Which type of salary cap structure is best for MLS 2010 and onward?

[Dust2]

http://blogs.reuters.com/soccer/2009/07/30/americans-fall-for-soccer-but-can-mls-cash-in/


The MLS’s prudent salary cap and the very gradualist approach to expansion have been factors in its modest success so far but they could, in time, turn out to be exactly what is holding the game back.The current structure is a hard $2.3 mil per team. Assume it will increase to $2.5 mil in 2010, it will look like this under the various salary structure:

Current MLS structure: hard salary cap $2.5 mil (league pay)
NFL: floor at $2.5 mil(league pay); hard cap at ~$2.9; incentive bonuses will not count toward the cap
NHL: lower limit $2.5 mil (league pay); upper limit $3.5 mil
NBA: $2.5 mil soft cap (league pay); luxury tax ($1 for $1 over) threshold starting at $3 mil
NBA/Snowden: $2.5 mil soft cap(league pay), $6 mil hard cap, luxury tax ($1 for 1) starting at $3 mil
Snowden's two tier cap $2.5 mil soft cap (league pay); $7.5 mil hard cap (3:1 ratio)
MLB: no salary cap; luxury tax starting at around $5-6 mil
EPL, La Liga, Mexican FMF, J-league, Serie A, USL etc... no salary cap

http://www.bigsoccer.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1100492
Click on that link if you want to see how the NFL, NHL, NBA, MLB, EPL, and J-league institute their salary structure as well as the payroll for every single teams in those leagues. Too long and tedious to copy and paste into this thread. Here's the payroll ratio between the big revenue teams and small revenue teams in those leagues:

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

Currently, MLS have the strictest salary cap in all of sports. Because the league pays the $2.3 mil hard cap and no team can exceed this, MLS has basically institute a level playing field for all clubs. Even the NFL (the next strictest) allow a floor of 87.6% and a ceiling cap at 100%. In addition, incentive bonuses are not counted in the NFL cap which mean the Raiders spent $152 mil on payroll while Kansas City spent $83 mil payroll.

p.s. I have done a lot of research on this topic so please don't close this thread like you did last time. I promise this will be the last thread on the salary cap if you keep this one open. Even moving this thread to the Off Topic Forum is more preferable than closing this thread.

Anyway, MLS is at a crossroad. What happen in the 2010 CBA will determine the future of MLS for the next 5-8 years and beyond. It will set the foundation of where MLS will go from here. Modest growth or significant growth. MLS is right to have a very strict hard cap since 1996 because the league face financial challenges and even survival. However, in the past few years, many SSSs have opened up, sponsorship is at an all time high, MLS got $135 mil from the last four expansion fees (and $75-80 mil to come in team #19 and #20), $20 mil a year TV deal (first in MLS history). The new breed of expansion teams (Toronto, Seattle, Philly, Vancouver, Portland, Montreal) are showing signs of significantly higher attendance than the old MLS cities. It's time to take off the training wheel. It's time for MLS to do better in the Champions League. A measly 2 wins in 21 Champions League matches is embarrassing and is harming MLS image and reputation (MLS record in the CCL: 2 Wins - 8 Draws - 11 Losses).





-------------------------My thought on this subject:

Forcing the like of Galaxy, Toronto, Seattle, Vancouver to have the same hard salary cap as the like of SJ, KC, Columbus, NE means that MLS is favoring its weakest teams. It's not fair or natural for a $30 mil team to be forced to spend the same amount as a $10 mil team. Even the NFL recognized this and allow their strongest teams/markets to spend a lot more than their weakest teams/markets. Having a level playing field for all teams hindering the growth of MLS's strongest markets, the very markets that could push MLS forward to the next level.

I believe the best cap structure for MLS is one where the ratio between the highest team and lowest team is about 2 to 1. This keep the whole league competitive as oppose to the like of EPL where the ratio between the Chelsea and Hull is 25 to 1. In addition, some form of luxury tax is needed to help the low revenue teams financially. This means that if the high revenue teams want to spend more, they will have to pay for this advantage. My suggestion:

$2.5 mil soft cap (pay by the league)
$6 mil hard cap (pay by the club ownership from $2.5 mil onward)
$3 mil luxury tax threshold ($1 tax for $1 over)

My guesstimate of what the salary structure and luxury tax would look like:

$6 mil, $6 mil, $6 mil, $6 mil, $6 mil, $5 mil, $5 mil, $5 mil, $4 mil, $4 mil, $4 mil, $4 mil, ~$3 mil, ~$3 mil, ~$3 mil, ~$3 mil, ~3 mil, ~$ mil, ~3 mil = competitive league.

LA Galaxy, NY Red Bull, Seattle, Toronto, Vancouver: $6 mil player salaries (---- pay $3 mil luxury tax)
Philadelphia, Montreal, Portland: $5 mil player salaries (----pay $2 mil luxury tax)
Chicago, DC United, RSL, Houston: $4 mil salaries (----pay $1 mil luxury tax)

San Jose, Kansas City, New England, Columbus, Dallas, Chivas, Colorado : $2.5 mil to $3 mil (---receive the luxury tax revenue).

That's $25 mil in luxury tax revenue to be shared by MLS smaller markets (about $3.6 mil per team).

[kdzb]

Dust2 for MLS Commissioner!!!
Based on your teams breakdown:
LAG + NYRB + TFC are the richest teams in MLS.
Houston + Chicago are just above poverty.
Columbus is a poor team.
If you look at the results and the positions in the league after 18 games the poor teams are more consistants and are better positioned to make the playoffs + clinch the title.
In the other hands the richest teams are shit.

IMO, it's not a question of who spend more, it's the question of how can you build a team with what you have.
Looks like Houston, Columbus, Seattle, Chicago are doing it and we should do it as well.
Our problem is the management.
Somebody said somewhere in this forum that players comes to TFC and dies but when they go to other teams their career get back to life. ( example: Connor Casey, Edson Buddle, and lately Cunningham)
I just think we need a proven MLS Coach of the caliber of Dominic Kanear or Sigi Shmidt or Steve Nicholl. That's all what we need.
On paper we have the strongest team and the best midfield in MLS but on the pitch GOD help us.

[mighty_torontofc_2008]

Keep the current cap for MLS...we dont want the league to go the way of the NASL
and right now there are some clubs having major problems putting fans in their stadiums, until that changes no to any increase in the salary cap.

[Pookie]

A couple of false assumptions here:

- NY isn't making a profit, LA's attendance is down 28% and Vancouver has only sold 5,000 season tickets so far. A bit of a presumption to put them in the top spenders

- CDN$ is relatively high right now. As it drops, Canadian teams generally can't compete with US counterparts as salaries are paid out in US$ but revenues are collected in CDN$. In the NBA, the Raptors are 14th in spending with a system you are proposing

- To offset the additional $6.5M you are suggesting TFC spend, ticket prices will need to rise. Estimate would be $1,200 per pair per year. What does that do to demand?

[Limani_Ole]

Keep the current cap for MLS...we dont want the league to go the way of the NASL
and right now there are some clubs having major problems putting fans in their stadiums, until that changes no to any increase in the salary cap.

AMEN.. i think most sports writers dont touch this subject for this reason..
NASL folded because it didnt have a cap.. and it needs to be gradually increased in the case of MLS.. you cant have a league with only Seattle, Vancouver, LA and Toronto.. and under the current economic climate it would be a BAD decision to make any aggressive moves..

and the low salary cap is a major reason why investors are buying up teams.. so you may argue the cap is allowing for investments into MLS and helping grow the game in both countries..

plus I rather a lower league than no league at all..

[mighty_torontofc_2008]

AMEN.. i think most sports writers dont touch this subject for this reason..
NASL folded because it didnt have a cap.. and it needs to be gradually increased in the case of MLS.. you cant have a league with only Seattle, Vancouver, LA and Toronto.. and under the current economic climate it would be a BAD decision to make any aggressive moves..

and the low salary cap is a major reason why investors are buying up teams.. so you may argue the cap is allowing for investments into MLS and helping grow the game in both countries..

plus I rather a lower league than no league at all..


lets just raise the lower end salary for guys making 15,000 to a level where living a playing in a big city is easier, say $50,000 minimum..we dont need any more Beckhams..taking up money and producing dick all
in return...

[DOMIN8R]

COOPER SR.: MLS MUST CHANGE


On the heels of his son's multimillion dollar transfer to 1860 Munich, the father of striker Kenny Cooper says MLS needs to reconsider its transfer policy and treatment of its American stars.

Kenny Cooper Sr., a former NASL player and long-time soccer coach in America, has played an active role in his son's career since the younger Cooper's days in the youth ranks at Manchester United. Having finally completed a deal to get Cooper, Jr. back to Europe, the elder Cooper says their days at FC Dallas have been overwhelmingly positive, but that in the end MLS failed to properly value his son's services.




http://www.yanks-abroad.com/get.php?mode=content&id=4978

[Helmet]

Before 1860 Munich moved in, Cooper was close to a deal to move back to England with Championship club Bristol City, but that accord apparently fell apart over MLS' insistence that the player sign over his right to ten percent of the transfer fee, a percentage guaranteed by FIFA bylaws. A deal that would have sent Cooper to Norwegian side Rosenberg last summer also fell apart over Cooper's refusal to sign over his portion of the fee.

MLS' stinginess over players' share of transfer fees was not directed solely at Cooper, it turns out. Nearly every player to leave MLS, with the exception of Brad Guzan, has reportedly been convinced to give up their portion of the fee.

"You can call it business or whatever you want, but what I call it is incorrect," the elder Cooper says of the practice. "Every player in the world gets ten percent, so why would you stop a young player from getting his, when you're making millions? Why would Kenny give up $500,000 when the league's making five million? Nowhere else in the world does that happen."

This is a shameful practice on the part of MLS.

[VPjr]

COOPER SR.: MLS MUST CHANGE


On the heels of his son's multimillion dollar transfer to 1860 Munich, the father of striker Kenny Cooper says MLS needs to reconsider its transfer policy and treatment of its American stars.

Kenny Cooper Sr., a former NASL player and long-time soccer coach in America, has played an active role in his son's career since the younger Cooper's days in the youth ranks at Manchester United. Having finally completed a deal to get Cooper, Jr. back to Europe, the elder Cooper says their days at FC Dallas have been overwhelmingly positive, but that in the end MLS failed to properly value his son's services.

http://www.yanks-abroad.com/get.php?mode=content&id=4978


Thank you for this article. very interesting read. I am really glad that someone with such intimate knowledge of how MLS works would go public. Someone needs to expose some of the league's odd business practices.

[VPjr]

After reading that article about Cooper, I decided to google MLS Salaries report for 2009.

To my amazement, Cooper was making nearly 1/2 of what Chad Barrett is being paid, 1/4 of what DeRo is paid and about 1/3 of what Vitti is making.

That is really embarrassing. FCD paid that stiff Denilson a good chunk of dough for a half season but they couldn't find the money for the best pure striker in the league?

It's possible TFC can be accused of being guilty of overpaying many of its players (in MLS terms, I think they do...in global terms, clearly they aren't overpaid) but regardless, Cooper should not have left for Bundesliga2 just to make better money. The money should have been there for a player of his ilk.

sad....

[Yohan]

After reading that article about Cooper, I decided to google MLS Salaries report for 2009.

To my amazement, Cooper was making nearly 1/2 of what Chad Barrett is being paid, 1/4 of what DeRo is paid and about 1/3 of what Vitti is making.

That is really embarrassing. FCD paid that stiff Denilson a good chunk of dough for a half season but they couldn't find the money for the best pure striker in the league?

It's possible TFC can be accused of being guilty of overpaying many of its players (in MLS terms, I think they do...in global terms, clearly they aren't overpaid) but regardless, Cooper should not have left for Bundesliga2 just to make better money. The money should have been there for a player of his ilk.

sad....
I believe Cooper was on his initial contract that he signed after coming over from Europe, when he was not a proven striker. Hence his relatively low wage.

He would have made substantially more if he was to commit to MLS, but he wanted DP money, which Dallas and MLS wasn't willing to give

[Blizzard]

Thank you for this article. very interesting read. I am really glad that someone with such intimate knowledge of how MLS works would go public. Someone needs to expose some of the league's odd business practices.

Yes, that was quite the eye-opener. It is disgraceful that the league insists on players who want to move forfeit their 10% of the transfer fee. FIFA should step in and punish MLS and force the repayment of these funds.

In this case of Mo Edu, we're talking about $500,000 US. Did Mo sign over his 10% to MLS? I'm assuming that he did based on what was said in the article.

I'm disgusted!

B

[Dust2]

Keep the current cap for MLS...we dont want the league to go the way of the NASL

I strongly disagree. NASL fold because there were no SSS, no salary cap, no paid TV deal, no shirt sponsorship and not as many fans. You might have a point if MLS suddenly get rid of the salary cap and install free-spending. Would MLS go the way of the NASL if it follow the NBA/Snowden mixture?

$2.5 mil soft cap (pay by the league)
$6 mil hard cap (pay by the club ownership from $2.5 mil onward)
$3 mil luxury tax threshold ($1 tax for $1 over)

If so, can you explain why MLS will go bust? Keep in mind that under the above salary structure, teams will low revenue will have their team salaries ($2.5 mil) paid for by the league from the revenue sharing. 100% of national tv, 100% of national sponsorship, 30% cut of every team gate receipts, a large portion of shirt sponsorship go toward this revenue sharing pool. In addition, as long as they stay below $3 mil threshold, they will receive $2-3 mil a year in luxury tax. This give them an incentive to live within their means and not overspend.


and right now there are some clubs having major problems putting fans in their stadiums, until that changes no to any increase in the salary cap.There will always be problems in some markets putting fans in their stadium. This is true in all professional sports. In fact, MLS is rewarding/favoring these clubs that have major problems putting fans in their stadiums by forcing MLS's strongest teams/markets to adhere to the same $2.3 mil hard cap.

[Dust2]

A couple of false assumptions here:

- NY isn't making a profit, LA's attendance is down 28% and Vancouver has only sold 5,000 season tickets so far. A bit of a presumption to put them in the top spenders

Here's my reasoning for my 'GUESSTIMATE' of what the spending will be by teams (just my best guess....and nowhere accurate)

LA Galaxy, NY Red Bull, Seattle, Toronto, Vancouver: $6 mil player salaries (---- pay $3 mil luxury tax) LA generated $36 mil revenue in 2007. It has a metro population of 13 million and many of them are soccer fans. 48.5% of LA population are Hispanics....give them a winning team with better talents, they will do well financially. As for New York, their ownership doesn't care about spending 'big money'. They have invested heavily in sports from soccer to Formula 1. Red Bull Salzburg has a 40 mil euro budget. They stated that they will put 100 million Euros over 10 years to promote their newest soccer investment, RB Leipzig, from the Fifth Division to Germany's Bundesliga (similar to how Hoffenheim did it). In case you doubt the fact that Red Bull will not be willing to spend $6.5 mil ($3 mil luxury tax + $3 mil over the league paying $2.5 mil) in order to get a $6 mil hard cap, you just need to look at their $200 mil Red Bull Arena. As for Vancouver, they sold 5000 season ticket deposits within 24 hours. The demand is there. I have no doubt in my mind that Vancouver will average at least 24,000 come 2011. I don't have to say more about Seattle beside the fact that they sold out 32,500 and well on their way to generate $30+ mil this year. I'm sure Seattle fans will want their ownership to spend some of that $12-15 mil profits on better players.


- CDN$ is relatively high right now. As it drops, Canadian teams generally can't compete with US counterparts as salaries are paid out in US$ but revenues are collected in CDN$. In the NBA, the Raptors are 14th in spending with a system you are proposing

- To offset the additional $6.5M you are suggesting TFC spend, ticket prices will need to rise. Estimate would be $1,200 per pair per year. What does that do to demand?If Toronto, which has the biggest fan base in MLS, can't spend part of their profits on better talents and team, then you should blame MLSE, not the system where teams are allowed to spend up to $6 mil hard cap. I put TFC 20,000 sold out stadium and 15,000 season ticket waiting list > Seattle's 32,500 sold out stadium. Toronto metro population is 5.6 mil compare to Seattle's 3.3 mil. In addition, BMO Field can be expanded. MLSE will be more willing to expand the stadium knowing they could put out a winning team on a consistent basis.

As for your exchange rate, currently it's 1 USD = 1.07025 CAD (from XE.com). And yes, TFC fans will be more willing to pay 10% extra for a winning team with higher quality players. A $6 mil hard cap will get you a much better team than the current $2.3 mil hard cap team.

[Pookie]

Here's my reasoning for my 'GUESSTIMATE' of what the spending will be by teams (just my best guess....and nowhere accurate)

LA Galaxy, NY Red Bull, Seattle, Toronto, Vancouver: $6 mil player salaries (---- pay $3 mil luxury tax) LA generated $36 mil revenue in 2007. It has a metro population of 13 million and many of them are soccer fans. 48.5% of LA population are Hispanics....give them a winning team with better talents, they will do well financially.

It's interesting. You propose that LA will have a winning team. NY will have a winning team. Toronto will have a winning team and Seattle will have a winning team.

There are your proposed results, year in and year out. Your theory, winning fills seats.

So, what happens:

a) if those big markets don't win
b) to the smaller markets that have no chance under your system?



TFC 20,000 sold out stadium and 15,000 season ticket waiting list

And what price do you put the tickets at? Quite a few gold listers passed over season seats offered in the club sections because of price.

Yeah, there may been 15,000 members on the list but any sales guy will tell you that there is a difference between "leads" and "buyers."

We haven't even discussed stadium expansion costs which aren't likely to be a gift from the government.


As for your exchange rate, currently it's 1 USD = 1.07025 CAD

And just 7 years ago we had a dollar that was worth 65 cents.


And yes, TFC fans will be more willing to pay 10% extra for a winning team with higher quality players.

Really, because a whole lot of them walked out over paying $125-150 to see Real Madrid.

By the way, $1,200 a year isn't 10% extra. A personal seat license isn't 10% extra.


A $6 mil hard cap will get you a much better team than the current $2.3 mil hard cap team.

It's all relative. Spending doesn't always equal success, it still comes down to management and scouting. See, Maple Leafs - Pre-lockout version.

And a better team compared to what? Compared to other MLS teams?

Let's assume that we go with your theory that spending does equal a better team. If there is such a vast talent difference, what would be the point in paying a premium (as a result of ticket price increases) to see Columbus, KC or other pitiful teams?

But if there is still competition throughout the league, your theory of spending to get a better team doesn't hold. If KC can get a better quality team through management and scouting without raising ticket prices to spend more money on players, shouldn't that be the emphasis?

[relegated]

A salary cap is a must. In an emerging league though, a little competitive unbalance is good so that the league can establish its core, marquee teams. If you are going to introduce some unbalance you want to reward the teams with the strongest fan bases as these are the teams who will become the marque teams. I would suggest a 2.5 mil cap and then allow teams to exceed the cap based on season ticket sales. For instance allow teams to exceed the cap by $100,000 for every 1,000 season tickets sold. In TFC's case with 16,000 season tickets they would be to exceed the cap by 1.6 mil.

This encourages owners to get into their grassroots areas to put fans in the seats and also encourages owners to upgrade their stadiums.

[Dust2]

It's interesting. You propose that LA will have a winning team. NY will have a winning team. Toronto will have a winning team and Seattle will have a winning team.

I propose that teams that want to spend up to the $6 mil hard cap will give themselves a better chance at a winning team. I never stated that a winning team is a certainty. The league will be competitive because a $3 mil team can easily beat a $6 mil team.


There are your proposed results, year in and year out. Your theory, winning fills seats.

So, what happens:

a) if those big markets don't win
b) to the smaller markets that have no chance under your system?Small markets team don't have a chance in England, Spain, Italy etc...They do in MLS. Even with $6 mil vs. $3 mil, it's not that big of an advantage. Beside, there's the playoff where once you are in it, you have a good shot at the title.


And what price do you put the tickets at? Quite a few gold listers passed over season seats offered in the club sections because of price.

Yeah, there may been 15,000 members on the list but any sales guy will tell you that there is a difference between "leads" and "buyers."

We haven't even discussed stadium expansion costs which aren't likely to be a gift from the government. It takes money to make money. It will take money to expand the stadium in order to profit from the added revenue.

10,000 seats x 18 games a year x $30 average ticket prize = $5.4 mil a year. Over 30 years period, this generate $162 million.


And just 7 years ago we had a dollar that was worth 65 cents. I'm not an economist but I doubt that the Canadian dollars will be weaken so significantly to 65 cents anytime soon. The oil, natural gas, diamond etc....will give Canada a strong currency in the years to come. Anyhow, surely Toronto is a better soccer market to be in despite the currency fluctuation which might not even happen compare to markets like San Jose, Kansas City or Colorado. I bet every MLS owners beside Seattle would love to own a Toronto. TFC should be among the least likely team to not be able to spend.



Really, because a whole lot of them walked out over paying $125-150 to see Real Madrid.

By the way, $1,200 a year isn't 10% extra. A personal seat license isn't 10% extra. I'm just using 10% as an example that people would be willing to pay 10% extra to see a better product. I believe a team like Toronto which generate about $18-20 mil a year can afford a $6 mil hard cap without significant increase in ticket prices.


It's all relative. Spending doesn't always equal success, it still comes down to management and scouting. See, Maple Leafs - Pre-lockout version.

And a better team compared to what? Compared to other MLS teams? A better team as in a team that is competitive within the league and in regional tournament. Surely a $6 mil team is more capable than a $2.3 mil team.


Let's assume that we go with your theory that spending does equal a better team. If there is such a vast talent difference, what would be the point in paying a premium (as a result of ticket price increases) to see Columbus, KC or other pitiful teams? Fans buy tickets to see their team in action, not their opposition unless you are the Hull, Fulham of the world and Man Utd is visiting. As for an increase in ticket price, it will only be a modest increase especially if the stadium can be expanded to 28,000 as suggested.


But if there is still competition throughout the league, your theory of spending to get a better team doesn't hold. If KC can get a better quality team through management and scouting without raising ticket prices to spend more money on players, shouldn't that be the emphasis?Spending doesn't guarantee a better team, just ask Newcastle United who was the 5th highest spender in the Premiership and got relegated. However, a $6 mil team has higher chances at being the 'better team' compare to a $2.5 mil team.

p.s. If Toronto can't afford $6 mil hard cap like you believe, then maybe $4 mil hard cap ($1 mil luxury tax) will do. This still give the team a salary advantage compare to many MLS teams and it will only cost $2.5 mil extra a year ($1 mil in luxury tax and $1.5 mil in spending over the league paying $2.5 mil).

TFC can build a pretty strong team with $4 mil hard cap compare to the current $2.3 mil hard cap. Imagine using that $1.7 mil extra and signing 3 quality $550,000 a year player to the current team.

[Cas87]

I say the NBA version you have above, but with the luxury tax at 4 million

Honestly, if you put the tax at that level only 2-3 teams will spend that much
(LA, DC, and maybe us)
everyone else will stay around that 3.5 - 3.75 million level where they are close but they aren't wasting money either

[Dust2]

A salary cap is a must. In an emerging league though, a little competitive unbalance is good so that the league can establish its core, marquee teams. If you are going to introduce some unbalance you want to reward the teams with the strongest fan bases as these are the teams who will become the marque teams. I would suggest a 2.5 mil cap and then allow teams to exceed the cap based on season ticket sales. For instance allow teams to exceed the cap by $100,000 for every 1,000 season tickets sold. In TFC's case with 16,000 season tickets they would be to exceed the cap by 1.6 mil.

This encourages owners to get into their grassroots areas to put fans in the seats and also encourages owners to upgrade their stadiums.

I had a similar suggestion as well 2 weeks ago though based on average attendance 'above' the league average attendance. So TFC can have $500,000 cap advantage (5000 more than the league average).

http://www.bigsoccer.com/forum/showpost.php?p=18280909&postcount=21

If MLS decided to keep the current strict hard cap structure (I sincerely hope not) how about rewarding the teams that do well off the field?

For every 1,000 above the league average attendance, that team can spend $100,000 more than the league salary cap. So a team with 3,000 above the league average will be able to spend $300,000 more than the league hard salary cap. This extra $300,000 in salary will be paid by the club ownership, not the league.

For example, league-paying salary cap will be $2.5 mil in 2010. A team that average about 3000 more than the league average will be able to spend up to $2.8 mil.



Anyhow, it is something the league should look into because the current strict hard salary cap reward the weakest teams (low revenue) and punish the league strongest teams (high revenue). And guess who is paying more toward paying for league operation and player salaries? This year, Seattle would send the league a check (30% of its gate receipt) that is likely to be well over 3 times as the check teams like San Jose, Kansas City, Dallas, Columbus, Colorado, New England will send the league.

Giving these high revenue teams the ability to spend more, at the maximum only $3 mil more, while at the same time charge these same teams $1 for every $1 over is not asking too much. In fact, no where in the soccer world where the smallest revenue teams would have it so good: revenue sharing, luxury tax revenue, equal distribution of national tv and sponsorship revenue, a draft system, and a playoff that give small teams a chance at the title.

[Pookie]

A better team as in a team that is competitive within the league and in regional tournament. Surely a $6 mil team is more capable than a $2.3 mil team.

I think you need to define "better." This year's version is in the playoff mix and competing in the CONCACAF Championship.

Now, if you mean better=winning then we go back to the spending doesn't guarantee success argument. If all you are looking for is a shot... we have that now.



p.s. If Toronto can't afford $6 mil hard cap like you believe, then maybe $4 mil hard cap ($1 mil luxury tax) will do. This still give the team a salary advantage compare to many MLS teams and it will only cost $2.5 mil extra a year ($1 mil in luxury tax and $1.5 mil in spending over the league paying $2.5 mil).

TFC can build a pretty strong team with $4 mil hard cap compare to the current $2.3 mil hard cap. Imagine using that $1.7 mil extra and signing 3 quality $550,000 a year player to the current team.

Ok, explain to me how this is markedly different than what we have now.

Any team can spend money above the cap on up to 2 designated players (since the DP slot is tradable).

A team could spend that $1.7M right now on 2 DPs at 650k each and one non-DP at 400k.

I'm not seeing anyone do it. Ask yourself why.

Let's try this another way.

Perhaps you could tell me why, if Seattle and Toronto (and Vancouver) are so successful operating within the system as it stands now, why your obsession with changing the structure?

What benefits, above and beyond what already exist for fans, investors and players, do you expect to realize by using more free spending means?

:noidea:

[rocker]

did we have this thread 2 weeks ago started by the same user?

I'm not gonna repeat the things I said to these exact same proposals from 2 weeks ago.

if you want to keep beating a dead horse, how about looking in the archives for the old thread and bumping it rather than starting a new thread, poll, etc. every time?

[Dust2]

I think you need to define "better." This year's version is in the playoff mix and competing in the CONCACAF Championship.

Now, if you mean better=winning then we go back to the spending doesn't guarantee success argument. If all you are looking for is a shot... we have that now.

A better team as in a $6 mil team will be better than a $2.3 mil team because of the quality on display and the talents of the player. (no guarantee, but it's more likely that a $6 mil team will be better). MLS won 2 out of 21 games in the Champions League. This is embarrassing. Could a $6 mil team be more successful than a $2.3 mil team? Possible.



Ok, explain to me how this is markedly different than what we have now.

Any team can spend money above the cap on up to 2 designated players (since the DP slot is tradable).

A team could spend that $1.7M right now on 2 DPs at 650k each and one non-DP at 400k.

I'm not seeing anyone do it. Ask yourself why.If Toronto spend the money on 2 DP today. It would cost

1. $800,000 against the $2.3 mil salary cap. Which mean you have around $1.5 mil for the other 22 players.
2. In order to get the 2nd tradable DP, you need to trade a pretty good player or players. This will weaken the team.

That's why it's REMARKABLY DIFFERENT THAN having $4 mil hard cap. Because Toronto will have $1.7 mil extra to spend on players. Could TFC be a better team if THREE $550,000 type players are added to the current team?


Let's try this another way.

Perhaps you could tell me why, if Seattle and Toronto (and Vancouver) are so successful operating within the system as it stands now, why your obsession with changing the structure? I guess you don't see anything wrong with allowing Seattle owners pocketing the $15 mil a year in profits (which come from the fans by the way) while the team spend $2.3 mil a year on players? I believe the current strict hard cap is holding MLS back. A more flexible salary structure like the NBA/Snowden mixture would allow teams with high growth potential to grow even faster. The current level playing field is hindering the natural growth of team like Seattle, LA, NY, Toronto, Vancouver. Using Seattle as an example, the team could average 40,000+ if the quality of soccer is better (better talents) and the team is winning consistently. As Columbus proved, a winning team there does not help attendance at all. It actually decreased from last year. However, putting a championship team in Seattle, you will see significant increase in revenue/attendance.

And why do you want to current structure (strict hard cap/level playing field for all teams) to stay?


What benefits, above and beyond what already exist for fans, investors and players, do you expect to realize by using more free spending means?

:noidea:1. Better players
2. Better success in the Champions League
3. Higher quality soccer
4. Less parity in the league
5. Faster growth
6. Allow teams with the greatest growth potential to grow....these teams can propel MLS to the next level. Think sold out 25,000 seats Red Bull Arena for example.

[Pookie]

Because Toronto will have $1.7 mil extra to spend on players. Could TFC be a better team if THREE $550,000 type players are added to the current team?

Not necessarily.

We've already seen a very recent example of a player, De Guzman, rejecting millions of dollars and wanting to play in Europe. This is a Canadian being offered that sum to play in Canada, yet he elected to play against the best in a more established league.

You assume that money will get players over here. That's a false assumption.

The players that do come will only be here for the money. In most cases, those players will simply be overpaid. Robinson's $330k and Colin Samuel's 193k in year one are great examples.

They will be paid based on past performance and will have a "leave the spotlight" premium attached to their salaries. That's why De Guzman's offer from Toronto was more than he could get in Europe.

Seems like a waste to overspend.


[quote] I guess you don't see anything wrong with allowing Seattle owners pocketing the $15 mil a year in profits (which come from the fans by the way) while the team spend $2.3 mil a year on players?

I'm sorry, I thought this was a business. Do I see anything wrong with investors making a return on their dollars? No.

Without the investors there is no business. If there is no business, there is no MLS.

Why do I want to keep the current structure?

I don't.

In fact, I'd support an increase in spending but I wouldn't do it on overage former "stars" from obscure South American leagues. I'd have a cap on the maximum salary and offer a lucrative league minimum salary to up and coming players with a guaranteed term. That term goes both ways in that the player is committing to the MLS for a period of 3-5 years.

So, the cap goes up but does so on the bottom end to encourage youth on the upside of their games vs aging vets.

[Limani_Ole]

And why do you want to current structure (strict hard cap/level playing field for all teams) to stay?

1. Better players
2. Better success in the Champions League
3. Higher quality soccer
4. Less parity in the league
5. Faster growth
6. Allow teams with the greatest growth potential to grow....these teams can propel MLS to the next level. Think sold out 25,000 seats Red Bull Arena for example.

do you remember anything from the NASL days? NY Cosmos used to have 40,000 plus per game.. explain to me how they folded and you will find your answer to why the MLS is moving with caution..

Your not an economist, nor do you know the financial status of the league to make any sound judgement on what "might" work on bring the league to the next level.. your arguments/numbers are all hypotheticals..

facts
1)Throwing cash at foreign players will not help..re NASL
2)MLS WANTS parity within the league
3)MLS WANTS to develop local American talent.. IT IS a developmental league

[ilikemusic]

The one that lets us spend all our moneys.

[Gazza_55]

I guess you don't see anything wrong with allowing Seattle owners pocketing the $15 mil a year in profits (which come from the fans by the way) while the team spend $2.3 mil a year on players? I believe the current strict hard cap is holding MLS back. A more flexible salary structure like the NBA/Snowden mixture would allow teams with high growth potential to grow even faster. The current level playing field is hindering the natural growth of team like Seattle, LA, NY, Toronto, Vancouver. Using Seattle as an example, the team could average 40,000+ if the quality of soccer is better (better talents) and the team is winning consistently. As Columbus proved, a winning team there does not help attendance at all. It actually decreased from last year. However, putting a championship team in Seattle, you will see significant increase in revenue/attendance.

And why do you want to current structure (strict hard cap/level playing field for all teams) to stay?

1. Better players
2. Better success in the Champions League
3. Higher quality soccer
4. Less parity in the league
5. Faster growth
6. Allow teams with the greatest growth potential to grow....these teams can propel MLS to the next level. Think sold out 25,000 seats Red Bull Arena for example.

Amen brother. Just look at the crowds at the World Football Challenge. People in the US and Canada will pay for quality footy. The original owners except for maybe AEG are scared to invest in players in a serious way which is the main reason MLS is growing at such a pedestrian pace. It will only be after 2012 when we have 6 to 8 new ownership groups that the salary cap will finally be at a respectable level.

Oh and Seattle profits this year are going to be $30m. They made $3.8m US on the Chelsea match and will most likely match that for the Barca friendly this week.

[Gazza_55]

do you remember anything from the NASL days? NY Cosmos used to have 40,000 plus per game.. explain to me how they folded and you will find your answer to why the MLS is moving with caution..

Your not an economist, nor do you know the financial status of the league to make any sound judgement on what "might" work on bring the league to the next level.. your arguments/numbers are all hypotheticals..

facts
1)Throwing cash at foreign players will not help..re NASL
2)MLS WANTS parity within the league
3)MLS WANTS to develop local American talent.. IT IS a developmental league

1) It will if all the teams have the same amount of cash to spend on foreign players. The NASL didn`t fold because of overspending on foreign players, it folded because (among other things) one team had ALL THE BEST FOREIGN PLAYERS.

2) Having a higher cap still creates parity. The NFL salary cap is over $130m and they have parity.

3) That is crap. MLS wants a top 5 professional soccer league. While a good portion of the players will be American and Canadian that is not the goal of the league.

[Pookie]

It's a funny argument that is being made.

ARGUMENT: The league needs to spend money to attract better quality players. Teams with better players will win more and fuel better attendance.

Won't that hurt teams that can't spend the big money?


ARGUMENT: Uh, no. There will still be parity. It will come down to better management.

Well, then if anyone can win on any given day and a lower spending club can compete with a higher spending club... what's the point of spending more money when you don't have to?

Aren't investors attracted to this league based on the current model of cost certainty? Is it really wise to drive up costs for no reason when the bulk of the league's teams are losing money?

ARGUMENT: Well... I..... uh.... will just create a new thread on MLS' salary structure.... see, in this new thread, I am proposing that MLS needs to spend money to attract better quality players....

:facepalm:

[Jack]

Another of these...they seem to keep popping up every few days.