News: Source: Frank Lampard will play for the Los Angeles Galaxy

Overhanging all of the recent talk on this thread is, IMO, the CCL. To me, there are two paths to increasing ratings. One we've been discussing: superstars. The other is to convince people in the US who are soccer fans but not MLS fans that MLS is a worthy league to follow. One way to do that is for MLS to develop top notch players, but that's a double edged sword...that kind of fan will only believe a player is top notch if he leaves MLS and proves himself in a tougher league. "Wow, Geoff Cameron is a pretty good player. I guess I should have watched him when he was with Houston." Notice that I had to use the past tense.

The other way to do that is to be on par, or better than, MFL teams in the CCL. Easier said than done.

 

Maybe if you can't do one, do the other. If you look at the NBC ratings table again, MLS has an opportunity for improvement in some big markets it is already in. Maybe big name designated players do make sense in markets like Chicago or Boston or Dallas or Houston, and to the extent the league can encourage them, maybe it should. If MLS thinks lowering the cap charge for younger players provides incentive for teams to acquire them, perhaps lowering the cap charge on designated players making over (pick a number, say) $1.5M a year might also make sense. If MLS needs younger name DPs who still command transfer fees, perhaps some help there would be appropriate.

For smaller market teams where these DP strategies simply aren't practical, perhaps the best path to growing TV ratings is to expand the season ticket base. Depending upon which report you believe, MLS takes 30 - 33% of every ticket sold. Maybe it takes less from season ticket sales. Or, perhaps it adopts a graduated scale where the percentage reduces the more tickets a team sells -- provide them with incentive to retain more money. Personally, I'd look to put more fanny's in the seats, which will, I think, lead to more eyeballs in front of the sets.

But there are lot's of ways to approach this, and MLS shouldn't apologize for experimenting. Just because MLS has a 2022 goal doesn't mean they have to have it all figured out now and commit heavily to young players. I'm just very nervous when guys like Kinnear say MLS fans want to see younger homegrown and college players or imported players few people have ever heard of. Outside of high end college sports (where university affiliation provides a somewhat different dynamic), people usually aren't anxious to watch young players who are still learning their craft. Yes, many purists have given MLS a lot of stick over the years for not focusing on younger players it can sell, but for many of these people they never run out of excuses for why they don't watch MLS. If it isn't a "retirement league" it will be something else. They won't flip the channel from the EPL just because MLS has more academy graduates IMO.

 

I think this is probably right -- that increased attendance eventually leads to increased viewership. I don't agree, though, that teams need more incentives to increase their season ticket base. If increasing season tickets isn't a prime focus of an MLS team's president/director/whatever, the guy should be fired.

MLS may need to help some underperfoming teams identify strategies to increase season ticket numbers, but monetary incentives won't make a huge difference, IMO.

 

First of all, I seriously question the correlation between atmosphere and viewership. Has it been documented? It makes intuitive sense, sure. And anecdotally, I prefer watching the Timbers at home because of the crowd. But that's just me.

Second of all, I think it'd be very easy to make that change. Let's say the average gate for an MLS game is $500,000, so that the league gets $150,000. All you'd have to do is say the league gets an automatic $50,000, and then 20%, instead of 30%, of the gross.

The specifics don't matter. What matters would be if the league set an automatic amount and a reduced percentage with the goal of equaling the same amount for the league's cut. That would be how you punish the Revs front office and reward the Sounders.

 

Totally anecdotal, but I tend to search out those teams with a great atmosphere for watching on tv, outside of my own home club.

 

HSG they also charge the team rent on game days, and keep all concession money on game days.

 

For whatever it's worth to the discussion, I'd strongly suspect that if the costs were similar, having players fans have heard of would be worth a lot more than having the kind of top-to-bottom roster quality it would take to challenge the Mexican league. Catch is they aren't--triplet's right that there are some players that 'move the needle' a bit by themselves, but there aren't many of them, and they don't move the needle that much from a league-strategic point of view. The rest, you'd be spending the big bucks on guys whose resumes you'd still have to explain.

But that's why I'm calm to maybe even a little excited about any efforts to mainstream the Premier League (whereas I would have been very concerned about it in, let's say, 1999). We could reach a point where any player in that league that accomplishes something (ie your Tim Cahills) is worth something in MLS. We're not there yet (and if the Red Bulls don't win a title, Cahill is probably a loss to them, as Keane probably would have been to Los Angeles were it not for their two titles).

 

FWIW my perception has long been that the Premier League was more mainstream in Canada earlier than it was in the U.S. - we used to have two live games a week on more or less basic cable as far back as the late '90s - and that contributed markedly to MLS' early success in Toronto when TFC arrived. YMMV.

 

Fox Sports World was showing soccer from Day 1 in 1997 ... that's not basic cable but it was there.

 

And that's just the English language side. Fox Sports Americas, the predecessor to both Fox Sports World and Fox Sports en Espanol goes back even further.

 

Also, IIRC, Beckham's signing had a huge, huge effect in Toronto wrt ticket sales which supports your suggestion. Just another data point.

 

I agree.

The more I think about this, I don't see anything wrong with teams that want "name" DPs, and I think it should be part of the league's ongoing strategy, even though, as we've all been discussing, perhaps only a handful of teams can really make it work economically. Now, it would be nice if the average age of these guys was 30- 32 when they arrive, which may mean paying a transfer fee, but really that's a quibble. With proper diet and training, I think MLS can attract some good, name players who still have plenty left in the tank even into their 30s and big market teams in particular should be encouraged to step up and go get them.

I also don't see anything wrong with relatively unknown "young DPs" from elsewhere in CONCACAF or CONMEBOL who have lower cap charges and have DP status because of modest loan or transfer fees. They'll bring energy and competition to MLS rosters, which is a good thing.

If MLS' is moving away from the expensive "lower - tier" DPs -- the Kris Boyd's of the world -- I can understand that too. Having said that, I would urge MLS to consider re-tasking those dollars, however, to enable them to hang on to home grown players longer.

Shea will soon turn 23. Najar is only 19. If the academies perform as hoped, MLS will soon have a number of very good good young players who will be near the end of their first pro contracts when they are still in their early 20s. Already known to their fans, they will just be entering their prime, both on the field and from a marketing point of view. I think it would do MLS a world of good to create some type of "homegrown" DP slot to try and retain these guys awhile longer.

Because of MLS' structure, there is too much incentive to sell players as they complete their first deal IMO, and it will get worse as the players get better and more marketable.

Say you run a small market team and you've developed a great young player. Fans love him. Europe is looking. He's been capped and might even push to get regular minutes for the USMNT in the near future. Even though he's come up from the academy, he's still only 21. Rather than sell him to a Belgian club or Stoke City, why not sign him to a five year "domestic DP" deal that pays him $1.5M a year? (That's what Boyd was making BTW). The league could write the release amount right into the contract and provide that the release could only be triggered after three years. The player gets paid. He sticks around MLS for another three or four years, and he's still a very marketable 24 - 25 when he moves.

The problem with all of that is the I/O, having previously had MLS pay the player's entire salary, now must dig into his pocket for $1.3M+ a year to pay most of the DP salary, while MLS pays, at most, $200,000 during the first years of the contract (which is the current cap charge for players 21-23). If MLS is keeping a third of the transfer fee, it might be more palatable to the I/O if MLS also picked up a third of his wages -- regardless of what the cap charge is. MLS might even "advance" some of the allocation money expected from the sale, with the understanding the I/O would have to pay it back if the sale didn't materialize.

The point is, I think there are things MLS can do to help teams -- small market teams in particular -- keep some of these good young players longer. Players who are already known to their fans and are already making a significant on-field contribution. Players who inspire other young players to sign with MLS and, honestly, are probably a lot less risk than the Kris Boyd's of the world.

It would help bridge the gap so MLS isn't just a league for promising, but unknown, young guys, star old guys, and lots of journeymen in between.

My fear in this rush to youth -- if that's what this is -- is that MLS is going to soon look like a collection of small market baseball teams that constantly lose their best young players just as they are starting to get fun for fans to follow, which is, IMHO, demoralizing to a fanbase if it happens repeatedly. Even another two or three years for fans to enjoy a young talented player can make a big difference IMO.

 

That's a great idea. I think that this could go hand in hand with increasing the size of the homegrown program. I've heard (although I've never seen it written down) that teams are only allowed to have two homegrown players who earn more than the minimum salary. The Galaxy seem interested in a couple of guys with great pedigrees, but it's hard to get players to sign at 45k per year. But to go with this, you really need a way to keep at least some of them for more than 4 years.

 

This is a really good point and logical, reasonable solution. It'll probably never happen.

 

I think so too.

Again, I understand completely why some teams signing DPs in the $500,000 - $2M range feel they've wasted that money. But rather than just pull that investment back, I wish they would re-deploy those dollars to keep some of the guys around longer.

If they want to develop players, philosophically I think they need to find a way for fans here to enjoy them too. MLS can't just be in the business of selling young players if it wants to grow TV ratings and attendance IMO. Yes, sales will happen, but MLS has to understand that really few fans will find great satisfaction from the latest sale of a young player. After all, how may fans cheer the team accountant because he saves the club some money or the HR guy who gets a better deal on the league health plan?

Most fans are realistic, but still for fans I think there is a big difference between selling a good young player at 21 who has just started to show flashes of greatness, as opposed to an accomplished player of 25 when he's been there for 6+ seasons, helped them win things and, hopefully, generates a bigger fee to help pay for another DP.

 

While I don't disagree with the strategy, I disagree that in reality it would actually be that possible or effective. You're not talking just the better players for an age group but pointed out guys "who've been capped and might even push to get regular minutes for the USMNT in the near future". That's the creme of the crop, the guys who are pressured behind the scenes by someone like JK to go abroad and the guys who talent wise are usually good enough to take on their dream of playing in a top 6 league in Europe. And they all dream of it, playing in Europe(and I'm not talking Norway or Sweden, but those aren't the options for the creme of the crop either). Clint dreamed of it. Bradley dreamed of it. Jozy dreamed of it. Holden dreamed of it. Cameron dreamed of it. Shea dreamed of it(and interestingly, in an interview last week with his agent his agent said MLS/FCD both refused to sell him and Shea basically demanded to be sold to Stoke), Gonzalez dreams of it and has said he plans on going to Europe, Agudelo dreams of it, Gil dreams of it(but wanted to stay closer to home as a teen).

So it's not just about the money, it's about living the dream and competing at the highest level, much like it would be for a Euro basketball player who's considered in the creme of the crop level overseas who'd want to take a shot at the NBA. The guys who stay home in Europe usually are the guys who are barely good enough for the NBA, who aren't guaranteed regular minutes, so being a star at home might be more appealing. That's where I see it going with the better MLS players. If you're options are Norway/Sweden, or to barely make the bench in a top 4 league, then staying home for good money makes more sense, but if you're above that level, which guys getting NT minutes usually are and will be even more next cycle, then I don't see them staying.

You're strategy seems to rely more on players being most concerned about money, which is a factor, but there's larger concerns imo even if the money is comparable to Europe. One of course is the dream. Another is opportunities abroad, which as the confidence in the MLS market increases which it is, they'll have more of. Third is pressure from within the NT to continue moving up levels. Multiple players now have come out after moves and said JK pushed for this. I don't see that disappearing in the future even if JK is replaced, or until MLS is a top league, which is quite optomistic even 9 years from now. But the major one for me is speed of play. You can't substitute playing at a faster pace, both the movement/linking-up/speed of thought in your reads offensively, but defending attacks at a higher pace defensively. If you're in the NT picture and the WC is your goal the best way to prepare for the speed of the international game is to play at the highest pace weekly.

As I posted in another thread where we talked, when you refer to keeping guys who are in the NT pool, it's one thing to say that in theory, but actually looking at the list of players it seems much tougher in practice. Of the top 25 prospects under age 21, only six are on MLS teams. Of those six, Agudelo, Gil, Salgado and Kitchen have spoken openly about Europe being their goal and all have had interest. All are NT prospects and are the type I think you referred too, yet I don't see how MLS will keep any of them until 24-25, even if offering 1M+. They know their best chance at regular NT time down the road is in a top 6 league, and they know the competition and speed of play there best prepares them for international play. And is it really a money issue that guys like Guido and Flores are skipping MLS, that guys from Wood to Gatt to Pelosi to Lletget went overseas?

Now, defenders I think are easier to keep longer but I also don't think they offer the excitement or return on investment ratings wise their salary would command, if theoretically offering a guy like Okogu 1.5M per year just to keep him stateside. Besler just signed an extension, but if he were to make 1.5M per would that really be the best use of resources in a salary capped league short on attacking talent? Is a guy like Besler really going to be marketed that much and turn eyes to the television outside of MLS die hard fans?

So along with everything I typed, I think the biggest problem is it's the attacking talent MLS needs to keep or inject into the league, but it's the attacking talent who will most likely have the most options in Europe and who speed of play weekly is the most important(Jozy, Bradley, Clint simply can't replicate the speed they play at by coming back to NY or NE). It's also the attacking talent which as confidence grows in this market will command and receive higher transfer fees. Defenders MLS could hold onto longer but I'm not sure investing 1M+ in defenders is smart, just as you've said which I agree with, investing millions in defensive DP's isn't that smart.

I really do think the best American talent will stay in MLS at some point, but it's years away. We know the goal is for MLS to be a top league in 9 years and when it does reach it's goal I think more players will stay, as that assumes top league quality. But I don't think the top talent is staying home nor do I think that's a successful strategy to become a top league. I think it happens the other way around. MLS has to become a top league while seeing it's top young talent going overseas, and then that talent will stay home at a future date. Landon is an extremely rare exception to me and not something to count on, a top player staying home, and if he broke in in Germany he probably wouldn't have either.

To me, the best strategy is slowly lowering the the target big name DP age in the larger markets, which will require paying transfer fees, but getting DP's in the 28-30 yr old range, while at the same time finding a way to acquire U23 talent from the likes of Brazil/Argentina/Paraguay/Uruguay.

 

Whither Frank Lampard?

 

the way lampard is playing in the EPL mitigates his coming to MLS- plus he still wants to play for england in 2014 WC
adios frank-- would have loved to see u in MLS this year- but he still can play top level football somewhere in euro-- why would he come to MLS this year??

 

Coming to (and/or just playing in) MLS would not prevent Lampard (or anyone) from playing in the 2014 WC.

 

FYP.

Most football managers in Europe and South America see things differently unfortunately. Even the top 5 African sides seem to always look to Europe first for their players. Happily Nigeria bucked this trend by taking 6 players from their own domestic league which led to an African Cup triumph (see my avatar?) beating the tournament darlings CIV in the process, who were packed to the gills with talented Euro-based players. But at any rate, MLS is going to have to impress the Euro managers to a degree that being based here won't hinder the already-established national team members. To be fair with England, all but 3 members of the current edition of El Tres Leones ply their trade in England.

 

I agree with your overall points, and can concede that my post likely needs to have the "would" phrasing certainty replaced with the "should" conditional.

Although, I'm not certain that anyone has taken a poll or could form an honest/accurate/comprehensive assessment as to how "Most football managers in Europe and South America see things."

And secondly, why would anyone want to be fair with England?
(Robert Green letting Dempsey's shot sneak in will only keep that country in my good graces for so long.)

 

I'm always right. Look up Unak in the dictionary and it will say "the correct one".


Or "the one with bare feet", who knows? I don't read the dictionary.

Not really, but actions do speak louder than words. They may not have an explicit policy, but they do not create an environment conducive to players being confident of their places upon coming here. At least the bigger sides who actually fancy themselves WC contenders. Obviously Keane, Lindpere and others have managed spots in Europe but the top Euro contenders as well as just about all of The South American 10 are pretty hard to crack even for very good players.

Lol! Very true my friend. Very true!

 

I concur.

 

To some extent I'm suggesting MLS go back to the future.

Rodriguez again:

“At the onset, when the league started, its foreign player pool was exceptionally high, and in large part because the big, big money hadn’t yet hit Europe. So we could realistically compete for players. We had this great base of these foreign players who really delivered on the field. So that’s your first five or six years. As those players started to get to the end of their careers — so now you are looking at around 2000 and 2001 — we strategically moved in the direction of the American player. And so now we were trying to retain Clint Mathis, Josh Wolf, Brian McBride, Chris Armas — guys who we thought would be a big part of the national team, and then if the national team was successful we’d capitalize on that success by having those key guys here. Whether we are geniuses or we just stepped in it, in the 2002 World Cup all of the goals that the U.S. national team scored, save one, were scored by guys in our league . . . It’s becoming harder to retain the American player. The success of the national team, while it gave us a boost, also opened the eyes to a lot of scouts around the world saying, ‘I can get that lad for a lot cheaper than I can get him and he’s just as good.’ So greater competition for our players, so we go back to this designated player concept trying to bring in high-end players."

http://www.grantland.com/blog/the-t...player-behind-the-lines-with-nelson-rodriguez

I'm not suggesting MLS is going to keep them forever, just slow them down. Try and keep them for one contract cycle after their first pro contract -- again, that's mid-20s. I believe Rodriguez -- the days of getting star American players on the cheap are gone, but if MLS can re-direct some of those DP dollars, I think it could keep some longer.

What's more, I don't think it needs that many. Even ten great young American players spread across the league could do wonders for MLS, I think.

It is worth the effort IMO, because the alternative is not very appealing to me.

I realize people are suggesting MLS can pass through a "phase" as a selling league on its way to becoming a top league -- the FOX blog I linked earlier makes that argument too -- but that strategy is far from guaranteed. I don't agree with Michel Platini on much, but I thought he was right on the mark when he said, “I don’t think Ajax will ever win the [Champions League] in the future. When you always sell your best players, how can you end up with a successful strong team? It’s impossible…”

http://netherlands.worldcupblog.org/1/michel-platini-ajax-will-never-win-the-cl-anymore.html

It's hard to build anything great -- a company or a team -- if you are constantly selling your best assets. You have to be incredibly adept at replacing them with assets that are just as good and cheaper. Does anyone think MLS will be that skillful? Personally, I'm very skeptical that MLS will have 20 teams with the necessary scouting, youth coaches, and general manager savvy that they will be able to easily replace the players they sell. Certainly not by 2022 anyway.