Will MLS have a $4.5 million salary cap in 5 years time?

If you spend $50K/player at the bottom of your roster, you got a "depth", if not quality, of 10 for $500K or so. That means, assuming the single DP is off the books or even absent, you have a $4.5M to spend on ~ 15 players or $300K per player for your most probable rotation. $300K/player is roughly double of what an average MLS starter makes today and should give an individual advantage in ~ 7-10 positions per teams.

That should make for a better squad, everything else being equal.

 

If the TV ratings stays the same as today the answer is a big fat NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.

 

Well, they could always do what baseball does with ttheir cap and make it a soft cap, any team over X amount has to pay X% to the league to be distributed, this way your LA, NY,and Seattle's of the world get to spend more and we get our "super" clubs.

 

I believe that #6 is no longer true. I think in 2012 they waive the 3rd DP buy in.

Also MLS does not have to set aside 19M a year in allocation to be able to pay for an expansion of allocation funds, they need to create a new revenue stream. Right now I think the first 200k of a shirt sponsorship goes to MLS, the league could open up a secondary shirt sponsorship (back/sleeve/shirts) and send that money directly into the teams allocation budget. The league could find a naming sponsor "Allstate MLS" or whatever and send that cash directly into the allocation budget for teams to spend beyond the cap budget.

The problem here is that allocation is not linear, we didn't have this rule or system in place a decade ago....its evolving. So your stance is that there is no way that in 5 years, MLS could continue to evolve this mechanisms...that it will remain exactly what it is today. My stance is that you could be correct but you may be wrong. Allocation and 'off budget' roster spots are mechanisms in which MLS can spend well beyond the cap if they choose. If MLS chooses to be more agressive in their spending these are the systems they will use, and it is quite possible they could use them. I would never say that I have inside knowledge and that I know what MLS will do, but I am just suggesting that with the current system MLS has, they can spend well beyond the cap if they decide to.

 

The fee is waived if the third DP is 23 years old or younger:

2012 Roster Rules and Regulations

 

need to start getting 500 million dollar tv deals. wont happen till we have more teams.

 

I don't understand the logic of more teams = more national TV money. How will adding a team in Minnesota significantly increase viewership of a mid season LA @ NY match up.

More teams probably will increase viewership when it comes to All-star games, and perhaps even MLS cup, but it won't translate to noticeably higher regular season ratings.

When the NHL expanded in the 90's, national TV audiences shrank. They replaced a few big market national TV matchups with smaller market games and the numbers took a dive.

 

400 million to revenue of 3 billion....

 

I guess the thinking is that more people involved (Minnesota, Atlanta) the more people will care about the league and tune in to watch random MLS games.


Not sure if that works very much, I am a season ticket holder for the FIRE and watch their away games (at home or at a bar) but outside the CCL and US Open cup I do not really watch that many MLS games not involving the FIRE, I assume most fans are like that (minus watching CCL and US Open Cup).

 

More markets means revenue increases. ads going into 32 markets is always going to be worth more than just 19 markets.

ALWAYS. thats how tv revenue is powerful. this is why EPL is working to be shown in every country in the world for more tv revenue.

 

Right, but for TV revenue to increase, one of two things needs to happen.

1.) more markets/teams lead to more nationally televised games...or
2.) additional fans tune into out of market games

Why would either of those things happen? Why would NBCSN or ESPN increase the number of games they show because there are more markets? Unless the hypothetical expansion teams draw huge ratings, going from 19 to 24 (or more) teams won't cause the networks to increase the number of events they show.

Then there's the ratings. Why would ratings increase? You'd be lucky to get 5,000 more eyes on TVs per new team for out of market games. 90+% of the fans that watch national games are fans of the two teams involved. Adding a team in Orlando won't significantly increase ratings for DC@NY.

 

doesnt matter...its about MORE markets seeing your product. not more face per game. but more markets overall.

 

Actually, yeah it does matter.

The 14-20K in attendance and the other 5-10K watching on TV in Minnesota aren't going to do diddly shit for the MLS TV revenues.

 

You might get more money from the Adidas deal and league sponsorships, but "more markets seeing your product" isn't going to increase TV revenue. Higher ratings or more games on TV will increase your TV revenue.

If you had a 24 team league, MLS would have higher revenue. Unfortunately, that revenue would be be shared by a greater number of teams. You would need to pay more referees, more players, more FOs. Ultimately, I would argue (if you want to get into specifics) that you'd end up with slightly less revenue per team.

 

No TV have to pay more because more markets (different faces not necesarrily a ton MORE but DIFFERENT faces) will watch the games....thats different households dollars. Thats worth more in ad revenue to tv so the deal is negociated for more.

this shouldnt be that hard to explain.

DIFFERENT households.

not the same households over and over.

 

That's not how TV ad revenue works. The advertisers pay based on viewership. They don't care if you take away a NY-DC game and add a Orlando-Minnesota game, they're looking at demographics (mostly sex, age, and ethnicity) and total viewers.

Like I said, the league sponsors might be willing to pay more, but the networks aren't going to see a huge uptick in revenue. Ultimately, you're going to be spreading that small increase in revenue around to more teams.

 

Only if you are the worst negociators in the world. You are dead wrong.

NHL saw a MASSIVE uptick in revenue. 100 million worth. You dont think MLS wants 100 million in revenue.

I cant believe MLS wants to remain mediocre. thankfully Don is not you and he WILL increase this and WILL expand and WILL build the league. THANK GOD.

 

^ What does that have to do with the price of rice in China ?

 

False. 100% false.

 

Also false.

 

What is the sum of current MLS TV contracts? Does anyone have that handy?

 

Would be nice. As it is though, I really think with the DP's and whatever, they are spending a lot more than just 4 million. If anything I think they should rework or rethink the DP and/or grandfathered rules because they really aren't the same or fair for all the clubs. I mean you had Marquez and Henry making 4 or 5 million a piece but then everyone else is making anywhere from $50-150k. I'm sure the salary cap is there for a reason but to spend 9 or 10 mil on two players in the same team at the expense of other players and clubs in what is supposed to be a single entity league and where the initial concept was to have competition remain on the pitch and not in a highly paid expensive has been, really makes no sense to me. Wouldn't it be better if clubs were allowed to spend 10 mil on 4 or 5 different younger no name players as opposed to spending all that money on two over 33/34's? I'd think so.