Regarding UEFA pointing to MLS as a model

[C.Ronaldo]

"In fact, most of them make considerable profits all the time"

well well well.....seems like MLS's so called in the red teams are not doing as poorly as the league would want us to believe.




http://www.tsn.ca/soccer/story/?id=2...headlines_main

[flatpicker]

never thought MLS would be a model for Europe... but what the hell...

[Broadview]

Lets make them call it "soccer" too.

[Oldtimer]

a little point: in this little article slips the truth about the so-called "losses" that the clubs leaked to Forbes prior to negotiating the CBA:

''How they handle matters of debt and manage the financial stability of their leagues and their clubs is very interesting,'' he said. ''Salary caps and certain other financial controls ensure that they have a system whereby none of their clubs or franchises is in any particular financial difficulties. In fact, most of them make considerable profits all the time.

[MartinUtd]

I wonder if the 6+5 rule was implemented, then would it ultimately reduce player payroll?

[troy1982]

Considering that most European clubs have massive and ever growing debt. the stability and minimum debt of MLS is by far the healthier option.

Aren’t the EPL clubs in 3 billion pounds in debt (~ about 6 billion Canadian)

[NF-FC]

I wonder if the 6+5 rule was implemented, then would it ultimately reduce player payroll?

i think it's just make domestic players more expensive

[joel]

I'm not sure how you can saw this is proof that MLS published misleading info, I mean really where does UEFA get its info? I'm fairly certain they just saw that most clubs are profitable, or nearly profitable..and have exaggerated from there.

To say UEFA knows more about MLS profitability vs. what MLS reports doesn't make a lot of sense, to me anyway.

[T_Mizz]

This is a real shocker, although then again its not surprising in the least, this just confirms everything we've been saying, this isn't a league built and run to have the best product on the field, it's built and run to have more money in the owners' pockets

[troy1982]

This is a real shocker, although then again its not surprising in the least, this just confirms everything we've been saying, this isn't a league built and run to have the best product on the field, it's built and run to have more money in the owners' pockets

Well if the owners didn't think they could make money on the league there would be no league.

[Shakes McQueen]

This is a real shocker, although then again its not surprising in the least, this just confirms everything we've been saying, this isn't a league built and run to have the best product on the field, it's built and run to have more money in the owners' pockets

Having the best product on the field helps the owners make more money. That is the governing principle that allows any professional sports league to exist.

The MLS, while not as popular as the EPL, certainly could serve as a model for fiscal responsibility, compared to the indebted Premier League clubs.

Player wages and transfer fees have spiraled out of control in Europe.

- Scott

[JDG]

I'm not sure how you can saw this is proof that MLS published misleading info, I mean really where does UEFA get its info? I'm fairly certain they just saw that most clubs are profitable, or nearly profitable..and have exaggerated from there.

To say UEFA knows more about MLS profitability vs. what MLS reports doesn't make a lot of sense, to me anyway.

UEFA may be looking at the real figures, but interpreting them differently.
It's in the interest of the MLS to make it look like they are struggling financially. There is no advantage to UEFA to support that perception. If UEFA has the real numbers, and they see profit, then my guess is that the MLS has put spin on their reports.

[BBBulldog]

Lets make them call it "soccer" too.

that wouldn't be such a stretch since it's British English word..

[flatpicker]

that wouldn't be such a stretch since it's British English word..

one that they are trying to erase from their history I think!

[james]

salary caps has its goods and bads and so does having no salary cap. I think they need to find a middle ground. Somethin where teams like Chelsea cant come in and just spend $500 million giving smalller teams no chance of competting. But at the same time you don't want it like MLS where teams like Toronto can only spend what $2 million despite making profits because other teams like Kansas or Columbus are losing money and we have to pay to save there asses.

[Steve]

salary caps has its goods and bads and so does having no salary cap. I think they need to find a middle ground. Somethin where teams like Chelsea cant come in and just spend $500 million giving smalller teams no chance of competting. But at the same time you don't want it like MLS where teams like Toronto can only spend what $2 million despite making profits because other teams like Kansas or Columbus are losing money and we have to pay to save there asses.

I would much rather have our system than theirs. And there is a reason they're looking at us. With the current credit crunch, carrying the kind of debt many teams are in Europe could be deadly. For the long run, the MLS is set up to be very stable.

And as for not letting Toronto spend, I would rather teams with profit NOT get a huge advantage. Keep the salary cap, but loosen restrictions on signing players from your own academy. Essentially, the rich teams should build a winning product by investing in academy programs, good coaches, staff, facilities, etc. That will give them an edge, but won't let them buy a trophy.

[Oldtimer]

I would much rather have our system than theirs. And there is a reason they're looking at us. With the current credit crunch, carrying the kind of debt many teams are in Europe could be deadly. For the long run, the MLS is set up to be very stable.

And as for not letting Toronto spend, I would rather teams with profit NOT get a huge advantage. Keep the salary cap, but loosen restrictions on signing players from your own academy. Essentially, the rich teams should build a winning product by investing in academy programs, good coaches, staff, facilities, etc. That will give them an edge, but won't let them buy a trophy.

Agreed. A well thought-out post.

[flatpicker]

^ I agree, but I still think wealthier clubs should have a little more flexibility for spending on players.
- a flexible cap based on earnings.
- DP that doesn't count against the cap
stuff like that...

[rocker]

the thing i always fear about a "free market" in a league is that my team WON'T be one of the teams spending the $$$$. It's awesome when your team is the one with the great market and vastly greater revenues than everyone else. Your team can win by spending, and even if the GM isn't that great, the team can still correct bad million dollar mistakes by spending millions more.

But if your team is in a smaller market (no shame there, and remember not all markets are exactly equal), then you'll basically have to be perfectly efficient in your signings and coaching -- you can't spend to make up for mistakes like the big boys do. It's disheartening to know that as of the first game of the season you're pretty much out of it because of money.
That's my greatest fear about the free market system. That TFC wouldn't be one of those teams spending, and instead Los Angeles would correct all their mistakes by handing out big bucks.
The non-capped DP is a different story because it's just 1 guy per team, and it's a rule that all teams can take advantage of, whether to sign a 4 million DP or a 300K one.

[flatpicker]

^ I hear ya on that one...

A team is bigger than just the players on the field.
"Team" includes the management, coaching and training staff.
The smartest teams should be the ones who succeed the most because they will build the best clubs.
But even still, a slight spending advantage for wealthier clubs seems fair to me.
When the wealthier teams attract better, higher profile players, it boosts the exposure of the league.
It would boost the attendance of cities with less support when they are in town.
That in turn earns more money for the smaller markets so they are able to spend more next year.
Letting the big clubs spend more (within logical boundaries) is an investment in the leagues future.

[BakaGaijin]

I'm not sure how you can saw this is proof that MLS published misleading info, I mean really where does UEFA get its info? I'm fairly certain they just saw that most clubs are profitable, or nearly profitable..and have exaggerated from there.

To say UEFA knows more about MLS profitability vs. what MLS reports doesn't make a lot of sense, to me anyway.

This is how they know:

There are so many loopholes when you own a sports franchise, particularily in the U.S. Teams that are not "making money" are writing off expenses and pocketing cash. They even write off the depreciating value of players! The only industry that let's you write off depreciation of human beings!

They say they are losing money to get fans on their side for contract negotiations, but in fact the owners are making money. Additionally, with the value of teams constantly increasing, it makes this investment even better.

Read pages 193 and 194 in the link below:

http://books.google.ca/books?id=59fX...sult#PPA193,M1

[james]

I would much rather have our system than theirs. And there is a reason they're looking at us. With the current credit crunch, carrying the kind of debt many teams are in Europe could be deadly. For the long run, the MLS is set up to be very stable.

And as for not letting Toronto spend, I would rather teams with profit NOT get a huge advantage. Keep the salary cap, but loosen restrictions on signing players from your own academy. Essentially, the rich teams should build a winning product by investing in academy programs, good coaches, staff, facilities, etc. That will give them an edge, but won't let them buy a trophy.

Ya i mostly agree. I dont want a completely free trade like other Soccer leagues. Some teams its just rediculous how much teams spend and it makes the leagues really predictable. At least in MLS there is hope for all teams. I like MLS to have some spending restrictions, just a bit less then we have now. And also raise the salary cap by a few million so teams that could afford to spend more can, but not to the rediculous point. Its hard for teams in MLS to compete on the international level like in Concacaf Champions League when only being able to pay $2 mil. If MLS teams really gonna compete in that they are gonna need to raise the money. Even just a few million would help alot.

[Cashcleaner]

Well, actually the articles brings up some good points. Yes, while more clubs in the league are operating in the red than those making a profit, the overall debt of those clubs is pennies compared to that of certain EPL teams.

Personally, I do like the controls that have been put in place to prevent a possible financial implosion of the league, but its not a perfect system either.

[joel]

You guys are conspiracy theorists, UEFA is just making blanket statements based general data from the mls. Many teams are profitable and they dont have nearly the amount of debt. Reading more into it than that, is silly.