Modified UEFA Financial Fair Play + Revenue sharing

As long as you get help for your oversensitivity ... deal ?

 

Netiquette. Oversensitivity has nothing to do with this. And I am just fine, tyvm.

 

Netiquette wasn't followed by the person I responded too. Sometimes, there's only one thing that a certain type responds to. "Like for like" is a concept you should perhaps look into.

Also, Netiquette is more a set of guidelines really, there's nothing concrete and it varies greatly from place/situation to place/situation.

Case in point: You're the only person that's said ANYTHING (see what I did there) about the all caps. Only person ...

... which would indicate much more a case of being oversensitive as opposed to some breach of something that doesn't exist in a concrete form. Just saying.

Also ... seriously, can we move on ? I mean for reals.

 

Now I have closure. For the record, I think financial fair play is something that should be implemented by the league, if it hasn't already. It's a great idea.

 

See this, here, where you type in all caps to illustrate the point...

Just sayin'

 

In mockery of the said user using all caps, I might add.

 

So you used mockery ... but I can't, I might add.

This must be a Galaxy Fan thing then

 

I thought I had closure, but it seems it's a Texas thing to beat a dead horse. Guess I was wrong...

 

SERIOUSLY ?

 

In this case, the said user is you. Yeah, cause you were using caps unnecessarily, I decided to call you out and mock you for doing it. Yep, must be a Texas thing to beat a dead horse. You said you were going to move on and go back to discussing financial fair play, but temptation got the better of you, I guess. Too bad.

 

Says the guy crying about beating a dead horse, after he beats the dead horse ... I guess irony is another concept you lack understanding in ...

... only in LA.

 

No tears are shed for you, ye who supports a team that will never see the light of MLS, ever. If you want to drag this further, take it to PMs. Otherwise, we need to get back to talking about financial fair play.

I don't know if this has already been posted, but here is a report, just in case.

 

I don't even know what that's all about. No tears ? Ok. Oh, and I'll be sure to hop right on doing what you tell me too ... right after I care about your opinion on the future of the club I support.

It's pretty easy really ... just stfu about it, like I attempted to do.

 

Well, I've already said my opinion on financial fair play. See above.

 

Ok seriously .. your other threads were combined and locked.

FIGURE IT OUT

 

Yep.

But the answer is that MLS isn't really acting like a single entity here.

Personally, I maintain -- and I have always maintaied -- that MLS isn't a single entity in the aspect that matters most: the investors' profit is primarily derived not from the success of the single corporate entity, but rather from maximizing the profits of their own individual corporate entity that operates "their" team.

We can sit here all day and talk about how if someone really owned and operated every team keeping all of the profits they might deploy their resources differently in different markets -- I firmly believe the league would and that was my point in the text you quoted -- but that presupposes the money is flowing into a single wallet, and it isn't.

The single entity system is still badly misunderstood -- we continue to get people in the media claiming MLS owns 51% of every team -- and is often cited as some sort of magic elixer that cures every financial ailement. "My team is losing boatloads of money? No problem, it's a single entity and someone else will carry us." It doesn't work that way. The I/Os keep most of what they make in their stadiums.

 

OK, so it's oligarchy.

But without needing to publicly disclose their financials, it's very easy to shuffle the money around without much accountability. As it were.

 

Yeah, but why do to such trouble to shuffle money around just to share it? As it is now, and since 2002, they keep it for themselves. And they like to keep it for themselves.

The simple rule of thumb is that MLS acts as a single entity when it wants to hold down player costs because it benefits all of them. When it comes to the rate of return to the I/Os, the owners and are individual profit centers.

With the exception of some shared gate receipts, they eat what they kill. MLS actually shares a lower percentage of gate receipts than the NFL where it's 40%, while since 1997 MLB shares between 31-39% of all local revenues after deducting stadium expenses under a complicated formula.

It may say its a single entity, but revenue sharing in MLS appers no more generous than other big leagues, and in fact is probably less so compared to the two biggest.

 

TV revenues (National and International) are shared like the others, with the plus that with SUM, they can share a little extra money made outside MLS rights. (I assume they also have to share 25% of SUM profits with that Capital Investment firm).

 

I think the answer, to some extent, lies in the Beckham signing.

The Galaxy/AEG was footing pretty much the entire bill but, when his "tour" generated huge attendance spikes in his first season, that helped the finances of other clubs even more than it helped the Galaxy's. In fact, the Revs and the old Red Bulls made a special "Beckham" ticket package that included the Galz match plus 3-5 others. In other words, teams that averaged under 10K per match not only sold 40,000-50,000 seats for LA, they sold those extra 30,000-40,000 seats 3-5 times more. ( although most of these packages went to waste) Simple math then suggests that Beckham basically doubled the annual gate receipts for some of these clubs with a single appearance. And then there were, of course, additional parking, food and merchandising revenues on top of that as well.

Could it be possible that MLS said to the Krafts and the other owners, "When Beckham comes, you pay 50% of your tix revenues to the HQ"? Could the HQ also grabbed his 300,000 annual shirts for itself without distributing the funds to all teams equally?

On top of that, you get these SUM/USSF side deals - Kraft may be shafted on the merchandising revenues a tad but Foxboro gets to host a US-Spain match as compensation and that's $4M-$6M in total revenues that gets sliced up in various chunks based on politics rather than pure accounting concept of marginal contribution.

 

Could they have done this? I suppose. But there's no indication MLS did change the percentages. In fact, some of the feasibility studies were done after Beckham, and they didn't note any change in gate receipts paid to the league.

I suspect just the opposite is true. I think the Galaxy sold the DP rule on the idea that other owners would benefit at the gate (and keep more money) when he came to town. IIRC, Lew Wolff even bargained for that, and Dallas pitched a small fit when he didn't make on of those early trips.