PDA

View Full Version : A few MLS roster improvement ideas



jloome
09-04-2008, 02:37 AM
I read a post on one of the other boards earlier tonight suggesting the lack of profit in MLS (something like an average of $7M-10M per season in revenue per team) is the principle reason we won't see a major salary cap increase.

But it occured to me that when you factor in the $900,000 to $6.5 million teams are already paying for a DP, some teams already have payrolls (cough...cough...LA) in excess of $8 million. Chicago has more than $6 million on its payroll, with Blanco getting $2.7 million.

They just don't register it becasue fo the DP rule. And when you factor in the wanker nature of American sports owners and their capacity for using their sports ownings as tax writeoffs for losses against other holdings, we can't even trust their base revenue projections to start with.

So, prospectively, teams are willing to top $5 million per season in salaries. I suggest MLS would benefit more from getting rid of the 2 DP rule -- limiting it to one per team, instead of one plus one traded -- and using the extra money to add depth to rosters and stability to lineups.

Let's say the team grandfathered the current DPs but under the new CBA agreed to a clause where teams would be limited to:

-- one player above the cap. (the dp)

-- 25 Roster players

-- An 18-man senior roster cap of $3 million

-- A Development roster cap for U-23 players of $1 million.

That amounts to a $4 milllion salary cap that is weighted towards promoting development, with an additional star player. A team could legitimately sign 16-18 players to compete for starting roles, with an average salary of $166,000 per year, plus seven youth players with an average salary of $142,000.

It doesn't take much -- a $1.3 million increase, in all -- to take MLS salaries from unbearably crappy to liveable. Let's assume you want the top 10 of those players to average $250,000 a year. That's $2.5 million, leaving you $500,000 to spend on your remaining senior players.

So let's say you sign five more senior players at an average of $100,000 each (still numbers well above the norm for the bench players right now) leaving you three bench spots and seven dev spots that will have to go to U-23 players, because your senior cap of $3 million is gone. But with a $1 million dev cap, that's still an average of $100,000 per player for those U-23 players, real incentive to play here.

I think MLSE and most of the other owners in the league would be willing to cough up that kind of extra money, and it would satisfy the need to raise the salaries in the bottom half. Plus, if you get rid of the $400,000 max cap for one player and move it to, say, $600,000, you suddenly can afford significantly more Euro players and have many new options for team development.

They could even write in a rule suggesting that U-23 development cap money left after salaries are accounted for can be used on a prorated monthly basis to help fund the youth academy, allowing for a scholarship/full-time instruction environment to be established over time through an education fund.

If you consider the likelihood that Columbus isn't the only team the league is allowing to 'fudge attendance' and that MLS is probably more in the 12-13,000 per game category, I'd suggest the idea of one star per team attracting a huge new ongoing viewership is a little ridiculous. It would be better to offer a competitive product on the field through roster strengthening and allow fan bases to grow naturally through appreciation for the increasing quality of the performances over time.

arbogast
09-04-2008, 08:14 AM
i think the DP's salary or a portion thereof (like it is now) should not have to count against the cap.

Oldtimer
09-04-2008, 08:37 AM
Good to see some ideas being thrown out there.

I think the crying need is for a larger squad.
18 isn't big enough when you have the national cup competitions, friendlies, Champions League, Superliga, etc. as well as league play. You get injuries, and the depth isn't there

S_D
09-04-2008, 08:59 AM
I think that if the MLS raised the cap by 100K (over and above existing increases to cover salary increases) they could expand the roster by 1 player.

1 player may not sound like a lot, but that is one more player than we have on rosters already.

The MLS's arguement is simple though for not increasing roster spots. Through expansion they are increasing the number of players every year and thus the total amount of money spent on players wages. Kind of a hollow arguement though as they also have increased revenue through new team ticket sales.

torfchamilton
09-04-2008, 09:19 AM
I like the idea of a 25 man roster 1st team roster. Then you would have your reserves(developmental players). I also like the idea of having 2 DP type players and them not counting towards the cap.

TFCREDNWHITE
09-04-2008, 10:44 AM
I read a post on one of the other boards earlier tonight suggesting the lack of profit in MLS (something like an average of $7M-10M per season in revenue per team) is the principle reason we won't see a major salary cap increase.

But it occured to me that when you factor in the $900,000 to $6.5 million teams are already paying for a DP, some teams already have payrolls (cough...cough...LA) in excess of $8 million. Chicago has more than $6 million on its payroll, with Blanco getting $2.7 million.

They just don't register it becasue fo the DP rule. And when you factor in the wanker nature of American sports owners and their capacity for using their sports ownings as tax writeoffs for losses against other holdings, we can't even trust their base revenue projections to start with.

So, prospectively, teams are willing to top $5 million per season in salaries. I suggest MLS would benefit more from getting rid of the 2 DP rule -- limiting it to one per team, instead of one plus one traded -- and using the extra money to add depth to rosters and stability to lineups.

Let's say the team grandfathered the current DPs but under the new CBA agreed to a clause where teams would be limited to:

-- one player above the cap. (the dp)

-- 25 Roster players

-- An 18-man senior roster cap of $4 million

-- A Development roster cap for U-23 players of $1 million.

That amounts to a $5 milllion salary cap that is weighted towards promoting development, with an additional star player. A team could legitimately sign 16-18 players to compete for starting roles, with an average salary of $166,000 per year, plus seven youth players with an average salary of $142,000.

It doesn't take much -- a $1.3 million increase, in all -- to take MLS salaries from unbearably crappy to liveable. Let's assume you want the top 10 of those players to average $250,000 a year. That's $2.5 million, leaving you $500,000 to spend on your remaining senior players.



I like the plan, but the only adjustment i would make is increase the total cap to 5 million...I firmly believe the teams can afford it.

flatpicker
09-04-2008, 10:49 AM
or give the cap a range... say, 3-5 million.
If a team shows they have the revenue for it, then they get to spend the max.
If not, then their books determine how much they can spend without creating debt.

teams that earn more (like T.O. and L.A. etc) should be allowed to spend more if it fits within their budget.

Heathen
09-04-2008, 10:55 AM
18 man squads are ridiculous, I mean hell we could register more than that in the TSSL Div 4.

jloome
09-04-2008, 02:04 PM
It's also abnormal; I believe the first team norm in England (where teams are only allowed a five-man bench for games, not the normal seven) is 24. And they play with shorter game-day rosters than anyone else in Europe.

giambac
09-04-2008, 02:06 PM
or give the cap a range... say, 3-5 million.
If a team shows they have the revenue for it, then they get to spend the max.
If not, then their books determine how much they can spend without creating debt.

teams that earn more (like T.O. and L.A. etc) should be allowed to spend more if it fits within their budget.

Very good

bangersandmash
09-04-2008, 02:18 PM
There are two things that stand between what we want and what will happen:

1. The CBA
2. The Money

1. The CBA
The roster size is governed by the CBA and the CBA is up soon. When the CBA was signed there was no CCL and there was no SuperLiga. Hopefully the players' union will see how the schedule has changed and have the smarts to push for a better roster size and a better salary cap. (My guess is that they get one or the other). We need to remember that the MLS was set up with financial restrictions to ensure that it could be viable (or atleast, its debt would be manageable). The league is 13 years old, the television deals are getting better, the attendance is getting better and the league is growing. I'm not saying that we shouldn't push for things, but we need to remember that NE and DC fans have been living with this from the start. They're now seeing better stadia being built, DP slots and a relaxation of domestic player rules.

2. The Money

The key is to push, but to push constructively. This may sound stupid, but if you watch an MLS game on TV, write to a competing network and let them know why you didn't watch their programming (especially if it is a competing sports network). Even more insane, support the sponsors of MLS and write to them -- and their competitors -- to let them know that their support has turned into sales. I know people are rolling their eyes, but it is ALL ABOUT THE MONEY. Better TV deal and better sponsorship = more money = better everything. We need to push for change, but we need to push the people who have the money to help things change. The MLS has *no* money (they're 350 million in debt), MLSE is restricted on how much they can spend on the club.

btw: if I'm falling on deaf ears, please tell me. I'll shut up.

jloome
09-04-2008, 07:09 PM
There are two things that stand between what we want and what will happen:

1. The CBA
2. The Money

1. The CBA
The roster size is governed by the CBA and the CBA is up soon. When the CBA was signed there was no CCL and there was no SuperLiga. Hopefully the players' union will see how the schedule has changed and have the smarts to push for a better roster size and a better salary cap. (My guess is that they get one or the other). We need to remember that the MLS was set up with financial restrictions to ensure that it could be viable (or atleast, its debt would be manageable). The league is 13 years old, the television deals are getting better, the attendance is getting better and the league is growing. I'm not saying that we shouldn't push for things, but we need to remember that NE and DC fans have been living with this from the start. They're now seeing better stadia being built, DP slots and a relaxation of domestic player rules.

2. The Money

The key is to push, but to push constructively. This may sound stupid, but if you watch an MLS game on TV, write to a competing network and let them know why you didn't watch their programming (especially if it is a competing sports network). Even more insane, support the sponsors of MLS and write to them -- and their competitors -- to let them know that their support has turned into sales. I know people are rolling their eyes, but it is ALL ABOUT THE MONEY. Better TV deal and better sponsorship = more money = better everything. We need to push for change, but we need to push the people who have the money to help things change. The MLS has *no* money (they're 350 million in debt), MLSE is restricted on how much they can spend on the club.

btw: if I'm falling on deaf ears, please tell me. I'll shut up.

I've been in media 20 years; the squeaky wheel gets the grease; there's nothing wrong with this idea, although given how many potential viewers they're currently losing, it's not going to get much traction on its own. But it's a start.