Rumor-Cap of $4m for 2010? (and other goodies)

[Lucky Strike]

I have my gripes about MLSR, but they do have the occasional inside scoop way ahead of anyone. I leave it for you to decide and discuss.

http://www.mls-rumors.net/3739/2009/09/report-4million-salary-cap-exempt-designated-players-higher-minimum-salary-discussed-for-2010/

[UltraSuperMegaMo]

Let's hope, that said the cap has not been one of their strengths in the past.

[Beach_Red]

"The opening of Red Bull Arena is the perfect opportunity for MLS to finally become relevant in that market but in order to do that, Red Bull will want to purchase some high profile/high impact players. It is highly likely that MLS will not want to squander the opportunity it has in New York."

That's certainly true enough.

[werewolf]

"The opening of Red Bull Arena is the perfect opportunity for MLS to finally become relevant in that market but in order to do that, Red Bull will want to purchase some high profile/high impact players. It is highly likely that MLS will not want to squander the opportunity it has in New York."

That's certainly true enough.

So we should expect the Galaxy treatment for the Pink Cows next season?

[Brooker]

too good to be true? :D

[SilverSamurai]

I think it's a fair bump. Still low, but gives teams a lot more breathing room.

[ArmenJBX]

Increases our quality if true. Suddenly, Pablo Vitti doesn't look too expensive...I'd keep him now.

[Shway]

I think it's a fair bump. Still low, but gives teams a lot more breathing room.

that is a significant jump, more than fair.

If you put into perspective that the maximum salary is 500k.
So in managers eyes, that could include 3 big signings

[Oldtimer]

If true, it shows that MoJo was very canny in how he handled the cap this year.

[mighty_torontofc_2008]

if the salary cup does increase, and for one i hope it does NOT...it gives the clubs ample reason to raise ticket prices, the fans then bitch about it the whole vicious
circle repeats. The main success of this league is its affordable for most footie fans,
and with the cup going up, tickets to follow this league could follow the same demise of the Old NASL..you can see it coming!!

[ManUtd4ever]

I hope there is some validity to this rumor. MLSE certainly has the resources to utilize the extra cap space and I'm not certain if most of the other clubs in MLS could afford that luxury. L.A., D.C., New York, New England, Seattle, and Philadelphia are among the few that might exhaust the additional cap space...

[Oldtimer]

and with the cup going up, tickets to follow this league could follow the same demise of the Old NASL..you can see it coming!!

I am old enough to remember the NASL. You have no idea what you are talking about. Ticket prices had zero to do with the NASL's demise.

[troy1982]

I hope there is some validity to this rumor. MLSE certainly has the resources to utilize the extra cap space and I'm not certain if most of the other clubs in MLS could afford that luxury. L.A., D.C., New York, New England, Seattle, and Philadelphia are among the few that might exhaust the additional cap space...

The league pays the players salary not the teams.

Anyway the MLSR post mentions that the 4 million is the upper level of the discussion, so between 2.5 to 4 million, not that MLS are planning on it being 4 million.

[kodiakTFC]

The league would improve dramatically. The best players in the league would likely stay the same but its the depth players that often make this league look awful that would be upgraded. I REALLY hope this is true.

[flatpicker]

4 mil cap will nicely help the league add talent.

But the biggest thing in my opinion is the salary exempt DP.

This is the kind of thing that will give big city clubs the slight advantage.

Just imagine... TFC would be able to afford that quality striker to compliment our midfield!

[rocker]

4 million is good.. I wonder where they'd get the extra $28 million they'd need to fund it.
and would allocation money still exist, as it does now, beyond the cap?

would the second DP be no charge against the cap, or the first DP?
it would be interesting to make the first DP charged against the cap, and the second DP not charged. So you have to make that leap and sign your DP first, but after you can go for a second without the risk.

[Beach_Red]

^ Yes, that would be a good way to do it.

As for the money, how much were the expansion fees for Philly, Portland and Vancouver?

[ManUtd4ever]

The league pays the players salary not the teams.

Anyway the MLSR post mentions that the 4 million is the upper level of the discussion, so between 2.5 to 4 million, not that MLS are planning on it being 4 million.

The league dictates the expenditures of each club?

[ManUtd4ever]

4 mil cap will nicely help the league add talent.

But the biggest thing in my opinion is the salary exempt DP.

This is the kind of thing that will give big city clubs the slight advantage.

Just imagine... TFC would be able to afford that quality striker to compliment our midfield!

My thoughts exactly...the system should allow a slight competitive advantage to large market clubs with a passionate fan base and strong revenue streams...

[ManUtd4ever]

^ Yes, that would be a good way to do it.

As for the money, how much were the expansion fees for Philly, Portland and Vancouver?

I believe 40 million U.S.

[TFCUNITED]

This is very good news if all of this is true. Does anyone know what the min. salary is right now?

[troy1982]

The league dictates the expenditures of each club?

The league owns all the players in MLS excluding DPs and they are the one who pay their salary, Not the club.

for example:
for the entire TFC salary, MLSE is only paying for the portion of DeGuzman's salary over 450K because he is a DP, All the other players get their checks from MLS HQ/SUM, who also own the players contracts and who ultimately transfers players in and out.

The rasing of the Salary cap doesn't effect any of the teams bottom line since MLS HQ/SUM is paying the salary. In 2009 MLS was paying about 35-40 Million in Salary

[Chevy]

Increases our quality if true. Suddenly, Pablo Vitti doesn't look too expensive...I'd keep him now.

Regardless of the cap, $300k is a little much for Pablo (and I LIKE him).

[Stryker]

(addressing mighty) You have no idea what you are talking about.
There's a shocker.

[mighty_torontofc_2008]

I am old enough to remember the NASL. You have no idea what you are talking about. Ticket prices had zero to do with the NASL's demise.

No but raising the salary cap in MLS will lead to the same fate the NASL did...how many TFC fans are currently bitching about the rise of TFC tickets for 2010..a lot...some are even saying if it continues they will
reconsider their purchase of tickets!! teams like Dallas, Columbus,
where fans are scarce at the best of times cannot afford to pay higher
salaries and may mean the death of the franchises..not good for MLS.
the salary cap should remain as is till more fans start attending these teams home matches.

[Chevy]

^^ I don't think that raising the cap to $4m is logical, but a smaller raise would be feasible.

Over time, if the weaker sisters of the league can't grow their business and remain competitive, the league will eventually drop them IMO.

[Stryker]

Or they just won't pay it and we become the Yankees of MLS.
Wouldn't that be a switch... a Toronto team dominating a professional sport league.

[Chevy]

Something tells me that over the next five years the (financial) powerhouses of MLS won't stand for the teams drawing $8k and "buy a $5 ticket get a free ball and scarf" BS. It will be put up or get out.

[SilverSamurai]

that is a significant jump, more than fair.

If you put into perspective that the maximum salary is 500k.
So in managers eyes, that could include 3 big signings
Well I'm not saying jack it up to 10million. Not in a single bound at least. Maybe 5-10 years down the road it might be an option.

Now if the cap is 4million and the min. salary for a player is 60k, you have less room to play with since your wages go up. I do think the min. salary is too low though.
In any case, I like the idea of the cap going up. Will help keep homegrown players here longer and not go off to Europe to play in some 4th division in Finland or Lichtenstein.

[flatpicker]

Something tells me that over the next five years the (financial) powerhouses of MLS won't stand for the teams drawing $8k and "buy a $5 ticket get a free ball and scarf" BS. It will be put up or get out.


Teams will all get along fine...

... this is a communist league after all... it's about teamwork.

[Chevy]

Something tells me that if MLSE and other like-minded owners have anything to do about it, MLS communism will go the way of the dodo.

[troy1982]

Something tells me that if MLSE and other like-minded owners have anything to do about it, MLS communism will go the way of the dodo.

Cost certainty is why MLSE and the other new owners invested in MLS. Single entity isn't going anywhere. Communism as you call it is the way forward for sports league around the world. All new league use salary caps and single entity and all the established leagues want to move toward that model.

[Detroit_TFC]

Something tells me that if MLSE and other like-minded owners have anything to do about it, MLS communism will go the way of the dodo.

No way MLS lets the teams become free operators. Remember, Garber came out of the NFL league office.

[Chevy]

Agreed. But there has to be some breaking point where the league says enough is enough.

[troy1982]

Agreed. But there has to be some breaking point where the league says enough is enough.

What does MLSE or the other new owners have to complain about?

[Chevy]

Right now they have nothing to complain about. My point is that feel-good feeling may disappear over time as the "rich" clubs continue to support the less fortunate ones.

I guess I'm just assuming (possibly wrongly) that greed will triumph over cooperation.

[troy1982]

Right now they have nothing to complain about. My point is that feel-good feeling may disappear over time as the "rich" clubs continue to support the less fortunate ones.

I guess I'm just assuming (possibly wrongly) that greed will triumph over cooperation.

I see what you mean. But If total revenue continues to grow like in the NFL I can't see the owners complaining.

[Kaz]

raising the salary cap raises the quality of the players, raising the level of play, and the public preception. This means there is a higher likely hood more people will want to watch it. This would help ticket prices.

The Price of the tickets isn't really an issue, nor do I think that ticket prices going up too much is too big an issue. even $35 keep seats are still nice and it will a few years to get to that point.

Now that I'm "trying" to stay moved to the area, I am hoping to make it out to at least 5 homes games next year. And I still have this pipe dream about actually seeing the San Jose game on the 10th.

A raised cap will improve the experience over all... and do something that people haven't really thought about.. better perception means better coaches are willing to come her, which also improves the product.

[james]

No but raising the salary cap in MLS will lead to the same fate the NASL did...how many TFC fans are currently bitching about the rise of TFC tickets for 2010..a lot...some are even saying if it continues they will
reconsider their purchase of tickets!! teams like Dallas, Columbus,
where fans are scarce at the best of times cannot afford to pay higher
salaries and may mean the death of the franchises..not good for MLS.
the salary cap should remain as is till more fans start attending these teams home matches.

well $4 million still is a very low salary when you compare to other leagues around the world. Even small leagues often pay at least $4million worth of players. And if teams cant afford a $4 million salary they could just keep it at the current $2.5 million salary, no one says every team has to pay $4 million. I mean pretty much every other league around the world teams pay whatever they want, and those teams seem to survive, so why couldnt teams in North America survive? teams in USL survive. I think all teams could still be pretty competitive to if the salary was still just $4 mil., the gap of $4million to $2.5 million is quite small when compared to some other leagues.

Also are tickets are quite exspensive for the quality of soccer on the field and salary we pay players. You can go to countries like France and go to a game for like 20 euros and they are paying the players in multi millions of dollars, yet are cheapest tickets are like $20 but can go as high as like $120 and we pay salary $2.5 million? I dont even understand how that works, but to me it just seems like we should beable to buy alot more exspensive players for what we pay.:drum:

[flatpicker]

Right now they have nothing to complain about. My point is that feel-good feeling may disappear over time as the "rich" clubs continue to support the less fortunate ones.

I guess I'm just assuming (possibly wrongly) that greed will triumph over cooperation.


The "rich" clubs don't have a choice.
What's the point of keeping the money for yourself when all but three of the teams in the league go bankrupt and fold?
A cooperative league is better than no league at all.



btw... my earlier comment about "communism" was an attempt at humour.
I have no problem with the current financial setup in MLS.
What I would like to see though is teams having freedom with player movement and signings.
Teams should not have to stand in line and wait their turn to sign a player.

[SilverSamurai]

The league works fine.
Maybe they could adopt a 2way system of sorts. MLS pays $3 million and then teams are able to spend up to $1million if they wish. That way it doesn't penalize teams that actually bring in crowds, but keeps competition pretty level.
In any case, like I said before $4million is a decent jump. Not where it should be, but can't go overboard either.

[Shway]

With the possiblity of the cap going up to a possiblity of $4mil, will changes like the :

a) Roster sizes increase?
b) Return of the reserve league?
c) ........:drum:

[Cashcleaner]

Good article. Very encouraging to say the least

A cap of 4 million sounds pretty reasonable. Personally, I was hoping for a ceiling of an even 5 million dollars, but at least we are getting somewhere. Good to hear the minimum salary increase as well.

I agree that it would be nice to hear something about the possibility of bringing back the reserve division, but I have my doubts its a pending issue for the league at the moment.

[kodiakTFC]

If TFC had $4 million to work with we would have the same budget as Debrecen from Hungary!

[Super]

If TFC had $4 million to work with we would have the same budget as Debrecen from Hungary!

It's sad to think that a league in a market of 340 million people or so is not able to compete with another in one of just 10 million people. I keep telling myself that things will improve and to be patient, but it's difficult for me to see the love of football in our fair city, and the sold out stadium, and yet we're told to relax, sit down, and give the other cities a chance to grow a bit more - lest we get too strong for them to compete with us. It's frustrating to say the least. We're the only league in the WORLD where it's considered suicide to allow a couple of teams to grow beyond the others. But I guess we'll have to sit down, chop off a leg or two, so the likes of Dallas and Kansas will be able to keep up with us. Meanwhile we're not able to keep up with Puerto Rico. It's really very sickening.

What is also frustrating for me is that my home club of Aalborg, Denmark, routinely gets about 8k in attendance, and at much cheaper rates than TFC, and yet their team salary is probably well beyond 5 million bucks. WTF is going on here?

But yes, I'll try to be patient. Trying so fucking hard! At least, though, I'm very encouraged by the news of a lift to the cap. Problem for me is that no lift will seem enough. Wonder how long I'll be able to accept the Mickey Mouse ears on the league logo. End the cap, join the world community of football, and let's play some fucking real football that's not dominated by league regulations and franchise protectionism!

[Pookie]

Or they just won't pay it and we become the Yankees of MLS.
Wouldn't that be a switch... a Toronto team dominating a professional sport league.

hmmm... Yankees. Nah, that would be Seattle or LA. Each has a much larger stadium to draw from and doesn't have to pay out salaries in Canadian dollars.

We'd be more like Kansas City. Middle of the pack.

[Fort York Redcoat]

^that's middle of the country. KC is lower than that...

Despite what some would say I think it the height of cynicism to think almost doubling the cap isn't good for the league when we need more talent to raise the image of the league.

[rocker]

of course doubling the cap is good for the league. hey, I wish the cap was 100 million for every team! ;)

but it's about the economics of the move.

Nobody here (including me) has definitive numbers on revenue. If the revenue is gonna be rolling in, raise the cap immediately to a level that does not bankrupt the league.

I assume with Seattle/TFC bringing in shitloads of revenue, things are getting easier on the bottom line. Philly looks like a good bet to contribute solid revenue. I would think Portland and Vancouver will too. That should allow the belts to be loosened financially.

MLS used to make cash calls from its owners. That meant they couldn't pay the bills based on revenues, so they would ask the rich dudes in the league to toss some of their own money into the pot. That's pretty scary. So Garber, whose been around longer than us, has that memory in his mind.

Hopefully once they get costs settled with the players union (they are negotiating the next CBA now), they'll have a good sense of player costs for the next 6 years. Then they can come up with a SUSTAINABLE spending regime. One that doesn't involve cash calls from the owners, but which maxes out spending based on revenues they take from the teams. Push it right to the limit. If that's 4 mil per team, so be it. If it's 6 million, even better.

Garber has commented on needing to increase quality, so he's aware of that. He sees this problem of people loving Euro soccer but not thinking MLS is good enough. He knows the quality should go up and that spending more on players is the way to go. But he has to be responsible to the bottom line.

[Pookie]

^that's middle of the country. KC is lower than that...

Despite what some would say I think it the height of cynicism to think almost doubling the cap isn't good for the league when we need more talent to raise the image of the league.

I want the same thing you do. I also believe that throwing money at the issue is an extremely risky proposition.

I find it frustrating that some in the raise the cap movement don't seem to see a correlation with rising ticket prices. This league is heavily... heavily gate receipt dependent. There is no major TV deal. There is no major advertising deal. Merchandise sales are a very small percentage of the overall take.

The only way to offset spending and ensure that investors are receiving return on their investment is to raise ticket prices.

If prices rise too quickly... ie. before this supposed talent improves the image of the league... fans will turn away. Regardless of the product on the field, if fans turn away, that will be the image of the MLS and it will be hard to get them back. The truth in business is that the hardest customer to win over is the one you've lost.

It's funny. If Sanyo came out and said, great news everyone, our cost of labour has just doubled. With that we'll be able to get better technicians to build your TVs and therefore will have a higher quality than ever before. But we'll have to charge you more for it.

Of course, the giants, Sony and Samsung are going to continue along with their market share and offer a higher quality product regardless of this development.

What do you think would happen to Sanyo? Would they survive long enough to realize the benefit of this move?

I'm all for development but I think it will come in the form of taking money from the top end of the salary scale and reinvesting it in raising the league minimum. For that, I could envision players committing to a set number of years to the MLS... similar to the way that they do to the Armed Forces. ie. Attakora gets more than $34k per year but is with MLS for a minimum of 4-5 years before he can entertain a transfer.

That way, talented youth will be with us longer and may establish themselves as "stars." They may be established in the community at that point and may not opt to immediately go to Europe.

[Fort York Redcoat]

Your mad, Pook:eek:. Keep it about money and not time or we'll lose twice as many kids to the rest of the world who don't want to wait to be noticed. I don't think this raise in talent, in cost will be as dramatic as you profess.

But we do want the same things from the league in better talent.

I just want to avoid what's happening in the NHL with 12yr contracts.

[Pookie]

Your mad, Pook:eek:. Keep it about money and not time or we'll lose twice as many kids to the rest of the world who don't want to wait to be noticed. I don't think this raise in talent, in cost will be as dramatic as you profess.

How dramatic it is depends on who you target.

To use my Sanyo/Sony analogy... if Sanyo decides to go after the world's best engineers at the height of their careers, it will cost them significantly.

If they opt to go after the unproven, fresh out of University with loads of potential, the cost is not as dramatic. Further, you get them on the upside of their careers. What they lack in experience, they make up for in their hunger to prove themselves. They are hungry and full of ideas.

I favour the second route. Give talented players (not saying elite young players, simply talented players) a way to earn a professional living with a guaranteed source of income for a set period of time and I think you'll have quite a few takers.

What is the biggest risk for a player/student coming out of the NCAA? Income and security. Offer them a starting salary in the $70k range and many would prefer that to entry level jobs in the real world that are going to net them $30k. Offer them a 4-5 year contract so that they have security in their decision. How many walk away from the game knowing that the risk and ability to earn an income as a professional player are too high?

It's a slower process. But it's one that doesn't come with a huge impetus to raise ticket prices and subsequently risk losing your fan base.

Think about what TFC did. They nearly doubled their payroll on one player. Visit the 2010 Season Ticket thread to see what folks think about a 17% increase.

But what if they gave raises to the young players like Attakora, Gomez, Sanyang, White in exchange for guaranteed years of service? The net effect might have been a $120k increase in the payroll (30x4) but the long term benefit may have been greater.

As it stands now, I'd be amazed if Nana is on this roster 2 years from now.



I just want to avoid what's happening in the NHL with 12yr contracts.

Likewise, those are just plain silly.

[TorCanSoc]

Right now they have nothing to complain about. My point is that feel-good feeling may disappear over time as the "rich" clubs continue to support the less fortunate ones.

I guess I'm just assuming (possibly wrongly) that greed will triumph over cooperation.

How does this work? Rich clubs supporting poor clubs? I mean how does MLS come up to Joey Sapputo et all, and say. "OK give us 40 mill, we'll control your salaries, and you give us money to support Columbus, NY, KC, NE"

That would the best salesman in the history of franchise salesmen!

Seriously how much money are we giving the league annually? Gate receipts go to MLSE? T.V. rights go to MLS? Shirt sales go to MLSE? Concessions go to the city? Where does the money go?

[flatpicker]

^ I imagine there must be a percentage taken from any profitable team which then goes into a pot and divided between the "poor" clubs?

The teams that earn more are still going to take in more money than those that are hurting.
You just don't get to keep it all.

[james]

It's sad to think that a league in a market of 340 million people or so is not able to compete with another in one of just 10 million people. I keep telling myself that things will improve and to be patient, but it's difficult for me to see the love of football in our fair city, and the sold out stadium, and yet we're told to relax, sit down, and give the other cities a chance to grow a bit more - lest we get too strong for them to compete with us. It's frustrating to say the least. We're the only league in the WORLD where it's considered suicide to allow a couple of teams to grow beyond the others. But I guess we'll have to sit down, chop off a leg or two, so the likes of Dallas and Kansas will be able to keep up with us. Meanwhile we're not able to keep up with Puerto Rico. It's really very sickening.

What is also frustrating for me is that my home club of Aalborg, Denmark, routinely gets about 8k in attendance, and at much cheaper rates than TFC, and yet their team salary is probably well beyond 5 million bucks. WTF is going on here?

But yes, I'll try to be patient. Trying so fucking hard! At least, though, I'm very encouraged by the news of a lift to the cap. Problem for me is that no lift will seem enough. Wonder how long I'll be able to accept the Mickey Mouse ears on the league logo. End the cap, join the world community of football, and let's play some fucking real football that's not dominated by league regulations and franchise protectionism!

yes this is what i was getting at in my message. There is many teams in europe where it cost about the same or even cheaper to go to a game then it does a TFC game and those teams get less then 20k a game and yet they still succeed and manage to pay players salary 5 times as high as what MLS teams pay.

i just dont get it, seems like we should be making alot of money and beable to raise team salary without even raise price of tickets.

[troy1982]

^^ every heard of TV and Sponsor revenue?

[troy1982]

^ I imagine there must be a percentage taken from any profitable team which then goes into a pot and divided between the "poor" clubs?

The teams that earn more are still going to take in more money than those that are hurting.
You just don't get to keep it all.

It works like this:

The league has it's own revenue streams such as 1/3 of all ticket sales, league wide sponsors, National TV contract, 1/3 of transfer fees and the all important SUM, these revenue are what pays for the players, administrators and officials salaries.

The rest of the revenue such as 2/3 of ticket sales, shirt sponsers, stadium naming rights, concession, 2/3 of transfer fees, local TV go to the team owners.

The owners have administrative, taxes, rent and other cost which on average amounts to about 10 million (which does not include the players salary which the league pays for). So 10 million a year is what an owner has to spend to run an MLS team.

[james]

^^ every heard of TV and Sponsor revenue?

yes obvious, but id be interrested to see what those smaller Euro Clubs get paid in sponsors and revenue. I mean TFC is on Sportnet and TSN and also Goal TV the TFC own and they do have lots of spnsors.

[troy1982]

How does this work? Rich clubs supporting poor clubs? I mean how does MLS come up to Joey Sapputo et all, and say. "OK give us 40 mill, we'll control your salaries, and you give us money to support Columbus, NY, KC, NE"

That would the best salesman in the history of franchise salesmen!

Seriously how much money are we giving the league annually? Gate receipts go to MLSE? T.V. rights go to MLS? Shirt sales go to MLSE? Concessions go to the city? Where does the money go?

Joey gets to do what he want in USL and so do the othter owners in that league, but all the owners seem to want out as soon as possible. MLS has a lot going for it that is attractive to investors.

These include, a stable league, salary caps, single entity, and increasing total revenue. When you buy into MLS you aren't really buying a team, you are buying a percent of the company of MLS and SUM

[C.Ronaldo]

^ all the hardwork get done by the league

why wouldn't you buy a franchise

its like owning a McDonalds

[troy1982]

There seems to be alot of confusing about the structure of MLS. the best way to understand it is this. MLS isn't a collection of 15 owners/teams. it is 1 company that runs 15 fanchises. MLSE for example invested in MLS not TFC. TFC is the part of the company that MLSE gets to run. All the employees are paid by MLS not TFC or MLSE.

So the "richer" teams aren't supporting the "poorer" teams as they are all one and the same, there is only 1 team which is MLS as a whole.

Another way to imagine it is with expansion:

the expansion fee is currently $35 million, when you pay it you are buying a piece of SUM/MLS not really a team. But MLS does allow you the right to run a piece of the company aswell, it would be like buying a piece of mcdonald and getting to run a part of the corporation aswell but the corporation is the one who actually owns the piece and pays the employees while you get to manage that piece. This is what single entity means.

[Beach_Red]

It's sad to think that a league in a market of 340 million people or so is not able to compete with another in one of just 10 million people. I keep telling myself that things will improve and to be patient, but it's difficult for me to see the love of football in our fair city, and the sold out stadium, and yet we're told to relax, sit down, and give the other cities a chance to grow a bit more - lest we get too strong for them to compete with us. It's frustrating to say the least. We're the only league in the WORLD where it's considered suicide to allow a couple of teams to grow beyond the others. But I guess we'll have to sit down, chop off a leg or two, so the likes of Dallas and Kansas will be able to keep up with us. Meanwhile we're not able to keep up with Puerto Rico. It's really very sickening.

What is also frustrating for me is that my home club of Aalborg, Denmark, routinely gets about 8k in attendance, and at much cheaper rates than TFC, and yet their team salary is probably well beyond 5 million bucks. WTF is going on here?

But yes, I'll try to be patient. Trying so fucking hard! At least, though, I'm very encouraged by the news of a lift to the cap. Problem for me is that no lift will seem enough. Wonder how long I'll be able to accept the Mickey Mouse ears on the league logo. End the cap, join the world community of football, and let's play some fucking real football that's not dominated by league regulations and franchise protectionism!


It is frustrating. But we will have to be patient at least until the expansion period is done - 20 teams? 24? At some point the league will have to make a jump.

Always remember, Americans have no real interest in joining any world community - least of all the football community. They'll have to be tricked into it ;).

[james]

It is frustrating. But we will have to be patient at least until the expansion period is done - 20 teams? 24? At some point the league will have to make a jump.

Always remember, Americans have no real interest in joining any world community - least of all the football community. They'll have to be tricked into it ;).

i think only about 20 cities in US/ canada could support a team. Once you add in philly, Vancouver, and Portland the only other cities i think that could actually support a team would be Montreal and Miami (i know miami failed once, but they were run horrible and the league was quite shit back in those days, leagues grown alot since then.)

[troy1982]

i think only about 20 cities in US/ canada could support a team. Once you add in philly, Vancouver, and Portland the only other cities i think that could actually support a team would be Montreal and Miami (i know miami failed once, but they were run horrible and the league was quite shit back in those days, leagues grown alot since then.)

It's funny that most people say N.A can't support more than 20 just because that's the league size of a few top leagues but N.A. has many times more large cities that could easily support a team. here is my list of possible teams over 20

Atlanta
Miami
San Diego
Detroit
Cleveland
Cincinnati
Pittsburgh
Phoenix
Las Vegas
San Antonio
Austin
Orlando
Tampa Bay
NYC2
Carolina (anywhere within these states)
Baltimore
San Francesco
Sacramento
St. Louis
Toronto2
Ottawa
Hartford
Minneapolis

[james]

It's funny that most people say N.A can't support more than 20 just because that's the league size of a few top leagues but N.A. has many times more large cities that could easily support a team. here is my list of possible teams over 20

Atlanta
Miami
San Diego
Detroit
Cleveland
Cincinnati
Pittsburgh
Phoenix
Las Vegas
San Antonio
Austin
Orlando
Tampa Bay
NYC2
Carolina (anywhere within these states)
Baltimore
San Francesco
Sacramento
St. Louis
Toronto2
Ottawa
Hartford
Minneapolis

i dont say 20 teams because alot of the other leagues around the world only have 20 teams, i say 20 because i dont think any other cities would support a soccer team the way MLS is run. IF you had relegation then id say maybe some other cities could support a team in the 2nd division with smaller stadium like 5-10,000 seats. But in 20,000 seat stadiums? no i think most other cities the stadiums would be empty jsut like in Dallas. I mean look at the cities you have named.

Carolina - they have a team in USL, average attendence is like 3,000

Detroit - Detroit is a ghetto and with the auto economy getting worse every year and the Detroit population dropping fast no owner would dare to go in there and spend millions on a team.

San Francisco - San Jose, Oakland and San Fran are all somewhat close enough to eachother, kinda like how Toronto, missisauga and Hamilton are in the same area. I dont think San Jose plus San Fran could support 2 teams that close to eachother.

Hartford - The city of Hartford has a smaller population then Oakville, Ontario.

Austin - Austin has a team in USL and they have no fans

Cleveland - have a team in USL, really bad attendence, i think i saw 500 fans at the game when it was on Fox Sports World. Cleveland is also even smaller then the city of Columbus and Columbus just manages to survive in MLS.

St.Louis - might beable to support a team, but they arent that far from Kansas, and how great does Kansas do. I dont know i never picture mid-west states supporting soccer to well.

Minneapolis - have a USL team. Im not to sure how there attendence is?

Baltimore - Baltimore is pretty close to DC United i believe?

NYC2- They have 1 team that is moving into a new stadium next year I believe in Newark?) and it apparently is a quick 10 minute subway ride from Downtown New York City to the new stadium. The plan for the 2nd team to play in New York was to play in Queens, which aint right in the heart of New York City niether. See how that sells, then if success maybe they could support a second team.

Toronto 2 - you are dreaming. You think Soccer is more of a success then it really is, there has been a few games in the passed few years that didnt sell out you know. No way we could sell out 2 stadiums, expand BMO field? yes to 25-30,000 sure. 40,000? no to much just like 2 stadiums is to much to fill.

anyways thats some cities why i dont think they would survive, others cities like Phoenix or Atlanta i just find it hard to believing they will show enough interrest in soccer to support a team.

[troy1982]

^^ Most of your arguments/assumption are about low USL attendance well if that was the criteria to getting into MLS then Toronto and Seattle should have been allowed, both average less than 3,000 a game. The USL has no bearing on how successful an MLS team would be int he market.

The success of an MLS in the stand has a lot of variable like stadium size, location, population size, transportation, etc that you can't assume without first seeing how an MLS team would do in those market. Most of your assumption are baseless like calling metro Detroit a ghetto when it's one of the largest cities in the states with a large middle class.

also Metro Hartford has more people than Salt Lake City as in the richest US state.

[prizby]

question...if this is true

how does David Beckham (6.5M) + Landon Donavon (900k) work with the cap and only 1 DP position

[jloome]

question...if this is true

how does David Beckham (6.5M) + Landon Donavon (900k) work with the cap and only 1 DP position

Donovan is grandfathered under the league's original CBA. It was a bullshit measure put in place to protect American stars, so they wouldn't move overseas. The compromise since has been to have a second DP slot obtainable, which I don't believe LA has done. new YOrk has, but is only using one, on Angel.

[james]

Donovan is grandfathered under the league's original CBA. It was a bullshit measure put in place to protect American stars, so they wouldn't move overseas. The compromise since has been to have a second DP slot obtainable, which I don't believe LA has done. new YOrk has, but is only using one, on Angel.

LA was all fixed. MLS will do anything for LA, they are above the law in this league unfortinitly.

[james]

^^ Most of your arguments/assumption are about low USL attendance well if that was the criteria to getting into MLS then Toronto and Seattle should have been allowed, both average less than 3,000 a game. The USL has no bearing on how successful an MLS team would be int he market.

The success of an MLS in the stand has a lot of variable like stadium size, location, population size, transportation, etc that you can't assume without first seeing how an MLS team would do in those market. Most of your assumption are baseless like calling metro Detroit a ghetto when it's one of the largest cities in the states with a large middle class.

also Metro Hartford has more people than Salt Lake City as in the richest US state.

this is off thread topic but anyways

Seattle had a higher average attendence then 3,000 in at least the passed 3 years that i know of, i think was more like 4- 5,000.

Suburbs of Detroit might be nice, the city itself is decaying and looks like by 2020 no one will live there anymore.

That is true, immigration, culture, transit , how the team is marketed, how the team is advertised it all matters. 1 Big reason Toronto Lynx failed was cause it was marketed to just kids and family and they played in parks, they had no real stadium. So fail in USL doesnt mean you will fail in MLS if everything is done right to sell the team to the public.

Many of those cities i still dont think would have enough people that would actually support a team. I think some of those cities are just to much into the Football, Nascar, College sport teams culture and they dont seem to support any pro teams. Maybe thats why many cities you listed dont have any pro sport teams. Other cities arent that far away from current cities that already have MLS teams that strugle or just do ok, a 2nd team in area is to much to support.

Hartford i still think is to small, even if it has a metro pop. of 1 milllion, the city base pop. is very low. You would need like 90% of the fans comming from outside the city, i dont think that many people would travel in every game. THere are many other bigger cities to move to.

[Sullivan]

Cincinnati, St Louis & Tampa are youth soccer hotbeds. I've been to each city many times for youth tournaments and for NAIA and NCAA games.

I think that if prospective owners were to follow the Seattle/TFC footprint, MLS franchises in those cities would do well and be well supported by their respective footy communities.

I also happen to think that 2nd franchises for NYC and Toronto could also do well.

[james]

Cincinnati, St Louis & Tampa are youth soccer hotbeds. I've been to each city many times for youth tournaments and for NAIA and NCAA games.

I think that if prospective owners were to follow the Seattle/TFC footprint, MLS franchises in those cities would do well and be well supported by their respective footy communities.

I also happen to think that 2nd franchises for NYC and Toronto could also do well.

just becasue lots of kids play soccer doesnt mean they will go to games and pay money to watch it. You cant just have kids going to the games, you gotta have a good mix of young and old, these cities gotta have older people who are already fans of soccer with a good mix of the hardcore fans as well. Huge majority of the South End stand at BMO deffinitly arent fans comming from the youth soccer leagues.

I agree on the Seattle / TFC footprint tho. I believe Philly is also using the same footprint and have sold 9,000 season tickts already for next season.

[Chevy]

+1. A large number of soccer parents love watching their kids play, but have little or no interest in the game itself. Some of the kids are in the same boat - its a great summer participation sport but they don't neccessarily need or want to follow the professional game.

[Sullivan]

just becasue lots of kids play soccer doesnt mean they will go to games and pay money to watch it. You cant just have kids going to the games, you gotta have a good mix of young and old, these cities gotta have older people who are already fans of soccer with a good mix of the hardcore fans as well. Huge majority of the South End stand at BMO deffinitly arent fans comming from the youth soccer leagues.

I agree on the Seattle / TFC footprint tho. I believe Philly is also using the same footprint and have sold 9,000 season tickts already for next season.

Absolutely, and these cities have a footballing history. What makes these cities youth hotbeds is the fact that there are so many "older" people involved in and or administering the game on so many different levels.

College soccer is a very dominant sport; as are senior amateur leagues. A look at past USSF open amateur champions - teams from these cities are well represented - men, women, over 30's, etc. And then there's the rogue leagues. There are many. Plus the ethnic diversity of these cities would also enhance a good solid footy club template.

[Sullivan]

+1. A large number of soccer parents love watching their kids play, but have little or no interest in the game itself. Some of the kids are in the same boat - its a great summer participation sport but they don't neccessarily need or want to follow the professional game.


Agreed.
It's a main reason why TFC have been successful.
It's a main reason why the CSA has been a failure.

[james]

Absolutely, and these cities have a footballing history. What makes these cities youth hotbeds is the fact that there are so many "older" people involved in and or administering the game on so many different levels.

College soccer is a very dominant sport; as are senior amateur leagues. A look at past USSF open amateur champions - teams from these cities are well represented - men, women, over 30's, etc. And then there's the rogue leagues. There are many. Plus the ethnic diversity of these cities would also enhance a good solid footy club template.

i remember a game last year when colorado was playing Toronto in Colorado they were showing the many fields jsut outside the stadium and they were talking about how Colorado was hosting one of the biggest youth tournaments in the USA...yet the attendence was 10,000 fans at the game, and looked more like 5,000 actually showed up.

for me to believe that these cities would be good markets to support a team id have to go to the city and actually see for myself how many bars actually show soccer games on TV? Are there many bars that only show soccer games? Are bars packed to see Champion League matches? or World Cup games? do people ever jam in the city when a country wins the World Cup? Stuff like that, like Toronto always had, but people just didnt know how to get them to support a local team. Because if you dont have that then its pretty much like many cities in the US and even parts of Canada where lots of people play soccer, but its more of a recreation sport or just do it because you like to play, but really dont care enough to watch it regualarely.

[Kaz]

Los Vegas can't support a major league sports team. The connection to sport betting negates it. That being said, in a few more years with the development of none entertainment industries in the city it may be possible at some point.. just not yet.

New York can't support one team yet, at least without a stadium in the boroughs.

Toronto isn't ready to support a second team, Could they... short term yes, long term no one know yet. way to early to talk about a second Toronto Team.

The Jays had 20 years of great attendance, now look at them, as it is TFC has the second highest attendance of any Toronto Sports team assuming the argos are still over 30k.

there are about 30 markets in the US and 3 or 4 markets in Canada.

you will see 27 or so US Franchises and 3 Canadian, but that is a long ways off.

I think you'll see the league stop at 20. Montreal, St Louis, and Miami being the most likely franchises to show up. (I'm guessing) It will eventually expand further, but not for a while. (you'll see teams being shuffled a bit two, Dallas and San Jose most likely won't stay put.. at least one will be moved I'm guessing.

[james]

Agreed.
It's a main reason why TFC have been successful.
It's a main reason why the CSA has been a failure.

agree on that. ANd they never really put money into the pro team niether, was all in the youth development. TO bad many players just went to play in Europe by the time they made pro.

[Gazza_55]

[quote=Kaz;729756]Las Vegas can't support a major league sports team. The connection to sport betting negates it. That being said, in a few more years with the development of none entertainment industries in the city it may be possible at some point.. just not yet.

New York can't support one team yet, at least without a stadium in the boroughs.

Toronto isn't ready to support a second team, Could they... short term yes, long term no one know yet. way to early to talk about a second Toronto Team.

MLS is not concerned about gambling - in fact Garber wants the league betting odds on every Casino toteboard. The more people wager on soccer in the states the more popular it will become. If they build a 20,000 seat domed stadium attached to a casino not only will they make a ton of money the atmosphere with the 2500 travelling fans would be amazing.

[Oldtimer]

Miami was a special case. One, it wasn't really in Miami, it was as far as Hamilton is from T-dot. Secondly, the owner of Miami was notable as a terrrible owner, even by the lower standards of those early days. The team was beyond terrible.

Although I'm not convinced that it's a great location for MLS, it would certainly do better than the first time around.

[prizby]

Donovan is grandfathered under the league's original CBA. It was a bullshit measure put in place to protect American stars, so they wouldn't move overseas. The compromise since has been to have a second DP slot obtainable, which I don't believe LA has done. new YOrk has, but is only using one, on Angel.

it was grandfathered in the old (current) CBA...but this is a new CBA we are talking about now right, my question is, will it be grandfathered again?

[Cashcleaner]

^ all the hardwork get done by the league

why wouldn't you buy a franchise

its like owning a McDonalds

Ummmmm, I don't know if you've been following MLS for a while, but that's a bad thing.

We need less control from the league. Clubs shouldn't be in a position where they give 1/3 of their income to the umbrella organisation.

[flatpicker]

^ It's too bad that profitable clubs have to shell out so much of their money...

But if it keeps the league operational, I guess there is little alternative.

But I would like to see the league have less control on player signings.
That should be part of the competition amoung teams...

[Carts]

Ummmmm, I don't know if you've been following MLS for a while, but that's a bad thing.

We need less control from the league. Clubs shouldn't be in a position where they give 1/3 of their income to the umbrella organisation.

I agree with you, but more and more of North American Sports are becoming "like" this (not exact obviously)...

Luxury taxes - soft caps - hard caps - revenue sharing... Its becoming the North American way it seems...

Just think, the NHL wants to own a team (or 2-3) in their own league, and run it - even though an independant owner wants to purchase and run it...??? Now that's 'League Control'... LOL

Carts...

[flatpicker]

^ that whole NHL situation boggles my mind.

How can a league own one of it's own teams?
Is there not some sort of conflict there?

[Cashcleaner]

I agree with you, but more and more of North American Sports are becoming "like" this (not exact obviously)...

Luxury taxes - soft caps - hard caps - revenue sharing... Its becoming the North American way it seems...

Just think, the NHL wants to own a team (or 2-3) in their own league, and run it - even though an independant owner wants to purchase and run it...??? Now that's 'League Control'... LOL

Carts...

Oh for sure, the NHL has taken the whole concept to a big extreme. I would never want to see that sorta thing happen in MLS.

[Pookie]

I agree with you, but more and more of North American Sports are becoming "like" this (not exact obviously)...

Luxury taxes - soft caps - hard caps - revenue sharing... Its becoming the North American way it seems...



... well, even UEFA is considering tying salaries to revenue.

[brad]

Miami was a special case. One, it wasn't really in Miami, it was as far as Hamilton is from T-dot. Secondly, the owner of Miami was notable as a terrrible owner, even by the lower standards of those early days. The team was beyond terrible.

Although I'm not convinced that it's a great location for MLS, it would certainly do better than the first time around.

Wasn't this also at a time when MLS used a bastardized version of the rules? That was never going to win the purests over.

[Oldtimer]

Wasn't this also at a time when MLS used a bastardized version of the rules? That was never going to win the purests over.

You are correct on that point (although Don Garber had already eliminated one or two of the bastardized rules by the time MLS folded the franchise - Doug Logan was the Commissioner who brought the bastardized rules in to "Americanize" the game).

[InTheCrowd]

Holy crap Mo trade for a DP slot right now!

[Chewy Unikronik]

if the salary cup does increase, and for one i hope it does NOT...it gives the clubs ample reason to raise ticket prices, the fans then bitch about it the whole vicious
circle repeats. The main success of this league is its affordable for most footie fans,
and with the cup going up, tickets to follow this league could follow the same demise of the Old NASL..you can see it coming!!
It's too bad the LEAGUE pays of the salaries, and not the teams:rolleyes:

[james]

Wasn't this also at a time when MLS used a bastardized version of the rules? That was never going to win the purests over.

of course only the United States try to americanize the worlds favourite game! :lol:

[LesH]

It's sad to think that a league in a market of 340 million people or so is not able to compete with another in one of just 10 million people. I keep telling myself that things will improve and to be patient, but it's difficult for me to see the love of football in our fair city, and the sold out stadium, and yet we're told to relax, sit down, and give the other cities a chance to grow a bit more - lest we get too strong for them to compete with us. It's frustrating to say the least. We're the only league in the WORLD where it's considered suicide to allow a couple of teams to grow beyond the others. But I guess we'll have to sit down, chop off a leg or two, so the likes of Dallas and Kansas will be able to keep up with us. Meanwhile we're not able to keep up with Puerto Rico. It's really very sickening.

What is also frustrating for me is that my home club of Aalborg, Denmark, routinely gets about 8k in attendance, and at much cheaper rates than TFC, and yet their team salary is probably well beyond 5 million bucks. WTF is going on here?

But yes, I'll try to be patient. Trying so fucking hard! At least, though, I'm very encouraged by the news of a lift to the cap. Problem for me is that no lift will seem enough. Wonder how long I'll be able to accept the Mickey Mouse ears on the league logo. End the cap, join the world community of football, and let's play some fucking real football that's not dominated by league regulations and franchise protectionism!

One post which 1000% reflects all my views also about how backwards is all the MLS set up.

I can just repeat:

End the cap, join the world community of football, and let's play some fucking real football that's not dominated by league regulations and franchise protectionism!

Right now MLS is out in the nowhere, locked out from the world community of football.

For God's sake, try to run the football in MLS like all REAL and proven successful leagues do in Europe and South America, and do not try to reinvent the wheel, by doing it in another, different, American way!
The "American way" won't ever f...cking work for football! :facepalm:

[mighty_torontofc_2008]

One post which 1000% reflects all my views also about how backwards is all the MLS set up.

I can just repeat:

End the cap, join the world community of football, and let's play some fucking real football that's not dominated by league regulations and franchise protectionism!

Right now MLS is out in the nowhere, locked out from the world community of football.

For God's sake, try to run the football in MLS like all REAL and proven successful leagues do in Europe and South America, and do not try to reinvent the wheel, by doing it in another, different, American way!
The "American way" won't ever f...cking work for football! :facepalm:

the european way where clubs like Real madrid, man utd, Liverpool and Chelsea are so far in debt is not the way to go . a salary cap in badly needed in European football, the sooner the better. MLS should just continue to grow at a decent rate..dont raise the salary cap till all
clubs turn a profit. NASL tried the european way, and guess where the NASL ended up?? right, it folded, we dont need that for MLS.

[Beach_Red]

We just have to accept that MLS isn't for everyone right now. We'll see how it is 10-15 years. Some people realize it needs to grow and it has a lot of competition from the NFL, MLB, NBA and even NHL - for fans, for TV money for sponsorship, for everything.

Maybe MLS will make it and maybe it won't. Lot of sports leagues have failed in North America trying all kinds of different approaches. It's a tough market.

[SoccMan]

Mr. LesH it looks like you might be a newbie to the wonderful world of professional soccer in North America. This is why history is such a wonderful thing. History has taught the owners of MLS teams that if you don't control your cost the house comes crumbling down before you can say NASL. You might not believe it, but the people involved with running this league know what they are doing when it comes to managing finances. It is either practise fiscal restraint and have a league survive, or go crazy with spending and have no league at all. I would rather have a team and a league to play in for years to come then nothing at all, maybe you don't but I do.

[Baggio2TFC]

Let's put it this way...If MLS had a salary cap of $10 million and a floor of $4 million and teams still are not making money...those teams need to either fold or relocate!

A $10 million salary cap if peanuts to the rest of the worlds top leagues but can buy you enough top flight players and with the right mix of others...can bring us to atleast compete with some of the second divison teams in europe and around the world. This will bring some talent and start to put MLS on the map.

I am just saying with this league at $2.5 million...it is an absolute joke!

[Beach_Red]

Let's wait till expansion finishes. And every team is in a proper stadium.

If there was really money to be made in this league there would be investors. They're coming on board, but it still has a ways to go.

[troy1982]

Let's put it this way...If MLS had a salary cap of $10 million and a floor of $4 million and teams still are not making money...those teams need to either fold or relocate!

A $10 million salary cap if peanuts to the rest of the worlds top leagues but can buy you enough top flight players and with the right mix of others...can bring us to atleast compete with some of the second divison teams in europe and around the world. This will bring some talent and start to put MLS on the map.

I am just saying with this league at $2.5 million...it is an absolute joke!

where does the league get the extra 100 million to afford these salaries?

[Kaz]

This league isn't intended to bring in top flight players from around the world which would remove the chance to play domestic players, the whole league is designed to develop national talent to play the worlds best.

I'd love to see the day when 50%+ of the players in the league were Canadian like in the NHL.

The League needs to grow as the talent does.

the Fact that the USL is almost reaching parity with the league player wise suggest that the MLS is currently at that point and to further increase that a cap needs to raise to bring in stronger internationals, and strong coaching staff. That will allow the USL to fall behind in play and the top players in North America to get payed better and help increase the rep of the League..
But we are looking at a 500k-1m increase not 8m

Refing needs to be improved though.

[Chevy]

where does the league get the extra 100 million to afford these salaries?

+1. For some strange reason people around here equate a higher salary cap with guaranteed higher league revenues. ???

[Beach_Red]

The League needs to grow as the talent does.


Yes, that's it right there.

[InTheCrowd]

Remove the salary cap? That's ridiculous, almost all the teams in the league are losing money as it is. Do you think they can afford to pay the players salaries?

[rocker]

Many of the players in this league probably DON'T want the cap going up too much. cuz then they'll lose their jobs to foreigners and Americans playing in Europe who return for the Euro-like paycheque.

Can you imagine if it suddenly went to 10 million? A whole bunch of cheap Americans getting 60-150K would probably have to go to the USL.

[Kaz]

MLS needs to partner with a second tier League or become one. The league is supposed to develop talent. So either it needs to eventually let the second teir level players play in the second teir and bring in better talent and coaches or another league needs to leap from MLS and do it.

But that should be a slow increase not a quick one. 2.4 - 4 - 6 - 8 - 10... and it should only really increase when the talent pool in the lower leagues start reaching parity, or we start seeing large exodus' to other leagues for players. (like we are seeing now with USL team competing) that allows the sport to grow over say 40-50 years.. (I don't think it will take that long though) But that is my opinion and it may not mean much.

Apparently in my sleep deprived state I posted nearly the same thing twice with in 24 hours.. opps.. people need to let me sleep.. can wait to be home.. sorry for the paraphrased double post.

[Beach_Red]

MLS is trying to copy the NFL and NBA and have the NCAA develop the players. So, this year we got Frei, Cronin and OBW.

[InTheCrowd]

MLS needs to partner with a second tier League or become one. The league is supposed to develop talent. So either it needs to eventually let the second teir level players play in the second teir and bring in better talent and coaches or another league needs to leap from MLS and do it.

But that should be a slow increase not a quick one. 2.4 - 4 - 6 - 8 - 10... and it should only really increase when the talent pool in the lower leagues start reaching parity, or we start seeing large exodus' to other leagues for players. (like we are seeing now with USL team competing) that allows the sport to grow over say 40-50 years.. (I don't think it will take that long though) But that is my opinion and it may not mean much.

Seems kind of fast to me. I don't think that this is financially possible for the league.

[Gazza_55]

This league isn't intended to bring in top flight players from around the world which would remove the chance to play domestic players, the whole league is designed to develop national talent to play the worlds best.

I'd love to see the day when 50%+ of the players in the league were Canadian like in the NHL.

The League needs to grow as the talent does.

the Fact that the USL is almost reaching parity with the league player wise suggest that the MLS is currently at that point and to further increase that a cap needs to raise to bring in stronger internationals, and strong coaching staff. That will allow the USL to fall behind in play and the top players in North America to get payed better and help increase the rep of the League..
But we are looking at a 500k-1m increase not 8m

Refing needs to be improved though.

Why can't MLS do both? Bring in top flight players as well as develop national players to compete with the world's best. Isn't that what is happening in England, Spain, Italy, Germany etc/

[Kaz]

Why can't MLS do both? Bring in top flight players as well as develop national players to compete with the world's best. Isn't that what is happening in England, Spain, Italy, Germany etc/

They have been playing the sport in those countries at an adult competetive level for 100 years and it's been the largest sport for most of that time.

North America has 4 major leagues and MLS is working to be the 5th in the public consciousness. As the domestic talent increases then you bring in internationals on par, but you don't remove those conditions to improve the talent.

If it takes 50-100 years then so be it.

moving from 2.4-10 million salary over 25-50 years (I'd hope we can improve talent faster then that) is the slow evolutionary process of the "new" sport in North America.

It'll come we just have to be patient.

[Shakes McQueen]

One post which 1000% reflects all my views also about how backwards is all the MLS set up.

I can just repeat:

End the cap, join the world community of football, and let's play some fucking real football that's not dominated by league regulations and franchise protectionism!

Right now MLS is out in the nowhere, locked out from the world community of football.

For God's sake, try to run the football in MLS like all REAL and proven successful leagues do in Europe and South America, and do not try to reinvent the wheel, by doing it in another, different, American way!
The "American way" won't ever f...cking work for football! :facepalm:

They already tried starting a soccer league over here without a salary cap to stabilize expenditures and growth, and the league imploded in on itself like a neutron star.

The fact that other soccer leagues around the globe have wages and debt spiralling out of control, doesn't mean it's the right way to do it. I'd much prefer our new, young league try to improve on the business model the EUropean leagues use. In 60 years, it will likely be better off for it.

- Scott

[InTheCrowd]

Why can't MLS do both? Bring in top flight players as well as develop national players to compete with the world's best. Isn't that what is happening in England, Spain, Italy, Germany etc/

Well here we have something called a salary cap and I believe at the moment every team only has one DP slot and for many of the teams it is currently filled. We can't just bring in top flight players.

[jloome]

The cap should go up for a couple of reasons: first, MLS is a writedown league. All of the other owners have other businesses related to their sports franchises and can use the team for writedowns. So the profits and losses we see aren't real, they're just on paper.

That isn't to say it's a very profitable league, because we don't know. Some teams obviously struggle. But keep in mind that we're in the top 10 in the world for average attendance; the only reason our teams don't have euro-sum revenues is that we don't have the television deals.

Which gets to the second point: too much parity. In a young league, you need some leeway -- not tons, but some -- for a team to sign a breakout player late in the season, or, in the cases of NY and LA, simply to live up to public expectations and put bums in the seats. Bums in the seats = higher ticket demand = more TV interest.

But the big qualifier is that it only has to be enough to shake up the teams a little and bring about less parity between top and bottom and certainly less parity with USL clubs.

So an increase for now of enough to increase the bottom end team wages and bring in more compettiive players/keep some of the top end players from signign in Scandinavia, is what they should be looking at.

Assume past the starting lineup that you have six more players you think you'll need to contribute all season. If you can up that base wage to about $80,000, you can draw away more skill players from even cheaper leagues in Colombia, Guatemala, Honduras, brazil and argentina (div 2 and below particularly.

Add in one more DP but don't count either against the cap. Then assume a max base wage of about $500,000 instead of $400,000.

Now you're looking at a max increase of about $1M per team cap, or to about $3.7 Million, plus DPs.

[Oldtimer]

The real issue isn't players #1-5, who are generally CCC, lower-Premiership quality, and could play in most decent leagues.

The problem is players #8-15, who tend to be cheap players who would fit more in League 2 in England.

When you combine a DeRo with a Garcia, you have an inherently unbalanced team. This happens to most MLS sides, not just TFC.

Then you add the depth players (who would struggle in League 2) and you have problems.

Part of being a good MLS coach is being able to make something out of the lower-quality players while maximizing your top players. That is why its hard for most foreign coaches to do well in MLS, the inbalance in quality between players make it a real challenge.

Raising the cap, and easing some of the restrictions would do wonders for minimizing this problem.

[Beach_Red]

For most American fans it would also seem like a good idea to have more American stars - maybe American DP salaries could be cap-exempt or something.

[Gazza_55]

Well here we have something called a salary cap and I believe at the moment every team only has one DP slot and for many of the teams it is currently filled. We can't just bring in top flight players.

We can bring in top flight players with a high enough salary cap and 2 or 3 DP's that don't count against the cap. Which is the title of the thread.

[InTheCrowd]

We can bring in top flight players with a high enough salary cap and 2 or 3 DP's that don't count against the cap. Which is the title of the thread.

But we can't just go adding DP slots all willy nilly. I'd like it for our club, but it's just not fair to the rest of the league. Not all teams can afford to pay these huge salaries, we're one of the few teams actually making money. Let's be realistic here guys.

[Gazza_55]

What's not fair. Everybody benefited from Beckham signing. The teams with DP's are not guaranteed to be in the MLS Cup Final. If clubs can't afford a DP, don't sign one. If the salary cap is $10 million nobody is obligated to spend to the cap. Spending more money won't make Mo Johnston a good general manager.

Teams will actually make money when they spend money on decent players.

[InTheCrowd]

What's not fair. Everybody benefited from Beckham signing. The teams with DP's are not guaranteed to be in the MLS Cup Final. If clubs can't afford a DP, don't sign one. If the salary cap is $10 million nobody is obligated to spend to the cap. Spending more money won't make Mo Johnston a good general manager.

Teams will actually make money when they spend money on decent players.

First you say that we should bring in top flight players. I then tell you that we can't just bring in top flight players because of the cap and DP rule. You then say that it's possible if each team gets many DP slots but then tell me that teams shouldn't sign DP's if they can't afford them. Now tell me, how can a team bring in top notch players if they can't afford to? The point is that yes everyone benefits in some way or other when another team brings in a DP, but everyone also loses in some way when another team signs a DP. Point is we can't have a third of the league with 3 DP's and the other two thirds without DP's. This is why it's not fair. Yes they're not guaranteed a spot in the MLS finals, but it sure as hell helps the team get further. A DP signing helps THAT TEAM on the pitch and financially off the pitch. Look, not everywhere's Toronto. You can't just say if we spend money we'll make money. Remember there is a lack of interest around the league. It's a huge gamble spending a big sum of money. It's just not that simple.

[Shakes McQueen]

First you say that we should bring in top flight players. I then tell you that we can't just bring in top flight players because of the cap and DP rule. You then say that it's possible if each team gets many DP slots but then tell me that teams shouldn't sign DP's if they can't afford them. Now tell me, how can a team bring in top notch players if they can't afford to? The point is that yes everyone benefits in some way or other when another team brings in a DP, but everyone also loses in some way when another team signs a DP. Point is we can't have a third of the league with 3 DP's and the other two thirds without DP's. This is why it's not fair. Yes they're not guaranteed a spot in the MLS finals, but it sure as hell helps the team get further. A DP signing helps THAT TEAM on the pitch and financially off the pitch. Look, not everywhere's Toronto. You can't just say if we spend money we'll make money. Remember there is a lack of interest around the league. It's a huge gamble spending a big sum of money. It's just not that simple.

This post is full of some good common sense.

- Scott

[S_D]

The rest of the revenue such as 2/3 of ticket sales, shirt sponsers, stadium naming rights, concession, 2/3 of transfer fees, local TV go to the team owners.



Just to clarify the bolded part for anyone new to understanding MLS, the teams don't just get the 2/3 transfer fees, they have to be spent on club infrastructure, it can't just be pocketed. MLS holds on to it to make sure it doesn't go elsewhere lol and releases it when a project is approved.

But in effect, it saves the club having to use it's own money to buy stuff so it keeps it's personal expenses down.

For instance the Edu transfer goes towards grass and say the practice facility, so MLSE doesn't have to pay for the whole amount by itself.

It is actually a very good idea that they do this as it forces teams to grow the game in some manner.

[Fort York Redcoat]

What's not fair. Everybody benefited from Beckham signing.

No one else would have the same effect as the Becks signing. Different DP's obviously have different results.

I agree with your concept of adding more leeway and less parity but as ItC states the league is not stable enough for drastic change.

[mmmikey]

If the salary cap is $10 million nobody is obligated to spend to the cap.

not sure if this was mentioned yet, but leagues with salary caps usually feature a salary floor as well.. there is a minimum amount each team has to spend on salaries to prevent some team owners from cheaping out while reaping the benefits of revenue generated by high spending teams. this is also usually demanded by the players associations for the simple reason that it is in their best interest that a team can't be cheap ass. in the end the salary cap system is usually a small range where your payroll must fit in.. say its a 4 mil cap, maybe the floor is 3.25 million or something.

one of the best salary cap/revenue sharing systems is in the NFL. interestingly enough, usually what u find is that the best teams rarely sit right at the cap.. although it is often hard to assess each teams cap position given accelerations of bonus's and cap hits for cut players, they always give themselves room to make moves going forward (important in such an injury prone league with large rosters). of course, there is some pretty creatively dishonest teams that sign players to contracts (or restructure existing ones) that maximizes their cap hit to make sure they make the salary floor. essentially some teams have found a way to spend the floor officially, while never really giving out the money. i hope MLS has studied these situations and has some regulations to prevent this.

[mmmikey]

So an increase for now of enough to increase the bottom end team wages and bring in more compettiive players/keep some of the top end players from signign in Scandinavia, is what they should be looking at.



i've been curious about this.. where does the scandinavian leagues fall in revenue/average player salary??

these leagues seem to feast on north american talent, and just holding on to these players or at the very least directly profiting from a transfer to a higher end european league would go a long way to improving the overall standing of the leagues talent development, competitiveness and economic strength.

[jloome]

i've been curious about this.. where does the scandinavian leagues fall in revenue/average player salary??

these leagues seem to feast on north american talent, and just holding on to these players or at the very least directly profiting from a transfer to a higher end european league would go a long way to improving the overall standing of the leagues talent development, competitiveness and economic strength.

Even though they have lower attendances than MLS, they have lucrative TV and Euro competition revenue. So while lower teams are hamstrung, the top half-dozen or so do pretty well. My understanding is that their average wage for a foreign player is upwards of $8,000 to $10,000 a week, or about $500,000 a year.

Keep in mind that's what they pay U.S college kids and talents like Parkhurst and Rolfe (both good players in MLS, but not dominating their positions league-wide). I imagine for a DeRo or a McBride it'd be over a million a season.

[mmmikey]

Even though they have lower attendances than MLS, they have lucrative TV and Euro competition revenue. So while lower teams are hamstrung, the top half-dozen or so do pretty well. My understanding is that their average wage for a foreign player is upwards of $8,000 to $10,000 a week, or about $500,000 a year.

Keep in mind that's what they pay U.S college kids and talents like Parkhurst and Rolfe (both good players in MLS, but not dominating their positions league-wide). I imagine for a DeRo or a McBride it'd be over a million a season.

that's not too far off at least. hopefully we see the following:
cap increase->better competition->better interest->better tv deals->cap increase that puts us ahead.

the euro competition revenue will always be hard to compete against as i assume it dwarfs the revenue of the CL and Superliga here. still.. that's pretty encouraging for the future.

[Gazza_55]

First you say that we should bring in top flight players. I then tell you that we can't just bring in top flight players because of the cap and DP rule. You then say that it's possible if each team gets many DP slots but then tell me that teams shouldn't sign DP's if they can't afford them. Now tell me, how can a team bring in top notch players if they can't afford to? The point is that yes everyone benefits in some way or other when another team brings in a DP, but everyone also loses in some way when another team signs a DP. Point is we can't have a third of the league with 3 DP's and the other two thirds without DP's. This is why it's not fair. Yes they're not guaranteed a spot in the MLS finals, but it sure as hell helps the team get further. A DP signing helps THAT TEAM on the pitch and financially off the pitch. Look, not everywhere's Toronto. You can't just say if we spend money we'll make money. Remember there is a lack of interest around the league. It's a huge gamble spending a big sum of money. It's just not that simple.

First of all, it is not a huge gamble and it is not spending a big sum of money. MLS owners as a group have several billionaires and many worth hundreds of millions. If Kroenke wants to spend $5m a year on the top Mexican league star to improve his club on and off the field then he should be allowed to do it. It does not weaken the league, it does not weaken his bottom line because the guy is worth $2billion for chrissakes. If he doesn't want to sign a star and is happy to draw 8k a game then that's fine.

And what does "not everyone's Toronto" have to do with it. Toronto didn't have a DP until 2 weeks ago. To suggest that because teams are allowed to sign a DP doesn't mean that those who can will. Seattle had a DP before they kicked a ball. NY has had 2 DP's. Dallas has had a DP. Columbus and DC have DP's. KC has had a DP. All different sized markets with different levels of success on and off the field.

If you are worried about Toronto and Seattle making $50m a year in revenue and Dallas and San Jose has $2m, don't be. MLS gets a large chunck of the $50m and it gets spread to Dallas and San Jose. This not the EPL where nothing Man U makes goes to Wigan. And it is nothing like the N.A.S.L.

And there's not a lack of interest for soccer around the league. In the same cities where you 6k showing up for an MLS match you'll have 30k to 60k showing up for SuperLiga or friendlys or second stringers playing in the Gold Cup. Why? Because the players are of some quality.

[Fort York Redcoat]

^Love your optimism but I'm not sure what Superliga and Gold Cup games your watching. This league needs moderate growth.

[InTheCrowd]

Even though they have lower attendances than MLS, they have lucrative TV and Euro competition revenue. So while lower teams are hamstrung, the top half-dozen or so do pretty well. My understanding is that their average wage for a foreign player is upwards of $8,000 to $10,000 a week, or about $500,000 a year.

Keep in mind that's what they pay U.S college kids and talents like Parkhurst and Rolfe (both good players in MLS, but not dominating their positions league-wide). I imagine for a DeRo or a McBride it'd be over a million a season.

I'm sorry but that's hard to believe. Are all the Scandinavian teams owned by Russians? :D