Would a NBA-style salary cap benefit MLS (overall) or hurt MLS (overall)?

[Dust2]

Could MLS grow faster if it follow the NBA model? Teams with high growth potential like NY, LA, Tor, Sea, Van, Chicago, DC, Houston, Philly are allowed to grow. At the same time, they will pay a hefty luxury tax for the privilege of spending more than the low-to-mid level MLS clubs. These low-to-mid level clubs benefit from the luxury tax payment.

http://www.nba.com/news/salarycapset_080709.html

The National Basketball Association today announced that the Salary Cap for the 2008-09 season will be $58.680 million.

The tax level for the 2008-09 season has been set at $71.150 million. Any team whose team salary exceeds that figure will pay a $1 tax for each $1 by which it exceeds $71.150 million.

The mid-level exception is $5.585 million for the 2008-09 season and the minimum team salary, which is set at 75% of the Salary Cap, is $44.010 million.

In a nutshell, salary cap at $58.69 mil. Minimum salary (75% of cap) $44.01 mil
Luxury tax start at $71.150 mil ($1 per $1 over).

In 2005-06, the New York Knicks' payroll was $124 million, putting them $74.5 million above the salary cap, and $62.3 million above the tax line, which Knicks owner James Dolan paid to the league.


1. New York Knicks
$94,842,168
2. Dallas Maverick
$92,758,122
3. Cleveland Cavaliers
$91,650,943
4. Boston Celtics
$80,659,701
5. Portland Trail Blazers
$80,600,059
6. Phoenix Suns
$75,626,030
7. Houston Rockets
$75,469,051
8. Los Angeles Lakers
$75,255,408
9. Sacramento Kings
$73,129,886
10. Detroit Pistons
$72,076,423
11. Toronto Raptors
$71,965,453
12. Milwaukee Bucks
$71,421,682
13. Washington Wizards
$70,259,475
14. Indiana Pacers
$70,036,797
15. Denver Nuggets
$70,478,826
16. Miami Heat
$69,865,650
17. San Antonio Spurs
$69,299,039
18. Orlando Magic
$68,713,618
19. Oklahoma City Thunder
$68,533,648
20. Chicago Bulls
$68,520,301
21. Golden State Warriors
$68,461,515
22. Philadelphia 76ers
$68,393,588
23. Atlanta Hawks
$68,012,336
24. New Orleans Hornets
$67,866,515
25. Minnesota Timberwolves
$66,066,569
26. Utah Jazz
$65,632,827
27. New Jersey Nets
$62,609,434
28. Charlotte Bobcats
$61,787,680
29. Los Angeles Clippers
$60,775,937
30. Memphis Grizzlies
$55,705,279



If MLS follow NBA salary cap model, it could look something like this:

Salary cap at $3.2 mil
Minimum salary cap (75%) at $2.4 mil
Luxury tax ($1 for $1 over) starting at $4 mil

(the actual number will be up to MLS to decide, the above is just an example).

MLS would pay salaries up to $2.4 mil and each team owner will be responsible for the rest. Or MLS could change its regulation and make each team pay salary instead. For me, there are two important objectives for MLS: 1) cost certainty---allow all MLS teams a chance at profitability 2) allow MLS high revenue teams and teams with high growth potential to grow. The current level playing field/hard cap hinder the potential of the very teams that could push MLS forward.

NY, LA, Tor, Sea, Van, Philly could have a $8 mil wages (and pay $4 mil in luxury tax). This would allow them the ability to grow at a much faster rate. I wouldn't be surprised if Seattle could average 40,000 if it could spend $8 mil in wages instead of $2.3 mil. Same with Toronto, Vancouver. And of course, New York and Los Angeles have the most growth potential because their markets are the biggest.

MLS would do better in the Champions League. Its image and reputation among existing soccer fans would increase. Its TV rating would increase because of high profile match-ups. A team like NY,LA,Sea,Tor could have $1 mil/year type players like Donovan, Cooper, Altidore, Kljestan, Angel. That team probably need about $8-10 mil cap (and pay about $4-6 mil luxury tax).

The current US National team rosters have 16 out of 23 players playing abroad. Could MLS use some American national team members like Bocanegra, Dempsey, Freddy Adu, Altidore, Michael Bradley, Tim Howard, Brad Guzan, Benny Feihaber, Onyewu, Beasley, Danny Califf? Just some of them staying in MLS would be good for the league. The J-league has 23 out of 28 Japanese national team players playing in the J-league. This definately help the league grow. With $8-10 mil wagse, a few teams will retain/get US internationals and for Van/Tor Canadian internationals.

[Shakes McQueen]

While as a TFC fan I'd love that kind of model, I think it would be bad for the overall health of the league.

Giving already-strong markets a leg up over less wealthy owners, and weaker markets, will kill a lot of those markets off before they have a chance to grow stronger. Both conferences will become like the AL East in MLB - teams like LA and Seattle becoming the Yankees and BoSox in the West, and teams like Toronto and New York becoming their counterparts in the East.

Meanwhile teams like Dallas and Columbus would disappear, in all likelihood. And while weak markets closing up shop happens in other leagues, MLS isn't entrenched enough of a product to survive that kind of instability right now.

Some years down the line? Sure, I think it'd be a great idea.

I favour just raising the cap a sensible amount - or doing what the NHL do, and raising the cap to reflect league revenues every year. For now, while I think they need to raise the cap significantly, I think slower, cautious growth is the way to go.

- Scott

[Fort York Redcoat]

I don't understand this model for NA sports. As discussed in other threads, these teams are only competing with each other not foreign teams as well. So while this builds giants in their respective league it trivializes weaker teams in smaller areas.

I'm not really concerned about other sports leagues but it's too soon for MLS. After expansion is done.

That said, I think your numbers proposed are reasonable, Dusty, and I hope vehemently that it comes to pass in the near future...

[Pookie]

Your thread starts with a question, could the MLS "grow faster?"

What do you mean by grow faster?

- adding more teams?
- growing revenue?
- improving quality of play?

If you are talking about more teams, consider that there are 3 new ones coming by 2011. Expansion needs to be controlled to balance the risk of diluting the overall product (which please don't forget is the league itself). Owners are lining up to get a franchise because of the cost certainty of this model. The investment risk is less in this climate than it is with other leagues. That is very appealing.

A more fruitful idea would be to look at teams that have continually struggled and consider relocation to hungrier markets. ie, move KC to Montreal. That would have more of an impact on the collective health of the league.

If you are talking about growing revenue, an NBA Luxury tax with the spending you've proposed (+$12M for Toronto) is absolutely ludicrous in my opinion. Toronto would have to raise revenue by over 176% off current numbers to be able to afford that.

That would equate to over $1,200 extra per season for a holder of two seats in the Supporter's Section. You also bring into the mix the idea of Personal Seat Licenses. That's a tough sell.

If you are talking about improving the quality of play, I think yes, you would attract some "better" players.

Though, as I've said in other threads, they will not be players that North American fans would relate to therefore would likely not be enough to justify the extra expense ($1,200 for a Red Patch Boy with 2 seats, in my example above). It wouldn't have a positive impact on the financial health of the league.

Improving the quality of play is something that we both want. It will be done through the long term development of North American talent.

Where I think your idea does have legs is in establishing a minimum salary. If any future cap increase can be put into raising the minimum salary instead of paying supposed "top talent" a little more for the same work (ie. giving a raise to Guevara), I think you will encourage more kids to think of the MLS (or Pro-soccer in general) as a career option.

Give the North American public guys who are hungry to grow, play for their national teams and at a reasonable price from cities and towns they know... that sells.

[Suds]

The current US National team rosters have 16 out of 23 players playing abroad.

Interesting stat considering one of the goal of the MLS is to develop US talent to bolster their national team.



I think in the longer term a model like the NBA should be considered by the MLS. Just not sure the league is there yet. I recall a posting on here that only a small number of MLS teams are profitable at this stage. I think that percentage needs to increase.

It's a fine line of spending money to make money and spending that just results in a higher debt load on the teams. The timing of any increasses to team spending is going to be key to how successful it is.

An increase in the cap is definitely needed. To what amount is the right amount is debatable; but I think most will agree it needs to be increased.

[Fort York Redcoat]

Interesting stat considering one of the goal of the MLS is to develop US talent to bolster their national team.

I don't think MLs are so dumb as to believe their skill level or $$$ are close to competing abroad. With a little $$$ added it means keeping that prospect for another year or maybe one on the bubble chooses to stay. We'll see.

[rocker]

i'd like the thread author to explain what this NBA system has done for the NBA?

It just looks like a different system. But what has been its outcome on improving the NBA? How would that be better than the NFL system, for example?

Also, on this comment:

The current US National team rosters have 16 out of 23 players playing abroad. Could MLS use some American national team members like Bocanegra, Dempsey, Freddy Adu, Altidore, Michael Bradley, Tim Howard, Brad Guzan, Benny Feihaber, Onyewu, Beasley, Danny Califf

15 of the 23 players on the US national team members have played or are currently playing in MLS. So I'm not sure what this point says other than MLS produces national team talent. There's no indication whether any of the players who left MLS would want to come back or whether the NBA model would bring them back.

I just don't know about all these various permutations of proposals for the cap. The connection between a certain proposal and a specific outcome seems to tenuous to me. All I can trust is as long as MLS raises the salary cap, we will probably see improvement in quality. Just raise the cap across the board. Simple. Maybe the league could also remove the protective rules, those rules that protect teams from fucking themselves with bad decisions. Then superclubs could develop not based on spending more than the other guy, but on consistently making good decisions. Maybe they could take off the restriction, for example, on the max salary against the cap. So you could conceivable sign a 600K player against the cap, which is taking a risk. But if it fails, you're screwed. Teams that don't fail at risktaking could potentially do much better than others.

I believe in equality of opportunity but if it leads to inequality of outcome, due to mismanagement, then that's fine. I love the idea that every team has the same money to spend, because then it means teams have to win by thinking better, training better, scouting better, etc. But maybe MLS has toooo many rules now to enforce parity, to the point that they overprotect that decisionmaking. For example, the draft. I understand the point of the draft. But even if they did away with the draft, no MLS team under a cap system could scoop up all the best college players. And even if they did, they'd be leaving open a lot of other players the remaining teams could sign (both college, and foreigners). The discovery claim system is similar. The cap + single entity ensures that a "bidding war" between MLS teams for foreigners probably couldn't happen, so why bother with discovery claims? Removing the draft and the discovery claim system would place a greater emphasis on smart management.

[Beach_Red]

What I like about this thead is that everyone beieves MLS will continue to grow and prosper, and the question is how to manage that.

When the league started it had, what, one owner because no other investors could be found. Now people are paying close to $40 million to get into the league.

We're complaining that the growth isn't fast enough but this is the first successful start-up sports league in North America in decades - and lots have failed.

[Fort York Redcoat]

^That's a lot of money considering how little they can spend year to year. This CBA next year will be quite the indicator how hungry for growth the league really is.

[Cuz]

I've said this before on this forum and I will say it again.. Salary caps kill teams! Especially the god ones who have all the money in the world and can't spend a fucking dime of it due to the cap! With the support TFC has we could an probably one day will become the richest team in footy in North America. And as long as there is a cap on the game then we will suffer the same way the Leafs do every year because of the cap! The Leafs are a prime example of how salary caps kill teams! The Leafs are #3 in the world next to Manchester United and the New York Yankees in profitability and yet they can't even compete in today's NHL because we aren't allowed to spend our own fuckign money! Instead we have to pass it around to the rest of the failing teams. I realise the Leafs prblems are way worse than just the cap, bu it's still a major part of the problem. Imagine how fucked football would be in Europe if there was a cap?

[Yohan]

Imagine how fucked football would be in Europe if there was a cap?

they wouldn't be in a multi million dollar debt that it is in right now, and even bigger teams won't go into administration

[Beach_Red]

And as long as there is a cap on the game then we will suffer the same way the Leafs do every year because of the cap! The Leafs are a prime example of how salary caps kill teams!

The Leafs suffered long before there was a cap in the NHL - you really can't blame their problems on that.

What kills teams is bad management. In the NFL some teams are consistently better than others, not because of the size of their local market but because of their management skill.

Is a sport really more interesting if the only thing that seperates winners from loser is money?

[Fort York Redcoat]

they wouldn't be in a multi million dollar debt that it is in right now, and even bigger teams won't go into administration

I think we make a bigger deal of that here than they care about it there. The devotion to their leagues aren't as replacable as they are here.

-"[random hockey team]'s losing. Oh well how are the [random basketball team]'s doing? "

[T_Mizz]

While I get what people are saying about the cap being in the best interest for the league I would like to see TFC staying at the top and the best way for that to happen is through spending more.
However that is very selfish of me and the league is going about things the right way. I think if they just grow slowly but surely raising the cap every few years then eventually (i'm thinking a few years after I'm dead) we could see the MLS as one of the top leagues in the world just because whe a sport catches on in the states it tends to become THE league because of the money that gets thrown around on this side of the atlantic.

[Pookie]

When discussing a cap, people forget that there is no cap whatsoever on management, scouting, player development, coaching, training facilities, etc.

Teams with money still can have a competitive advantage over other clubs even in a very restrictive cap system.

Interestingly, while there are some pro-free spenders here... I'm not seeing any commentary regarding your season tickets going up by $1,200 for a pair to fund this spend (as proposed above). Am I to assume you've got your chequebook ready?

[Beach_Red]

Most sports leagues that failed in North America expanded too quickly or didn't have too tight a grip on expenses. Maybe for the WHA the probalem was there just wasn't a big enough market for hockey. The USFL started out as a summer league and did okay signing a lot of guys out of college, but they really wanted to take on the NFL in the fall and failed.

There are few different theories on here why NASL failed, but free-spending in some cities and not others was probably one of the reasons.

So, looking into the way caps work for the other successful sports is good, but you might want to do some research into why leages failed. Even NFL Europe failed.

[Fort York Redcoat]

When discussing a cap, people forget that there is no cap whatsoever on management, scouting, player development, coaching, training facilities, etc.

Teams with money still can have a competitive advantage over other clubs even in a very restrictive cap system.

Interestingly, while there are some pro-free spenders here... I'm not seeing any commentary regarding your season tickets going up by $1,200 for a pair to fund this spend (as proposed above). Am I to assume you've got your chequebook ready?

Pook now I'm of the mind you work for MLSE and are just taking polls for the next price hike. Don't you know they're watching?

I would never say (especially type) that I want to pay more but I understand the reality you speak of.

[Dust2]

While as a TFC fan I'd love that kind of model, I think it would be bad for the overall health of the league.

Giving already-strong markets a leg up over less wealthy owners, and weaker markets, will kill a lot of those markets off before they have a chance to grow stronger. Both conferences will become like the AL East in MLB - teams like LA and Seattle becoming the Yankees and BoSox in the West, and teams like Toronto and New York becoming their counterparts in the East.

Meanwhile teams like Dallas and Columbus would disappear, in all likelihood. And while weak markets closing up shop happens in other leagues, MLS isn't entrenched enough of a product to survive that kind of instability right now.

Why would Dallas and Columbus disappear? They have their own stadium and if they can sell about 7-8k tickets a game, they will be fine. Many of their fans are soccer moms, family type who go for a nice day out. With a $4 mil luxury tax revenue, they can be profitable.

Can a $2.5 mil wages team compete with a $8 mil team? I think so. MLS also have the playoff which tend to give lower revenue teams a good shot at advancing. The J-league 17th in spending is right now third in the table after 13 games (salary of $3.6 when many J-league teams salary are $8 mil or higher).

[Beach_Red]

Why would Dallas and Columbus disappear? They have their own stadium and if they can sell about 7-8k tickets a game, they will be fine. Many of their fans are soccer moms, family type who go for a nice day out. With a $4 mil luxury tax revenue, they can be profitable.

Can a $2.5 mil wages team compete with a $8 mil team? I think so. MLS also have the playoff which tend to give lower revenue teams a good shot at advancing. The J-league 17th in spending is right now third in the table after 13 games (salary of $3.6 when many J-league teams salary are $8 mil or higher).

You may be right that in some cities - if the tickets remain cheap enough - the soccer mom-day out kind of fans will continue to come whether their team has a realistic chance of winning a title or not. Afterall, as their kids get older they'll stop going but there will always be a new generation of soccer moms. Some of the kids may continue to go to games as they grow up to see the more powerful LA and NY teams. It could work.

The problem would be trying to get a national TV contract, but the NHL will never get one and they certainly have higher payrolls than MLS teams.

I think the league has more ambition than that right now, but you may be right, that may be the best they can settle for. Unfortunately for us, MLSE will go after the easier to please soccer mom market so TFC won't be one of the big teams, but like smaller European teams we can be happy to see the better players on the big teams when they come through town.

[Pookie]

Can a $2.5 mil wages team compete with a $8 mil team? I think so.

You know Dust, I give you full marks for trying.

However, isn't the whole premise of your theory that by spending more you'd raise the quality of play?

How then could a lower spending team compete with a team that has almost 4x it's payroll?

Doesn't the very fact that you conclude that it would be competitive indicate that increased spending would have a marginal (if any) impact on the quality of play across the league?

[Dust2]

You know Dust, I give you full marks for trying.

However, isn't the whole premise of your theory that by spending more you'd raise the quality of play?

How then could a lower spending team compete with a team that has almost 4x it's payroll?

A $2.5 mil team will compete against 4-6 teams about the same payroll and 4-6 teams with $3-5 mil payroll and maybe 4 teams with $7-8 mil payroll. In order to get $8 mil payroll, a team has to pay out $4 mil in luxury tax. Only a few teams have that kind of cash. It's not like one $2.5 mil team against seventeen $8 payroll teams. MLS could also do $2 luxury tax for $1 over starting at $8 mil. So if NY want to spend crazy, it will be charged twice as much. So a $12 mil payroll could cost $12 mil luxury tax ($4 mil + $4 mil x 2).

(1) Urawa Reds - 1,250,000,000 Yen = $12.5 mil
(2) Gamba Osaka - $10.5 mil
(3) Kashima Antlers - $8.3 mil
(4) Vissel Kobe - $7.3 mil
(5) Kyoto Sanga FC - $7.0 mil
(6) Oita Trinita - $6.5 mil
(7) Jubilo Iwata - $6.4 mil
(8) Kawasaki Frontale - $6.2 mil
(9) Kashiwa Reysol - $6.1 mil
(10) Shimizu S-Pulse - $5.9 mil
(11) Nagoya Grampus - $5.8 mil
(12) FC Tokyo - $5.6 mil
(13) Yokohama F Marinos - $5.2 mil
(14) Omiya Ardija and Sanfrecce Hiroshima - $5.1 mil
(16) JEF Utd Chiba - $4.8 mil
(17) Albirex Niigata - $3.6 mil
(18) Yamagata Montedio - 250,000,000 Yen = $2.5 mil

17th in spending and third in the J-league table. 15th in spending Hiroshima and 6th in the J-league table. J-league does not have playoff. MLS does. Playoff gives more chances for teams to compete. With 8 teams playoff, even a $2.5 mil team would still be in it if it play well throughout the season. Tampa Bay did it in baseball and went to the World Series on a low payroll.

                               Pts    Pld    W     D     L    GF   GA    GD
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Kashima Antlers            29 P    12    9  -  2  -  1    18    8   +10
 2. Urawa Reds                 25 P    13    7  -  4  -  2    17   12    +5
 3. Albirex Niigata            22 P    13    6  -  4  -  3    20   14    +6
-----------------------------------AFC CL---------------------------
 4. Kawasaki Frontale          21 P    12    6  -  3  -  3    23   15    +8
 5. Gamba Osaka                20 P    12    6  -  2  -  4    26   16   +10
 6. Sanfrecce Hiroshima        20 P    13    5  -  5  -  3    24   17    +7
 7. Nagoya Grampus             19 P    12    5  -  4  -  3    16   14    +2
 8. Shimizu S-Pulse            18 P    13    4  -  6  -  3    13   14    -1
 9. Jubilo Iwata               18 P    13    5  -  3  -  5    20   23    -3
10. Kyoto Sanga F.C.           17 P    13    5  -  2  -  6    12   14    -2
11. Vissel Kobe                17 P    13    5  -  2  -  6    17   20    -3
12. Montedio Yamagata          16 P    13    4  -  4  -  5    15   13    +2
13. Yokohama F. Marinos        16 P    13    4  -  4  -  5    18   17    +1
14. FC Tokyo                   16 P    13    5  -  1  -  7    15   22    -7
15. Omiya Ardija               14 P    13    3  -  5  -  5    18   22    -4
------------------------------------Relegation to Division 2---------------
16. JEF United Chiba           12 P    13    2  -  6  -  5    13   19    -6
17. Kashiwa Reysol              9 P    13    1  -  6  -  6    16   27   -11
18. Oita Trinita                4 P    13    1  -  1  - 11     9   23   -14

Doesn't the very fact that you conclude that it would be competitive indicate that increased spending would have a marginal (if any) impact on the quality of play across the league?

Nope. Quality of play will increase because a payroll like this would attract better talents than the current MLS payroll system ($2.3 mil cap with DP).

NY and LA: $8 mil payroll ($4 mil luxury tax)
Sea and Tor: $7 mil payroll ($3 mil luxury tax)
Vancouver, Philly, DC, Chicago: $6 mil payroll ($2 mil luxury tax)
Portland, RSL, Houston: $5 mil payroll ($1 mil luxury tax)
the other 7 teams: $2.5 mil - $4 mil payroll (receive luxury tax)

[T_Mizz]

^wow 6th place on 15th spending?
Would it be terrible of me to say Hiroshima's the bomb?

[Dust2]

Salary cap at $3.2 mil
Minimum salary cap (75%) at $2.4 mil
Luxury tax ($1 for $1 over) starting at $4 mil

If the above is deem too expensive then MLS could do something like this:

Salary cap at $2.8 mil
Minimum salary cap (75%) at $2.1 mil
Luxury tax ($1 for $1 over) starting at $3.5 mil
Luxury tax ($1.5 for $1 over) starting at $7 mil
Luxury tax ($2 for $1 over) starting at $ 11 mil

My projection of what MLS payroll might look like from the above scenario:

18 teams league

NY and LA: $8 mil payroll ($5 mil luxury tax)
Sea and Tor: $7 mil payroll ($3.5 mil luxury tax)
Vancouver, Philly, DC, Chicago: $6 mil payroll ($2.5 mil luxury tax)
Portland, Houston: $5 mil payroll ($1.5 mil luxury tax)
Chivas, RSL: $4 mil payroll ($0.5 mil luxury tax)
the other 6 teams: $2.5 mil - $3.4999 mil payroll (no luxury tax)

That's $31 mil in luxury tax revenue to be shared. As I stated, it will be up to MLS to decide who pay luxury tax, who receive luxury tax, and how much. The above is just an example. Could it be worth it for NY, LA to pay $5 mil luxury tax in exchange for $8 mil payroll? Maybe. If the owners want to spend that much, I say let's them. Keep in mind that LA generated $36 million in revenue according to Forbes in 2007. I believe LA would love to pay the $5 mil luxury tax to get its payroll to $8 mil instead of $2.3 mil. With a potential winning, higher quality team and Beckham, LA Galaxy could have increase its attendance, sponsorship, merchandise, TV rating. Galaxy reputation, image would rise instead of falling because the team would do generally well instead of sucking so bad on the field. And MLS would benefit from a successful, winning, higher quality Galaxy instead of the current 'horrible-tie heavy-sucky Galaxy.' Who know, maybe a Galaxy game on ESPN2 would get better rating.

As for marketing reason, I think if MLS implement the above scenario, it should allow each team a DP like before. The DP will cost $0.5 mil in salary cap. That way, MLS could have players like Ronaldinho, Henry, Figo, Schevenko coming to play. All teams benefit from a well-known DP like Ronaldinho, Henry like all MLS teams got a boost from Beckham.

[Dust2]

^wow 6th place on 15th spending?
Would it be terrible of me to say Hiroshima's the bomb?

Another impressive showing is the bottom in spending Yamagata Montedio at $2.5 mil while most J teams are $5.8 mil or above. This side was in the third division a few years ago. It just got promoted to the J-league this year.

And it has a respectable 16 points (only 6 points off from 3rd place) after 13 games played.

[Pookie]

A $2.5 mil team will compete against 4-6 teams about the same payroll and 4-6 teams with $3-5 mil payroll and maybe 4 teams with $7-8 mil payroll. In order to get $8 mil payroll, a team has to pay out $4 mil in luxury tax. Only a few teams have that kind of cash. It's not like one $2.5 mil team against seventeen $8 payroll teams. MLS could also do $2 luxury tax for $1 over starting at $8 mil. So if NY want to spend crazy, it will be charged twice as much. So a $12 mil payroll could cost $12 mil luxury tax ($4 mil + $4 mil x 2).

I dislike circles.

You indicate that you need $ to attract better players and conclude that will have an impact on quality of play. You then indicate (in a previous post) that regardless of the payroll, teams will be competitive with each other.

If a 2.5M team can compete with an $8M team... I have to assume that their quality of play is similar. So, why spend $8M if you can get the same results as a 2.5M spender?

At best you are suggesting marginal improvement. Otherwise the team with 4x the payroll should hammer the lower spending teams if all this talent is coming for the cash you are going to throw around.

I also dislike theories that have holes in them.

The biggest hole in all of this is revenue. Only 1 team makes more than $30M and that team has an asset that is going back to AC Milan. Their attendance is down 22% this year.

The next highest earner is TFC with $17M.

Only 3 teams have a positive operating income and one of those, Dallas, has just $500k to play with.

Every other team has an operating income in the negative.

It's all well and good to say, "$8M payrolls would help the league and this city will draw 40,000 and that city will increase to 25,000 and so on."

You might as well come out and ask whether people would support the idea of getting $1M for every season ticket they buy.

Neither supposition is based on a realistic picture of the resources available.

Where is this revenue coming from to support your spending proposal? It's not there now. It isn't in the ESPN TV deal that is in place till 2014.

It's in the ticket prices isn't it? Until you address the impact of ticket price increases... rapid and significant ticket price increases necessary to pay for your idea in 2010.... I'm not buying. I think it's reckless. I think it's foolish. I think it's unnecessary and will not result in the long term development you and I both seek.

(respectfully, I'm not trying to come off as harsh... as they say, put 10 economists in a room and you'll get 11 different opinions... I think we are in different camps here)

[thisisinternetclash]

Just a quick, ignorant question about the NBA cap:

Why is the luxury tax threshold significantly higher than the salary cap? What does the cap represent if a team can exceed it by millions without incurring any penalty? Shouldn't the tax simply be imposed as soon as a team exceeds the salary cap?

[Cuz]

I see alot of Gary Bettmans in this forum and not enough Jim Balsilles! If our market is strong and the other ones are weak, then too fucking bad for those assholes! Cuz if we have cash then we should be able to spend it as we see fit. How is it our fault that the MLS decided to put clubs in markets that they knew full well were going to fail? And now want to initiate a cap to protect those teams from getting their asses handed to them?

It's pretty sad when the game is about the $ and not about the fucking game anymore!

[Juanito]

I see alot of Gary Bettmans in this forum and not enough Jim Balsilles! If our market is strong and the other ones are weak, then too fucking bad for those assholes! Cuz if we have cash then we should be able to spend it as we see fit. How is it our fault that the MLS decided to put clubs in markets that they knew full well were going to fail? And now want to initiate a cap to protect those teams from getting their asses handed to them?

It's pretty sad when the game is about the $ and not about the fucking game anymore!

There's a fundamental element you seem to dismiss or not have realised. MLS teams are franchises and not clubs. The franchises are there to improve the overall quality of the league. This is a very North American model, however, it is what it is.

Also, soccer is not that popular, compared to baseball, basketball, and football (and to some degree hockey) in North America and if you have only a handful of teams being competitive, then the league will collapse. Once you have enough STRONG teams, you can let go of the deadwood,, but until that happens, the overall health of the league has to take precedence. I for one, would love to see Toronto FC spending mad cash and signing top-quality players, but we are VERY far from that.

From what I have read, the NASL failed mainly because the league was too biased on one team, the New York Cosmos. They were financially, and thus athletically the strongest team. This made the league too lop-sided and smaller clubs closed shop.

The North American model on sports is that every franchise is designed to have parity so that the little guy can succeed.

[Pookie]

I see alot of Gary Bettmans in this forum and not enough Jim Balsilles! If our market is strong and the other ones are weak, then too fucking bad for those assholes!

Ironic that you would bring up the NHL.

When the NHL was free spending, did the quality of play improve? Were the 90's "better hockey" than Gretzky and the Oilers? Or the Original 6 if you were old enough then?

To the fan coming into the game in 2000's, would they know if the league's quality of play had improved?

Essentially, all free spending did was make players rich who didn't really deserve it. $3M for Robert Reichel? It drove up costs for the average fan and has resulted in a corporation dependency that suffers in an economic climiate such as this.

Yes, the NHL now has a cap. But that cap was falsely tied to league revenues that jumped significantly (on paper) when the Canadian dollar rose. You essentially have a free spending situation in the NHL as some teams can't make the minimum payroll and others are nearing spending levels pre-lock out

[Fort York Redcoat]

I dislike circles.



I also dislike theories that have holes in them.

I think it's reckless. I think it's foolish. I think it's unnecessary and will not result in the long term development you and I both seek.

(respectfully, I'm not trying to come off as harsh... as they say, put 10 economists in a room and you'll get 11 different opinions... I think we are in different camps here)

If you dislike circles so much Pook, stop looking at the thread like it's a bullseye.
If you dislike theories with holes in them. Try and propose something of your own.
I'm not trying to be harsh either but it's been threads since you stood on your own soapbox we forget what it looks like.
Please correct us if it's not simply "MLS is perfect the way it is."