronto FC 10 202,881 20,288 6 81,761 13,627


MLS Totals 118 1,798,039 15,238 118 1,798,039
15,238#5
The daily e-mail from MLS Communications of compiled news reports had one notable omission Thursday: the story in the San Diego Union-Tribune on MLS's practice of inflating its attendance figures.

Citing confidential league documents, the newspaper reported that average paid attendance for the 2005 season was 10,746 per match, or 29 percent less than the 15,108 "official attendance'' reported by the league. Excluding international doubleheaders, the league averaged less than 10,000 fans a game. Not as extreme in padding attendance in 2009 compare to 2005 but I wouldn't be surprised if each club (beside Toronto and Seattle) paid attendance is about 1,000 less than announced attendance. As I stated, not all clubs are created equal. But under the strict hard salary cap, all clubs are treated equal. A level playing field descends on all teams. As a result, teams with the most potential that could push MLS forward are hindered.

flatpicker
07-08-2009, 09:36 AM
...As a result, teams with the most potential that could push MLS forward are hindered.


that's how I feel too.

I think this league needs big clubs to increase it's popularity.

If MLS wants to market itself around the USA, Canada, and elsewhere in the world,
then footie fans need to have some "big boys" and "underdogs" to cheer for.

that where the most excitement is, I think.

zeelaw
07-08-2009, 09:43 AM
It'd be better for TFC, but not MLS i think.

Dust2
07-08-2009, 09:46 AM
http://www.sportsbusinessjournal.com/article/58257

Season tickets number THROUGH FEB 17 ONLY.
Include Full and Partial Season Ticket Packages.

Club 2008 2007 Change


Chicago Fire------ ---- 2,759 2,553 +8%
Chivas USA ------------ 837 858 -2%
Colorado Rapids------- 2,968 1,866 +59%
Columbus Crew-------- 3,227 3,190 +1%
D.C. United --------- 5,976 4,721 +27%
FC Dallas --------------3,002 3,134 -4%
Houston Dynamo -----4,116 2,205 +87%
Kansas City Wizards 1,539 464 +232%
Los Angeles Galaxy 7,915 9,308 -15%
New England Revolution 4,001 3,502 +14%
New York Red Bulls - 3,170 2,391 +33%
Real Salt Lake-- ---- 4,632 4,421 +5%
San Jose Earthquakes 3,822 N/A N/A
Toronto FC ---- -----16,641 12,435 +34%
TOTAL ----------- 64,605 51,048 +26.6%compare that to

Seattle ~25,000
Toronto ~16,600 (with 15,000 waiting list)
Philly ~ ?12,000-14,000? possible (passed 7,000 with 9 months to go)
Vancouver, Portland: woudn't be surprised if they reach 15,000+

As I stated, not all clubs are created equal. But under the strict hard salary cap/level playing field/parity is king, all clubs are treated equal.

FYI:

The KC feasibility study...I hope some of you that haven't seen this will find it interesting in the inner working of MLS.


Pre-Contraction Post-Contraction
Revenues Investor/Operator MLS Investor/Operator MLS

Gate Receipts 50% 50% 70% 30%
Concessions 100% 0% 100% 0%
Parking 100% 0% 100% 0%
Local Sponsorships (1) (1) 100% 0%
National Sponsorships 0% 100% 0% 100%
Other Stadium Revenue 100% 0% 100% 0%
National Media 0% 100% 0% 100%
Local TV & Radio 100% 0% 100% 0%


Expenses

Player Salaries 0% 100% 0% 100%
Front Office Expenses 100% 0% 100% 0%
Team Travel 0% 100% 100% 0%
Broadcast Expenses 0% 100% 100% 0%
Rent 50% 50% 100% 0%Game Day Expenses 50% 50% 100% 0%

(1) The first $1.5 million was retained by the team and the remaining
revenue was shared with the league

http://www.kansascity.com/multimedia/kansascity/archive/sports/KC_Soccer_Final_Report.pdf

In addition, MLS also take a cut of the shirt sponsorship. Anyway, MLS could still take in these revenue and pay for player salaries under a soft cap/luxury tax. The league will pay up to $1.88 mil. Anything more than that will go to the individual owners.

Steve
07-08-2009, 09:56 AM
It'd be better for TFC, but not MLS i think.

That's just it, isn't it? It's always fans from teams who think they would be a "have" that suggest changing the cap structure to benefit them, claiming how good it would be for the league. Sorry, but I don't see it.

Personally, I don't like leagues with no parity. I hate the competition format of the EPL. I hate that I could name the teams that would finish top 4 in the league before it even started. I hated that if I had tried to make a bet on that, the odds would be so in my favour it wouldn't have been worth my time. I hate that the same could be said for winning the league. What's the point? What's the point in having that kind of disparity in a league? How about I play chess with you, and I have all queens, and you have all pawns. Seems like a good idea, no? Even if TFC was a have, I wouldn't enjoy it as much.

As for the financial health of the league, there are many arguments against dropping a hard salary cap in this league, especially so young. I may get into them later, but I'm tired of rehashing the same stuff. Essentially, you will lose teams at the bottom as fans completely lose interest in supporting a team that cannot win, and you will lose teams at the top as ownership groups are forced to keep up with the joneses because their fan bases expect a winner, leading to financial collapse. North America is not the rest of the world, we don't live and breath soccer, we won't put up with being relegated to the basement of the league just because we're not a "have" market, because people just don't love soccer enough to stick to a team with no hope. The salary cap ensures each team has a chance of winning. It allows the most important aspect of sport, hope, to stay alive. Sport shouldn't be about who can spend more money, it should be about overcoming your opponent on an equal playing ground, with the same rules in place for everyone.

As for the salary cap itself, I hope it goes up significantly, but not until it is sustainable (it may already be, I'm not privy to inside league financials). I want the league to grow steadily, so it is around for my kids in the future.

rocker
07-08-2009, 10:01 AM
i don't know enough about MLS revenue (none of us do really) to know whether a cap of this sort would be financially feasible. Only Garber and his cronies know for sure (they don't even share all info with the players union in the current bargaining). any cap change must be linked with revenue levels.
And why would there be a minimum below the cap when the league itself pays all the salaries up to a point? Teams don't need a minimum when the actual cap amount up to 2.5 is paid for by the league anyways. The money is not the teams, so they would just use all they could. The single entity situation, with MLS signing all contracts, must be taken into consideration.

also, there's no proof that the current cap inhibits the growth of the league. That's a hypothesis, but it's presented here as "fact" to justify a new cap regime. Many would saw the cap has helped the league grow, bringing in investors who would be scared away by a "wild west" of spending typical of other leagues.

I think the great way of growing the game is just increasing the cap to a level that allows a certain level of quality that draws in the Euro fan -- a quality they can get behind.
If that quality is the same across all teams, the games themselves would be amazing! Imagine if the cap was 50 million for every team*??? you'd have stars on every team, great competitive matches.. nobody ever out of it for money reasons... wow!

* of course, that 50 mil number is a pipe dream and may take 30 years... but i'm exaggerating for effect

I say just increase the cap to a reasonable number and we'll have that quality we want, and competitiveness too! :)

TFC is always lumped in with the spenders, but be careful what you wish for... they might not always be. Then we'll be lamenting LA's big spending or NY's big spending....

Lastly, the Raptors never spend into the tax range of the NBA. Actually very few NBA teams do. So it's not like TFC would.

OneLoveOneEric
07-08-2009, 11:19 AM
I'm all for soft cap + tax, but that's because I'm anti-cap.
A soft cap and tax system will do nothing to limit spending by the big teams, though, which I'd love to see happen, whether TFC could keep up or not.

Beach_Red
07-08-2009, 12:04 PM
* of course, that 50 mil number is a pipe dream and may take 30 years... but i'm exaggerating for effect



Or there could be a tipping point. Or the league may take a few big steps instead of lots of small ones.

Or the league might fold.

These threads always use successful league's caps and luxury taxes but it might be just as useful to look at the many sports leagues that have failed to see if there's anything they've done wrong consistently.

NASL was looking good for a while. NFL Europe was supposed to be a big deal. The WHA almost competed for a while. USFL, XFL, there's even a new United Football League starting up (they're looking to sign Michael Vick).

Why did none of these leagues work?

Jack
07-08-2009, 12:28 PM
Didn't you already have a huge thread about this same subject?

Pookie
07-08-2009, 12:31 PM
Here we go again.

Let's try a few different counter points this time around.

Parity

If a cap system creates parity why have the Leafs not been able to make the playoffs 3 years in a row?

A cap system doesn't necessarily lend itself to parity. It goes miles towards cost certainty and stability but performance is still a function of quality of play, management, training, etc.

A cap levels the ability of teams to spend their way out of (or into trouble). That's it.

Fans will flock to see the "big guys"

Really? Are the big guys defined by the number of "stars" they have or are they defined by performance on the field (ie winning)?

Setting aside that fact that the "stars" we are talking about are not those with the names like Lampard, Gerrard, Rooney, etc. Rather "stars" that are relatively unknown in North American circles.

Let's explore the winning = attendance boost.

Columbus (MLS Champs) - 13,055 per game average - 1.36% increase in attendance (2009) - approx 130 extra fans per game
Houston (Top of the Western Table) - 15,688 per game - a -5.29% decrease - approx 750 less fans per game
Chivas (2nd in West) - 15,311 per game - a 6.51% increase per game - approx 800 extra fans per game
DC United (Tied Top of Eastern Table) - 14,811 per game - a 28.85% decrease per game - appox 4,000 fans per game
Chicago (Tied Top of Eastern Table) - 11,726 per game - a 28.67% decrease per game - approx 2,800 fans per game

Interestingly, DC, Columbus, Chicago all have a designated player too. They have a "star" and a winning club. Yet, attendance is down (or flat) in all 3 of those markets.

Can anyone reasonably conclude that winning on the field (or winning with a star(s) in the line up) will result in fans flocking to see them?

Toronto would be a big spender

This is my favourite one. We have a team that hasn't yet finished its third season. It competes in a market that requires expenses (salaries) to be paid in $US, yet it's revenue stream is in $CDN.

They have the good fortune of being able to enter the league at a time in which the $CDN has been around 85-95 cents but was actually worth more than $1.00 (2007-2008).

There was a time when the dollar was worth 63 cents. That was just 7 years ago.

You think that we'd be big spenders if for every dollar we spend, we have to spend an additional 40% just to be on par with the US buck? A 3 million dollar player would cost TFC $4.2M in Canadian dollars if this system was in place 7 years ago.

Since history repeats itself, fans of TFC should be arguing to hold the cap. It levels the playing field and protects against this inherent disadvantage of a Canadian club competing in US dollars.

Cashcleaner
07-08-2009, 12:53 PM
I don't want to see a situation where parity between clubs is enforced arbitrarily, but on the other hand, a hard cap is probably the easiest solution to control spending. Personally, I believe that success shouldn't be penalized and have a bit of a problem with clubs having their pursestrings tied by the league. However, with MLS you have an awful lot of clubs that seem to be just hanging by the skin of their teeth, financially. Like it was mentioned, a 5-team league isn't all that exciting.

There's good points for and against the whole thing.

Steve
07-08-2009, 01:06 PM
I don't want to see a situation where parity between clubs is enforced arbitrarily, but on the other hand, a hard cap is probably the easiest solution to control spending. Personally, I believe that success shouldn't be penalized and have a bit of a problem with clubs having their pursestrings tied by the league. However, with MLS you have an awful lot of clubs that seem to be just hanging by the skin of their teeth, financially. Like it was mentioned, a 5-team league isn't all that exciting.

There's good points for and against the whole thing.

Success isn't really penalized in MLS, it just isn't rewarded by being able to sign whoever you want. Why should it? Personally, I like the strategy of hard cap, but successful clubs being able to give themselves an advantage in other ways. Bring in a great coaching staff (and pay them what you want), bring in a great training staff, bring in great scouts. Create facilities that will allow the team to train in the best possible fashion. All of these things exist, and should, in the long run, give a successful team the edge it needs.

The only change I would like to see to the competition format of MLS is to academies. The rules to sign academy players need to be changed so the club developing the players benefits as much as possible (be it financially through selling the player, or by using them on their roster).

To me, the combination of the ability to develop a first rate academy, and bring in top quality coaches, will not only keep parity mostly intact while giving teams the ability to find an edge, but will also push north american soccer much further, much faster, than throwing money at players would. Think about it, if you can spend money on players to be good, you'll focus on bringing in internationals, if you have to spend money on development (coaching is involved in that) you will push Canadian and American soccer to new levels.

rocker
07-08-2009, 01:18 PM
true Steve... a cap changes the source of success.. the source of success moves from economic advantage over others to scouting, coaching, training. sounds almost too pure! :)

maybe the solution is keep the hard cap but reduce all the restrictions that actually protect teams from making mistakes, like the draft. then the emphasis moves even more to making smart decisions, as money provides no advantage to correct mistakes.
Leaving more risk to teams with a hard cap, plus a higher cap for all teams, means if you screw up it has a greater financial risk -- more room where scouting badly, coaching badly, and training badly, expose yourself.

Yohan
07-08-2009, 01:36 PM
MLS already has a bit of soft cap system anyways.

It's called allocation money. Hence why Toronto can field a team way over its cap limit right now

james
07-08-2009, 04:13 PM
soft cap for sure.

You cant hav a hard cap in soccer when 98% of the other soccer leagues around the world dont even have a salary cap what so ever. We need some space to spend what we want to compete.

Dust2
07-08-2009, 07:28 PM
Lastly, the Raptors never spend into the tax range of the NBA. Actually very few NBA teams do. So it's not like TFC would.


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.
2008-2009 payroll
http://hoopshype.com/salaries.htm

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

------------pay luxury tax----------

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


As for MLSE don't want to exceed the cap, that's their choice.

Salary cap at $2.5 mil
Minimum salary cap (75%) at $1.88 mil
Luxury tax ($1 for $1 over) starting at $3 mil

Each team can have at most 1 DP (can't be traded). A DP is defined as a player who is exempted from the payroll but cost $1 mil in luxury tax. Teams who are at or below the salary cap ($2.5 mil) will receive luxury tax revenue.

Dust2
07-08-2009, 07:39 PM
And why would there be a minimum below the cap when the league itself pays all the salaries up to a point? Teams don't need a minimum when the actual cap amount up to 2.5 is paid for by the league anyways.

The league will pay up to $1.88 mil. Not $2.5 mil.


also, there's no proof that the current cap inhibits the growth of the league. That's a hypothesis, but it's presented here as "fact" to justify a new cap regime. Take a look at LA and tell me that the whole situation there in the last 3 years benefit the league?

Galaxy: 11th out of 13 teams in the table (2007 season)---$9,179,949 payroll
Galaxy: 13th out of 14 teams in the table (2008 season)----~$9,200,000 payroll
Galaxy: currently 11th out of 15 teams in the table (2009 season)---$9,313,290.53 payroll

Would MLS benefits as a whole if teams like NY, LA, Tor, Sea win a little more often?


Many would saw the cap has helped the league grow, bringing in investors who would be scared away by a "wild west" of spending typical of other leagues. How is it wild west spending? It's still a cap. It's not like a free spending of the 98% of other soccer leagues out there?

If NY and LA want to spend $6 mil in payroll, they will pay $4 mil luxury tax. This revenue will be shared by the "have-nots" of MLS. The gap between a $2.5 mil team and a $6 mil team is not that big. Yes, the $2.5 mil team will be at a disadvantage but not one that can't be overcome. In addition, the $2.5 mil team will be getting $2-3 mil a year in luxury tax revenue. Surely, that help the team in their quest for profitability.

Cashcleaner
07-08-2009, 11:40 PM
The only change I would like to see to the competition format of MLS is to academies. The rules to sign academy players need to be changed so the club developing the players benefits as much as possible (be it financially through selling the player, or by using them on their roster).


Oh man, I couldn't agree more with the academies. Right now the restrictions to signing an academy player for your own team or making a trade is just plain stupid. The academy should be operating specifically to benefit the club by developing players for its own use on the pitch or trading to other clubs for their use. I can't believe they went and made the whole thing so complicated.

Good point.

Yohan
07-08-2009, 11:48 PM
Oh man, I couldn't agree more with the academies. Right now the restrictions to signing an academy player for your own team or making a trade is just plain stupid. The academy should be operating specifically to benefit the club by developing players for its own use on the pitch or trading to other clubs for their use. I can't believe they went and made the whole thing so complicated.

Good point.
the counterpoint is that a team can use academy to get too much of advantage over other teams

not every team is willing, or can afford to spend multi million bucks to set up an academy program

Pookie
07-09-2009, 05:41 AM
soft cap for sure.

You cant hav a hard cap in soccer when 98% of the other soccer leagues around the world dont even have a salary cap what so ever. We need some space to spend what we want to compete.

What if the other leagues start to introduce financial restrictions? Does that change your position?

It's funny. We have a successful financial model that is envied by a number of leagues around the world for its cost certainty. Yet, some insist it is broken and want to follow the European model.

Yet in Europe, many think that model is broken and look to leagues with financial restrictions for guidance.

UEFA president Platini eyes up spending cap as clubs risk 'imploding'

Michel Platini has told the European parliament that UEFA are considering capping spending by clubs and suggested that Manchester City's (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/teampages/manchester-city.html) pursuit of Kaka had increased the need for action.

The UEFA president has been a critic of outlandish buying by Europe's elite clubs - much of which is based on borrowed credit or the personal spending of wealthy benefactors - and insists it is the clubs themselves who have requested the move.

'European clubs are telling us that our system is in danger of financially imploding in the medium term,' Platini told MEPs in Brussels.

'In consultation with them we are looking at limiting to a certain degree a club's expenditure on staff - salary and transfer fees combined - to an as yet undecided percentage of their direct and indirect sporting revenue.'

Platini hinted discussions over a salary cap were accelerated by one club's "astronomical bids" last month. Although he did not name Manchester City, who are owned by Sheikh Mansour's Abu Dhabi United Investment Group, he appears to have been referring to their move for Kaka.

City were willing to pay AC Milan £108million and Kaka wages of £250,000 per week but the forward decided to stay at the San Siro.

'During this year's festive season, one club which had suddenly become very rich made various astronomical bids in the transfer market,' said Platini.


'Of course, there was a tremendous outcry in the football family, people called it outrageous and scandalous.

'Is it acceptable to offer such sums of money for a single player? Many people have responded by talking about limiting players' wages by introducing a European salary cap.'

Platini said that clubs such as Real Madrid and Manchester United are not immune to the global economic downturn and regulation must be put into force.

'For the past 15 or 20 years, we have grown tired of hearing that the market regulates itself perfectly, that excesses and imbalances will disappear of their own accord and that the growth of income in football is an endless upward spiral,' he said. 'We now know none of this is true.'

Platini stressed this was "only the beginning of the discussion" and any legislation limiting spending would only come in "on a consensual basis and with a view to strengthening this system".


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-1148897/UEFA-president-Platini-eyes-spending-cap-clubs-risk-imploding.html#ixzz0Kl0ynKQF&C (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-1148897/UEFA-president-Platini-eyes-spending-cap-clubs-risk-imploding.html#ixzz0Kl0ynKQF&C)

More...


Platini war cry: UEFA chief on collision course with Premier League over curbing spending (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-1136982/Platini-war-UEFA-chief-collision-course-Premier-League.html)
Charles Sale: Platini shows little English patience (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/article-1136925/Charles-Sale-Platini-shows-little-English-patience.html)
Platini asks for EU powers that could see English clubs barred from Champions League (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-1090228/Platini-asks-powers-axe-English-clubs-Champions-League.html)

Dust2
07-09-2009, 07:37 AM
Let's explore the winning = attendance boost.

Columbus (MLS Champs) - 13,055 per game average - 1.36% increase in attendance (2009) - approx 130 extra fans per game
Houston (Top of the Western Table) - 15,688 per game - a -5.29% decrease - approx 750 less fans per game
Chivas (2nd in West) - 15,311 per game - a 6.51% increase per game - approx 800 extra fans per game
DC United (Tied Top of Eastern Table) - 14,811 per game - a 28.85% decrease per game - appox 4,000 fans per game
Chicago (Tied Top of Eastern Table) - 11,726 per game - a 28.67% decrease per game - approx 2,800 fans per game

Interestingly, DC, Columbus, Chicago all have a designated player too. They have a "star" and a winning club. Yet, attendance is down (or flat) in all 3 of those markets.

Can anyone reasonably conclude that winning on the field (or winning with a star(s) in the line up) will result in fans flocking to see them?



Have you taken the state of the economy into consideration? Also, these clubs you listed above do not have as great growth potential compare to Seattle, LA, NY, Tor, Vancouver.

Winning "on the field (or winning with a star(s) in the line up" for the like of Seattle, Toronto (in expanded stadium), LA, Vancouver, Philly...would result in increase attendance for them unlike Columbus, Chivas, Chicago.

Which would more likely to result in 3,000 increase in attendance from winning the MLS Cup? Seattle/Toronto/Vancouver or Columbus (which barely grow at all)?

As I stated, not all teams are created equal. Some have much higher growth potential than others. Put a winning team in Seattle, Toronto would generate much more revenue for the league as a whole than a winning team in Columbus, San Jose, Kansas City, Dallas.

Dust2
07-09-2009, 07:47 AM
What if the other leagues start to introduce financial restrictions? Does that change your position?

It's funny. We have a successful financial model that is envied by a number of leagues around the world for its cost certainty. Yet, some insist it is broken and want to follow the European model.

Yet in Europe, many think that model is broken and look to leagues with financial restrictions for guidance.

UEFA president Platini eyes up spending cap as clubs risk 'imploding'

Michel Platini has told the European parliament that UEFA are considering capping spending by clubs and suggested that Manchester City's (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/teampages/manchester-city.html) pursuit of Kaka had increased the need for action.

The UEFA president has been a critic of outlandish buying by Europe's elite clubs - much of which is based on borrowed credit or the personal spending of wealthy benefactors - and insists it is the clubs themselves who have requested the move.

'European clubs are telling us that our system is in danger of financially imploding in the medium term,' Platini told MEPs in Brussels.

'In consultation with them we are looking at limiting to a certain degree a club's expenditure on staff - salary and transfer fees combined - to an as yet undecided percentage of their direct and indirect sporting revenue.'

Platini hinted discussions over a salary cap were accelerated by one club's "astronomical bids" last month. Although he did not name Manchester City, who are owned by Sheikh Mansour's Abu Dhabi United Investment Group, he appears to have been referring to their move for Kaka.

City were willing to pay AC Milan £108million and Kaka wages of £250,000 per week but the forward decided to stay at the San Siro.

'During this year's festive season, one club which had suddenly become very rich made various astronomical bids in the transfer market,' said Platini.


'Of course, there was a tremendous outcry in the football family, people called it outrageous and scandalous.

'Is it acceptable to offer such sums of money for a single player? Many people have responded by talking about limiting players' wages by introducing a European salary cap.'

Platini said that clubs such as Real Madrid and Manchester United are not immune to the global economic downturn and regulation must be put into force.

'For the past 15 or 20 years, we have grown tired of hearing that the market regulates itself perfectly, that excesses and imbalances will disappear of their own accord and that the growth of income in football is an endless upward spiral,' he said. 'We now know none of this is true.'

Platini stressed this was "only the beginning of the discussion" and any legislation limiting spending would only come in "on a consensual basis and with a view to strengthening this system".


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-1148897/UEFA-president-Platini-eyes-spending-cap-clubs-risk-imploding.html#ixzz0Kl0ynKQF&C (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-1148897/UEFA-president-Platini-eyes-spending-cap-clubs-risk-imploding.html#ixzz0Kl0ynKQF&C)

More...


Platini war cry: UEFA chief on collision course with Premier League over curbing spending (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-1136982/Platini-war-UEFA-chief-collision-course-Premier-League.html)
Charles Sale: Platini shows little English patience (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/article-1136925/Charles-Sale-Platini-shows-little-English-patience.html)
Platini asks for EU powers that could see English clubs barred from Champions League (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-1090228/Platini-asks-powers-axe-English-clubs-Champions-League.html)



This thread is not advocating the free for all spending of 98% of soccer leagues. This thread is about a soft cap. It's still a very effective salary cap to limit spending.

Teams can spend but pay a hefty penalty for it. ($1 penalty for $1 of extra spending). At some point, it will not make sense to spend $2 mil just to get $1 mil in cap space. A team like NY, LA, Sea could spend $9 mil, but they only get $6 mil for payroll (with $3 mil luxury tax). A $2.5 mil team vs $6 mil team will not make MLS like Scottish Premier League or EPL where the gap is so large ($300 mil payroll Chelsea vs $20 mil payroll Hull/Stoke).

In addition, teams will have a very good reason to stay under the salary cap. They would receive $2-3 mil of luxury tax revenue. For a team like SJ, KC, Columbus who probably won't spend big anyway, they can just spend $2.5 mil a year in payroll, and receive $2-3 mil a year in luxury tax revenue.

The NBA has a soft cap since the 1980s and the league as significantly prosper as a result.

rocker
07-09-2009, 07:57 AM
The NBA has a soft cap since the 1980s and the league as significantly prosper as a result.

But what correlation can you make between the NBA having a "soft cap" and its prosperous history?
The NBA's success may or may not be connected to having a soft cap. If you're going to advocate a soft cap so strongly you need to provide direct evidence of that cap leading to the success if the NBA. But the NBA's success could also be related to things like promoting star players in the 80s (Jordan/Bird), a generation that grew up with basketball and appreciated it, and massive media promotion. There could be many more factors I haven't thought of...

The NFL has a hard cap and it has prospered even more than the NBA.

So I would suggest that great success in North American leagues is not primarily a factor of whether the cap is soft or hard. A cap is important (i think it's great!) but the nitty gritty details of the cap probably mean less to success than things like culture.

Here's a thought: Imagine if you swapped the culture of NFL football with soccer in America.
Imagine if Americans (even in small town Texas) grew up with soccer not football. Imagine if all those highschool football stadiums down there were soccer stadiums. Imagine if this big pro soccer league, like the NFL now, had salary caps PER TEAM of $128 million US dollars (91 million Euros) PER SEASON. (yeah, that's the per team cap amount of the NFL this coming season!).

If every team in that imaginary soccer league could spend $128mil US/91 mil Euro per season, we'd have perhaps the greatest footy league on the PLANET. Yeah, Man U and Barcelona would outspend TFC, but this league would be, from top to bottom, the greatest league in the world. Every team, even the worst, would have the money to outspend every team in the world except perhaps the biggest 4-6 teams in the big leagues elsewhere.

But that wouldn't happen just because of a cap, but because the culture of the society came to think soccer was the greatest. The cap just ensures spending doesn't get out of hand and every team's fans have hope. A soft cap wouldn't make a difference in that.

Cashcleaner
07-09-2009, 12:24 PM
the counterpoint is that a team can use academy to get too much of advantage over other teams

not every team is willing, or can afford to spend multi million bucks to set up an academy program

True. The thing about this issue is that there are pros and cons either way you slice it. I think that fundamentally, clubs should be developing talent through academies, but just how successful that could be is up in the air.

Yohan
07-09-2009, 12:44 PM
True. The thing about this issue is that there are pros and cons either way you slice it. I think that fundamentally, clubs should be developing talent through academies, but just how successful that could be is up in the air.
there has to be a better balance

it is frustrating to develop talent, and can't give them a chance for first team

apparently the Shite has couple of good kids who can play, but due to MLS rules, these kids can't play

if MLS is about developing domestic talent, it should give incentives for teams to start academies. like, two extra roster spots for kids from academy and dont count against salary cap or something.
and the odds of developing a crazy good youth isn't that high anyways

funny thing is, I think the Crew is trying hard to develop a youth academy. I think Crapids and the Shite has one. can't think of anyone else with a decent youth academy

Pookie
07-09-2009, 04:32 PM
Have you taken the state of the economy into consideration? Also, these clubs you listed above do not have as great growth potential compare to Seattle, LA, NY, Tor, Vancouver.

Winning "on the field (or winning with a star(s) in the line up" for the like of Seattle, Toronto (in expanded stadium), LA, Vancouver, Philly...would result in increase attendance for them unlike Columbus, Chivas, Chicago.

So, Seattle, LA, Vancouver and Philadelphia are immune from the state of the economy?

The premise of your theory is that winning and/or stars in the line up lead to increased attendance. The evidence suggests otherwise.

Toronto, hasn't really had a winning line up or a star(s) of the million dollar kind. Yet, at the moment, they are doing quite well on the attendance front.


As I stated, not all teams are created equal. Some have much higher growth potential than others. Put a winning team in Seattle, Toronto would generate much more revenue for the league as a whole than a winning team in Columbus, San Jose, Kansas City, Dallas.

You really think that the league wants to build its revenue model on a Canadian team(s) that could see its revenue plummet by 10-20% in any given year depending on the dollar fluctuation?

I look at the NHL which people seem to think needs to expand in Canada where it could be successful.

These same people forget that 7 years ago, we had a 63 cent dollar. Ottawa was nearly bankrupt. Calgary and Edmonton were talking about using provincial lottery money to stay afloat.

Now, the dollar jumps and we immediately seem to think that Canada can support teams in Hamilton, Quebec City, Winnipeg and even Halifax.

Having a franchise in Canada is very risky. It's even more risky to base the health of your league (and the revenue sharing necessary) on a Canadian team.

Cashcleaner
07-09-2009, 06:19 PM
^ I agree that as a generality, clubs in Canada have more risk involved than ones in the US based on currency valuations; but Montreal, Toronto, and Vancouver are still rather strong contenders when it comes to market stability.

Pookie
07-09-2009, 07:15 PM
^ I agree to a certain extent.

Toronto is a great professional sports market and can thrive in sports with cost controls. Montreal and Vancouver can thrive as well.

In a totally free market, they cannot.

MLB is a very interesting example.

In 1993, the Jays had the highest payroll in MLB at $51.9M. They won a World Series title. The Yankees by comparison had a $46.5M payroll. Montreal had just folded.

In 2009, the Yankees are spending like drunken sailors with a $201M payroll. The Jays have dropped from number 1 in the league to number 16 with a payroll just over $80M and very little chance at winning.

Take the NBA which this thread uses as a basis for a model, the Raptors are 15th overall in spending. They aren't running with the NY Knicks (about 33M behind them). They are right in a pack with Milwaukee, Scramento and Utah.

If the MLS is successful and markets like LA and NY thrive, what makes anyone think that Toronto could actually run with the big dogs in a market without cost controls?

Oldtimer
07-10-2009, 07:07 AM
There might need to be a hard cap limit on top of a soft cap to prevent overspending.

e.g. Salary cap at $4 million.
Teams can pay a luxury tax to add up to a million to that.

Dust2
07-12-2009, 06:38 PM
There might need to be a hard cap limit on top of a soft cap to prevent overspending.

e.g. Salary cap at $4 million.
Teams can pay a luxury tax to add up to a million to that.

So this is your suggestion:

Salary cap at $4 mil
Luxury tax $1 for $1 starting at $4 mil
Teams can't spend more than $5 mil.

That would be great actually. However, I don't see the owners of small revenue teams like KC, SJ, Dallas, Columbus, NE agreeing to this. They can't afford it. LA, NY were in favor of raising the salary cap significantly last year and MLS voted it down.

TFCRegina
07-13-2009, 12:14 AM
Agreed.
Great plan. It allows teams to take advantage on the field with their popularity at the gate.
It helps the lesser teams solidify financially.

Yet, at the same time it generally discourages from turning MLS into the problem in baseball where some teams (Yankees etc.) are spending 10 times that of others.

I like it.

HA HA HA. MLB has a luxury tax system, that's precisely why the Yankees are so powerful. Hard caps are far better at maintaining parity, because they depress everybody's salary. Put in a luxury tax and all you're doing is paring off a tiny amount of money. Either go with a hard cap or have none at all, as a soft cap with luxury tax is just a sham.

Dust2
07-13-2009, 01:37 AM
HA HA HA. MLB has a luxury tax system, that's precisely why the Yankees are so powerful. Hard caps are far better at maintaining parity, because they depress everybody's salary. Put in a luxury tax and all you're doing is paring off a tiny amount of money. Either go with a hard cap or have none at all, as a soft cap with luxury tax is just a sham.

Here's MLB luxury tax system (which is far different than a soft cap and luxury tax of my suggestion)


MLB's current collective bargaining agreement sets a 'payroll threshold' each season that is somewhat similar to a salary cap. For the 2007 season, this threshold has been set at $148 million ($155 million in 2008). Should the average annual value of a team's total salary contracts surpass this threshold in any year, they pay a 'tax' on the amount over the threshold. The tax is graduated such that a team pays a progressively higher percentage every year it exceeds the threshold, to a maximum of 40%. As an example, when Roger Clemens signed with the Yankees this season, his salary was reported at $18.5 million. But since the Yankees have already exceeded the payroll threshold several times, they were forced to pay the maximum luxury tax on his salary of 40%. Applied to Clemens' salary, the tax comes to $7.4 million. So in actuality, Clemens is costing the Yankees $25.9 million this season. http://www.cbssports.com/mlb/salaries


From that, only New York Yankees pays any luxury tax for 2009 season.

Major League Baseball 2009 Payroll


No. Team Payroll Average
1. New York Yankees $201,449,289 $7,748,050
2. New York Mets $135,773,988 $4,849,071
3. Chicago Cubs $135,050,000 $5,402,000
4. Boston Red Sox $122,696,000 $4,089,867
5. Detroit Tigers $115,085,145 $4,110,184
6. Los Angeles Angels $113,709,000 $4,061,036
7. Philadelphia Phillies $113,004,048 $4,185,335
8. Houston Astros $102,996,415 $3,814,682
9. Los Angeles Dodgers $100,458,101 $4,018,324
10. Seattle Mariners $98,904,167 $3,532,292
11. Atlanta Braves $96,726,167 $3,335,385
12. Chicago White Sox $96,068,500 $3,694,942
13. St. Louis Cardinals $88,528,411 $3,278,830
14. San Francisco Giants $82,161,450 $3,043,017
15. Cleveland Indians $81,625,567 $3,023,169
16. Toronto Blue Jays $80,993,657 $2,892,631
17. Milwaukee Brewers $79,857,502 $3,194,300
18. Colorado Rockies $75,201,000 $2,785,222
19. Arizona Diamondbacks $73,571,667 $2,724,877
20. Cincinnati Reds $70,968,500 $2,957,021
21. Kansas City Royals $70,908,333 $2,727,244
22. Texas Rangers $68,646,023 $2,367,104
23. Baltimore Orioles $67,101,667 $2,580,833
24. Minnesota Twins $65,299,267 $2,251,699
25. Tampa Bay Rays $63,313,035 $2,183,208
26. Oakland Athletics $62,310,000 $2,225,357
27. Nationals $59,328,000 $2,045,793
28. Pirates $48,743,000 $1,874,731
29. San Diego Padres $42,796,700 $1,528,454
30. Florida Marlins $36,814,000 $1,314,786Ratio of top payroll / bottom payroll for MLB 09 = 5.47


Either go with a hard cap or have none at all, as a soft cap with luxury tax is just a sham.Why is a soft cap with luxury tax a shame? It provides the low revenue teams with luxury tax revenue (~$2 mil a year). It lets the high revenue teams spend up to a limit while having to pay a luxury tax for this priviledge. Yes, there will be less parity in the league but it won't be like MLB or EPL. A $2.5 mil team vs. a $5 mil team is not as big a gap as a $25 mil team vs. $50 mil team. Also, less parity in the league might not be such a bad thing.

And as I stated, small market teams will have these benefits that most small market soccer teams around the world would love to have:

-Luxury tax ($2-3 mil a year)
-Revenue sharing (30% of ticket revenue, national TV, national sponsorship and league merchandise )
-Talent draft (MLS Superdraft) that favor the weakest teams
-A playoff that give each team in the playoff a legitimate shot at winning the title

Should a team that average 32,000 paid attendance be forced to spend the same on player salary as a team that average 8,000 in paid attendance? (DP is not really an advantage since he takes up $425,000 of the cap space.....Look at New York and Los Angeles who have DP. Los Angeles missed the playoff for the last three years and might miss it this year too). MLS teams should be able to keep their talents instead of losing them to Denmark, Sweden and Belgium. That's pathetic.

MLS top teams lost 6-1 on aggregate by a team from Trinidad and Tobago and 3-1 on aggregate to a team from Panama in the Champions League is also a blackeye to the league. The solution is simple and will benefit the league as a whole.

Since the expansion teams seem to do much better than the older MLS cities in season tickets/attendance, would MLS benefit if these teams do well on the field in their inaugural season? And in return, these expansion teams will generate more revenue for MLS (MLS gets 30% cut of ticket revenue). The time for a change is now. A soft cap ($2.5 mil) with luxury tax threshold at $3 mil will benefit the whole league. The new CBA will come into effect in 2010. It's time to move MLS forward.

Dust2
07-13-2009, 01:47 AM
FYI:

2008 NFL payroll

http://content.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/salaries/teamresults.aspx?team=23
http://www.altiusdirectory.com/Sports/nfl-salaries.php

NFL Teams Total Payroll
NFL Oakland Raiders Teams $ 152,389,371
NFL Dallas Cowboys Teams $ 146,401,600
NFL Minnesota Vikings Teams $ 133,354,045
NFL Cleveland Browns Teams $ 131,916,300
NFL New Orleans Saints Teams $ 131,531,820
NFL Pittsburgh Steelers Teams $ 128,815,061
NFL Tennessee Titans Teams $ 126,017,443
NFL Arizona Cardinals Teams $ 122,110,110
NFL Jacksonville Jaguars Teams $ 122,109,207
NFL Chicago Bears Teams $ 120,065,819
NFL San Francisco 49ers Teams $ 118,766,239
NFL New York Jets Teams $ 116,910,097
NFL St. Louis Rams Teams $ 116,677,660
NFL New York Giants Teams $ 115,816,180
NFL Miami Dolphins Teams $ 114,649,660
NFL Buffalo Bills Teams $ 113,364,927
NFL Carolina Panthers Teams $ 112,114,711
NFL Washington Redskins Teams $ 111,963,684
NFL San Diego Chargers Teams $ 111,813,340
NFL Cincinnati Bengals Teams $ 109,727,880
NFL Philadelphia Eagles Teams $ 109,557,398
NFL Houston Texans Teams $ 108,445,418
NFL Tampa Bay Buccaneers Teams $ 104,329,311
NFL Seattle Seahawks Teams $ 102,985,710
NFL Atlanta Falcons Teams $ 96,391,525
NFL Detroit Lions Teams $ 95,827,117
NFL Denver Broncos Teams $ 95,599,778
NFL Green Bay Packers Teams $ 94,018,300
NFL Indianapolis Colts Teams $ 93,373,915
NFL New England Patriots Teams $ 92,734,120
NFL Baltimore Ravens Teams $ 90,713,965
NFL Kansas City Chiefs Teams $ 83,623,776

Ratio of top payroll / bottom payroll for NBA 2008-09=1.703
Ratio of top payroll / bottom payroll for NFL 2008 = 1.822
Ratio of top payroll / bottom payroll for J-league 2009 = 5
Ratio of top payroll / bottom payroll for MLB 09 = 5.47
Ratio of top payroll / bottom payroll for EPL 07/08 = 24.94

Dust2
07-13-2009, 01:49 AM
TOP PREMIER LEAGUE WAGE BILLS 2007/08

Current exchange rate = $1.64 = £1


Chelsea - £172.1m
Manchester Utd - £121.1m
Arsenal - £101.3m
Liverpool - £90.4m
Newcastle Utd - £74.6m
Portsmouth £54.7m
Manchester City £54.2 m
Tottenham Hotspur £52.9 m
Aston Villa 50.4 m
Everton 44.5 m
West Ham United 44.2 m
Blackburn Rovers 39.7 m
Fulham 39.3 m
Bolton Wanderers 39 m
Wigan Athletic 38.4 m
Sunderland 37.1 m
Middlesbrough 34.8 m
West Bromwich Albion 21.8m
Stoke City 11.9 m
Hull City (2007 figures) 6.9 m

Ratio of top payroll / bottom payroll for EPL 07/08 = 24.94

Net transfer fee:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v154/kizinho/sincebenitez.jpg

profit89
07-13-2009, 06:54 AM
Soft cap with luxury tax is much better than hard cap.

Fort York Redcoat
07-13-2009, 07:51 AM
there has to be a better balance

it is frustrating to develop talent, and can't give them a chance for first team

apparently the Shite has couple of good kids who can play, but due to MLS rules, these kids can't play

if MLS is about developing domestic talent, it should give incentives for teams to start academies. like, two extra roster spots for kids from academy and dont count against salary cap or something.
and the odds of developing a crazy good youth isn't that high anyways



The problem is still going to be MLS giving something to these acadamies without pissing off the billegerent giant that is the NCAA. I'm not a fan of the draft system and rewarding failure but for now it's the devil we know and "soccer moms" trust their babies edumacation to. It's going to be a painful weaning process to move to an academy favoured system for youth prospects but I believe it's starting.

Fort York Redcoat
07-13-2009, 08:00 AM
Dusty? pc4th of BS?

I can't remember your two previous proposals (I'll look them up) but you had me at "change".

I know I've said before the league isn't ready for a change in their model but with each year and each succesful expansion I like the timing of this CBA for change.

Fort York Redcoat
07-13-2009, 08:21 AM
FYI: Red Bull company just bought a 5th division German team with the hope of doing a Hoffenheim. It is willing to put 100 million Euros into RB Leipzig over 10 years in order to get it promoted to Bundesliga.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/east-german-football-gets-the-kick-it-needs-1716000.html
http://www.spiegel.de/images/image-362-bigimage420-xrjh.jpg
The team will play at this stadium after it got promoted to Tier 4. The stadium will be renamed Red Bull Arena. My point is that MLS should let the Red Bull pay $4 mil luxury tax if it wants a $6 mil payroll. The league would be better for it if its premier market, New York City, is successful.



I'm surprised they chose to go NY before looking to their neighbouring league in Germany first. I guess that was pre Hoffeheim but they weren't the first team to get the big cash injection for high speed promotion. Oh well, it looks tacky on the team name but there are others that have grown less tacky with time.

Fort York Redcoat
07-13-2009, 08:34 AM
But what correlation can you make between the NBA having a "soft cap" and its prosperous history?
The NBA's success may or may not be connected to having a soft cap. If you're going to advocate a soft cap so strongly you need to provide direct evidence of that cap leading to the success if the NBA. But the NBA's success could also be related to things like promoting star players in the 80s (Jordan/Bird), a generation that grew up with basketball and appreciated it, and massive media promotion. There could be many more factors I haven't thought of...

The NFL has a hard cap and it has prospered even more than the NBA.

So I would suggest that great success in North American leagues is not primarily a factor of whether the cap is soft or hard. A cap is important (i think it's great!) but the nitty gritty details of the cap probably mean less to success than things like culture.

Here's a thought: Imagine if you swapped the culture of NFL football with soccer in America.
Imagine if Americans (even in small town Texas) grew up with soccer not football. Imagine if all those highschool football stadiums down there were soccer stadiums. Imagine if this big pro soccer league, like the NFL now, had salary caps PER TEAM of $128 million US dollars (91 million Euros) PER SEASON. (yeah, that's the per team cap amount of the NFL this coming season!).

If every team in that imaginary soccer league could spend $128mil US/91 mil Euro per season, we'd have perhaps the greatest footy league on the PLANET. Yeah, Man U and Barcelona would outspend TFC, but this league would be, from top to bottom, the greatest league in the world. Every team, even the worst, would have the money to outspend every team in the world except perhaps the biggest 4-6 teams in the big leagues elsewhere.

But that wouldn't happen just because of a cap, but because the culture of the society came to think soccer was the greatest. The cap just ensures spending doesn't get out of hand and every team's fans have hope. A soft cap wouldn't make a difference in that.

Great seeing NFL cap comparisons rocker. I assume it's to show the models success v world football. But again it ignores the fact that NFL has no competition outside its own league schedule. The highest honour for the Arizona/Phoenix Cardinals is to play in the NFL every year. Most models worldwide have sacrificed parity for interleague success.

The greatest problem I see with parity and specifically the NFL model is how slow it's growth would be competing with other parity leagues. We don't create fans in N.A. we steal them from other sports. I think with success of these new expansion teams there is great opportunity for this league to take steps closer to world models and try to stand out and do things differently rather than try and dress up the beautiful game as another NA domestic product.

Pookie
07-13-2009, 09:39 AM
Most models worldwide have sacrificed parity for interleague success.

The greatest problem I see with parity and specifically the NFL model is how slow it's growth would be competing with other parity leagues. We don't create fans in N.A. we steal them from other sports. I think with success of these new expansion teams there is great opportunity for this league to take steps closer to world models and try to stand out and do things differently rather than try and dress up the beautiful game as another NA domestic product.

You raise some interesting points. Let me offer this as a statement up for debate.

The MLS has no direct competition. Here's why.

Most established top tier leagues play overseas. There is a significant time zone difference. Outside of one big league game, most games are usually only available on specialty networks. The majority of North Americans do not follow the Bundesliga, Serie A or even the EPL.

MLS has a very captive audience that is free from direct competition.

Of course, if you believe that competition for players is the name of the game, my statement is false. There are plenty of teams competing for players.

But are high quality of players necessary for a league to grow and prosper in North America?

The answer is no.

The NCAA (Basketball, Football, etc) thrives and does so in sports that have a professional option. They don't have stars throughout their line ups. They routinely draw rabid fans both home and away. Their rosters change year in and year out. They have great TV exposure. Their games are poorly played compared to the "professional" option in each.

What's the common factor? The fans of each team in the NCAA feel a sense of belonging. A sense of community. A sense of "nation." They don't care that their team won a basketball game 46-42, they just care that they moved on to the Sweet Sixteen.

That's the model that has worked in Toronto. We sell out. We haven't made the playoffs, yet.

That's the model that has worked in Seattle. They sold out before anyone knew what kind of team they would have.

That's what will work in Philly, Portland and Vancouver if they do it right.

The MLS doesn't need to be a big spending league but it needs the best money marketing can buy. The NCAA offers a blueprint.

Dust2
07-15-2009, 08:10 AM
Maybe a hard cap like the NHL (72% = floor, 100% = ceiling). For MLS, it could be $2 mil = floor and $2.77 mil = ceiling.

Hard cap like the NHL (floor 72% of cap)

2007-08 salary cap: $50.3 million , lower limit = ?

2009-2010 Salary cap

-- The Upper Limit: $56,800,000
-- The Lower Limit: $40,800,000

http://content.usatoday.com/sports/hockey/nhl/salaries/default.aspx

2007-08 figures are for salaries only and not the players’ salary cap numbers for the year. If a player retired in midseason, was sent to the minors, spent significant time on the injured list or had signed a multiyear contract with a lower average salary, his cap number would be lower. Potential performance bonuses for entry-level players and over-35 veterans, not listed here, also count toward the cap. Also, traded players’ entire salaries are listed with their new team, even though some of their salary would have counted against their original team’s cap number. That is why some teams’ total payrolls are more than the upper limit of $50.3 million for 2007-08.

Team (2007-08) Total Payroll ($) (2007-08)
Anaheim Ducks 50,769,200
Atlanta Thrashers 36,580,000
Boston Bruins 49,501,600
Buffalo Sabres 45,954,400
Calgary Flames 50,934,900
Carolina Hurricanes 49,948,600
Chicago Blackhawks 34,800,540
Colorado Avalanche 61,290,750
Columbus Blue Jackets 28,010,000
Dallas Stars 49,420,000
Detroit Red Wings 44,633,000
Edmonton Oilers 46,915,659
Florida Panthers 39,749,200
Los Angeles Kings 40,502,000
Minnesota Wild 46,183,000
Montreal Canadiens 42,313,500
Nashville Predators 30,273,340
New Jersey Devils 47,622,511
New York Islanders 39,007,720
New York Rangers 56,705,000
Ottawa Senators 49,997,370
Philadelphia Flyers 56,973,200
Phoenix Coyotes 35,694,750
Pittsburgh Penguins 41,384,200
San Jose Sharks 41,454,800
St. Louis Blues 39,047,833
Tampa Bay Lightning 38,954,167
Toronto Maple Leafs 46,445,180
Vancouver Canucks 45,710,000
Washington Capitals 44,309,200

Ratio of top payroll / bottom payroll for NHL 2007-2008 = 2.03

Beach_Red
07-15-2009, 08:59 AM
Great seeing NFL cap comparisons rocker. I assume it's to show the models success v world football. But again it ignores the fact that NFL has no competition outside its own league schedule. The highest honour for the Arizona/Phoenix Cardinals is to play in the NFL every year. Most models worldwide have sacrificed parity for interleague success.



I'm curious about this. I don't know much about European leagues and most of what I do is second hand from books. A Scottish writer named Christopher Brookmyre (great writer, I think) makes no secret of his contempt for the Old Firm (he has a very helpful Scottish-English translation at the end of some of his books in which he includes; "old firm: Ingenious idiot-identification scheme which tags halfwits, criminals, thugs and assorted neerdowells voluntarily in blue or green-and-white garments, making them easier for the rest of us to avoid."

(the rest is here: http://www.brookmyre.co.uk/short5.htm, some good stuff).

He's a St. Mirren supporter (how would TFC do against St. Mirren, do you think?). Another Scottish writer, Denise Minna, has a plot turn on the fact that one character is a Partick Thistle supporter and they never play in Europe. Both of these writers seem to feel that having only two teams at the top of the league every year and involved in interleague play has been bad for the rest of their league.

So, how much of that "sacrifice" that these non-parity leagues have made for interleague success has been voluntary?

Fort York Redcoat
07-15-2009, 09:27 AM
I'm curious about this. I don't know much about European leagues and most of what I do is second hand from books. A Scottish writer named Christopher Brookmyre (great writer, I think) makes no secret of his contempt for the Old Firm (he has a very helpful Scottish-English translation at the end of some of his books in which he includes; "old firm: Ingenious idiot-identification scheme which tags halfwits, criminals, thugs and assorted neerdowells voluntarily in blue or green-and-white garments, making them easier for the rest of us to avoid."

(the rest is here: http://www.brookmyre.co.uk/short5.htm, some good stuff).

He's a St. Mirren supporter (how would TFC do against St. Mirren, do you think?). Another Scottish writer, Denise Minna, has a plot turn on the fact that one character is a Partick Thistle supporter and they never play in Europe. Both of these writers seem to feel that having only two teams at the top of the league every year and involved in interleague play has been bad for the rest of their league.

So, how much of that "sacrifice" that these non-parity leagues have made for interleague success has been voluntary?

The decision was completely involuntary. That's why if we were to adopt the model it would be a true sacrifice.

Any team outside the Old Firm would be arguably weaker to even with MLS. The obvious difference is squad depth so I'm keeping the comparison to a one match comparison.
I've desrcibed MLS before as the SPL with South/Central American officiating.

It's another example of the need for UEFA/Europa cup since the support for continental play goes beyond the Old Firm maybe getting as far as the 2nd stage of the Champions league and then...out. But as the giants of any league do better they're rewarded by earning another spot for their country's league in the regioanl tourney.

Beach_Red
07-15-2009, 09:35 AM
The decision was completely involuntary. That's why if we were to adopt the model it would be a true sacrifice.

Any team outside the Old Firm would be arguably weaker to even with MLS. The obvious difference is squad depth so I'm keeping the comparison to a one match comparison.
I've desrcibed MLS before as the SPL with South/Central American officiating.

It's another example of the need for UEFA/Europa cup since the support for continental play goes beyond the Old Firm maybe getting as far as the 2nd stage of the Champions league and then...out. But as the giants of any league do better they're rewarded by earning another spot for their country's league in the regioanl tourney.

Okay, well, that pretty much says it. First we have to have something to sacrifice.

Someday....

Fort York Redcoat
07-15-2009, 09:40 AM
You raise some interesting points. Let me offer this as a statement up for debate.

The MLS has no direct competition. Here's why.

Most established top tier leagues play overseas. There is a significant time zone difference. Outside of one big league game, most games are usually only available on specialty networks. The majority of North Americans do not follow the Bundesliga, Serie A or even the EPL.

MLS has a very captive audience that is free from direct competition.

Of course, if you believe that competition for players is the name of the game, my statement is false. There are plenty of teams competing for players.


Competition for players is the name of the game but it's counting the proverbial chickens at this point in our league history. I like that perspective of no direct tv viewing competition. If only more elitist fans of foreign football would watch both.

In this discussion I'm seeing the leaders of the MLS looking at their competition for tv on their own continental sports landscape. It's common to see the desire for a league to add teams to look better by being bigger, nevermind the quality. Just get eyeballs watching first.



But are high quality of players necessary for a league to grow and prosper in North America?

The answer is no.

The NCAA (Basketball, Football, etc) thrives and does so in sports that have a professional option. They don't have stars throughout their line ups. They routinely draw rabid fans both home and away. Their rosters change year in and year out. They have great TV exposure. Their games are poorly played compared to the "professional" option in each.

What's the common factor? The fans of each team in the NCAA feel a sense of belonging. A sense of community. A sense of "nation." They don't care that their team won a basketball game 46-42, they just care that they moved on to the Sweet Sixteen.

That's the model that has worked in Toronto. We sell out. We haven't made the playoffs, yet.

That's the model that has worked in Seattle. They sold out before anyone knew what kind of team they would have.

That's what will work in Philly, Portland and Vancouver if they do it right.

The MLS doesn't need to be a big spending league but it needs the best money marketing can buy. The NCAA offers a blueprint.

Once those new eyeballs are watching they can gauge quality pretty quick so if they don't have the history and community (and tuition investment) of NCAA it will be a tough sell, this belonging. I hope you're on to something, though.

Dust2
07-17-2009, 01:00 AM
Here is a new video update for Red Bull Arena.

http://web.mlsnet.com/media/video.jsp?content_id=5576049

That will be THE BEST SSS in MLS hand down. Red Bull means business from the way they pump money into the stadium ($200 mil worth). If MLS lets the Red Bull build a better team through a more flexible salary cap structure, the whole league would benefit. Say $5 mil payroll and pay $3 mil in luxury tax.

In a market with 19,006,798 metro population (8,363,710 in NewYork City alone), surely they can sold out a 25,000 seats stadium with a 'playoff' bound (top 8) team. Not to mention NYC is very soccer friendly/very international.

Would the league benefit if NYRB is successful on the field? Yes. Would the league benefit if the Red Bull sold out 25,000 seats? Yes Would the league benefit if the Red Bull donate $3 mil in luxury tax. Yes

What's the downside?

Pookie
07-17-2009, 05:14 AM
Would the league benefit if NYRB is successful on the field? Yes. Would the league benefit if the Red Bull sold out 25,000 seats? Yes Would the league benefit if the Red Bull donate $3 mil in luxury tax. Yes

What's the downside?

MLB 2009 Payrolls

1. Yankees - $201M + 26.9M in luxury tax
.
.
.
.
16. Jays - $80M

NBA 2008-2009 Payrolls

1. New York Knicks - $100M + $23M luxury tax
.
.
.
.
14. Raptors - $67M


No downside, I guess.... if you want to have a local market that runs middle of the pack when it comes to spending.

Since you promise all this revenue with your models, it's quite clear that a Canadian franchise can only compete in the spending game for so long before the effect and risk of the exchange rate comes into play.

Since you also argue that revenue and performance are tied together (ie. spend more to increase quality), I guess we can also look forward to performance just like the Jays and Raptors.

I, on the other hand, would prefer to see TFC successful both financially and on the pitch. You do that through cost controls and using those areas that are not controlled (ie. coaching, training, development, scouting) to build a winning tradition within the model.

Dust2
07-18-2009, 02:22 AM
http://www.soccerbyives.net/soccer_by_ives/2009/07/midday-musings-gold-cup-thoughts-the-deal-with-duka-and-more.html#more


Red Bulls fans can't be happy about hearing that the club wants to sign hot-shot U.S. Under-20 prospect Dilly Duka but were rejected by MLS. The New York Post reported on Thursday that the club tried to sign him but were denied by MLS. So what's the story? The word I've gotten is that the Red Bulls have been denied Duka because he wasn't an official academy player before attending Rutgers (he is now a member of the Red Bulls Under-20 team). Teams must have contact The rule is in place to keep MLS teams from raiding area colleges of young talent and claiming them through their youth systems. So basically, even though the Red Bulls are ready to sign Duka, and he sounds very interested in signing with the Red Bulls, it won't happen.

Let's keep it on the subject on Generation adidas. If you're hoping for your team to sign one of its youth academy players to a Generation adidas contract you may have to wait a while. I'm hearing that the funds used to pay for Generation adidas players are tightand MLS isn't going to approve any new players unless it is a truly special player. Is the lack of funding recession-related, or just a case of MLS having already signed its share of players to Generation adidas contract? Who knows, but it is becoming more and more absurd how many obstacles stand in the way of MLS teams landing quality young talent.

MLS is probably the only league in the world where a team can't sign a player from its OWN academy.

I wouldn't be surprised if Duka go to Europe and play.

Dust2
07-22-2009, 08:23 PM
In MLS, the league pays $2.3 mil salary hard cap. This means it's virtually a level playing field for all teams. In NBA, NHL, NFL, MLB, it's more flexible. Even the strictest cap structure (the NFL) still allow for teams to spend more in the form of incentive bonuses and it has a floor of 87.6% of the salary cap.

Ratio of top payroll / bottom payroll for NBA 2008-09=1.703
Ratio of top payroll / bottom payroll for NFL 2008 = 1.822
Ratio of top payroll / bottom payroll for NHL 2007-2008 = 2.03
Ratio of top payroll / bottom payroll for J-league 2009 = 5
Ratio of top payroll / bottom payroll for MLB 09 = 5.47
Ratio of top payroll / bottom payroll for EPL 07/08 = 24.94

A more flexible salary cap for MLS and still be financially responsible is:

$2.5 mil soft cap (the league pays this)
luxury tax threshold at $3 mil ($1 for $1 over)
$6 mil hard cap (no team can exceed this amount) (2:1 ratio of top/bottom)

Teams below the luxury tax threshold will receive luxury tax revenue. This give teams an incentive not to overspend if they don't have the revenue for it. Stay below $3 mil a year and you could get $2 mil in luxury tax revenue.

Dust2
07-25-2009, 02:36 AM
Average club revenue by leagues

1. Premiership (average $150 mil per team) 06/07-Deloitte
2. Bundesliga (average $100 mil per team) 06/07-Deloitte
3. La Liga (average $90 mil per team) 06/07--Deloitte
4. Serie A (average $80 mil per team) 06/07-Deloitte
5. Ligue 1 (average $70 mil per team) 06/07-Deloitte
6. Brazilian League (average ~$43 mil per team) 06/07
7. Mexican Football League (average ~$35 mil per team)
8. Dutch Eredivisie (average $34.3 mil per team) 06/07 per Deloitte
9. Denmark (average $33.3 mil per team)
10. J-league (average ~$31 mil per team)-J-league website
11. Scottish Premier League (average ~$30 mil per team)
12. Russian Premier League (average ~$25-30 mil per team)
13. Argentina (average ~$25-29 mil)
14. English Championship (average $27.4 mil per team) 06/07-Deloitte
15. Portugese first division (~$20-25 mil)
16. Turkish Premier League (~$20 mil)
17. Greece (~$20 mil)
18. Serie B (~$15-20 mil
19. Bundesliga 2 (~$15-20 mil)
20. Norway (~$17 mil per team)
21. MLS (average ~$13 mil per team) from FORBES

Seattle will generate about $30-35 mil this year in revenue and yet they can only spend $2.3 mil on player salaries. The new salary structure in 2010 need to be more flexible. With a $10 mil player salary team, Seattle could potential average 40,000+ in attendance (sold out 32,500 for the remaining games and there is strong demand for more Sounders tickets). Having a team that average 40,000+ in MLS can only benefit the league.

troy1982
07-25-2009, 10:41 AM
http://www.soccerbyives.net/soccer_by_ives/2009/07/midday-musings-gold-cup-thoughts-the-deal-with-duka-and-more.html#more



MLS is probably the only league in the world where a team can't sign a player from its OWN academy.

I wouldn't be surprised if Duka go to Europe and play.

the player is already in collage so has to go through the draft. This is just the RB trying to sign a player before he enters the draft.

rocker
07-25-2009, 10:45 AM
Seattle will generate about $30-35 mil this year in revenue and yet they can only spend $2.3 mil on player salaries.

where does this number come from? it's stated here as fact.

also, seattle has likely spent more than 2.3 mil on players. They got an "expansion allocation" which allows them to spend beyond the cap. what that amount was, I dunno.

Yohan
07-25-2009, 10:52 AM
http://www.scoresreport.com/tag/mls-new-salary-cap/

2008 cap was 2.3 million. 2009 is apparently 2.8 million

Dust2
08-13-2009, 08:08 PM
Does having a winning team bring out the fans in good numbers?

Winning the title and attendance increase?


1996/97 DC United......15,262......16,704......YES
1997/98 DC United......16,704......16,008.......NO
1998/99 CHICAGO........17,887......16,016.......NO
1999/00 DC United......17,419......18,580......YES
2000/01 Kansas City....09,112......10,954......YES
2001/02 San Jose.......09,635......11,150......YES
2002/03 Los Angeles....18,976......21,983......YES (HDC opened)
2003/04 San Jose.......10,465......13,001......YES
2004/05 DC United......17,232......16,664......NO
2005/06 Los Angeles....24,204......20,814......NO
2006/07 Houston........18,935......15,883.......NO
2007/08 Houston........15,883......16,939......YES
2008/09 Columbus.......14,622.....*13,114.......NO *-10 games so far in 2009 credit: firefan2001


What about having a winning team (say top 3 in the league table)? Does this bring out the fans in large quantity?

2008 best 3 teams during the regular season are:

-----------2007 --------2008 -----increase from previous year?
Columbus 15,230 -------14,622 ----NO
Houston 15,883 --------16,939-----YES
Chicago: 16,490 -------17,034----YES

2007 best 3 teams during the regular season are:

---------------2006----------2007 -------increase from previous year?
DC United----- 18,215--------20,967-----YES
Chivas USA---- 19,840-------14,305------NO
Houston------ 18,935 -------15,883------NO

2006 best 3 teams during the regular season are:

---------------2005------------2006-----------increase from previous year?
DC United------16,664----------18,215---------YES
FC Dallas--------11,189 --------14,982---------YES
New England-----12,525--------11,786---------NO

2005 best 3 teams during the regular season are:

----------------2004-------------2005----------increase from previous year?
San Jose---------13,001 --------13,037--------YES (by 36 fans)
New England----12,226----------12,525--------YES (by 299 fans)
DC United------17,232-----------16,664--------NO


Do the majority of MLS ticket buyers go regardless if the team is winning or not? (i.e. family, youth type who go for a nice day out at a sporting event). What is the effect of a winning team on attendance? There is of course an effect but how large? Do other factors [marketing, stars coming (Freddy Adu, Beckham, Blanco), special events] play a larger role?

Does the attendance in the playoff, which is lower than regular season, reinforce the theory that winning is not that important?

This discussion excludes the "new breed of expansion teams" like Toronto, Seattle, Philly, Vancouver, Portland because having a winning team in these markets will definitely bring out the fans in large numbers. But does having a winning team in markets like Columbus, New England, Colorado, Dallas bring out the fans in large numbers?

If having a winning team does not bring out fans in large numbers in old MLS cities but it would bring out fans in large numbers in the new breed expansion teams (Toronto, Seattle, Philly, Vancouver, Portland, Montreal), wouldn’t it be in MLS best financial interest that these new breed of expansion teams win a little more often? Being competitive in their first year instead of struggling mightily like Chivas USA, RSL, Toronto did would help MLS more than it would hurt MLS.

---a more flexible salary structure so these teams can spend to put together a competitive team
---decrease the number of players that teams can protect during the expansion draft (for example 9 instead of 10).

Dust2
08-15-2009, 02:27 AM
MLB 2009 Payrolls

1. Yankees - $201M + 26.9M in luxury tax
.
.
.
.
16. Jays - $80M

NBA 2008-2009 Payrolls

1. New York Knicks - $100M + $23M luxury tax
.
.
.
.
14. Raptors - $67M


No downside, I guess.... if you want to have a local market that runs middle of the pack when it comes to spending.

You're comparing apples to oranges when you quote MLB and NBA. TFC is the third highest revenue team in MLS after Los Angeles and Seattle. With a 30,000 seats BMO Field, it will be miles ahead of everybody else.



Since you promise all this revenue with your models, it's quite clear that a Canadian franchise can only compete in the spending game for so long before the effect and risk of the exchange rate comes into play.

Since you also argue that revenue and performance are tied together (ie. spend more to increase quality), I guess we can also look forward to performance just like the Jays and Raptors.

I, on the other hand, would prefer to see TFC successful both financially and on the pitch. You do that through cost controls and using those areas that are not controlled (ie. coaching, training, development, scouting) to build a winning tradition within the model.

The exchange rate is about 92 Canadian cents = 100 US cents.

With all things equal, a team that spend $2.725 mil on player salaries will have an advantage over a $2.3 mil team. Can that $2.725 mil team miss out on the playoff and the $2.3 mil team go on to win the title? Absolutely. The spending more money is only an advantage when you spend it wisely and correctly.

Right now, MLS is rewarding its weakest revenue teams by forcing MLS strongest revenue teams to adhere to the same $2.3 mil hard cap (or $1.875 mil hard cap + DP). Imagine the government forcing $30,000 a year income person and $90,000 a year income person to only spend $10,000 a year max, while at the same time tax the $90,000 a year person more (MLS takes in 30% of each team gate receipts).

Pookie
08-15-2009, 06:10 AM
You are persistent and I am probably going to regret pushing "reply" but here's the short version:

1. Comparing MLB and NBA to MLS is not apples to oranges since you propose a significant growth in revenue as a result of this model. As the dollars grow, the CDN factor becomes more real (see 1992 MLB payrolls vs 2009).

2. You profess that MLS has a hard cap now.

That's not true. We've already highlighted that a team can have up to 2 DPs but there's more.... Allocation money.

Here's what that is (from MLS):

A club receives allocation money for (1) poor performance during the preceding MLS regular season; (2) the transfer of a player to a club outside of MLS for value; (3) roster purposes due to expansion status; and/or (4) exceptional circumstances as approved by the Competition Committee.

Each year the MLS Competition Committee determines the allocation amount to be made available to each team. Allocation money can be traded by teams. Allocation money does not count against a team's salary budget

So, the league decides who gets it. They decide how much. Those decisions aren't made public. They can use it to spend on players and NOT have that amount applied against the DP and/or the cap.

Seems to me, if the league wanted to prop up any one of these higher revenue teams for business reasons, it could do so under the rules that exist now.

Dust2
08-17-2009, 01:31 AM
You are persistent and I am probably going to regret pushing "reply" but here's the short version:

1. Comparing MLB and NBA to MLS is not apples to oranges since you propose a significant growth in revenue as a result of this model. As the dollars grow, the CDN factor becomes more real (see 1992 MLB payrolls vs 2009).

2. You profess that MLS has a hard cap now.

That's not true. We've already highlighted that a team can have up to 2 DPs but there's more.... Allocation money.

Here's what that is (from MLS):

A club receives allocation money for (1) poor performance during the preceding MLS regular season; (2) the transfer of a player to a club outside of MLS for value; (3) roster purposes due to expansion status; and/or (4) exceptional circumstances as approved by the Competition Committee.

Each year the MLS Competition Committee determines the allocation amount to be made available to each team. Allocation money can be traded by teams. Allocation money does not count against a team's salary budget

So, the league decides who gets it. They decide how much. Those decisions aren't made public. They can use it to spend on players and NOT have that amount applied against the DP and/or the cap.

Seems to me, if the league wanted to prop up any one of these higher revenue teams for business reasons, it could do so under the rules that exist now.

In order to have the second DP, you have to trade for it, which cost you a quality player, draft picks or allocation money.

Second, having 2 DPs is not much of an advantage since you can only use $1.5 mil on the other 22 players (24 players roster).

As for getting allocation

A club receives allocation money for (1) poor performance during the preceding MLS regular season; (2) the transfer of a player to a club outside of MLS for value; (3) roster purposes due to expansion status; and/or (4) exceptional circumstances as approved by the Competition Committee.


Seems to me, if the league wanted to prop up any one of these higher revenue teams for business reasons, it could do so under the rules that exist now.

I doubt propping up the higher revenue teams is an 'exceptional circumstances.'

Dust2
08-18-2009, 07:37 AM
http://www.scoresreport.com/tag/mls-new-salary-cap/

2008 cap was 2.3 million. 2009 is apparently 2.8 million

It's $2.3 mil from many news articles including Sports Illustrated. Just add up the salaries for Toronto in 2009 and you will see it is no where close to $2.8 mil.

Steve
08-18-2009, 07:52 AM
Does having a winning team bring out the fans in good numbers?

Winning the title and attendance increase?


1996/97 DC United......15,262......16,704......YES
1997/98 DC United......16,704......16,008.......NO
1998/99 CHICAGO........17,887......16,016.......NO
1999/00 DC United......17,419......18,580......YES
2000/01 Kansas City....09,112......10,954......YES
2001/02 San Jose.......09,635......11,150......YES
2002/03 Los Angeles....18,976......21,983......YES (HDC opened)
2003/04 San Jose.......10,465......13,001......YES
2004/05 DC United......17,232......16,664......NO
2005/06 Los Angeles....24,204......20,814......NO
2006/07 Houston........18,935......15,883.......NO
2007/08 Houston........15,883......16,939......YES
2008/09 Columbus.......14,622.....*13,114.......NO *-10 games so far in 2009 credit: firefan2001


What about having a winning team (say top 3 in the league table)? Does this bring out the fans in large quantity?

2008 best 3 teams during the regular season are:

-----------2007 --------2008 -----increase from previous year?
Columbus 15,230 -------14,622 ----NO
Houston 15,883 --------16,939-----YES
Chicago: 16,490 -------17,034----YES

2007 best 3 teams during the regular season are:

---------------2006----------2007 -------increase from previous year?
DC United----- 18,215--------20,967-----YES
Chivas USA---- 19,840-------14,305------NO
Houston------ 18,935 -------15,883------NO

2006 best 3 teams during the regular season are:

---------------2005------------2006-----------increase from previous year?
DC United------16,664----------18,215---------YES
FC Dallas--------11,189 --------14,982---------YES
New England-----12,525--------11,786---------NO

2005 best 3 teams during the regular season are:

----------------2004-------------2005----------increase from previous year?
San Jose---------13,001 --------13,037--------YES (by 36 fans)
New England----12,226----------12,525--------YES (by 299 fans)
DC United------17,232-----------16,664--------NO


Do the majority of MLS ticket buyers go regardless if the team is winning or not? (i.e. family, youth type who go for a nice day out at a sporting event). What is the effect of a winning team on attendance? There is of course an effect but how large? Do other factors [marketing, stars coming (Freddy Adu, Beckham, Blanco), special events] play a larger role?

Does the attendance in the playoff, which is lower than regular season, reinforce the theory that winning is not that important?

This discussion excludes the "new breed of expansion teams" like Toronto, Seattle, Philly, Vancouver, Portland because having a winning team in these markets will definitely bring out the fans in large numbers. But does having a winning team in markets like Columbus, New England, Colorado, Dallas bring out the fans in large numbers?

If having a winning team does not bring out fans in large numbers in old MLS cities but it would bring out fans in large numbers in the new breed expansion teams (Toronto, Seattle, Philly, Vancouver, Portland, Montreal), wouldn’t it be in MLS best financial interest that these new breed of expansion teams win a little more often? Being competitive in their first year instead of struggling mightily like Chivas USA, RSL, Toronto did would help MLS more than it would hurt MLS.

---a more flexible salary structure so these teams can spend to put together a competitive team
---decrease the number of players that teams can protect during the expansion draft (for example 9 instead of 10).

Dust2,

Again, I already regret replying to your post because you've bumped it yourself so many times (though since you bumped it today, at least I'm not bringing it back from the oblivion it belongs in).

That said, I'm getting kind of tired of your holier than thou posts pretending to present data, when in fact they are presenting anything but. Your numbers are made up half the time, and don't say what you want to half the time. You analysis of "does having a winning team increase attendence" is laughable. Really? You're going to just pick a random number of top teams, and compare their attendence to their attendence the year before (without regard to their position on the table the year before) and then ascribe a "yes" or "no" answer to it? Do you really think that analysis is worth the bits it's stored on? It has 0 descriptive power, and 0 predictive power. Essentially, it is entirely useless and tells us nothing. Then you go on to spout rampant speculation as if it was some kind of fact.

"This discussion excludes the "new breed of expansion teams" like Toronto, Seattle, Philly, Vancouver, Portland because having a winning team in these markets will definitely bring out the fans in large numbers"

Seriously? So you use a word like "definitely" when refering to 1) a team that's never been successful. 2) A team that's never not been successful, and 3,4,5) teams that DON'T EVEN EXIST YET.

Essentially, you are making assertions up, making numbers up, and misrepresenting existing numbers to try to prove whatever it is you want to prove this week. If you want to make a point using data, learn how to do it first, because pretending you have some great insight over the rest of us plebs is getting annoying.

Beach_Red
08-18-2009, 08:56 AM
It's $2.3 mil from many news articles including Sports Illustrated. Just add up the salaries for Toronto in 2009 and you will see it is no where close to $2.8 mil.

Are you including allocation money in that? We know DeRo is getting more than his listed base salary (probably the same deal for Guevara, too, and maybe Dichio and Robinson?).

Anyway, I've forgotten, what was the point of this? We'd like to have the salary cap raised, is that it? Yes, we certainly would. And it will increase as ticket sales and TV ratings increase.

I suppose at the root of all this is your question, "What will increase ticket sales and TV ratings fastest?"

A better product will certainly help, but you have to factor in competitiveness of all the teams into that.

TFCRegina
08-18-2009, 09:08 AM
Easy to make more than the base salary, even without bonuses. It's a trick the CFL used for a long time. Give the guy a car, house, etc.

The new CFL Cap is theoretically a soft cap, but the penalties are so prohibitive it acts like a hard cap. It's one of the few salary caps in the world that actually keeps leagues competitive.

MLB's luxury tax is a bit of a joke by comparison to the CFL's. It's something like 15-30%.

The CFL is 100% if you're 100,000 over the cap, 200% plus draft picks after that...

Dust2
08-18-2009, 06:32 PM
A better product will certainly help, but you have to factor in competitiveness of all the teams into that.

Too much parity is not always a good thing. There are no 'must-watch' teams which tend to generate low ratings (250,000 viewers on ESPN2). Too little competitiveness is also a bad thing but with a luxury tax $1 for $1 over, it will only be at most $6 mil (pay $3 mil luxury tax) versus a $2.5 mil team. And at best, only a few teams will spend big. The disparity won't be like Chelsea's $300 mil vs. Hull City or Burnley's $15 mil.

ESPN2 is now broadcasting 48 EPL matches and 20 La Liga matches. The Disney giant is shifting its soccer focus and it's concentrating its effort on the top 2 soccer leagues in the world.

Beach_Red
08-18-2009, 07:41 PM
Too much parity is not always a good thing. There are no 'must-watch' teams which tend to generate low ratings (250,000 viewers on ESPN2). Too little competitiveness is also a bad thing but with a luxury tax $1 for $1 over, it will only be at most $6 mil (pay $3 mil luxury tax) versus a $2.5 mil team. And at best, only a few teams will spend big. The disparity won't be like Chelsea's $300 mil vs. Hull City or Burnley's $15 mil.

ESPN2 is now broadcasting 48 EPL matches and 20 La Liga matches. The Disney giant is shifting its soccer focus and it's concentrating its effort on the top 2 soccer leagues in the world.

I disagree. Because of betting and involvement in pools every NFL game is 'must watch,' or at least 'must know something about.'

People say that if there was no betting, there'd be no NFL and I imagine that's true about European soccer, too. It's certainly true for NCAA football and basketball. What would March madness be without office pools?

I would like to see a bigger cap because that would mean more interest in the league and a higher level of play, but I don't thin you'll ever sell the idea of a soft cap and luxury tax. It's a step in the opposite direction from what most owners would like to take.

Instead of looking at this form a fan's point of view, try and make the idea sound very good for both the owner of a small market team and the owner of a big market team - give them both good reasons why this is the way they should spend their money. If you could talk both of them into it, then you'd have something.

Dust2
08-18-2009, 10:07 PM
I disagree. Because of betting and involvement in pools every NFL game is 'must watch,' or at least 'must know something about.'

People say that if there was no betting, there'd be no NFL and I imagine that's true about European soccer, too. It's certainly true for NCAA football and basketball. What would March madness be without office pools?

I would like to see a bigger cap because that would mean more interest in the league and a higher level of play, but I don't thin you'll ever sell the idea of a soft cap and luxury tax. It's a step in the opposite direction from what most owners would like to take.

Instead of looking at this form a fan's point of view, try and make the idea sound very good for both the owner of a small market team and the owner of a big market team - give them both good reasons why this is the way they should spend their money. If you could talk both of them into it, then you'd have something.

Big markets owners want to spend more. Small markets owners want to spend at least as possible. They also don't want the big markets to spend more than they do because it would put them at a disadvantage.

Luxury tax is the compromise. Big markets can spend but pay for this extra spending in luxury tax. Small markets benefit from the luxury tax revenue.

Dust2
08-21-2009, 05:02 AM
http://www.examiner.com/x-413-Seattle-Soccer-Examiner~y2009m8d8-New-or-Renew-Sounders-FC-season-tickets-for-2010-will-likely-sell-out-again (http://www.examiner.com/x-413-Seattle-Soccer-Examiner%7Ey2009m8d8-New-or-Renew-Sounders-FC-season-tickets-for-2010-will-likely-sell-out-again)


4. The Sounders are expecting a 90% renewal rate at the very least. Right now there are 2,000 people on the 'waiting list' for 2010 season tickets that DON'T have season tickets this year.

7. The Sounders will likely be reducing the group sales ticket availability, and keeping the 32,000 configuration. Instead of capping season tickets at 26,000 they will likely cap them somewhere higher for 2010.This is even more impressive than Toronto's 15,000 waiting list for season tickets.

My best guesstimate of the club total revenue for 2009:

$18.9 mil from ticket (including club,suite,luxury box) revenue [30,000 average x $35 average ticket price x 18 games = $18.9 mil, the average ticket price includes club/suite/luxury box]
$5 mil from concession and parking revenue
$4 mil from XBox 360 shirt sponsorship
$6 mil from local sponsorship
$3 mil from merchandise
$2 mil from the Chelsea, Barcelona game (the revenue is split 50-50 between the Sounders and the guests)
$1.6 mil in SUM distribution
Not sure if the Sounders FC get anything from the local tv and radio rights-----This excludes national sponsorship (like adidas deal) revenue, national tv deal ($17 mil a year) which help to pay for player salaries ($2.3 mil for each team) and league operation.

Total: $40.5 mil
The league takes a 30% cut of gate receipts or $5.67 mil
Total revenue after the 30% cut: $34.83 mil

If total expense (staff, stadium, travel, marketing, insurance, $975,000 of DP $1.4 mil salary etc...) is $15 mil, profits would be $19.83 mil. Is this Seattle 2009 team the most profitable MLS club ever? And what would Seattle fans like to see the team do with that profits? Seattle can't spend it on better players because the league has a strict $1.875 mil + DP or $2.3 mil hard cap. Scouting? Youth development? Loan deals like Montero? The most crucial thing to keep the 'success' going is the result on the field. A playoff team is required each year or attendance will drop.

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1912539,00.html


So far, it's working. Each of the 11 home games has been sold out, and Sounders paraphernalia is flying off the shelves, with replica jerseys costing $70 and up. Before the team even played a game, they'd sold some $850,000 worth of merchandise through one online store.

-----------------------------------------
The fans who paid hard earned money to see the team and buy merchandise deserve a better product. A $40 mil revenue team putting out a $1.875 mil + DP worth of talents is not right. Anywhere else in the world, this $40 mil revenue team would at least put out a $20 mil team worth of talents. However, this is North America where a salary cap rule. However, it doesn't have to be a absolutely strict hard cap. If the league install a soft cap with luxury tax, Seattle would gladly donate the league $3 mil in luxury tax to have a $6 mil salary budget. As I stated, the most crucial thing to keep the 'Seattle success' going is the result on the field. A $6 mil salary budget would give the team more options to make that happen.

Fort York Redcoat
08-21-2009, 12:17 PM
I don't give a crap about Seattle's success but I'd like to see a top 4 in MLS and a soft cap, luxury tax, more DP's are the way to go since the market won't consider a wholesale change. Those opposed that favour a traditional NA system that focuses more on betting and watching other teams for large portions of the year will always seem alien to me.

Oh and Steve? Your attendance here is not compulsory.

Pookie
08-21-2009, 12:41 PM
I don't give a crap about Seattle's success but I'd like to see a top 4 in MLS and a soft cap, luxury tax, more DP's are the way to go since the market won't consider a wholesale change.

You've got that now.

You have a cap that can be exceeded with allocation money, the amounts of which are not disclosed. That's about as soft as it gets.

Fort York Redcoat
08-21-2009, 03:04 PM
^Rubbish. Allocation amounts used now is nowhere near the scope I'm hoping we'll to rise to.

Are you trying to say tens of millions of dollars are changing hands regularly?

Pookie
08-21-2009, 03:25 PM
$6.5M changed hands with a Mr Beckham...

Dust2
08-22-2009, 08:40 AM
You've got that now.

You have a cap that can be exceeded with allocation money, the amounts of which are not disclosed. That's about as soft as it gets.

You talk as if allocation money amount to large quantity. It is not. If you take a look at each MLS team payroll, they hover around the $2.3 mil mark. For example, an allocation of $100,000 is not a world shatter amount when the salary cap is $2.3 mil. And guess what? Every team have allocation money. It is not reserved exclusively for any clubs. Every teams get an allocation when they 1) miss the playoff 2) lose a good player on transfer 3) newly created expansion team.

A club receives allocation money for (1) poor performance during the preceding MLS regular season; (2) the transfer of a player to a club outside of MLS for value; (3) roster purposes due to expansion status; and/or (4) exceptional circumstances as approved by the Competition Committee.

Each year the MLS Competition Committee determines the allocation amount to be made available to each team. Allocation money can be traded by teams. Allocation money does not count against a team's salary budget

The amount is determined by the MLS Competition Committee. And guess who chair this committee? Every single investor/ownership group.

http://www.revolutionsoccer.net/search/index.cfm?ac=searchdetail&pid=18627&pcid=115


The MLS Competition Committee consists of representatives from each investor / ownership group: Clark Hunt (Hunt Sports – Kansas City, Columbus, FC Dallas); Sunil Gulati (Kraft Soccer); Dean Howes (Sports Capital Partners); Javier Leon (Chivas USA); Kevin Payne (AEG); and Jeff Plush (Kroenke Sports Enterprises).The article is from 2006 that why expansion teams like San Jose, Toronto, Seattle are not listed there.

If MLS go with a soft cap with luxury tax, it should do away with allocation money. Rewarding teams for 'you suck so bad last year, here have $100,000 allocation money' is not a good thing. It motivates teams to do worse so they can get more allocation money.

Dust2
08-23-2009, 06:48 AM
I don't give a crap about Seattle's success but I'd like to see a top 4 in MLS and a soft cap, luxury tax, more DP's are the way to go since the market won't consider a wholesale change.

I'm using Seattle's $40 mil revenue to demonstrate that it's time for MLS to change for the better. Does it sound right to you that a team with $40 mil in revenue can only spend $1.885 mil + DP while the OWNERS pocket $20 mil in profits? If you're are a Sounders fan, would you be happy with that?

Dust2
08-23-2009, 06:59 AM
Here's a quick guesstimate of Toronto total revenue when BMO is expanded to 30,000, which I think will happen in the next 5 years.

Ticket revenue: 30,000 x $33 average x 18 games = $17.8 mil [$33 average ticket price includes luxury box, club, suite]
Concession/parking/merchandise: $7 mil
Local sponsorship: $6 mil
Shirt sponsorship: $2 mil
Stadium sponsorship: $2 mil
SUM distribution: $1.6 mil
Local tv/radio deal: $0.6 mil

Total: $37 mil

Can this team be among the top 4 spenders in MLS if the league install the NBA soft cap with luxury tax?

$2.5 mil (league paying)
Luxury tax start at $3 mil ($1 for $1 over)
1 DP whose salary is exempted from the salary cap but cost $1 mil in luxury tax.

Fort York Redcoat
08-23-2009, 11:02 AM
I'm using Seattle's $40 mil revenue to demonstrate that it's time for MLS to change for the better. Does it sound right to you that a team with $40 mil in revenue can only spend $1.885 mil + DP while the OWNERS pocket $20 mil in profits? If you're are a Sounders fan, would you be happy with that?

If I was a Sounders fan I'd still be basking in the way the team arrived in MLS. Of course we want to see responsible ownership and maximum use of resources but it's hard pressed that the league would come down on the very few teams that are turning a profit.

Dust2
08-24-2009, 04:48 AM
If I was a Sounders fan I'd still be basking in the way the team arrived in MLS. Of course we want to see responsible ownership and maximum use of resources but it's hard pressed that the league would come down on the very few teams that are turning a profit.

Why would the league be hard pressed to come down on the profitable teams? Wouldn't it be the opposite if MLS install a soft cap with luxury tax? Teams like Seattle who generate $40 mil in revenue and $20 mil in profits can spend for better talents while paying for this spending advantage in the form of a luxury tax ($1 for $1 over the cap).

Profitable teams like Seattle, Los Angeles, Toronto, Philly, Vancouver, Portland are happy that they can spend more than the cap. Small revenue teams are happy that they receive $2 mil a year in luxury tax revenue.

This is the only way I think that the majority of MLS owners will vote in favor (maybe 2/3 majority is required for passing this rule which would required even more teams approval.)

"What's in it for me" kind of owners. "Why would I vote to give the rich clubs the ability to outspend me? Oh, $2 mil check a year in the form of luxury tax revenue you say?" DEAL.

Low revenue teams want the high revenue teams to be as just as good as them and no more. They want a level playing field even though the high revenue teams pay more money (30% of gate receipts) to the league than they do. Having a level playing field hinders the growth of the very teams that could push MLS to the next level. MLS should be as good as its strongest revenue teams but in the current system, MLS is as good as its weakest revenue teams.

Dust2
08-26-2009, 05:12 AM
Posted by Asprilla9------That is a terrible usage of a great phrase. WTF? Deserves has EVERYTHING to do with it. "What's right" has everything to do with it. "What's smart for the future of the league" has everything to do with it.


Again (for the 2nd time now), it's not about Seattle. I'm looking at specifically teams like Seattle, Toronto, Philly, Vancouver, Portland, LAG. Who knows where NY and HOU will be with new grounds. Listen, Portland just got 14k for a random Saturday night USL game. I can't see anyway that they don't sell out every game for a while. Unless the team is God-awful for the long time, I can't see that discontinuing. And again, my stance is, if you have markets/franchises that have "figured it out" you should provide them with the reasonable slack to keep improving their on-field product ... and keep making efforts to build up their franchise/fan base year-to-year. If they want to do that (maybe they won't .. like Paulson, I have no idea how he'll be with player signings, but this argument is about principle).


i'm not about providing preferential treatment for certain cities (which you think I am), I am about allowing the cities that have clearly got it right the means to keep growing their franchise. Again, I'm saying this as a fan of MLS since the inception. It would be a shame to have the support in Toronto die out because the fans are tired of watching bad football. You can argue that it is the FO's fault, and that's fine. They bear some of the culpability. But as a long-time fan I'm telling you, if teams get to the point where they are creating the type of revenue that Seattle (and others) are or will be creating, it is just ridiculous to make the fans sit through watching players making 25k a year screwing around out there because that's all the hard salary cap would allow. I don't know how you continue to grow your fanbase that way. It's difficult.


again, i'm not arguing specifically for a Platini rule, or a bigger cap or a softer cap (at this time, I'm not). I'm just saying if fan bases start to see their FO's making money hand over fist, and they know they're contributing to that -- they buy tickets, they buy beer, they buy merchandise ... it's kind of hard to ask those fans to keep coming out to watch bad players making 30k a year. Especially when the fans know their franchise could easily afford much more serviceable players. Again, I'm looking at growing the league long term ... not providing some sort of ridiculous "special treatment." ----------end quote by Asprilla9








Asprilla9 quote---------they don't. but they CAN. as as someone who's watched this league grow, I'm telling you we should nurture these markets now .. not stifle them. by now I mean in the next few years. this is dependent on new franchises like Portland, Vanc and Philly showing similar success and similar rock solid financial bases (if this doesn't happen I'll rescind my comments).

over the next decade, catering to cheapos Bob Kraft and HSG will reach a point where it stifles the successful markets, there's just no two ways about it. you can get Seattle and Toronto fans (again and others in the future) to pack the grounds to watch mediocre players NOW. but after these fans see the FO's making millions upon millions, and they then see their teams not being allowed to use any of it on a better product ... that is disallusioning. Especially when the reason is "we don't want to leave Bob Kraft/Stan Kroenke behind." At some point, they are going to have to come up with a better counter argument.


Because if these franchises come in in the next few years and further prove that there is a very workable and successful model for MLS teams out there ... the whining by Kraft and Kroenke (etc) is going to looking more and more like whining. You can only keep talking about "competitive balance" so long. at some point it simply looks like laziness on their part.

Dust2
08-26-2009, 05:17 AM
Scouting and youth development will give teams that spend more money on them an advantage. However as scoachd1 put it, once the player gets good, he is expected to get a much higher paid day. If MLS teams can't pay because they can't fit him under a very restrictive cap structure, that player will leave for teams in Norway, Denmark, or Germany second division.




Doesn't do to much for the league if you develop them and they leave when they start getting good and their contract runs out because you want a salary structure so the lowest revenue team can make money.


Certainly can always get better at identifying talent. But once you find it, you need to pay it to keep it. Also, there is a pretty good correlation between how much you pay and how talented the players are.


The question for MLS is this: Does it want to take it to the next level? Or keep the current strategy of slow growth that is holding back teams with the highest growth potential.



Is something wrong with the current structure when a team that generate $40 million in revenue spend only 8% of that on players? ($3.1 mil = $1.885 mil + DP in Ljungberg).

Beach_Red
08-26-2009, 09:01 AM
Is something wrong with the current structure when a team that generate $40 million in revenue spend only 8% of that on players? ($3.1 mil = $1.885 mil + DP in Ljungberg).

Seattle once had a very successful professional basketball team, too. Won some championships. And this soccer team has been aroud quite a while and hasn't always generated this kind of revenue - although some NASL teams did big business for a year or two, didn't they?

That kind of thing may make them all a little too cautious

rocker
08-26-2009, 10:19 AM
Is something wrong with the current structure when a team that generate $40 million in revenue spend only 8% of that on players? ($3.1 mil = $1.885 mil + DP in Ljungberg).

the problem with this comment is you are applying a truth claim to something that has no inherent "right and wrong".

There is absolutely no "right and wrong" when assessing the percentage of revenue that is spent on players.

Why? Well, let's say I ask you what YOU think is the correct percentage.
You might say "I think 40% is right". But then someone else in this thread might say "No, I think 50% is right". Someone else might say "I think 70% is right, cuz it's the players that are the foundation of this league."

So who would be right? Nobody. That's the point. There's no right and wrong in this calculation.

The only way this calculation can be made is through a power struggle between the commissioner, the owners, and the players. The reason the NBA and NHL players have about a 50-55% share of revenue is not because that is "right"... it's because the players and owners struggled over the power to determine that number. And finally they came to that percentage.

Fort York Redcoat
08-27-2009, 10:37 AM
the problem with this comment is you are applying a truth claim to something that has no inherent "right and wrong".

There is absolutely no "right and wrong" when assessing the percentage of revenue that is spent on players.

Why? Well, let's say I ask you what YOU think is the correct percentage.
You might say "I think 40% is right". But then someone else in this thread might say "No, I think 50% is right". Someone else might say "I think 70% is right, cuz it's the players that are the foundation of this league."

So who would be right? Nobody. That's the point. There's no right and wrong in this calculation.

The only way this calculation can be made is through a power struggle between the commissioner, the owners, and the players. The reason the NBA and NHL players have about a 50-55% share of revenue is not because that is "right"... it's because the players and owners struggled over the power to determine that number. And finally they came to that percentage.

So let the struggle continue in our league for what the powers involved think is fair or right and we can keep score.

The point for a discussion on fair and right is to guage what the majority of opinion is amongst supporters of the game who are close to it.

If Dusty takes a certain slant with figures it's to create talking points.

It's not like he's fixing the books here people.

Dust2
08-28-2009, 05:53 AM
MLS record in the Champions League is VERY VERY poor. This hurt the league image and reputation. If MLS can't beat teams from Panama, Trinidad and Tobago, El Salvador....how good is the league really?



Here's a good post on the topic and how Garber viewed its importance in attracting fans to the league, especially Hispanics fans.




Has it? Because unless I missed it, I didn't see any report that it went up one nickel this year. It reportedly was raised to $2.3 million last year and that's where it has stayed pending the CBA discussions.

But it isn't just the money, the larger question is do performances like this matter?

All I can do is read what Garber has said. Garber did an interview with the LA Times in 2007 where he talked about international competitions, even those that they manufactured like SuperLiga, and why they were important to MLS:


The idea is to use Mexican teams to introduce MLS teams to Latino fans and, ideally, win them over.

“What we need to do is prove that we can beat their teams,” Garber said. “Part two of this plan is to say, ‘You see, we beat Pachuca, we beat Club America, we’re as good as Chivas, we deserve your support.’ It is definitely a strategy of trying to get real competition.”

. . . “We’ve got to earn the respect of these fans that I think really want to be connected with MLS long-term,” Garber said.

Link:

http://articles.latimes.com/2007/jul/28/sports/sp-liga28


That's what I like about Garber. He will be pretty candid at what the objectives are, and when they aren't being met. Later, watching DC United get beaten by Pachuca in the last year of the CCC, he had this overly candid comment which caused a stir:


"I was thinking about that while I was watching the [Pachuca - D.C.] game the other night, and boy, we've got to do better," Garber told Soccer America. "For this league to win over the core audience, we've got to be able to be among the best clubs in North America.”



Link:

http://www.soccertimes.com/wagman/2008/apr10


If you want to defend MLS here by saying none of this matters, that's your viewpoint, but at least at one time in the not too distant past Garber seemed to think these results did matter and, in fact, were central to one of the league's strategies for growth. Only when they flopped last year did he de-emphasize expectations, but they did make some changes to reduce the schedule congestion. Now the mantra seems to be it doesn't matter if they get embarrassed if they really don't care anyway. I'm sorry, but I don't think even MLS' believes that.

As you say, MLS is still a new league, but it is preciously for that reason that I think impressions matter all the more. MLS teams don't have to win these tournaments, even though that seemed to be the objective in 2007, but they need to at least be competitive IMO, and with the exception of Houston MLS teams have looked either disinterested or uncompetitive for two years now. Whether MLS likes it or not, their body of work here isn't very impressive, and the longer that continues the more it will influence people. It would be very interesting to know what the suits at Telefutura -- providers of the single biggest TV contract the league has -- thought of last nights hammer jobs. I bet the phrase "winning over the core audience" didn't come to mind.

Again, I don't think MLS has to pour resources into this thing, but I'm tired of excusing these performances, and I bet the commissioner is too. Garber's moment of candor two years ago was right on the mark -- MLS has to do better than this.

Dust2
08-28-2009, 05:59 AM
the problem with this comment is you are applying a truth claim to something that has no inherent "right and wrong".

There is absolutely no "right and wrong" when assessing the percentage of revenue that is spent on players.

Why? Well, let's say I ask you what YOU think is the correct percentage.
You might say "I think 40% is right". But then someone else in this thread might say "No, I think 50% is right". Someone else might say "I think 70% is right, cuz it's the players that are the foundation of this league."

So who would be right? Nobody. That's the point. There's no right and wrong in this calculation.

The only way this calculation can be made is through a power struggle between the commissioner, the owners, and the players. The reason the NBA and NHL players have about a 50-55% share of revenue is not because that is "right"... it's because the players and owners struggled over the power to determine that number. And finally they came to that percentage.

If a team that generate $40 mil in revenue but spend $3 mil on players and the owners pocketing $15-20 mil in profits is not wrong to you, then so be it. You have different view on the "right and wrong" of the situation.

But to me, that's not right.

Beach_Red
08-28-2009, 08:33 AM
If a team that generate $40 mil in revenue but spend $3 mil on players and the owners pocketing $15-20 mil in profits is not wrong to you, then so be it. You have different view on the "right and wrong" of the situation.

But to me, that's not right.

Sure, but to most team owners the fact that they lose money every year is what's not right.

You're still putting too much emphasis on something that may not last and is just one team in the league.

It's great that Seattle came out of the gate so strong, but it will be hard to convince people to change the entire system because of that one example. And it's really too soon to tell if it actually means anything.

In this one-entity league you might be better off looking at the bottom end earners and showing them how your plan will help them become profitable.

koryo
08-29-2009, 08:49 AM
Some very good points are made on both sides of this discussion. I think it wouldn't do the MLS any harm to loosen the shackles a bit and introduce some competitive balance to the league. Realistically, a soft-cap/luxury tax would be even more effective in propping up dead-beat franchises than the current model.

Such a move though really needs to done in conjunction with serious investment in north american player development (bring back the reserves league for starters) rather than just having clubs going out and buying players...

Dust2
09-01-2009, 06:56 PM
Average revenue per team (some with published reports and some with best guess)

1. Premiership (average $150 mil per team) 06/07-Deloitte
2. Bundesliga (average $100 mil per team) 06/07-Deloitte
3. La Liga (average $90 mil per team) 06/07--Deloitte
4. Serie A (average $80 mil per team) 06/07-Deloitte
5. Ligue 1 (average $70 mil per team) 06/07-Deloitte
6. Brazilian League (average ~$43 mil per team) 06/07
7. Mexican Football League (average ~$35 mil per team)
8. Dutch Eredivisie (average $34.3 mil per team) 06/07 per Deloitte
9. Denmark (average $33.3 mil per team)
10. J-league (average ~$31 mil per team)-J-league website
11. Scottish Premier League (average ~$30 mil per team)
12. Russian Premier League (average ~$25-30 mil per team)
13. Argentina (average ~$25-29 mil)
14. English Championship (average $27.4 mil per team) 06/07-Deloitte
15. Portugese first division (~$20-25 mil)
16. Turkish Premier League (~$20 mil)
17. Greece (~$20 mil)
18. Serie B (~$15-20 mil
19. Bundesliga 2 (~$15-20 mil)
20. Norway (~$17 mil per team)
2x. Belgium ?
2x. Ukraine ? (#7 best in UEFA coefficients)
2x. Romania ? (#9 best in UEFA coefficients)
2x. K-league ?
2x. MLS (average ~$13 mil per team) from FORBES

EPL on ESPN2 generated almost 390,000 viewers for its games in the morning time slot. MLS on ESPN2 generated about 260,000 viewers for its games in the primetime slot. ESPN pays FSI $5 mil for 48 EPL games, and $8 mil a year for MLS games.


English Premier League:

Wigan vs Manchester United (10 AM Saturday): 374,799 viewers
Liverpool vs Aston Villa (3PM ET Monday): 398,391 viewers

Major League Soccer:

http://www.sportsbusinessjournal.com/article/60481

2008 (26 matches): 253,000 viewers
2007 (25 matches): 289,000 viewers
2006 (21 matches): 263,000 viewers



There are no must-watch teams in MLS right now and this hurt tv rating.

Dust2
09-03-2009, 06:08 AM
A with $30 mil revenue that can afford to invest in a $15 mil salary cap and a team with $10 mil revenue that can only afford to invest in a $2.3 mil salary cap. MLS decides that each team can only invest at most $2.3 mil in the salary cap. Does this mean the current MLS salary structure favor teams with weak revenue at the expense of those with strong revenue?

LucaGol
09-03-2009, 06:58 AM
TFC/MLSE don't even spend maximum dollars on the team now.

You think they will want to pay a luxury tax? Hell no.

Beach_Red
09-03-2009, 09:56 AM
TFC/MLSE don't even spend maximum dollars on the team now.

You think they will want to pay a luxury tax? Hell no.

No, he's looking for a league with a "top 4," the big spending teams that play all the international games and create the "must watch" TV games.

It wouldn't be Toronto, it would be te two LA teams, NY, maybe Chigaco, looks like Seattle or Philly, maybe even Houston (hell, maybe even Montreal).

We'd be one of those teams whose fans are just happy to see the big teams come through town two or three time a year.

Dust2
09-03-2009, 06:44 PM
No, he's looking for a league with a "top 4," the big spending teams that play all the international games and create the "must watch" TV games.

It wouldn't be Toronto, it would be te two LA teams, NY, maybe Chigaco, looks like Seattle or Philly, maybe even Houston (hell, maybe even Montreal).

We'd be one of those teams whose fans are just happy to see the big teams come through town two or three time a year.

Why are you putting words into my mouth?

My suggestion of the soft cap with luxury tax:

Salary cap at $2.5 mil
Minimum salary cap (75%) at $1.88 mil
Luxury tax ($1 for $1 over) starting at $3 mil

Each team can have at most 1 DP (can't be traded). A DP is defined as a player who is exempted from the payroll but cost $1 mil in luxury tax. Teams who are at or below the salary cap ($2.5 mil) will receive luxury tax revenue.


A top 4 can only happen if MLS have no salary cap which will never ever happen. No salary cap in MLS is as likely as promotion/relegation. The owners do not want it. My suggestion is a luxury tax system. Does the NBA have a top 4 year after year like in EPL? No.


It wouldn't be Toronto, it would be te two LA teams, NY, maybe Chigaco, looks like Seattle or Philly, maybe even Houston (hell, maybe even Montreal).Toronto has a bigger fan base than the two LA teams, NY, Chicago, Philly, Houston, Montreal. Currently, Toronto is the #3 in MLS in revenue (behind Seattle and LA). If MLSE is too greedy to spend $1 mil in luxury tax in return for $1 mil in cap advantage, it's not the fault of MLS structure. The team is among the highest earners in the league ffs. In addition, spending $2 mil ($1 mil for in luxury tax) in exchange for $1 mil in cap advantage have benefits: It gives you a better chance at making the playoff which mean revenue from playoff game(s). I don't need to tell you how a winning team is better for revenue because it's pretty damn obvious in term of attendance, sponsorship, tv rating, merchandise, franchise value etc..... It takes money to make money. A team that generate $20 mil a year and spend $2.3 mil a year on players (which is paid for by the league) mean the owners are pocketing millions in profits.


-------------------------------------------

Here's a quick guesstimate of Toronto total revenue when BMO is expanded to 30,000, which I think will happen in the next 5 years.

Ticket revenue: 30,000 x $33 average x 18 games = $17.8 mil [$33 average ticket price includes luxury box, club, suite]
Concession/parking/merchandise: $7 mil
Local sponsorship: $6 mil
Shirt sponsorship: $2 mil
Stadium sponsorship: $2 mil
SUM distribution: $1.6 mil
Local tv/radio deal: $0.6 mil

Total: $37 mil

Can this team be among the top 4 spenders in MLS if the league install the NBA soft cap with luxury tax?

Those that fear that other teams will spend more than TFC, look at this. If BMO is ever to expand to 30,000 (which is more likely to happen if MLSE know the demand is there....a winning team = higher demand), it will double the revenue of most MLS teams. Why fear Chicago, Philly, Chivas USA, New York, Montreal, Houston when they can't even average 16,000 and Toronto average close to 21,000 with a whopping 15,000 on the waiting list for season ticket.


TEAM ATTENDANCE REPORT
HOME GAMES ROAD GAMES
DATES TOTAL AVERAGE DATES TOTAL AVERAGE
Chicago Fire 12 169,355 14,113 12 208,529 17,377
Chivas USA 10 161,068 16,107 12 174,028 14,502
Colorado Rapids 12 151,373 12,614 10 162,160 16,216
Columbus Crew 11 150,258 13,660 12 225,754 18,813
FC Dallas 11 101,515 9,229 11 156,770 14,252
D.C. United 10 158,873 15,887 13 196,248 15,096
Houston Dynamo 12 191,255 15,938 13 183,566 14,120
Kansas City Wizards 11 110,113 10,010 10 168,238 16,824
Los Angeles Galaxy 11 220,794 20,072 13 248,008 19,078
New England Revolution 11 149,166 13,561 10 161,933 16,193
New York Red Bulls 12 144,841 12,070 12 204,913 17,076
Real Salt Lake 12 193,091 16,091 12 170,565 14,214
San Jose Earthquakes 12 181,644 15,137 10 138,929 13,893
Seattle Sounders FC 13 397,628 30,587 11 159,951 14,541
Toronto FC 12 243,691 20,308 11 165,073 15,007
MLS Totals 172 2,724,665 15,841 172 2,724,665 15,841

Dust2
09-03-2009, 06:47 PM
p.s. If MLSE is so skint on money like many expect they would under a soft cap with luxury tax model, why did they offer Guzman some $3 mil a year as DP? Which they will not likely recoup because he won't increase attendance any.

Pookie
09-04-2009, 06:28 AM
^ Why sign a young player who still wanted to play in Europe? Do the math, they'd be looking to build a contract that would enable them to cash in on the transfer fee.

Beach Red is right, IMO. Toronto would not be a top 4 spender.

In MLB and the NBA, Toronto teams are 16th and 14th respectively, in terms of overall spending.

The only professional sports league in North America in which Toronto is a top spender is the NHL. The Leafs draw on average, 1.1M viewers through a national TV deal. And even then, Toronto was being outspent by Detroit and Dallas to the tune of $15M each per year, pre-lock out.

Beach_Red
09-04-2009, 10:36 AM
Why are you putting words into my mouth?

A top 4 can only happen if MLS have no salary cap which will never ever happen. No salary cap in MLS is as likely as promotion/relegation. The owners do not want it. My suggestion is a luxury tax system. Does the NBA have a top 4 year after year like in EPL? No.

Toronto has a bigger fan base than the two LA teams, NY, Chicago, Philly, Houston, Montreal. Currently...


Sorry, I thought the argument was posed as a, "salary cap like the NBA," I guess that was a different thread.

The NBA doesn't have a top 4 like the EPL because of two things: the NBA doesn't compete with any other league for players and the NCAA draft (and, of course, the salary cap).

And, Toronto has a big fan base, sure. But Toronto has a bigger an base than almost every NBA, team, too.

In some ways the NBA is the best example. Would we be happy if TFC became the Raptors of MLS? Why, exactly, do we think they wouldn't?

Like it or not, the only thing that seperates sports teams in the world is the size of their budget (which doesn't always relate to the earnings - lots of teams go far into debt and others don't). As soon as there's a way for MLS teams to be seperated by spending, the MLSE owned team will fall to the middle of the pack and stay there. Most corporate owned teams will. There's a reson Saputo keeps his team and his company so seperate.

The one thing I wish MLS would copy from the NFL is having teams owned by individuals, not corporations worried about pleasing stockholders. Then, even a strict salary cap won't stop teams like Pittsburgh from always being better than teams like Detroit.

Dust2
09-06-2009, 10:59 PM
Beach Red is right, IMO. Toronto would not be a top 4 spender.

Then it's not the luxury tax/soft cap fault. It's MLSE fault for not wanting to spend part of the significant profits they get from TFC.

Toronto is currently the third highest MLS revenue earners (maybe even second since LA Galaxy only average 19,000+ in attendance, part of that is not paid attendance). Toronto is way ahead of the 4th best in revenue.



In MLB and the NBA, Toronto teams are 16th and 14th respectively, in terms of overall spending.

The only professional sports league in North America in which Toronto is a top spender is the NHL. The Leafs draw on average, 1.1M viewers through a national TV deal. And even then, Toronto was being outspent by Detroit and Dallas to the tune of $15M each per year, pre-lock out.If Toronto is among the 3 best revenue earners in MLB and NBA and way ahead of the 4th best, would they be the 16th and 14th in terms of overall spending respectively?

You are comparing apples to oranges. MLS revenue for Toronto compare to other MLS teams is totally different from MLB/NBA revenue for Toronto compare to other MLB/NBA teams.

Pookie
09-07-2009, 08:05 AM
If Toronto is among the 3 best revenue earners in MLB and NBA and way ahead of the 4th best, would they be the 16th and 14th in terms of overall spending respectively?

You are comparing apples to oranges. MLS revenue for Toronto compare to other MLS teams is totally different from MLB/NBA revenue for Toronto compare to other MLB/NBA teams.

Well, according to Forbes (2008) the Raptors are 7th overall in terms of operating income (profit), just 3M behind the 4th place Houston Rockets but a good $19M ahead of the 14th place Utah Jazz.

Beach_Red
09-07-2009, 08:38 AM
The real apples and oranges comparison is between corporate ownerships and individual owners. A guy like Mark Cuban is always going to outsepnd a company like MLSE (okay, let's say, "almost always").

Individual owners with lots of other business interests and impossible-to-know revenue streams will always mess up these theories. Comapnies like MLSE will almost never go into debt to finance their sports teams, but individual owners will, even if they have complicated luxury taxes and salary caps to get around.

I quite like Dust2's plans, he's had a lot of great ideas. I just don't think soccer in North America is anywhere near ready for anything that will potentially increase the gap further between the teams. I've spent my wole life following North American sports and one thing that led to football's taking over from baseball as the number one sport was the idea that all the teams have an equal shot - any team (not even Detroit or Cincinnatti) has as good a shot to win the Super Bowl four years form now as any other. Of course, in thecase of Detrot it's not going to happen, but it has nothing to do with how much they spend on payroll.

Dust2
09-08-2009, 02:40 AM
If MLS adopt a soft cap like the NBA, I think the salary disparity in MLS will be about 2:1

For example, the league give each team $2.5 mil on salaries.
Top teams spend $5 mil (and pay $2 mil luxury tax). If they have a DP, they would pay $3 mi luxury tax. Only a team or two can spend $8 mil on players a year and still be profitable. It won't be like in Europe where Chelsea can outspend Hull by 25 to 1, or Serie A where the disparity is 11.5



Serie A’s most expensive XI: Buffon (Juventus – 5.5); Maicon (Inter – 4.5), Nesta (Milan – 4), Lucio (Inter – 4.5), Chivu (Inter – 3.5); Vieira (Inter – 5.5), Pirlo (Milan – 5), Sneijder (Inter – 4); Ronaldinho (Milan – 7.5), Eto'o (Inter – 10.5), Totti (Roma – 5.5).

Club by club wage bills: Inter 150m; Milan 125.5m; Juventus 115m; Roma 69.7m; Fiorentina 40m; Genoa 38m; Napoli 37m; Lazio 32.9m; Palermo 30m; Parma 26m; Sampdoria 24m; Bari 20m; Bologna 20m; Cagliari 19m; Udinese 18m; Siena 17.5m; Catania 17.5m, Livorno 14.3m, Chievo 13m; Atalanta 13m.

All figures above are in Euros.

-football-italia (http://www.football-italia.net/sep3k.html)

.

Ratio of top payroll/bottom payroll for Serie A in 2009/10: 150 mil/13 mil = 11.5

Dust2
09-08-2009, 02:56 AM
Well, according to Forbes (2008) the Raptors are 7th overall in terms of operating income (profit), just 3M behind the 4th place Houston Rockets but a good $19M ahead of the 14th place Utah Jazz.

Answer this question then:

If MLS install something like this:

Salary cap at $2.5 mil (league pays this amount like before)
Luxury tax ($1 for $1 over) starting at $3 mil

Each team can have at most 1 DP (can't be traded). A DP is defined as a player who is exempted from the payroll but cost $1 mil in luxury tax. Teams who are at or below the salary cap ($2.5 mil) will receive luxury tax revenue.


Which is most likely be spent by MLSE?

A. At or below $2.5 mil and receive luxury tax revenue
B. Spend $0.5 mil over the $2.5 mil cap ($500,000 cap advantage, but don't pay luxury tax)
C. Spend $1 mil over the $2.5 mil cap (pay $500,000 luxury tax)

Keep in mind that a winning team will help TFC generate more income (ticket price increase are usually tolerated by the fans if the team is winning, increase in concession, merchandise, sponsorship revenue, tv rating etc...). BMO Field can be expanded if management know that the demand will still be there. It's not guarantee that a $3.5 mil team will win more games in a league where most teams spend $2.5 mil, but it gives the team a better chance at it.

Also, if MLSE is really skint like you suggested, why then are they interested in signing Guzman as $3 mil a year DP, knowing they won't recoup their investment? I don't see how Guzman will generate $3 mil a year EXTRA for TFC, do you?

TFC would be a much better team if TFC spend $2.7 mil on four $400,000 a year player and pay a $1.1 mil luxury tax ($1.6 + $1.1 mil = $2.7 mil).

I take FOUR $400,000 a year player for a total cost of $2.7 mil over $3 mil a year DP Guzman anyday.

Pookie
09-08-2009, 07:47 AM
A. At or below $2.5 mil and receive luxury tax revenue
B. Spend $0.5 mil over the $2.5 mil cap ($500,000 cap advantage, but don't pay luxury tax)
C. Spend $1 mil over the $2.5 mil cap (pay $500,000 luxury tax)

I have no clue what they will decide to do as a private business, I missed the last Board meeting.



Also, if MLSE is really skint like you suggested, why then are they interested in signing Guzman as $3 mil a year DP, knowing they won't recoup their investment? I don't see how Guzman will generate $3 mil a year EXTRA for TFC, do you?

Whoa. I never suggested that they were cheap. In fact, the Leafs were amongst the top spenders in the NHL... even though Detroit and Dallas outspent them by $15M each.

I am suggesting that the Canadian economics results in a scenario in which Canadian teams ultimately reach a limit at which they can compete with the big dogs.



I take FOUR $400,000 a year player for a total cost of $2.7 mil over $3 mil a year DP Guzman anyday.

Sure. I assume that you are implying that a $400k player is better than a $300k player in today's dollars.

Toronto's roster currently has 4 $300k players in De Rosario, Vitti, Robinson and Guevara.

A rise in the cap is inflationary... prices will go up. With me so far?

Where, in the history of General Managers (in any sport) has it been demonstrated that they will accurately peg the market and spend additional dollars in a financially sound way?

In other words, what makes you think that they won't just blow the extra $100k per player on the same guys... or type of guys... they have now?

Fort York Redcoat
09-09-2009, 03:34 PM
^It's common to see inflation as soon as it's introduced as a possibility but what goes up in value eventually goes down at the same rate. So a spike in top end talent can be endured in my eyes since the higher expectations must be met. One poor year from an overpriced player can carry the burden of the whole team by the end of a season.

Dust2
09-14-2009, 10:57 PM
I believe MLS owners will vote on a compromise. It will not be what the conservatives want (the current "level playing field for all teams" structure) and not what the heavy spenders want (a structure that allow a much more flexible salary structure) but it will be something both can live with.

I'm thinking the compromise will be a NHL/NBA mixture:

$2.5 mil lower limit (floor) that is paid by the league.
Luxury tax starts at $2.5 mil with $1 penalty for $1 over.
Upper limit/ceiling/hard cap at $3.5 mil.
DP Rule stay the same (cost about $425,000 toward the salary cap).

NE, Dallas, Columbus, KC, Colorado, RSL, SJ owners are all billionaires, so yes they too have the money to spend. If they are too skint, their teams receive luxury tax revenue. In addition, parity for MLS will be maintained since a $2.5 mil team can be competitive against a $3.5 mil team. It will not be like in Europe where the top teams outspend the bottom teams by a margin of something like 20 to 1.


p.s. Here's a reminder of what the NHL hard cap looks like:

2009-2010 Salary cap

-- The Upper Limit: $56,800,000 (139%)
-- The Lower Limit: $40,800,000 (100% base)

About 5 years ago, the NHL has no salary cap.

Dust2
09-14-2009, 10:59 PM
Here's a good post by triplet1 on bigsoccer:

-------------

Has it?

People are so locked in on this answer, they don't even look at what the policy produces. We're not just taking parity, we are talking cheap parity that restricts teams from improving the caliber of play in the league. Party policies in the NFL have never -- never -- been used to prevent the league from attracting and retaining the best players in the sport. In MLS, parity is used to do exactly that. Little wonder that MLS has never matched the average attendance of its initial season.

And part of the answer is so simple: add some component of local financial performance to the cap. Give each team an equal share of national TV money and national sponsorship money for payroll, but also let them spend some agreed upon percentage of local revenue (ticket revenues, concessions, etc.) and let them use that additional money to try and get some better players MLS isn't going to chuck the cap, these super team boogeyman threads notwithstanding, but even a modest change in the formula would provide some opportunity for teams that are generating a lot of local revenue to put some of that money back into the team on the field. It's such a pitifully modest proposal I can't believe it upsets people, but folks react like its a desecration of the single entity temple because (shudder) everyone might not have exactly the same amount to spend on players and those that spend more well might get a competitive advantage and get better. We should be so lucky.

I'm not very sympathetic to those who want to hold the entire league back so their team can win a championship on the cheap. I've got some news for those of you who preach that -- your team isn't secure if the league isn't growing, and the league can't grow to its potential if it is towing a bunch of markets where teams struggle to sell 10,000 tickets a game and, falling short of that, are rewarded with the same salary budget as everyone else. These aren't the old days, there are a lot of new owners who, I predict, are quickly going to get tired of subsidizing some of these older markets so owners who aren't anxious to spend more can have "competitive" teams.

The opportunity would be open to all -- if a team wants more money to spend on players, they can sell more tickets. If they can't or won't, well, whose fault is that?




-------------------------

Now, if that's all MLS can afford, well, that's all MLS can afford, but if any of the financial information that has come out in the last couple years is even remotely accurate, it sure looks like it might be able to afford better. Yet every time it's even suggested, some of the conservative owners grab their wallets and a chorus of posters cheer them on because they fear their own ownership is to cheap to spend any more money on players unless the other owners hand it to them.

Really, are there that many of you out there that would like MLS remain stupefyingly average so no team gets an advantage rather than let a group of owners try and move the quality of play up a notch? Doesn't anyone think it's remotely possible that if a few teams do manage to pull it off and make money on better quality that other owners might be persuaded to follow their lead? Or do you want to see the cap grow at 4-5% forever?

Beach_Red
09-15-2009, 05:43 AM
Party policies in the NFL have never -- never -- been used to prevent the league from attracting and retaining the best players in the sport.

Now, if that's all MLS can afford, well, that's all MLS can afford, but if any of the financial information that has come out in the last couple years is even remotely accurate....



Of course, the NFL doesn't have to compete with any other league in the world to get the best players - though it did have to break the union and find ways around anti-trust.

The second point is the moreinteresting, I think, because it relies on a very big "if." If the financial information is accurate.

Have we learned nothing about financial information these last couple of years? Of course it's not accurate. Nothing about what the league says is accurate, not the attendance numbers (sports owners have been fudging those since the Black Sox scandal in 1919), nothing.

The only ting MLS knows for sure is that left to their own devices, owners will bankrupt their own sport - they have, pretty much every time they've been allowed to, and, North America is nowhere near competing for top players.

So, the question you're asking is, how close to the bottom of the world's leagues is MLS and is it ready to move a few steps up?

And I agree with you, that it is time to get better.

It's not ready to compete for the top players, but North America should be able to afford to keep the players it has been able to develop. That might be the best way to develop the league.

Dust2
09-15-2009, 04:26 PM
The only ting MLS knows for sure is that left to their own devices, owners will bankrupt their own sport - they have, pretty much every time they've been allowed to, and, North America is nowhere near competing for top players.



Nobody is advocating for no salary cap in MLS, which has the potential to bankrupt the league. Though it works fine for 99% of other soccer leagues out there. It worked for NFL until 1994 or so when they install a hard cap. It worked for the NHL until 2003.

Salary cap is installed to make the owners more money.


--------------------

Would this NHL/NBA mixture work for MLS?

$2.5 mil lower limit (floor) that is paid by the league, anything over is paid by the individual club.
Luxury tax starts at $2.5 mil with $1 penalty for $1 over.
Upper limit/ceiling/hard cap at $3.5 mil.
DP Rule stay the same (cost about $425,000 toward the salary cap).

If not, what kind of salary cap do you think is best for MLS?

Beach_Red
09-15-2009, 05:49 PM
If not, what kind of salary cap do you think is best for MLS?


Honestly, I think a hard cap is best. I'd like to see it go up. The teams that are now using the DP rule are clearly ready to spend more, but even then seem reluctant.

I don't mind the idea of allocation money, but I do think the most transparent, easy to manage cap is best.

Teams can still spend whatever they want on facilities, coaching staff, training, etc..

Once there is no more expansion and all teams are playing in proper stadiums (and not 10,000 seat baseball stadiums), then the league should look at the kinds of soft caps you're talking about.

Fort York Redcoat
09-16-2009, 08:48 AM
^A hard cap negates the potential for growth in level of play. Even with attendances falling there is attention on this league that hasn't been there before. We're improving one player at a time. It's time to do it one team at a time to showcase this league properly.

Beach_Red
09-16-2009, 07:27 PM
^ Isn't the leaue doing enough for the Galaxy now?

Dust2
09-18-2009, 03:27 AM
^ Isn't the leaue doing enough for the Galaxy now?

Like what? Give me example please and we will judge how big this advantage that the league gave the Galaxy.

p.s. Galaxy been out of the playoff for the last 3 years.

Galaxy salary structure look like this:

Beckham ($425,000) + Donovan ($300,000) + 1.575 mil on the rest of the team

Teams with DP: DP + $1.875 mil

Teams without DP: $2.3 mil

Beach_Red
09-18-2009, 07:16 AM
^ I was joking.

But in fact, reaction from the rest of the league to the Galaxy now may give you a small hint as to how the league would react if 3-4 teams were to be consistently better than the rest.

Fort York Redcoat
09-18-2009, 10:46 AM
^I got no problem with that but because so many NA fans do we're talking about caps for comprimise.

We're so giving...

rocker
09-18-2009, 12:08 PM
hard cap + increased cap for all + removing all restrictions on discoveries and academies + eliminating the draft = awesomeness :)

one thing people forget is the parity in MLS is not simply a product of the hardness of the cap. the parity in MLS is enforced by myriad rules on signings, academies, drafts, trades etc. All those nagging rules enforce parity too -- they provide a protective net for bad decisionmaking.

If they ended all those nagging rules, it would make good management even more important. Teams would then still function on exactly the same playing field as other teams in terms of the raw cap number, but they could succeed and fail on management decisions much more often. As well, soccer in America would be better for it -- rather than blowing wads of cash on competitions to spend more and more money on pro players, teams would turn to blowing wads of cash on management, coaching, scouting and development, with a potential to supply more and more players to the league.

Then all teams in the league could put a starting 11 on the field based on the same cap number, all cities even shitholes like Columbus could enjoy the same high quality soccer each week, but teams that do the good things well (scouting, drafting, management, coaching) could create that "big 4" that people seem to want for marketing reasons.

Dust2
09-20-2009, 04:50 AM
What would benefit TFC more?

Guzman $3 mil a year salary or getting SIX $500,000 a year type players.

League wise, which option raise the quality of play more for MLS?

Pookie
09-20-2009, 09:43 AM
^ haven't you asked that before (though your amounts keep changing)?

Yep, you have because I've responded before.... see?


Sure. I assume that you are implying that a $400k player is better than a $300k player in today's dollars.

Toronto's roster currently has 4 $300k players in De Rosario, Vitti, Robinson and Guevara.

A rise in the cap is inflationary... prices will go up. With me so far?

Where, in the history of General Managers (in any sport) has it been demonstrated that they will accurately peg the market and spend additional dollars in a financially sound way?

In other words, what makes you think that they won't just blow the extra $100k per player on the same guys... or type of guys... they have now?

What I haven't seen is a response from you in response to my response your question. I do see the same question, just rephrased and some new number attached to it. I also see a pattern ;)

Fort York Redcoat
09-21-2009, 10:47 AM
^I could play that game too but I'd rather just answer that we can have both eventually. Dusty is in the minority if he wants six 400-500k players he may have heard of vs one he's bound to have heard of.

Rocker you are so NA;). I can't get excited about an amazing management team as I can about incredible players. Most can't. Can you explain to me why one is considered a better NA fan to entrench themselves in info surrounding the management and other teams?

As I've mentioned elsewhere, I love you fans that can follow that element of your supporting a team without being bored to tears.

Dust2
10-05-2009, 03:25 AM
Does MLS have upsets?

For example, if New York (worst team in the league) beat Columbus (best team in the league), would most consider that an upset?

Also, a few 'high profile' teams will attract TV viewerships. Right now, there are no must-watch MLS games for the neutral.

Dust2
10-05-2009, 03:30 AM
^ haven't you asked that before (though your amounts keep changing)?

Yep, you have because I've responded before.... see?



What I haven't seen is a response from you in response to my response your question. I do see the same question, just rephrased and some new number attached to it. I also see a pattern ;)
.


Sure. I assume that you are implying that a $400k player is better than a $300k player in today's dollars.

Toronto's roster currently has 4 $300k players in De Rosario, Vitti, Robinson and Guevara.

A rise in the cap is inflationary... prices will go up. With me so far?

Where, in the history of General Managers (in any sport) has it been demonstrated that they will accurately peg the market and spend additional dollars in a financially sound way?

In other words, what makes you think that they won't just blow the extra $100k per player on the same guys... or type of guys... they have now?There are hits and misses in soccer when you get a player. He might be good or he might not be.

In my example, instead of getting Guzman, Toronto gets SIX $500,000 type players. Would the team get better? Would the quality of play be better? I would say yes. Even if 2 out of these 6 players are not up to scratch, the other 4 players might be.

For example, current TFC + Guzman

or

current team
+ $500,000 player (not worth $500,000 but above average MLS player)
+ $500,000 player (worth every pennies...MLS All-Stars)
+ $500,000 player (as good as Dero)
+ $500,000 player (as good as Montero who makes $150,000 a year)
+ $500,000 player (a total bust.....below average MLS player...wouldn't pay him $70,000 a year)
+ $500,000 player (maybe $250,000 but not worth $500,000 but a quality starter nonetheless)

The current average salary for MLS is about $100,000. The average salary for the Mexican League is about $400,000. Mexican League salary budget is about $8-12 mil a year. The highest paid league in the Americas is not Brazil or Argentina, it's Mexico. $500,000 a year will usually get you a good/great player in term of MLS quality.





p.s. You didn't answer my question....Nice way to get around it bud.

What would benefit TFC more?

Guzman $3 mil a year salary or getting SIX $500,000 a year type players.

League wise, which option raise the quality of play more for MLS?

Pookie
10-05-2009, 10:38 AM
.

What would benefit TFC more?

Guzman $3 mil a year salary or getting SIX $500,000 a year type players.

League wise, which option raise the quality of play more for MLS?

Obviously, a stronger team is better than any one player.

The issue is that if you open the purse strings do you get 6 $500k players or do players like Guevara, Vitti, Robinson simply demand (and receive) more of the pie?

Experience in other leagues tells you that salaries are inflationary when the $ available for payroll increase.

Dust2
02-16-2010, 03:50 AM
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/sounders/2010536653_sounders18.html


The union would also like the league to open up its books to determine what it sees as a fair increase in the salary cap from year to year. Without complete knowledge of how much is in the coffers of MLS, the union came up with a 17 percent increase from $2.3 million last season to about $2.7 million in 2010.The players union wants a 17% raise to $2.7 mil cap. We will find out what they get when the CBA is announced (if an agreement is reached).



Is a $2.6 mil hard cap/DP is BETTER than a $2.6 mil hard cap/DP with luxury tax ($1 penalty for $1 over the cap) or a $2.6 mil hard cap/DP with luxury tax ($1.5 penalty for $1 over the cap)?

Should teams with poor attendance have equal opportunity of success as teams with high attendance? Should good management be the ONLY and the DECIDING factor of a club's success?

rocker
02-16-2010, 10:06 AM
Should teams with poor attendance have equal opportunity of success as teams with high attendance? Should good management be the ONLY and the DECIDING factor of a club's success?

Yes to both questions.

Bye.

Hitcho
02-16-2010, 01:54 PM
Oh man, this guy is worse than Mighty. He's resurrecting his own polls now after they have been dead for a few months and related, additional polls started more recently have been closed or deleted.

Dust - you seem like a smart poster, but for the love of god please lay off this cap issue and all the related topics you're starting on it.

[/rant]

denime
02-16-2010, 05:11 PM
Could you Dust2 stop harassing people on this board with your cap pools and questions ? :facepalm:


What would work better for you a soft warning :smash: or a Hard one :smash::smash::smash::smash: ?
_______________You can get soft warning for:troll: or hard warning for :spam: it's up to you,or maybe I should start a pool and see what our members would like more ;)

Hitcho
02-16-2010, 06:14 PM
I vote for a paddlin'...

Dust2
02-22-2010, 06:03 AM
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/soccerinsider/2010/02/mls_players_union_counters.html


The current CBA contains no required per-team salary budget figure. It instead sets a leaguewide minimum. Even without a contractual requirement to increase the salary budget, however, over the past five years those budgets increased by a total of 33 percent and an average of 5.9 percent per year. The league's current offer to the players would significantly slow the growth of this salary budget. Under their proposal, the budget would increase only a total of 26 percent and an average of 4.8 percent per year over the next five years.Assume 5%

2009: $2.3 mil
2010: $2.415 mil
2011: $2.536 mil
2012: $2.663 mil
2013: $2.796 mil
2014: $2.936 mil

This is just a tiny bit better than inflation.




-----------------------------------
Which is better?

Option 1: League pays $2.5 mil salary cap for all teams with the DP Rule stay the same. This is the most likely scenario for 2010 cap and beyond.

Option 2: League pays $2.5 mil salary cap for all teams with the DP Rule stay the same. Each team can spend above the salary cap at $2 penalty for $1 overspending. This heavy penalty prevents heavy spending and more likely get the necessary 2/3 majority (11 teams out of 16 teams) votes.

Oldtimer
04-01-2010, 01:16 PM
It looks like we got a hard cap, but a 3rd DP with luxury tax.

Beach_Red
04-01-2010, 01:23 PM
It looks like we got a hard cap, but a 3rd DP with luxury tax.


Yeah, I've been wondering where Dusty has been lately.