Roger Martinez reportedly coming to MLS but not necessarily Miami now. I wonder who holds his discovery rights. https://t.co/r541X7b6tc— MLS Moves (@MLSMoves) January 8, 2020 apparently the move to Genoa fell through and Martínez may be headed to MLS after all.
There's a rumor that Columbus and Portland (and Lazio) are interested in Dynamo Kyiv winger Carlos de Pena.
HAHAHAHAHHA the guy sucks... is not just bad, it is mind boggling someone still consider him a professional player. One of the most reviled players in recent Atletico Nacional History. Whitecaps are doomed if this pans out.
Vancouver and FCD are reportedly writing up a proposal to "encourage" teams to use one of their DP spots for a young DP and "discourage" teams from using all three slots for veteran DPs. I don't actually have an Athletic subscription, so basing the previous sentence entirely on what I've seen on twitter so far. https://theathletic.com/1520302/2020/01/08/
These cheap owners are the ones keeping the league from growing. MLS already has a lot of restrictions to add even more so teams like Vancouver can catch up.
If an ownership group is trying to penny ante the operation, at least have the quiet dignity of living with yourself and stop trying to bind the league to your limitations.
They can just join CPL instead if money is becoming an issue for them. And the other US based owners can sell to owners who are willing to keep up with MLS instead of bringing it down.
I was unaware that MLS wasn't growing. And what kind of restrictions are you talking about? I haven't read that article. Current rules already encourage teams to sign younger DPs. They also allow teams who sell players to retain the majority of any transfer fees collected due to the sale (depends on how long they've been with the team). Homegrown player rules similarly encourage teams to invest in youth development systems. None of these rules require clubs to act in a certain way. If what's being proposed is more about encouragement than requirement, I don't see what the problem would be.
What was discussed was quite a bit more stringent and limiting. In essence if a team did not use one of its DPs on someone under the age of 23, their third DP would HAVE to earn less than $1 mln over the DO threshold, which would have been about $1.5 mln in 2019. That is equal to the max TAM deal. Such a rule would’ve precluded TFC, for example, from having three DPs like Giovinvo, Altidore and Bradley on the team at the same time. Sure, it will encourage sales. It was also limit spending and in some situations would force sales. According to the Athletic, it was largely being pushed by lesser spending clubs like Vancouver and Dallas to, at least in part, further limit what teams like TFC, LAG, and Atlanta can spend.
Well, this is going to put to bed once and for all the idea that a small group of cheap owners is holding the league back. If this goes into effect its clearly a majority of owners that want the slow path, not a minority. If it doesn't then the cheap owners aren't holding anything back.
Sorry, I don't agree with the assessment of "cheap owners". The model of MLS has always been to at least try to be a league where the teams aren't necessarily money pits. The league is supposed to be, unlike the original NASL, financially viable (or at least not economically disastrous) for the teams. Now if the only way that they can actually compete with teams like Atlanta and LAFC and the Galaxy is to spend 15 to 20 million dollars a year above the salary cap then I can see them being a little annoyed about that. I get that the fans think that teams should just be able to spend what they want and the other teams should just get in line. But if you entered into a business operation expecting one thing, well, you sort of expect that is how the business will be run. If suddenly you are told by new investors "screw your plans we are doing it this way and you just better spend money" that is going to be a bit annoying. Again, I know why fans think differently but you sort of need to understand that the owners have a different goal (supposedly). A fan's idea is "best the league can be and damn the expense". The owner's idea has been the "best the league can be while still being fiscally responsible as a whole". So what I think the issue that the league is grappling with is trying to find a way that teams can be competitive without having to blow wads of money. Younger players as DPs sort of makes sense in that matter. One, teams can sort of all get somewhat comparable players. Yes, some teams can pay more for certain players. So Miami, LAFC, Atlanta, etc can spend 10+ million dollars on transfer fees that other teams might not. However, the difference between younger "project" players is always going to be smaller than prime year players. So LAFC having Vela and two younger players is less of a competitive advantage than, say, TFC with Pozuelo, Altidore, and Bruma (PSV player they are rumored to be after that would cost 15 million or so just in transfer fee). Part of the other issue is that certain places are just better at getting the high end prime or just past prime players. It doesn't matter how much money RSL has they aren't going to sign Bale, Modric, Neymar, or Greizmann. And while it is less likely you'd see them all on the same team at the same time you can still see a team like the Galaxy having several of them if given the chance. Secondly, younger DPs will allow teams to, hopefully, generate revenue league wide. MLS is, unlike other leagues, still a very cooperative league between teams. Players like Bale or Modric are good short term needle movers and the league still will need some of those, but the league as a whole is better off if teams bring in younger DPs that can be sold on. Firstly, because ever team benefits a little since the league gets a cut (and you can complain about that all you want but that goes back to the league being a cooperative of teams and not just every man for themselves) but also because it helps all other teams attract better players that can then be sold on. Going back to RSL as an example, the Galaxy bringing in Bale doesn't help them bring in an 8 or 10 million dollar in the prime player. The Galaxy bringing in a highly rated Argentine youth and selling him on though? That opens doors for RSL to spend 8 million in total on a young player that they couldn't before because that player will know that the league can get them to the next level of their career. We have sort of seen that start to happen already with players like Chacon to Minnesota. But really making teams go down that route can probably do more to create league wide revenue and improve play than letting a select few teams sign players that no one else can really afford without going outside of the budget that they have. Now I know why people disagree with what I say and part of me wishes that every team would just spend money and expense be damned. However, I'm fine with the league trying to be one that all teams can be competitive and still be fiscally responsible. It is no fun as a fan of a single team to watch other teams blow mine out of the water just because I happen to be a fan of a team that doesn't have tons of money to blow for no reason. As a fan of the league I want teams to be able to be competitive without the fear of going out of business because their owner decides that they need to spend too much just to be competitive. If I wanted either of those I'd choose teams in other soccer leagues around the world to watch. I'm fine with MLS being the best it can be while still being relatively competitive from top to bottom and it not just being about what team can spend the most. Others will disagree and that is fine. But it should never be looked at because teams are being cheap when the model is always been about being fiscally responsible.
Really well reasoned post. I agree that generally the league needs to go younger. However, there are already pretty significant benefits for signer young DPs (far lower budget hit) and costs for going older (teams have to pay for the third slot) that effectively add a pretty big tax. That said you made some great points. I would say, that if the league truly wanted to encourage certain behaviors like signing young DPs, investing in academies, signing homegrowns, playing young domestic players more and selling talent on I would prefer they increase the benefits for that behavior with rewards/freedom vs forcing it through rules. For example, the league could increase the GAM awarded when a sale occurs. That could provide the same pathway to competitiveness for teams like Dallas, NYRB and Vancouver who become adept at it. For example, if instead of a hard cap on GAM of $750K received on a transfer a team instead rec’d maybe 50% of any transfer fee up to a much higher amount of GAM (like say $5 mln) that could prove to be a huge equalizer and would probably better encourage the type of behavior that the league says it wants to see. It could also better reward teams that are truly well run. I mean, if for example, NYRB sold Aaron Long for $4 mln and received $2.0 mln in allocation funds instead of a hard cap of $750K they would probably be more apt to sell and could likely turn those funds into a better overall squad. As it is right now, they probably just break even competitively @ least. Anyway, I’d rather give teams on the lower end of the wage spectrum more pathways to raise their spending than put more roadblocks in place for bigger spenders.
If developing of players for profit is the endgame then why not just add a rule where all teams need to play with an U21 domestic player at all times for a certain amount of minutes per season? That would help with development of domestic talent which can also be useful for profit instead of developing other foreign young players. With everyone having to play with a domestic U21 at all times that increase the chances of more parity. What they are suggesting is trying to keep teams from spending more. Not all teams are created equal or have the same goals. Not everyone is into the development of young players for profit.
Mexico tried this. It....didnt go well at all. Basically it ended up with teams having throw away games where all the youth players play to get the minimum minutes and was terrible to watch. Instead of spreading the minutes out over a season (you know...development) it all happened at once and sucked.
Yes. It is an absolutely criticial thing to understand that the owners' interests and the fans' interests are not synonymous. The next step is understanding that it is appropriate and essential for the fans to think about their interests and to work to advance them, rather than obsequiously parroting the ownership line out of some misguided sense of esteem or savvy associated with that viewpoint. Fans want ambition. Owners want cost control. The right direction is found through a healthy back and forth between the two. This is true. And they are fools not to see that allowing Atlanta and LAFC and whomever else to fly into the stratosphere is in everybody's financial interest. The owner interests and fan interests are aligned there, and the owners are just screwing it up.
I am listening. Once you get past the first few guys the commentary is honest, about finding third-stringers, backups, USL players, and the like.
Nice bit of work there by the Rapids FO. They wanted Kelly but Montreal took him 2 picks in front of the Rapids. So the Rapids traded their pick to Nashville for $75K in GAM, then turned around and traded that $75K of GAM to Montreal for Kelly. They essentially moved their draft pick up two spots at no expense.
I agree with your post but I'm personally against this aspect. The thing I enjoy about MLS over other football leagues is that there is some measure of competitiveness and unpredictability. I don't mind teams with ambition being given more room to spend, however I wouldn't want them to spend freely. Financial resources should be a strength, not a potentially insurmountable advantage. There's a balance to be had between being fiscally responsible and growing the quality of the league. While I'm against free-spending in MLS, I'm also against owners being prohibitively tight. There does come a point where if participation becomes too expensive for a minority of owners (either in terms of what they can afford, or what they are willing to spend), they always have the option of selling and moving on.
I think FCD and Vancouver are in different places with regards to the proposal................. When you combine all of their academy spending, FCD probably spends in the top 30% of MLS. [On top of their enormous domestic academy spending, FCD runs two professional teams in Mexico and two professional teams in Puerto Rico at the moment. One of their teams in Mexico, FCD Santiago, is in contention for promotion to the Mexican 3rd division this year. One of their academies, FC Dallas MX, supports over 1000 youngsters. Rumors are out there that they're about to acquire clubs in Bolivia and Colombia.] They're "all in" on clubs building thru academies and player development. Dan Hunt says his goal is to somebody start a team that's completely homegrown. So I think what FCD is saying here is clubs should be buying the young DP players and selling high like Atlanta just did with Almiron. But whatever. Its more of their view of what MLS' "business model" should be. The Hunt family's net worth is around 14 billion. They're the 16th richest family in America. They can outspend every club in the league if they want to. They don't think that's the right way to go. But whatever. They'll be outvoted........................