1)eliminate the salary cap/gam/tam 2)stop expanding after miami/nashville/lafc and whoever the fourth is. 3)eliminate the draft 4)announce in five years they will split the league into MLS premier league and MLS championship. In five years hey will take the overall records for the last five years...the top 18 clubs will be in the mls premier leauge...the rest mls championship(my math is 8 teams left) the following year pro/rel...top three from the championship to premier...bottom three from premier go down. offer(with us soccer and also in the five year window) usl/nasl a chance to combine and form the championship/third division. banish any reserve sides to third division and no chance for promotion. Basically you have to pick a number 18 or 16 for the leagues. Maybe 18 for the premier league and 16 for the championship. So you give usl/nasl 8 spots in the championship and the rest go to the third divison. the third divisions will be regional leagues. Divide the country into four areas. nw/sw/se/ne....those will be four separate leagues. the winner of the four leagues will play in a quad tourney home and away with eachother and the two top teams will go up to the championship. other things to maybe help make it work. 1)when pro/rel starts for the first three years only pro/rel 2 teams to soften the shock to the system. 2)maybe 16 in premier league and 16 in championship that would mean championship is made up for 10 former mls teams and and 6 usl/nasl teams. 3)other longer term idea is do like a five years soft/pro system. -mls expands to 26 create the championship with usl/nasl. relegate four teams from mls and promote 2 teams from championship and basically do this until year 4(or 5 if want league at 16) then when that happens you go to the three division from above.
I'll make you a deal. I'll respectively answer any question you have and.or listen to your plan for doing all of this successfully and give it serious consideration, after you go read all the threads in this forum where these ideas have been hashed out over and there are still open questions to be answered. I'm dead serious, this isn't snark. If you can come up with a workable plan I'll happily listen to it. But i'm not going to start reading another 20 page thread where those of us who have talked about these issues for years punch holes in the plan. The discussions are at your fingertips, tell us how this plan solves the problems pointed out in prior suggestions.
1) No! 2) No. 3) No, thank you. 4) No!!!!!!!1!!1! Seriously, this market is different from others. These differences have been discussed at length. Why should the league do things which would reduce the sport's reach, decrease team values, and cut investment in development?
nope actually it would cause the opposite. allowing last teams to profit evenly from expansion teams and tv money gives them zero reason to invest in youth. Look at DC United...they make kids pay to play in their academy and refuse to both play young guys and elevate them...last place and are getting a new stadium...why would they change anything? if anything dc united should cut salary to increase profits next season. Whats the worst that can happen? finish in last place lol who cares. the market it terrible right now and mls is about to start dying a slow death. The bottom teams are struggling and their 'profit' comes from expansion and shared tv money. You can't have a bunch of teams running at a loss. expanding the leagues would never reduce its reach lol, team values will drop but dc uniteds value has dropped literally 5 years in a row now and are relying on public funds for a stadium and expansion money...what are you going to do expand to 75/80 teams lol. teams will have to develop talent to stay in the top league so owners can make money. they will desperately comb their regions for talent. instead of looking at the bnt and seeing if they can force a player to play for them by being homegrown. things aren't just going to work out they aren't working now if you don't change something mls will turn into the league that could've been decent and the national team that makes the wc because they've expanded to 80 teams.
MLS is going to go with the parity-biased Major/Minor league US pro sports model and not the European Pro/Rel model. Whether it's the right method or not, check back in 30-50 years. It will take that long before you can reliably say whether the NA model is a help or hindrance when it comes to developing US soccer.
Who have you seen claim DC has decreased in value? According to Forbes, DC was $35M in 2008. In 2013, $71M. In 2014 & '15, $140M. 2016 at $155M. With the stadium about to open, this year's number was $255M. If you're not good at math, that's up 730% in a decade. Owning a facility makes the ROI better on player investment, whether through development or acquisition, because the increased attendance, merchandise, and concessions revenue isn't shared with a third party. What do you mean by this? Nobody has ever discussed expansion on this level. A small minority of observers support going to 36, but more people believe 28 than 36. The usual numbers bandied about are the 30-32 seen in other built out North American leagues. And about missing the World Cup, well, it sucks. But it happens. Last time, Mexico needed the US to win the last day to get in. The time before, it was Costa Rica needing American help. And big names miss out every time. This cycle, the US is alongside Italy, Netherlands, Wales, and Chile.
you are so right...mls is just booming. dc united is doing great they are operating at a loss but they get expansion money and public funds for a stadium so their 'team value' is up..meaning everything is great. thats not how you grow the game. run a bare bones operation lose money and then get expansion money and say....hey we lost 3 mill running the team but got 15 mil in expansion money..value up...last place finish...cheers to another great finish. lets keep the coach and cut costs again because we are getting a new stadium and hopefully can sell t shirts with it...but we don't have to win matches...winning isn't important...lets just make money. you couldn't get anyone to pay 250 million for that club right now even with the new stadium so that isn't their value. If they could the owners would've sold it already.
Agreed. 1. Although I want to rapidly expand payroll spending, we can't completely destroy competitive balance in the process and that's exactly what would happen if there were no salary cap. Most other leagues are dominated by just a few teams and the rest are irrelevant. But at least they have such a long history, clubs retain a place in fans hearts and minds. Replicating that here would kill the interest in soccer in 80% of US markets. 2. MLS is too young for pro/rel. You can't get owners to invest the multiple hundreds of millions of dollars it takes to build a SSS, training facility, a developmental academy and USL team or affiliate, etc. if one bad season could result in relegation. Owners need some degree of stability or they won't invest. Not much point in debating the rest and most of it is predicated on these two points.
The value is not based on expansion income. That would be insane. No rational buyer is interested in a business that can only generate profit by selling itself to new investors. That's a Ponzi scheme (i.e. NASL). Operating at a loss is not a problem if the losses are temporary or they happen as part of investing that creates future growth. If you run a business that would make $10M a year, but pour in an extra $25M so you can expand to new markets or increase your share of the local market, suddenly you have an annual loss of $15M. Does this mean your business is failing? No. This is generally the case for MLS teams which control their facilities: any of their losses are about expanding their operations, not because they can't cover current expenses. (A possible exception is Toronto, which has the most expensive roster, but they may be generating extra revenue for their owner's other business, which makes their losses acceptable for a different reason.) DC United is currently moving from being a tenant at an outdated facility to owning a new one. Further, they are in a large market. At present, local business leaders in Columbus are willing to pay $150M for a team with an outdated facility to keep it in a small market. Believing DC is worth an extra $100M is not a stretch.
Much of the "lost" money right now is one-time infrastructure costs -- some of it is amortized stadium construction costs, and a lot of the more recent spending is on academy training facilities. If you take away infrastructure costs, MLS is likely profitable already. (Of course, until the infrastructure is all built, you can't ignore the cost of building it. That's why pro/rel would likely end the infrastructure investment.)
Exactly. The majority of the financial loss across all of MLS right now is due to massive investments in facilities. Audi Field will cost $180-$195 million. The bond payments will keep the team in the red for awhile, but revenues are growing and they should be profitable in a few years. The new stadium should help with season ticket sales, overall attendance, average revenue per ticket, etc. More importantly, the team will control the revenue rather than only getting a cut. Plus, they'll profit from the naming rights from the new stadium. Meanwhile, MLS just signed a $700 million deal with Adidas and the next TV deal will increase in value as well.
The way MLS is run we don't know if they are actually losing money. I don't believe anything when it comes to MLS numbers. ZERO!!
They may try but that won't work with fan bases. Fans of lower division clubs increasingly want their clubs to be autonomous and not belonging to a parent club or franchise. Club culture in lower divisions is happening at these autonomous clubs. It's not happening at the MLS owned or affiliated
Agreed. I happen to think almost all of the things that others criticize about MLS are the very things that have allowed the league to survive and thrive. Those things include... Playoffs: Without it, most teams would be irrelevant by June. With a young, growing league, you need as many fan bases as possible to have a reason to care, and not just for the first 2-3 months. Spring-Fall Schedule: Until the league reaches a level of maturity where more revenue is generated via broadcast rights than ticket sales, you need to maximize in-person attendance, and that means playing games in good weather. Roster Composition: The blend of American and international players is about the right balance as earmarking spots for Americans ensures senior level professional opportunities for domestic players whereas the international slots help elevate the quality of play. Single Entity Ownership: Allows the league to control costs and carefully manage growth. The reckless spending of individual owners is what killed virtually every other start-up professional league in US sports history. MLS started modest, slowly increased the salary cap, then added DPs, then TAM, preserving financial viability for a vast majority of clubs at each step. It's the reason the league is still around and doing better than ever. Forced Parity via Salary Cap Rules: Almost every other major league in the world is very top-heavy where a few giants dominate almost every year and the rest are essentially irrelevant. That is certainly not a good model when you're trying to get people to embrace a new league or team for the first time. You need competitive balance so fans across the entire country will stay engaged. Closed Model with No Pro/Rel (for now): Young, growing leagues need a LOT of investment, but you can't get owners to invest hundreds of millions of dollars if there is risk of relegation and financial ruin. You must have stability. Otherwise, the necessary investments in stadiums, training facilities, development academies, or even multi-year contracts for elite players and coaches, simply won't happen. So, although there is room for criticism, I think the basic structure is the right one and good days are ahead. Attendance, viewership, revenue, and team valuations are all on the rise, the quality of play is on the rise, the league is finally reaching a true national footprint, and with every new team, we see a new development academy being launched and providing opportunities for young domestic players. This league is already starting to take-off and that will only accelerate in the coming years with expansion and increased payrolls. And I'll add this. Europeans and South Americans may know more than us when it comes to the actual game of soccer. But NO ONE has had more success in building and sustaining the world's greatest sports leagues than the United States. So, our methods just may have some value that others need to emulate.
it doesn't matter if they are 'making money', a lot of nfl/nba/mlb teams operate at a loss it comes down to tv money.
I agree with all of this and its why wynalda scares me. he thinks he can change all of this with the snap of his fingers and everything will just work itself out. He really is going by a lot of myths and the funniest one is that one that was officially debunked this past week. He claims that because of the summer schedule teams don't participate the buy/selling market like other leagues do. The league added on of the top young talents in all of south america and sold a young player to man city...larin was sold. It proves that team haven't gone after mls players because they don't respect the leagues talent it has nothing to do with when they play their matches. when big clubs wan't a kid from mls they will come get him regardless of the window and if mls teams throw the cash out there they can get players too regardless of the window.
Club culture certainly is happening in MLS. Club reality might be missing, but the culture aspects are there. MLS clubs have bars where their STH (members) congregate. They have dedicated sections of the new stadiums to foment raucus support. They have seats in meetings with ownership groups, and negotiate things from traveling with the team to club beer prices. The discussions are happening and the members have input. The reality is they don´t have controlling input. Name a top level club where this is the case, anywhere, these days though.Here, the law demands majority verein ownership, but their practical power at the top level is not that great. Members react to transfers and new managers, they don´t negotiate them. The conversations are happening in MLS and do bring about change. I´ve expereinced it. As for the lower division US clubs, if the system you believe in is actually a better mousetrap, it will thrive and eventually either force MLS to get in line or overwhelm MLS. MLS was not set up with relegation in mind, an will not agree to it without a very compelling argument. That argument will have to be made in dollars.
Just so I'm not understood I meant that club culture is not happening at MLS owned lower division teams. And attendance is very low for these teams. Compare that to lower division teams that are not owned by a parent club. They have supporters clubs and much higher attendance. So this idea that you can take an MLB style system and apply it to soccer in this country flies in the face of what's actually happening in our lower divisions right now. That kind of system won't be accepted by fans.
Swope Park Rangers support looks a lot like the support at my daughters club in the Fr-Bundesliga 2 (she left for uni before the BL season). A couple footie fanatics hanging out on the club beer terrace arguing over tactics and speed versus smarts.
its because the usl teams that are mls reserve teams aren't real clubs they are just reserve teams. this is a big reason why they aren't ready for pro/rel these teams keep the league alive and without them there isn't a usl.
I think we'll see some evolution with this over time as there's no doubt that MLS reserve clubs and stand-alone USL teams have entirely different objectives. Even if they continue to play each other on occasion, it might make sense to have 2 different tables for stand-alone clubs vs. MLS reserves.
Aren´t they heading for this fairly soon, as in this is the plan, for MLS2 clubs to be a step below independent USL clubs.
The USL has never said that. They say that once they get to 36 teams (including the MLS2 teams) that they are going to go to three regional conferences. That plan doesn't work if all the MLS2 teams drop down into the new USL3 league. Teams might go ahead and do that, Montreal, Vancouver, and Orlando have all shelved their farm teams recently, but it does't seem to be part of any plan. For one thing, USL has said that USL3 will likely start off as a regional league in the southeast. Most MLS2 teams wouldn't be part of that.
It's not happening at the MLS owned ones, but... affiliated clubs are NOT farm clubs, they're independent. Many of them have only one or two players on loan, some have none on loan for most of the season. And they change MLS affiliates from season to season. (Note that the Columbus Crew went through three different USL affiliate clubs in three seasons.) Sacramento Republic, by the way, was affiliated with MLS clubs from 2014 through 2016. Didn't prevent a club culture from growing. Also: in 2015, Sacramento had no MLS players on loan until the last month of the season; in 2016 there was never more than one player on loan at a time, and none for about half of the season. Does that look like a farm team to you?