PDA

View Full Version : Your view of MLS six years on



J .
01-22-2012, 03:39 AM
Heading into year six, what is your view of MLS? Has its quality of play improved since TFC arrived? Are you looking forward to the MLS season?

Shakes McQueen
01-22-2012, 04:09 AM
The quality of play has improved. It's place on the global stage is pretty much the same though.

The league itself is becoming less mickey mouse as time goes on, and that's a good thing.

- Scott

razor787
01-22-2012, 06:16 AM
I personally don't watch enough different leagues to know how

Furtado91
01-22-2012, 08:29 AM
I gave it a 3. Its good, but it can be improved. Im sure if they were to allow different kit sponsors and increase advertising they could increase their arsenal. I was on classic football shirts.uk last night and found some old mls jerseys and they had like Colorado having their jerseys made by Nike, and it wasn't too bad.

I want to see some different designs instead of the typical adidas template. Having more sponsors involved in their portfolio could protentially increase awareness and maybe even attractiveness of the league. Just my opinion of course.

Suds
01-22-2012, 09:03 AM
Are we just talking on-filed product? Then yes, the play has improved and there are more teams developing their style of play than ever before.

If we are we including growth of the league? Revenue? General interest? Growth on TV? Attraction for players as a league to play in? This might change how I would answer.

TFC07
01-22-2012, 09:15 AM
I gave it a 3. Its good, but it can be improved. Im sure if they were to allow different kit sponsors and increase advertising they could increase their arsenal. I was on classic football shirts.uk last night and found some old mls jerseys and they had like Colorado having their jerseys made by Nike, and it wasn't too bad.

I want to see some different designs instead of the typical adidas template. Having more sponsors involved in their portfolio could protentially increase awareness and maybe even attractiveness of the league. Just my opinion of course.

I don't understand why NA pro leagues don't let teams choose their own kit sponsors. I am sick of seeing adidas and their lack of effort design for a proper kit for TFC. I am sure if TFC got Nike/Umbro or Puma, our kits would look better. Adidas has been a joke so far for us and Canadian national teams.

prizby
01-22-2012, 09:24 AM
the mls to gain credibility needs to be more forthcoming with information...as a fan, i feel they bend the rules to help certain teams...the salary cap/allocation is huge...until the MLS comes public with more information, i will always believe that certain things are rigged in favour of certain teams

edit: the word i have been looking for is transparency

Suds
01-22-2012, 09:27 AM
I don't understand why NA pro leagues don't let teams choose their own kit sponsors. I am sick of seeing adidas and their lack of effort design for a proper kit for TFC. I am sure if TFC got Nike/Umbro or Puma, our kits would look better. Adidas has been a joke so far for us and Canadian national teams.

The MLS is a small growing league. They can negotiate a deal that can spread the benefit across all teams in the league. If teams went on their own you wuld basically have NYRB, LA, and a few other having $$ thrown at them and a bunch of other teams getting very little. The MLS is all about parity.

brad
01-22-2012, 09:50 AM
Improving for sure but still not that good. The two big issues IMHO right now are that teams still have to field 50k/year plumbers next to te good players which hurts the quality alot. Other issue that there isn't any quality on the bench which limits competition for spaces. This a big issue I don't often see mentioned.

Furtado91
01-22-2012, 10:02 AM
The MLS is a small growing league. They can negotiate a deal that can spread the benefit across all teams in the league. If teams went on their own you wuld basically have NYRB, LA, and a few other having $$ thrown at them and a bunch of other teams getting very little. The MLS is all about parity.

That is a very valid point and I agree with you. However no matter what we did LA will always get the better players, along with new york. Quite frankly considering Toronto is a major city, you would think we would have able to attract a star player or 2 from Europe ( not including Frings and Koevermans who are exceptional cases)

so while i see that they want to make it fair, lets be honest LA will always have more money and be more attractive (Sun and warm weather pretty much all year compared to Toronto), so I wouldn't think it would make that much of a difference at this point.

Unless they have or will implement a salary cap.

Heart of Stone
01-22-2012, 10:39 AM
I never would have gone out of my way to watch the Toronto Lynx. I do go out of my way to watch Toronto F.C. Like most Toronto sports fans I support all things Toronto as long as it is the top professional league (e.g., Jays, Raptors, Leafs).

Although MLS is not on the same level as MLB, NBA, and the NHL it is the best we have in North America.

Having TFC play at BMO Field right from the beginning was key... if they had started out in the Rogers Centre I wouldn't have gone...

Two things MLS did that I didn't like: 1) manipulating the Galaxatives schedule the year they got Beckham so that they would have more games once he arrived = Mickey Mouse. 2) Manipulating the Wizards schedule so that they would have more home games during the second half of last year's season so that more games would be in their new stadium = Mickey Mouse

For the next 10 - 15 years MLS should look to making sure that the top NCAA players play in MLS instead of going elsewhere...

boban
01-22-2012, 11:00 AM
I don't understand why NA pro leagues don't let teams choose their own kit sponsors. I am sick of seeing adidas and their lack of effort design for a proper kit for TFC. I am sure if TFC got Nike/Umbro or Puma, our kits would look better. Adidas has been a joke so far for us and Canadian national teams.
addidas has been a sponsor from very early on and provides financial support for the league, especially in its early days. Variety of kit design is one of the last things that is a pressing issue for this league.

As far MLS rating I would say about a 4. From nothing to getting established world class players considering playing here as a serious option is a massive step forward. The quality is mile ahead of what it was 5,7 or 10 years ago. Can't wait to see what's in store as far as quality in 5-7 years.
The pressing issue would be increasing the cap substantially.

prizby
01-22-2012, 11:00 AM
for the next 10-15 years, they should be focused on developing home grown academy kids and start getting away from the draft

Heart of Stone
01-22-2012, 11:10 AM
for the next 10-15 years, they should be focused on developing home grown academy kids and start getting away from the draft

Yes agree with that too. Less emphasis on scouring Europe for the dinner scraps (ie. Mista)...

Gallade
01-22-2012, 12:33 PM
Notably improved; 2007/2008 would do ok against 2011 in an all-star game, but if we just had a series of games between teams (every 2011 team faces three 2007s) 2011 would win a majority of the games, i think.

we're obviously nowhere close to competing with top leagues, but we have momentum and growth on our side. the league is going nowhere but up.
and, yes, the academy is crucial. i think the "few stars + cheap depth" model is here to stay for the next couple decades - it makes sense for a North American ticket-buying public - so good academies are essential to make sure those depth players are actually capable of contributing in league/CCL games. there's no rush to get 'better' DPs than players like Frings, that's what we need from 3 DPs per team - it's the other slots we can improve now and the academy is the best way.

glaze
01-22-2012, 12:57 PM
There are changes I'd prefer, but it is improving. The product is getting better, teams are moving into better stadiums. And the league looks like it has staying power. Which wasn't the case 6 years ago when MLSE decided to build a glorified temporary stadium for TFC.
It would be nice if more teams created away atmospheres like Seattle and Portland.
The league still has a long way to go, but overall its better off than it was 6 years ago.

As for TFC, I don't think there's been much of a change. The grass in the stadium is nice, and hopefully this CCL run is a sign of having a team that could contend.
But the team probably is below the Argos in the minds of the casual sports fan in Toronto. Aside from 1 or 2 games a season, tickets are fairly easy to find. The media treat the club like an afterthought. And we have never had a star player that is the face of the franchise. While the question posted was about MLS 6 years on, I think thos points about TFC are indicative of a league that still has a hard time catching on with the established major sports.

TorCanSoc
01-22-2012, 01:04 PM
...uh hate to ask. 5 being good, 1 being bad?

I've followed MLS since Geoff Aunger first laced them up for DC United. That was my entry into MLS, because of the Canadian players. Aunger, Bunbury (the first one), I forget the others.

I would say the league has been steadily improving. Beckham stuff has really sensationalized the league.

I hate to call 2007 an onward a new era in MLS, but it kind of was. 96' to 2007 was a lot of begging and pleading, and some looks from a distance. But with the addition of Toronto, Seattle, Vancouver and Portland... this league has a totally different look.

From 2007 to now, steady good changes. From 96' to now, crazy changes.

The focus has to be running this league as a business, make money, not a lot, just enough to say... yes, this is a business and I want to grow it.

If the entire league loses money, then its just a matter of time before it all ends.

Couchy81
01-22-2012, 01:17 PM
It's gone from a 2 to a 3

nfitz
01-22-2012, 01:22 PM
It's gone from a 2 to a 3But is that good or bad. We want it number 1 don't we?

Poll is too vague ...

Couchy81
01-22-2012, 01:33 PM
But is that good or bad. We want it number 1 don't we?

Poll is too vague ...

It's good of course, but on a global scale it's still got a ways to go in almost every department.

Chris Wren
01-22-2012, 01:52 PM
But is that good or bad. We want it number 1 don't we?

Poll is too vague ...

What's the confusion about? 1 is abysmal, 5 is stellar. Think of it like ranking a movie. 1 is the latest Adam Sandler Flick, 5 is the next Christopher Nolan movie.

I went with a 4. My rationalization is that it's better than I expected, but certainly not in the top 10 leagues in the world. Most importantly, I have really enjoyed following the league despite our horrible results.

The league has definitely improved in the 5 years that TFC has been involved. The newer franchises seem to be the backbone of the MLS now, along with LA and NYRB.

My one concern is the low salary cap. DP rules have helped with this, but it has to double for the next upcoming CBA.

TorontoGooner
01-22-2012, 02:35 PM
I must be honest, when I first started coming to games and watching the MLS, I cringed a lot of the time at the standard of play and the whole chereography behind it. However, now we have a decent league structure and the what seems to be the makings of a decent youth system. As with any League, team and even sport, it really does take time.

As for the support, closer road games and added frequency of them will add to the atmosphere and enjoyment of travelling. Also, the difficult two years or so just gone as TFC fans has really strenghtened the support. It's separated the die hard fans from the jonny come latelys. I think this could also apply to other teams.

Portland and Seattle have had a fantastic impact on the League, in terms of recognising what the game is really about as a fan. With Montreal joining the MLS, this really is a chance to get more exposure and more city interest in Toronto behind the team.

nfitz
01-22-2012, 02:46 PM
What's the confusion about? 1 is abysmal, 5 is stellarAnd yet I tend to rate EPL 1 ... just checked the latest movie rankings. The current box office hit is listed as 1, not 5 ...

Point is, if you're going to do a poll. Make it clear what the scoring means.

David_Oliveira
01-22-2012, 02:58 PM
I also gave it a 3. It's come along way from the first time i ever saw it and it seems like each year, it gets better. We are no where near the big leagues but we are no small windows either. Each year, you are seeing players getting loan spells abroad to play in more competitive leagues. The same is true of the trials. Having these players go oversees for a while shows that the quality has gone up even if it is only marginally. It also has the snowball effect. Training with the big boys helps these guys. Talking to Stephen, he loved it. If they get nothing else out of it, at least they are training instead of sitting on a couch

ManUtd4ever
01-22-2012, 03:42 PM
The league has made tremendous strides in terms of overall quality since TFC's inaugral season in 2007. I would currently rank MLS a solid 3 out of 5; slightly above average in comparison to domestic leagues worldwide.

Oldtimer
01-22-2012, 04:21 PM
I think it's now become a fairly solid league, comparable to the second half of the English Championship and somewhat better than Ligue 2 in France.

I think that it will only continue to improve. There are a lot of European players who would like to come to North America for the lifestyle, if only the money were more comparable, which will be more and more the case as revenues increase.

Those who watched MLS in it's early days can certainly appreciate how far it's come. It was certainly very bare-bones low-budget in those early, pre-DP, low-attendance, no TV revenue years. I only started following it in 2004-2005 and it's so far ahead of where it was then, it's like a different league.

Detroit_TFC
01-22-2012, 04:49 PM
I started following MLS in 2003. I don't think you can compare what we have now to then.

Strikers
01-22-2012, 04:58 PM
I gave MLS a 3. My opinion is that it is very slowly improving and the CCL is a big part of the reason why.

kodiakTFC
01-22-2012, 06:42 PM
I started following MLS the year before TFC came in, the difference between then and now is unbelievable. Some of you need to go back and watch some of those season 1 games to really understand how awful the product was.

prizby
01-22-2012, 07:01 PM
I started following MLS the year before TFC came in, the difference between then and now is unbelievable. Some of you need to go back and watch some of those season 1 games to really understand how awful the product was.

doesn't solve the fact that garber's favourite teams get special favours...hence why it only gets a 3

Yohan
01-22-2012, 07:04 PM
Thank you David Beckham

The steady growth in league quality is mostly due to Becks. He gave the league legitimacy in the world of soccer that no other player could.

The steady growth in the league can be found in following facts
-MLS is no longer attracting just players looking for a retirement pay, but some players in their prime. See Keane, Robbie.
-MLS players getting a steady stream of trials, and being signed up decent Euro clubs (or being rumoured to be signed) Tim Ream, Sebastien LeToux for example. Some of them actually ends up doing quite well. (Carlos Bocanegra, Ryan Nelsen, Clint Dempsey, etc)
-MLS is now getting a lot of decent European players from middling European leagues (IE Scandinavia) instead of one way traffic other way around (see Seattle and NYRB recent signings)
-SA players considers MLS a legit league to be stepping stone to Europe (large influx of SA signings recently)
-MLS has mechanism to keep some of better talents with better pay, instead of losing them due to inability to offer decent enough pay (new DP mechanism). Also able to use DP to attract lesser known, but potentially good players to MLS.

It's not all the signs, but I think this accounts for a lot of why the league is improving, and it shows on the field.

Chris Wren
01-22-2012, 07:17 PM
And yet I tend to rate EPL 1 ... just checked the latest movie rankings. The current box office hit is listed as 1, not 5 ...

Point is, if you're going to do a poll. Make it clear what the scoring means.

Well, if you want to debate it. When rating a movie it would be 1 star is bad, 5 stars is good. Or if you read the sun, 1 sun is bad, 5 suns is good, or Now magazine, 1 N is bad, 5 N's is good. When Siskel and Ebert used to rank films 2 thumbs was good, no thumbs was bad.

You checked the box office rankings, not movie ratings. One is factual and one is opinion.

Point is I was joking around, but it seems perfectly clear.

Oldtimer
01-22-2012, 10:26 PM
doesn't solve the fact that garber's favourite teams get special favours...hence why it only gets a 3

The EPL has the same problem with its bigger clubs. It's NOT unique to MLS.

prizby
01-22-2012, 10:36 PM
The EPL has the same problem with its bigger clubs. It's NOT unique to MLS.

the epl doesn't have a salary cap in which they league helps teams get around the cap despite promoting parity

the epl is a hell of a lot more transparent than the MLS

Super
01-22-2012, 11:21 PM
More money = better league. It's just that simple to me. The supporter culture in the league is also greatly improved. I believe in continued growth, and I think it's incredibly exciting to be part of this league. It can go very far indeed!

Oldtimer
01-23-2012, 12:27 AM
the epl doesn't have a salary cap in which they league helps teams get around the cap despite promoting parity

the epl is a hell of a lot more transparent than the MLS

Studies show that big clubs have calls go their way far more than small clubs. That's not transparent. Maybe less of a problem than mls allocation rules, but there is no perfect league.

J .
01-23-2012, 01:21 AM
I definately feel as though the league is improving and in 20 years I suspect it will rank up there in the top ten leagues in terms of skills, if not sooner.

There are some good points about Dempsey, Bocanegra and a few others who have moved on from MLS and show good players do come from here. I only think that will grow as the academies develop young kids. In addition, I feel that is there the true depth will come from while we purchase our top skill players from abroad with the DP clause, be if a Beckam type or a lesser known DP but skilled DP.

Since 2006 when MLS annoucned we would have a team, the league definately has improved. The first game I saw live of TFC was vs DCU and it looked like a high school game. It only appeared worse after seasons end when I got into watching EPL for my soccer fix.

However, since then, I do notice the league is improving across the board. There is no place for an Andy Welsh on the pitch. Torsten Frings, Henry, Hassli rumours of Lampard and so on indicate positive growth. Ive started taking some more Championship and the odd League 1 match and they seem very favourable comparisons.

The MLS starts with physical skills and teams are focusing on developing the technical side of the athletes they are given. Astone Morgan has put in many more nice crosses in his short stint than I saw from Marvell Wynne or Hscanovics and Co. I chalk that up to the Academy and technical development coaches.

In the end, its currently a feeder league for top leagues while it attrachs players from small locations looking to make a jump. Seeing kids like Morgan improve while seeing an legend like Henry is a nice mix of skills vs the future. In soccer hotbeads, they have maxed out their public appeal whereas here there is a ton of room for growth.

I look forward to 2012 and beyond in 2037, when MLS is maxed out by corporate greed but dripping with talent like the EPL, we will look back on these days with a measured fondess Im sure.

Ossington Mental Youth
01-23-2012, 08:23 AM
The quality of play has improved. It's place on the global stage is pretty much the same though.

The league itself is becoming less mickey mouse as time goes on, and that's a good thing.

- Scott

pretty much this

London
01-23-2012, 08:36 AM
if people felt it was so mickey mouse why did they start and continue to watch?


i know if i felt something was a joke, i wouldnt want to get involved in it

prizby
01-23-2012, 08:59 AM
if people felt it was so mickey mouse why did they start and continue to watch?


i know if i felt something was a joke, i wouldnt want to get involved in it

hearts invested with tfc

Gazza
01-23-2012, 11:00 AM
The reffing is an absolute joke. That alone can ruin my experience. I haven't noticed much of a change in the quality of play on the pitch since TFC's inaugural season.

I based my opinion on the question, "if Toronto did not have an mls team would you watch?" And my answer would be no.

Whoop
01-23-2012, 11:21 AM
I remember watching the inaugural MLS Cup when Eddie Pope scored the golden goal in the torrential rain. MLS, while the growth has been slower for some fan's needs, has come a long, long way. 15 years isn't that long a time.

AyRVWDgxovY

Pookie
01-23-2012, 11:58 AM
I love the concept of a salary cap and revenue sharing.

That said, with single entity ownership and allocation dollars not disclosed (including amounts and reasons for distribution), I still can't shake the idea that this is a hybrid version of professional wrestling with some teams receiving favours/advantage based on a business plan (script).

GuelphStorm2007
01-23-2012, 12:57 PM
the mls to gain credibility needs to be more forthcoming with information...as a fan, i feel they bend the rules to help certain teams...the salary cap/allocation is huge...until the MLS comes public with more information, i will always believe that certain things are rigged in favour of certain teams

edit: the word i have been looking for is transparency


I agree Prizby But You can say the same things about the NBA, when somehow certain players can can travel when going for a dunk, and certain teams NY, and LAL can have any player available no matter what. And you can say the same about the NHL, a lot of people said Boston sure got a way with a lot of crap last season.

Kaz
01-23-2012, 12:59 PM
I remember watching the inaugural MLS Cup when Eddie Pope scored the golden goal in the torrential rain. MLS, while the growth has been slower for some fan's needs, has come a long, long way. 15 years isn't that long a time.

AyRVWDgxovY

It that a broken 70s lamp with a walmart soccer ball on it and all spray painted bronze?

GuelphStorm2007
01-23-2012, 01:05 PM
The play has definatley improved but like everything else there is a need for improvement, and that will take time . I think MLS is on the same level as the J league which ironicaly started around the same as MLS. It is hard to compare with other leagues especially when these leagues are almost 100 years older. What MLS nedds is some of the best North American players to stay here in MLS and not venture into Europe I think that can improve the quality of the League and raise the profile here in North America.

brad
01-23-2012, 01:39 PM
I've always found it so hard to compare the MLS to other leagues because the MLS is flat out weird. On a given team you have can have players that are good enough to play in the best leagues in the world and players that are not good enough to play in the lowest reaches.

For me this, makes for a very uneven viewing experience.

brad
01-23-2012, 01:41 PM
The other thing is the MLS quality drops off dramatically as soon as you throw in a few injuries. That lack of depth needs to be addressed (and it will only come with a higher salary cap) before I view the MLS as a better league than near the bottom.

Yohan
01-23-2012, 01:47 PM
The other thing is the MLS quality drops off dramatically as soon as you throw in a few injuries. That lack of depth needs to be addressed (and it will only come with a higher salary cap) before I view the MLS as a better league than near the bottom.
higher salary cap will only help a little to retaining some players who'd rather try for 3rd tier Euro league. it's the improvement in domestic talent pool that's going to the most to improve depth (and that'll be accomplished pending on how good the youth academy program ends up being)

Whoop
01-23-2012, 01:53 PM
I think a higher salary cap is coming in the next CBA.

Has to.

Yohan
01-23-2012, 01:57 PM
I think a higher salary cap is coming in the next CBA.

Has to.
still got till 2015 until current CBA expires. that should give enough time for a good TV deal which should translate into a nice bump in the salary cap

(but no massive raise in salary cap unless a steady source of revenue to fund the cap is find please)

trane
01-23-2012, 01:58 PM
I dislike everything about the league, I only follow because of TFC, and now the two other Canadian teams. Otherwise, I did not give a rats as when we started and do not give a damn now.

I am not sure were to place the league. Physical attributes are good, but tactical attributes particullarly on the defensive side of things, is far, far behind were I would like it to be.

prizby
01-23-2012, 01:59 PM
I agree Prizby But You can say the same things about the NBA, when somehow certain players can can travel when going for a dunk, and certain teams NY, and LAL can have any player available no matter what. And you can say the same about the NHL, a lot of people said Boston sure got a way with a lot of crap last season.

when you look and add up every teams salary, then look at the cap, can you figure it all out...MLS needs to better explain to fans or any outsider looking in on teh league (say from Europe) is going to take one look and say this isn't really balanced

brad
01-23-2012, 01:59 PM
higher salary cap will only help a little to retaining some players who'd rather try for 3rd tier Euro league. it's the improvement in domestic talent pool that's going to the most to improve depth (and that'll be accomplished pending on how good the youth academy program ends up being)

They have to go hand in hand. If the academy players are good enough we need to pay them more than 80-100k to keep them around in the league.

TFC/Everton
01-23-2012, 02:58 PM
Big improvements all around.

Per game attendance has surpassed the NBA and NHL.

TV Ratings are up. Supporters groups have emerged in almost every market.

Every team now has an academy which means the product WILL only get better.

Let hope that by 2020, the MLS is considered in the top 10 leagues in the world.

Juanito
01-23-2012, 03:26 PM
There are things about the league that annoy me. "Parity" is the biggest one. I think that having a few teams to root against is healthy for a league. HOWEVER, if there was no parity, the American appetite for playoffs would not be satisfied and we would have basically a repeat of the NASL.

The league can not survive if it weren't for "parity". Look at the big leagues in Europe, they all have clubs in financial distress. The formula isn't working there either and they have been talking about financial constraints for the clubs as well.

The talent will improve once we have an academy system in place. The NCAA is not the ideal place to get your talent. It is the best we have here, but there is room for improvement.

The adidas deal, which Garber secured, is the reason this league is in decent financial shape. It's not ideal, but sometimes you have to make business decisions for the well-being of the league.

I would give this league a 3.5 out of 5, but since that wasn't an option, I gave it a 3.

Oldtimer
01-23-2012, 03:58 PM
Big improvements all around.

Per game attendance has surpassed the NBA and NHL.

TV Ratings are up. Supporters groups have emerged in almost every market.

Every team now has an academy which means the product WILL only get better.

Let hope that by 2020, the MLS is considered in the top 10 leagues in the world.

Most teams have a "real" academy. The Rev's one is a joke, but most teams are working hard to improve the product.

Red CB Toronto
01-23-2012, 04:25 PM
Most teams have a "real" academy. The Rev's one is a joke, but most teams are working hard to improve the product.

I have heard that the Revs academy is a joke, can someone give me some background on what makes a joke. Does Philadelphia not use a series of local clubs as their academy?

Pookie
01-23-2012, 04:30 PM
The other thing is the MLS quality drops off dramatically as soon as you throw in a few injuries. That lack of depth needs to be addressed (and it will only come with a higher salary cap) before I view the MLS as a better league than near the bottom.

I think we better need to define "salary cap" vs "self imposed revenue" cap.

Salary Cap
A cap is meant to control spend-happy owners who drive up the costs for everyone, creating a competitive imbalance. Since the league owns all the teams and franchises are awarded to operators, there really is no MLS salary cap in the strictest sense.

As an example, The cap is $2.6M yet Toronto spends over $4M on its players. NY spends close to $14M. LA spends over $12M. Hell, even the Columbus Crew spend $3.5M.

While not necessary EPL standards, I'm curious as to where folks see the cap actually limiting any team in this league.

The league has demonstrated a willingness to stretch the cap for business purposes... and that is convenient too since it owns all the teams. One could even argue that the league is happy with somewhat of a competitive imbalance if its largest markets (NY, LA) are successful.

Self Imposed Revenue Cap
The league has all the contracts and it influences where players end up. (see Marquez and Henry $0 transfer).

It appears willing to see its operators spend above and beyond its investment. As a business, MLS and its operators spend upwards of $80M on all their players.

If revenue grows, this amount will increase. That is really the only limiting factor in all of this.

We can talk about cap increases being good for competitive reasons but the truth is that the league will only spend more when it is able to do so.

Ironically, it might take "uncompetitive" situations such as stacked teams in big markets for that to happen.

Oldtimer
01-23-2012, 04:42 PM
I think we better need to define "salary cap" vs "self imposed revenue" cap.

Salary Cap
A cap is meant to control spend-happy owners who drive up the costs for everyone, creating a competitive imbalance. Since the league owns all the teams and franchises are awarded to operators, there really is no MLS salary cap in the strictest sense.

As an example, The cap is $2.6M yet Toronto spends over $4M on its players. NY spends close to $14M. LA spends over $12M. Hell, even the Columbus Crew spend $3.5M.

While not necessary EPL standards, I'm curious as to where folks see the cap actually limiting any team in this league.

The league has demonstrated a willingness to stretch the cap for business purposes... and that is convenient too since it owns all the teams. One could even argue that the league is happy with somewhat of a competitive imbalance if its largest markets (NY, LA) are successful.

Self Imposed Revenue Cap
The league has all the contracts and it influences where players end up. (see Marquez and Henry $0 transfer).

It appears willing to see its operators spend above and beyond its investment. As a business, MLS and its operators spend upwards of $80M on all their players.

If revenue grows, this amount will increase. That is really the only limiting factor in all of this.

We can talk about cap increases being good for competitive reasons but the truth is that the league will only spend more when it is able to do so.

Ironically, it might take "uncompetitive" situations such as stacked teams in big markets for that to happen.

Good points, but the league only owns half (actually 50% plus 1 share) of all of the teams. For example, half of TFC is owned by the league, the other half directly by the owner-operator ML$E.

So ML$E owns through the league 1/19 of 50% the Krew, which equals 1/38 of the Krew. They also own 1/38 of every other team except TFC. ML$E owns 50% + 1/38 through the league of TFC.

This league ownership makes sure that everybody keeps in mind what's good for all of the teams financially, because they have a small stake in all of the teams.

The league ownership also means that in a desperate enough situation, they can legally seize control of a team (which would have prevented the situation that developed in early hockey where an obstructionist owner forced the founding of a new league without him - the NHL).

brad
01-23-2012, 04:44 PM
I think we better need to define "salary cap" vs "self imposed revenue" cap.

Salary Cap
A cap is meant to control spend-happy owners who drive up the costs for everyone, creating a competitive imbalance. Since the league owns all the teams and franchises are awarded to operators, there really is no MLS salary cap in the strictest sense.

As an example, The cap is $2.6M yet Toronto spends over $4M on its players. NY spends close to $14M. LA spends over $12M. Hell, even the Columbus Crew spend $3.5M.

While not necessary EPL standards, I'm curious as to where folks see the cap actually limiting any team in this league.

I think it limits the teams as it allows you to pump money into three players, but not to improve your overall team. I am a firm believer that teams with better overall talent through out the squad would be far better teams than what we have today - a few stars mixed in with good, average and terrible players.

Very rough, back of the envelope calculation here to illustrate my point- but lets say LA were able to take that 12 million and spread it out across 22 players in there squad. That would enable them to have 22 players making ~ 540k/year each. That opens up the possibility for depth (you could have two players of quality in every position) and competition - no big name players players with no-one clipping at their heels to get them to perform.

Of course this also assumes they would want to. You 500k players won't sell seats of jersey's like Becks will, but that touches on the other issue - improving the quality of play vs increase revenue and bums in seats.

prizby
01-23-2012, 04:51 PM
I have heard that the Revs academy is a joke, can someone give me some background on what makes a joke. Does Philadelphia not use a series of local clubs as their academy?

yet they graduated a 16 year old last year...

Oldtimer
01-23-2012, 06:44 PM
^

The Revs give almost no funding or support to their academy, and the younger ages are pay-to-play. If they graduated a player, its despite the obstacles.

Philly "outsources" their academy system so are another team that is frequently criticized.

prizby
01-23-2012, 07:36 PM
^ wow...Kraft soccer is taking on a new meaning

jloome
01-23-2012, 07:39 PM
^ wow...Kraft soccer is taking on a new meaning

He's an embarrassment to the league at this point and they must know it. Perhaps as they fall further and further behind the overall quality of the league in every conceivable way, the other owners will kick him in the ass.

One problem though with New England and Dallas is that their owners' other holdings can benefit greatly from writedowns against their less-valued commodity, the soccer team.

TFC_Allez
01-24-2012, 11:22 AM
I gave the MLS a 3/5. I've known of the MLS since probably '96, and it took a video game (FIFA Soccer '96 for SNES) for me to get my first exposure to the league. From then on I always knew it existed, but it wasn't until a team in Toronto was announced in '06 that I really started paying attention. 6 years on, I can definitely say it's improved greatly in most aspects. Player development is improving, quality of play is improving, atmosphere inside most stadiums on match day has improved, an ultra/supporter attitude is developing across the league, and attractiveness to bigger names is also improving. However, we're most definitely not on par with European leagues. That's something that takes much longer than the approx 20 years that the MLS has been the top flight of American/Canadian soccer. Most European leagues are close to 100 years of existence, if not more. To be where we are after only being around for a quarter of the amount of time that other leagues have been around for, I can say the future looks bright. In order to move forward and continue to improve, team should focus more so on growing talent within their organizations (academies) instead of drafting players from NCAA teams and from elsewhere in the world. That's what set European leagues apart in the earlier days, and that what will give the MLS a more reputable future. Having older international superstars like the Beckham's, the Henry's...etc is awesome for those who are new to the sport in North America, but when the novelty wears off, its going to require homegrown talent to keep people interested. That's my justification for a 3 out of 5.

rocker
01-24-2012, 11:35 AM
I've only watched MLS since TFC started, but I've seen positive change in the league. The level of quality has gone up somewhat. I think more importantly there's been a change in the diversity of the approaches of the coaches. MLS in 2007 was a smaller league and most teams other than DC United played a similar style. Now you've got more teams and a greater variety. Think of the difference in styles but success of LA, Dallas, and Seattle (and look at what TFC is trying to do.....). This isn't a mono-culture league anymore. I also agree with the MASSIVE change in supporters culture. DC was the only team with a supporters culture like what we have today. TFC fans pushed that forward and inspired a lot of other groups around the league. Seattle took it to the next level... Portland took it to another level of intensity. The academy shift is also notable.

Yohan
01-24-2012, 12:03 PM
I also agree with the MASSIVE change in supporters culture. DC was the only team with a supporters culture like what we have today. TFC fans pushed that forward and inspired a lot of other groups around the league. Seattle took it to the next level... Portland took it to another level of intensity.
Not true. There has always been a decent supporter's culture in most teams. Toronto happened to make it a little more 'visible' (and maybe a little more organized). Only group that TFC really 'inspired' was the Nordecke at Columbus, as much as those clowns do not want to admit it.

Oldtimer
01-24-2012, 01:23 PM
One problem though with New England and Dallas is that their owners' other holdings can benefit greatly from writedowns against their less-valued commodity, the soccer team.

The problem with New England is that the soccer team provides the Kraft family with two things:

(1) A tax write-off against the Patriots
(2) A way to fill empty dates in their large NFL stadium

There is zero incentive to improve things significantly because these two things are worth much more than having a successful MLS side.

New England might have been reasonably successful in the old MLS 1.0. There is no way that their current way of operating will make them successful in the modern MLS. Kraft is notorious for spending very little on the soccer team.

They could have learned a thing or two from TFC, the franchise has significantly increased in value from the paltry $10 million that ML$E put up. They haven't though.

I think it speaks volumes that Mariner turned down flat the real opportunity to run the whole Revs operation. He knew that he would be struggling to get a cheque written for anything, from a new stadium - to a real academy - to a quality DP. Far better to be part of a team at TFC where, incompetent as they are at times, ML$E truly values the franchise and aim to make it one of the premier producers of young talent on the continent.

Oldtimer
01-24-2012, 01:26 PM
Not true. There has always been a decent supporter's culture in most teams. Toronto happened to make it a little more 'visible' (and maybe a little more organized). Only group that TFC really 'inspired' was the Nordecke at Columbus, as much as those clowns do not want to admit it.

I disagree in part. There were supporters groups in various cities (San Jose had a decent one, for example) but DC was the only MLS 1.0 team that had anything resembling the kind of support we've seen under MLS 2.0. The U-Sector, RPB, and other SGs really set a standard that the newer teams' fans emulated. Maybe we didn't influence so much the older teams (except as you noted, Columbus), but the new ones certainly took our playbook and ran with it.

Pookie
01-24-2012, 04:39 PM
The problem with New England is that the soccer team provides the Kraft family with two things:

(1) A tax write-off against the Patriots
(2) A way to fill empty dates in their large NFL stadium

There is zero incentive to improve things significantly because these two things are worth much more than having a successful MLS side.

New England might have been reasonably successful in the old MLS 1.0. There is no way that their current way of operating will make them successful in the modern MLS. Kraft is notorious for spending very little on the soccer team.



Just a tidbit to offer that might alter the conversation a little.

The NE Revolution had the 9th highest payroll at a little over $3.4M. They outspent Philadelphia, Chicago, DC, Houston, KC, Chivas, Portland, San Jose and Colorado.

Not by crazy standards mind you but they weren't the cheapest in the league.

Oldtimer
01-24-2012, 08:37 PM
Just a tidbit to offer that might alter the conversation a little.

The NE Revolution had the 9th highest payroll at a little over $3.4M. They outspent Philadelphia, Chicago, DC, Houston, KC, Chivas, Portland, San Jose and Colorado.

Not by crazy standards mind you but they weren't the cheapest in the league.

But MLS pays the salaries of all but the DPs, so it means nothing. Sharlie Joseph was paid $475k base last year, but the Revs covered it by allocation money so it cost Kraft zero (his kind of deal!!!). They are forced to make him a DP for 2012, which should cost Kraft the grand sum of $60,000. I don't know about you, but that "vast" sum of $60k just emphasizes the point of how incredibly cheap Kraft is, even when he has a designated player.

(By contrast, TFC spent $4.4 million on our designated players, of which the team paid $3.3 million, or 55 times what Kraft will spend on his Designated Player next year).

Fortunately, my view of MLS is based more on teams other than Dallas or the Revs, so I can be optimistic about the future.

nascarguy
01-26-2012, 09:19 AM
is six year I hope to see adidas gone and mls lets the team make there own deals and 2 more canadian team in the mls or not

Ossington Mental Youth
01-26-2012, 09:34 AM
doubtful there will be 2 more canadian teams in the mls.
I cant even think of two more cities thatd be able to bring 15k+ regularly to an MLS game.
prefer the idea of a 2nd or 3rd regional leagues within canada but thats another discussion

Detroit_TFC
01-26-2012, 09:51 AM
Bob Kraft was a critical part of establishing the league and getting it through the first years. Without Kraft there would not have been a league in 1996. BUT the Kraft organization would appear to not a have a vision for what they want their team to be going forward. After the Old Man passes, I would not be surprised if the kids sell the team, and that might be when things change.

Pookie
01-26-2012, 01:21 PM
But MLS pays the salaries of all but the DPs, so it means nothing. Sharlie Joseph was paid $475k base last year, but the Revs covered it by allocation money so it cost Kraft zero (his kind of deal!!!). They are forced to make him a DP for 2012, which should cost Kraft the grand sum of $60,000. I don't know about you, but that "vast" sum of $60k just emphasizes the point of how incredibly cheap Kraft is, even when he has a designated player.

(By contrast, TFC spent $4.4 million on our designated players, of which the team paid $3.3 million, or 55 times what Kraft will spend on his Designated Player next year).

Fortunately, my view of MLS is based more on teams other than Dallas or the Revs, so I can be optimistic about the future.

Completely fair point... so much so that I wondered where I was going with the payroll part... nice job :)

Here's something different then. Note that spending is a function of revenue.

Forbes has the Revolution on 2007 numbers of $10M in revenue and -$1.5M Operating Income meaning that they spent a total of $11.5M on running the team, roughly speaking.

That would have put them on par, in terms of expenditures with Houston and RSL and ahead of teams like the Crew and KC.

james
01-28-2012, 11:38 AM
stadiums across the league are better then 2007.

Skill of players on the field has improved.

Supporter groups have gotten bigger and better. A few teams game-day atmosphere with supporters singing, tifos exc. can be held up just as good as many in Europe.

However some teams still need better stadiums (New England, San Jose for example). Could do with higher caps to continue to improve the on field quality. Improve the importance of Concacaf Champions League. But overall the League is a lot better then it gets credit for.

getsmart
01-30-2012, 04:01 AM
stadiums across the league are better then 2007.

Skill of players on the field has improved.

Supporter groups have gotten bigger and better. A few teams game-day atmosphere with supporters singing, tifos exc. can be held up just as good as many in Europe.

However some teams still need better stadiums (New England, San Jose for example). Could do with higher caps to continue to improve the on field quality. Improve the importance of Concacaf Champions League. But overall the League is a lot better then it gets credit for.

Seconded.

Oldtimer
01-30-2012, 08:21 AM
Completely fair point... so much so that I wondered where I was going with the payroll part... nice job :)

Here's something different then. Note that spending is a function of revenue.

Forbes has the Revolution on 2007 numbers of $10M in revenue and -$1.5M Operating Income meaning that they spent a total of $11.5M on running the team, roughly speaking.

That would have put them on par, in terms of expenditures with Houston and RSL and ahead of teams like the Crew and KC.

It's a bit hard to go with the Forbes numbers as there were so many "guesstimates" in there... when they came out Paul B. said that the Forbes numbers were "wrong," without elaborating further.

Let's say though, that the numbers are accurate.

In 2007 the Revs didn't stand out as cheap. $11.5 million, while a ridiculously low amount to run a football team was par for the course in the cut-price league of the time. That's why I said they were reasonable as an MLS 1.0 team. However, since that time, most other teams have greatly ramped up their spending while the Revs have kept their spending quite low. $11.5 million for the whole thing is paltry when TFC is spending over $21 million just for buildings for just their academy (let alone coaches, training equipment and other staff and expenses) alone.

It was leaked that when the DP rule was proposed, there was one vote on the Board of Governors that was opposed to it (I bet you can't guess who :) ).

Or to put it in another perspective the $11.5 million that the Revs spent in 2007 is just about equal to the top up that NY pays for it's DPs, let alone all their other expenses (and NY has a decent academy as well).

That's why I feel good about the league's future. The fact that it's clubs feel free to spend considerably more than just a few short years ago show they have a lot of confidence in the league's future and expect future revenues to keep increasing commensurately.

But the Revs? They are a disgrace to the league and I can't see them being successful (however the Krafts will continue to love using them as a tax write-off, so they don't care).

Heart of Stone
02-05-2012, 12:33 PM
Not true. There has always been a decent supporter's culture in most teams. Toronto happened to make it a little more 'visible' (and maybe a little more organized). Only group that TFC really 'inspired' was the Nordecke at Columbus, as much as those clowns do not want to admit it.

Agreed. In a lot of the American cities(e.g., Chicago) with teams the latino community showed up and demonstrated a supporter's culture/organization.

kodiakTFC
02-05-2012, 02:29 PM
Six years ago I would've laughed if you told me that I would be eagerly awaiting the beginning of the MLS season. I miss match days more than my long distance girlfriend!

ensco
02-05-2012, 06:00 PM
I think the league is a lot better than it was in 2007. There are way more quality South Americans, plus the Beckham effect.

Until we stop seeing players who aren't stars leave for FC Ingolstadt or Lappland or wherever, MLS won't take the next step. The best young players too often won't sign with MLS.

The cap is holding the league back. It's completely different to have a cap for a league with serious TV revenues - for the NHL, NFL, NBA etc, it's just a battle between millionaires vs billionaires, that is not the situation MLS is in.

It is stunting the growth of the league badly. For what. To protect Columbus? Name me another business that hurts its franchises in big cities to protect small markets.

MLS needs a core group, including NY, LA (and TO!), to be powerhouses that are focused on building TV revenues. That'll bring the whole league along. If a couple of teams need to fold or relocate as a result, fine.

Cashcleaner
02-05-2012, 07:44 PM
MLS is kinda frustrating at times, because while they do some things right, they do others so very wrong. Let's be honest, the officiating still needs a lot of work, and I think it's obvious that the league has no qualms to bending rules and giving preferential treatment to certain players and teams. What really bothers me the most is how out of touch the league seems to be with what the fans want. The unbalanced 2012 schedule is a good example of this. The consensus appears that people really want a simple home and away format with perhaps a shorter post season. Some argue going as far as doing away with the All-Star match to better accommodate a balanced schedule. Sure there are loads of suggestions out there, and many of them might not be particularly viable, but I think it's wrong to outright dismiss the fan's concerns regarding the schedule.

With the criticisms out of the way, I think it should also be acknowledged that the overall talent of the league has certainly risen over the past few years and MLS has definitely developed into a more recognizable brand. Now, teams like Toronto and and DCU are starting to garner international exposure whereas before the Galaxy and Red Bulls were really the only clubs commonly known outside the continent.