[pc4th]

These numbers are a bit skewed by the Galaxy road game to Chivas. However, there are other effects not taken into consideration like package sales. I remember back in 2007, DC, NE and NY sold the Beckham as part of a package with other games. In order to get the best seats at the Beckham game, you need to buy 2-3 other games also. These teams are not the only one that do this. Let's assume the effect of these package sales cancel out the effect of the road game to Chivas.


2007 Beckham effect:

Road Games: 28,035
League Ave: 16,770
Difference: 11,265
Incremental revenue generated: 11,265 x 15 road games x $30 average ticket price = $5,069,250
Parking/Concession/Merchandise: assume 1/4 of attendance revenue = $1,267,312

Total effect for MLS as a whole (minus the Galaxy): $6,336,562

2008 Beckham effect:

Road Games: 28,132
League Ave: 16,460
Difference: 11672
Incremental revenue generated: 11,672 x 15 road games x $30 average ticket price = $5,252,400
Parking/Concession/Merchandise: assume 1/4 of attendance revenue = $1,305,600

Total effect for MLS as a whole (minus the Galaxy): $6,558,000

2009 Beckham effect (NY 23,238 on a Thursday, NE 26,623 on a Saturday, Chicago 20,000 on a Wednesday....too bad no Galaxy road game at Seattle....wouldn't be surprised to see 60,000+ at Qwest Field.)

Road Games: 18,823
League Ave: 15,899

--------------------------
There are two types of DP in term of road draw. One is marketing DP like Beckham and to certain extend Blanco that benefit the whole league. The other is a none-marketing DP like Angel, Scheletto, Ljungberg, Emilio, Landin, Denilson, Gallardo, Lopez and Reyna.

$6,336,562 in 2007 and $6,558,000 in 2008 in incremental Revenue generated from Galaxy road games tell us that MLS as a whole benefit from the marketing DP. That's why I am confident that MLS owners will renew the DP Rule when it expires at the end of this year.
Other marketing DPs that might come to MLS near the end of their career (say 32+ in age) in the next 10 years are Ronaldinho, Henry, Cristiano Ronaldo, Kaka, Messi, Ribery, Torres, Rooney. (not sure if Lampard, Gerrard, Ballack, Robinho, Benzama, Tevez would draw well). Zidane would have been a good marketing DP.

Anyway, if every teams benefit from a marketing DP like Beckham (and to some extend Blanco) should MLS follow the A-league example and exempt the DP salary from the salary cap? Maybe even allow teams to trade the DP slot for cash (say at minimum $500,000 a year)? Teams will be more willing to trade the DP slot for cash compare to trading the DP slot for player. Two DP slot trades in MLS history: Amado Guevara (2007) to Chivas USA and Christian Gómez (2008) to Colorado.

Australia's A-league version of Designated Player Rule:

In order to combat fears that the salary cap would reduce the capacity of the clubs to attract crowds through big-name players, the league allows each team to have one "marquee" player, whose salary is exempt from the salary cap, and is quite well-paid.

For the 2008-09 season, A-League clubs are able to have a Junior Marquee player who is under the age of 23. The Junior Marquee's wages can be subsidised with $AU 150,000 outside the salary cap.

[lkgf09]

But where's the poll?

[bunge]

Originally Posted by pc4th

Anyway, if every teams benefit from a marketing DP like Beckham (and to some extend Blanco) should MLS follow the A-league example and exempt the DP salary from the salary cap? Maybe even allow teams to trade the DP slot for cash (say at minimum $500,000 a year)? Teams will be more willing to trade the DP slot for cash compare to trading the DP slot for player. Two DP slot trades in MLS history: Amado Guevara (2007) to Chivas USA and Christian Gómez (2008) to Colorado.

I definitely think a team's DP slot should NOT count against the cap. This will help encourage using the DP slot and increasing the talent level of the league.

I also think a DP slot when traded should have to include salary cap space, not just cash. The reason being that a team like Toronto wouldn't sit on a DP slot if they could use it for a marquee player OR get an extra ~$400K in cap space. Not using the slot would be a severe detriment to a club.

[PhillyMLS]

Originally Posted by bunge

I definitely think a team's DP slot should NOT count against the cap. This will help encourage using the DP slot and increasing the talent level of the league.

I also think a DP slot when traded should have to include salary cap space, not just cash. The reason being that a team like Toronto wouldn't sit on a DP slot if they could use it for a marquee player OR get an extra ~$400K in cap space. Not using the slot would be a severe detriment to a club.

Personally i'd like them to do away with the limited number of league wide slots. I would like the DP salaries to be exempt from the cap but your cap number is tied to the number of DPs you have on your team.

Assuming the cap jumps up next year it could look something like this. If you have zero or one DP you have a cap of 3.5 mil. Two DPs would bring your cap down to 3.3 mil, three would bring you down to 3 mil, and 4 would bring you down to 2.5 mil. In theory you are charging for the DP but it doesn't get charged to the league at all. It also allows teams that want several DP players can have them without having to give up cash or players to another team for that privelage. You also penalize a team for not using at least one DP so you would foster the use of the existing DP slots.

[woodlands]

Great research. Beckham has so far proven to be the only DP who has ever raised revenue like that. And that's why MLS intelligently created the DP rule for him. And that's why the DP rule needs to be used very cautiously.

There's a difference between a really good player...and a really big celebrity who sells tickets like a rock concert.

[Stan Collins]

Originally Posted by bunge

I definitely think a team's DP slot should NOT count against the cap.

That would lead to what we call 'market distortion'--teams signing DPs that would have nowhere near Beckham's impact in the stands, or Schelotto's on the field, solely because they wouldn't count against the cap. In fact, a bunch of teams would probably just take their best current player, pay him $1 out of pocket and 'designate' him.

This will help encourage using the DP slot and increasing the talent level of the league.

This is what I call the "lawmakers' fallacy" (because lawmakers fall into it all the time)--when you make a new rule trying to get people to do something they don't want to do, they don't just modify their behavior like so; instead, they usually work around and use loopholes to violate the spirit of what you were trying to do.

And for good reason, too. A 'free DP' sounds like a win-win, but it's really a lose-lose for a lot of the league's smaller clubs. They know their bigger opponents will use tend to use all their slots. So if the small clubs don't use a DP, it ends up being like a big neon announcement that "we can't compete." Even the fans that know their team can't financially compete don't like it to be that obvious, as suspension of disbelief is important in entertainment.

But if they do use a DP, they're using it for something less that what the big clubs will use it for. Further, there aren't many guys famous enough to really sell tickets, and "smaller clubs" in MLS are usually smaller not because they are in smaller markets necessarily, but because they are in markets with fewer soccer fans, meaning that there are even fewer guys who'd sell tickets in those towns. So unless they do the $1 thing, they probably won't use DPs, they'll probably trade them instead and get that sign hung over their heads, while the opposing team goes out and signs stars with it, adding to the embarrassment.

Remember, so far no one has ever traded their DP slot for a guy who actually became a star for the other team (the only two attempts were for Chivas's DP to RBNY who eventually became Reyna, and Colorado trading theirs to DC for the one that eventually became Gallardo, neither of which worked out for the receiving team). If anyone ever trades theirs away for the guy who turns out to be a perennial MVP candidate, they're going to get raked over the coals for that for years. And by changing the rule you'd be helping that happen by allowing teams to put better players around their DP than they'd have if they didn't sign one (that's right, better, because you now have a lock starter that doesn't count for any cap room at all).

It would be simple enough to eliminate the 'cap penalty' for Designated Players (the amount above the normal max cap you have to use to sign one) which stands at about $75k (max cap guys count 325k, primary DPs count 400k). That's not a huge difference, but it is a disincentive (and by design, too) towards signing them. (To put it in practical terms, right now that 75k for any given team is the difference between having one extra starter-type salary on the one hand, or having a senior minimum guy on the other).

If the league decides it wants to end the disincentive, it will cut that 75k out of the DP's salary figure. If they decide they want a mild but not arm-twisting incentive, what they could do is just count the DP for whatever last year's average starter earned.

I also think a DP slot when traded should have to include salary cap space, not just cash. The reason being that a team like Toronto wouldn't sit on a DP slot if they could use it for a marquee player OR get an extra ~$400K in cap space. Not using the slot would be a severe detriment to a club.

The problem there is TFC are trying to win. That's a good thing, but the problem with DPs is that it is, in fact, more efficient in winning games to replace four guys in their lineup with guys who earn $100k more than it is to spend $1 million on one guy. So now they're likely to do the former.

[Eliezar]

Originally Posted by Stan Collins

That would lead to what we call 'market distortion'--teams signing DPs that would have nowhere near Beckham's impact in the stands, or Schelotto's on the field, solely because they wouldn't count against the cap. In fact, a bunch of teams would probably just take their best current player, pay him $1 out of pocket and 'designate' him.

I've said this like 300 times, I've always wondered why nobody else ever mentioned it. Every team takes their most expensive player and gives him a DP contract if you make DPs just a bonus player. It would be idiocy not to.

[bunge]

Originally Posted by Eliezar

I've said this like 300 times, I've always wondered why nobody else ever mentioned it. Every team takes their most expensive player and gives him a DP contract if you make DPs just a bonus player. It would be idiocy not to.

Obviously you have to account for that possibility and I'm sure you and Stan could come up with the same ideas I have to avoid it.

There's no way to force bad owners/GMs or organizations to be good. That's not the point. The point is to give more flexibility to a system that is currently somewhat rigid. If a DP slot is worth a "free" player OR max salary worth of cap space, more DP slots would be used.

Some clubs want to use the DP to bring in big names and star players. Other clubs would want to trade the DP and utilize more cap space to create a deeper team, the "working class" mentality. A slight tweaking of the system would allow different clubs to create the identity they want to differentiate themselves from other clubs.

For example, LA, Seattle and NY all want to sign a number of big names while Philly, Portland and Chivas will all want to build deep clubs. There you go. There's now a mechanism for these clubs to build their identities as they see fit without making the league go bust.

We get pretty damn good value out of a ~$2M cap but I don't think a $3M, $4M or even $5M cap is going to alter the quality of the average player enough to 'move the needle' in the world market. We'll probably have to wait until we've got at least a ~$10M cap before that happens.

In the meantime, MLS has made some goofy rules to try and keep from being considered a third tier league. That's good. Let's hope we can continue to improve how we bridge the cap between the current cap and the next level of salary cap.

[RerunStubs]

Originally Posted by Eliezar

I've said this like 300 times, I've always wondered why nobody else ever mentioned it. Every team takes their most expensive player and gives him a DP contract if you make DPs just a bonus player. It would be idiocy not to.

Perhaps I'm missing something but what's the problem with this? It would give each team that much more money to spend on other players. Is the idea that it would disincentivize signing a new, fancy DP? If so, how? You'd just have to find room under the cap to push your current DP back under it - but under the current rules, you have to find room under the cap for $415,000 worth of your new DP's salary anyway.

[Eliezar]

Originally Posted by RerunStubs

Perhaps I'm missing something but what's the problem with this? It would give each team that much more money to spend on other players. Is the idea that it would disincentivize signing a new, fancy DP? If so, how? You'd just have to find room under the cap to push your current DP back under it - but under the current rules, you have to find room under the cap for $415,000 worth of your new DP's salary anyway.

Its the exact same thing as increasing the salary cap by $400k.