MLS Salary Cap Poll

[Initial B]

Seeing as how MLS wants to be a wolrd-class league by 2022, I don't see how that could happen under the current Salary Cap. If you were the MLS Commissioner, how much would you raise the salary cap?

I think a lot will be dependent on the next ESPN TV contract deal which will be starting in 2015 - right in time for NYFC (and maybe Orlando?) to join the league. But for now, I think an increase to $4 million per team (with an increase of the lowest player pay to $50-60K) would allow for teams to attract better quality to the league. I'd love to see it eventually at 10 million, but that would depend on television revenue and growing the brand worldwide. What do you guys think?

[CommradePolski]

Its at like 2.9mil now?

[Richard]

Its a pipe dream to be honest. MLS right now is enamored with expansion fees and is one of the only reasons it is making money. A lot of people need to start watching the product on TV for the league to get a better TV deal and sponsorships, there is no way they are going to get the sponsors currently which could support a minimum salary floor of $25m for each team.

[mowe]

Its a pipe dream to be honest. MLS right now is enamored with expansion fees and is one of the only reasons it is making money. A lot of people need to start watching the product on TV for the league to get a better TV deal and sponsorships, there is no way they are going to get the sponsors currently which could support a minimum salary floor of $25m for each team.

Yeah the TV deal is where the real money is, and right now MLS' TV deal is pretty pathetic. Maybe they will get more money in the next deal because of NYCFC and 4 other expansion teams, who knows. Until then it's slow and steady with the salary cap. And hey, the product is still improving every year under this cap, why not stay the course until revenues increase significantly.

[Initial B]

I'm not expecting the next increase to be $25m, that's just crazy talk. But if MLS wants to be a world-class destination, then it eventually has to have a salary cap that is larger than what English Championship pays out, which averages about $350k/player. Isn't that about $7-10 million per team?

[Couchy81]

Double it and increase the DP contributions to the cap to $1mil

[Ultra & Proud]

Said this before but the cap should have raised proportionally with the TV deal and increased attendance/sponsorship. In 2007 when TFC started there was no TV deal and most team's attendances were sub 15,000 (or way lower). Lower attendances and viewership equaled less advertising dollars. That year the cap was $2.3M. It's gone up to $2.9M in the past seven seasons and the attendance has increased steadily and although the TV deal may be pathetic, at least they have one now. Now matter how they spin it, it'd be hard to justify that the $600,000 cap increase in the past 7 seasons as being reasonable in any way. Especially when Garber talks of being a big time world league by 2020.

[MartinUtd]

The league lost Sacha Kljestan to the Belgium league for something like $500k. I voted for $4-5m because we need to retain players like this. Not everyone is going to get the Omar Gonzalez treatment but at the same time we have to temper our expectations around the likes of struggling FC Dallas, Chivas USA, Columbus and whatever turd they lay in south Florida.

[djking2]

I assume you meant > (greater than) for option 7. Not that I would have made that choice

[Haddy]

I'd rather see a salary cap of $5-million, which is still nothing to most of these owners and equal to one Maple Leafs hockey player. I'm hoping an increase will see less strange rules like the mid-season creation of a 'retaining fund' that helped re-sign Zusi. Less magic invisible money, better cap.

[Abou Sky]

IMO $7-$10m is what we need by 2015 if there is any hope of being a big time league.

Get rid of DP and maximum etc. You can then have something that looks like 3 players at $2m total 7 players at $3m total and 10 players at another $2m total

After the top 20 you pay out of your own pocket.

[ag futbol]

I'd rather see a salary cap of $5-million, which is still nothing to most of these owners and equal to one Maple Leafs hockey player. I'm hoping an increase will see less strange rules like the mid-season creation of a 'retaining fund' that helped re-sign Zusi. Less magic invisible money, better cap.
Yes please, especially to more transparency.

Agreed on the $5 mil figure. Allows you to do something like this:

Salary * players =
100k * 13
150k * 8
250k * 4
300k * 2
333 * 3 (DPs)

= $5M (approximately)

Think about how much extra qualty that gets you... mind boggling, especially since a lot of teams are throwing stupid amounts of money on DPs that don't nearly have the same impact.

[Initial B]

I assume you meant > (greater than) for option 7. Not that I would have made that choice
Oops! Yes, I meant Greater than $10 Million. Does anyone know if any of the other world's leagues have a salary cap in place?

The problem with a $5m slaray cap is that would cost a 24-team league $120m/year I'm not sure they'll be able to get a TV deal and gate revenue worth that much. I think $4m is more sustainable in the short term and gives MLS some breathing space for future union negotiations.

[ag futbol]

Oops! Yes, I meant Greater than $10 Million. Does anyone know if any of the other world's leagues have a salary cap in place?
Germany has an indirect one that does something like tie spending to a % of revenue or prior year revenue or something like that.

[Initial B]

Just did a quick check, and I think these were the previous yearly MLS salary caps:

2006 - $1.9 million
2007 - $2.1 million
2008 - $2.3 million
2009 - $2.3 million
2010 - $2.55 million
2011 - $2.68 million
2012 - $2.81 million
2013 - $2.95 million
2014 - $3.1 million
2015 - ???

I think they'll probably increase the salary cap to $3.5-4 million for the 2015 season, with a 5% increase for every year after that for the remainder of the player union contract.

[MartinUtd]

IMO $7-$10m is what we need by 2015 if there is any hope of being a big time league

Not sustainable. You have to think of the bigger picture for the league and the reason why there is such a complicated salary structure to begin with. If we get a taste of success then go the full 1970's NASL we'll be left with NY, NY2, LA, Seattle and a few hold overs that are scraping to keep up. The other 12+ teams will be shit out of luck (and money) within a decade.

[Haddy]

Oops! Yes, I meant Greater than $10 Million. Does anyone know if any of the other world's leagues have a salary cap in place?

The problem with a $5m slaray cap is that would cost a 24-team league $120m/year I'm not sure they'll be able to get a TV deal and gate revenue worth that much. I think $4m is more sustainable in the short term and gives MLS some breathing space for future union negotiations.

20,000 tickets x average cost of $35 x 15 home matches = $10,500,000

Granted those values aren't accurate for every team, but I believe it's still a good example for many including TFC without confirming actual average ticket price. Just selling half of those 20,000 tickets still means the gate revenue alone can cover the team salary.

Flip side of the coin, outside of the DP rule MLS continues to be very conservative on cap increases. So I hope for $5-mil but don't expect it.

[habstfc]

Let's separate the contenders form the pretenders and raise it to 6 million with the same dp rules we have now. They won't do it because only about 6 or 7 teams could handle it though. They have to shut up about the top league by 2020. MLS would realistically need a 15 million dollar cap at minimum to be in that class, don't see it happening.

[Haddy]

Here is a list of current MLS franchise owners via wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_professional_sports_team_owners#Major_Leag ue_Soccer_owners

Also willing to bet, any jump in the cap may also mean raising the DP threshold as well. i.e. 333k(?) to 500k.

[prizby]

the current CBA is a 5% increase in the cap every year; now the current CBA does expire at the end of 2014, but if things were to hold steady, it'd be about a 3.25 million cap in 2015

[prizby]

20,000 tickets x average cost of $35 x 15 home matches = $10,500,000

Granted those values aren't accurate for every team, but I believe it's still a good example for many including TFC without confirming actual average ticket price. Just selling half of those 20,000 tickets still means the gate revenue alone can cover the team salary.

Flip side of the coin, outside of the DP rule MLS continues to be very conservative on cap increases. So I hope for $5-mil but don't expect it.

add on the 2.7 million a year (down to 1.7 million right now due to deal to buy the naming rights) a year for stadium naming rights and the estimated $4mil for kit sponsorship (MLS gets the first $500k); also believe ticket revenue is a shared revenue among the teams in the league; so just because we are doing well, doesn't mean we get it all

[Pint]

you may as well add in on average $20 conservatively on concessions/merch per ticket.

[Initial B]

20,000 tickets x average cost of $35 x 15 home matches = $10,500,000

To be conservative, I did the following calculation:
10,000 tickets x average cost of $35 x 17 home matches = $5,950,000.
It's a little less to work with. And Budesliga was saying that 70% revenue spent on player salaries is unsustainable. The NHL runs about a 53/47 Owner/Player revenue split, so that should be what they MLS are working from for a salary cap.

[prizby]

you may as well add in on average $20 conservatively on concessions/merch per ticket.

who owns the concessions rights though? Many teams don't get a big % of concessions if they don't own the stadium

[Pint]

who owns the concessions rights though? Many teams don't get a big % of concessions if they don't own the stadium

hmm hadn't thought about that... i remember it was a revenue sharing point between NHL and NHLPA so i assumed it was around the same concept in the MLS

[prizby]

hmm hadn't thought about that... i remember it was a revenue sharing point between NHL and NHLPA so i assumed it was around the same concept in the MLS

nhl is cut throat though; they demand a lot of the cities they are in; Kansas City said no thank you having the NHL...NHL wanted money, wanted arena control of the city owned arena; etc...

[Haddy]

who owns the concessions rights though? Many teams don't get a big % of concessions if they don't own the stadium

I'll try and find the document later to confirm, but I believe it was something like 25% goes to the city and the rest goes to the operator, MLSE. I have no idea if MLS gets a piece of that.

[Super]

I voted no salary cap. I think it's laughable that it's perfectly okay to shell out unlimited cash on one guy (Dempsey is an example) but are limited on how much they can spend on the rest of the squad. It's a complete joke and makes the MLS look silly. I understand that we're limited as far as home grown talent, but you can still protect them by demanding that each team have x amount of Americans/Canadians (ON the field, not just on the bench. Not having a cap just means you can field much better foreigners. We're already benching most of our home grown talent. Result: the overall quality of the play and league would immediately improve and send the MLS to the next level. That means more respect, more fans, better quality of play, more TV viewers, etc.

[Beach_Red]

I voted no salary cap. I think it's laughable that it's perfectly okay to shell out unlimited cash on one guy (Dempsey is an example) but are limited on how much they can spend on the rest of the squad. It's a complete joke and makes the MLS look silly. I understand that we're limited as far as home grown talent, but you can still protect them by demanding that each team have x amount of Americans/Canadians (ON the field, not just on the bench. Not having a cap just means you can field much better foreigners. We're already benching most of our home grown talent. Result: the overall quality of the play and league would immediately improve and send the MLS to the next level. That means more respect, more fans, better quality of play, more TV viewers, etc.

It's true, the DP spending makes the salary cap into a joke. But the team owners have to protect themselves from each other as much as they can. The last thing they want is a couple of foreign billionaires dominating the league. The league would disappear in an instant if that happened.

Are the TV ratings getting much better each year?

[Yohan]

Are the TV ratings getting much better each year?
Not really. Soccer is still more of a live experience thing than watch it on TV thing. (EPL games apparently do get good numbers though)

Only reason why TV networks are even bothering to put MLS on their networks is hoping that the potential that soccer and MLS has really explodes eventually.

[Yohan]

you can raise the cap as much as you want, but in a league like MLS where you have strict int player limits, your league is only as good as your domestic player pool.

so you can raise the cap to 5 mil, but all this does really is making the same crappy domestic players more expensive, with slight bump in quality of int players you can attract.

MLS has stopped losing decent domestic players to 2nd rate Euro leagues in Scandinavia, etc, and a lot of better players (Zusi, Gonzalez, etc) that would have jumped to Europe are staying in MLS. So only really good players, or players with high potential are going to Europe, therefore quality of players in MLS are higher than 7 years ago.

So, I'm in favour of gradual increase in cap, with better mechanisms for player retention. Also, min wage has to rise to like 60k. And more protection for teams from getting their best academy players from getting poached by foreign teams.

[Beach_Red]

Not really. Soccer is still more of a live experience thing than watch it on TV thing. (EPL games apparently do get good numbers though)

Only reason why TV networks are even bothering to put MLS on their networks is hoping that the potential that soccer and MLS has really explodes eventually.

Well, I'm less optimistic about that potential growth than I used to be. It's possible that MLS isn't going to get much past already existing soccer fans. We've talked on these boards a lot about soccer culture and how different it is from North American sports culture and that may be true - and what limits the potential of soccer.

There's a lot of competition in North America - on TV MLS has to compete with EPL and every other league and the live experience has to compete with the NFL, NBA, MLB, NCAA and the NHL. Oh well, bigger isn't always better.

[Haddy]

On the topic of domestic players...probably beating a dead horse here...I want Canadians considered domestic in the U.S. I don't care how MLS justifies the classification of US players as domestic in Canada, the same rule should apply to all countries with clubs in the league. It's only fair.

A small cap increase and a bump (albeit small) in the domestic player pool helps everyone.

[Pint]

On the topic of domestic players...probably beating a dead horse here...I want Canadians considered domestic in the U.S. I don't care how MLS justifies the classification of US players as domestic in Canada, the same rule should apply to all countries with clubs in the league. It's only fair.

A small cap increase and a bump (albeit small) in the domestic player pool helps everyone.

Is this an MLS problem or is this a US govt visa issue... i thought garber said that they are working with the U.S. gov to fix the issue but didn't see it getting resolved any time soon.

[Alonso]

What Haddy says plus minimum wage has to be in the $100,000 range and cap at around 5 million with DP cap hit up to $750,000.

I think this would make the idea of a DP less ideal unless it's a top 20 in the world type player, and focus teams more on good middle of the road type players.

I think a big problem of some teams is 5 guys making 50k each and 2 guys making $3 million+

I don't think this sits well with a lot of players.

[Haddy]

Is this an MLS problem or is this a US govt visa issue... i thought garber said that they are working with the U.S. gov to fix the issue but didn't see it getting resolved any time soon.

The labor law thing is a frustration and a bit of a joke. But my biggest problem is that the rule was introduced years ago with no amendments since. MLS is available to take your money but not your players.

[prizby]

I'll try and find the document later to confirm, but I believe it was something like 25% goes to the city and the rest goes to the operator, MLSE. I have no idea if MLS gets a piece of that.

point is that it is different in every city; making some owners (owner-operators) better off than others

[habstfc]

Well, I'm less optimistic about that potential growth than I used to be. It's possible that MLS isn't going to get much past already existing soccer fans. We've talked on these boards a lot about soccer culture and how different it is from North American sports culture and that may be true - and what limits the potential of soccer.
Agree 100%. I don't believe you can convert people to a sport like soccer. Let's face it it isn't the most exciting sport to the average joe. I think you could get people to watch on a short term but a lot of people see it as a sport that "foreigners" play and would move on once the novelty wears off.

[Super]

you can raise the cap as much as you want, but in a league like MLS where you have strict int player limits, your league is only as good as your domestic player pool.

so you can raise the cap to 5 mil, but all this does really is making the same crappy domestic players more expensive, with slight bump in quality of int players you can attract.

MLS has stopped losing decent domestic players to 2nd rate Euro leagues in Scandinavia, etc, and a lot of better players (Zusi, Gonzalez, etc) that would have jumped to Europe are staying in MLS. So only really good players, or players with high potential are going to Europe, therefore quality of players in MLS are higher than 7 years ago.

So, I'm in favour of gradual increase in cap, with better mechanisms for player retention. Also, min wage has to rise to like 60k. And more protection for teams from getting their best academy players from getting poached by foreign teams.

I think the quality of foreigner players would be a whole lot better. I mean, imagine the size of our wallet. We're right now flashing around $26 million for 2 DP guys. Instead, we could use that money on better guys than the likes of Usanov and Aceval we've seen in the past, but could instead splurge very easily $500k on a central defender. Keeping Frei would be no problem at all. Heck, Ecks salary would be no problem either. It's not a headache we'd have to worry about (and also btw with no cap we wouldn't ever have to hear about allocation money again). Think about it, we'd probably be approved for a $10-13 million a year salary by MLSE. There's no way that this new team wouldn't be infinitely better than anything we've seen at BMO. That's how it works anywhere in the world. A league gets much better when more money is available. We're no different. To me I feel like the MLS talks a good game, but at the end of the day it's not really worthy of asking for the kind of attention it hopes to get on TV. The quality isn't quite there yet. I know plenty of people here in Toronto who love watching the Prem, but they find our league quite poor. However, in recent years with the adding of more DP's across the league they've started to pay a bit of notice. We should crank it and push our league up a serious level - and not improve by 5% a year. Essentially that's the result of the cap.

Also, in terms of the fear that foreign players would take over our league. We actually only have 7 Canadian players on our team - and that's out of 28 players (wiki). 21 foreigners (10 of these are American). Only 3 of our Canadian players start often (Osorio, Henry, Morgan). That leaves 8 foreigners that typically start on our team. Apply the $10-13 million dollar budget and you've got a killer team. Even with the 3 Canadians (which could be the league rule). But at least they'd learn from much better players - and that never hurts. And finally, we could pay everyone better. That also doesn't hurt in terms of giving people a better life, more security, etc.. Become better and more focused players.

But nope, instead of 6 $1m guys we'll probably get Adebayor. Just doesn't make any sense to me.

[Yohan]

Agree 100%. I don't believe you can convert people to a sport like soccer. Let's face it it isn't the most exciting sport to the average joe. I think you could get people to watch on a short term but a lot of people see it as a sport that "foreigners" play and would move on once the novelty wears off.
yet soccer flourishes in Cascadia historically.

and Kansas City and Salt Lake City are 2 of hot beds for soccer in America. hardly cities you would think have strong soccer presence.

so there is potential for soccer to grow in North America; it's just understanding what makes each region tick and to adopt soccer as one of their sports.

[Yohan]

I think the quality of foreigner players would be a whole lot better. I mean, imagine the size of our wallet. We're right now flashing around $26 million for 2 DP guys. Instead, we could use that money on better guys than the likes of Usanov and Aceval we've seen in the past, but could instead splurge very easily $500k on a central defender. Keeping Frei would be no problem at all. Heck, Ecks salary would be no problem either. It's not a headache we'd have to worry about (and also btw with no cap we wouldn't ever have to hear about allocation money again). Think about it, we'd probably be approved for a $10-13 million a year salary by MLSE. There's no way that this new team wouldn't be infinitely better than anything we've seen at BMO. That's how it works anywhere in the world. A league gets much better when more money is available. We're no different. To me I feel like the MLS talks a good game, but at the end of the day it's not really worthy of asking for the kind of attention it hopes to get on TV. The quality isn't quite there yet. I know plenty of people here in Toronto who love watching the Prem, but they find our league quite poor. However, in recent years with the adding of more DP's across the league they've started to pay a bit of notice. We should crank it and push our league up a serious level - and not improve by 5% a year. Essentially that's the result of the cap.

Also, in terms of the fear that foreign players would take over our league. We actually only have 7 Canadian players on our team - and that's out of 28 players (wiki). 21 foreigners (10 of these are American). Only 3 of our Canadian players start often (Osorio, Henry, Morgan). That leaves 8 foreigners that typically start on our team. Apply the $10-13 million dollar budget and you've got a killer team. Even with the 3 Canadians (which could be the league rule). But at least they'd learn from much better players - and that never hurts. And finally, we could pay everyone better. That also doesn't hurt in terms of giving people a better life, more security, etc.. Become better and more focused players.

But nope, instead of 6 $1m guys we'll probably get Adebayor. Just doesn't make any sense to me.

Sure. Give me a financially viable model that allows ALL MLS teams to pay 10 mil a year in salary without causing MLS to go bankrupt like NASL.

Wage inflation blows. Too many players get overpaid, but once they get overpaid, it becomes the normal salary, which is not good.

[ag futbol]

For a reasonable incease ( say to 4-5M total cap space) really the only place you'll see inflation is in domestic wages and that impact will be mostly short run. Long run quality will adjust to compesate for higher pay.

Playing MLS isn't an attractive option for a lot of young players out there. Higher salaries would change that. It would also end things like players going to peripheral leagues in Europe for slightly more money.

International wages quality will be raised proportionately. It's a big market and MLS can't single handedly move the barometer.

[Yohan]

Playing MLS isn't an attractive option for a lot of young players out there. Higher salaries would change that. It would also end things like players going to peripheral leagues in Europe for slightly more money.

this doesn't really happen anymore, esp when it is known that playing in MLS is good enough for a shot at USMNT spot, and MLS is financially stable, vs taking a risk at fringe Euro leagues

[inheavensince07]

I persoanlly think the cap helps and hurts .. But would love to see no cap. Let's see if we can bring in more talent with big payrolls

[Haddy]

point is that it is different in every city; making some owners (owner-operators) better off than others

Of course! There are an insurmountable number of variables to figure this stuff out to include every team. I was simply making the point that, on the surface, gate revenue can cover team salary. But then you start adding in other revenue streams, expenses and profit goals and suddenly it's not that easy.

[Beach_Red]

yet soccer flourishes in Cascadia historically.

and Kansas City and Salt Lake City are 2 of hot beds for soccer in America. hardly cities you would think have strong soccer presence.

so there is potential for soccer to grow in North America; it's just understanding what makes each region tick and to adopt soccer as one of their sports.

Yes, that's the question, can soccer go from a regional sport to a national sport. How long did it take basketball? Has hockey done it yet? And in both those cases (and in American football) the North American leagues are the top in the world.

Things like the salary cap, DP rule and domestic requirements are the ways MLS has tried to compete. I hope they find the right formula but it may take a while.

[Super]

Sure. Give me a financially viable model that allows ALL MLS teams to pay 10 mil a year in salary without causing MLS to go bankrupt like NASL.

Wage inflation blows. Too many players get overpaid, but once they get overpaid, it becomes the normal salary, which is not good.

I'm not talking about introducing a new salary cap of $10 mil. I'm talking about no cap. That means some teams will have $5 mil available to them, and others will have $15 mil. No different in any other league in the world. Not sure why this would immediately kill off our league. This won't be anything like the NASL. There will be strict rules in place to ensure that no team spends beyond its means. The teams with the most fans will have the most money. Just like anywhere else in the world. This way you give a leg up to markets that actually give a shit about the game. If smaller markets can't survive, then fuck them. There's a long list of new cities waiting to join. Call it our relegation system. You'd have 5 amazing teams, 10 middle teams, and 5 shitty teams. Again, just like most leagues in the world. Instead of adding a ton of new teams to the league as they're doing now, maybe we should think about getting rid of some of the losers that are keeping everybody else down. We need to grow and get better. But hey, I understand a lot of people are not for that plan. They enjoy parity. I don't. I find it makes the MLS the most boring league in the world. I like competition. I like teams to be different. I like the fact that teams with a shitload of fans will have more money. They earn it. Makes no sense to have a Chivas at the top of the league, and a Seattle at the bottom. Not happening right now, but it could happen. It should NEVER happen! Parity allows this to happen. For markets with ZERO fans to beat markets with tons of fans - who will then simply fade away (see Toronto).

[Beach_Red]

I'm not talking about introducing a new salary cap of $10 mil. I'm talking about no cap. That means some teams will have $5 mil available to them, and others will have $15 mil. No different in any other league in the world. Not sure why this would immediately kill off our league. This won't be anything like the NASL. There will be strict rules in place to ensure that no team spends beyond its means. The teams with the most fans will have the most money. Just like anywhere else in the world. This way you give a leg up to markets that actually give a shit about the game. If smaller markets can't survive, then fuck them. There's a long list of new cities waiting to join. Call it our relegation system. You'd have 5 amazing teams, 10 middle teams, and 5 shitty teams. Again, just like most leagues in the world. Instead of adding a ton of new teams to the league as they're doing now, maybe we should think about getting rid of some of the losers that are keeping everybody else down. We need to grow and get better. But hey, I understand a lot of people are not for that plan. They enjoy parity. I don't. I find it makes the MLS the most boring league in the world. I like competition. I like teams to be different. I like the fact that teams with a shitload of fans will have more money. They earn it. Makes no sense to have a Chivas at the top of the league, and a Seattle at the bottom. Not happening right now, but it could happen. It should NEVER happen! Parity allows this to happen. For markets with ZERO fans to beat markets with tons of fans - who will then simply fade away (see Toronto).

Is that still true? It seems like teams with the richest owners have the most money.

Anyway, MLS started out trying to become a national league like the NFL which means they have to compete with an entire league (that has a salary cap and revenue sharing), not just a few teams here and there. New cities want to join because they hope the whole league will be strong, not just a few teams. But I think you're probably right, MLS will never have 30 strong teams and a national market like the other sports and some owners will want to go it alone.

[prizby]

Of course! There are an insurmountable number of variables to figure this stuff out to include every team. I was simply making the point that, on the surface, gate revenue can cover team salary. But then you start adding in other revenue streams, expenses and profit goals and suddenly it's not that easy.

i always like to make the point that TFC's kit sponsor and stadium rights sponsor would probably be enough to operate a whole team within a year. (without DP's etc..)

[Yohan]

I'm not talking about introducing a new salary cap of $10 mil. I'm talking about no cap. That means some teams will have $5 mil available to them, and others will have $15 mil. No different in any other league in the world. Not sure why this would immediately kill off our league. This won't be anything like the NASL. There will be strict rules in place to ensure that no team spends beyond its means. The teams with the most fans will have the most money. Just like anywhere else in the world. This way you give a leg up to markets that actually give a shit about the game. If smaller markets can't survive, then fuck them. There's a long list of new cities waiting to join. Call it our relegation system. You'd have 5 amazing teams, 10 middle teams, and 5 shitty teams. Again, just like most leagues in the world. Instead of adding a ton of new teams to the league as they're doing now, maybe we should think about getting rid of some of the losers that are keeping everybody else down. We need to grow and get better. But hey, I understand a lot of people are not for that plan. They enjoy parity. I don't. I find it makes the MLS the most boring league in the world. I like competition. I like teams to be different. I like the fact that teams with a shitload of fans will have more money. They earn it. Makes no sense to have a Chivas at the top of the league, and a Seattle at the bottom. Not happening right now, but it could happen. It should NEVER happen! Parity allows this to happen. For markets with ZERO fans to beat markets with tons of fans - who will then simply fade away (see Toronto).
There are plenty of leagues that wish for a salary cap system of some sort. FFP anyone?
You like La Liga or EPL where it's just 2-5 teams have the chance for league title? Boring.

If you don't like parity, fine. This season of MLS has been one of best so far, with pretty much all games being meaningful to last week of fixtures for playoff spots or Supporter's Shield.

[Super]

There are plenty of leagues that wish for a salary cap system of some sort. FFP anyone?
You like La Liga or EPL where it's just 2-5 teams have the chance for league title? Boring.

If you don't like parity, fine. This season of MLS has been one of best so far, with pretty much all games being meaningful to last week of fixtures for playoff spots or Supporter's Shield.

That's the problem: few people like parity. Especially the ones who grew up watching football from anywhere in the world. It feels very fake. Canned. Produced. Also, I don't think it makes the league exciting at all. There's NEVER a shocking result. Ever! Everyone can beat everyone. Always! There's a real lack of identity with the league teams. No one is feared. You need that to put on a great show. It's just not a very good product to most fans outside of the little MLS bubble, and that's a shame, because there are millions of football fans in North America who might consider it. We shouldn't simply turn them away, but instead grow and align ourselves better with the rest of the world, and then with all the new fans we'll truly become a top 10 league in the world.

You ask me if I like La Liga and EPL? Yes. Yes I do. And so do millions. More people follow those leagues with great passion in this city than have ever set foot at BMO. That's a problem for us. Talk to any of these people and tell them about parity, DP rules, and they'll just sigh and shake their heads. Also, if you look at Europe, the big clubs are typically from big cities with a great population to support the club, or they're just well-supported, period. That means money for them, bigger TV audience, etc. It wouldn't be great for football in the EPL if it was all parity, and you had Scunthorpe Utd win one year, then Lincoln City the next, then Blackpool. You need the drama of the giants. We will NEVER have the battles of the giants in this league. And that's what a large portion of football fans crave. They may not watch every MLS game, but they might watch the big teams duke it out. We're talking about millions of TV viewers that would come to watch the show if we put on a bigger one. I understand your thinking, I just know how many people don't want that product, and that's a shame. The MLS needs respectability to really grow. For now the product on the field is just not good enough.

[OgtheDim]

A few things:

This game will not grow with 4 strong teams and the rest.

And if people are not coming to this league cause of parity and other rules, then they are finding excuses.

And, sorry, people don't crave battles of the giants. They crave good football and have been sold that this comes from battles of the giants.

We should not shape this league to fit the EPL and La Liga approach, which is killing all football outside of the top teams.

Oh, and if people crave the biggest, how do you explain US College Football?

[Beach_Red]

That's the problem: few people like parity. Especially the ones who grew up watching football from anywhere in the world. It feels very fake. Canned. Produced. Also, I don't think it makes the league exciting at all. There's NEVER a shocking result. Ever! Everyone can beat everyone. Always! There's a real lack of identity with the league teams. No one is feared. You need that to put on a great show. It's just not a very good product to most fans outside of the little MLS bubble, and that's a shame, because there are millions of football fans in North America who might consider it. We shouldn't simply turn them away, but instead grow and align ourselves better with the rest of the world, and then with all the new fans we'll truly become a top 10 league in the world.

You ask me if I like La Liga and EPL? Yes. Yes I do. And so do millions. More people follow those leagues with great passion in this city than have ever set foot at BMO. That's a problem for us. Talk to any of these people and tell them about parity, DP rules, and they'll just sigh and shake their heads. Also, if you look at Europe, the big clubs are typically from big cities with a great population to support the club, or they're just well-supported, period. That means money for them, bigger TV audience, etc. It wouldn't be great for football in the EPL if it was all parity, and you had Scunthorpe Utd win one year, then Lincoln City the next, then Blackpool. You need the drama of the giants. We will NEVER have the battles of the giants in this league. And that's what a large portion of football fans crave. They may not watch every MLS game, but they might watch the big teams duke it out. We're talking about millions of TV viewers that would come to watch the show if we put on a bigger one. I understand your thinking, I just know how many people don't want that product, and that's a shame. The MLS needs respectability to really grow. For now the product on the field is just not good enough.

It all depends how it's done. The North American leagues have parity - and huge followings. They have a finite market and finite number of teams. It's different. But you can't say it doesn't work.

But your second point is true, it probably won't work for soccer. I now see the split between, as you say, the people who will never set foot at BMO (or other soccer stadiums in North America) and those who will. I don't think salary caps or DP rules or any of that will really make a difference. Soccer is a different culture (took me a few years here to realize that) and it's just not for most North Americans.

[Super]

It all depends how it's done. The North American leagues have parity - and huge followings. They have a finite market and finite number of teams. It's different. But you can't say it doesn't work.

But your second point is true, it probably won't work for soccer. I now see the split between, as you say, the people who will never set foot at BMO (or other soccer stadiums in North America) and those who will. I don't think salary caps or DP rules or any of that will really make a difference. Soccer is a different culture (took me a few years here to realize that) and it's just not for most North Americans.

The reason why it doesn't quite work as well as it should is because a small market team is just as likely to win as a big market team. However, the financial impact of a big team losing is greater on the league as a whole than a small team losing. That's basically the #1 reason in my opinion why the parity has to go. The cap shouldn't be set to where the poorest team is on level. It should be set way higher so the richer teams can bring in better players. There is no way that is bad for the league. If that means dropping a Chivas in the sea and replacing them with a new market, so be it. That's the cost of growing.

Re: my second point, I have friends who would consider watching MLS if it had a higher standard. They think we're getting close, but overall the quality is just not there. They also find the league rules to be a joke. They simply can't get invested in something that feels so fake. Again, we can call them snobs, but we're turning away a huge amount of people - and I bet you more people do not go to BMO because of those reasons more than any other reason. So to me it's really about lost potential. If you take TFC as an example, we would have been able to get ourselves out of countless pickles if we didn't have to deal with the cap. Because of the cap (and yes, the people who mismanaged it) we have now been through 7 years of misery. Sure, we could probably blow 10 million on a bunch of duds too. But it's less likely to be a failure. We'd be a powerhouse in the league. Not the biggest. Not the smallest. But certainly with enough of a chance to win, and with enough quality on the pitch, that we could fill the stadium week after week, and add some healthy TV numbers to that. Chivas will never do that. Ever.

The only cap I think should be in place is to say: you can't spend beyond your means. So if TFC is losing money, that would be an awesome argument as to why they should raise ticket prices. As a fan you then feel like your dollars are more connected to the play on the pitch. You buy a jersey. You support the team financially - so you can get better and maybe win. I think as a supporter you feel more connected that way too.

[Beach_Red]

The reason why it doesn't quite work as well as it should is because a small market team is just as likely to win as a big market team. However, the financial impact of a big team losing is greater on the league as a whole than a small team losing. That's basically the #1 reason in my opinion why the parity has to go. The cap shouldn't be set to where the poorest team is on level. It should be set way higher so the richer teams can bring in better players. There is no way that is bad for the league. If that means dropping a Chivas in the sea and replacing them with a new market, so be it. That's the cost of growing.

Re: my second point, I have friends who would consider watching MLS if it had a higher standard. They think we're getting close, but overall the quality is just not there. They also find the league rules to be a joke. They simply can't get invested in something that feels so fake. Again, we can call them snobs, but we're turning away a huge amount of people - and I bet you more people do not go to BMO because of those reasons more than any other reason. So to me it's really about lost potential. If you take TFC as an example, we would have been able to get ourselves out of countless pickles if we didn't have to deal with the cap. Because of the cap (and yes, the people who mismanaged it) we have now been through 7 years of misery. Sure, we could probably blow 10 million on a bunch of duds too. But it's less likely to be a failure. We'd be a powerhouse in the league. Not the biggest. Not the smallest. But certainly with enough of a chance to win, and with enough quality on the pitch, that we could fill the stadium week after week, and add some healthy TV numbers to that. Chivas will never do that. Ever.

I disagree. Oh, I agree that we're turning away people, I just don't agree that it's a huge amount. This is the dilemma that MLS has faced from the beginning, the reason why it needed a single investor for so many teams - there are two sports markets here and the one you're talking about, your friends, is just too small to compete with the NFL, MLB, NBA and even the NHL (which all have salary caps and strange rules). It may simply be that soccer culture never becomes very widespread in North America.

[ag futbol]

this doesn't really happen anymore, esp when it is known that playing in MLS is good enough for a shot at USMNT spot, and MLS is financially stable, vs taking a risk at fringe Euro leagues
I disagree with that. Look at this list, there is lots of talent floating around out there. It also fails to consider the number of talented people who simply take a pass on a career in soccer because the starting compensation packages in MLS are so paltry.

http://www.soccertimes.com/americans/list.htm

[ag futbol]

I'm not talking about introducing a new salary cap of $10 mil. I'm talking about no cap. That means some teams will have $5 mil available to them, and others will have $15 mil. No different in any other league in the world. Not sure why this would immediately kill off our league. This won't be anything like the NASL. There will be strict rules in place to ensure that no team spends beyond its means. The teams with the most fans will have the most money. Just like anywhere else in the world. This way you give a leg up to markets that actually give a shit about the game. If smaller markets can't survive, then fuck them. There's a long list of new cities waiting to join. Call it our relegation system. You'd have 5 amazing teams, 10 middle teams, and 5 shitty teams. Again, just like most leagues in the world. Instead of adding a ton of new teams to the league as they're doing now, maybe we should think about getting rid of some of the losers that are keeping everybody else down. We need to grow and get better. But hey, I understand a lot of people are not for that plan. They enjoy parity. I don't. I find it makes the MLS the most boring league in the world. I like competition. I like teams to be different. I like the fact that teams with a shitload of fans will have more money. They earn it. Makes no sense to have a Chivas at the top of the league, and a Seattle at the bottom. Not happening right now, but it could happen. It should NEVER happen! Parity allows this to happen. For markets with ZERO fans to beat markets with tons of fans - who will then simply fade away (see Toronto).
Not that I 100% agree with this, but for the sake of debate I'll say that letting things be unequal can potentially be good for business. In some ways MLS is always constrained by the lowest common denominator which is not always healthy. If big spending causes the large teams to earn more than the small teams lose, then it's a winner economically.

[Yohan]

The reason why it doesn't quite work as well as it should is because a small market team is just as likely to win as a big market team. However, the financial impact of a big team losing is greater on the league as a whole than a small team losing. That's basically the #1 reason in my opinion why the parity has to go. The cap shouldn't be set to where the poorest team is on level. It should be set way higher so the richer teams can bring in better players. There is no way that is bad for the league. If that means dropping a Chivas in the sea and replacing them with a new market, so be it. That's the cost of growing.
Rig the league so that only big market teams can win? How boring it would be to see LA/NY/Seattle crush other team 3-0 every game. Oh wait, this sounds like La Liga, where mid table games are more entertaining than watch Real Madrid/Barca vs whoever else.


Re: my second point, I have friends who would consider watching MLS if it had a higher standard. They think we're getting close, but overall the quality is just not there. They also find the league rules to be a joke. They simply can't get invested in something that feels so fake. Again, we can call them snobs, but we're turning away a huge amount of people - and I bet you more people do not go to BMO because of those reasons more than any other reason. So to me it's really about lost potential. If you take TFC as an example, we would have been able to get ourselves out of countless pickles if we didn't have to deal with the cap. Because of the cap (and yes, the people who mismanaged it) we have now been through 7 years of misery. Sure, we could probably blow 10 million on a bunch of duds too. But it's less likely to be a failure. We'd be a powerhouse in the league. Not the biggest. Not the smallest. But certainly with enough of a chance to win, and with enough quality on the pitch, that we could fill the stadium week after week, and add some healthy TV numbers to that. Chivas will never do that. Ever.

The only cap I think should be in place is to say: you can't spend beyond your means. So if TFC is losing money, that would be an awesome argument as to why they should raise ticket prices. As a fan you then feel like your dollars are more connected to the play on the pitch. You buy a jersey. You support the team financially - so you can get better and maybe win. I think as a supporter you feel more connected that way too.
Those that say MLS isn't good enough quality don't support 2nd div leagues in Europe either. They are generally a lost cause. MLS won't be as good as La Liga/EPL/Serie A anytime soon.

Every league has its own quirky rules, though not as many as MLS. (ever try to figure out roster rules for La Liga and Serie A? EPL roster limit rules/work permit?) It's just that people are already familiar with them, so it's ok. MLS rules are feel alien, and can't be arsed to learn for most people.

[Yohan]

I disagree with that. Look at this list, there is lots of talent floating around out there. It also fails to consider the number of talented people who simply take a pass on a career in soccer because the starting compensation packages in MLS are so paltry.

http://www.soccertimes.com/americans/list.htm
you will also note a lot of these players are playing in leagues worse in quality than MLS, implying they aren't good enough for MLS.

[Super]

Rig the league so that only big market teams can win? How boring it would be to see LA/NY/Seattle crush other team 3-0 every game. Oh wait, this sounds like La Liga, where mid table games are more entertaining than watch Real Madrid/Barca vs whoever else.

Those that say MLS isn't good enough quality don't support 2nd div leagues in Europe either. They are generally a lost cause. MLS won't be as good as La Liga/EPL/Serie A anytime soon.

Every league has its own quirky rules, though not as many as MLS. (ever try to figure out roster rules for La Liga and Serie A? EPL roster limit rules/work permit?) It's just that people are already familiar with them, so it's ok. MLS rules are feel alien, and can't be arsed to learn for most people.

See, that's where we differ completely. I find the MLS is rigged (by handicap rules), and the others not (spend as you like). Unfortunately for me (and the quality of the on-pitch play) you will probably continue to have your way and parity will rule. Parity works in NHL, NFL, NBA because they're the best leagues in the world. They're not missing out on better quality by having a cap. We on the other hand are missing out big. So it's a league example where the parity that is otherwise appreciated in the other leagues, simply doesn't work in our case.

[Yohan]

See, that's where we differ completely. I find the MLS is rigged (by handicap rules), and the others not (spend as you like). Unfortunately for me (and the quality of the on-pitch play) you will probably continue to have your way and parity will rule. Parity works in NHL, NFL, NBA because they're the best leagues in the world. They're not missing out on better quality by having a cap. We on the other hand are missing out big. So it's a league example where the parity that is otherwise appreciated in the other leagues, simply doesn't work in our case.
It doesn't work if you want instant gratification.

The rise in quality of league over past 7 years seems to indicate that you can raise the quality of play without overspending and maintaining fiscal prudence.

[Haddy]

You'd have 5 amazing teams, 10 middle teams, and 5 shitty teams. Again, just like most leagues in the world. Instead of adding a ton of new teams to the league as they're doing now, maybe we should think about getting rid of some of the losers that are keeping everybody else down. We need to grow and get better. But hey, I understand a lot of people are not for that plan. They enjoy parity. I don't. I find it makes the MLS the most boring league in the world. I like competition.

The competition level is even greater when more clubs have a chance. Wouldn't you want to see a heavyweight fight go 12 rounds instead of 1?

Just for arguments sake, yes there are millions of fans who enjoy watching 'football giants' pummel opponents week in and week out. But many of those clubs flirt with bankruptcy all the time because they take on too much debt just to appease their fans. And on a continent like Europe, UEFA is considering all sorts of measurements to slow down the spending of these so-called giants to protect the owners from themselves and give the 'little guy' a better chance.


It feels very fake. Canned. Produced. Also, I don't think it makes the league exciting at all. There's NEVER a shocking result. Ever! Everyone can beat everyone.

One of the most famous phrases to come out of the NFL is "On any given Sunday...." because the belief has always been that any team can win, any time. MLS has simply taken that concept a step further. It's the league's job to win over the American market first and foremost, and if that concept is tried and true in that market, I can't blame them for adopting it.

I enjoy the parity because it's a breathe of fresh air. And if a club defends a title, it's all that much more impressive of an achievement.

Right now the only 'villians' - like a moneybags Chelsea or Man City - are the teams who spend the most on DPs. Basically RBNY, LA and Seattle...heck probably TFC soon too. But I do believe one day, years from now, MLS will have a cap more in tune with the NHL in that there will be a minimum and maximum to spend. It allows for a bit of a margin between clubs. Would that appease folks like yourself?

I keep forgetting that MLS is still an infant. It's sort of neat to say I get to watch in person as the league grows up. Proud papa! :facepalm:

[Joe Kool]

I agree with Haddy. I don't mind the baby steps to make sure the league remains stable as it grows even though it is tough to manage a small cap. I would rather see stable long term growth than rapid growth then the league comes crumbling down because of crazy spending by some teams and losing the market in some areas that can't compete. I don't mind that any team can pretty much beat any team in this league on any given day. TFC just need to find a way to get out of the basement at some point. I am sure as the league gets stronger the cap will increase and the amount of DP's can still increase to bring in better and better talent. I also have to keep reminding myself that this league is very young as well as some have mentioned.

[ag futbol]

There are certain points where a business needs to put pedal to the medal. The environments they operate in do not stay static over time, they evolve and chances come and go. Now would be a good time for MLS teams to make a reasonable (but not extreme) increase in player wages.

I find it really hard to reason that allowing 3 designated players per team is a better use of funds than having one or two while increasing the amount of money teams can spend on regular roster players. MLS is already less even than we'd otherwise assume, although not compared to most league. Just like the NFL, "any given sunday" should be a relative term. They still have teams that are frequent losers and winners.

[Yohan]

There are certain points where a business needs to put pedal to the medal. The environments they operate in do not stay static over time, they evolve and chances come and go. Now would be a good time for MLS teams to make a reasonable (but not extreme) increase in player wages.

I find it really hard to reason that allowing 3 designated players per team is a better use of funds than having one or two while increasing the amount of money teams can spend on regular roster players. MLS is already less even than we'd otherwise assume, although not compared to most league. Just like the NFL, "any given sunday" should be a relative term. They still have teams that are frequent losers and winners.
the league pays the cap (2.95 mil). DPs are paid out of owners pockets (for most part)

[ag futbol]

the league pays the cap (2.95 mil). DPs are paid out of owners pockets (for most part)
As I'm well aware. Regardless of whether it's DP wages or regular pages it's still about the same underlying issue: where do you spend your money to get a return?

You could just as easily have a NBA / NHL style cap with a soft bottom and a hard ceiling where owners can make extra expenditures on anybody, not just DPs.

[Pint]

could always do a luxury tax type system... league plays first 2.95 mil, from 2.95-3.5 mil owner of team pays, and from 3.5-4.5 owner pays but also pays league dollar for dollar spent. ie a 4 mil team pays 1.05 mil in wages and 500k to the league.

[Carts]

could always do a luxury tax type system... league plays first 2.95 mil, from 2.95-3.5 mil owner of team pays, and from 3.5-4.5 owner pays but also pays league dollar for dollar spent. ie a 4 mil team pays 1.05 mil in wages and 500k to the league.

I wonder how a luxury tax would work in this league... It's an interesting proposition...

I definitely think it would have to be a set of rules, drawn up specifically for MLS. With the tax going to other clubs and directly upping their salary limit etc (or something)...

Someone, much smarter than me, should try and pencil this out (I'm sure they have before) but I think it would be a very interesting conversation / discussion...

It has to limit the power of the super-rich so they don't become too dominant - but not limit them so much that spending big is not worth it...

Tough, but worth a head-scratch over...

Carts...

[Yohan]

http://www.psmag.com/business-economics/my-economics-of-being-a-regular-professional-athlete-63770/

Colorado GK Clint Irwin (who used to play for Capital City in CSL) on being a minor league soccer player in NA.

This cannot happen anymore esp in MLS level. Raising min wage is what I want to see the most right now.

[ag futbol]

^ That is the key point right there. A lot of these guys are mentally occupied by off the field issues and have difficulty putting their all towards the sport. Even making things a little bit better would have a lot of benefit.

[Super]

Right now the only 'villians' - like a moneybags Chelsea or Man City - are the teams who spend the most on DPs. Basically RBNY, LA and Seattle...heck probably TFC soon too. But I do believe one day, years from now, MLS will have a cap more in tune with the NHL in that there will be a minimum and maximum to spend. It allows for a bit of a margin between clubs. Would that appease folks like yourself

It would, yes. If, let's say, the minimum is $3 million and the top end is $15 million. It would certainly be better than now, and clubs who CAN spend $15 mil would spend it anyway now, just on a couple of players rather than a whole team. You wouldn't see that much extra spending. You'd probably see less big name players, but the average foreigner would be of much, much better stock.

[Macksam]

MLS will never have 30 strong teams and a national market like the other sports and some owners will want to go it alone.
I think it eventually will.


I disagree. Oh, I agree that we're turning away people, I just don't agree that it's a huge amount. This is the dilemma that MLS has faced from the beginning, the reason why it needed a single investor for so many teams - there are two sports markets here and the one you're talking about, your friends, is just too small to compete with the NFL, MLB, NBA and even the NHL (which all have salary caps and strange rules). It may simply be that soccer culture never becomes very widespread in North America.
I think soccer is more popular here than everything that isn't hockey. If the league gets to a certain quality, it will attract a lot more people in this city. I don't think it's unreasonable to eventually see a 40,000 to 50,000 arena for TFC if the team gets to the level of Porto/Benfica quality. I can't comment on other cities in this continent but Seattle and Vancouver could make similar cases.

[brad]

Re: my second point, I have friends who would consider watching MLS if it had a higher standard. They think we're getting close, but overall the quality is just not there. They also find the league rules to be a joke. They simply can't get invested in something that feels so fake. Again, we can call them snobs, but we're turning away a huge amount of people - and I bet you more people do not go to BMO because of those reasons more than any other reason.

On the first bolded point - agree and same here. I have friends and family that would be TFC supporters if the quality was there. And by quality, I don't mean a top team, or even one of the best in the league. I mean one that can play a competent level of football at a professional standard. A number of those folks are people that grew up overseas and supported lower division teams there. They are aghast as lack of quality - basic fundamental stuff that isn't being done, stuff that kids should be doing, like passing and moving into space, holding shape, ect.

On the second point, there will always be "Eurosnobs" that won't support any team that isn't a Barcelona or Man Utd, but those folks aren't the target IMHO because we won't win them. There are a whole lot of people that would be more than happy to support a decent standard of football.

EDIT - after reading through the rest of the thread, I realize there is a difference between MLS vs TFC in this context. I'm referring to folks I know wrt TFC, not the MLS in general. I don't know a whole lot of folks without a local connection to a team that care much for the MLS in genera.

[brad]

What I think the biggest issues with the cap right now affecting quality:
*the need to cut corners in certain positions to fund other positions - the quality will increase when you can reliably field a higher quality starting 11, and have to look for bargains at fullback for example.
*lack of depth. The obvious issue here is with a few injuries the quality drops significantly. But the other issue that I rarely see discussed is lack of competition for places. Competition is critical to keep players hungry and fighting for their place, and we just don't have enough of it due to the massive drop in quality in a lot of cases.

I also think that it's an issue when Domestics that are good enough for our league are playing at an equal or lower standard overseas simply because they get paid better.

[brad]

Another issue with popularity is getting out of market people to watch the game as well. What gets someone in Alberta, Manitoba or Saskatchewan, for example to turn on an MLS game when they have no direct connection to any of the teams? I know there are folks on here that can talk to directly about that (although we are the die hards not overly representative of the general population). I know quite a few people in other parts of Canada that started watching TFC and paying attention to the MLS in the first few years, but have since dropped off (all due to the fact that TFC was their main interest and they are so painfully boring to watch - especially on TV).

Sure, there is quality in other teams, but as soon as you are talking about watching a different MLS team that you have no connection to, you are now competing with a large pool of much higher caliber of football, and only so many hours in the week.

[Haddy]

*lack of depth. The obvious issue here is with a few injuries the quality drops significantly. But the other issue that I rarely see discussed is lack of competition for places. Competition is critical to keep players hungry and fighting for their place, and we just don't have enough of it due to the massive drop in quality in a lot of cases.

100% this

Watched a clip yesterday of Dembele saying every competitive squad should have 3 top players in every position. I couldn't help but laugh at first....then fall right into depression.

If MLS wants to improve on its CCL escapades, depth needs to be looked at.

[BuSaPuNk]

100% this

Watched a clip yesterday of Dembele saying every competitive squad should have 3 top players in every position. I couldn't help but laugh at first....then fall right into depression.

If MLS wants to improve on its CCL escapades, depth needs to be looked at.

It doesn't help that teams from Mexico and South America have little in the way of caps and can have a bench of players that could easly start in the MLS.

[Richard]

^^^^^ Thats a product of a developement system that is much better.

The MLS teams need more incentives to develop home grown talent. I would really love to see homegrown quality starters or DP level players stay in the league and count nothing against the cap. I think this should be a small long term step in the leagues progression.

[ag futbol]

Another issue with popularity is getting out of market people to watch the game as well. What gets someone in Alberta, Manitoba or Saskatchewan, for example to turn on an MLS game when they have no direct connection to any of the teams? I know there are folks on here that can talk to directly about that (although we are the die hards not overly representative of the general population). I know quite a few people in other parts of Canada that started watching TFC and paying attention to the MLS in the first few years, but have since dropped off (all due to the fact that TFC was their main interest and they are so painfully boring to watch - especially on TV).

Sure, there is quality in other teams, but as soon as you are talking about watching a different MLS team that you have no connection to, you are now competing with a large pool of much higher caliber of football, and only so many hours in the week.
I think you've hit on it right here. Unless you've got a personal connection to the team (attended a game, etc., etc..,) the product isn't very appealing. Stuck in a chicken-and-egg scenario to a certain extent. Need a better quality product to have higher ratings, but need higher ratings / TV deal to have a better quality product.


It doesn't help that teams from Mexico and South America have little in the way of caps and can have a bench of players that could easly start in the MLS.
The real ironic part of this is when we go against the better mexican teams they essentially have the same payrolls as the high spending MLS sides... but they haven't given millions of dollars to a few players while paying everyone else peanuts.

That being said there are still other areas where we lag. Obviously the Mexicans have a much better structure to develop players and benefit from that. They also have much richer endorsement deals.

[habstfc]

yet soccer flourishes in Cascadia historically.

and Kansas City and Salt Lake City are 2 of hot beds for soccer in America. hardly cities you would think have strong soccer presence.

so there is potential for soccer to grow in North America; it's just understanding what makes each region tick and to adopt soccer as one of their sports. let's see how they'd do with attendance if they had a couple of losing seasons. Cities like that aren't big enough population wise to support a loser that's what worries me about cities like Orlando coming in.

[Yohan]

One of things about putting a major league team in a small market city is that there aren't many other sports to compete with for same entertainment dollar.

[Richard]

One of things about putting a major league team in a small market city is that there aren't many other sports to compete with for same entertainment dollar.

Don't underestimate College Football and Basketball, some team have a much bigger following than some MLS clubs at the moment.

The states is really a tough market, a long uphill battle for MLS.

[Yohan]

Don't underestimate College Football and Basketball, some team have a much bigger following than some MLS clubs at the moment.

The states is really a tough market, a long uphill battle for MLS.
you face that in every US market though. at least SLC and Orlando isn't competing with NFL, MLB, NHL.

[Initial B]

The other thing to remember is that there aren't a lot of summer sports to distract fans, just baseball. That's why I don't think MLS will work in Tampa Bay or Miami, but will work in Orlando.

[habstfc]

You have to be a fan of the game to some degree to get you into that stadium. Just because there is no other competition with other professional sports in the city doesn't automatically make people go. I hope it succeeds but we'll see. There is also the heat and humidity factor as well. Its hot there in the winter just imagine the heat in may- September, it's unbearable, will people leave their air conditioning is another question.

[Alonso]

http://www.psmag.com/business-economics/my-economics-of-being-a-regular-professional-athlete-63770/

Colorado GK Clint Irwin (who used to play for Capital City in CSL) on being a minor league soccer player in NA.

This cannot happen anymore esp in MLS level. Raising min wage is what I want to see the most right now.


^ That is the key point right there. A lot of these guys are mentally occupied by off the field issues and have difficulty putting their all towards the sport. Even making things a little bit better would have a lot of benefit.


This^^^^

$100,000 league minimum salary with a slight cap increase in the $2m ( $5m overall cap) range would do more for the league and domestic players and national teams then anything else could.

Think about the domestic players on the fringe of the professional sport in North America. There are thousands of them who look at $50,000 after being successful (ie. making the team) as a deterrent.

They could pick almost any other profession and be much further ahead with a little bit of time than waste the effort at a pro soccer career in north america.

Up the minimum wage only slightly (in terms of the cost to the team) and not a lot of people can claim to make $100,000 at the age of 19 (less than 5% of the population). This is where this league needs to be as far as increasing the quality of the game, not increasing wages at the top where 2 players make $5,000,000 and the rest of the team makes $2 million combined.

[Initial B]

I hate to quibble, but $100k is too much, too soon. I was thinking the Minimum should be raised to $60k ($3.75m cap, 5% increase per year) in the next collective agreement, $80k ($5m cap, 5% inc/yr) in the agreement after that, then $100k ($7m cap, 5% inc/yr) in the agreement after that. So in about 12 years (2025) MLS will be truly world class. Does that sound like Garber's timeframe for growth?

The real driver for increasing the cap will be increased television revenue. The Guardian had a great article on MLS standardizing their days of play to conform to TV times (they recommend Fridays 7pm/9pm and Saturdays after EPL - 3:30pm?) today if you go take a look.

[Haddy]

Koevermans quoted as saying minimum wage has to go up during the end-of-season presser.

[Kaz]

MLS needs to raise the cap, that is not at issue and though the amount can be debatable, the cap itself isn't.

How many teams in Europe can't pay their players? We don't want that in North America, and it being a success here might result in more leagues (particularly ones with money issues) to adopt one as well and help bring solvency to their clubs. More to that, is the Cap needs to reflect the infrastructure of the North American Development system to supply the league with higher quality players, rather then just low quality players with a high rate of pay.

There is nothing wrong with parity, Particularly when you see the results over the last few years, other then Toronto. Chivas, RSL, Redbulls, DC and LA for example have all been near the top and bottom of the league since TFC joined.

Turn around sometimes is very short.

RSL for example went from 27 to 40 points in a season. Red Bulls from 21 to 50.

When a Front Office isn't totally daft it is totally possible to fix teams, when they aren't as fundamentally broken as TFC.

There may not be shockers, but there is something to be said for the parity.

[Pookie]

I wonder how a luxury tax would work in this league... It's an interesting proposition...

I definitely think it would have to be a set of rules, drawn up specifically for MLS. With the tax going to other clubs and directly upping their salary limit etc (or something)...

Someone, much smarter than me, should try and pencil this out (I'm sure they have before) but I think it would be a very interesting conversation / discussion...

It has to limit the power of the super-rich so they don't become too dominant - but not limit them so much that spending big is not worth it...

Tough, but worth a head-scratch over...

Carts...

Given the league pays the salaries and sets the budgets annually, how would a luxury tax work when the league would be essentially taxing itself?

The league currently handles overspending via allocation money, which it allows teams to trade and also makes available to teams under "exceptional circumstances."

In essence, you have a scenario where any overspend is already likely paid/split with league money and team money. The league does end up sharing the fruits of the overspend of certain teams via revenue sharing. As an example, a NY/LA final is good for the league and its franchise operators from a revenue perspective so one might argue that limiting the super rich is not in the interests of the collective.

Completely unrelated, I do chuckle when people complain about salaries of players like Eckersley. The league signs off on all contracts and voids those that it feels will throw salaries out of whack. Eckerlsey's salary is a function of what TFC thinks he's worth but also what the league is comfortable in spending. In business terms, the one who signs the cheque is the ultimate decision maker.

[Pookie]

Koevermans quoted as saying minimum wage has to go up during the end-of-season presser.

This is key. Convincing players that soccer is a viable career option is not an easy task given the low salaries and EXTREMELY restrictive roster rules that treat Canadians as Internationals under MLS rules.

If Morgan gets released by TFC, what are his options? Probably the same as players like Stinson, Lindsay, Makubaya... etc... etc... Given that, what's the incentive for a Canadian player that is of MLS potential quality to make a commitment to the sport?

[ensco]

^Hey, nice to see you, whatever happened to you?

Always great to see people who made a big contribution here return.

[jloome]

Steve Nicol was talking to the BBC the other day about his view that MLS talent is becoming badly diluted.

Then I was doing some research on a player in Africa who no one outside the continent has signed yet at 20, Mbwana Samatta. He's a real talent, great speed, great eye for goal, six goals in 17 internationals for Tanzania, six goals in six games at the African cup.

Turns out his club TP Mazembe in the DR of Congo has a budget of over $5 million. Admittedly, it's an exception on the continent, owned by a fanatical rich guy who is signing up all the best talent on the continent. But what it means is that he probably knows Samatta's potential transfer value is in the $500K to $1M range, at least.

So not only can we not afford a player who should, in economic terms, be a bargain, but the average MLS team has a budget being dwarfed by a club in an impoverished third-world nation.

[jloome]

This is key. Convincing players that soccer is a viable career option is not an easy task given the low salaries and EXTREMELY restrictive roster rules that treat Canadians as Internationals under MLS rules.


To me, the best route to Canadian development would be to have a consortium of potential Canadian owners approach MLS about starting a Canadian pro-league, with Canadian roster restrictions guaranteeing a handful of slots in each team's starting 11 are Canadian, say four or five players.

This idea could work for a few reasons:
1. MLS badly needs another USSF-recognized Div. 2 league in North America, for affiliation and loan development. Its fractured relationship with the gong show that is the NASL is going to get worse, not better, which is why more MLS players are technically going now to a league (USLPro) that is Div 3.

2. Canada badly needs a domestic league for development.

3. in Canada, a div 2 ussf league would be a div 1 CSA league. By having six or seven players on each starting roster that are "best available" under a cap instead of using mostly Canadians, we can improve on-field quality to something similar to MLS, generate more interest among potential fans nationally which will lead to increased gates, but still give Canadian youth and loanees from MLS somewhere to go to improve.

4. The enormous financial support that could be generated by official affiliations with MLS clubs would make financing on the Canadian end much easier to handle and make it easier to convince investors to come in. This in turn could help generate the government and business partner relationships need to renovate some venues and create others; we've seen from the "temp stadium" situation in Vancouver how effective a cheap erect-a-set stadium can be in bringing fans close and creating the right atmosphere.

5. By working with MLS on adopting some of its "best practices" the league would have a more professional face immediately than anything the clowns at NASL have ever managed. Visibility and credibility are hugely tied these days thanks to websites.

6. I know a couple of media companies that have had great success giving away their core product in exchange for ad resale time; the league could adopt a similar approach with respect to Canadian TV, giving them a professional-level feed each week run and paid for by the league (it really is NOT that prohibitive to run an in house team) in exchange for a way to recoup the cost via on air time.

Anyway, I still think that a Canadian league could work, and maybe this is a route. It would give these types of players a route to keep improving if their MLS career has stalled or is tanking, help Canadian talent improve massively overall. The biggest stumbling block is not travel cost, as people think, as there are ways to mitigate that issue; it's the lack of infrastructure appropriate to the "gameday experience", the close-to-the-field, beer drinking, song-singing party that leads people in Seattle to act like they're in a cult.

Good to see you around, by the way.

[Richard]

Steve Nicol was talking to the BBC the other day about his view that MLS talent is becoming badly diluted.

Then I was doing some research on a player in Africa who no one outside the continent has signed yet at 20, Mbwana Samatta. He's a real talent, great speed, great eye for goal, six goals in 17 internationals for Tanzania, six goals in six games at the African cup.

Turns out his club TP Mazembe in the DR of Congo has a budget of over $5 million. Admittedly, it's an exception on the continent, owned by a fanatical rich guy who is signing up all the best talent on the continent. But what it means is that he probably knows Samatta's potential transfer value is in the $500K to $1M range, at least.

So not only can we not afford a player who should, in economic terms, be a bargain, but the average MLS team has a budget being dwarfed by a club in an impoverished third-world nation.

Well that's an exception to the rule though, I think most MLS owners right now would rather make money then increase the budget.

Mbwana Samatta sounds like the prototypical young player who ends up somewhere in Holland, probably turns out to be fantastic too.

[Beach_Red]

To me, the best route to Canadian development would be to have a consortium of potential Canadian owners approach MLS about starting a Canadian pro-league, with Canadian roster restrictions guaranteeing a handful of slots in each team's starting 11 are Canadian, say four or five players.

This idea could work for a few reasons:
1. MLS badly needs another USSF-recognized Div. 2 league in North America, for affiliation and loan development. Its fractured relationship with the gong show that is the NASL is going to get worse, not better, which is why more MLS players are technically going now to a league (USLPro) that is Div 3.

2. Canada badly needs a domestic league for development.

3. in Canada, a div 2 ussf league would be a div 1 CSA league. By having six or seven players on each starting roster that are "best available" under a cap instead of using mostly Canadians, we can improve on-field quality to something similar to MLS, generate more interest among potential fans nationally which will lead to increased gates, but still give Canadian youth and loanees from MLS somewhere to go to improve.

4. The enormous financial support that could be generated by official affiliations with MLS clubs would make financing on the Canadian end much easier to handle and make it easier to convince investors to come in. This in turn could help generate the government and business partner relationships need to renovate some venues and create others; we've seen from the "temp stadium" situation in Vancouver how effective a cheap erect-a-set stadium can be in bringing fans close and creating the right atmosphere.

5. By working with MLS on adopting some of its "best practices" the league would have a more professional face immediately than anything the clowns at NASL have ever managed. Visibility and credibility are hugely tied these days thanks to websites.

6. I know a couple of media companies that have had great success giving away their core product in exchange for ad resale time; the league could adopt a similar approach with respect to Canadian TV, giving them a professional-level feed each week run and paid for by the league (it really is NOT that prohibitive to run an in house team) in exchange for a way to recoup the cost via on air time.

Anyway, I still think that a Canadian league could work, and maybe this is a route. It would give these types of players a route to keep improving if their MLS career has stalled or is tanking, help Canadian talent improve massively overall. The biggest stumbling block is not travel cost, as people think, as there are ways to mitigate that issue; it's the lack of infrastructure appropriate to the "gameday experience", the close-to-the-field, beer drinking, song-singing party that leads people in Seattle to act like they're in a cult.

Good to see you around, by the way.

Well, I'd like to see a Canadian league, too, and I think it's possible that it could rival the TV ratings for the CFL, but there's zero chance Canadian investors would back it. Unless it was like the tax write-off days of movie investment but that doesn't happen anymore.

It's a very tough sell. At least in the US they have the NCAA for a model of the beer drinking, song-singing. We don't even have that.

[jloome]

Well that's an exception to the rule though, I think most MLS owners right now would rather make money then increase the budget.

Mbwana Samatta sounds like the prototypical young player who ends up somewhere in Holland, probably turns out to be fantastic too.

Bit of a nebulous term, though, "make money." In the U.S. most MLS franchises are subsidiaries or corporate affiliates of larger companies, and under U.S. tax law writing one down against the other is very common. If anyone believes LA only made 2.4M in profit the first year of beckham, a year in which they claim to have sold 250,000 shirts worldwide, they're kidding themselves.

On paper, I doubt most MLS clubs will EVER make much money if their owners can avoid it.

[jloome]

there's zero chance Canadian investors would back it.

Really? Even if they were partnered or backed by AIG, MLSE? The difficulty in getting Canadians involved could be offset somewhat by having the kind of support that means most of the risk outlay is financed anyway.

[Beach_Red]

Really? Even if they were partnered or backed by AIG, MLSE? The difficulty in getting Canadians involved could be offset somewhat by having the kind of support that means most of the risk outlay is financed anyway.

Really. It's just not in the Canadian DNA. If it were it would have happened by now. If Toronto were an American city it would have three NHL teams.

Drawers of water, hewers of wood.....

[Detroit_TFC]

I'd imagine that everyone agrees on the need to increase the salary cap but by what means may be the sticking point. The league is probably going to make a lot of promises in the broadcast negotiations (ie the playing product is going to improve by leaps and bounds in the near future, so give us more money). The broadcasters are going to want to know that rosters will improve and that means salary cap increase commitments to seal the deal.

I think at some point management of allocation is going to be so cumbersome the league will switch to a soft cap and tax approach, with a max hard cap on the high end. This is the only way most teams in the league will be willing to apply resources toward depth players and that's the only way the overall playing quality in the league will improve.

[Chevy]

Not sustainable. You have to think of the bigger picture for the league and the reason why there is such a complicated salary structure to begin with. If we get a taste of success then go the full 1970's NASL we'll be left with NY, NY2, LA, Seattle and a few hold overs that are scraping to keep up. The other 12+ teams will be shit out of luck (and money) within a decade.

+1. In terms of talent, MLS is optimistically the 20th best league in the world, so any chance of being a 'big time' league by 2015 just ain't gonna happen. Slow and steady is the key - keep all the teams in decent financial shape, make some marquee signings. Something crazy like the US winning the World Cup or a MLS team winning the World Club Cup would accelerate things but aside from those happenings the current model is the way to go.

[Kaz]

A Canadian league would have to be created from the ground up.
and I do mean from the ground up totally doing away with the provincial association as they stand.
producing a promotion regulation system up to Division 2, and creating a competitive youth league system (you know one where goals count)

And doing all of this slowly over 10 years, producing Rec leagues and Div 4, 3 and 2 league systems to replace the current ones gradually over time. And allowing the top Div 2 teams to compete in the Canadian Championship.

And teams below Division 2 should be there to develop Canadian players (particularly as they should all be semi-pro at best)

The CSA wouldn't make these changes though, to many hands in the pot that are invested in the current dysfunctional system.

The only chance at really change if for the CSA to try to produce a full Youth system in this country which is possible, and use it as a model for a adult professional system.

Also optimistically you could make a case of MLS being in the top 15 I think it is realistically in the top 20 and is doing exactly what it should be doing.

[ag futbol]

Pretty comfortable with what most starters are earning in MLS. It's not perfect, but it's affordable and allows for a decent amount of quality. What I'm not comfortable with is the back-end roster guys who are terribly weak on the field and economically struggling off of it. It doesn't help the league attract talent and it doesn't provide enough depth.

This CBA should be about spots 12-30 not 1-11.

[nonc]

A Canadian league would have to be created from the ground up.
and I do mean from the ground up totally doing away with the provincial association as they stand.
producing a promotion regulation system up to Division 2, and creating a competitive youth league system (you know one where goals count)

And doing all of this slowly over 10 years, producing Rec leagues and Div 4, 3 and 2 league systems to replace the current ones gradually over time. And allowing the top Div 2 teams to compete in the Canadian Championship.

And teams below Division 2 should be there to develop Canadian players (particularly as they should all be semi-pro at best)

The CSA wouldn't make these changes though, to many hands in the pot that are invested in the current dysfunctional system.

The only chance at really change if for the CSA to try to produce a full Youth system in this country which is possible, and use it as a model for a adult professional system.

Also optimistically you could make a case of MLS being in the top 15 I think it is realistically in the top 20 and is doing exactly what it should be doing.

A nationwide CSL, especially multiple divisions with pro/rel, is utterly unrealistic. It has nothing to do with any of CSA's shortcomings. There's not going to be a neat and tidy pyramid exclusive to Canada for at least a number of decades. We're involved with a good range of divisions: Regional Premier>USL PD>CSL>NASL>MLS. It's about making that (mostly the lower 3 divisions) grow and more efficient and effective, starting with some kind of collective youth manifesto and coaching education.

[Pookie]

To me, the best route to Canadian development would be to have a consortium of potential Canadian owners approach MLS about starting a Canadian pro-league, with Canadian roster restrictions guaranteeing a handful of slots in each team's starting 11 are Canadian, say four or five players.

This idea could work for a few reasons:
1. MLS badly needs another USSF-recognized Div. 2 league in North America, for affiliation and loan development. Its fractured relationship with the gong show that is the NASL is going to get worse, not better, which is why more MLS players are technically going now to a league (USLPro) that is Div 3.

2. Canada badly needs a domestic league for development.

3. in Canada, a div 2 ussf league would be a div 1 CSA league. By having six or seven players on each starting roster that are "best available" under a cap instead of using mostly Canadians, we can improve on-field quality to something similar to MLS, generate more interest among potential fans nationally which will lead to increased gates, but still give Canadian youth and loanees from MLS somewhere to go to improve.

4. The enormous financial support that could be generated by official affiliations with MLS clubs would make financing on the Canadian end much easier to handle and make it easier to convince investors to come in. This in turn could help generate the government and business partner relationships need to renovate some venues and create others; we've seen from the "temp stadium" situation in Vancouver how effective a cheap erect-a-set stadium can be in bringing fans close and creating the right atmosphere.

5. By working with MLS on adopting some of its "best practices" the league would have a more professional face immediately than anything the clowns at NASL have ever managed. Visibility and credibility are hugely tied these days thanks to websites.

6. I know a couple of media companies that have had great success giving away their core product in exchange for ad resale time; the league could adopt a similar approach with respect to Canadian TV, giving them a professional-level feed each week run and paid for by the league (it really is NOT that prohibitive to run an in house team) in exchange for a way to recoup the cost via on air time.

Anyway, I still think that a Canadian league could work, and maybe this is a route. It would give these types of players a route to keep improving if their MLS career has stalled or is tanking, help Canadian talent improve massively overall. The biggest stumbling block is not travel cost, as people think, as there are ways to mitigate that issue; it's the lack of infrastructure appropriate to the "gameday experience", the close-to-the-field, beer drinking, song-singing party that leads people in Seattle to act like they're in a cult.

Good to see you around, by the way.

NIce to see you too.

I think you have the basis for something though not sure how affiliation with MLS Clubs under a "best available" option would give Canadian youth a chance to play... though I may be missing something in the details. In my mind, a best available scenario, in a US development league (MLS) with lower teams would still favour US players.

Aside from a league to play in, I do think that a major issue for Canadian development is the fractured youth system itself. The recent and ongoing trials and tribulations within the OSA as they try to implement the Ontario Player Development League (OPDL) for 2014 highlights that there are massive issues that can't be overcome overnight (that's a thread in and of itself).

[Kaz]

A nationwide CSL, especially multiple divisions with pro/rel, is utterly unrealistic. It has nothing to do with any of CSA's shortcomings. There's not going to be a neat and tidy pyramid exclusive to Canada for at least a number of decades. We're involved with a good range of divisions: Regional Premier>USL PD>CSL>NASL>MLS. It's about making that (mostly the lower 3 divisions) grow and more efficient and effective, starting with some kind of collective youth manifesto and coaching education.

If you start from the grass roots on up then it isn't. There needs to be a decent system in Canada any decent system. A single National league is not feasible right now, and we don't have the development system. My point which is understandably lost, I should post when doing other things, is that we need to produce a bottom up system in Canada to develop things, and we should start at the youth level.

[jloome]

It's about making that (mostly the lower 3 divisions) grow and more efficient and effective, starting with some kind of collective youth manifesto and coaching education.

This won't happen. It's actually more realistic for someone to see profit in a competitive market than it is to expect the NASL_ and the youth associations to become competent. The pro game and the amateur development game are different beasts. The public wants pro quality, not regional loops of amateur third division squads. It will never work, we have too sophisticated of an audience, and the lack of interest from the public as a whole will leave it open to the kind of cut-rate empire building that has typified both the amateur and semi-pro levels for decades.

I spent a fair amount of time talking to both USLpro and NASL people over the last decade and generally got the impression that, while well meaning, they had absolutely no idea of the level of commitment and investment required to produce both pro-quality players and a pro-quality league to watch. Staying the course isn't going to change that.

[jloome]

NIce to see you too.

I think you have the basis for something though not sure how affiliation with MLS Clubs under a "best available" option would give Canadian youth a chance to play... though I may be missing something in the details. In my mind, a best available scenario, in a US development league (MLS) with lower teams would still favour US players.

What I'm suggesting is that MLS would help back it financially and could use the clubs as a loan haven; but that because it's all-Canadian, we could justify having a quota minimum of four or five Canadian starters per team. It would instantly improve on how many are playing at our existing pro clubs, while putting the proper capital and infrastructure behind league development. Right now, the NASL on down is a mish mash of owners, most of whom are in this for a challenge and a lark, but started so far behind the eight ball in terms of knowing how to develop the game within their chosen franchise community that to expect them to ever catch up is just wishful thinking.

We underestimate ourselves in this nation; if Pro lacrosse in Edmonton can get 9,000 a game, A Canadian first division in soccer interspersed with some foreign talent could, too. People judge the possibilities based on the failures of the past, but I know some of the people involved in those failures and it had -- and has -- more to do with the characters involved than the league's own potential. This is a country that put 10,000 a game in Calgary and Edmonton during the height of their NASL involvement.

The real impediment is infrastructure, which is key to creating the gameday environment. My one hope is the Beaches is wrong and people with the resources will be a little visionary, and that might happen yet.

[Initial B]

jloome, I'd love to see a Canadian pro league, but we have a problem with geography, economics, other entertainment options, and player development. Look at Honduras, who is going to the World Cup. They have 8 million people living in the area of Southern Ontario - a population density of about 64 persons per square kilometer. They have 10 teams in their Primera Division and it costs comparatively little to transport players around their country to games. By contrast, Canada has 35 million people but the second-largest country on earth - a density of 3.5 people per square kilometer (the same as Libya, who ranks about 40 places higher than us). Australia is our closest comparison in terms of country area, population size, and density. But they don't share a border with the World's current superpower who leaches our teams to their leagues.

Our major population centres are spread around 6 freaking time zones! It requires air-travel to get to these cities, which is an order of magnitude greater cost than busing it between cities. Busing from Toronto to Vancouver simply isn't feasible from a time perspective. The cost of living is also higher which means Canadian players would have to earn a higher wage than Honduran players. They also have a fewer entertainment options and thus more people come to watch games for higher gate revenue. There are so many other entertainment options in the Toronto area that soccer is often way down the list of "things to do this weekend".

But people will point out that Australia has the same issues as us, but their advantage is they have developed a 10-team national league with each team backed up by a youth league made of reserve players. There is also an additional team run by the Australian Institute of Sport to catch amateurs that aren't with one of the big clubs. Canada has nothing like this, and the size of the US market means that any effort started by Canadians will eventually get sucked into the US leagues for the stability. Hence the best Canadian Adult players are in MLS, NASL, USL PRO, or overseas.

I believe that Canada needs to focus on leagues that can operate on a shoestring budget, so airplanes are out of the question. You also need population density to support teams. If the areas around BC's Lower Mainland, Ontario's Golden Horseshoe, Quebec's St Lawrence Valley, and maybe even Alberta's Edmonton-Calgary Corridor we're each to run their own 10-team league with a Canadian Championship involving the top two teams from each region, Canadaian Soccer would be in business. The team also needs to focus on U-23 players (face it, if they're not with another professional team by the time they're 23, they've probably reached their limit as a player). These teams will needs to be sold as they sell the Major Junior Hockey Leagues in Canada for marketing to get bums in the seats - "see Canada's stars of tomorrow, today!". Each of these clubs should have U-18 through to U-12 competitive development teams (where you keep score) and skill development programs from U-11 to U-5 (NOT teams where you keep score).

The problem I see is we simply don't have enough good coaches to run this infrastructure if it ever gets built, and I don't know if we ever will. I do know it can't be left to the mom and pop rec associations - too much politics.

[ag futbol]

Regional leagues are the answer. Inclusion be damned, if they simply fixed Southern Ontario that alone would be enough to carry the national team program out of the rut.

I'm sure that will sound harsh, but what happens in most provinces as it relates to soccer is inconsequential. They don't have the population, player pool, or facilities to be meaningful. If they want to join the party, great I don't want to leave anyone in the cold. But reality is soccer is very regional and opportunities to develop are always going to be more concentrated in hotbeds. Alpine Canada doesn't worry about how many skiers PEI or farm lands in Saskatchewan produce. CSA shouldn't get caught up looking at far flung places either.

Hit the big markets that matter. Build the pyramid. Get buy-in from all levels amateur through pro. Problem solved. I don't think finding a solution is the issue, the issue is finding someone with the balls to do it and make enemies in the process.

[Initial B]

I don't think finding a solution is the issue, the issue is finding someone with the balls to do it and make enemies in the process.
But what if those enemies actively try to sabatoge the league because having this means they would lose power/influence? I'm thinking if what Rollins blogged is true, then there really is no hope for anything of value to be built in Ontario or Quebec. Alberta might also be trouble if they're still bad feelings from the ASA lawsuits. BC might be the only place where such an initiative could go ahead without significant resistance.

[PopePouri]

http://www.goal.com/en-ca/news/4175/major-league-soccer/2013/11/12/4402943/keith-hickey-mattocks-complaints-illustrate-lack-of-player-power-?ICID=HP_BN_4

[ag futbol]

But what if those enemies actively try to sabatoge the league because having this means they would lose power/influence? I'm thinking if what Rollins blogged is true, then there really is no hope for anything of value to be built in Ontario or Quebec. Alberta might also be trouble if they're still bad feelings from the ASA lawsuits. BC might be the only place where such an initiative could go ahead without significant resistance.
It's a damned if you do, damned if you don't scenario. Anywhere you have to drive a large amount of change, the knives will be out ready to undermine you but that doesn't mean it's an impossible task.

[pdubs]

How big of an influence will NYCFC in 2015 and I guess even next year have on the cap and stuff. Surely with the backing they have they will be bringing in 3 quality DP's on huge salaries. And I am sure they will push for higher cap % increases for the rest of the squad too. Beckham changed things with regards to salaries and DP's. Will NYCFC along with Manchester City and the Yankees have a similar influence on the current system?

[Initial B]

I sure hope so. With the number of articles coming out about the low wages of the MLS players at the low end of the scale a year before the CBA expires, I don't think the MLS can afford not to raise the cap to at least $4 million (a 29% increase) without looking like cheapskates. Although I'm really hoping for a cap of $5 million, that's a 61% increase and might be too big a bump for some of the franchises that are just treading water. I don't think the league would raise the cap by more than 50%, so $4.65 million is probably the max we can expect. The key to how much the cap will go up will be dependent on whatever price MLS can sell the Television rights for. If they can get $50-60 million per year (and dedicated timeslots), then a high cap increase is more likely.

[Ultra & Proud]

I sure hope so. With the number of articles coming out about the low wages of the MLS players at the low end of the scale a year before the CBA expires, I don't think the MLS can afford not to raise the cap to at least $4 million (a 29% increase) without looking like cheapskates. Although I'm really hoping for a cap of $5 million, that's a 61% increase and might be too big a bump for some of the franchises that are just treading water. I don't think the league would raise the cap by more than 50%, so $4.65 million is probably the max we can expect. The key to how much the cap will go up will be dependent on whatever price MLS can sell the Television rights for. If they can get $50-60 million per year (and dedicated timeslots), then a high cap increase is more likely.
My bet is that the increase will totally be in the cheapskate zone. I say they keep the slow growth curve going and we're looking at $3.125M. MLS has yet to base the cap on attendance figures or TV deals so why start now.

[Initial B]

^ The cap has to be more than that for 2015 because the 2014 cap is going to be $3.099 million.

[jloome]

I believe that Canada needs to focus on leagues that can operate on a shoestring budget, so airplanes are out of the question. You also need population density to support teams.

No and no.

With the abundance of other choices elsewhere and many diasporas in Canada, no one here will EVER support a minor league "from the ground up" soccer system enough for it to eventually become pro or provide to pro leagues. We're a world class country, with a world class economy and we need to act like one.

If people won't come and watch, any exercise is pointless. Canadian fans have been saying since the NASL days that it won't go to see second-rate soccer. It's a non-starter and every new Div 2 team we put up is just a money loser waiting to die.

I wish that wasn't the case, but it's a fact. Why? Because it's been proven out again, and again, and again, and again. If something doesn't work, stop doing it.

The last time ( before MLS) that Canadian teams drew good crowds was the NASL, becuase people thought they were getting the best available to them. Edmonton routinely got 10,000 per game. It has never come close to that for any of the lower level offerings, including the NPSL and the CSL.

The travel issue is blown massively out of proportion; there are ways to lower the cost via regionalizing divisions and having travel sponsors. If the CFL can do it with 50-plus man rosters and a salary cap of under $5 million, so can a soccer league. By the way, I've had the population density argument with actual owners and investors in Canada, and they all agree it is a red herring, that there are ways to mitigate it.

There are only two substantial impediments, to me, and they're both huge impediments. 1) We do not have the infrastructure to support a "close to the pitch" soccer environment in most cities. 2)Canadian investors are notoriously cagy about getting into anything with risk. The latter I think can be mitigated somewhat by aligning with MLS owners. The former problem I don't really know how you address.

We KNOW from ratings that millions of people in this country enjoy the sport; once you have an audience, the rest is hard work and infighting. But to suggest a grassroots system with bus travel is just a complete waste of time.

[Beach_Red]

No and no.

With the abundance of other choices elsewhere and many diasporas in Canada, no one here will EVER support a minor league "from the ground up" soccer system enough for it to eventually become pro or provide to pro leagues. We're a world class country, with a world class economy and we need to act like one.

If people won't come and watch, any exercise is pointless. Canadian fans have been saying since the NASL days that it won't go to see second-rate soccer. It's a non-starter and every new Div 2 team we put up is just a money loser waiting to die.

I wish that wasn't the case, but it's a fact. Why? Because it's been proven out again, and again, and again, and again. If something doesn't work, stop doing it.

The last time ( before MLS) that Canadian teams drew good crowds was the NASL, becuase people thought they were getting the best available to them. Edmonton routinely got 10,000 per game. It has never come close to that for any of the lower level offerings, including the NPSL and the CSL.

The travel issue is blown massively out of proportion; there are ways to lower the cost via regionalizing divisions and having travel sponsors. If the CFL can do it with 50-plus man rosters and a salary cap of under $5 million, so can a soccer league. By the way, I've had the population density argument with actual owners and investors in Canada, and they all agree it is a red herring, that there are ways to mitigate it.

There are only two substantial impediments, to me, and they're both huge impediments. 1) We do not have the infrastructure to support a "close to the pitch" soccer environment in most cities. 2)Canadian investors are notoriously cagy about getting into anything with risk. The latter I think can be mitigated somewhat by aligning with MLS owners. The former problem I don't really know how you address.

We KNOW from ratings that millions of people in this country enjoy the sport; once you have an audience, the rest is hard work and infighting. But to suggest a grassroots system with bus travel is just a complete waste of time.

You know, what might actually work is aligning with CFL owners. They already have the infrastructure, office staff and so on. And a very good deal with TSN that could be duplicated.

[Initial B]

I did some digging on the average player salaries in a couple of the european leagues. I then tried to convert it into what the equivalent salary cap would be for MLS teams (based on the first 20 players counting against the cap) in USD. The numbers are generally from within the last 2 years, so there might be some inflation beyond what I accounted for. This is what I get:

League1 (FRA): $14 million
La Liga (SPN): $18 million
Serie A (ITA): $35.99 million

And for the English Tiers:
Premier League: $37.2 million
Championship: $6.8 million
League 1: $2.36 million
League 2: $1.25 million

If MLS wants to seriously become an attractive option for other players, improve the quality of play for spectators, leading to improved TV contracts, they will have to aggressively increase the cap for 2015. I think the goal of the next CBA should be to increase the cap to $5-6 million dollars with a 5-10% increase per year so the cap will be over $7 million cap by 2019, which will place them above Championship-level salaries. I think only then will MLS will be considered a top world league.

It will take at least another 20 years to get MLS-salaries to the level of EPL and beyond, but I think that's inevitable if the popularity of soccer increases in North America and the American networks get into bidding wars over TV rights. Of course, that I'm assuming they'll find ways to make revenue off streaming as well, since technology is changing.

<edit: I just saw jloome's post. Although I was talking about MLS, I just don't see how Canada can compete with the States in that field. Sure, the CFL is thriving in the west, but in the East it's dying a slow death. We'll have to see how well Ottawa's new franchise does in both the CFL and NASL over the next few years to see if that changes the risk-averse nature of Canadian investors. If the NASL teams can thrive, then perhaps at some point we can pull the MLS and NASL teams out and form our own league. But personally, I'd want as strong competition as possible for Canadian players, which for now means MLS. Maybe in 20 years it will be different.>

[Yohan]

I did some digging on the average player salaries in a couple of the european leagues. I then tried to convert it into what the equivalent salary cap would be for MLS teams (based on the first 20 players counting against the cap) in USD. The numbers are generally from within the last 2 years, so there might be some inflation beyond what I accounted for. This is what I get:

League1 (FRA): $14 million
La Liga (SPN): $18 million
Serie A (ITA): $35.99 million

And for the English Tiers:
Premier League: $37.2 million
Championship: $6.8 million
League 1: $2.36 million
League 2: $1.25 million

If MLS wants to seriously become an attractive option for other players, improve the quality of play for spectators, leading to improved TV contracts, they will have to aggressively increase the cap for 2015. I think the goal of the next CBA should be to increase the cap to $5-6 million dollars with a 5-10% increase per year so the cap will be over $7 million cap by 2019, which will place them above Championship-level salaries. I think only then will MLS will be considered a top world league.

It will take at least another 20 years to get MLS-salaries to the level of EPL and beyond, but I think that's inevitable if the popularity of soccer increases in North America and the American networks get into bidding wars over TV rights. Of course, that I'm assuming they'll find ways to make revenue off streaming as well, since technology is changing.

<edit: I just saw jloome's post. Although I was talking about MLS, I just don't see how Canada can compete with the States in that field. Sure, the CFL is thriving in the west, but in the East it's dying a slow death. We'll have to see how well Ottawa's new franchise does in both the CFL and NASL over the next few years to see if that changes the risk-averse nature of Canadian investors. If the NASL teams can thrive, then perhaps at some point we can pull the MLS and NASL teams out and form our own league. But personally, I'd want as strong competition as possible for Canadian players, which for now means MLS. Maybe in 20 years it will be different.>
MLS will never dramatically increase the cap without a good TV deal. It wants a stable revenue stream before cap increase. A bit of catch 22, but MLS is happy with steady increase from current strategy, and I don't think the Don will rock the boat hard.

[jloome]

I did some digging on the average player salaries in a couple of the european leagues. I then tried to convert it into what the equivalent salary cap would be for MLS teams (based on the first 20 players counting against the cap) in USD. The numbers are generally from within the last 2 years, so there might be some inflation beyond what I accounted for. This is what I get:

League1 (FRA): $14 million
La Liga (SPN): $18 million
Serie A (ITA): $35.99 million

And for the English Tiers:
Premier League: $37.2 million
Championship: $6.8 million
League 1: $2.36 million
League 2: $1.25 million

If MLS wants to seriously become an attractive option for other players, improve the quality of play for spectators, leading to improved TV contracts, they will have to aggressively increase the cap for 2015. I think the goal of the next CBA should be to increase the cap to $5-6 million dollars with a 5-10% increase per year so the cap will be over $7 million cap by 2019, which will place them above Championship-level salaries. I think only then will MLS will be considered a top world league.

It will take at least another 20 years to get MLS-salaries to the level of EPL and beyond, but I think that's inevitable if the popularity of soccer increases in North America and the American networks get into bidding wars over TV rights. Of course, that I'm assuming they'll find ways to make revenue off streaming as well, since technology is changing.

<edit: I just saw jloome's post. Although I was talking about MLS, I just don't see how Canada can compete with the States in that field. Sure, the CFL is thriving in the west, but in the East it's dying a slow death. We'll have to see how well Ottawa's new franchise does in both the CFL and NASL over the next few years to see if that changes the risk-averse nature of Canadian investors. If the NASL teams can thrive, then perhaps at some point we can pull the MLS and NASL teams out and form our own league. But personally, I'd want as strong competition as possible for Canadian players, which for now means MLS. Maybe in 20 years it will be different.>

I don't think we'd need to pull out; more compliment. A tier-1 Canadian league would still be a "premier league" to Canadians, but would be seen likely as tier-2 to the USSF, which would allow them to work together by being a loan destination for MLS, with some "friendly" competition between MLS sides in Canada and their Canadian league equivalent.

As for the cap level, I think you've hit the nail on the head. Yohan, I seriously question how much money MLS clubs actually lose; there's a lot of book cooking going on with U.S. clubs because subsidiaries can be used to write down costs for major corporate holders.

I think MLS could easily handle a $5-6 million salary cap without breaking anyone.

[Initial B]

Hmmm, with Orlando joining the league in 2015, I'm thinking that Beckham's Miami can't be far behind. If they get those team in those markets, I can see them getting a larger TV contract just based on the potential market. That in turn leads me to believe they're going to raise the cap significantly for 2015.

[Yohan]

Hmmm, with Orlando joining the league in 2015, I'm thinking that Beckham's Miami can't be far behind. If they get those team in those markets, I can see them getting a larger TV contract just based on the potential market. That in turn leads me to believe they're going to raise the cap significantly for 2015.
Becks and if LeBron teams up in Miami, that's a lot of hype.

The thing is, hype doesn't necessarily mean more viewership. So far, MLS has not been able to turn hype into ratings.

[Haddy]

Rapids Pres. on lack of shirt deal: http://www.mlssoccer.com/news/article/2013/11/20/colorado-rapids-president-keen-lock-down-shirt-sponsorship-2014-i-lose-sleep


3 MLS teams without a current shirt deal. If those get locked up for the next few years, along with Orlando (already signed) NYCFC and Miami/Becks (both shoe-ins for sponsors)....I really can't see the owners being too shy about raising the cap more than in the past. Nothing crazy, but more than usual.

MLS has never had such a strong stable of wealthy owners/investors. The next CBA negotiations are arguably the most important in the history of the league.

[prizby]

I think MLS could easily handle a $5-6 million salary cap without breaking anyone.

Do you take the DP player out of play?

[Initial B]

In case anybody wanted to do a comparison with NASL, they have no salary cap but I was told that most teams build fairly conservatively. The Cosmos have some of the most expensive players (two are at $180K and $144K per year respectively), but teams are trying to keep their highest paid players to around $72K per year. Since they're working with rosters of 25 players, I figure the average player salary would be around $50K, which means that NASL teams probably have payrolls around the $1-2 million range. So about half the salary cap of MLS teams.

This makes me wonder: if a league with an average attendance of 4K can work with a $1.2 million payroll and still be solvent, how can MLS teams cry poor when they have triple the attendance? The cap should be at least $4 million easy!

[PopePouri]

In case anybody wanted to do a comparison with NASL, they have no salary cap but I was told that most teams build fairly conservatively. The Cosmos have some of the most expensive players (two are at $180K and $144K per year respectively), but teams are trying to keep their highest paid players to around $72K per year. Since they're working with rosters of 25 players, I figure the average player salary would be around $50K, which means that NASL teams probably have payrolls around the $1-2 million range. So about half the salary cap of MLS teams.

This makes me wonder: if a league with an average attendance of 4K can work with a $1.2 million payroll and still be solvent, how can MLS teams cry poor when they have triple the attendance? The cap should be at least $4 million easy!

In football these days, attendance means little. It's all about owners, investors and TV money.

[levyashin]

Going back to 2007/If my memory is still working I recall that
"M.L.S.E. spokesman stated that we are aiming for original attendance of 13/14,000 to break even"
Anything over this we will be delighted with.
This team has constantly made buckets full for them.
Only original season ticket holders are paying original prices.
Just look at the current prices new purchases have to pay.
For T.F.C. the cap could be $4/5 mill without a problem.
Low market teams get handouts from the league so no owner suffers any loss.
One big happy family making bundles of money!

[Initial B]

I just thought I'd resurrect this thread, seeing that they're starting CBA negotiations soon. Team Salaries from the Players Association:



2014 MLS Team Salaries: April 1, 2014



Club

2014 Guaranteed Compensation



TOR Total

$16,648,858



LA Total

$13,054,244



SEA Total

$11,787,587



NY Total

$11,245,784



VAN Total

$6,272,750



MTL Total

$6,067,139



DAL Total

$4,645,279



SJ Total

$4,327,176



PHI Total

$4,231,924



DC Total

$4,098,050



POR Total

$3,922,328



RSL Total

$3,831,635



KC Total

$3,731,612



CLB Total

$3,687,508



HOU Total

$3,660,715



CHI Total

$3,631,411



COL Total

$3,488,901



NE Total

$3,432,422



CHV Total

$3,292,674



Grand Total

$115,057,996



Club Average

$6,055,684



Club Median

$4,098,050




To me, this would indicate that the current $3.1 million cap is a joke since all the team salaries are higher than this number. They should include the top 24 player salaries per team as part of the cap, while allowing the Homegrown and Generation Addidas players salaries in the bottom 6 spots as exceptions.

If the Players' union brings these numbers to the bargaining table, I can't see how MLS could argue for a cap of anything less than $5-6 million.

[Hamilton_Red]

I'd get rid of the DP rule and increase the salary cap substantially.

TFC's got be making $20-$25 Million in revenue
$10 million for season tickets
BMO sponsorship
merchandise
concessions
TV revenue

salary cap of <$3 Million is a bIt of a farce. DP's making $6Million playing with guys making $50k/yr is disfunctional. The system needs to reward North American developed players.

[Pookie]

I just thought I'd resurrect this thread, seeing that they're starting CBA negotiations soon. Team Salaries from the Players Association:
...

To me, this would indicate that the current $3.1 million cap is a joke since all the team salaries are higher than this number. They should include the top 24 player salaries per team as part of the cap, while allowing the Homegrown and Generation Addidas players salaries in the bottom 6 spots as exceptions.

If the Players' union brings these numbers to the bargaining table, I can't see how MLS could argue for a cap of anything less than $5-6 million.









MLS doesn't care what teams spend above what it spends though. It pays the salaries. Therefore, what it can raise the cap to is a function of the collective revenue of the league not whether an individual operator has deep pockets.

[Pookie]

I'd get rid of the DP rule and increase the salary cap substantially.

TFC's got be making $20-$25 Million in revenue
$10 million for season tickets
BMO sponsorship
merchandise
concessions
TV revenue

salary cap of <$3 Million is a bIt of a farce. DP's making $6Million playing with guys making $50k/yr is disfunctional. The system needs to reward North American developed players.

Agree with you on the point of paying North American players and the salary discrepancy is a joke.

People just need to be aware of the structure of the league though when talking about raising or even scrapping the salary cap. You couldn't do that without a massive change in how the league operates and likely a significant exchange of money.

When teams get awarded a "franchise" it's not like other sports. Beckham isn't getting a team per se, he is buying into MLS and being awarded a share of their business. MLS still owns Beckham's team. Mainstream media simplifies this either because they don't understand it or are just ignorant to how the league operates and they want to think it is just like other leagues. It isn't.

I posted this elsewhere but it is a great look at the league structure. Though a little dated (back to 2010), it gives you a very deep look at the structure and the challenges the league will face moving forward.

http://www.niu.edu/law/organizations/law_review/pdfs/full_issues/31_1/Jakobsze%20131-174.pdf

The gist of it is as follows:

Each franchise doesn't actually own the team but rather stock in the league. They get a seat on the Board of Governors and manage the day to day operations of the team. The Board, the collective of operators and league designates, assigns profit and loss to each team and controls operations. In addition to owning the teams, the league also owns all equipment, broadcast rights, ticket rights and intellectual property.

Teams let the operators hire local staff. As of 2010, the league gives each team a management fee that was equal to 50% of local ticket sales and concessions, the first $1.125M of local TV revenues, 100% of overseas tours (Friendlies anyone), and 50% of revenues from the MLS Championship game.

[prizby]

didn't TL say TFC would be the first club to have $50M in revenue in a year

found it:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sports/soccer/toronto-fcs-100-million-gamble-to-appease-long-suffering-fans/article16320629/

Season Seats - ~$10M (average ticket price of $30 a seat..steep?)
Single game tickets - ~$5M (Just under $50 an average ticket...mostly more expensive seats that seemingly based on Ticketmaster prices been jacked up based on dynamic pricing; might actually be a little low)
Friendly - ~$2.25M (average ticket price about $100...that steep?)
TV Revenue - ~$1.5M (that steep too or too little between MLS national TV deal and local?)
BMO Sponsorship - ~$7.2M ($2.7M-stadium; $4.5M-kit)
Other Sponsors/Partners - ~5M (really a guess, but Bud/KIA have to be paying something good and I'd figure it be more than new sponsors)
New Sponsors/Partners - ~$3M (number Leiweke said they had in new sponsorship money post Defoe/Bradley signing)
Concessions -$11M ($25 per person spent on concessions)
Merchandise -$? (I haven't a clue as to how to even guess a reasonable number for this)

that is about $45M GROSS revenue not including merchandise and any other potential income streams

[Initial B]

^ So then taking into account the EXPENSES (O&M costs for BMO Field; Salaries of players, FO, BMO personnel; amortized debt) what would be the NET revenue? Since Lieweke said they're not going to make money this year, assuming a $45M gross would mean non-player expenses should be around $28-30M. I don't know... that seems high to me.

[Oldtimer]

Beckham isn't getting a team per se, he is buying into MLS and being awarded a share of their business. MLS still owns Beckham's team.

The "management fee" and other things are structured like they are because the owner/operators actually own 50% of their team. MLS owns the other 50%.

Think of MLS like a multinational corporation with many divisions (teams), plus one joint venture (SUM). The divisions (teams) are really 50% owned subsidiaries.

The structure is actually quite wise. by owning half of your franchise, you have interest in growing your individual team. By the other half of your investment being in the league corporation MLS, you have an interest in growing the whole single-entity for the benefit of all. SUM controls the TV revenue, where long-term some real cash is going to be made.

If I were a lawyer, I'd love MLS to be my client. The legal structure is even more mind-boggling than the salary "cap" system (actually an allowance).

[prizby]

^ So then taking into account the EXPENSES (O&M costs for BMO Field; Salaries of players, FO, BMO personnel; amortized debt) what would be the NET revenue? Since Lieweke said they're not going to make money this year, assuming a $45M gross would mean non-player expenses should be around $28-30M. I don't know... that seems high to me.

if they aren't making money this year it is because they paid the entire Defoe transfer fee up front...i'd think, and maybe they are on the hook for Bradley too...I don't know?

Player salaries - ~$16.5M (MLS players union)
Transfer fees - ~$2.5M-$20M (depending on whether MLS or TFC is paying Bradley's fee and whether Defoe/Bradley's fee was paid all up front or spread out over a few years)
Bonuses/Agent Fees - ~$2.5M? (no idea; figure 10% of a transfer fee could be what an agent would expect)
Non player salaries - ~$5M-7M (office staff, concession workers, Leiweke/Bez, the coaches, scouting etc.)
Cost of Goods - ~$2M? (everything from what it costs to buy the concessions they sell to the merchandise they sell)
Ancillary costs - ~$1M-2M (flights, per diems, other player costs, etc.)
Academy - ~$1.5M-2M
Ground Maintenance - ~$2M-$3M (Bitchy, groundskeepers, training ground, capital maintenance etc.)
Tax - ~$5M-10M? (HST on ticket sales, corporate tax-not sure about what that rate might be on sports teams in Canada)
Amortization - ~$2M-$3M (BMO Field/KIA Academy costs)
City Fee - ~$1M
MLS Cut - ~$? (haven't a clue)

so adding that all up, TFC's expenses this year can be somewhere between $41M-$69M + whatever MLS takes as a cut (lets call it a net cut since they pay $3.1M of salaries + allocation)

[Pookie]

If I were a lawyer, I'd love MLS to be my client. The legal structure is even more mind-boggling than the salary "cap" system (actually an allowance).

Yay. Someone else actually gets it and even used "cap" in quotes :)

[Pookie]

if they aren't making money this year it is because they paid the entire Defoe transfer fee up front...i'd think, and maybe they are on the hook for Bradley too...I don't know?

Player salaries - ~$16.5M (MLS players union)
Transfer fees - ~$2.5M-$20M (depending on whether MLS or TFC is paying Bradley's fee and whether Defoe/Bradley's fee was paid all up front or spread out over a few years)
Bonuses/Agent Fees - ~$2.5M? (no idea; figure 10% of a transfer fee could be what an agent would expect)
Non player salaries - ~$5M-7M (office staff, concession workers, Leiweke/Bez, the coaches, scouting etc.)
Cost of Goods - ~$2M? (everything from what it costs to buy the concessions they sell to the merchandise they sell)
Ancillary costs - ~$1M-2M (flights, per diems, other player costs, etc.)
Academy - ~$1.5M-2M
Ground Maintenance - ~$2M-$3M (Bitchy, groundskeepers, training ground, capital maintenance etc.)
Tax - ~$5M-10M? (HST on ticket sales, corporate tax-not sure about what that rate might be on sports teams in Canada)
Amortization - ~$2M-$3M (BMO Field/KIA Academy costs)
City Fee - ~$1M
MLS Cut - ~$? (haven't a clue)

so adding that all up, TFC's expenses this year can be somewhere between $41M-$69M + whatever MLS takes as a cut (lets call it a net cut since they pay $3.1M of salaries + allocation)

A quick way to guesstimate it without knowing all the nuancances of how the league allocates profits and losses to its teams is to look at the Forbes valuation.

According to them TFC had revenues of $30.9m and an operating profit of $4.5m in 2013.

Quick math says salaries went up significantly. Forget transfer fees. About $13m to all 3 DPs. Laba and Koevermans came off the books so net increase in salaries the team is responsible for is likely around $11.5m.

If they "sell out" every game lets call it an increase in revenue of 4,000 fans a game. Average ticket price of say $60 to be generous. $240k per game. 19 games. $4.5M in revenue. Maybe some extra boosts for merchandise.

In the end they come out with a $3-4m net loss in operating income.

There is no doubt where ticket prices are going next year.

[prizby]

Forbes numbers are estimates

[Kaz]

So there are a few things about the salary "cap" increase people are forgetting.

if one were to raise it to 20 Million or so.. that would be 19 teams paying out nearly 20 million a year.. that is 380 million a year just in salary for a league with just shy of 500 million in revenue. it's not sustainable.

More then that, is many of the American players aren't good enough for a 500k to million dollar salary. That would mean there would be an influx of foriegn players, and the whole purpose of MLS it to develop American Talent, which has never really happened... I think a lot of people thought it would only take a generation, sadly Soccer Mom's destroyed that dream.

Instead of Soccer developing at the Youth level to teach the basics like you have with Hockey or American Football.. but instead Soccer Youth league actually got worth, everyone gets a trophy, and now many don't even keep score.

Until Soccer Moms decide it's ok to keep score, MLS will not hit a 20 Million dollar "cap" if they want to maintain the illusion of MLS being here to encourage the development of Players.

I honestly think the Cap should be kept to about 10% of total league revenue at the time of the CBT, which is about what you see from other leagues, (be accident or design I don't know)

That would me about 4.9-5 million would be the right increase.

[prizby]

^ who is suggesting a $20M cap?

[Detroit_TFC]

Agree with you on the point of paying North American players and the salary discrepancy is a joke.

People just need to be aware of the structure of the league though when talking about raising or even scrapping the salary cap. You couldn't do that without a massive change in how the league operates and likely a significant exchange of money.

When teams get awarded a "franchise" it's not like other sports. Beckham isn't getting a team per se, he is buying into MLS and being awarded a share of their business. MLS still owns Beckham's team. Mainstream media simplifies this either because they don't understand it or are just ignorant to how the league operates and they want to think it is just like other leagues. It isn't.

I posted this elsewhere but it is a great look at the league structure. Though a little dated (back to 2010), it gives you a very deep look at the structure and the challenges the league will face moving forward.

http://www.niu.edu/law/organizations/law_review/pdfs/full_issues/31_1/Jakobsze%20131-174.pdf

The gist of it is as follows:

Each franchise doesn't actually own the team but rather stock in the league. They get a seat on the Board of Governors and manage the day to day operations of the team. The Board, the collective of operators and league designates, assigns profit and loss to each team and controls operations. In addition to owning the teams, the league also owns all equipment, broadcast rights, ticket rights and intellectual property.

Teams let the operators hire local staff. As of 2010, the league gives each team a management fee that was equal to 50% of local ticket sales and concessions, the first $1.125M of local TV revenues, 100% of overseas tours (Friendlies anyone), and 50% of revenues from the MLS Championship game.

Thanks for posting that, I don't think I've seen that paper yet. Muy importante.

[Kaz]

^ who is suggesting a $20M cap?

Totally misread someone else post, saying get rid of the DP rule and increase the cap.. the next line was 20-25m in Revenue.. my brain occasionally combines lines, I ended up reading it as increase the cap to 20-25m.

Totally misread.. the rest still works.

[ensco]

It's over.

The MLS' strategy was clever but is going to fail, given the huge variety and proliferation of HD games of the best teams from Europe that are readily available to all. This league cannot compete as it stands.

EPL and the other big leagues are growing a lot faster in North America than MLS is. Soccer may be big here someday, but an MLS where the average team spends $4M on payroll while the average NHL team spends $65M on payroll, will never be anything. This board is totally unrepresentative. The vast majority of people in most bigger cities will not pay attention to minor league anything.

MLS will have to dump the cap soon. It will have no choice. The teams in world class markets will have to compete, the smaller ones go into division 2. Leiweke understands this, it's the part of his vision that I really respect.

This story isn't about my point directly, but it'll give you a feel for the real problem.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/17/fashion/soccer-particularly-englands-premier-league-growing-in-popularity-in-new-york-creative-circles.html?_r=0

[cdnorman]

More then that, is many of the American players aren't good enough for a 500k to million dollar salary. That would mean there would be an influx of foriegn players, and the whole purpose of MLS it to develop American Talent, which has never really happened... I think a lot of people thought it would only take a generation, sadly Soccer Mom's destroyed that dream.

Instead of Soccer developing at the Youth level to teach the basics like you have with Hockey or American Football.. but instead Soccer Youth league actually got worth, everyone gets a trophy, and now many don't even keep score.

Until Soccer Moms decide it's ok to keep score, MLS will not hit a 20 Million dollar "cap" if they want to maintain the illusion of MLS being here to encourage the development of Players.



The Soccer Mom theory isn't all that nutty. That so many kids can play soccer in an engaged way at all kinds of skill levels makes a big contribution to why it is "the beautiful game"; it's so accessible. But, there needs to be means for those who think they want to compete and be competitive to do so in a way that doesn't discourage more casual and for-the-love-of-playing engagement. It took a long time for us to get around to this kind of thinking around hockey and we're still not quite there, but it at least has paid off.

Another big contribution that we overlook is the collegiate game. Here we have one of the few sports that's done a lot better with women than men in many respects. The women's collegiate game in the US and Canada is pretty good, relatively speaking.

No matter what, if local areas don't own their talent it will be difficult to cultivate the kind of league where we can pay the sums being discussed earlier.

[ag futbol]

MLS will never dramatically increase the cap without a good TV deal. It wants a stable revenue stream before cap increase. A bit of catch 22, but MLS is happy with steady increase from current strategy, and I don't think the Don will rock the boat hard.
It is a catch 22. They'll have to step up to the plate eventually.

[Beach_Red]

It's over.

The MLS' strategy was clever but is going to fail, given the huge variety and proliferation of HD games of the best teams from Europe that are readily available to all. This league cannot compete as it stands.

EPL and the other big leagues are growing a lot faster in North America than MLS is. Soccer may be big here someday, but an MLS where the average team spends $4M on payroll while the average NHL team spends $65M on payroll, will never be anything. This board is totally unrepresentative. The vast majority of people in most bigger cities will not pay attention to minor league anything.

MLS will have to dump the cap soon. It will have no choice. The teams in world class markets will have to compete, the smaller ones go into division 2. Leiweke understands this, it's the part of his vision that I really respect.

This story isn't about my point directly, but it'll give you a feel for the real problem.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/17/fashion/soccer-particularly-englands-premier-league-growing-in-popularity-in-new-york-creative-circles.html?_r=0

How many world class markets are there in North America that could compete at that level? How many do there need to be to sustain a league?

The catch-22 might be that the world class markets are over-saturated with professional sports.

[ag futbol]

It's over.

The MLS' strategy was clever but is going to fail, given the huge variety and proliferation of HD games of the best teams from Europe that are readily available to all. This league cannot compete as it stands.

EPL and the other big leagues are growing a lot faster in North America than MLS is. Soccer may be big here someday, but an MLS where the average team spends $4M on payroll while the average NHL team spends $65M on payroll, will never be anything. This board is totally unrepresentative. The vast majority of people in most bigger cities will not pay attention to minor league anything.

MLS will have to dump the cap soon. It will have no choice. The teams in world class markets will have to compete, the smaller ones go into division 2. Leiweke understands this, it's the part of his vision that I really respect.

This story isn't about my point directly, but it'll give you a feel for the real problem.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/17/fashion/soccer-particularly-englands-premier-league-growing-in-popularity-in-new-york-creative-circles.html?_r=0
I sort of agree, but I'd add: the vision the league office has is still far too anchored to a time when the choices were cut costs or fold. If this were an investment opportunity, I wouldn't put my money on it. Ownership structure is wonky, misaligned incentives are everywhere, and all signs point to support functions are habitually neglected / under invested in.

[OgtheDim]

The European model as its currently practiced is unsustainable without petrodollars or other forms of sugar daddies, (often state broadcasters when it comes to Champions League). The same issues are being replicated 6-7 steps below the highest divisions in England.

Gretna comes to mind.

MLS is likewise heading to a two tier system with the haves and the have nots.

What MLS has is the potential to see a good game at a relatively local level. Eventually, a certain % of those people watching Liverpool on TV every Saturday and Sunday morning will seek out a live entertainment version of what they are watching. Happens all over the world - local following of football exists because people become addicted to watching their local team.

[TFC07]

MLS is making money (especially from expansion money they're getting these days) and they need to increase cap space regardless TV money or not. We all know if cap space doesn't increase by next year, then players will go on a strike which will hurt MLS for good. US sports market is very competitive and MLS can't afford to lose a season over salary cap issue.

[Pookie]

^ to that though I would say that it is only "addictive" if it is accessible. That means keeping prices reasonable and not at Maple Leaf levels. Corporations aren't buying TFC tickets, it's the average joe and it needs to stay priced accordingly.

[ensco]

How many world class markets are there in North America that could compete at that level? How many do there need to be to sustain a league?

The catch-22 might be that the world class markets are over-saturated with professional sports.

8-10 cities I think. NY, Boston, Chicago, LA, SF are obvious. Then some of Philadelphia, Washington, Miami, Houston, Dallas, Seattle. Probably only Toronto in Canada.

I don't think there would be saturation .... if (big if) the teams could compete with elite euro teams.

I think in 50 years that there will be a kind of super league out there with 40-50 teams in the world that play at an elite level. I think it'll just happen. The interest level and dollars available are exploding everywhere.

[Kaz]

It's over.

The MLS' strategy was clever but is going to fail, given the huge variety and proliferation of HD games of the best teams from Europe that are readily available to all. This league cannot compete as it stands.

EPL and the other big leagues are growing a lot faster in North America than MLS is. Soccer may be big here someday, but an MLS where the average team spends $4M on payroll while the average NHL team spends $65M on payroll, will never be anything. This board is totally unrepresentative. The vast majority of people in most bigger cities will not pay attention to minor league anything.

MLS will have to dump the cap soon. It will have no choice. The teams in world class markets will have to compete, the smaller ones go into division 2. Leiweke understands this, it's the part of his vision that I really respect.

This story isn't about my point directly, but it'll give you a feel for the real problem.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/17/fashion/soccer-particularly-englands-premier-league-growing-in-popularity-in-new-york-creative-circles.html?_r=0

Soccer in North America isn't big enough to support this. It just isn't. The League has to grow over time.

A Cap should always be there, sustainable leagues self cap anyway. Except you have a few teams that will spend, and those teams get the best players and it's just silly.

North American Sports won't work in that way. Without parity the Amount of choice you have means you will go watch the sport where your team has a chance. It's not like that in Europe where Football is king. (baseball might be the exception where you have 80+ homes games a year)

Hockey, Baseball, Basketball, American Football, and CFL and MLS.

MLS revenue right now is sitting at 500m a year. You can't raise it too high or too fast.

Honestly raising to 5m is logical given revenues.

Leave the DP rule as is, remove transfer fees from the cap, but payable by the club.

Remove nationality roster rules, and replace with a rule making Domestic players (either Canadian or American) only have 50-66% of their Salary count against the cap. (say 50% for players making under $200,000 and 66% for players over including DPs)

That provides in incentive to put Domestic Players on the team, to pay them more, and get higher quality domestics.

You might end up with more International starters but you'd have high quality American Depth players.

It would improve the quality of the play in the league (if you do something about the Refs) add more internationals, while also maintain it's commitment to domestic growth.

Until this league is producing double the revenue I can't see it raising the cap or getting rid of it.

I honestly think the Refs are the issue more then anything else, I also don't think this league will fairly if they keep it smart. We have this weird idea that MLS has to be the best, and if EPL is watch more people won't watch MLS. I just don't think that is true. The League needs to grow, but it's a hard sell.

I think MLS can succeed but we are at the beginning of MLS 3.0 and it's time to grow a little. Changes to the Cap, Changes to transparency and changes to infrastructure (refs, broadcast standards, and youth academies starting at least at the U-10 level) are the major changes that need to occur. Not blowing up of the Cap.

[Beach_Red]

8-10 cities I think. NY, Boston, Chicago, LA, SF are obvious. Then some of Philadelphia, Washington, Miami, Houston, Dallas, Seattle. Probably only Toronto in Canada.

I don't think there would be saturation .... if (big if) the teams could compete with elite euro teams.

I think in 50 years that there will be a kind of super league out there with 40-50 teams in the world that play at an elite level. I think it'll just happen. The interest level and dollars available are exploding everywhere.

Yeah, I can see it in 50 years, 10 North American teams, 10 European, some South American and some in the Far East.

Of course, people once thought baseball would be international like that and the NFL once thought they could expand all over Europe. There's a lot of competition for those dollars everywhere, but yeah, a worldwide soccer league could happen.

[ag futbol]

The European model as its currently practiced is unsustainable without petrodollars or other forms of sugar daddies, (often state broadcasters when it comes to Champions League). The same issues are being replicated 6-7 steps below the highest divisions in England.

Gretna comes to mind.

MLS is likewise heading to a two tier system with the haves and the have nots.

What MLS has is the potential to see a good game at a relatively local level. Eventually, a certain % of those people watching Liverpool on TV every Saturday and Sunday morning will seek out a live entertainment version of what they are watching. Happens all over the world - local following of football exists because people become addicted to watching their local team.
Well there are lots of shades of grey in here. On the one end you have the free spenders and on the other you have outfits like MLS. But in the middle you have places like Germany which are placing financial restrictions, but less onerous ones on the teams that allow clubs to have more incentives to grow.

As far as local football goes, we have a form of it now. Question is, does it ever start to capture everyone's attention?

[Kaz]

Yeah, I can see it in 50 years, 10 North American teams, 10 European, some South American and some in the Far East.

Of course, people once thought baseball would be international like that and the NFL once thought they could expand all over Europe. There's a lot of competition for those dollars everywhere, but yeah, a worldwide soccer league could happen.

The Champions Leagues are almost there now. It's just the Club World Cup games aren't held all over

[ensco]

Soccer in North America isn't big enough to support this. It just isn't. The League has to grow over time.



If North America had Champions League caliber teams, and played opponents with similar payrolls, and played occasionally against the acknowledged best teams in the world (ie elite euro teams), they would draw 75,000 a game and get far better ratings than any sport ex the NFL. Today.

[Kaz]

If North America had Champions League caliber teams, and played opponents with similar payrolls, and played occasionally against the acknowledged best teams in the world (ie elite euro teams), they would draw 75,000 a game and get far better ratings than any sport ex the NFL. Today.

The Concacaf Champions League is in range, we don't need a ton of work to get there. But I don't believe that currently the US market will watch soccer in significant numbers.

[Initial B]

Thought I'd bump this. Has anyone changed their views?

[Shway]

Wow.....and we are working with the first option: $3.0-3.3 Million: Slow and Steady

[Areathrasher]

Wow.....and we are working with the first option: $3.0-3.3 Million: Slow and Steady

2nd one, no? 15% increase to $3.5m for this season then 7% increase each season after.

[barticusz]

2nd one, no? 15% increase to $3.5m for this season then 7% increase each season after.

http://www.sounderatheart.com/2015/3/5/8156205/mls-cba-details-salary-cap

According to these guys we're looking at increasing the cap by about $217,000 each year of the CBA. So this year we're at $3.3M. In addition there's this talk of a SuperMax DP which is a bit of a misnomer, more like a total increase of $750,000 to cover the transfer fee plus salary. That would give TFC about 900,000.. is that enough to cover Gilberto and bring him back next year? Don't think so.

[Richard]

This is a domestic player focused league, I think that's what everyone needs to come to terms with. The owners, especially the penny pinchers like to keep it that way, makes sense in the long term too.

Domestics don't deserve significantly more wages.

The problem of increasing the cap by a lot is not only the foreign players problem, but more importantly the over entitlement attitude, a 40K players isn't all of a sudden worth 100K, the world market dictates their wages more than they want to accept.

Yes absolutely the minimum needed to go up, should probably have gone up further closing the low-high gap(non DP), but the increase in cap reflects the overall talent of domestics in my opinion.

MLS isn't just going to stop the bleeding of players to the EU in the short term, its takes time to repatriate all these players or prevent them from leaving.

As a football fans it sucks, especially when the league is in your backyard, we want to see the best product but its not going to happen until our domestic talent improves.

Slow and steady. We can only hope that academies start to challenge that idea.

[Areathrasher]

http://www.sounderatheart.com/2015/3/5/8156205/mls-cba-details-salary-cap

According to these guys we're looking at increasing the cap by about $217,000 each year of the CBA. So this year we're at $3.3M. In addition there's this talk of a SuperMax DP which is a bit of a misnomer, more like a total increase of $750,000 to cover the transfer fee plus salary. That would give TFC about 900,000.. is that enough to cover Gilberto and bring him back next year? Don't think so.

Yesterday when details were first emerging, there was a lot of talk about a 15% rise row.

Adam Jardy @AdamJardy (https://twitter.com/AdamJardy) · 24h24 hours ago (https://twitter.com/AdamJardy/status/573280136038125569)

Hearing numbers like a seven-year deal, 15 percent increase in the cap and $60,000 minimum salary. #MLSCBA (https://twitter.com/hashtag/MLSCBA?src=hash)


Adam Jardy @AdamJardy (https://twitter.com/AdamJardy) · 9h9 hours ago (https://twitter.com/AdamJardy/status/573498152453599233)

Hearing a little more about this whole CBA deal, starting with cap raise closer to 7%. Might be higher first year.

[Initial B]

The league has to figure out what salary cap they want to end up with in 2019, and work backwards from there. I'm praying that they want the cap to be at least $6 million by that point.

[Shway]

The league has to figure out what salary cap they want to end up with in 2019, and work backwards from there. I'm praying that they want the cap to be at least $6 million by that point.

:rofl: yea...thats all we can do is hope and pray.

I'm still praying to figure out the amount of phantom money each team has per season? does it expire? etc.

[barticusz]

http://www.si.com/planet-futbol/2015/03/06/mls-cba-deal-players-union-bob-foose-todd-dunivant

20% increase for this year.. brings us to 3.72M. 3.98M in 2016. Not great but not bad overall if true.

[Defoe]

This is a domestic player focused league, I think that's what everyone needs to come to terms with. The owners, especially the penny pinchers like to keep it that way, makes sense in the long term too.

Domestics don't deserve significantly more wages.

The problem of increasing the cap by a lot is not only the foreign players problem, but more importantly the over entitlement attitude, a 40K players isn't all of a sudden worth 100K, the world market dictates their wages more than they want to accept.

Yes absolutely the minimum needed to go up, should probably have gone up further closing the low-high gap(non DP), but the increase in cap reflects the overall talent of domestics in my opinion.

MLS isn't just going to stop the bleeding of players to the EU in the short term, its takes time to repatriate all these players or prevent them from leaving.

As a football fans it sucks, especially when the league is in your backyard, we want to see the best product but its not going to happen until our domestic talent improves.

Slow and steady. We can only hope that academies start to challenge that idea.

Agreed, and it's the way it probably should be. It seems MLS does a lot more buying then selling. Selling players like Altidore and Bradley to Europe only to buy them back at significant prices are hopefully not the long term plan here. Then we (the league) sell Yedlin and Henry to Europe. I think we all agree Henry should go to Europe, because we have selfish priorities of Henry being developed into a great defender for Canada, but from a financial stand point it's clearly not financially intelligent. If he develops into a great defender, West Ham will cash in. Tottenham will cash in. TFC lose, Sounders lose.

The top teams develop the best players. Half of Barcelona's starting 5 are academy players including Messi. TFC have brought in some real good starting players: Bradley, Altidore, Cheyrou, Giovinco, Perquis. When TFC and MLS are at the point when they can actually develop the OTHER half of the lineup, then this is when the league will be great. It's a process.

[BeachTory]

Agreed, and it's the way it probably should be. It seems MLS does a lot more buying then selling. Selling players like Altidore and Bradley to Europe only to buy them back at significant prices are hopefully not the long term plan here. Then we (the league) sell Yedlin and Henry to Europe. I think we all agree Henry should go to Europe, because we have selfish priorities of Henry being developed into a great defender for Canada, but from a financial stand point it's clearly not financially intelligent. If he develops into a great defender, West Ham will cash in. Tottenham will cash in. TFC lose, Sounders lose.

The top teams develop the best players. Half of Barcelona's starting 5 are academy players including Messi. TFC have brought in some real good starting players: Bradley, Altidore, Cheyrou, Giovinco, Perquis. When TFC and MLS are at the point when they can actually develop the OTHER half of the lineup, then this is when the league will be great. It's a process.


The henry sale was i feel a remarkable deal for TFC. They showed they could back door a player in England that would not qualify for a work permit without the cyprus sidesuffle and even helped with a few quid pro quo national team appearances. But the most important aspect is the poster child. All those local academy eligible players who are talented enough but have not come to TFC academny now see that TFC has placed an academy player ultimately into the Biggest of big leagues. Add the historic signings of academy players to the first team, the NCAA players who emd up back via HG and the USL and the PDL teams. The academy now has a very complete pitch to the players and parents that TFC want to attract.

The long term value of the entire academy pitch now is complete with Henry. Doesnt guaranttee a steady flow of first team developed talent but the days of petrasco and Cairero (sp i know) saying goodbye at 16 because of no obvious pathway are gone.

[Oldtimer]

http://www.si.com/planet-futbol/2015/03/06/mls-cba-deal-players-union-bob-foose-todd-dunivant

20% increase for this year.. brings us to 3.72M. 3.98M in 2016. Not great but not bad overall if true.

Add to it a totally undisclosed amount of Garber bucks and you have the true cap.

[Defoe]

Add to it a totally undisclosed amount of Garber bucks and you have the true cap.

Yeah. We also have NO idea what Cheyrou and Perquis earn. They earn more then 500 k one would think. Then the 3 Dp's... it's tight. I really don't understand how we're under the cap.

[OgtheDim]

Yeah. We also have NO idea what Cheyrou and Perquis earn. They earn more then 500 k one would think. Then the 3 Dp's... it's tight. I really don't understand how we're under the cap.

Kyle Bekker bucks.

[Richard]

Is the union still going to disclose the salaries? Does anyone know if that has been changed in the CBA?

[Initial B]

^ I don't think salary disclosure is something that is restricted by the CBA. They just put that out themselves.

This is probably the last update I'll make to this thread. I found this article:

http://www.lawinsport.com/articles/item/major-league-soccer-s-collective-bargaining-negotiations-federal-mediation-salary-cap-and-steps-toward-free-agency

It's a really interesting read for its take on a variety of topics, from free agency to how likely the players were to strike. But this is the part I was most interested in:


In European football, 65% of total revenues go to player wages (http://www.uefa.org/MultimediaFiles/Download/Tech/uefaorg/General/02/09/18/26/2091826_DOWNLOAD.pdf).38 In the NFL, player wages account for 37% of total revenues. In MLB, it’s 47%, in the NBA, it’s 55%, and in the NHL it’s 71%. In Major League Soccer, just 17% of total revenues went to player wages during the 2013 season (http://www.businessofsoccer.com/2014/02/07/how-much-more-do-professional-footballers-make-than-the-average-joe-part-ii/).39

And this:


As reported by respected ESPN journalist, Jeffrey Carlisle (http://www.espnfc.com/major-league-soccer/story/2332230/mlsplayers-union-reach-agreement-on-new-cba-sources-say), under the terms of the new CBA, the minimum salary has been set at $60,000, which represents a large sixty-four percent increase over the previous minimum of $36,500. In addition, the salary cap has seen an immediate 21 percent increase from 2014 to 2015, to $3,740,000 and is set to increase a further seven percent per year over the course of the CBA.

That means that the salary cap will go up by the following per year:

2015: $3,740,000 ($60,000 min)
2016: $4,001,800 ($64,200 min)
2017: $4,281,926 ($68,694 min)
2018: $4,581,661 ($73,503 min)
2019: $4,902,377 ($78,648 min)

Though not as much as I had hoped, it's still more substantial than I feared based on the initial CBA reports. I think next year we will see a significant increase in quality across the league as South American agents clamour to get their players noticed by the league.

[Shway]

is the CBA 3 years or 5?
Also just under 5 mill by 2019 is still not good. In fact its horrible considering where the sport will be by then.