Honestly why havent we thrown 25 million at Messi and Ronaldo or 20 million at Suarez and Ibra? Absolutely worth it
Real Madrid and Barcelona both paid 94 million euros for Ronaldo and Suarez respectively. Manchester City has offered more (forgot how much) for Messi and he obviously refused. Barcelona bought Ibra for 69 million euros. You really think MLS clubs are ready to compete with European clubs? Maybe in 20 years.
Players of that talent level need a lot of talent around them to create the magic they're capable of. Messi is incredible at quick combinations in crowded spaces, but he needs others to combine with who are at the very top level to produce the impossible. They'd be great marketing moves, but there are better ways to achieve a sustainable on the field product/brand without dumping that kind of cash on one player. Each successive generation of the American player pool is improving considerably in terms of depth. The economics of the league and level of play are such that guys don't need to go to Scandinavia, Belgium, or English Championship, so there is better retention. This is a definite step up. Get the academy system developed, round out the geographic footprint of the league a bit better (SE and MW), keep the incremental approach going to ensure club viability from top to bottom and allow the culture to continue to grow. The current TV deal is triple the old one, and if this moves along incrementally, the next one will be triple this one. People just need to be patient enough to realize that the long term economic and cultural fundamentals are working in the league's favor and there is no reason to upset that by getting overzealous. Ten years from now, the 4-5 largest leagues in Europe will still be leaps and bounds ahead of MLS, but I don't see any other league being measurably better. We'll be on the same level as the next 5-6 leagues in the world (including MX). I think that's the point at which the league begins to get more aggressive about guys at/near the peak of their game.
Agreed. MLS has done well building the league to this point, and we're just now seeing the infrastructure (facilities and academies) being put into place that will be needed to take the league and soccer in the US to the next level. In time those will bear fruit and the financial viability of MLS and the US market will become a bigger and bigger player on the world scene. Similarly, while the idea of luring world stars to MLS is appealing count me among those thinking the long-term success will depend on developing local talent that can also feed the USMNT. MLS will likely never match the money available to Europe's top leagues, if only because they have the Champions League to build the luster and wealth of their larger clubs. Try as we might the CCL won't match that. All the more reason to not be dependent on the random European players but concentrate on finding the next round of Bradleys, Dempseys, etc. - - - As to the core question I think we're still a decade away from matching the whole of LigaMX in terms of competitiveness. The depth simply is not yet there. But it will be and in another generation I suspect the leagues will be standing near toe-to-toe. It will be interesting to see what becomes of the fan support from Mexican kids raised in the US, who may never sway from supporting El Tri but might lend their team support to LA, SJ, Houston and elsewhere.
I think ten years is probably a good estimate of when both leagues will be more or less equal to one another in terms of on the field product, finances, etc. The larger 3-4 Mexican clubs will probably be the biggest in the region, but I would imagine the next 20 clubs on that list would be very MLS heavy. That's a key turning point for the league, and I think that MLS and LigaMX stand to benefit from that collectively. At that point in time, the North American sub-region of CONCACAF will have two leagues solidly in the second tier of the global league pecking order with Brazil, Netherlands, Portugal, Turkey, Russia and the mid-tier clubs will probably be much healthier in North America than elsewhere. Once the league gets to the level where a reasonable outsider would consider it to be on par with the next 6 leagues outside of the Big 5, I think the floodgates will open. That's a key differentiator for players looking at options, because the options really thin at that point. MLS offers large local markets, so no playing in a 150,000 city hours away from large areas. Living in the Moscows, Istanbuls, Lisbons and Amsterdams of the world have their charms. Eindhoven, Porto, and many small coastal towns are nice too. Kansas City is hardly my idea of heaven, but its gotta beat living in a place like Stoke or Kazan. The US is relatively accommodative culturally, so Europeans, Latin Americans, Africans, Asians, etc will feel relatively comfortable. The US could do better in terms of safety, but for professional athletes coming over on nice salaries, it is perfectly safe. The league is balanced enough that by the time it hits that Portugal/Netherlands/Russia/Turkey category, the bottomish MLS teams will probably resemble low/mid tier clubs that are at least out of the relegation zone in those second tier leagues. The competitive situation would be attractive, nevermind not needing to worry about signing for a team that suffers relegation within a couple of years. You put those things together, and in my opinion, that's when the league trajectory changes dramatically. The quality improvement, coupled with the market advantages, will be a great platform. I would expect the league 25-30 years out to be well above the other second tiers but well below the first tier. The league won't have clubs capable of generating the revenue you see among the top 15 or so in Europe, but it will be completely comprised of clubs that are equal to the middle class clubs in bigger leagues...basically UEFA Cup level in league format, which would be a unique proposition globally.
I think your assertions are fair but I wouldn't even be that concerned about the comparisons with Europe. With all due respect to Liga MX, the biggest difference between the two leagues stems not from the handful of exceptional players that they have and can afford but rather in the depth at all positions across all teams. It's in that sea of talent where their teams have more skilled players able to eventually win out against MLS clubs. 1-2 MLS teams might make runs now and again, but across the board that competitiveness would decrease as you go down the line. To effect change there won't require pulling in more players from Europe, per se, but simply by providing an environment where players can more fully focus on their development. The latest union agreement and media contracts present the first time, I feel, that every first-team roster member can comfortably afford being a soccer player without fretting about other income sources. Now even the lowest team member can simply concentrate on development and playing. Now coaches can treat guys as if they can focus on honing their skills and dedicate themselves to soccer. So regardless of where the talent is coming from now all the MLS teams can give, and get, 100% devotion toward the developing their players, and that will make a huge difference some 4+ years from now. Hopefully this means the near elimination of those awful first touches and passes to nobody. I make enough of those errors in my weekend games!
The disparity in pay between DPs and the entire rest of the team is getting a bit silly in the MLS. You can't throw that much money at just four players and build competitve teams. It's also going to make labor negotiations more difficult. Telling the players the league needs strict salary caps but they're willing to pay players like Gio millions is going to be a hard sell. It is not smooth sailing to the top for the league
The lack of financial concern for first team players and further development of academies is definitely a huge step forward. Where I think the European comparison comes into play is in bridging the youth gap until the younger age development culture can shift, which is going to take a lot of time. The USA can adopt the best practices of a system like Belgium, and our youth development will be nowhere near as efficient. I view that in terms of player density. We have more sports competing for attention and we live at lower densities here as well. Put them together and it's much more difficult to get the organic skills development you can get elsewhere in the world. Organized play is required because spontaneous play amongst people in the area is more difficult to find. Even at the organized form, it is more difficult. England had 92 fully professional football league clubs in a land area equivalent to North Carolina + youth clubs at various levels. Most kids don't need to venture far to find clubs to suit their needs. A population advantage won't solve that problem. The only way to bridge the youth gap's impact on pool quality (decades to effectively fix) is to uniformly increase the club bottom line and to grow the cultural relevance of the league (marketing dollars) to make the league an increasingly viable alternative to second tier European leagues and a far superior option to third tier leagues. This makes the league scalable enough to continue expanding beyond 28 or so clubs or to bolster a 20-30 club second division to put more kids in contact with the proper level of training.
Yes, but... Having some big names is critical to the marketing and building of brand appeal, as well as ensuring a modicum of secy football being played now and again. If you simply spread the money out among the non-DP lot then you're telling top talent to stay away and becoming all the more reliant on the coaches to build up the domestic talent. Even I wouldn't want that. You have to strike a balance. I think the union sees at least some of my point above and recognizes that the DP's help bring eyes onto the league and the money that follows. For now it's a compromise they'll work with since the league is trending upward but not yet fully profitable across the board.
Sure the league needs big names but that can be done a variety of ways. Mexico's league has parity and big names without throwing all that money at just 4 guys. I mean right now we're starting to get into silly territory with the imbalance in pay and the league is heading toward more imbalance which is the wrong direction.
Liga MX has parity compared to most large Euro leagues, but not to the level of MLS. They also have brand equity, so high profile signings of players on the back end of their careers does not have the same marketing impact. The economic realities and domestic supply issues are different too. They've got a deeper, more established club pool, so low end Liga MX players have domestic alternatives that keep the low end Luga MX salaries up more. We don't have that outside of a few cases where franchise cornerstones for NASL might earn more than they would at MLS. It's rare though. For most of the low end salaries, this is realistically the best they could do anywhere, and where it isn't, they've made the decision that it's the best they can do to get exposure and possibly earn more than their alternatives a couple years out based upon future tenure/impact. The longer MLS is around, the less reliant they'll be on the high profile signing that is equal parts marketing and player performance. They longer they're around, the more significant the brand equity of the clubs and the more money and credibility they'll have...which is more money for rank and file domestic and foreign signings. The disparity looks kind of goofy now (but not crazy when you look at the same disparities in other US pro leagues). We're just going through our awkward adolescent stage at the moment.
3 out of 5 championships have went to LA dont forget about the Lame Galaxy & Houston Dynamo final that was repeated in 2011-2012 & 2012-2013
The Mls doesn't have more parity then liga mx. Mls fans oversell their league a bit around here. The Galaxy have stood out above the rest and teams like the earthquakes have been at the other end. That divide is growing not shrinking. The disparity in Mls looks worse than other leagues because of how little some players earn
Keep in mind the impact of the playoffs on what constitutes a champion for MLS. Both divisions have had four different teams finish atop their tables for each of the past 4 seasons. Sounds like a strong degree of parity to me. It's just that LA is built for a post-season run, hence their titles.
Who wins a league title is what is remembered not supporters shield winners. If the mls was structured to just award the league winner you would see the Galaxy press more during the regular season but they know they don't need to. The mls is designed in a way that makes the regular season less significant. The mls isn't top heavy like the big leagues in Europe but isn't as balanced as Mexico They have been champions 3 of the last 4 years and will now be allowed an extra dp slot sounds like the league is moving away from parity
There's more to parity then who wins, but yes, the Galaxy have strung together several titles over the past few years. They won the semis on away goals and then the final in extra time last year. They didn't win the year before, and in one of the two years before that they had something like the 8th best record in the league, almost missed the postseason altogether, and then caught fire. This year, through 21 games (since they've played a few more than their Western rivals), they were 6th in the conference. Once other teams catch up on matches, they'll probably be 5th-6th in the conference. They are hardly a dominant team, although they do click in the cup runs. Cup runs are to some extent an element of luck. They can be a misleading measurement of parity. Here's a list of GD rankings for MLS and Liga MX over the last 9-10 years in aggregate. This is normalized so you're looking at goal diff per 50 league matches and only the 18 clubs who have played the most league matches over that time for each league to keep the comparison similar: MLS: 5 teams with a +5 or greater GD per 50 matches. Liga MX: 10 teams of the same Most consistently dominant: Cruz Azul + 19.6, Seattle +16.6, LA +13.7, Toluca +13.5, America +13.4, RSL +11.5, Santos +11.0, Pachuca +9.8, Monterrey +8.4, Tigres +8.3, MX Chivas +8, KC +7.1 MLS: 10 teams hovering right at the middle within +/-5 GD Liga MX: zero. None. At all. MLS: 3 teams below -5GD. Liga MX: 8 teams. The three MLS teams in this boat are Chivas USA (dead and buried), and two clubs who are doing well this year: Vancouver and Toronto. I'm not saying Liga MX lacks parity. It's more competitive than European leagues. What I am saying is that most any MLS team is a couple of players (or years) away from being a viable contender. From a player's perspective, this means that not only is relegation off the table, but you also have more of a chance to fight for playoff spots, contend for titles, etc from a broader range of teams. The Fire are currently the shittiest team in the league in terms of pts/match and GD. And they're about as far out of things as the entire bottom third of a Liga MX table. I'm not saying this is good or bad from a fan's perspective. Just that it is very different than other leagues, which could be a good things in terms of attracting players because it differentiates the league.
The point is to win the cup not be on top of the table so teams build themselves accordingly. Sure there is a bit of luck but as the saying goes luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity. You see it in sports all the time the Giants in baseball are winning the world series by having great pitching. People might say they are lucky because they squeezed by on a wild card spot but the gm set that team up for success if they made the playoffs it wasn't some fluke win. Same with the galaxy they have set themselves to be more successful in a home and away as well as a one off game. They have done so better then any else in the league and the way the league is moving that should be the case even more not less. They can relax and still get in on the 5th and 6th spots and still win it all the league doesn't really punish a team for that. A seasons purpose is to crown champions different leagues reward that differently but goal difference is not the measure of success in a league therefore it's not the best way to measure parity. It can be a factor but it's certainly not what determines parity. I can guarantee the galaxy are phoning it in some games because being at the top of the table isn't the goal. Expansion is going to hurt teams like the earthquake and Chicago that have much weaker rosters. They aren't a few players away from winning it and are about to loose some role players or possibly even starters due to salary issues and league structure meanwhile the galaxy picked up a new dp slot. Ultimately what attracts players is money and competition. Not only is liga mx more competitive then mls they have a stronger level as we are reminded in the ccl every year. Mls fans are lying to themselves if they think it's smooth sailing past liga mx. There are real obstacles to overcome and liga mx like any other league isn't staying stagnant waiting for mls to pass by. I honestly can't see a team like the earthquake over take a mid table liga mx club
No one is saying the top of the table is THE goal, merely that the representation of what constitutes a lack of parity is more than simply the champion over a brief time frame. Now, if the Galaxy begin to rule over MLS like Celtic in Scotland and claim every other title for 10 years then yes, you're on to something. In the meantime it's still entirely possible that the Galaxy's success is the result of a great combination of players and staff that's been able to stay relatively intact during this run. ie: It's as much/moreso about that particular team than it is any league structural issue.
I was never arguing the mls was top heavy in fact I said they weren't several times now. I argued that the parity narrative mls fans repeat is oversold. Especially moving forward because the league is making changes that widen the gap. The Galaxy and earthquakes just stood out because it's striking how far apart the two California teams are. The other flawed narratives are that the mls will cruise past liga mx or that they have more parity
Just for fun, here's a quick calculation of what the salary cap would look like with FORBES Revenue figures 2012 revenue figures and salary cap under 33.3% Seattle Sounders 48.0 mil revenue = $16 mil salary cap LA Galaxy 44.0 mil revenue = $14.5 mil salary cap Portland Timbers 39.1 mil revenue = $13 mil salary cap Houston Dynamo 32.6 mil revenue = $10.8 mil salary cap Toronto FC 30.9 mil revenue = $10.3 mil salary cap New York Red Bulls $28.1 mil = $9.37 mil salary cap Sporting Kansas City $27.7 mil = $9.23 mil salary cap 2014 revenue figures and salary cap under 33.3% Seattle — $50 million revenue = $16.65 mil salary cap Los Angeles— $44 million revenue = $14.5 mil salary cap Portland - $35 mil revenue = $11.66 mil salary cap Toronto $32 mil revenue = $10.66 mil salary cap Kansas City $29 mil revenue = $9.66 mil salary cap Houston $26 mil revenue = $8.66 mil salary cap
Seattle could offer double the wages of Houston? LOL that sounds like a recipe for disaster if parity is your goal. I would like to the MLS become like the Eredivisie - a decent league that produces top-shelf talent for the major clubs. If we become like the Premiership, then you can expect yanks to get pushed out of their own domestic league - and that would cause the USMNT to decline.