If MLS adopt 25% revenue sharing & 0.35% revenue salary cap, how soon will top MLS teams surpass FMF

If MLS adopt 25% revenue sharing & 0.35*revenue salary cap, how soon will top MLS teams surpass FMF top teams?




http://www.ussoccerplayers.com/ussoccerplayers/2011/08/mls-has-a-bold-2022-vision.html

What is this bold "next step" that MLS have in mind?

For hypothetical / alternate universe type of discussion, let's assume that MLS abandon "level playing field" how soon will MLS top teams surpass Mexican top teams?

Since MLS is very keen on financial prudent and want cost certainty and revenue sharing so that the haves helping the have nots, the structure will look like this:

Each team will share 25% of their revenue and each team can spend at most 35% of their revenue on player salaries.

Revenue Sharing (local):

25% of ticket revenue
25% of shirt sponsorship
25% of local sponsorship
25% of club merchandise
25% of local tv/radio revenue

Revenue Sharing (national):

100% of national tv/radio revenue
100% of national sponsorship
100% of league-related merchandise


Each team can spend at most 35% of their total revenue (after the revenue sharing) on player wages. This will prevent teams from spending money they don't have.




Keep in mind this is all hypothetical / what if stuff. And it is not a MLS commissioner suggestion. It's a "what if" discussion if MLS adopt a certain policy over the "level playing field" status quo.

Yes, I am aware that since 1996, MLS structure has always aim toward the goal of "level playing field" and that MLS is not likely budge from this fundamental principles. But WHAT IF the 0.001% chance happen? Will it allow MLS to be the top league in North America in 10 years time? Will it allow MLS to be a top league in North, Central and South America by MLS established goal of being a top league by 2022?

Yes, I am aware that if MLS adopt this, some MLS teams will be the MLB version of Kansas City Royals, Minnesota Twins, Milwaukee Brewers, Houston Astros, Colorado Rockies. To the fans of these MLS teams, it could be the worst thing that ever happen to MLS. Their teams will go from championship contender to near bottom of the table. That's why this is a hypothetical / what if / 0.001% chance of happening.

Here's a look at the current MLS revenue sharing (at the local level):

http://www.bigsoccer.com/community/threads/rapids-lost-1-3-million-in-2012.1978872/#post-26843845

estimation by OleGunnar20



With local sponsorship, local shirt sponsorship, local merchandise, local tv/radio added in to the revenue sharing pool, it could provide clubs with low revenue quite a boost. Maybe some low revenue clubs owners will be in favor of more money.

And once again, this is where I stop reading...

Where is the "never" option?

"FMF" is not a league.

If this happened, MLS would fold. Probably within a year or two.

Let's say a team went out whole hog and managed to earn an unthinkable $100 million revenue. Under your proposal, they would only be able to spend 0.35 percent of that, which works out to about $350,000. That's unsustainable.

A smaller-market team with $20 million in revenue would be restricted to about $70,000 in salary. So you'd need to cut the league minimum to about $6,000 a year if you wanted them to field an 18-man gameday squad.

That's a silly example, of course. But it's only slightly less silly than the "35%" you probably meant to write, which would require MLS to completely renegotiate all player contracts and restructure their entire business.

Fundamental changes to any business are difficult. But if it could improve the business, it would be worth it.

MLS doesn't need to renegotiate player contracts.

1) contract expire
2) Most MLS teams will have similar salaries budget. A few will have significant higher salaries budget.
3) MLS teams can trade players. They can also transfer players for salary fee.
4) MLS can grandfather player salaries (mostly to the very few players who earn high salary like Henry, Marquez).


A team with $10 mil salary budget and able to spread this evenly over 25 players is superior to a $15 mil salary budget team that spend $13 million on 3 players and the other $2 mil on the other 22 players.

This will help improve the quality of MLS top teams. New York, Los Angeles, Seattle can build a team that can go head to head versus the Mexican top clubs if they are allowed to spread their salaries evenly throughout the roster.

AND

due to their on-field success, their revenue will increase. Which in turn, allow them more money to spend on better players. It's a winning->more revenue ->more money to spend on better players -> more winning. What a cycle!






tell me about it

What if we rely on a salary cap instead?

I'm with you. I like the stability that the league offers now. However this is coming from a Houston Dynamo and we don't really have our share of "real" DPs. Our DPs tend to be DPs only because MLS doesn't like to pay transfer fees.

You still suck pc4th .... you still suck.

What would the salary budget look like for top MLS clubs? (assume revenue of $40 mil and $30 mil)

$40 mil revenue before revenue sharing
$34 mil revenue AFTER revenue sharing
x 35% = $11.9 million maximum allowable salary budget

$30 mil revenue before revenue sharing
$26 mil revenue AFTER revenue sharing
x 35% = $9.1 million maximum allowable salary budget

One fundamental change that will improve MLS: clubs who generate more revenue will
1) share more revenue and
2) able to spend more on players



Someone wrote this about MLS where a $15 mil team is only as good as a $3 mil team.

What would pc4th look like if he changed his name and posted the same shit ?

vevo5

2012 final team salaries

New York Red Bulls - $15,814,369.46 ---53 pts
Los Angeles Galaxy - $10,825,821.00
Toronto FC - $5,829,467.00
FC Dallas - $4,865,549.04
Vancouver Whitecaps FC - $4,551,665.00
Seattle Sounders FC - $3,789,781.00
Portland Timbers - $3,776,116.04
Chicago Fire - $3,600,214.00
Montreal Impact - $3,453,853.00
D.C. United - $3,453,679.20
Real Salt Lake - $3,206,785.04
Columbus Crew - $3,111,134.00
Colorado Rapids - $3,111,123.00
Chivas USA - $3,047,728.00
Houston Dynamo - $2,901,166.04
Sporting Kansas City - $2,893,657.00 ------63 points
San Jose Earthquakes - $2,878,166.29 ----66 pts
Philadelphia Union - $2,861,006.08
New England Revolution - $2,284,905.96

That has absolutely nothing to do with this topic at all. You're also missing quite a pit of the point totals.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-...ose-to-becoming-owner-of-mls-queens-team.html

Would the owner of NY2 be willing to "revenue share" 25% of ticket, shirt sponsorship, local sponsorship, merchandise and local tv/radio revenue?

If they make $50 mil a year in revenue, they would end up "losing" around $7 mil a year to revenue sharing but in exchange they could be one of the biggest clubs in North and South America. Revenue increase ->higher salary -> better players. Rinse and repeat. The sky is the limit for a "super club" in NY City.

You ask the same damn question over and over .... and you get the same answers over and over ... or are completely ignored.

Do you seriously not get the hint ? Are you seriously this damn dense ?

And if they signed Superman, they would win every game. Unless FIFA allowed other teams' shin guards to be made of Kryptonite.

My hypothetical is just as relevant to a meaningful discussion about the salary cap as yours.

Was Superman ever naturalized? I don't think Krypton has a FA.

If they make the ball out of Kryptonite then Superman would be a bust.

As a refugee living in Iowa originally I hope we gave him refugee status. He'd count as a domestic player for MLS then.

So another foreigner gaming the system so they can play in the US. And I thought Mrs. Adu came up with the idea herself.

For the record, in the spirit of the holidays, if any of you want to share 25% of your money with me, I'd gladly approve you spending up to 35% of whatever you have left on yourself.

P.S. Just to help you out, I'll take a check.

In fairness, yes.

Well, given the destruction of his home planet and the subsequent liquidation of his home FA ... seems as though we'd get him by default no ? Unless Ma and Pa Kent didn't officially adopt him and get any paperwork done ...