In a lot of ways it did here before the huge influx of TV and corporate money came into the game. I think the size of the country may have an impact as well. Both Mexico and Brazil are significantly larger than the European countries and they have significantly lower overall revenues. Also Mexico, like MLS, has a playoff to add a bit of added uncertainty.
TV Money is a huge factor. The current stagnation of top teams in Europe largely has to do with the explosion in revenue from the Champions league.
Somebody watching NFL for the first time this season from overseas wouldn't know all that. they'd just see a team playing badly (and probably only see them occasionally) and there'd be little to draw them to following the club. Overseas fans don't have the back story. Without knowing German basketball fan culture it's hard to say, but my point was that basketball leagues have been around for a long time, due to the "sports club" nature of clubs that exists across continental europe. The leagues predate any efforts by the NBA to sell a "product" by quite a way. The comparison was between the 30th best soccer team, and being in the top 30 NFL teams, not the 30th best in England. The argument (effectively) was that becuase the NFL has the best 32 teams in the world, they'd be of equivelent attractiveness to the 32 best soccer teams in europe/world. Why? I would suspect that anyone overseas choosing Villa/Everton (for reasons not related to a countryman playing them) would still choose them in one of their better seasons). The equivalent NFL fan would possibly opt for a "bubbling under" NFL club, rather than one doing very badly. With 32 teams, why would anyone opt for a struggling side? I'm sure it does happen. Some people have quirky reasons for getting a soft spot for overseas teams, but they are in the minority.
Vice versa ... I'd think. You're absolutely right about the existence and playing of the game. I agree. However, this was about popularity was it not ? That's quite different. I mean, in this case soccer has been here for over 100 years and certainly predates anything from overseas leagues in terms of trying to market/latch on/etc. Even then, who would you consider to be in that 30-35 best in the world range ? You're still looking at a 4-6th placed team in any given league from around the world. Because of the dynamics that each have. One is a singular league that has no equal (NFL) with the other is quite diverse and has multiple options (Soccer). Despite being a highly popular English club and one of the better sides in the world, Tottenham isn't even on large scale radar here. I brought up Everton simply because there's actual reason to follow the club for an American (Howard, the Donovan spells). The NFL, in of itself, provides something that a very limited other leagues around the world provide (and none at the level they do). Soccer has several at a "top level" and is even divided by the West/East Hemispheres with popularity of style. In Europe you've got competing leagues at the highest level right next door to each other. In this case it could be anything because the exposure is all but brand new. I follow Arsenal because right after I was able to really watch it regularly Dennis Bergkamp transferred . He was my favorite player due to seeing him in the '94 Cup. The year before they weren't a top side (12th). I had no idea they were a historically great club. That can easily happen with the NFL. I'm pretty sure plenty of people (even over here) will be Panthers fans because Cam Newton is a dynamic player. There are quite literally hundreds of reasons to latch onto a team. You know that.
Given that all they talked about during Colts games this year was the back story (because honestly, the Colts didn't have much tot talk about on the field) they'd figure it out pretty quick.
You're right; I gave City's win to Man U. Sorry. Either way, the point stands: the same small group of big, rich clubs (which group City has now bought their way into) tend to win that competition as well.
I like the MLS and the EPL; however, at this time of year the EPL is great. The top 7 are dreaming of winning the league or a Champion's League spot; the rest are worried getting sucked into the relegation spots. Perhaps Stoke (8th) are an exception, but they are happy to be so high up they are having fun anyway. In an MLS type system, Stoke would not have a team. I am not denying that the EPL doesn't have predictability concerns, but parity doesn't equal fun. I much prefer college football to the NFL. The NFL may be more fair, but nothing matches the chance to knock of a big team and a chance to grow over the years and become higher in the pecking order. Salary caps and shared revenues don't let you do that. Although, I agree, that the Spanish league was better in the 90's when the revenues were no so unequal.
That assumes people abroad see Indianapolis colts games. It's not as if every NFL game will be shown live overseas. I think SKY show maybe a couple of live games a week (at hours when most people can feasibly watch). And it also assumes people would care. It's not as if Blackburn are more appealing because they won the PL title. It's hard to see how a German player in the NBA would cause a surge in interest in the domestic game. It's not impossible, just not obviously logical. Indeed. How many soccer clubs around the world have genuine world support? It's even less than 30. It's a handful from a handful of leagues. If you take it as Man Utd, Arsenal, Chelsea, Liverpool (and Man City soon, no doubt), Barcelona, Real Madrid, Inter, AC Milan, Juventus, Roma (?), Bayern....from there it's a struggle for obvious candidates. The overwhelming majority of overseas fans who claim to support a club (as opposed to having a foreign club they have a soft spot for) will invariably support one of that dirty dozen. That dozen will be contenders pretty much every year - at very least "up there" in their leagues, and those are the leagues I'd guess got most worldwide exposure. Because of parity, you can't make a similar list of NFL teams. the 12th best NFL team won't be treated as the 12th best team in the world by overseas fans. They'll just be an "average" team. As such, they won't have much appeal. A team with 4-12 won't be regarded as the 30th best team in the world. They'll be regarded as the 3rd worst pro team in the world. There is no world cup for the sport, so fans can only get to know players through watching NFL games. A good player at a bad club will get limited exposure on overseas tv. Indeed there are. It's just that most go for the easy option.
I think this is almost certainly correct IMO -- in fact, I'm having a hard time seeing what the disagreement is. I've put a link to the EPL TV ratings on ESPN2 from the 2010-11 season. Of those 30 games, all but two of the top ten feature at least one of the big clubs -- ManU, Arsenal, Liverpool, Chelsea or Man City. The only exceptions are Fulham/Villa (where there were American players to attract U.S. viewers) and, oddly enough, Portsmouth v. Burnley. I have no idea about that one -- call it the exception that proves the rule. Still, for the most part, the biggest ratings follow the biggest clubs. http://www.epltalk.com/espn2-epl-tv-ratings-august-09-to-february-10-16415 What's interesting (to me) is that the same pattern was true in MLS with respect to domestic regular season games. Big market, "big spending" teams draw higher ratings. Here are the top 10 ESPN/ESPN 2 ratings from 2010 (excluding the All Star Game and Playoffs): Sun June 26 2:02 ESPN New York 1, Chicago 1 0.4 622 Tue Mar 15 9:30 ESPN Los Angeles 1, Seattle 0 0.4 604 Sun July 10 4:00 ESPN Seattle 3, Portland 2 0.3 467 Thu June 23 10:21 ESPN2 New York 2, Seattle 4 0.3 410 Sat May 14 11:00 ESPN2 Portland 1, Seattle 1 0.2 328 Sat May 7 11:00 ESPN2 New York 1, Los Angeles 1 0.2 320 Sun Oct 16 9:00 ESPN Chivas USA 0, Los Angeles 1 0.2 298 Thu Sep 29 9:00 ESPN2 D.C. United 2, Philadelphia 3 0.2 296 Mon July 4 10:37 ESPN2 Seattle 0, Los Angeles 0 0.2 289 Tue Oct 4 7:30 ESPN2 Los Angeles 0, New York 2 0.2 276 http://thevoiceoftv.com/nielsen-tv-...nx/?utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=twitterfeed There are a lot of LA, Seattle and NY games in that list. So while parity is held up as a virtue, I'm not sure it appeals all that much to a national audience for MLS games either. Finally, while the broadcast times are different (and ESPN probably reaches more households than ESPN2), the number of MLS viewers isn't that much different from the number of EPL viewers -- indeed two of the ESPN games drew much better than the top EPL games on ESPN2.
No, this point was about the NBA spurring popularity of the sport in another country. Sure, basketball has been played for quite a while in a number of countries. But what has been a bigger driving factor for popularity ? The fact that the country plays the sport (and has a domestic league) or that the country has an export to the NBA such as Nowitski/Petrovic/Kukoc/Ginobili/etc ? Wouldn't that be attributed to the dynamic of the sport in itself though ? I mean, we over here can make the comparisons between the EPL/Bundesliga/etc .... while ya'll can only stretch the comparison to the CFL in terms of our football. And that's even stretched to the maximum extent. What's the differentiation ? Why is it looked at that way ? I mean we'll talk about a team or player "sucking" but usually we'll keep it in relative terms: "that QB sucks. I mean he's an NFL QB and he's better than 99.5% of the guys to ever play the QB slot, but holy hell does he suck in the NFL." That type of stuff.
you guys wrote a lot and very quickly and i don't really have the will to read all that discussion right now. so just re this post that's a huge simplification. European soccer is a maize. La Liga it's not like NFL at all. Barca transcends La Liga. The measuring stick for Barca is not La Liga teams. It's of course Real, and it's also Man U, and Bayern, Arsenal, etc etc. While the measuring stick for Packers are Colts and such. there's plenty of brand competition in soccer, brand up and downs and brand parity over time. Multiple strong brands don't hurt a sport. it promotes the sport. that's why ECL is so popular. if you really want to make Packers experience more Barca-like, you wouldn't want to remove the cap. You would make Packers beat up a few college teams in between NFL games. That's the Barca experience. "Glamorous teams" need multiple other glamorous teams to attract fans. Barca needs regular battles with Manchesters and Milans to stay relevant. Cosmos needs Transatlantic Cups. etc. ?? of course it's in local language. i feel like you missed something but I'm not sure what. ok, but that's not your point. your point is that bandwagon fans will quit the sport after their bandwagon team stops winning. i'm a bandwagon fan re NBA, and i just jump on another bandwagon. isn't that what bandwagon fans do? all countries have sports events that people can attend on regular basis, sports that kids play and become fans of, and that get shown on TV. that's the competition for American sports product, and it's in every market. I don't see why you are arguing this. It seems obvious. Just don't restrict yourself with preconceived notions of "league" and "team sports". NFL has no competitive advantage over ping pong just because it's played by more people. well of course not "on a global scale". global scale comes with popularity of the sport.
Bayern will be favorites against any team in the CL knockout stages (apart from Real and Barca). Those are the teams likely to win the CL this season according to betfair: Barcelona 2.64 Real Madrid 4 Bayern München 6.4 Chelsea 17 Arsenal 28 AC Mailand 28 Inter 32 Napoli 46 Benfica 70
I don't have the stats to say either way, but unless those players moving to the NBA saw a spike in domestic interest, it seems unlikely to have been that much of a driver. It would be a bit like suggesting MLS got a boost in interest when Brad Friedel left Columbus to play for Liverpool. I agree, but the week in week out support is in the national leagues, not the champions league, so those "big 12" soccer teams are always in contention, winning far more than they lose. I think if there was ever a euro league, and it didn't have parity measures, that 12 would be whittled down to 4 or 5 in terms of worldwide support, as the rest of those 12 slipped into "mediocrity". I think a lot of top clubs know that their worldwide fanbases rely on them being regarded as a "big fish", and it's easier to achieve that in comparatively smaller pools. Indeed. I don't think people anywhere see it any different. Even when Derby had their 11 point embarrassment of a season, people still knew they had immense talent compared to most playing the game in England. Nobody from overseas would have been impressed by Derby being in England's top 20 though. Amazed, perhaps, but not impressed.
When the Barcelona fans abroad watch every weekend, they are watching La Liga, so La Liga really is the yardstick and the main competition. Teams become glamorous by having big crowds and winning a lot, while playing in a strong competition, which is what the top leagues are. The champions league is a higher level competition, but the tops sides don't really play each other often enough. Even if the top 8 seeds all qualified in top sport, they wouldn't play each other until the quarter finals. the suggestion seemed to be that unlike a film that would need to be dubbed etc, football would be fine because it's in English. Sometimes, but if you aren't that hooked on the sport, which you might not be if you only got into the sport at the end of the previous season, you might just lose interest. The sheer number of games played in the NBA, MLB and NHL also makes individual games less meaningful, and fans who have to make an effort to watch games might be less inclined to do so. I disagree. Team sports have a supporting culture that just doesn't exist for individual sports. My point is more that clubs regarded as "storied teams" in the USA won't have the same aura overseas. Somebody in England might have heard of the Green Bay Packers and the New York Jets, but would have little idea which one is "bigger", or even if either is regarded as big in the same way that Liverpool are a big english club.
Agreed, provided that those "smaller" pools are limited to the largest leagues in Europe. Again, I think a case can be made that smaller domestic leagues -- Eredivisie, SPL, et. al. -- no longer provide sufficient revenue potential to sustain a "big 12" club. The days of Ajax or Celtic ever joining that group of 12 are gone IMO. With the exception of Roma, which you yourself questioned and has fallen off in the revenue chase, your list of the "dirty 12" is really the Deloitte Money League: Here is the list again (all amounts in Euros): 1. Real Madrid 438.6 2. Barcelona 398.1 3. Manchester United 349.8 4. Bayern Munich 323.0 5. Arsenal 274.1 6. Chelsea 255.9 7. Milan 235.8 8. Liverpool 225.3 9. Internazionale 224.8 10. Juventus 205.0 11. Manchester City 152.8 12. Tottenham Hotspur 146.3 13. Hamburg 146.2 14. Lyon 146.1 15. Marseille 141.1 16. Schalke 139.8 17. Atlético de Madrid 124.5 18. Roma 122.7 Man City's revenues are growing so quickly, I think next year we'll see a hard separation between the top 11 and the next 11 -- Spurs downward. Younger posters may not know it, but this group has really pulled away from the others only over the last two decades or so. I'm dating myself, but when I did a year at University in England both Chelsea and Cambridge United were in the old Second Division. In fact, only a couple years earlier both had finished on 40 points in a decidedly mid-table effort. The world has changed. Most of the big clubs pursued a similar path. They distinguished themselves domestically and in Europe, and they were located in larger (typically industrial) cities in larger European countries. They used that success to increase their stadium capacity and revenue. They used that added revenue to buy players and cement their position, especially after Bosman. That cache made them valuable on television, and television made them global. That global position has transformed the Champions League into a pot of gold that feeds them even more revenue. Even so, in most cases, I think these clubs have grown "organically." They were good, they were in big cities and they could generate revenue that allowed them to buy even better. Of the 12 -- really 11 in my book -- only Chelsea and Man City followed a different route. Neither were small clubs, but they've microwaved their way into this group IMO, using huge amounts of a patron's cash to accelerate their progression. For MLS the more interesting question, I think, is whether this might simply be the natural evolution of clubs. In other words, are the rules used by MLS simply trying to force a state of parity that can only be artificially maintained through redistribution and hobbling? I think so. That works in a mature league like the NFL, but I'm far less certain it will work for a developing league. Yes, the mature NFL has similar policies to MLS that make it possible for teams like Green Bay, Jacksonville and Indianapolis to compete with New York and Chicago, but it wasn't always so. I've mentioned it earlier, but Craig Coenen makes a convincing case in his book "From Sandlots to the Super Bowl" that the NFL intentionally purged itself of it's small market teams during the late 1920s and 1930s in order to focus on the 15 largest cities in the United States. The early NFL felt only the biggest markets could ultimately sustain major league teams and it didn't want its resources "wasted" in small markets. Only after the small market teams were gone did the NFL adopt policies like the player draft, which small market teams had lobbied for years earlier. But the NFL was convinced that small market teams couldn't survive in the professional era, and the league adopted policies to hasten their demise. (BTW, the Packers survived by reluctantly agreeing to play half of their games in Milwaukee, which was then one of the 15 largest cities and, the NFL assumed, ultimately the Packers permanent home). So, I look at the Rich List, and for the most part I see clubs that freedom of competition and market size has rewarded. There's a reason Chapman's Arsenal is on the list, while Chapman's Huddersfield Town is not. Size matters, which brings us back to your point. These "bandwagon" international fans may be important generators of revenue, but teams can cultivate them only because of the domestic base they have established. Sadly, clubs like Rapid Wein, Ajax or Celtic simply don't have a sufficient domestic platform to reach any higher for these worldwide fans.
I agree, although limited observational evidence suggests that you still have a sizeable support for Celtic in the far east for some reason. Not on the scale of the others by any means though. Of those dozen or so, the support for Liverpool is quite remarkable considering they are normally only on the fringes. True, but the 2nd tier always has a mix of big teams in hard times and small overachievers. More telling perhaps is that prior to their first PL title, they'd not really had a serious title challenge, let alone a win, for 25 years. Appointed in the mid 1980s, SAF was lucky to still be in a job by the early 90s. I think what MLS is doing is fine, and culling and small market teams now wouldn't really help. Is there, at the moment, that much of a correlation between market size and crowd levels?
I wasn't advocating contracting them, but I do think MLS has adopted policies that potentially limit growth of bigger market teams (at least those who would spend their resources) in order to keep small market teams competitive where the potential for growth is inherently more limited. It's a frequent point made by advocates of parity -- unless my team has a chance to win, people won't attend. There may be truth to that, but MLS may be in some markets where even if the teams are good the financial upside will be limited by their markets. Let's take Columbus. What's the difference in attendance between a very good Crew team and a wretched one? Plus or minus a couple thousand people per game? It's probably less than $1 million. But what do those policies cost a team in a market like New York? More than is gained in Columbus, I suspect. Add in the value of potential free national media that's also lost when big markets languish, and I think it may be a big number. Again, I'm not suggesting MLS kick out anyone, but there is a cost to parity too IMO -- when a league restricts a big market team from spending, I think it's harder for that team to grow an audience. In effect, those additional fans that show up in the small market stadium thanks to parity come at a cost of slower growth in bigger markets -- growth in bigger media markets that may raise the league's profile faster. Perhaps that's less of a concern in an established league where every club is wealthy, but for a league that's growing and still establishing itself, I think it's an issue to keep in mind. The Premier League has capitalized on the popularity of its huge clubs to generate enormous revenues for the other 14 clubs as well -- more than they could have dreamed of otherwise IMO. MLS seeks to level its big clubs off before it can really capitalize on them.
no, all this time i've been talking about how it's harder re sports not easier.. you are ignoring how important all these battles with Man U, Bayern, both Milan teams, Arsenal, Chelsea etc have been for Barca's brand. Barca is Barca because La Liga is in Europe. It's one of the elite teams in the world, it shows it on regular basis, and that's Barca's carrot. Not beating up Almeria and Betis. The environment where Barca's brand grew up has a lot of rivals and parity at the top. if you remove parity in American major leagues, and have 2-3 teams winning 90% of titles for decades, you aren't recreating Barca experience. You are removing half the big, most watched games and you aren't replacing them like Barca replaces them with ECL. La Liga did not get popular by being in a vacuum. It shares similarities with both American pro leagues and NCAA conferences. For La Liga, it makes a lot of sense to have 2-3 giants the size of half the league. It makes sense to have a team or teams that will beat EPL, Serie A, Bundesliga teams in direct matchups and increase prestige of the league. It makes sense to have teams that can afford Zidane or Ronaldo or Kaka who will shine in World Cups and attract fans. La Liga operates within a bigger soccer ecosystem with direct competitors. For NFL etc, it makes no sense. They are made up of the best teams in the world. an example of what ECL can do for your brand. they need to send some cakes to Chelsea, Barca and Milan, because Liverpool will ride those couple runs for another decade. i agree. well, few in England even know what the NFL stands for. we would be asking clueless people. in a similar way, if we asked American non-soccer-fans about Liverpool, would it really be regarded as "big english club" or rather just "a soccer club" (if they even knew it)? I mean, no one knows "small English clubs". Certainly not the group of people we are talking about. If we are lucky, they might know some of Man U, Barca, Juventus, Real, Arsenal, Inter, Bayern, AC, Spurs, Porto, Chelsea, Real, City etc. Well, and maybe Everton because of the American connection. Swanseas and Betis don't come into equation. But Jets aren't Swansea, they are still one of the top teams in their sport, there's plenty of room for building international brand --- if people in England had enough room for American football in their minds.
and re this, is this really how it works? if you are bandwagon, and especially a new "1 year old" casual fan, i think you aren't diehard by definition. you aren't too attached to a brand. if there's a fun team (re NBA specifically), i pay more attention to that team. right now i watch a ton of Wolves because they are extremely fun and on the verge of winning, even though I'm still kind of on Dallas bandwagon. but if you enjoy the game, you'll stay with the game. if not, you'll go. and generally, competitive games are the enjoyable ones. so killing off parity and competitiveness of a typical game like you suggest --- that just seems extremely counter productive to me. idk, maybe I'm just special. but i think i'm a pretty typical NBA bandwagon fan.
then I've no idea what the following comment meant then... They are certainly important for the brand, but it's still La Liga that those fans watch every weekend. It's there that they are seen as giants, and it's being giants that sustains support in the "lean" years. I do believe if you had the best supported NFL clubs, from the biggest cities, playing in the biggest stadiums, and they were the most successful teams, they'd be the ones overseas fans would gravitate towards. They wouldn't give a toss about parity. They'd be happy seeing their teams win, albeit there is something far more entertaining about watching a 6-0 win than watching a one-sided NFL game. I don't think any league set out to try and create dominant clubs. I do think the leagues know what side their bread is buttered though in terms of having those big clubs create overseas appeal, and leagues seem to be going out of their way to very generously reward those successful clubs. UEFA, after all, pay champions league clubs a "market pool" payment based on the tv revenue each country brings in. Sparta Prague get peanuts, while the clubs from the larger leagues get many millions. I'm not suggesting they go down that route. For a start, even in england the domestic tv revenue still outstrips by far the global revenue. The domestic tv revenue for the NFL is so large that it would be almost suicidal to change the league structure to attract overseas fans. funnily enough the NFL was quite popular in the mid 1980s. With football at a real low ebb, falling crowds, crowd trouble, disasters at Heysel and Bradford with two weeks of each other, the game looked to be falling off a cliff. This new brash and breezy import on Channel 4 was a different world, and some even asked half-seriously if sports fans could take to that instead, rather than the dying game in england. I wouldn't say they are regarded as a small team, or anything like that, but the parity does result in teams being a much of a muchness. When there are no "big" clubs, that's sort of inevitable.
it was sarcasm. you asked why Euro soccer TV product didn't need to be rebuilt for US market (local broadcast crews, etc). so i said that it's in English. or wasn't that your question? i may have misunderstood your question then. anyway, i'm off for now. i don't think i'll respond to the rest of that post, we are kind of going in circles now.
basketball was more popular in ex-yugoslavia back in the 80-s than today. by quite a big margin i would say. it became something of a folk-sport, not quite on the level of football, but still very popular. now it's pretty much disappeared from the public and just the serios fans follow it. amazingly enough, basketball is about as equally unpopular in germany as it was before nowitzki. maybe he has inspired some growth in nba fandom, but that is a very small following. fc bayern's involvement in basketball has probably done more for basketball popularity in germany in 4 months than nowitzki's career. can't notice any rise of basketball in spain. there was always a decent amount of interest in basketball there and a strong league. real madrid were signing petrovic and sabonis back in the 80s. it's just that they are now also producing very good players.
but removing the cap would probably kill them in america. i think there's a lot of truth in what richard is saying about salary caps making it difficult to build brands overseas. and not just salary caps. it's the whole set up of american sports that is unappealing to european sports fans. the biggest problem is that the teams are not individual organizations whose priority is winning. they are all working together in order to make the maximum amount of money as a whole, and make up rules in order to achieve that. it all seems fake and not worth investing yourself in it emotionally.
Not just overseas -- it makes it more difficult to build an audience domestically too IMO. As for caps being essential to these leagues, keep in mind that every major professional league operating in the United States achieved that status prior to the salary cap era. Yes, player movement was restricted through some form of a "reserve clause" that bound players to their teams and allowed teams to control payroll costs, but when teams sought to establish themselves they spent and spent heavily. The NFL wasn't profitable for decades. Prior to the merger, the AFL abandoned it's frugal ways under Lamar Hunt and spent heavily under Al Davis. MLB clubs have long been free to spend more than their rivals. We focus too much on salary caps to foster competition IMO. All a cap does is restrict payroll spending for a certain portion of a roster -- 18 to 20 players in the case of MLS. It's a number. Set the cap number too high or riddle it with exceptions so it's beyond the means of most teams to fund and it doesn't do anything for competitiveness. Funding the salaries contemplated by that cap -- really making sure that teams have the ability to pay those players -- is critical, and that requires revenue sharing. The EPL doesn't have a cap, true, but the league does share it's TV riches more equitably and generously than most. Here's a link to last year's division: http://www.sportingintelligence.com...gue-prize-and-tv-payments-for-2010-11-240503/ It's worth noting that the foreign TV money is distributed in equal shares -- 17.9m. While Richard's correct that the domestic money still represents the lion's share of the cash, if you look at the teams closer to the bottom of the table their share of the money is much closer to 50/50 foreign and domestic. And the foreign money is where the growth is. You can see what the EPL is doing. They are using their big name clubs to drive brand recognition abroad and they are cashing in on that with huge new foreign TV deals, but all the clubs are getting an equal share of that money. They are managing to get the growth, but they share the bounty. Far from being a "problem", it's the most marketable league in the world. It's not just a cap issue, it's a cap and revenue sharing issue. To me, that's what MLS should be looking at. I would like MLS to consider allowing more spending for those that wish to, but I would like the league to step up the revenue sharing as they do, extending sharing to rapidly growing revenue streams. Criticize the EPL all you want, but the fact is that they are equally sharing one of their most rapidly expanding revenue streams. By contrast, the real jump in MLS revenue over the last three years is coming from shirt sponsors, stadium naming rights deals and now local TV, and that isn't shared or is minimally shared from the league that boasts it is a "single entity". How much are we talking about? Well, LA reportedly has annually received $7m (in cash and kind) for stadium naming rights, $4-5m from Herbalife and, now, they'll get $5.5m from local TV. But for a one time fee of a few hundred thousand paid to the league when the Herbalife deal was signed, LA keeps it all. If Portland's projections and the old Forbes numbers are accurate, LA is getting more revenue from these three sources than most MLS teams get from all sources, including their SUM distribution. In short, I'd like to see the scales tip to "let the teams spend it on players, but make them share growing revenues with the other teams." MLS now is "don't make them share it with other teams, but don't let them spend it on players." That policy is restricting brand development and growth IMO.