rewarding off-the-field success

[Dust2]

Teams that do well in attracting fans, sponsors, selling merchandise should be rewarded. What MLS (http://soccernews.bigsoccer.com/topic/Major_League_Soccer) need is a mechanism where teams have the ability to spend more than the salary cap. In exchange, they need to share substantial revenue with other teams.

Mechanism: each team can spend above the salary cap but pay $2 penalty for every $1 they overspend. For example, NY Red Bulls could have a $500,000 cap advantage after paying $1 million penalty. This still won't guarantee success but they "should" be more competitive with a $3 mil team instead of a $2.5 mil team.

In summary, this mechanism allows teams that can afford to spend more, to spend more. At the same time, a $2 penalty for every $1 overspend should discourage teams from wild spending. It will also put money back into the league. Ownerships that can afford to spend like Seattle, Toronto, LA Galaxy (http://soccernews.bigsoccer.com/topic/LA_Galaxy), Philadelphia, New York Red Bull would plow millions back into the league in the form of luxury tax. Millions that would otherwise stay outside the league.





As a Sounders fan I would be all for this plan. As it stands, SSFC has a huge pool of money that they can't spend on players. If it takes funneling money back to the league to open things up I'd be all for it.

I'd also like to see some sort of cap exemption to allow clubs to keep their rising stars. For example, Fredy Montero likes playing in Seattle and Seattle has tons of money, but can't pay him or it will cripple them against the cap. So he will probably end up in Portugal or somewhere like that, which sucks.

[stugautz]

This just encourages overspending and goes against the fundamentals of a salary cap. You will get a situation like in baseball where there is a luxury tax that does nothing to stop the Yankees from outspending everybody else.

[Beach_Red]

In summary, this mechanism allows teams that can afford to spend more, to spend more. At the same time, a $2 penalty for every $1 overspend should discourage teams from wild spending. It will also put money back into the league. Ownerships that can afford to spend like Seattle, Toronto, LA Galaxy (http://soccernews.bigsoccer.com/topic/LA_Galaxy), Philadelphia, New York Red Bull would plow millions back into the league in the form of luxury tax. Millions that would otherwise stay outside the league.



If you change that to, "Ownserhips that can... MIGHT plow millions back in..." then I think you're right.

And some might. If it looks like a good investment, if plowing in those millions will return substantially higher profits. But there's no guarantee (and it's very unlikely Toronto will be one of the teams at the top of a league like that any more than the Jays are at the top of MLB).

Look, we all know that sports ownership groups will drive the rest of the league out of business if it means short-term profits for themselves - that's why we have salary caps and luxury taxes and so on - to protect the league fom rogue owners.

And I appreciate your desire to have a better quality of play - and that means higher salaries, there's no other way - but the best chance we have in Toronto is a strict salary cap that applies equally to all teams.

Or new owners.

[rocker]

I have a problem with the statement

"Teams that do well in attracting fans, sponsors, selling merchandise should be rewarded"

This implies that some teams deliberately attract fans and sponsors, so they must be "rewarded." But as we know, some teams just reap the rewards of a larger population than other cities have. There's no "work" involved in the fact the LA Galaxy attract more fans than most of the teams in the league. You know why they have more fans? Because they have a larger population to draw from, a population that often appreciates soccer. They have had this advantage since the day MLS started.

[Carts]

This just encourages overspending and goes against the fundamentals of a salary cap. You will get a situation like in baseball where there is a luxury tax that does nothing to stop the Yankees from outspending everybody else.

100% true...

Major League Baseball is proof that the Luxury Tax system doesn't work at all...

The NFL is proof that the salary cap does work...

13-years is young, very young, in terms of building a league on any kind - the system in place is to ensure stability - yes changes are needed (ie: more guaranteed money for players etc) but the economic & competitive stability needs to be kept in place for the long term growth of the league...

Carts...

[Oldtimer]

Carts is right.

Luxury tax without any hard cap doesn't work. You'd end up in a NASL-Cosmos situation which would destry this young league.

[Hitcho]

MLS needs to keep growing itself organically, at a steady pace. Allowing madcap spending by a coupe of teams will just dissolve the parity they have so far created and dissuade franchises that would have a smaller fanbase from joining the eaegue, or staying in it. What the league needs is to keep attracting new franchises like seattle and tfc and let the league grow naturally within its existing rules. over time, the fan base will grow and the revenues will all flow from that (better wages, better players, better viewing, better revenues, the circle goes on). eventually the impact will be more kids coming through at a professional level and the US doing better on the international front. That, coupled with maybe another WC for the states, will be big factors in growing the sport and the league in north america.

if you try and accelerate the process artifically, you'll crash and burn because the market just isn't there yet. and allowing one or two teams to crush the others in order to generate additional funds that are useless to the teams who are losing all the time as a result (and may then think of quitting because they cannot win or generate fan interest) will not help.

just my opinion.

[Dust2]

This just encourages overspending and goes against the fundamentals of a salary cap. You will get a situation like in baseball where there is a luxury tax that does nothing to stop the Yankees from outspending everybody else.

How does a $2.5 mil hard cap with $2 penalty for $1 overspending be similar to MLB?

Only if MLB have a $80 mil hard cap with a $2 penalty for $1 overspending. Right now, MLB teams have to spend over $160 mil before getting charge with a luxury tax.

Poor excuse mate.

[Dust2]

MLS needs to keep growing itself organically, at a steady pace. Allowing madcap spending by a coupe of teams will just dissolve the parity they have so far created and dissuade franchises that would have a smaller fanbase from joining the eaegue, or staying in it.

$2.5 mil hard cap with a mechanism where each team can spend above the salary cap but pay $2 penalty for every $1 they overspend = madcap spending????????




If there are only these two choices for the next CBA, which would you rather have? And which of these two choices benefit the league more?

$2.5 mil strict hard cap

OR

$2.5 mil strict hard cap with a $2 penalty for every $1 overspending

[Carts]

If there are only these two choices for the next CBA, which would you rather have? And which of these two choices benefit the league more?

$2.5 mil strict hard cap

OR

$2.5 mil strict hard cap with a $2 penalty for every $1 overspending

Option-2 - the league isn't ready to become a "have & have nots" in regards to spending - even if over-spending sends taxed dollars to the league...

In fact, MLS will probably never be a league that can afford to become a "have and have not" league...

The NFL is the most successful league in North America for a reason, the set salary cap that all teams must follow creates an even playing field for all teams... Support remains strong for all teams because everyone has the same chance at winning a championship (within a reasonable amount of time if properly managed)...

The MLS took that model to another extreme with the single entity system... I do beleive that at some point that will change, and teams will sign players, not the league - but we're many many years away from that, let alone allowing teams to step over the rules - even if it means generating luxury tax dollars for the league...

Carts...

[Beach_Red]

The NFL is the most successful league in North America for a reason, the set salary cap that all teams must follow creates an even playing field for all teams... Support remains strong for all teams because everyone has the same chance at winning a championship (within a reasonable amount of time if properly managed)...

The MLS took that model to another extreme with the single entity system... I do beleive that at some point that will change, and teams will sign players, not the league - but we're many many years away from that, let alone allowing teams to step over the rules - even if it means generating luxury tax dollars for the league...

Carts...


You could probably say that the NFL is the most successful "group of 32 teams" in the world. The weakest NFL team is still financially stable and has realistic chance to win the Super Bowl.

With the Supreme Court decidig right now if the NFL is, in fact, a single entity (which in the "walks like a duck, talks like a duck" way it certainly is) it's most likely that MLS and NFL will be very, very similar in a little while.

Now, if some of that TV ratings and fan support success were to rub off on MLS it would be great.

[ExiledRed]

People who support the ridiculously low salary cap of $2.5m should abstain from complaining about the performance of their team.

Your teams crap because its your teams time to be crap, and this is what you want.

[Cashcleaner]

^ Excellent point, but I think you'd be hard-pressed to find anyone who's content with the current cap.

[ag futbol]

I like the 2 for 1 penalty but only if that eventually has a cap on it as well (eg. So you can overspend by say a max of 1.5M and pay the 2 for 1 penalty). That type of economics (without a maximum) hasn’t stopped teams like the Knicks in the NBA from spending insane amounts more than every other team.

Maybe someone can explain more, but if you are to take the salary figures from NFL teams there are still differences in what each team spends. The Detroit lions despite being bad forever somehow are still below average spenders (so that would seem to rule out a MLS style equalization subsidy).

http://content.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/salaries/teamresults.aspx?team=11

Anyway, the bottom line here is that soccer is unlike the other professional sports operating in North America because the global competition for talent (at any level) is much more intense. So MLS needs to consider the competition as opposed to simply sticking it to the union as much as possible.

[Super]

$2 penalty for every dollar overspend? I should think not.

Regardless, I don't want a single dime that I spend on this team to land in the pocket of the Crew or NYRB. Fuck that shit! That's just too Mickey Mouse for me. I want teams to be allowed to spend within their means - period. You put enough money back in the MLS coffers to keep the little teams alive, so you know they'll be around for us to kick around every season. Good fun!

Parity sucks ass and takes all the fun out of football. I'm still holding out hope that this league will outgrow its Mickey Mouse ears, though.

[Beach_Red]

Parity sucks ass and takes all the fun out of football. I'm still holding out hope that this league will outgrow its Mickey Mouse ears, though.




How is bllionaire foreign owners buying championships more fun than all teams on an even playing field and the one that puts together the best team winning?

If all the teams were community-owned by the fans - like some CFL teams and the Green Bay Packers - or if there was a way to regulate that just the money spent by the fans was being used on the teams that would be different, but as long as sports teams are used as tax write-offs and ego-stroking for owners I'd rather have parity.

[rocker]

Parity sucks ass and takes all the fun out of football. I'm still holding out hope that this league will outgrow its Mickey Mouse ears, though.

why does parity suck and take the fun out of football? Is it fun to lose to the wealthier teams all the time?

Would you rather know your team has no chance at a championship before the season starts?

Parity scares people because it's unpredictable. But unpredictability is the foundation of good competition. It means teams are relatively equal and can't depend upon their piles of money to win games. It means teams must battle it out every game rather than send out the B-squad against much weaker (and cheaper) opposition.

Parity is great.

I think people are confusing parity with talent level. Champions League quarterfinals in Europe are a great example of parity -- many close teams with relative similar budgets (almost like a cap situation). But it's exciting because the quality is very high. IN MLS, the quality is lower so there's more mistakes to be made. But the parity exists just like Champions league quarters.

That rumoured Europe league where the big teams in each major country would leave their domestic leagues and play each other, is an example of people wishing they had more competition in their domestic leagues. It's a desire for parity for better competition that they aren't getting domestically due to money imbalance.

[BFin]

At least the Red Bulls could rename themselves the Yankees.

Horrible idea.

[Dust2]

At least the Red Bulls could rename themselves the Yankees.

Horrible idea.

So you rather MLS have a $2.5 mil strict salary cap + DP than

a $2.5 mil strict hard cap + DP + $2 penalty for $1 overspending?

[Macksam]

So you rather MLS have a $2.5 mil strict salary cap + DP than

a $2.5 mil strict hard cap + DP + $2 penalty for $1 overspending?
Your proposal of a "salary cap" is niether strict or hard. Saying it's hard is bad enough, but writing strict as well is just laughable. When you have the ability to overspend, it ceases to be a hard cap. In all honesty, it ceases to be a salary cap period. The system you are proposing would be nothing more than a luxury tax. It wouldn't even meet the requirements of a soft cap.


Parity sucks ass and takes all the fun out of football. I'm still holding out hope that this league will outgrow its Mickey Mouse ears, though.
The premiership sucks ass when you only have 3 teams realistically competing for the title every single year.

[Dust2]

Your proposal of a "salary cap" is niether strict or hard. Saying it's hard is bad enough, but writing strict as well is just laughable. When you have the ability to overspend, it ceases to be a hard cap. In all honesty, it ceases to be a salary cap period. The system you are proposing would be nothing more than a luxury tax. It wouldn't even meet the requirements of a soft cap.

The premiership sucks ass when you only have 3 teams realistically competing for the title every single year.

Okay then........It's a strict luxury tax with the threshold at $2.5 mil. Any teams over this $2.5 mil will pay $2 penalty for $1 overspending. Any teams under the $2.5 mil threshold will receive luxury tax revenue.

p.s. CFL have a $4.05 mil hard cap with a $3 penalty for $1 overspending. Does that mean the CFL does not have a hard salary cap?

p.s 2. You really think that having 2-3 teams with $3 mil cap while the rest with $2.5 mil cap will turn MLS into EPL where only 3 teams have a shot at titles? Especially when MLS have playoffs and the salary disparity is 3 to 2.5. The salary disparity in EPL is much much greater.

[Super]

The premiership sucks ass when you only have 3 teams realistically competing for the title every single year.

Really? The Premiership sucks ass? The most followed, most popular league in the entire world of football? Surely you're kidding! And just for the record - every other league in the world is no different than the Premiership in the sense that money rules. No different. Sure, I guess I can't speak for the Albanian or Egyptian leagues, but then who is watching?

As far as rich owners go, sure, they can take a lot of the fun out of the game - but also add to it. Chelsea is a great example. People love it when they lose - and that adds drama. Parity=no drama. But yes, I'd rather see clubs get rich on fan support and use that money to strengthen their teams. Why should teams with zero support (and therefore less money) have equal opportunity of success as teams with tons of support (and therefore more money)? That makes no sense in the world to me. None whatsoever. It's not good for anyone - the league, the sports, the fans, the clubs.

I like the idea of big clubs. I'd rather have 4 big clubs, 8 medium and 5 small, than 17 mediocre teams of equal strength - as is the case with the MLS. It makes for more fun matches. Big clubs NEED to beat the small teams every time, but sometimes they don't - and that creates upsets. Medium teams sometimes create surprises and force their way past the big clubs. This is fun. As it is now, and let's be honest, most people don't care about results or matches in the MLS because there are no big games. We don't have our version of Man Utd, Chelsea, Arsenal. We just don't. And yet every league out there does - and they are the face of their league - and the ones that bring in the best players, create the most publicity, etc. Parity kills that completely. There are no upsets because every team is pretty much the same. I for one am holding out hope that one day the MLS will grow up and become truly competitive - and that includes financial advantages when available.


Parity scares people because it's unpredictable. But unpredictability is the foundation of good competition. It means teams are relatively equal and can't depend upon their piles of money to win games. It means teams must battle it out every game rather than send out the B-squad against much weaker (and cheaper) opposition.

Again, I understand your reasoning - I just don't agree with it. Parity makes for terribly boring football. Talk to any football fan overseas and they just shake their heads. Much like they've always done when it comes to football in North America, because for one reason or another we have to always come up with some wierd rule or thing that makes the game different than anywhere else in the world - and in this makes the end product far worse.

In the case of parity it really seems like some people feel that we've got it right, and every other league in the world has it wrong. Again, the above is my personal opinion. I understand some people like parity. That's fine. I just hate it. It's Mickey Mouse to me. And I'm holding out hope that someday my dollars will help to give TFC an edge - rather than ending up in MLSE's pockets (or shipped off to help Kansas keep up).

[Pookie]

hey, hey... we're back on this subject.

The Premiership model looks great to a lot of people but ask Leeds fans how they feel about finances factoring into their move out of the top league.

Ask Man U fans what it will feel like to have to sell off Rooney to pay interest on a debt. And that's just a one time sale, the debt will still be there... refinanced with bonds perhaps but one call from a major creditor (as happened with Leeds) and the who scheme is sunk.

But for an owner with deep pockets, Chelsea isn't far behind.

Anyways, back to the original question:

Teams that do well in attracting fans, sponsors, selling merchandise should be rewarded.

Dust2, then proposes that they be allowed to spend more.

I don't think you know your market.

Teams that do well in attracting fans, sponsors and selling merchandise should be rewarded. And they are.

They get to keep the bulk of their profits. Which is what a business and investment group is set up to do.

This league isn't a volunteer set up. Don't pretend that it would exist without people putting money into it. While it is a passion for us, it is an investment for them and without the potential of profit there would be no investment, no league and no opportunity for us to cheer anyone on.

[Beach_Red]

I like the idea of big clubs. I'd rather have 4 big clubs, 8 medium and 5 small, than 17 mediocre teams of equal strength - as is the case with the MLS. It makes for more fun matches. Big clubs NEED to beat the small teams every time, but sometimes they don't - and that creates upsets. Medium teams sometimes create surprises and force their way past the big clubs. This is fun. As it is now, and let's be honest, most people don't care about results or matches in the MLS because there are no big games.




But there can be teams that win much more often than others without having a huge imbalance in operating capital. Big teams emerge - just look at the NFL where the Lions are a "small" team and the Steelers are a "big" team. But it's not because one has a richer owner, it's because one puts together better football management and a better football team. They don't simply buy their success.

Right now people don't care about who wins games in MLS because people don't care about MLS.

Something will likely have to come along to help propel the league (and the sport) into the mainstream in America. The AFL-NFL rivalry before the merger really helped with football, the rise of March Madness pushed basketball into the mainstream and something will have to happen with soccer.

It will probably have to be the US going deep into the World Cup, so we may have to wait a while longer.

[Macksam]

Really? The Premiership sucks ass? The most followed, most popular league in the entire world of football? Surely you're kidding! And just for the record - every other league in the world is no different than the Premiership in the sense that money rules. No different. Sure, I guess I can't speak for the Albanian or Egyptian leagues, but then who is watching?

People outside of England only follow the top three or four teams. There is no such thing as the most popular league when it comes to soccer. There are only popular clubs.

Also, when I said the prem sucks ass, I mean't in the area of competitiveness.

Sorry, but the NHL has it right. They have a good system where every team can compete, but a team, if managed right, can still be dominant for a few years or so. If we had the premiership model here for the MLS, all the teams that wouldn't be abe to compete year in and year out would fold. People in North America don't cheer for a team if they know they don't have chance of winning a championship ever.



But there can be teams that win much more often than others without having a huge imbalance in operating capital. Big teams emerge - just look at the NFL where the Lions are a "small" team and the Steelers are a "big" team. But it's not because one has a richer owner, it's because one puts together better football management and a better football team. They don't simply buy their success.

QFT. Learn something from him Super.

[Macksam]

Okay then........It's a strict luxury tax with the threshold at $2.5 mil. Any teams over this $2.5 mil will pay $2 penalty for $1 overspending. Any teams under the $2.5 mil threshold will receive luxury tax revenue.

p.s. CFL have a $4.05 mil hard cap with a $3 penalty for $1 overspending. Does that mean the CFL does not have a hard salary cap?

p.s 2. You really think that having 2-3 teams with $3 mil cap while the rest with $2.5 mil cap will turn MLS into EPL where only 3 teams have a shot at titles? Especially when MLS have playoffs and the salary disparity is 3 to 2.5. The salary disparity in EPL is much much greater.
No they do not. All they truly have is a luxury tax.

[Super]

People outside of England only follow the top three or four teams. There is no such thing as the most popular league when it comes to soccer. There are only popular clubs.

Also, when I said the prem sucks ass, I mean't in the area of competitiveness.

Sorry, but the NHL has it right. They have a good system where every team can compete, but a team, if managed right, can still be dominant for a few years or so. If we had the premiership model here for the MLS, all the teams that wouldn't be abe to compete year in and year out would fold. People in North America don't cheer for a team if they know they don't have chance of winning a championship ever.

QFT. Learn something from him Super.

Learn what? That the MLS and NHL is a better structured league than any other in the entire world? All the hundreds and hundreds of leagues out there - all of them have it wrong, and we have it right. I think we have a lot to learn from these other leagues - take note. Also, you're looking at this as an either or situation. Either a) we have a salary cap and all teams are equal, or b) we have billionairs building teams and winning everything. That's really only the case in a few clubs around the world. 99% of the other clubs are run with money earned from operating the club itself. Don't want rich dudes playing God in the MLS? Fine - set a rule that a club can't spend more than it earns. Problem solved!

What I want is the ability to spend more because we as a club earn more. I want my dollars to go towards better players for TFC - period.

And again, we can agree to disagree, but to me parity produces a shit product - and that will forever be my opinion. I don't want management to be the deciding factor if a club wins or not. I want it to be A factor. Then I want support to be a factor (translates into dollars that can be spent on players). Seriously, imagine if Fulham, a team supported by maybe 20,000, had as much of a chance to win the league as Man Utd, a team supported by millions. I guess to you PEI should have as much to say overall in political terms as Ontario.

[rocker]

Seriously, imagine if Fulham, a team supported by maybe 20,000, had as much of a chance to win the league as Man Utd, a team supported by millions. I guess to you PEI should have as much to say overall in political terms as Ontario.

So what? Are those millions more deserving people than those 20000? no.

And why did those millions choose to support Man U? Because Man U spent more money on players and created a culture of success because it can spend more money than other teams.

Man U is not an island by itself. It plays within a league of other teams. It needs other teams to fail for it to be successful. and it ensures success by spending more than other teams. I don't feel this is something honourable or something to be praised. It's too easy -- if the money is there.

I thought this "club" thing in England meant more than spending more many than other teams. I thought it was about good scouting, developing young players, working hard on the field etc. Whether or not the fans' revenue is more than other teams shouldn't matter.

i personally don't believe because TFC has more fans paying more for tickets than KC, that we should have a natural, inherent advantage in buying players than KC does. We have a much bigger population to draw fans from, which gives Toronto an inherent advantage that had nothing to do with the nature of support.

Equality of opportunity, for all fans regardless of their ability to pay, should be paramount. Survival of the biggest bank account should not. This is just like my opinions of real life.....

[Super]

I thought this "club" thing in England meant more than spending more many than other teams. I thought it was about good scouting, developing young players, working hard on the field etc. Whether or not the fans' revenue is more than other teams shouldn't matter.

Man Utd. actually became a superclub based on smart decisions - bringing in the right players at the right time - developing young players like Beckham, Giggs, etc. at the same time. However, without the money that the success brought with it they wouldn't have been able to continue down the path of success.

Anyway, no need to re-hash my opinion on what makes for an interesting league. For now the MLS is run on parity, so you're happy. I can only hope that this will change at one point in the future - but regardless of either system I'm sure we'll both be supporting our team all the way.

[Macksam]

Learn what? That the MLS and NHL is a better structured league than any other in the entire world? All the hundreds and hundreds of leagues out there - all of them have it wrong, and we have it right. I think we have a lot to learn from these other leagues - take note. Also, you're looking at this as an either or situation. Either a) we have a salary cap and all teams are equal, or b) we have billionairs building teams and winning everything. That's really only the case in a few clubs around the world. 99% of the other clubs are run with money earned from operating the club itself. Don't want rich dudes playing God in the MLS? Fine - set a rule that a club can't spend more than it earns. Problem solved!

What I want is the ability to spend more because we as a club earn more. I want my dollars to go towards better players for TFC - period.

And again, we can agree to disagree, but to me parity produces a shit product - and that will forever be my opinion. I don't want management to be the deciding factor if a club wins or not. I want it to be A factor. Then I want support to be a factor (translates into dollars that can be spent on players). Seriously, imagine if Fulham, a team supported by maybe 20,000, had as much of a chance to win the league as Man Utd, a team supported by millions. I guess to you PEI should have as much to say overall in political terms as Ontario.
The on ice product for the NHL has been the best ever and a lot of that has to do with the new parity the league has created. The 2008-2009 playoffs were considered by many the best since 1994. Clearly, parity produced a better product for the NHL. It has also worked for the NFL.

As for the part I bolded, that could work, but the Prem is not like that at all. Man United are 700 million in debt.

[Super]

The on ice product for the NHL has been the best ever and a lot of that has to do with the new parity the league has created. The 2008-2009 playoffs were considered by many the best since 1994. Clearly, parity produced a better product for the NHL. It has also worked for the NFL.

As for the part I bolded, that could work, but the Prem is not like that at all. Man United are 700 million in debt.

NFL, NHL - I don't follow either and don't know anything about how their leagues are run. The reason why the NHL is the best in the world is because of one thing, and one thing only = money. All I know is that Nashville is kicking Toronto's ass in the table. Nashville? I'm sorry, that's just a big facepalm to me. But again, I don't follow hockey, and never did (I'm European).

Man United are 700 million in debt because of poor management/ownership, period. Look at Arsenal instead.

Also, if parity ruled all the leagues, you would have no Real Madrid, Barcelona, Man Utd, Bayern Munich, AC Milan, Juventus, Inter, etc. as we know them. In fact, we'd never see the greatest players put together - because they would be spread out on all the teams.

[Pookie]

Man United are 700 million in debt because of poor management/ownership, period. Look at Arsenal instead.


Yeah, they are just $262M in debt according to their latest annual report. That's how you run a business ... sheesh.

Is there anything wrong with the idea that clubs benefit from having other healthy clubs to play against?

Think of other sports like golf or tennis. Though individual in nature, the matches become more intriguing if you have 2 guys of equal ability playing against each other.

In soccer terms, the health of the league is good for the health of the team... unless you fancy a 3 team table.



I want it to be A factor. Then I want support to be a factor (translates into dollars that can be spent on players). Seriously, imagine if Fulham, a team supported by maybe 20,000, had as much of a chance to win the league as Man Utd, a team supported by millions. I guess to you PEI should have as much to say overall in political terms as Ontario.

This argument is a little insulting.

Why does Fulham have only 20,000 supporters (alleged)? Could it be because many look at the team and figure that they have no chance so they don't drop their wages on season tickets?

It's funny. Some of the best football I've watched this year involved teams with talent taking on the big guys. Leeds' run in the FA Cup is sweet. Burnley taking it to Man U earlier this year.

For the effort those guys gave, I think they should have as much chance to win as anyone.

The other issue you bring in is using supporters dollars to finance the team. If Man U did only that, they wouldn't have the team they have. They take in less than they spend. Not just Man U but the big "supported" clubs too (Arsenal, Liverpool, Chelsea).

Their Billion dollar debt is a function of schemes and financial mismanagement. Much like US citizens buying $800k mortgages with no money down, they are living beyond their means.

If you truly believe that support should equal the dollars spent on a club, you will support the massive purging of Man U's roster to bring it in line with its real income.

I follow Chelsea. But I'm not deluded into think that me buying an away kit is the reason that they have the payroll they have. It has a ton to do with the Russian owner, Abramovich and the billions he has in his pocket. It's not a function of support. It's a function of who the owner is and given his reported ability to skirt the law related to financial matters, this may or may not be a lasting scenario.

[Beach_Red]

Don't want rich dudes playing God in the MLS? Fine - set a rule that a club can't spend more than it earns. Problem solved!




If that was possible, 'd love to see it. The problem with money at that level is we can never know how much a team actually makes and how much it actually spends - unless its regulated. The way ownership greoups use some things for tax write-offs and run some businesses at a lot to be subsidized by others, etc., it's an accounting nightmare to try and figure out.

So, the only effective way to do it is a salary cap.

I wish there was another way, as you suggest, but the world doesn't wok like that, there are no easy way have the "problem solved!"

[Super]

Yeah, they are just $262M in debt according to their latest annual report. That's how you run a business ... sheesh.

Is there anything wrong with the idea that clubs benefit from having other healthy clubs to play against?

Think of other sports like golf or tennis. Though individual in nature, the matches become more intriguing if you have 2 guys of equal ability playing against each other.

In soccer terms, the health of the league is good for the health of the team... unless you fancy a 3 team table.



This argument is a little insulting.

Why does Fulham have only 20,000 supporters (alleged)? Could it be because many look at the team and figure that they have no chance so they don't drop their wages on season tickets?

It's funny. Some of the best football I've watched this year involved teams with talent taking on the big guys. Leeds' run in the FA Cup is sweet. Burnley taking it to Man U earlier this year.

For the effort those guys gave, I think they should have as much chance to win as anyone.

The other issue you bring in is using supporters dollars to finance the team. If Man U did only that, they wouldn't have the team they have. They take in less than they spend. Not just Man U but the big "supported" clubs too (Arsenal, Liverpool, Chelsea).

Their Billion dollar debt is a function of schemes and financial mismanagement. Much like US citizens buying $800k mortgages with no money down, they are living beyond their means.

If you truly believe that support should equal the dollars spent on a club, you will support the massive purging of Man U's roster to bring it in line with its real income.

I follow Chelsea. But I'm not deluded into think that me buying an away kit is the reason that they have the payroll they have. It has a ton to do with the Russian owner, Abramovich and the billions he has in his pocket. It's not a function of support. It's a function of who the owner is and given his reported ability to skirt the law related to financial matters, this may or may not be a lasting scenario.

You're for parity, and yet you support Chelsea? That's illogical to me. Or maybe it's evidence to me, and you, that money does produce much better football than parity.

I think we're talking past each other on this issue. I am not for unlimited spending. I never said that I was. I am entirely for spending within means - so please let's not use Man Utd. as an example of why we should have parity in the MLS. Spend within your means - take the money provided to you by sponsors and supporters and spend this on players. That's all I'm saying. Why should my cash end up in the pockets of the MLS, Kansas City, or MLSE? I want them used by TFC. NO ONE will go bankrupt under a system like this - and yet you'd still have some clubs that would be able to bring in much better players, and be flagships for a league that quite frankly has none.

Also, you're kinda proving my point that money does provide a much better product on the field - why else would you support Chelsea (unless of course you've followed them pre-Abramovich)? I for one wouldn't support a team that is artificially held together by one man with a hell of a lot of cash. That's why I like Arsenal (although I am not a supporter). It's properly run and is quite frankly a showcase on how a sportsclub should be in this day and age.

Fulham may have 500,000 supporters - who knows. Not the point. It would have more supporters (and therefore cash) if they had better results in the past 100 years - period. They haven't - so they don't. Other clubs are from smaller towns, and just don't have the population to make them as big as, let's say, Barcelona. And why should they get a share of the spoils produced by fans of other teams that have done better - and have far greater numbers in supporters? I think not. That's called stealing to me!

[Super]

If that was possible, 'd love to see it. The problem with money at that level is we can never know how much a team actually makes and how much it actually spends - unless its regulated. The way ownership greoups use some things for tax write-offs and run some businesses at a lot to be subsidized by others, etc., it's an accounting nightmare to try and figure out.

So, the only effective way to do it is a salary cap.

I wish there was another way, as you suggest, but the world doesn't wok like that, there are no easy way have the "problem solved!"

I disagree. This whole thread is making it sound like every club in Europe is folding left, right and center, and unless they adopt the ultimate system that is used ONLY by the MLS they'll all go straight to hell. Not likely. Salary cap is not the only way forward. It's the careful way to run a business. But it's also a way to keep our league from growing in quality. That's my problem. We can only spend 2.5 million bucks a year on players. That's 1/10th of TFC's annual revenue.

It's time for the MLS to grow! As a TFC supporter I want our club to be the best that it can be - and we have the potential. Some of you guys obviously don't want that to happen - because it might hurt Columbus' feelings. Win or lose they still can't pack their house, by the way.

[Beach_Red]

I think we're talking past each other on this issue. I am not for unlimited spending. I never said that I was. I am entirely for spending within means - so please let's not use Man Utd. as an example of why we should have parity in the MLS. Spend within your means - take the money provided to you by sponsors and supporters and spend this on players. That's all I'm saying. Why should my cash end up in the pockets of the MLS, Kansas City, or MLSE? I want them used by TFC. NO ONE will go bankrupt under a system like this - and yet you'd still have some clubs that would be able to bring in much better players, and be flagships for a league that quite frankly has none.



It's really apples and oranges here, yes. Is anyone talking about parity of results? I don't think so. What people are talking about - I hope - is the stage the MLS has to go through to get to the next level.

If only 3-4 teams in MLS can make a profit right now (it's an estimate, but realistic, I think) then there can be no league, it's just too few teams. So, if we want a soccer league in North America then at the moment some teams will have to be subsidized - and others will be held back a little. If we want a league.

If the league manages properly (still a big if) then it'll be able to increase salaries and some teams will emerge as dominant ones. Hopefully those dominant teams won't be permanently dominating.

Really, look at the rules of hockey leagues in Europe, that's a closer example to what MLS is doing - restricting the number of foreign players and so on.

[Super]

It's really apples and oranges here, yes. Is anyone talking about parity of results? I don't think so. What people are talking about - I hope - is the stage the MLS has to go through to get to the next level.

If only 3-4 teams in MLS can make a profit right now (it's an estimate, but realistic, I think) then there can be no league, it's just too few teams. So, if we want a soccer league in North America then at the moment some teams will have to be subsidized - and others will be held back a little. If we want a league.

If the league manages properly (still a big if) then it'll be able to increase salaries and some teams will emerge as dominant ones. Hopefully those dominant teams won't be permanently dominating.

Really, look at the rules of hockey leagues in Europe, that's a closer example to what MLS is doing - restricting the number of foreign players and so on.

Yes, that would be great - 3-4 teams that would dominate. Hopefully TFC can be one of them. I totally want that. 3-4 teams dominating, 10 in the middle that once in a while dominate, and 3 teams (hopefully Columbus is one of them) at the bottom getting their asses kicked week in, week out.

That's what I want! Put in place a minimum budget - everybody pays into that, and the money is distributed evenly amongst all the teams. That way Columbus can have 2.5 million guaranteed for players. And we can use $10 mil if we want. Then we'd finally have joined the world community of football and stopped this silliness of running our league like it's basketball or hockey. Finally, finally, we'd have a league worth watching - and one the world might even watch, bringing in extra cash.

The MLS is still a very young league, so obviously I understand that it takes time to grow up. I just feel that we're getting close to the stage where we can be a proper league - and I think with TFC, NYRB, Seattle and LA (and maybe one more) we can actually have big teams. Time to grow up!

And I'll look at Euro hockey when I'm done my taxes ;)

[Beach_Red]

I disagree. This whole thread is making it sound like every club in Europe is folding left, right and center, and unless they adopt the ultimate system that is used ONLY by the MLS they'll all go straight to hell. Not likely. Salary cap is not the only way forward. It's the careful way to run a business. But it's also a way to keep our league from growing in quality. That's my problem. We can only spend 2.5 million bucks a year on players. That's 1/10th of TFC's annual revenue.

It's time for the MLS to grow! As a TFC supporter I want our club to be the best that it can be - and we have the potential. Some of you guys obviously don't want that to happen - because it might hurt Columbus' feelings. Win or lose they still can't pack their house, by the way.

Yes, it's true, there will always be big soccer teams in Europe. Someday there may even be a few North American teams on the same level - there's a lot of money in North America, a lot of TV revenue, anything can happen.

And maybe you're right, maybe MLS is solid enough to loosen some of the restraints, maybe this time will be the soccer league that breaks through to the mainstream. We can't get a look at the real accounting books so we really have no idea.

Anyway, I've seen soccer leagues and a few American football leagues and the WHA and basketball leagues and lots of teams fold so I understand the caution. I had season tickets to the Hamilton SkyHawks of the World Basketball League, I grew up an Expos fan and I don't want TFC and MLS to go the same way.

Still, it could be a very fun ride, watching American soccer teams get into huge bidding wars for players and maybe playing some great soccer while they can.

[Beach_Red]

Yes, that would be great - 3-4 teams that would dominate. Hopefully TFC can be one of them. I totally want that. 3-4 teams dominating, 10 in the middle that once in a while dominate, and 3 teams (hopefully Columbus is one of them) at the bottom getting their asses kicked week in, week out.

That's what I want! Put in place a minimum budget - everybody pays into that, and the money is distributed evenly amongst all the teams. That way Columbus can have 2.5 million guaranteed for players. And we can use $10 mil if we want. Then we'd finally have joined the world community of football and stopped this silliness of running our league like it's basketball or hockey. Finally, finally, we'd have a league worth watching - and one the world might even watch, bringing in extra cash.

The MLS is still a very young league, so obviously I understand that it takes time to grow up. I just feel that we're getting close to the stage where we can be a proper league - and I think with TFC, NYRB, Seattle and LA (and maybe one more) we can actually have big teams. Time to grow up!

And I'll look at Euro hockey when I'm done my taxes ;)

Yes, I think you're right, with TFC, NYRB in their new stadium, Seattle, LA, maybe Philadelphia it is time for the league to move to the next level. The league really needs 5-6 proper stadiums sold out for every game and it's very close to that.

I'm very disappointed that in the current CBA negotiations there is really no talk of an increased salary cap. I understand that the players have to be more worried about things like guaranteed contracts and getting the lowest paid players more money, but really, a one million dollar increase in the cap would do wonders.

MLS should probably be just as worried about being too cautious as they are about not being cautious enough.

[Super]

Yes, I think you're right, with TFC, NYRB in their new stadium, Seattle, LA, maybe Philadelphia it is time for the league to move to the next level. The league really needs 5-6 proper stadiums sold out for every game and it's very close to that.

I'm very disappointed that in the current CBA negotiations there is really no talk of an increased salary cap. I understand that the players have to be more worried about things like guaranteed contracts and getting the lowest paid players more money, but really, a one million dollar increase in the cap would do wonders.

MLS should probably be just as worried about being too cautious as they are about not being cautious enough.

I am disappointed about that, too. For now, though, rest assured that millions of our hard-earned dollars do not go towards a better team, but instead go right in the pocket of MLSE - and the rest are sent to MLS to be shared by those league teams with no support. That is the result of parity and salary cap! Now imagine no parity and the salary cap is lifted to match the size of an individual clubs budget - and maybe we'd have 4 times the amount to spend. Imagine what players we could have. How big of a squad we could have. Imagine how we'd do in the CONCACAF. Why anyone would want a weaker TFC is beyond me. Columbus is not going to fold because we're stronger. They'll lose more, sure, but even winning the league they couldn't sell out. Soccer moms will still go. No worries there.

This league needs culture. Culture comes with individuality - and not 17 teams that are exactly the same with roll of the dice random results.

[Beach_Red]

I am disappointed about that, too. For now, though, rest assured that millions of our hard-earned dollars do not go towards a better team, but instead go right in the pocket of MLSE - and the rest are sent to MLS to be shared by those league teams with no support. That is the result of parity and salary cap! Now imagine no parity and the salary cap is lifted to match the size of an individual clubs budget - and maybe we'd have 4 times the amount to spend. Imagine what players we could have. How big of a squad we could have. Imagine how we'd do in the CONCACAF. Why anyone would want a weaker TFC is beyond me. Columbus is not going to fold because we're stronger. They'll lose more, sure, but even winning the league they couldn't sell out. Soccer moms will still go. No worries there.

This league needs culture. Culture comes with individuality - and not 17 teams that are exactly the same with roll of the dice random results.

Right now I am okay with the way the league is structured - as long as I feel it is an investment that will get us to the point that there is some culture.

I'm still not convinced that soccer can make it in America. Until there are players in the US who can decide between basketball or football and soccer and they chose soccer it won't have made it much past soccer moms signing up their kids.

I remember when both football and basketball passed (or at least equalled) baseball. What you migh say developed their own culture or became a part of the culture (I like that reference, by the way, and I think it's very important).

When I was a kid it was unheard of for an American who had a shot at pro baseball choosing football or basketball instead (in Canada we could say hockey instead of baseball) but now it happens all the time. I don't think it's happened yet for soccer.

[Macksam]

That's why I like Arsenal (although I am not a supporter). It's properly run and is quite frankly a showcase on how a sportsclub should be in this day and age.

Arsenal hardly has any English players. The club has no identity anymore.

[Super]

Arsenal hardly has any English players. The club has no identity anymore.

I don't think a clubs identity is determined based on the origin of its players. To me identity is history and support.

[Beach_Red]

I don't think a clubs identity is determined based on the origin of its players. To me identity is history and support.

Yes, you're right, but what do teams with no history do?

America has been pretty isolated, team sports-wise, and for new teams to become a part of the culture (told you I liked that) it may be important for them to have home grown players.

Baseball and basketball now have a lot of international players but those sports established themselves in the US market with American players.

[Dust2]

NHL

2009-2010 Salary cap

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

http://content.usatoday.com/sports/h...s/default.aspx (http://content.usatoday.com/sports/hockey/nhl/salaries/default.aspx)

Team (2007-08) Total Payroll ($) (2007-08)

Colorado Avalanche 61,290,750
New York Rangers 56,705,000
Philadelphia Flyers 56,973,200
Anaheim Ducks 50,769,200
Calgary Flames 50,934,900
Dallas Stars 49,420,000
Boston Bruins 49,501,600
.
.

Buffalo Sabres 45,954,400
Carolina Hurricanes 49,948,600
Detroit Red Wings 44,633,000
Edmonton Oilers 46,915,659
Florida Panthers 39,749,200
Los Angeles Kings 40,502,000
Minnesota Wild 46,183,000
Montreal Canadiens 42,313,500
New Jersey Devils 47,622,511
New York Islanders 39,007,720
Ottawa Senators 49,997,370
Pittsburgh Penguins 41,384,200
San Jose Sharks 41,454,800
St. Louis Blues 39,047,833
Tampa Bay Lightning 38,954,167
Toronto Maple Leafs 46,445,180
Vancouver Canucks 45,710,000
Washington Capitals 44,309,200
.
.
Atlanta Thrashers 36,580,000
Phoenix Coyotes 35,694,750
Chicago Blackhawks 34,800,540
Nashville Predators 30,273,340
Columbus Blue Jackets 28,010,000

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













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

-- The Upper Limit: $56,800,000 = $3.2 mil
-- The Lower Limit: $40,800,000 = $2.3 mil

If MLS follow NHL hard cap, it will have a lower limit of $2.3 mil and an upper limit of $3.2 mil, giving the max spending teams a $900,000 cap advantage over the minimum spending teams.

[Beach_Red]

If MLS follow NHL hard cap, it will have a lower limit of $2.3 mil and an upper limit of $3.2 mil, giving the max spending teams a $900,000 cap advantage over the minimum spending teams.





I'm just curious, has MLS ever said anything about following this kind of hard cap approach?

[Pookie]

You're for parity, and yet you support Chelsea? That's illogical to me. Or maybe it's evidence to me, and you, that money does produce much better football than parity.

Oh, I never said I was for parity per se.

I am for a system in which the health of the league is protected against individual interests but that doesn't mean that teams that use their resources well won't go on to dominate a table.

I'd highly recommend reading the book "United We Fall" by Peter Ridsdale, former Chairman at Leeds. It provides direct (and troubling) insight into the financial circumstances that surround English teams. He wrote that without radical change, it is impossible to expect that the 90+ teams in England will survive.

That's the danger. You can have a team of superstars but who are they going to play?

Curious to know what you think of the quality in play in Leeds knocking out Man U and their effort against Spurs this weekend. While payroll is a major factor in success on the pitch, the team management, selection of players and tactics can produce quality football even at a reduced payroll.

It's funny.

We'd all agree that when a game starts that both teams agree to play by the same set rules. We want them to have the same number of players. Keepers can only use their hands in the box. Each team plays by the same offside rule, etc.

We do this because it is a competition and we want each team to have a fair chance to win. Otherwise, why bother?

Yet when it comes to building a team with money, there are no rules around that.

After awhile, people without the same amount of money may start asking, why bother?

[Super]

Curious to know what you think of the quality in play in Leeds knocking out Man U and their effort against Spurs this weekend. While payroll is a major factor in success on the pitch, the team management, selection of players and tactics can produce quality football even at a reduced payroll.

I was all over the moon when Leeds beat out Man Utd. I have nothing but sympathy for Leeds and what happened to them, and certainly we should all learn from that. To me the key factor here is that clubs should not be allowed to spend above their means. That's it. And yes, there's a lot of silly money being spent by rich guys, and certainly a lot of clubs spending well beyond their means - but that's the nature of the beast. Still, though, Leeds remains a rare example of a club that falls completely apart. It's not like it's something that happens often.

But Leeds aside, saying that clubs can spend within their means is not exactly going to destroy this league. The past problems in the US was always that they spent an incredible amount of money - well beyond their means - and expanded to markets where they had no business being. The MLS needs to stop at 20 - and then stop there. Set a hard minimum, make sure all teams indeed have the minimum, and then allow clubs to submit evidence to the league that they can afford XX amount above that. As long as you're making money then why not - the alternative is for MLSE to pocket ALL the money. And surely no TFC fan can be happy with that.

And just for the record: strong football markets (like Toronto and Seattle) NEED good results to keep their audience. Markets like Kansas and Dallas will continue to produce poor attendance regardless of results. Columbus averaged 14k the year they won the league, and then again 14k the following year. It was 13k the year before they won the league, so really, not a massive improvement. Markets like Toronto and Seattle would EXPLODE in a league-winning year. And that's really great stuff for the league - and it produces amazing media for all to see. Maybe even a parade down Yonge? I think this is why the more supporters you have, the greater your chances should be of success. That's how it works in football everywhere else - except in Newcastle ;)

[Beach_Red]

And just for the record: strong football markets (like Toronto and Seattle) NEED good results to keep their audience. Markets like Kansas and Dallas will continue to produce poor attendance regardless of results.




Are you really so sure that Toronto is a strong market? As you say, it needs good results to keep the audience - some would say that's the opposite of a strong market. Boston and Chicago are strong baseball markets going decades without a championship, Toronto is a strong hockey market, Dallas is a strong football market but it remains to be seen if there are any strong soccer markets in North America.

Let's hope some develop, but there's no guarantee that any will. Almost any city will support a winner, but that's a fad, it's different from being a strong market.

[Super]

Are you really so sure that Toronto is a strong market? As you say, it needs good results to keep the audience - some would say that's the opposite of a strong market. Boston and Chicago are strong baseball markets going decades without a championship, Toronto is a strong hockey market, Dallas is a strong football market but it remains to be seen if there are any strong soccer markets in North America.

Let's hope some develop, but there's no guarantee that any will. Almost any city will support a winner, but that's a fad, it's different from being a strong market.

Weak market is one that can't sell out even when winning the title = Columbus. Strong market is one that will sell out 3 years in a row even when stinking up the place = Toronto. Also, any team that is able to muster 2,500 supporters on the road has a pretty good base to draw support from. Were you serious? ;) Toronto has a fantastic football base! But the Lynx showed us that people here won't support just any crappy product (I rejected the Lynx myself, too).

However, without history and any real time to build proper loyalty, lacking results may ruin this base. I certainly know people here who would never go to watch TFC because they feel it's a crap product, and that the MLS is not a serious league. Instead they watch footy on TV. Seattle drawing over 30k per game is certainly a market with great potential. But if you suck year after year people will leave. If you continue with the Mickey Mouse parity rules, people will leave. It's just inevitable. When we lose, people will want to know why. When they find out that we can't get this player, or that player, even though we've got more cash than Mr Burns, people just get downright mad. "We can't sign another defender because Kansas can't sell out their stadium?" You get the picture.

With regards to the Leafs, they draw on years and years of history and tradition - so can't compare. Also it's hockey. Different sport. Different culture.

[Pookie]

Weak market is one that can't sell out even when winning the title = Columbus. Strong market is one that will sell out 3 years in a row even when stinking up the place = Toronto. Also, any team that is able to muster 2,500 supporters on the road has a pretty good base to draw support from.

But the issue in a "no holds barred" financial model is that Toronto could not compete with the big spenders.

Toronto has a disadvantage in that salaries are paid in US $ and revenue is captured in Canadian dollars. This becomes a big factor as salaries become a large portion of team revenue (ie. in the 50-60% range where the EPL is).

It's fine and dandy when the dollar is where it is right now.

But back a few years ago, the loonie was between .65 and 70 cents. At that time, hockey markets in Canada, such as Ottawa, Calgary and Edmonton were on the brink of disaster.

The exchange rate pushed Ottawa to the brink of bankruptcy and both Alberta teams were talking publicly about using lottery funds to keep their teams in Canada.

The Leafs did ok given their TV contracts and national following, but still spent about $14M less than the big US clubs in a world with no caps.

There is no reason to think that Toronto could continually be at the top of a free spending system. In the NBA, Toronto is at the bottom of the pack (26th) and that is in a league with a soft cap. They are miles behind the league leaders, about $39M behind LA but only draw about 1,000 fans less per game.

What makes anyone so sure that we'd be a big spender?

[Beach_Red]

If you continue with the Mickey Mouse parity rules, people will leave. It's just inevitable. When we lose, people will want to know why. When they find out that we can't get this player, or that player, even though we've got more cash than Mr Burns, people just get downright mad. "We can't sign another defender because Kansas can't sell out their stadium?" You get the picture.




Well, all the major sports in North America have some salary cap issues, so most fans understand that "cap management" is an important skill for a team to have. It's possible American fans appreciate good drafting and cap management more than the idea of simply offering the most money to the best players from last year.

As always (and as annoying as it can be) the NFL is the model for America, it's the most profitable for all its owners and its fans accept that their favourite team can't simply outspend all the others. The Lions have been a terrible team for years and they have one of the richest owners. Still, the fans blame the owner for not hiring better managers, not for spending too little.

But yes, you're right, it can go too far. The problem right now isn't that there is a salary cap, it's that it's too low. Every league in America is going to have a cap, we might as well get used to that, but it could be higher and the teams selling more tickets could be putting more pressure on the league to increase the cap.

Dust2 has a few good plans to open it up for some teams (MLSE has historically been in the middle of the pack, so I wouldn't expect them to make an exception for TFC) but I still think the first step is to to increase the cap.

[james]

i dont like it where in Europe a few top teams dominate the league every year and spend whatever they want, it gets borring. But i also hate it when you support a team and put lots of money into supporting them, but cant spend any more money then a team that has no fans and no money put into it. THeres gotta be some middle ground where if a team is well supported then they can spend a bit more money then teams that arent being supported.

[Super]

But the issue in a "no holds barred" financial model is that Toronto could not compete with the big spenders.

Maybe we can - maybe we can't. Either way, I'm not now, nor will I ever be a supporter of a model that would make all teams equal. I like variety in everything, and certainly in my football. To each their own, I guess. There is no right or wrong in this issue - it's just about personal preference.


i dont like it where in Europe a few top teams dominate the league every year and spend whatever they want, it gets borring. But i also hate it when you support a team and put lots of money into supporting them, but cant spend any more money then a team that has no fans and no money put into it. THeres gotta be some middle ground where if a team is well supported then they can spend a bit more money then teams that arent being supported.

Bingo! That's all I'm asking! For my dollar to make a difference to my team, and my team only!

[Dust2]

From GoalSeattle:


The waiting list has been processed, and we are hearing that the Sounders full season ticket sales are now at 31,000.

Last year the club sold 22,000 and then cut off full sales in favor of half-season packs. If you count the 8,000 half-season packs sold last year and bundle them (4k) then the club has raised its full-season pre-sales from 26k (2009) to 31k (2010) with a few months to go before kickoff.

The Sounders are not offering 1/2 season packs in 2010. They have also raised capacity to 36k.The fans won't be too happy if they know in the years to come, the ownership will pocket $15-20 mil profits while putting out $2.5 mil playing product. If the league is smart and want Seattle to share some of those profits, allow Seattle and any other teams that can afford to spend, to spend over the cap. In return, they pay $2 penalty for $1 of overspending.

Paying $1.5 mil in return for $500,000 cap advantage might be a worthwhile investment for some MLS teams. It also bring extra money INTO the league. Right now, Seattle profits stay in the Sounders owners pockets.

[Pookie]

But i also hate it when you support a team and put lots of money into supporting them, but cant spend any more money then a team that has no fans and no money put into it. THeres gotta be some middle ground where if a team is well supported then they can spend a bit more money then teams that arent being supported.

You asked for a middle ground, it already exists.

Is building a team simply about the money you pay to players?

Teams with solid fan support DO have a competitive advantage over teams that aren't well supported.

Maybe you didn't notice the $5.5M investment into a quality, top notch pitch that is underway. We complained that our plastic was driving players away (ie. Huckerby). If that is true, we now have an advantage over teams that play on an artificial surface. That wouldn't have happened without fan support.

Teams can throw as much money as they want into coaching, scouting, academies, training facilities, management, luxury travel... whatever. All of which can contribute to a competitive advantage, either in acquiring a player or getting the most out the players you have.

The only thing that a salary cap does is protect the league from an ownership group that covers its inability to manage by firing money at players. Money becomes a band aid for mismanagement.

That action artificially inflates the market such that everyone suffers, including the fans through higher ticket prices and weakens the overall league and "product."

Let's not forget that the MLS already allows teams to go over a cap through allocation money and not counting all of a DP's salary against the cap. Combine that with the fact that there is no cap on the things that make a football better and you have that middle ground.

[Flint]

^Agreed, It would be a smart way to raise the cap with the less profitable teams being able to keep up.

[Auzzy]

Are you sure the extra revenue stays in the pockets of the Sounders' owners? I thought there's revenue sharing within the league, so that some of the revenue of the most successful teams is already spread around?

[Beach_Red]

From GoalSeattle:

The fans won't be too happy if they know in the years to come, the ownership will pocket $15-20 mil profits while putting out $2.5 mil playing product. If the league is smart and want Seattle to share some of those profits, allow Seattle and any other teams that can afford to spend, to spend over the cap. In return, they pay $2 penalty for $1 of overspending.

Paying $1.5 mil in return for $500,000 cap advantage might be a worthwhile investment for some MLS teams. It also bring extra money INTO the league. Right now, Seattle profits stay in the Sounders owners pockets.

It all depends how much the tickets cost. Americans love profit, hey, Seattle is home to Microsoft so a company making too much money from its product is nothing strange there.

If the fans feel the ticket price they pay is fair for the product they receive, then they'll be fine with it. If they think the team is making too much profit, they'll but shares in it.

Worrying about a private company making too much profit is too "socialistic" for Americans ;).

[Fort York Redcoat]

Successful stability of the league a la revenue sharing and penalizing over the cap spending is the goal for a league like this but at the same time rewarding the success of new franchises keeps the league looking like a great opportunity for expansion.

[Roogsy]

Good for Seattle. I hope them continued success. It would be nice to have several strong clubs in the league. Seattle is going to be a big part of this league's success, along with mainstays LA and of course TFC. Having them in this league has been one of the best moves MLS has taken.

But let's remember, there is no Seattle without TFC.

Incredible the similarities between the relationship of Seattle and Toronto when it comes to sports. Expansion teams in Baseball and MLS as well as what used to be similarities in Basketball (man did Seattle get screwed with the Sonics...SCREWED!)

[Whoop]

The luxury tax is working real well in baseball.

[TFCRegina]

The luxury tax is working real well in baseball.

It doesn't work because it's set too low. Look at the CFL Luxury tax, which is draconian by comparison to the MLB which starts at no luxury tax for 1 year of violation, 15% for two (or this was it before), 30% for the next 3 after that...and it rises slowly up to 45% to my best recollection.

CFL Luxury tax? 100% penalty if you're between 0 and 100k over. So you go 50k over? You pay another 50k. Over 100k? You lose a first round pick and pay 200% tax.

That's how you keep most of the teams, Argos and Riders excepted, from spending way too much. And the Riders only go over the cap because they rack up a 20% of their roster on the injury list each season.

[Oldtimer]

It's good news for everyone when Seattle sells so many tickets. If the whole league can become like Toronto, Seattle, and LA, we could have a much higher salary cap for everyone, without a need for luxury taxes and other such things.

[TFCRegina]

It's good news for everyone when Seattle sells so many tickets. If the whole league can become like Toronto, Seattle, and LA, we could have a much higher salary cap for everyone, without a need for luxury taxes and other such things.

Agreed. I think the new stadia in KC and New York will help stoke interest. And if the league can get the CBA sorted out this season, we'll have a great year for interest in the sport, especially if the US does well at the World Cup.

[Redcoe15]

I really wasn't a fan of Seattle getting a team at the beginning because of Qwest Field, an oversized stadium made originaly for the NFL Seahawks. And we all know where playing soccer in a huge pointyball stadium leads to.

But I was impressed with the way the fans of Seattle came out in droves to support the Sounders. And how management was able to make it a soccer friendly environment - such as removing the NFL lines for soccer matches. I never doubted Seattle as a soccer market. But they've exceeded expectations, IMO.

[prizby]

The fans won't be too happy if they know in the years to come, the ownership will pocket $15-20 mil profits while putting out $2.5 mil playing product. If the league is smart and want Seattle to share some of those profits, allow Seattle and any other teams that can afford to spend, to spend over the cap. In return, they pay $2 penalty for $1 of overspending.

Paying $1.5 mil in return for $500,000 cap advantage might be a worthwhile investment for some MLS teams. It also bring extra money INTO the league. Right now, Seattle profits stay in the Sounders owners pockets.

I believe they are 10-15 mil in the red actually (they paid 30 mil for an expansion fee right?)...so they haven't recovered that just yet

[Roogsy]

Franchise Fees should never be considered "in the red" or something that needs to be "recovered" and definitely does not fall in same category as revenue and net income. It is an asset, an investment plain and simple. We need to get that out of our minds.

In fact, the realization that the franchise fee has jumped from 10mill (when TFC got in) to 30 or 40mill now gives MLSE a tidy profit from an accounting point of view.

[TFCRegina]

I believe they are 10-15 mil in the red actually (they paid 30 mil for an expansion fee right?)...so they haven't recovered that just yet

It's a fixed cost, and fixed costs are zero over the long run as you average them. The more years they last, the less the initial investment matters. And they made a ridiculous rent last year on their sports team. If they can sustain it for five years, the team will be the most valuable in MLS.

As it stands, they're probably 2nd most valuable, LA still being first, and TFC being third.

[TFCRegina]

I really wasn't a fan of Seattle getting a team at the beginning because of Qwest Field, an oversized stadium made originaly for the NFL Seahawks. And we all know where playing soccer in a huge pointyball stadium leads to.

But I was impressed with the way the fans of Seattle came out in droves to support the Sounders. And how management was able to make it a soccer friendly environment - such as removing the NFL lines for soccer matches. I never doubted Seattle as a soccer market. But they've exceeded expectations, IMO.

Qwest was designed as a soccer stadium as well, though. It is soccer specific in the sense that the way it was built was to be modified to provide an excellent venue for watching soccer. The lines are even painted over.

I was high on Seattle initially, but I think their fans are a bunch of ignorant cockbags. I don't give them much respect. I'd say that if they were a little more aware that they aren't the first team to have a strong fanbase, I'd be a big fan of them once again.

[Detroit_TFC]

For US based entities the franchise fee is an intangible asset that would be amortized over 15 years. So for $40 mil entry fee, it would be expensed at approx $2.7 mil per year. It's probably the same for Canadians but I can't say for sure, I only know US tax rules.

[Roogsy]

For US based entities the franchise fee is an intangible asset that would be amortized over 15 years. So for $40 mil entry fee, it would be expensed at approx $2.7 mil per year. It's probably the same for Canadians but I can't say for sure, I only know US tax rules.

I am not an accountant but I deal with balance sheets all the time and I would assume the same or at least similar applies here.

[TFCRegina]

I think we do it over 10 years, but it's similar yes.

[Super]

Extremely impressive of Seattle to sell 31,000 season tickets. That's double what we've sold. Imagine that.

[Oldtimer]

I think we do it over 10 years, but it's similar yes.

It would be considered an "Eligible Capital Expenditure," the rules are summarized here:

http://www.taxtips.ca/smallbusiness/eligiblecapitalproperty.htm

[rocker]

From GoalSeattle:

The fans won't be too happy if they know in the years to come, the ownership will pocket $15-20 mil profits while putting out $2.5 mil playing product. .

a good portion of that ticket money goes straight back to the league, which can be used to raise the salary cap for all teams, thus Seattle fans will indeed see an increase in the quality of the product.

I don't think MLS has to change its rules to appease Seattle fans. They bought season's tickets without having much of an idea as to the quality. Nonetheless, their management gave them an exciting team and they seemed to be enjoying themselves. I don't see quality as an issue now or in the future. Seattle fans (and TFC fans) have bonded with the team as a community, not as a product. Teams used to think of ticket buyers simply as "customers"... Thankfully the new teams no longer do this. It's a community and that's more important. Now, some level of quality is required, but Seattle fans seem to enjoy paying good money for the current quality of soccer.

Any discussions of quality also must take into account what's "enough". What's "good enough" quality? Or do we just endlessly throw money towards quality like a bottomless pit? In other words, if quality becomes a problem for Seattle fans next year, what would be "good enough" for their dollars?

I personally think MLS has improved a bit in the three years I've been watching.

[Hitcho]

haven't you already done this thread under a different title:

http://redpatchboys.ca/forums/showthread.php?t=19751

the sounders sales news is interesting, but no need to then imemdiately divert the thread into one you;ve already done...

[Dirk Diggler]

Contrary to what is being said, there is a lot to be gained for the Sounders fans as well. If they prove that they can be a legitimate money maker for Qwest Field, the management has to seriously think about turfing the artificial turf and installing natural grass. I think that aspect was over looked last year because everyone was riding the high of their amazing atmosphere and what not but in a couple of years, they are most certainly going to face the constant criticisms from the players regarding how poor the field turf is. Certainly growing natural grass should not be a problem there.

[Canary Canuck]

Contrary to what is being said, there is a lot to be gained for the Sounders fans as well. If they prove that they can be a legitimate money maker for Qwest Field, the management has to seriously think about turfing the artificial turf and installing natural grass. I think that aspect was over looked last year because everyone was riding the high of their amazing atmosphere and what not but in a couple of years, they are most certainly going to face the constant criticisms from the players regarding how poor the field turf is. Certainly growing natural grass should not be a problem there.

Seattle fans have mentioned that the owners have been actively exploring the viability of the Desso Grassmaster system (http://www.dessosports.com/en/desso-grassmaster/what-is-desso-grassmaster/)for Qwest Field. The wet climate late in the year makes it a challenge.

[Hitcho]

^ if english teams can do it, then Seattle can!

[TFC07]

Extremely impressive of Seattle to sell 31,000 season tickets. That's double what we've sold. Imagine that.

Too bad we only got 20,000 seats. If BMO field expanded up to 40,000 seats...I think TFC will be able to sale 30,000+ season tickets.

[Hitcho]

^ only if you count a very large number of scalper seats and family/corporate seats that are quite often no shows. seattle may be in the same position (although i hope not). personally, i'd rather have a 20k stadium that genuinely sells out every game than a 40k stadium that sells out all the tickets and looks 2/3 full most of the time.

[Dust2]

Are you sure the extra revenue stays in the pockets of the Sounders' owners? I thought there's revenue sharing within the league, so that some of the revenue of the most successful teams is already spread around?

Revenue sharing in MLS: the league gets 30% of gate receipts of each club, 100% of national tv, 100% of national sponsorships, a part of shirt sponsorship.

The league pays for the player salaries.

[Canary Canuck]

^ if english teams can do it, then Seattle can!

English stadiums don't have to host NFL games with 300 pound linemen planting and pushing against one another.

[boban]

English stadiums don't have to host NFL games with 300 pound linemen planting and pushing against one another.
They have the NFL game in October, and a host of EPL stadiums are home to rugby teams as well.

[ExiledRed]

They have the NFL game in October, and a host of EPL stadiums are home to rugby teams as well.

Can you name a few?

[boban]

Specifically no, but its been mentioned quite often on this board.

[JDG]

haven't you already done this thread under a different title:

http://redpatchboys.ca/forums/showthread.php?t=19751

the sounders sales news is interesting, but no need to then imemdiately divert the thread into one you;ve already done...


I agree.

Merged!

[Super]

Can you name a few?

Wigan? That's the only one I can think of off hand.

[Detroit_TFC]

Interesting to see that the Denver Broncos have the Grassmaster turf at Invesco Field. Also the wiki article on NFL stadiums, if its accurate, shows that quite a few stadiums are using grass (or a grass/fiber mix).

[Dust2]

The luxury tax is working real well in baseball.

The luxury tax threshold for baseball is $160 mil.