Is there a financially responsive salary structure that allow MLS to catch up to FMF in 2-3 yrs?

Are you going to use pixie dust or unicorn farts to make soccer the most popular sport in the country, both as a in-stadium spectator sport and televised sport.

 

Unicorn farts.

Next question?

 

Short answer: No
Long answer: Hell no

 

Merge leagues. It's so simple.

 

and you thought travel was a bitch in this league right now...

 

Merge leagues and call it the Superliga!

 

This sounds a lot like the Bundesliga wich has the best attendance in Europe. The most competitive overall and still, you had Bayern Munich make the Champions League final in 2 out of the last three years.

 

Can clubs compete with other clubs that supposedly have more than five times the payroll spending they do?

Not consistently, no.

And I see no credible way for 19 teams to generate the revenue to close that gap in three years.

 

And there it is...close thread now.

 

But add in a 20th team within the next 2-3 years, and boom, that's cosmic unicorn fart power.

 

This will make MLS more vulnerable to virus and trojan attacks.

 

well we are already pretty close to competing now with a salary structure that is very limiting.

so i could see that if the salary structure were tweaked but still responsible it might be possible to draw close to even.

the problem right now, as somebody pointed out, is you can't spend evenly on quality and depth. you can't have 15 players all between 250K-750K. and right now teams are not free to turn their off field power into on field power. too much of that would be bad, but none of it is equally bad. you need some disparity in the league but not too much. it is a tough balance which right now is too far to "total parity".

my suggestion is a very slight tweak on the current system:

1. every team contributes 30% of their ticket revenue (as they do today) and for that they get $3M in "salary cap"

2. a team can have up to $5M in "salary cap" but they must cover any amount above $3M. so if the Sounders 30% contribution to MLS is over $5M then their cap is up to $5M without kicking in any extra. if LAGs 30% contribution is $3.5M then any salary cap amount between $3.5M and $5M they must kick in the difference. like wise if a team like FC Dallas has a 30% contribution of $2M then they get the $3M cap and if they want to go up to $5M they must pay the difference between the $3m and $5M (so 2M 30% contribution plus 2M extra to raise their cap to 5M). this would greatly expand each team's cap possibility without increasing the amount the "league" itself is on the hook for.

3. 20 senior roster spots have a up to $5M cap, the max individual salary is 500K and each team can have up to 3 DPs with a cap hit of 500k (any DP under 23 has a $250K cap hit).

4. 10 developmental roster spots that don't count against the cap. to be on the dev roster must A. be under 23 and B. on a GA contract or a home grown player or on a league minimum contract (no more 30 year olds on the off budget) ... the league minimum would be $50K.

5. of the 20 senior roster spots 8 must be "domestic" (4us/4can for Canadian teams). of the dev roster spots 8 must be "domestic" (same rules about greencards etc apply to "domestic" or you could redefine "domestic" to the way they do in the EPL and other leagues, which is that the player must have played at least 3-5 years of college/amateur/youth soccer in the US/Canada between the ages of 16-21 which would help avoid the US Immigration laws that prevent Canadians being domestics). there is no more trading of international roster spots because there are none only "domestic" minimums.

6. the new roster/cap works as a "snapshot". so at any given time the players you have on the 20+10 rosters and their yearly salaries (or salary plus amortized transfer fee) and statuses must meet the requirements. no more "mid season" lower DP cap hit or whatever. if a player is on loan or on IR (minimum 6 weeks out) then they do not need to be accounted for but as soon as they return they roster must be in compliance. also, any player can be cut or their contract paid out and as soon as they are no longer on the roster they no longer count against the roster/cap (up to some cut off point maybe).

i think with those rules (and some growth built into them that exceeds inflation/is tied to revenue increases) MLS could compete with LigaMX at least the top MLS teams who would be in CCL.

 

Mitt Romney's dad was Mexican. Perhaps he could reclaim his heritage, use a shock and awe midnight strategy with overwhelming force, and take over the FMF if he becomes President.

If Obama wins, unicorn farts...most definitely

 

The short answer is no. If the league continues the gradual growth over the past years, MLS could overcome Liga MX in the future.

 

What is with the rush to catch up to FMF? MLS is growing at a strong and healthy place, why risk that to catch up with another league? MLS will catch up and likely pass FMF but it doesnt need to happen now or even within 5 years.

I do not understand how fans can throw out these ideas when MLS is doing about as well as it could possibly do. If the league could spend more on a payroll, they would do so. But, they cant because they are spending within their means and sustaining their current rate of growth which is healthy.

 

Well you two are saying different things.

Felixx wants every single MLS team to get better, Vevo just want the top team to be free to get better.

I would agree with Vevo most of the time, but this being America, I do not think casual fans would like a MLS that looked like most soccer leagues. Most American fans want a MLS that looks more like say the NHL.

Is the balance of the American fan between kicking ass (this case getting our asses kicked by Liga MX) and the league having a decent balance between top and bottom teams.

BTW Vevo5 didn't you have a thread like this under the be the Don forum?

 

Hey, don't look at me, this is coming from the league. Garber's said it several times, and he just said in again in last month's interview in the Sporting News:

"Was I disappointed that an MLS team didn’t get further, whether that was the Galaxy or (Toronto) FC? Absolutely disappointed. At the end of the day, we’ve got to stand toe-to-toe with our neighbors in Mexico. We’ve got to try to win that tournament. We’ve got to try to get to the world club championship. That’s got to be a priority."

http://aol.sportingnews.com/soccer/...r-mls-commissioner-sporting-news-conversation

My point remains, if people -- fans, owners and league officials -- are convinced that even a modest disparity in the salary budgets will make it impossible for lower payroll teams to compete in MLS, why is is reasonable to assume MLS teams can stand "toe to toe" with the Mexican League when their clubs are spending significantly more on players?

If it's important for MLS teams to be as good as their Mexican club counterparts, spend the resources on it. If MLS can't or won't spend those resources, its time for Garber to stop saying it's a priority IMO.

Fish or cut bait.