It doesn't work if you want instant gratification.Originally Posted by Super
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.
$3.0-3.3 Million: Slow and Steady
$3.4-3.6 Million: Significant Increase
$3.7-4.0 Million: Most Likely Scenario?
$4.1-5.0 Million: Best Case Scenario?
$5.1-7.0 Million: Double or Nothing...
$7.1-10.0 Million: Dare to Dream!
<$10 Million: Playing with the Big Boys!
No Salary Cap: MLS is the new EPL!!
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.
“Years have gone by and I’ve finally learned to accept myself for who I am: a beggar for good football.
I go about the world, hand outstretched, and in the stadiums I plead: ‘A pretty move, for the love of God.’
And when good football happens, I give thanks for the miracle and I don’t give a damn which team or country performs it.”
-Eduardo Galeano
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.
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!
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.
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)
“Years have gone by and I’ve finally learned to accept myself for who I am: a beggar for good football.
I go about the world, hand outstretched, and in the stadiums I plead: ‘A pretty move, for the love of God.’
And when good football happens, I give thanks for the miracle and I don’t give a damn which team or country performs it.”
-Eduardo Galeano
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.
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...
"...Money wasn't tight, but it like, it wasn't right..."
http://www.psmag.com/business-econom...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.
“Years have gone by and I’ve finally learned to accept myself for who I am: a beggar for good football.
I go about the world, hand outstretched, and in the stadiums I plead: ‘A pretty move, for the love of God.’
And when good football happens, I give thanks for the miracle and I don’t give a damn which team or country performs it.”
-Eduardo Galeano
^ 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.
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.
I think it eventually will.
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.
Last edited by Macksam; 10-23-2013 at 10:15 PM.
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.
Last edited by brad; 10-24-2013 at 08:10 AM.
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.
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.
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.
^^^^^ 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.
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.
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.
Last edited by ag futbol; 10-24-2013 at 12:46 PM.
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.
Last edited by habstfc; 10-24-2013 at 04:20 PM.
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.
“Years have gone by and I’ve finally learned to accept myself for who I am: a beggar for good football.
I go about the world, hand outstretched, and in the stadiums I plead: ‘A pretty move, for the love of God.’
And when good football happens, I give thanks for the miracle and I don’t give a damn which team or country performs it.”
-Eduardo Galeano
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.
“Years have gone by and I’ve finally learned to accept myself for who I am: a beggar for good football.
I go about the world, hand outstretched, and in the stadiums I plead: ‘A pretty move, for the love of God.’
And when good football happens, I give thanks for the miracle and I don’t give a damn which team or country performs it.”
-Eduardo Galeano
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.
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.
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.
Last edited by Alonso; 10-24-2013 at 08:56 PM. Reason: ratios were a bit off
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.
Last edited by Initial B; 10-24-2013 at 10:28 PM.
Koevermans quoted as saying minimum wage has to go up during the end-of-season presser.
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.
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.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote