Modified UEFA Financial Fair Play + Revenue sharing

If I was Thierry Henry and you passed a 10% increase for US capped players, I'd file a grievance. I'm sure Shalrie Joseph and Sainey Nyassi would be happy to join, as well.

 

Yeah, but would it hold up in a court?

The fact that something like that would probably happen is why I think MLS would never do it, but I don't think its clear cut that it wouldn't hold up in court.

 

I think Beckham, Henry, Keane, Marquez, Montero, Hassli, Castio, Boyd, Joseph, Morales v MLS LLC in court is damning enough, regardless of how it ends

 

Agreed.

 

No need to turn into an internet tough guy, guy.

I correct my initial proposal. Of course, I don't want to suggest doing something if it is illegal to do so. That's not to say that some of the other proposals I suggested wouldn't have any merit.

I guess I get a perception that, MLS in its current state, and the American (read: USMNT eligible) soccer player being what he is, are currently at odds.

If you're an MLS owner trying to get people to come to the games, and even more so in trying to attract the general soccer watching public to watch more MLS on TV, would you take a flyer on a few American players who could be cheaper and maybe at/close to the same playing level of some foreign players, or would you go for the foreign player?

MLS currently makes use of some exclusions regarding college/academy/generation Adidas players, what are your thoughts on those?

I believe that labor laws in other countries might make it easier for clubs to make a clear distinction between foreign/domestic players and allow for more playing time and further development of such players. Otherwise what keeps most Spain/Italy/Germany et al. players playing in their leagues vs. going abroad?

 

I don't think anyone's accusing you of being a xenophobe or a racist. The problem is that USSF and MLS need to exist in a world where laws are written to keep xenophobes and racists from being, y'know, dicks. Part of that means not treating permanent residents any different from Citizens.

Guiseppe Rossi would be an interesting case study, as well.

If it were me? I'd try to put the most competitive and marketable XI I could put on the field together. What national anthem they sing would not, not even for a second, affect my judgment.

My opinion* is that they are legal

*This should not be viewed as a Legal Opinion; I have no standing or training to provide any Legal Opinons. These opinions are mine and based on my personal understanding of the law and nothing else.

[qupte]I believe that labor laws in other countries might make it easier for clubs to make a clear distinction between foreign/domestic players and allow for more playing time and further development of such players. Otherwise what keeps most Spain/Italy/Germany et al. players playing in their leagues vs. going abroad?[/quote]
EU countries are very, very specifically not allowed to make differenciations. Feel free to take a look at Sepp's 6+5 idea and what happened to that for evidence.

 

Kind of.

They're both in the same place: Severely behind the 8 ball in development. Sure, our league needs to offer more for our players in terms of development etc. However, at this point in time our league needs our players (read: American) to be better than what they are right now. Honestly, they need each other for the time being because neither is going to get substantially better without the other doing the same.

I'm going to go after the best player 99/100 times. I will admit though that if I'm at a coin flip between an American/non American and I can find a way to juice the story of the American player and maybe get more out of him than his ability and play ... I might bite.

The crux of it though, is that 99/100 times these choices aren't going to be about players that will move the needle (any of them) in our league as it stands. This is going to be the difference with the 15th/16th player on the roster most likely. So how much is it really helping the American player, or the league ?

I think they're great because they are all gateways to inclusion for our entire potential player base here in the States. These things are open to everyone and will only help fuel the league and eventually the USMNT.

In the case of those 3, the fact that they are the pinnacle of leagues in club football. If you're France, Germany, Italy, Spain, or England ... your players don't need to go anywhere else.

 

We're basically on the same path regarding the league. I may not be too versed on the immigration/labor issues, but putting that aside, I want to see (as I suspect, many BS posters do) MLS flourish and be a destination for developing American talent. It just gets so frustrating with all the byzantine rules and restrictions. I know that initially that was the purpose to keep the league from going under and growing on a fiscally responsible path.

But as the awareness about soccer has grown in this country, that's not enough. The casual fan is no dummy and what matters now more than anything is perceived quality. MLS is not perceived as a quality league by the all important casual fan, as well as those fans that deride it in favor of watching other leagues.

I believe the easiest way of dealing with this is to start getting better players in the league along with sprinkling more stars here and there. Not for anything Hollywood is so big, because the stars gravitate around it. That's what I was addressing with my proposals, immigration issues aside.

Just install a salary floor, which right now could be $3M, I mean all teams currently spend this amount of money, which is basically covered already ($2.81M). Then place a salary cap of 200%, so $6M. There is nothing wrong with implementing good ideas from other leagues such as MLB, so I would place a luxury tax for teams that want to go over the salary cap. Blow up the allocation, it's too confusing. Have 10 international slots per team, not that I believe it's needed, since teams are only using up basically 7 on average as it stands, for 2012. Raise the base salary to $100K.

Incentivize teams to develop their own players, so create salary exclusions for those types of players, I believe counting 50% for up to 3 players for up to 5 years would be a good incentive to develop your own players. Finally, I would keep the Designated Player rules in place for now and phase those out as the salary floor/salary cap expands. Then use the DP rules more effectively to get true star players and garner attention for the league. As it stands, there are a number of teams that can afford true star players in the 6-10M/year range.

Do all these things and sit back and watch the casual fan start paying more attention to MLS due to changing perceptions; watch the league grow.

 

30 players x 100K = 3M. Why have a salary floor that's set at the minimum possible salary for your team?

The luxury tax isn't a good idea from MLB.

 

Well, fine, let's get lost on the details. How about advancing the conversation instead? Let's see, the team salaries for 2012 were aggregated here. If you want to be picky, then make the minimum salary, say 75K...that work for you? I think that we would agree that if you want to increase interest among the American athlete to consider soccer as an alternative to other sports, then the minimum salaries should be an incentive as opposed to a deterrent as it currently stands.

Well, I see a luxury tax as having as one of its goals to increase or ensure a certain level of parity among teams so that a team from New York or Los Angeles, for example, can't just sign the best/most expensive players at will without any consequence.

Would you agree that the concept of a luxury tax is a worthy idea? Where MLB fails is in the implementation of the luxury tax. It seems they are learning from their mistakes. You don't just put a luxury tax in place in and of itself, it would be in conjunction with a salary floor, where the money would go into a pool to be used specifically for player salaries. Whatever is not used up at the end of the season would be returned to the team that paid the luxury tax monies.

 

No.

If you want parity use a cap. All a luxury tax does is make the best players cost a bit more.

 

I use to think that. But MLB's luxury tax is changing things. The Yankees have shyed away from signing some high priced free agents and are trying to cut payroll to get to $189mil by 2014. Otherwise they will get killed by the luxury tax for every dollar they are over.

 

I think that's less about any new effect of the luxury tax and more about the change in Yankees leadership.

 

Exactly. Where MLB has failed in the past has been in that they don't have minimum spending requirements per team, and have not more aggressively enforced that the money be used for increasing team payroll for those teams on the receiving end of luxury tax monies.

Players would not cost more to the extent that a player is worth what the market is willing to bear, and the player is not obligated to accept a lesser salary if they don't like the offer.

I would not believe that how much a team has to pay on luxury tax has any bearing on whether a player will accept an offer or not.

 

You said good ideas ... and then said luxury tax. I spit my drink out of my nose I laughed so hard.

Luxury tax is shit, period.

Yes, let's just "do these things" ... you footing the bill ? If so, then sure let's just go out and do it.

 

Do you have some evidence to back up this assertion?

You might want to see a doctor, as this might be indicative of a bigger problem.

No need to take it personally. I hope you understand that saying "do these things[...]" is just a manner of speech. Of course I wasn't referring to you in particular...I mean, that would be ludicrous. Just as it would be ludicrous to post league ideas and discuss their merits in the "MLS: Commissioner - You be The Don" sub forum. It was yet so ludicrous that you felt a strong impulse to respond.

 

Yes:
The Tampa Bay Rays before 4 years ago.
The Pittsburgh Pirates
The Kansas City Royals

Of course, you have nothing other than opinion as evidence that luxury tax is good. Anything that taxes those that "can/will" and doesn't force those that "can't/won't" to do anything is stupid. Before the Rays got new ownership, you know what the owner did with the luxury tax ? Put it straight into his pocket. Nothing done to the TropicanaDome (whatever it is now), nothing done in player/organization development, etc etc. Straight to his pocket. With all of the other league designs to undercut the rich ... what's the point of taxing them too ?

Oh, and where's your evidence there guy ?

Swing and a miss.

I didn't take it personally. It's called sarcasm. You haven't exactly pointed to where or how this money was going to magically appear to just "go out and do" ...

 

There are, I submit, really two labor pools and you have to consider each when talking about payroll.

First, with respect to domestic players, how much does MLS have to pay to keep the better ones here rather than playing in something other than the big five leagues of Europe?

I think MLS has hit this target honestly. Unless you think too many young guys leave for Denmark or Sweden or Belgium, pushing more dollars towards these players is only inflationary. In other words, it doesn't improve the talent pool, it just drives up the cost.

Second, with respect to foreign players, how much does MLS have to pay to attract better players? Here I think even modest pay (or allowing more international players) could have dividends -- it would allow MLS to shop in a better store.

In both cases, the key is to pay market value, not to just pay the current players more.

 

Still waiting for the evidence that "[l]uxury tax is shit, period", guy. What you pointed out is MLB's failure to put some teeth to a good idea; something that they have addressed in their last CBA.

It's that what that was??? Thanks for pointing it out, otherwise I'd have missed it, bub. I guess mine was a little more subtle, since you swung and missed it completely, just like you missed the links that show where all the money already is.

Thanks for playing, bub...err...guy.

 

I agree that short term, MLS wouldn't be able to show more for increasing expenditures as far as the American player goes. But there are a couple other things to consider as well:

1) Foreign players that receive their green cards are then counted as domestic as far as labor rules are concerned. Not sure how long the whole process takes from coming to the US with a work visa to receiving a green card, but can't imagine that it would be more than a couple of years.

2) The longer term benefit that MLS would reap when athletes start viewing MLS as a viable option to the other 4 major sports in this country. That would mean that there would be more of an emphasis to developing soccer specific skills at a younger age, resulting in better soccer players right here in MLS's backyard.

 

You could look it up. It appears to be about 2 years, minimum, barring exceptional circumstances. And that assumes the employer (MLS/team) sponsors it and the player starts it the minute he arrives with his new MLS team. That's not going to happen in most cases. For example Jamie Smith has been in Colorado for 3.5 years and is just now about to get his green card. The Rapids seem to be one of the more aggressive teams when it comes to green cards.

 

Sure, but again, it really doesn't help to jump the pay of domestic players across the board just to account for this -- if a player is signed for $200,000 and subsequently gets a green card, logically you wouldn't want to cut their pay, but there is no reason to push the domestic wage scale up for everybody because of these cases.

Perhaps, but I wonder. In terms of pay, the leagues of Europe are already a viable option to the 4 major sports in this country -- how many talented kids are choosing soccer over other sports as a result? Perhaps some. And perhaps more would if they could stay closer to home and make more in MLS. But I think it's more complicated then that honestly. Talented young athletes -- indeed, talented young people -- tend to gravitate to the best programs with the best coaching in their local communities in my experience. That's not easy to counteract, but even if MLS manages to do it, you are talking years before you might see any payoff -- if you see any at all.

Personally, I wouldn't complicate this. If MLS can bring in better players from an area where it already has had success -- say Central America or Columbia -- by increasing pay a couple hundred thousand dollars for a handful of guys, I'd think that's money well spent. If MLS can retain good domestic players from going to Scandinavia by doing the same, I'd consider that too. But I'd keep the money targeted to specific players.

 

I guess I missed the evidence you've provided to show that luxury tax is a good idea ... yeah ? Because once again I don't see it. All you've posted is that it is a "good idea." Nothing more.

With all of the other league designs that produce "opportunity for the little guy" that already exist in every American Sports League, yet another tax on those that can/are willing to spend is a shit idea. You asked for evidence of this. I'm sorry if you feel that an owner directly pocketing the luxury tax monies doesn't qualify. I can't help that. My example though is more than you've put forth to show that luxury tax isn't a shit idea. I missed where the money already is ? Interesting, because I've actually referenced it in more than one of my posts (guess that was strike 1 for you then), and used some of it as examples in them as well (that'd be strike 2). Back to the point though. YOU are submitting something (luxury tax) with nothing backing it as something "good" ... the burden of proof is on you.

This falls on the USSF, not the league. Better developed coaches/managers/staff is what is needed for this to happen. Does the MLS have a part to play in it ? Absolutely. However, even if all 19 clubs had a fully funded and top notch Academy/Youth set up we'd still be behind the 8 ball. This problem is much bigger than the league.

 

What happened to neg reps?

 

They went out the door with Proper English ?