Will a League Two style Wage Cap work for Major League Soccer?

Wouldn't that vastly increase the amount that would need to spent on salary? Perhaps so much that some owners might lose interest?

 

No, the current approach is better. Tying spending to individual revenues is a financial security measure, not a competitive one.

 

The answer is, only if you exempt DPs. Given that the DPs are the mechanism by which MLS (indirectly) lets the big boys eat from the grownup menu, and this suggestion also works in favor of the rich clubs, I'd say it's highly unlikely.

 

Vevo5/PC4th put you up to this didn't he ?

 

Doesn't this just lead to a feedback loop, where the team who has the most direct revenue can pay more for players and will then get more direct revenue, which will let them spend more on players....

 

does he still post? He was a bit of a mentalist.

I remember at one stage taking to posting irrelevant pictures of biscuits every time he responded with an irrelevant reply to having the flaws in his logic being pointed out.


Still, on with the topic, or not as seems to be the case.

 

Yes.

 

If MLS follows the 40% salary cap on club revenue, the DP Rule will ceased to exist. The DP Rule is another "enforced parity" mechanism that only marginally improve the quality of play. This post by Super does a good job explaining why the DP Ruling doesn't make sense for MLS.



I think my main beef with the MLS is the DP rule. It made sense when Beckham came out. But now it's just stupid. Again, the fact that Seattle could get themselves 8 $1 mil players instead of Dempsey is shocking. Imagine how good that Seattle team would be? A hell of a lot better than it is today, that's for sure. Same cost. Think about that. It's hard to justify the existence of such a system. When speaking to Europeans it is usually what they are the most shocked by. It's very Mickey Mouse to them. To me, the fact that Garber and Co. would prefer bringing in "stars" instead of greatly improving the league is seriously lacking in judgement. People aren't going to watch the MLS because Dempsey is playing. Maybe the first few games. But it's the quality of play that brings the masses to the game. Smaller clubs will survive. Just like in ANY other league.

Let's stop trying to save the weak teams/markets by holding back the teams that could truly be GREAT in the international community (imagine Seattle, LA, New York, Toronto in the CCL if we had $20 mil teams - spread out on 11 players.. We'd truly be a frightening class of teams). Also, it's the big clubs that win their leagues respect. Not the average teams, or the parity of whatever. That's boring. People want the drama. The show. The big stars. The upsets when the little teams beat the big teams. ALL of this doesn't exist in the MLS. Let's get rid of the salary cap, put in place "don't spend beyond your means" rules in the league - and let's grow this league

==================================

So how long do we hold back bigger clubs while we wait for Columbus to grow? They were averaging 14k attendance the year they won the league. Then 14k the year after. No difference AT ALL. That's the potential in that market. Maybe a little bit higher, but not much. So my question is: how long do we wait for them to become financially competitive to where we can allow other teams to live up to their potential?

That's my point here. If we're waiting for the likes of Chivas and Columbus to grow, we'll be waiting a LONG time. Also, these markets are so weak that they can't handle a year or two of not winning. They have to win all the time to go anywhere. Columbus recorded their worst attendance numbers EVER in 2011 - 12k average. Meanwhile the league and bigger markets are held back in a very serious way. It's insanity! And it's anti-football.

Imagine a 100 meter race with 10 guys, 6 of which go under 10 sec, 2 go under 12, and 2 go at about 20 seconds. For the sake of parity we strap 100 pounds to the backs of the fastest guys - and the result is a race with 10 guys running 100 meters at 20 seconds. There's a new winner almost every race. No one of them MUCH better, and no one MUCH worse. See what I mean? That's the MLS. It's madness - and everyone outside of the league can see it. We choose not to get the BEST possible football on the pitch. That's what I mean by madness!

 

Yes..well said.

and it's just common sense to me. Do you want quality or not? I already know what the answer to this is going to be from some people. "Why change MLS if its working now? The league plan is slow steady growth and that's working" and "I'd rather have a league than not have a league." That last one is the most bizarre to me. Somehow people think that if you replaced the salary cap with the League 2 rule that it would cause the bankruptcy of the league. Seriously guys? What do you think will happen? Columbus and RSL will just say they don't want to play anymore? There's something called the MLS Cup and even with Seattle, LA , NY etc fielding quality sides you will still have the smaller clubs qualifying and winning it. Taking away this salary cap that is designed to make the quality worse all in the name of parity and you will actually improve the quality of the whole league.

 

Seattle fan?

If you really want a free market, forget the 60% rule. Many MLS teams have never made money (so they say), only two have gone out of business and the complicated revenue sharing devices via SUM make it much harder to define what the "revenue" is than a League 2 side.

You want it, you'll have to go all in.

Ignoring for the moment that it will never, ever happen, I am continually surprised that fans are quick to add Seattle to the list of would be uber spenders.

Recall Wahl's fine article about the Dempsey signing:

"Needless to say, the numbers were enormous for MLS and for our organization," said Hanauer, who did not provide specifics on the contract numbers. "Joe was fantastic. He is a no-guts, no-glory kind of guy. So he jumped to the point where he was all-in quicker than I did. From a playing standpoint it was a no-brainer, but it's a lot of money. 35 percent of it is Joe's, 32.5 percent is mine. We're partners, so it was a huge decision for us." Roth and Hanauer also got buy-in from their other partners, the comedian Drew Carey and Peter McLoughlin, the CEO of Vulcan Sports and Entertainment (representing Paul Allen).

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/soccer/news/20130805/clint-dempsey-seattle-sounders-mls/#ixzz2dAsKQA7e

And, if reports are accurate, they didn't just use their own money -- MLS picked up the transfer fee. So much for the big spenders.

There's a reason that the big revenue teams in U.S. sports are almost always in big, big markets. Those are the markets that have revenue streams that can best justify and pay for expensive players. If no limit existed, do you really think Dempsey wouldn't be in LA right now? Wealthy as they are by mere mortal standards, do you really think Roth and Hanauer can compete financially with AEG, RB or the sovereign wealth of NYCFC that have teams in the country's largest markets?

And after LA, RBNY and NYCFC have taken every star they can get, Sounders fans will still come to the games even if they are getting throttled by these other teams, right? No dip in attendance? Even when the crummy teams (and there will be more crummy teams) come to town?

Sure they will.

I'm not sure if you are all Seattle fans, but since the Sounders have a huge revenue advantage over other teams in attendance, Seattle fans seem particularly fond of changing to a percentage cap based on that revenue. (For selfless reasons, I'm sure.) My advice is to be careful what you wish for. That advantage can and will be overcome because the big money is in the big markets -- media and sponsorships. Pull the top five franchises in any Forbes list and show me where Seattle or Portland or Salt Lake City supports any of them. Need more proof? Seattle just drew a huge crowd even by NFL standards in what was a great moment for them and the league and, basically, big media east of the Mississippi yawned.

People forget that one of the attendance stars of the early AFL was Buffalo. How's that working out for them today?

The rules aren't holding Seattle back. The rules just made LA make a choice between Omar Gonzalez and Clint Dempsey and had the league cough up the transfer fee for Seattle to complete the deal for good measure.

They may be holding LA and the NY teams back.

And that may not be so bad.

 

How is allowing clubs with the most potential to grow to their full potential a bad thing?

Holding back the two New York and the two Los Angeles clubs back "may not be so bad"?

Maybe the Dutch League should hold back Ajax, PSV and Feyenoord or the Portuguese League should hold back Porto, Benfica and Sporting so the poorer clubs in these two leagues could catch up too?

 

This is not a winnable discussion for either side since it's not a situation that has a Right Answer.

If you love the idea of superclubs and want to see, say, New York and LA challenging Barcelona and Manchester United for global soccer supremacy, then you are willing to cast aside 90% of the teams in MLS who, after all, exist only to give the superclubs a league to play in while they're waiting for the next season's Club World Cup to start.

If you despise the idea of superclubs and think leagues with a preordained oligarchy of winning teams are boring, then you want to see rules in place that enforce parity. You don't really care whether these rules prevent any MLS teams from vying for global supremacy because you're more interested in what's happening in your league than you are in the Club World Cup.

There isn't a lot of middle ground to be had here.

 

@Kingston is right. There really isn't a middle ground.

Oh, and I am unashamedly in the latter camp. Parity for all!

 

the point i and others are trying to make is that removing the salary cap wouldn't lead to super clubs anyway. It would just lead to better teams, higher quality, more balanced rosters, and more intrigue because of the David and Goliath factor. And I think we've provided evidence for it (that the playoffs themselves inject enough parity into the league).

Such a system would benefit all clubs because more people would tune in to watch the league which would mean a better TV contract, and more money going to smaller clubs.

 

Full disclosure: I am in the parity camp.

You can't argue that removing the salary cap wouldn't result in super clubs and then claim that one of the advantages of removing the cap is the intrigue of David and Goliath games.

Any extra TV money would go to the super clubs as well as the smaller clubs. It would lift all the clubs by the same amount and would therefore do nothing to actually help the smaller clubs keep up with the super clubs.

 

Well how do we define super clubs? I'm saying it wouldn't create a scenario where the same teams are winning the MLS Cup every year. It also wouldn't create a scenario where the richest clubs would be getting international superstars in their prime. That's kind of my criteria for a Super Club.

So it wouldn't create super clubs but we would have clubs that are the equivalent of the Yankees, Dodgers, Red Sox etc. Clubs that spend more, have deeper rosters, have better quality etc. But that doesn't mean these clubs would win the MLS Cup every season. We would have the David vs Goliath match-ups and David would win enough to make it very interesting.

And it would lift the quality. And the smaller clubs would be able to sign comparable players to the top clubs. The reason is even though the top clubs would have more money to spend, the type of players available to them wouldn't be light years ahead of the players available to RSL and SKC etc.

Even in this system the best clubs are going to be the clubs that develop the best players. Even LA and Seattle will be losing players to Europe. And if they have a lot of internationals on their team they will be losing them to Int duty.

The MLS Cup playoffs inject all the parity we need into the league.

 

How would it not? How would Columbus or Salt Lake keep pace with New York or LA? Or, more importantly, even if a mid-table team did get hot and steal the Cup, how would it prevent the top three or four spots from belonging to the big teams?

I disagree. Let's say Columbus has annual revenues of $5 million and LA of $20 million. Now we'll give each team an extra $1 million in TV money. This does nothing to help close the gap.

Parity is not the chance for a mid-table team to sneak into the playoffs and go on a run at the right time. Parity is teams not being effectively out of the running by game 10 of a 34 game schedule.

I'm not advocating perfect parity where no team ever has a great or terrible year. I am, however, arguing against a system that will condemn most clubs to obscurity in perpetuity so that three or four clubs can shine on the international stage.

 

Cup's are not always won by the best team. Instead its the team that is playing the best on that particular day.

Since the year 2002 the following teams have won the Copa Del Rey: Zaragoza, Deportivo La Curuna, Espanyol, Mallorca, Betis, Valencia, and Sevilla (twice). Real Madrid has won it only once. Barcelona twice.

And you will find similar results throughout Europe. Wigan won the FA Cup last season. Portsmouth just a few seasons ago. Millwall, West Ham, Cardiff City, Stoke City, and Southampton have all made FA Cup Finals since 2002.

This argument that just because Seattle and LA will have higher payrolls means they will win the MLS Cup more often is not backed up by evidence.

Columbus actually have revenues of $14.6 million. LAG $45 million. Yeah, TV money is a pittance of MLS revenues because unfortunately very few soccer fans in the US watch MLS.

Columbus will have less to spend on players. Welcome to the real world of football. The good news for Columbus is that 10 teams qualify for MLS Cup. If they get in then they have just as much chance to be Champions than any other side.

And like I said before, the type of players available to LAG aren't going to be light years ahead of players on Columbus. It's still going to be aging euro players on the downside of their careers. And its still going to be the clubs that develop the best players will win the most trophies.

http://shinguardian.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/mls-2013-team-values.png

With 10 teams qualifying for MLS cup how many would be out of the running by game 10? Probably zero.And again, it wouldn't condemn any clubs to obscurity.

You haven't made a very good case that the league must weaken its quality because to not do so just wouldn't be fair. And we haven't even gotten into how having three players on high wages and the rest of the team on peanuts will make MLS an attractive league for players. Or how the current salary restrictions harm our national side.

The MLS Cup playoffs is a parity mechanism by itself. And its all we need. Surely the argument to weaken the league needs to rest on something more than its just not fair that Seattle (a club with massive support) has more money to spend on wages.

 

The point you always miss is that MLS now has an obligation -- moral and financial -- to the owners, fans and taxpayers in all of these markets. MLS took their money based on certain rules that provided those markets a level playing field.

It's a little late now for a change of heart.

 

Don't we have that now? LA, NY and Seattle have significantly higher payrolls than other teams. They are simply limited in the number of people they spend it on.

That's what bothers you, I take it.

You're arguing that limiting the payroll spending on the other players on the roster weakens the teams and reduces the quality on the rosters, and I'll concede that's true. Lift the cap and any team with money can buy a much better roster than anything currently offered in MLS.

But when the rubber hits the road, you lack conviction. You also go to great pains to say even if the cap was lifted the type of players available to LAG or other big spenders isn't going to be light years different than Columbus.

So why would the teams spend a lot more money on those players if they are only marginally better?

 

So MLS can't adapt and change as any successful businesses should do because it has a moral obligation to parity?

I don't remember MLS being obligated to ensure parity in their stadium agreement with local communities. I'm sure MLB doesn't.

The simple truth is that MLS needs TV money to take the next step. By allowing clubs with promising potential to grow to their fullest potential, MLS might get there. Holding clubs back from growing is the wrong business decision.

And MLS have these parity mechanisms that help the "little guys" that small clubs in other soccer leagues would love to have:

100% equal revenue sharing of national TV revenue
100% equal revenue sharing of national sponsorship revenue
30% equal revenue sharing of ticket revenue

10 teams playoff






http://sonofthebronx.blogspot.com/2013/08/mlb-network-golf-channel-nbc-sports_23.html

NBCSN TV viewership:

Liverpool vs. Stoke City (Sat. 7:38AM- 9:43AM): 287k
Arsenal vs. Aston Villa (Sat. 9:57AM-12:02PM): 450k
NY Red Bulls vs. Philadelphia Union (Sat. 8:00PM-10:30PM): 110k
Crystal Palace vs. Tottenham (Sun. 8:28AM-10:27AM): 238k
Chelsea vs. Hull City (Sun. 10:57AM- 1:00PM): 443k




Stats collected by MLSFan123

=========================

MLS 2013 TV Ratings Summary

Home teams listed first. All times are Eastern

NBC Sports Network (all ratings for 2.5 hour window unless specified)
Game 0: 95k (RSL vs SEA) Saturday 7:30pm 2/23/2013*
Game 1: 107k (HOU vs DC). Saturday 8:00pm. 3/2/2013
Game 2: 79k (CHI vs NE) Saturday 7:30pm 3/9/2013
Game 3: 82k (KC vs CHI) Saturday 3:00pm 3/16/2013
Game 4: 209k (SEA vs POR) Saturday 8:00pm 3/16/2013
Game 5: 97k (DC vs COLU) Saturday 3:30pm 3/23/2013
Game 6: 100k (NY vs PHI) Saturday 3:30pm 3/30/2013
Game 7: 41k (COLO vs RSL) Saturday 7:30pm 4/6/2013
Game 8: 86k (DAL vs LA) Saturday 3:30pm 4/13/2013
Game 9: 108k (POR vs SJ) Sunday 10:30pm 4/14/2013
Game 10: 58k (LA vs KC) Saturday 10:30pm 4/21/2013
Game 11: 53k (MON vs CHI) Saturday 4:00pm 4/27/2013
Game 12: 122k (COL vs NY) Saturday 4:00pm 5/4/2013
Game 13: 51k (CHI vs PHI) Saturday 1:30pm 5/11/2013
Game 14: 80k (KC vs HOU) Sunday 3:30pm 5/26/2013
Game 15: 96k (NE vs LA) Sunday 4:00pm 6/2/2013
Game 16: 149k (SEA vs VAN) Saturday 10:30pm 6/8/2013
Game 17: 133k (POR vs COLO) Sunday 7:00pm 6/23/2013
Game 18: 123k (PHI vs DAL) Saturday 5:30pm 6/29/2013
Game 19: 173k (VAN vs SEA) Saturday 11:00pm 7/6/2013
Game 20: 126k (POR vs LA) Saturday 11:00pm 7/13/2013
Game 21: 94k (HOU vs CHI) Saturday 8:00pm 7/27/2013
Game 22: 83k (KC vs NY) Saturday 6:30pm 8/3/2013
Game 23: 58k (PHI vs DC) Saturday 8:00pm 8/10/2013
* This was the Preseason Diamond Cup final.


ESPN2 (all ratings are for a 2.5 hour window unless specified)
Game 1: 221k (POR vs NY) Sunday 7:30pm 3/3/2013
Game 2: 179k (SJ vs NY) Sunday 10:00pm 3/10/2013
Game 3: 108k (DAL vs HOU) Sunday 1:00pm 3/17/2013
Game 4: 157k (CHI vs NY) Sunday 5:00pm 4/7/2013
Game 5: 170k (DC vs PHI) Sunday 5:00pm 4/21/2013
Game 6: 145k (LA vs HOU) Sunday 11:00pm 5/5/2013
Game 7: 250k (LA vs NY) Sunday 1:00pm 5/19/2013*
Game 8: 191k (LA vs SEA) Sunday 11:00pm 5/26/2013
Game 9: 393k (NY vs HOU) Sunday 2:00pm 6/30/2013**
Game 10: 138k (COLO vs LA) Saturday 7:00pm 7/27/2013***
All-Star Game: 319k (MLS vs Roma) Wednesday 7:00pm 7/31/2013
Game 11: 184k (DAL vs LA) Sunday 8:00pm 8/11/2013
*Window was 128 minutes
**Window was only 80 minutes due to Confed Cup game running long
***Window was 126 minutes

ESPN
Game 1: 262k (POR vs DAL) Saturday 5:00pm 6/15/2013
Game 2: 323k (PHI vs NY) Sunday 5:00pm 6/23/2013
Game 3: 331k (CHI vs KC) Sunday 3:00pm 7/7/2013


NBC
Game 1: (NY vs DC) Saturday 12:30pm 3/16/2013
Over Night: .7
Final: .3, 461k

all credit to MLSFan123

 

the 3 mil cap +3 DP's is a farcical wage structure. You can't field a good team when you give the majority of your wage budget to three players.

Yes, even if the cap was lifted you wouldn't all of a sudden see world class stars come to MLS. It's just not going to happen. So, I never said teams would spend more money on players that are only marginally better. All players will get their market value and clubs like Seattle, LA, NY, etc will be able to sign more players of higher quality. To this, you are saying that is bad because the quality on these teams would be too high and its not fair to the other teams.

So you want a league with parity and except it will be lower quality. But even when you are presented with evidence that Cup tournaments(how MLS decides its champion) are not won by the richest or best teams on a consistent basis, you still cling to your fairness argument. Is that conviction?

 

Your evidence that wealthy teams don't win knock out tournaments is flimsy. You cite the FA Cup, a tournament that has vastly diminishing importance (where Chelsea and Man City have still won five of the last seven between them), ignoring the role wealth plays in the most important tournament of all -- the Champions League. What's more, closer to home, even with the restrictions in MLS LA has done very well in making MLS Cup Finals with their higher payroll. I'm sure they'd fancy their chances even more with more quality throughout their roster.

But the real fallacy is that you believe this spending is critical to increase quality, yet it won't make them world class.

Why not?

This isn't the same argument as it was even a year ago. MLS not only has rich owners, now it has owners with sovereign wealth. Owners who have already demonstrated they are capable of spending over a billion dollars on a soccer club in a short period of time.

Unchecked, the market is ruthlessly effective at attracting players to people willing to pay more. People said Man City and PSG wouldn't attract world class quality players either, yet they did and do.

Do you really think NYCFC would be troubled spending $100m a year on payroll? For a world class team in a world class city, that's not outrageous. In fact, compared to the investment they've made at Man City, it's cheap. And unlike today's MLS, they can promise to surround these players with others of high quality -- as much as they can buy with their 8 international slots and a U.S. International or two.

The world has changed. Which is why, while I once made arguments very similar to your own, I now believe there have to be tighter controls and limits on spending, not because of fears these big spending teams will fail financially, but because with sovereign wealth they can spend huge amounts of money with no concern of ever running out of cash.

But, I confess, my dark side secretly hopes MLS might let them, if only to see the reaction when a couple world class teams blow Seattle into the sound, and MLS insists they Sounders next time pay their own transfer fees in a futile attempt to compete with them.