The Catch All CBA (Collective Bargaining Agreement) Thread

If I take the 15th player average from 2013 which comes to $92,968 and compare it to the 12th player from 2009 the 12th player average of $87,150 you only get about 7% increase. So basically what happens is that teams have used the large majority of the increase to improve their starting lineups. The rest was used to add some depth and increase their rosters size. Also forget the salary budget - it is total money available for compensation that counts. You increase the salary budget by $200K but eliminate not counting a $200K GA agreement against the budget - nothing you have no increase.

 

My effective numbers show the effective cap going up by about $600K over the last two years as the total compensation went up about $300K but amount of that going to very high priced DPs like BecKham, Henry and Marquez went down.

 

Personally, pushing the money into the starting lineups and getting the guys at the bottom to a basic threshold comp number isn't such a bad thing IMO.

I don't think you can forget the salary budget in analyzing payrolls though -- not when 46% of the payroll is off budget. Basically, teams can move the $3.1m dollars around between those 20 players, but the only way to push payrolls for the core 20 guys is to increase the salary budget, or, alternatively, figure out an exception to push some off budget dollars their way.

Of the top of my head, here are the off budget payroll exceptions to the $3.1m salary budget:

-- Dollars to Designated Players above the cap threshold
-- Dollars to the players 21 - 30 on the roster
-- Dollars paid to any players from allocation money
-- Dollars paid to Generation Adidas players
-- Dollars paid to players from the new retention fund (I think)

There are probably more, but the point is that a lot of that money is, by definition, targeted to only a handful of players. The number of DPs and Gen Adidas players is limited. Off budget payroll dollars to the bottom 10 guys can't be shifted on budget to the top 20. The retention funds appear to be applied to special cases. Really, only the allocation funds can be spread around, but there isn't a lot of money there.

I don't disagree that the total comp number best shows the financial resources available or payroll, but given MLS rules I think the salary budget number is still important in a CBA -- moving that number gives teams the most flexibility to increase pay for the greatest number of players.

 

Well I have seen 10 Million thrown around for the allocation fund (give or take a few Mil.)

Include what another 15-20 Million for DPs in 2012?

So that would mean about 15 to 20 million is used for “other”, not sure how Transfer fees come in the equation, example the Chicago Fire had (and have 1 currently) DP’s in the books with low salaries but counted as DP’s for Budget reasons.

 

I think the DP number is at least that much and may be a bit light. I was surprised when I bothered to look it up how many DPs there are now -- 36 are listed on the Wikipedia page.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Designated_Player_Rule

In 2013, 28 players (the top 5%) accounted for 37% of the league's roughly $100m (year end) payroll number. That's probably exclusively a list of DPs, but I would think that figure includes the portion of DP salaries included in the salary budget (generally, but not always, $368,750 in 2013). Subtract that, and it appears to me the owners paid about $27m in wages for the top 5% of wage earners off budget.

http://www.empireofsoccer.com/look-income-inequality-22820/

In the past I've advocated targeted use of the payroll dollars, but the payroll is now getting so top heavy, it might be wise to push more of the new dollars down to the guys in the 4 - 20 roster slots.

Over the term of the next CBA, say five years again, I think MLS would be well-served to lower the DP cap charge a bit and tighten up the range of pay for the starting 11 -- say 250k - $350k with an average of $300k ($3.3m with wages for three DPs on top of that). Put the next nine players, slots 12 - 20, at an average of $150k, ($1.35m). That's a salary budget of $4.65m for the top 20 players, again not counting additional money for the DP wages.

Given the allocation money already in the system, the new TV money should be enough to do this, I think, and still leave some left over to give the guys in slots 21 - 30 who are off budget some sort of raise. (I'd assume a number for the bottom ten guys off budget between $600k and $850k.)

I really think it could make a difference, both in quality of play and player retention. At $300k, I think MLS could get some good quality starters and make the league a more attractive destination for higher quality foreign players.

 

First of, there is some great info in this thread. Second, the players union just released its 2014 salary figures and there is some interesting stuff here.

http://www.mlsplayers.org/files/April 1, 2014 Salary Information - By Club.pdf

I added up the salaries of all the teams and total player wages are now in excess of $114 mln and the average team payroll is now over $6 mln. That said, there are still 9 teams with player wages of less than $4 mln and only 6 teams with wages in excess of $5 mln, so the haves are definitely driving the increase in the average. I think there are some interesting implications there.

 

OTOH, the haves went from 2 to 4 teams in one year. So I'm not sure what that means.

 

I came out just shy of 115 million with full comp.

 

I used guaranteed compensation. It isn't explicitly stated, but I kinda figured guaranteed comp = base salary plus allocation.

To add a little bit more information, here is how the teams rank in terms of total wages:

1. TOR: $16.6 mln
2. LA: $13.0 mln
3. SEA: $11.8 mln
4. NY: $11.3 mln
5. VAN: $6.3 mln
6. MTL: $6.1 mln
7. DAL: $4.6 mln
8. SJ: $4.3 mln
9. PHI: $4.2 mln
10. DC: $4.1 mln
11. RSL: $3.8 mln
12. HOU: $3.7 mln
13. KC: $3.7 mln
14. COL: $3.7 mln
15. POR: $3.7 mln
16. CHI: $3.6 mln
17. COL: $3.4 mln
18. NE: $3.4 mln
19. CHV: $3.3 mln

A couple things standout to me:

1. The median team wages is $4.1 mln.
2. POR has a great team, but they haven't exactly opened up the coffers. Leads me to believe that Paulson may be carrying significant debt related to the acquisition of the team.
3. Surprising to see Dallas and San Jose (two teams with mediocre attendance) outspending teams like Philly, Houston, and Kansas City.

In addition, here are the teams that have players earning $1 mln plus:

TOR: 3
LA: 3
SEA: 2
NY: 2
VAN: 1 (Kenny Miller @ $940K)
MTL: 1

Those dozen players earn a total of $43.5 mln or 38% of total player wages.

 

Yep and you would expect both NYFC and MIA to join that group of teams. LA2 also could if MLS adds the right ownership group. That said, 9 of 19 teams are currently spending under $4 mln and I'm guessing those teams have the same say as TOR, LA, SEA, and NYRB do. The new TV money will probably encourage those teams to support a larger increase in the salary cap than what was negotiated with the last CBA, but, after seeing these figures, I kind of doubt we'll see the salary cap go up to $5 or $6 mln like we all probably hope it will. I'd guess we'll see about a 25% increase in the cap ($3.88 mln), moving from 3 to 4 DPs (along with some changes in how much DPs count against the cap), and an increase in allocation dollars.

 

I think what will happen is that the league will no longer make cash calls to the owners over and beyond their share of ticket revenue. That should help everybody's bottom line. If the league looks like it will have any money left over it will go to player salary in one way or another because that's what the league is set up to do. I don't believe that the clubs will ever get straight up case from the league ever. Given this, I expect that we will continue to see a steady growth in the salary cap but more likely a spike in DPs as clubs have more money available.

 

I don't really know about that. You could be right, on the other hand such a change could cut in the opposite direction for lower revenue clubs. Honestly, I don't have enough information on MLS' finances to know. That said, I just have a tough time seeing the owners come to a consensus on a 50 or 60% increase to the current cap given that so many teams are choosing not spend too far over the existing cap via the DP rule. Instead I think you'll probably see the owners push for a tangible, but more modest increase. However, I do think the "haves" will push for some changes that allow them a little bit more freedom to construct a better, deeper roster. I think you'll almost certainly see the addition of 4th DP slot or a mechanism by which teams like TOR and LA can obtain one. I'd also like to see a reduction in the cap hit for existing players MLS players who are signed to a DP contract. Maybe lower the cap hit to $250K or so.

 

Portland might be spending on player transfers. That is one thing that is not reported in the PU's numbers but actually come out of the team's salary budget. One of the problems the smaller teams are having is that international players just don't understand the scale of the US yet. The DP level players expect to play for a team from a big city. Actually, all our teams are in big cities with lots of night life, comfort, etc. They're probably thinking that Portland is on the level of Valladolid when it's really the size of Valencia.

 

Hmmm..... that seems pretty unusual, but you might be right. I know the DP rule was introduced in 2007 in the middle of the that CBA. That adds an additional wrinkle for the middle income players. If the owners were to add a 4th DP slot and the cap hit remained the same (as a percentage of the cap) you could have four players taking up nearly 50% of the budget. That really squeezes the middle class of the league. If I'm the union, I'd want the DP rules stipulated within the CBA.

 

Allocations have nothing to do with these salary numbers. The union's website explains what the numbers are.

 

Gotcha..... Sorry bout that. I never looked at the main union site.

 

I think you are absolutely right. However, if I'm a rank and file member of the union I wouldn't want a rule that facilitates probably 40% of total wages to be outside the scope or separate from the CBA.

 

I understand. I just guessed incorrectly.m a quick google search probably would've cleared it up.

 

Montreal are really overspending.
TFC broke the bank. Check back in a year or two to see if their business plan worked.
SKC and RSL are an example of not having to overspend to be successful.