Each club can spend up to 25% of its turnover; $1 for $1 luxury tax starts at $3 mil

[Oldtimer]

Is that why New England, a club that don't draw, made the playoff in the last 3 years while Toronto, a club that draw, did not? Oh, New England have made the playoff for the past 8 years.

Should good management be the ONLY factor in deciding a club's success?

According to you, good management should be the ONLY factor deciding if a team wins or not. Why can't money also play a factor?

In the NHL, before the lockout and the NHL salary cap, the Leafs outspent every other team.
Spending doesn't guarantee results.

Anyway there is zero chance that MLS will ever agree to such a thing as a salary tax instead of a cap.

Now what would be an excellent departure from parity would be removing all restrictions on signing academy players. Then teams will get out of their academies what they put in, and MLS' goal of developing N. American talent will come true. I would support that even though it will give a leg-up to Vancouver, because I want what's best for the league.

[Fort York Redcoat]

Now what would be an excellent departure from parity would be removing all restrictions on signing academy players. Then teams will get out of their academies what they put in, and MLS' goal of developing N. American talent will come true. I would support that even though it will give a leg-up to Vancouver, because I want what's best for the league.

Better development in Canada for Canada as well. Even with teams grabbing young talent from everywhere the repute of good development would help our kids here to strive to do better.

[Beach_Red]

In the NHL, before the lockout and the NHL salary cap, the Leafs outspent every other team.
Spending doesn't guarantee results.

Anyway there is zero chance that MLS will ever agree to such a thing as a salary tax instead of a cap.

Now what would be an excellent departure from parity would be removing all restrictions on signing academy players. Then teams will get out of their academies what they put in, and MLS' goal of developing N. American talent will come true. I would support that even though it will give a leg-up to Vancouver, because I want what's best for the league.

Okay, so does spending matter or not?

I wonder, how come so many basketball players get developed in the US - to a much higher level than European or South American basketball players. NBA teams don't have academies.

Is it possible in the US that soccer is 'over-coached?' What I mean is, do kids in the US just play soccer on their own, or do they only do it in organized situations - practices and games? Is there such a thing as schoolyard soccer in the US?

Soccer hasn't become a part of the American culture the way basketball has. In many ways soccer is a very middle-class, suburban sport in the US. Unless all those cliches about 'Soccer Moms' are just wrong.

[Fort York Redcoat]

Yes, you the people.

And like you say, there is parity in the Scottish league - the Old Firm is one level of parity and then the rest of the premiere league is on the next. And that's not likely to change anytime soon. You seem to have some aversion to the word "parity" so we should callit something else - I like the line someoe on here had the other day about how all teams play by the same rules on the pitch - why not the same ones off?

But really, all Dust2 is trying to do with all these salary/tax/wahetevr plans is get better soccer and I agree with him on that.

The reason, I think, MLS can't have 3-4 dominant teams is because there's nowhere else for them to go. Sure, there's a Champions League, but really, it'll be tough to get American fans that interested in going against Costa Rica's best.

I would suspect that if it wasn't for European games, even fans of the Old Firm would get tired of beating up on everyone else in Scotland after a while.

You're right about Old Firm fans getting bored but I find it far more exciting, the possibility of MLS teams vying to be in the regional wide parity vs the league wide parity. I find the latter leads to an insular mentality.

And please, I think we're well aware that no MLS team has the heritage or repute of the top teams in Mexico. There's an amount of denial rampant in the rest of Namerican footie fans that we've arrived since Superliga. The one or two giants from each smaller country in CONCACAF will rise to be launching points for many players to come.

[Beach_Red]

You're right about Old Firm fans getting bored but I find it far more exciting, the possibility of MLS teams vying to be in the regional wide parity vs the league wide parity. I find the latter leads to an insular mentality.

And please, I think we're well aware that no MLS team has the heritage or repute of the top teams in Mexico. There's an amount of denial rampant in the rest of Namerican footie fans that we've arrived since Superliga. The one or two giants from each smaller country in CONCACAF will rise to be launching points for many players to come.

Maybe, but it's possible that American fans (and probably Canadian) will never be excited by games in Central America and the Carribean. Sure, there are a lot of people here form those regions but there are more with European roots, European teams are the most famous in the world, the ones seen as the best so if soccer is ever going to be on the same level as the NFL or MLB or NBA in America they'll have to play European teams.

Americans don't really care about heritage, they know money is more important. Real Madrid can have all the heritage in the world, but without the operating budget they're nothing. Give that same budget to a team in New York, let them play against European teams and they'd sell a ton of tickets.

As you say, that insular mentality is bad. If no Scottish team got to Europe that league would be very insular and well, who knows what would happen then, maybe it would start to look like MLS.

Still, it starts by raising the cap. I'd lik to see a plan laid out for the next five years with the cap going up steadily each year.

[Dust2]

From the fact that the Player Union and MLS are taking a long time to hammer a deal, it's likely that the next CBA, which set the tone for the next 5 years, will look something like this:

$2.6 mil hard cap
DP rule stay the same

Those hoping the cap will increase significantly will be disappointed.

[CanadaLFC]

MLS and players union have agreed to push negotiation deadline to Feb 12. According to Ives on twitter.

[ag futbol]

Um compensation doesn’t “guarantee” results but it is highly correlated with it. IE it’s much harder to win if you’re spending less but spending more doesn’t mean victory is assured.

[Beach_Red]

From the fact that the Player Union and MLS are taking a long time to hammer a deal, it's likely that the next CBA, which set the tone for the next 5 years, will look something like this:

$2.6 mil hard cap
DP rule stay the same

Those hoping the cap will increase significantly will be disappointed.

Yes, we will be. I guess MLS is hoping that further expansion and interest from places like Philadelphia and Vancouver will be enough to sustain growth. I hope they're right. Going too slowly can be as dangerous as trying to grow too quickly.

[Fort York Redcoat]

Yes, we will be. I guess MLS is hoping that further expansion and interest from places like Philadelphia and Vancouver will be enough to sustain growth. I hope they're right. Going too slowly can be as dangerous as trying to grow too quickly.

Ineteresting because one could say MLS is expanding too quickly and raising the cap too slowly. It does go with the sports model here, though, doesn't it? The SPL and the CFL had the same number of teams but here that's considered too small a league for a league wanting to be in the top 4 whereas a strong 12 team league is considered better than thinning the quality for a 20 team SPL.

Adding all these teams in MLS does not insure long term success but a short term gain. An investment in quality would help the league along better IMO.

[Pookie]

One could say that the reason that businesses want in on the MLS (remember, this isn't a volunteer thing) is that the cost structure is secure and favourable for business.

Funny too when Dust incorrectly keeps characterizing this as a hard cap system. How in the hell do you fit a $5M David Beckham into your line up in a hard cap system? Allocation money, the DP Rule all serve to provide wiggle room.

[Beach_Red]

Ineteresting because one could say MLS is expanding too quickly and raising the cap too slowly. It does go with the sports model here, though, doesn't it? The SPL and the CFL had the same number of teams but here that's considered too small a league for a league wanting to be in the top 4 whereas a strong 12 team league is considered better than thinning the quality for a 20 team SPL.

Adding all these teams in MLS does not insure long term success but a short term gain. An investment in quality would help the league along better IMO.

Yes, MLS has to be careful not to follow too closely the NHL model of lettingin any owner that 'says' tey have the money and expanding to every market in the country (the US that is, while ignorin good Canadian markets).

I think the CFL is a top 4 league in Canada, though. In fact, I think in Canada it's #2.

The NHL always claimed it needed teams in every corner of the US to get a national TV deal - which it still doesn't have, does it?

MLS may be expanding too quickly, but I think the growth and popularity will increase steadily over the next few years.

[Fort York Redcoat]

^^but "wiggle room cap system" sounds a bit childish. We can call it whatever you like Pook but it's closer to what we know as hard than soft. Maybe over easy? Scrambled?

[Fort York Redcoat]

Yes, MLS has to be careful not to follow too closely the NHL model of lettingin any owner that 'says' tey have the money and expanding to every market in the country (the US that is, while ignorin good Canadian markets).

I think the CFL is a top 4 league in Canada, though. In fact, I think in Canada it's #2.

The NHL always claimed it needed teams in every corner of the US to get a national TV deal - which it still doesn't have, does it?

MLS may be expanding too quickly, but I think the growth and popularity will increase steadily over the next few years.

The CFL wants to be bigger than it is.
The NHL got what it wanted for a year or two but does the outdoor network count?
I want to see more focus on improving weaker teams turnout since most of them lie in areas that are great for playing the game and make sense unlike the NHL expansion.

[Beach_Red]

The CFL wants to be bigger than it is.
The NHL got what it wanted for a year or two but does the outdoor network count?
I want to see more focus on improving weaker teams turnout since most of them lie in areas that are great for playing the game and make sense unlike the NHL expansion.

Does the CFL still want to be bigger? Didn't the whole US expansion finally put that to rest. Maybe a team in Quebec city and Moncton (th City at the Centre of the Maritimes, as they say) but that's it.

The CFL does so well on TV it makes me wish the same could happen for a Canadian soccer league. Someday it might, someday maybe five million people will be watching the Voyageurs Cup final.

And yes, there certainly seems to be a big market in the US that isn't coming out to MLS games.


And Pookie makes a good point about wiggle room (yes, it would be good to call it something else) - after Beckham every team in MLS could have gone out and spent big but no one did. And LA weren't even charged a luxury tax, so why would we think that a system like that would work across the league? TFC could have spent way more on a DP (another term I'd like to change, but that says more about me than it does the phrase) but they didn't. If they'd had to pay a luxury tax on top of JDG's salary I can't imagine that they would have signed a DP.

[Dust2]

I got a feeling that teams like Galaxy, Seattle, New York, Toronto would love to pay $425,000 in luxury tax to make their DP cap-exempt. This would free up $425,000 to use on other players.

As for wiggle room, a DP cost $425,000 toward your $2.3 mil cap. And "allocations are given to teams that have missed the playoffs the previous seasons, given to expansion teams, or awarded as compensation for players lost."

[Dust2]

Funny too when Dust incorrectly keeps characterizing this as a hard cap system. How in the hell do you fit a $5M David Beckham into your line up in a hard cap system? Allocation money, the DP Rule all serve to provide wiggle room.

If MLS allows team to spend the $5 mil on many players instead of a single DP, then you would have a point. It's a hard cap because every team have to get under the $2.3 mil. A DP counts $425,000 toward that.

p.s. Which would make the Galaxy a better team? $7.3 mil to spend on 24 players or $1.875 to spend on 23 players + $5 mil Beckham?

[Fort York Redcoat]

Does the CFL still want to be bigger? Didn't the whole US expansion finally put that to rest. Maybe a team in Quebec city and Moncton (th City at the Centre of the Maritimes, as they say) but that's it.

The CFL does so well on TV it makes me wish the same could happen for a Canadian soccer league. Someday it might, someday maybe five million people will be watching the Voyageurs Cup final.

And yes, there certainly seems to be a big market in the US that isn't coming out to MLS games.


And Pookie makes a good point about wiggle room (yes, it would be good to call it something else) - after Beckham every team in MLS could have gone out and spent big but no one did. And LA weren't even charged a luxury tax, so why would we think that a system like that would work across the league? TFC could have spent way more on a DP (another term I'd like to change, but that says more about me than it does the phrase) but they didn't. If they'd had to pay a luxury tax on top of JDG's salary I can't imagine that they would have signed a DP.

Yes the CFL wants to expand but they are living hand to mouth year in year out. That's why they keep promising but not presenting expansion teams. TV is better for them but there are always blackouts arounfd the league that really hurt.

I still believe footie success will replace an eternally tottering CFL. It's simply more accessible.

[Pookie]

If MLS allows team to spend the $5 mil on many players instead of a single DP, then you would have a point. It's a hard cap because every team have to get under the $2.3 mil. A DP counts $425,000 toward that.

Not if they have allocation money they don't have to get under $2.3. Further, the fact that a DP cap hit is less than their salary is a major concession. You can also trade for a DP slot to boost your numbers to 2.

Again, it isn't a cap free system but to imply it is a "hard cap" is misleading.

The fact that investors are lining up to pay a very high expansion fee to be a part of this league should tell you that the current model is working and working very well.

It is a business first and without them, there would be no league to argue about.

p.s. Which would make the Galaxy a better team? $7.3 mil to spend on 24 players or $1.875 to spend on 23 players + $5 mil Beckham?

I don't know. There are way too many hypotheticals in that one. Who are the specific players? Are you spending all this money on players and giving them Chris Cummins as a coach? Could a better coach get more out of existing players?

Peter Ridsdale, in his book "United We Fall" gives insight into the world of player transfers. He was the former Chairman at Leeds and I believe with Cardiff right now.

He talks about agents bringing over players from "corners of the world" with a ton of hype but very little actual scouting or insight into their background. The agent is able to ink the player to a contract on an EPL or lower division squad.

The player then has ____ F.C on their resume. Usually that player plays sparingly and lasts for a year or two. But a baseline salary expectation has been established. At which time, the agent promptly shops them around to different leagues highlighting the original hype and the fact that he is an ex-____ F.C player. Attempting bidding wars as they go.

The agent is able to cycle that player through league after league and before you know it, it's been 10 years and the player (and agent) have made a decent amount of money based on hype, some talent but mostly off the backs of managers that haven't done their homework and are under pressure to "improve the team."

So, there is no guarantee that higher paid players (the kind that would consider the MLS) are head and shoulders better than the players in the system now. But there is plenty of evidence to suggest that such a system would drive up the costs for everyone, putting the league in a financial risk position.

[jloome]

<<But really, all Dust2 is trying to do with all these salary/tax/wahetevr plans is get better soccer and I agree with him on that.>>

Uh, no. How does a series of intensely specific discussions of financial acuity, none actually accurate, "get better soccer?"

Intent's fine. Threads are fine. They're just esoteric and weird, and that's a normal reaction to anyone enjoying these kinds of discussions -- particularly as there's zero chance they're going to have any impact.

It's a theoretical, always good for discussion...if you're one of the people who enjoyes the subject matter at hand.

[Beach_Red]

^ Well,he's looking at ways teams can spend more money on players. I think we'd all like to see MLS teams spend more money on players.

I think the biggest fault with all of this is his feelings that some MLS teams WANT to spend more money on players.

The salary cap shouldn't really be seen as a maximum, it really be seen as a minimum.

It's like Canadian content on TV - we always use the joke, "And not a minute more." There's no network looking to put more Canadian TV shows on the air, and no MLS team is looking for a way to spend more money. They've proven that with the DP rule - not even every team takes advantage of that.

[rocker]

^ Well,he's looking at ways teams can spend more money on players. I think we'd all like to see MLS teams spend more money on players.

Raise the cap. That's an easy way to spend more money on players

My greatest problem with these proposals is they are often promoted by fans of teams in a position of power. "Let's do it because it'll benefit TFC. They can spend more!!!!" But ya know what? There always seems to be a team that spends more than your team. It's impossible for every team to be the New York Yankees of a league.

And if we, as some fans want, dump the weaker revenue teams, TFC's ability to buy a championship will become even weaker. What if the league replaces KC or San Jose with big market teams (NY2 or Miami)? Then suddenly TFC may find itself in perpetual mid-table behind LA, Seattle, NY2, NYRB, Miami, even maybe Philly (huge market).... great...!

My concern comes straight from being a Blue Jays fan and seeing the resources of bigger teams put those teams in a greater chance of winning than my hometown club, killing my interest in baseball. I know people say "Well, then the Jays should spend more!!!" But they don't, so the fans are screwed. I'd hate to see that happen with TFC.

[James Oliphant]

Say it ain't so - I thought everybody read this board for guidance...

TFC invented advice.

[jloome]

^ Well,he's looking at ways teams can spend more money on players. I think we'd all like to see MLS teams spend more money on players.

I think the biggest fault with all of this is his feelings that some MLS teams WANT to spend more money on players.

The salary cap shouldn't really be seen as a maximum, it really be seen as a minimum.

It's like Canadian content on TV - we always use the joke, "And not a minute more." There's no network looking to put more Canadian TV shows on the air, and no MLS team is looking for a way to spend more money. They've proven that with the DP rule - not even every team takes advantage of that.

True enough, that.

I'm gonna write something on this today for Red Patch Online; I think they've actually kind of let slip what we're going to see -- in general, anyway. And it won't include a substantial hike in personnel costs.

[Dust2]

I think the biggest fault with all of this is his feelings that some MLS teams WANT to spend more money on players.

Teams that WANT to spend more money:

New York
LA Galaxy
Seattle
Toronto (to a certain extent)

I believe these teams would love to spend $1 mil more than the salary cap and get charge with a $1 mil luxury tax penalty (small price to pay really).

[Oldtimer]

Teams that WANT to spend more money:

New York
LA Galaxy
Seattle
Toronto (to a certain extent)

I believe these teams would love to spend $1 mil more than the salary cap and get charge with a $1 mil luxury tax penalty (small price to pay really).

...and to point out the obvious, these teams would not form a majority on the board of governors. So it's a moot point, the system will not change.

[Beach_Red]

...and to point out the obvious, these teams would not form a majority on the board of governors. So it's a moot point, the system will not change.

Yes, and certainly MLSE will never vote in favour of raising their expenses, so three teams on the board of governors MIGHT vote yes.

But really, LA and Seattle have already found ways to go way over the salary cap and NY still has the novelty of its new stadium to wear off.

Looks like we're stuck with this system for the next few years at least.