Eric Stover, the GM of the Red Bulls, had a Q&A with the ESC at Nevada Smith's last night. Lots of interesting stuff came out, but on a leaguewide basis, I think these are the two fun moments: 1) "Work-stoppages are terrible in any sport, but I think both sides know that it would be devastating for us, and discussions so far about the CBA have reflected that. Both sides want this to work." 2) "This CBA will change the face of the league forever. Given the current economic conditions, a salary cap of $10 million is out of the question. But we're (meaning RBNY) part of a group that wants to push it close to $5 million. Others want less, but either way it'll be significantly higher than it is now." So there's some grist for the mill. Enjoy.
Good news to many ears. It sounds like "significantly higher either way" means, "close to $5M" or maybe in the $3.3-$4M range. That's exactly what we've been debating ad nauseum all winter (and for many moons before) and it's nice to hear the higher-ups have been debating the same thing.
even an increase to $3.5 million would result in a drastic change. the quality of foreign imports would greatly increase and the kids on the lower end of the roster would see a significant raise. i totally understand the apprehension towards a big jump, especially in this economy ($5 million is unrealistic right now)... but a compromise in the middle seems reasonable.
that shows you how dicey these individual team business plans are, that an extra $1M per team, per year is going to ruin the everyone's budgets. at least that's what Kraft, Kroenke and Hunt are telling us. nevermind that they can all afford it. as many point out, that has absolutely nothing to do with the issue at hand. the men are not idiots, we know that much. i'm just starting to come around on the fact that these gentlemen have all done the research and put immense thought into the issue of whether an increased salary cap would go toward a better product on the field would go toward bigger gates would go towart a healthier bottom line, etc etc (you get the drift). i can only assume they've researched this. because if they haven't then they're just being lazy and cheap (and I hope that's not the case). again ... they are the rich, successful businessmen, so far be it from me to question their acumen. but the overwhelming consensus on BS seems to be that raising the salary cap a full $1M-$2M from where it is now would greatly improve the MLS product (and in turn, the owner's franchise values and bottom lines) in the long run. it seems like a slam dunk to me. but again, i'm the peasant compared to these guys .... so obviously there's a lot that they know that i don't know.
I think what they are also trying to avoid, is runaway salary inflation. Prices and salaries only go up, especially in pro-sports. If you start paying one guy $500,000 a year, it means that soon you will have to pay more guys that. If you increase the salary cap to $5 million it means that you will eventually have to increase it to $10 million. MLS will eventually have salary budgets around the $10 million mark and even higher. Its inevitable. The conservatives just want to get there slower than some of the others.
yeah and you can look to the NHL for reasons why not to do that. the NHL's meteoric salary inflation from 1993 to 2003 was even more ridiculous than a hypothetical MLS one in that the NHL's happened for no good (logical) reason. ok, it happened for a reason, but not as good as why MLS would do it (i'll explain later). Here's a good summary of the NHL's past financial pitfalls: Amid canceled season, NHL faces financial meltdown -- article from 2005 Certainly guys like Kraft, Kroenke and Hunt do their homework. They saw what nearly killed the NHL and they want to do everything they can to avoid those (and other) pitfalls. But honestly, stuff like that is just so mind-boggling stupid, I don't even think MLS should pay it any mind. Or that much mind, rather. NHL owners had absolutely no financial warrant to pay what they were paying for players. And what's worse, NHL didn't have any foreign competitors, so all this idiocy was based on the premise of competing with themselves. Yes, I know there are big European leagues now, but most are not truly peers/competitors, and they certainly weren't in 1993. MLS's salary inflation would not be done out of some sort of wild arms race to compete to win the MLS Cup. we're decades away from that. MLS is just trying to make itself legitimate, in it's own country's eyes and to a lesser extent, in the world's eyes. and you have to spend money to do that. there's still a unity to MLS, in that everyone remains committed to growing the league. i see the biggest competition as MLS vs. MFL or Ligue 1 etc, not DC United vs. Chicago Fire in a race to win more Cups. Plenty of reasons that a healthy salary inflation would be smart for MLS, but was clearly idiotic for the NHL: -- MLS is still growing it's fanbase -- NHL's attendance at that time (in terms of % of arena capacity) was pretty steady. -- MLS is seeking to import better players to the league -- NHL already had its pick of the world's best IN league. so IOW you can't say that the NHL increased its salaries in an effort to get better players, it already had the best players. -- MLS is looking to increase TV ratings, it needs better players to do that -- again, NHL already had all the top players so it's tough to make that same argument For MLS, the $$$ conservation has saved the league. it's been very savvy. but i think at some point the owners have to be wary of the difference between smart conservation and a needless paranoia of contrived, unrealistic pitfalls. the latter could seriously stunt growth.
I'm not sure why the cheaper owners would mind the $5M cap if there was nothing forcing them to spend that much. Kraft already doesn't spend to the cap and doesn't seem to care a thing about the few dozen hardcore fans that know it. And, in the same way the cheaper owners benefitted from Beckham and Blanco bringing more fans to their stadiums, they could continue to benefit from teams like LAG and RBNY spending the full $5M (plus DP, of course) and bringing in more talented players that in turn boost attendance league-wide. "Parity" can't continue to mean that the league is only as strong as its weakest (i.e., cheapest) link.
$5 million a year. 5 guys in your lineup averaging $500k, with the remaining starters averaging $250k leaves $1 million for your bench and reserves. You could put together a pretty damn good team in this hemisphere w/ that kind of money. While not feasible, I think that league would be fun to watch.
If anyone thinks this stuff has been discussed to death here and hasn't been atthe ownership level, they're stupid. Of course they talk about these things.
It really boils down to where the owner thinks that growth will come from... if they think that they can succeed by marketing to youth groups, they are not going to spend. Essentially they are marketing a local "super youth team"... 3 quality (but unknown) South American imports who can really improve the quality on the field will not bring more youth teams to the stadium any more (and maybe less) than a couple of local college products... However, the sleeping giant in US soccer is the mass of hard core professional soccer fans that drive up champions league ratings and ratings for quality televised soccer... ESPN is seeing that and seems to want to increase their investment there rather than the local product... the key is to show a willingness to increase quality to draw a modest fraction of these hard core fans to an improving product... I think many in this group gave MLS a try in the beginning, but passed on it when they realized that "what you see is what you get" (you could argue that the number of real quality players has decreased from the first year)... I fear that stagnation in the league will be seen by television broadcasters as a major failure and that we will reenter the era of MLS being a paid infomercial while the champions league and premiership will be the soccer product seen on national TV... which would be a massive blow... The tension amongst MLS IOs is what the league really wants to be when it grows up... and I believe that the stagnation that is assured by an overly conservative approach is a recipe for disaster...
Furthermore, this would be the kind of team that could compete on the field with foreign clubs (at least in this hemisphere) in meaningful competitions (where, face it, current MLS clubs really haven't shown an ability to compete)...
with 5 million, foreign players will jump at the chance of playing here in the U.S I can imagine lots of well-known and recognized internationals wanting to play in the MLS at a younger age then now. This would not only bolster the leagues rep, but improve play and team attendance, marketing...etc Of course, a 3.5 mil cap seems logical at the moment
That is certainly the argument that the more progressive owners are trying to make. The problem is that inflation means that all prices rise, and so it means that if Colorado is paying a guy like Mastroeni $500,000 a year, then a guy like Shalrie Joseph is going to want that, or more, or close to it. Right now MLS has found a comfortable little groove where they can low ball really good players, save money, and keep costs down. They don't want that to go away, yet. I think once all the teams are in stadiums and on solid financial ground, you will see some the the hesitation go away. I don't think Hunt, Kroenke, and Kraft are as cheap as they are trying to be wise. I don't agree with it, personally, I think that brining in some more financail resources to the salary cap could only help. But in theory they already did this two years ago with the DP rule.
You are assuming that the "mass of hard core professional soccer fans" will automatically follow MLS if high quality players are signed. I respectfully disagree. Do you think hard core Santos or Cruz Azul fans will abandon their old teams and start buying season tickets and MLS merchandise because a few better players are signed? We Philly fans have the best perspective on this situation. Many of us were "hardcore" DCU and NY fans before our team announcement. It is wrenching to switch allegiances even when the quality levels are the same. Many prospective Philly fans don't even want to switch and who can blame them. So switching "hard core" fans is a lot more difficult than many posters imagine. Unless you want a top world 25 best team with the accompanying $60/seat ticket prices. I'd rather the league spend millions on youth programs than major boosts to the salary. And personally I have no respect for the "hard core" soccer fan who'd rather watch some second-string South American player than watch a kid who grew up a mile away.
Not necessarily. The pool of players that MLS could afford w/ a $5 million salary cap is much larger and more talanted than the pool of players they can offord under the current cap. In other words, Mastroeni and Joseph are competing against better players for that $500k salary spot.
Any increase should also: 1) Include either a resurrection of the developmental league/roster (or at least an expansion of the Dev. Roster) AND 2) A bump in the MIN salary. This 18k-30k stuff means young players go to USL. I think the developmental/feeder league and prom/relegation things have to be resolved for soccer in the US to really blossom. Yes, I think we should eventually have prom/rel, but its going to be in 20-30 years.
in theory. just because MLS is paying bigger salaries (in 2010), that doesn't mean that more players will automatically flock to the US shores. club soccer in the US is a risky enterprise for many players (especially young up-and-comers or anyone really hoping for a NT career). the draw of European clubs (even those that might not be able to match the MLS salaries of the future) would/could still be enough to limit the "pool of players" that MLS could attract. now, this is not to say that increased salaries and a bigger cap for MLS teams is a bad thing in any way, but I do think there's a bit of over-excitement here at what a potential doubling of the cap could do for MLS. it will certainly help, and in the long run it is a good thing. but in the global marketplace, MLS will still be a very low option on the totem pole for players -- be they Maurice Edu, Troy Perkins, Juan Toja or David Beckham.
I don't know if they would "jump" at coming, but one obstacle would be gone. A lot of guys would still want to be in Europe to have a chance to play in the CL and get bonus money from that or to appear more serious to their national team coach. Money is only one stigma MLS has going for it. I'm as huge a supporter of the league as you'll find, but just raising the salary cap won't make everything all better. It's a great step, but the league is still a work in progress and many fans need to remember that pateince is the key as things develop.
I don't know. I believe a competent scout could head to South America with $2.5 million and come back with 5 players a hell of a lot better than Shalrie Joseph and Pablo Mastroeni.
Not sure about bumping the salary cap to attract foreign players but I believe it NEEDS to be bumped to keep the kids who sign straight to European lower leagues instead of coming to MLS. These are the kids MLS needs to buy low and develop and sell high. Also as pointed out above the DEV rosters need to be reimplemented as before.