CBA Thread III: The sneakers don't seem that much cheaper

despite all of the problems it has? like SSFC and 32K season tickets? like TFC? like four new expansion franchises at 35M a pop in PHI, POR, VAN and likely MON? like ever increasing exposure on TV?

and yes. because more money spent on players not only helps get "better" players on the one hand. it allows for each team to have "more" players overall. thus allowing for a reserve squad and league. thus allowing for a transitional step between Youth Academies and 1st Team ... which improves not only the quality of the league but also the quality of the USMNT pool.

fans all over the country, in places like Seattle, Toronto, Portland, Philadelphia, Vancouver and Montreal are already becoming "sudden" fans of MLS or soon to be MLS teams. and while the circumstances around these new teams is unique it is not impossible for cities like LA, Salt Lake, Houston where MLS has a decent foothold to get to that level and for the other MLS cities to also whip up that sort of fan support and excitement. and the key and foundation of all of that happening, in the end, is better players and better teams and a better product. and it takes money, more money than the MLS is spending now, to do that. it does not mean "infinite" money, or foolishly spending more money than you can like many EPL bankrupt teams. there is some ground between the NY Cosmos and the hyper-incrementalist bullshit approach that has arguably served the MLS well to this point but is fast approaching a usefulness apogee.

 

I can't tell if you're ignorant or if you grew up under power lines, because I feel the exact opposite about MLS that you believe I do.

England/Scotland/Wales (all divisions) are out of the question for 80% of US citizen MLS players due to WP restrictions. End of story. Germany picks off 3-4 good US prospects a year, probably the best that don't have a WP work around. Since they don't have foreigner restrictions, if there were dozens of players of Bundesliga quality, they would have them, on the cheap as well. I would say the same for France, but they tend to be a bit more picky since they have A LOT of former colonial connections to pick and chose from.

The second Danny Califf lost his preferred tax status at mitjelldand or whatever, he made his way back home because the league wasn't going to pay him enough to live there because they could pay an EU citizen to do it cheaper. Lord knows it didn't improve him, not did it that PK machine that left San Jose, only to return.

To my knowledge, we don't have anyone playing in Finland (paging Dave Marino-Nachison)

Anything else you'd like to have kicked back in your mouth, Claude

 

I just wanted to chime in and say thank you for those contributing their honest opinions on this topic,. I’ll be the first to admit I have limited knowledge of the financial structure of MLS, but this thread has been very educational (doubly so after troll-removal). I especially appreciate those who have taken the time to provide links to the background information. I am new to these boards and MLS but have a vested interest in it (to the tune of about $1200 worth of Philly Union season tickets for this year). I hope the CBA issues are resovled, and soon, and to the overall betterment of the league for the long haul. So thanks again!

 

According to you it seems

just because a person doesn't know how to play, doesn't mean that his opinions are an overcompensation. you know?, judging by most team attendances, most people in america thinks that the MLS players doesn't hold a candle against players in other european leagues.

 

uh. only a moron would assume that having a higher salary cap would only result in individual current players getting paid individually more.

some current players would get paid more, some current players would be replaced by new better and more expensive players that come to the league and hopefully (and most importantly) each team would HAVE MORE PLAYERS overall, allowing for a reserve team and league which is integral for player/youth development to be successful. all of which would be how an increased salary cap would lead to an overall increase in the quality of the MLS product.

 

It's just a way for the league to pressure the Players Union. Now, if the Player's Union strikes, the public will more likely crucify the players and the league could easily go belly up.

 

are you even a fan of the MLS or are you just a contrarian MFer by nature? yes. some MLS teams suck on the field and in the stands. by all means then we should not seek to change that nor should we allow teams like SSFC or TFC who have been able to create unprecedented buzz and have shown a desire to raise the level of their team to new heights to do so. the mls is not the EPL or La Liga. we get it. right now it isn't even as good as the English Championship or Ligue 1 or FMF or Eredivise. but it could be with the right leadership and structure and investment. and it should be the goal. the fans of soccer in NA should expect nothing less. and yes, even if the MLS in 15 years gets to the English Championship level does not mean that Bubba-Joe Nascar fan who hates soccer and thinks it is "gay" or "european" is going to suddenly be a fan. Or that the MLS will supplant the NBA or NFL or MLB. but there are enough soccer fans and proto-soccer fans that a league of that quality would surely create and sustain a very healthy soccer fandom and culture. at least enough to rival that of hockey and the NHL.

 

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/soccerinsider/2010/02/mls_players_union_counters.html

 

Your are just talking about the lipstick, you fail at mentioning the pig.

Weird you always talk about the same teams/cities

You forget that most of those teams have the "new team smell", and their fanbases haven't endured 14 years of ineptitude, like for example, NYRB fans

You know?, those cities you allways mention have teams created with the hyper-incrementalist bullshit that arguably served the MLS well. and why the hell you say it is approaching the end of its usefulness?

 

Unlike you, at least I put the name of my MLS team below my name and avatar.

So, at the end this is not about the players, is about the owners making a better league. isn't it?. So ******** the players and their free agency we only need a better league and it is accomplished increasing their investment and not giving the players what they want.

 

You know, given the current economy, that sounds pretty damn good for any business.

 

that is weird. because a quick perusal of any number of sources (transfrmkt.co.uk or the BS yanks abroad thread or YA the website) show quite clearly that multiple american players are playing in Norway 1 & 2 and Sweden 1 & 2 and Denmark and N. Ireland and ENG 1, 2 and 3 and France 1 & 2 and GER 1, 2 and 3 and HOL 1 & 2 and POR 1 & 2 and Mexico 1 & 2, even some in Belgium, Austria, Cyprus, Thailand, Vietnam, Isarel, Japan, Argentina, Greece, Saudi Arabia, Switzerland, Poland, Croatia ... and yes, even Finland (Greg Eckhardt, Brian Pope and Brian Atunez Jr) need i go on?

some have other national ties some do not. look you think the MLS player suck and would be doomed without the MLS. i do not. let's end the discussion there shall we.

 

Adding 20% more jobs over 2 years doesn't suck, either.

 

It's just so dumb. I mean, they could have said that their offer locks in 5% wage increases and not counted the expansion teams and they wouldn't have gotten called out on it. Foose's "4.8% is less than the 5.9% we've been getting" would have looked an absolutely ridiculous retort--if only Abbott had had presented it as it is rather than something better.

 

uh. that is because i live in an MLS wasteland and do not have a local MLS team. therefore i am a fan of the "MLS" and not any particular team.

yes the goal is a better league. i would like to see the MLS become the equivalent of the English Championship in terms of quality. with some teams being bottom EPL quality on occasion (say SSFC) and the rest being mid to top level Championship quality. i think a 20 team MLS of that level of quality (with strong Youth Academies and Reserve league) is not unattainable in the next 10 years.

i only care about the players rights insofar as it makes the league a welcome place for a higher caliber player. if the reserve clause and low salary caps and small rosters and no reserve league prevents the teams from attracting a better quality foreign player pool and from developing better and better young North American players then i have a problem with that. and from all indications some these MLS structures are doing just that. i am not advocating chucking the whole paradigm overboard and starting a free for all spending orgy a la NASL but the MLS needs to move into the next phase of its development. the first 15 years the league necessarily crawled and is now beginning to finish that shaky learning to walk stage ... it needs to get into the walking fast and jogging phase leading to hopefully a nice brisk run at the end of 10 years.

 

In some ways I think with this statement the players either shot themselves in the foot or simply showed their real cards on the economic front. The league wants to slow the salary budget growth from 5.9% a year to 4.8% a year. The players come back and don't say they have an issue with that slowing in general, but only with the way the league is portraying it: it may be $35 million dollars in additional spending, but that's less than would be projected under current trends. (What's shady on the players union side is the assumption that current trends would hold, which I suspect is doubtful given the position of the league and the economy in general.) All the players are really saying here is don't bullshit us -- they're not actually saying they can't live with slower growth. And that's what Foose more or less says: it's "respect for some basic player rights, not economics, [that] is the real driving force behind the players' proposals." The difficulty here is that you can virtually always negotiate the money because the give and take is obvious. I think it's harder to negotiate about player rights because the give and take isn't so obvious. What can the players offer MLS in return for, say, some sort of free agency or for some other forms of player rights? It's pretty much a zero-sum game with those sorts of things, which is probably why this is continuing to drag on.

 

what is so hard to understand that the MLS is at a crossroads? it has one foot (some teams) that have been around for 15 years and struggled and needed the super restrictive MLS structure to get off the ground. the other foot are the "new" teams in SSFC/TFC and POR/VAN/MON/PHI that are/will showing that there is a ton of potential in the MLS.

it would be like saying "well without that beater first car i would never have learned how to drive well and get experience so as i can afford it i still won't buy a better car". that makes no sense. obviously the "new" success is built on what came before and some of the "old" teams, over that time, did not have all of the benefits the new teams do. but the next 15 years needs to be built on the foundation the "new" teams are creating, a foundation that can be followed by the "old" teams allowing them to be similarly successful.

why do i say it is coming to an end of it's usefulness. well in the exact same form i do ... because this ain't your grandpappy's MLS. this is the MLS that had TFC keep a 20K plus attendance average every year while building a 10K and growing waiting list for season tickets. every team should be asking how can we do that and not just do it but sustain it over the long haul. and making the product on the pitch better and better is one major component of that. if the "old" structure is hindering that overly, and there are plenty of indications that it is, then you need to formulate a new structure going forward.

 

Not only that, but then they can say not only are they screwing us there, but we don't care anyway. Here's what we are really fighting for, and all they are offering are relative decreases in spending from what we already have.

 

Because there's no particular reason to suppose that it has to be?

It makes no sense because your second car doesn't require your first car to operate. The "new" MLS teams (so far only two of them) do require the existing teams to operate.

My grandpappy died long before MLS came about. And "every year" for Toronto's season tickets is how many years? 3.

A little perspective, please.

 

Because I'm not a noob to this league. For the first half of its existence, the "this could be the key year!" essays were an annual ritual. But it was never true, there was no particular turning point year, and it doesn't look like there will be one. There's just slow growth and stronger foundation.

If anything, the turning point was when we finally stopped reading guys like Robert Wagman writing that.

 

Distance didn't stoped you at the time you started to root for 3 teams in Europe.

Weird, the old structure didn't stop TFC's growth.

You seem to forget that in order to spend more, MLS need to earn more, and current revenues just doesn't support the additional expenses.

 

TFC has sustained nearly 100% capacity and 20K plus attendance every year so far. yes that is only 3 years, but with an astronomical waiting list for season tickets this year is surely going to be the 4th year that this is true (assuming this labour fiasco is fixed). THAT is a cross-roads. THAT is something entirely new for the MLS. SSFC hasn't been around a long but what they are doing is equally ground breaking.

i am not saying you can have a two team league. but it might be a good idea for the MLS to re-evaluate the "one size fits all" structure of the league and perhaps open up a bit and allow for a range of salary, freedom, developement etc. perhaps a new model with the old school MLS hyper tentative structure as the floor and a bit more progressive (but not reckless) and free structure for clubs that wish to spend more and operate more independently to improve their product as the ceiling?

i guess the choice is putting the bar low enough so that even NE doesn't get left behind but holds the likes of SSFC and TFC back from perhaps their full potential or having two bars, a minimum and maximum, that allows for the likes of TFC and SSFC more freedom to spend and develop and perhaps set a new standard that forces the likes of NE to do likewise or perish. isn't that the american way?

MLS is the ultimate socialist sports league. I am not advocating a free-for all corporate-capitalist (like the US economy) sports league but rather a middle ground ... like a reasonably well regulated capitalist system (think Germany).

 

One more thing we should put to rest -- that 4.8% raise just let's them meet current contractual obligations.

From the Sports Business Journal in 2008:

Link:

http://www.sportsbusinessjournal.co...ticle.main&articleId=57143&requestTimeout=900

Beyond that, I hadn't seen Foose's comments in Goff's blog prior to posting, but it looks like the numbers I used are essentially correct. That $60 million includes $25 million of additional spending for the existing 15 teams over the next 5 years. The annual adjustment to the salary budget is about the same because the current contracts require it.

Now, Abbott could have said just holding on to what has been promised is an achievement these days. Hey, he didn't have to say anything to the public. Instead, he tried to spin this and mislead the fans -- after all, the players had the numbers and knew he had chucked $35 million of spending in his number to staff the new expansion teams.

I hope it bites them. Hard.