Re: Re: Mastroeni Comments on Playing Abroad League max ($270K). Perhaps more in endorsements or bonuses.
A lot of these posts seem to be premised on MLS's mantra that keeping American stars in MLS will raise the profile of the league and turn soccer into a big sport in the US. This is a nobel enough desire, but frankly I have to question it. I'm not living in the US, but judging from the American media I receive here, the 'WC Bounce' hasn't exactly caught the American imagination. Maybe I'm wrong, but has attendance markedly improved since the WC? Is there any evidence to support MLS's claim that keeping these players will improve the league's profile. Intuitively MLS's position makes sense (better product on the field = more interst in the league). However, MLS ought to asses what its successed and failures have been thus far. Success: developing young players that otherwise would not have gotten a chance (see: Beasley, Wolf, Donovan, et al.). Failure: bringing is big 'stars' with the hope of filling the seats (see: Luis Hernandez, Lothar Mathius, and, yes, Landon Donovan - how has he effected San Jose attendance?). Amazingly, if you minimize the failure, you also maximize the success (less spots for 'seat fillers' = more spots for 'up and comers). This is a formula that teams all over Europe outside of the EPL, Bundesliga, La Liga, and Serie A discovered long ago. Example Denmark: small country, small league, very good at edveloping young talent that eventually gets sold off to Germany, Holland, or England. The league is successful because it opporates within its means, sells players when they want to go, and develops more young players. The Danish national team is also very successful under this system. Bottom line: MLS is in debt. Many players want to leave. Yes, the market is depressed now, but it isn't likely to improve anytime soon (and this is not a new issue for MLS, if they had sold some of these players sooner when they had the chance, they could have gotten more money for then). So let them go for what you can get for them before they go on free transfer. MLS can either a) get a little bit of badly needed money and improve player moral by selling or b) get no return on their investment in young talent (no transfer money, no increased attendance as people actually aren't flocking to see the Mathis Show) and breed nothing more ill will that in the long run will prove to be very destructive to MLS.
Your comparing the US to Denmark. Denmark has a population of like 5 million. Bottom line is Americans will not support what they perceive as a minor league. Its not worth it for this league to lose these players for a couple million bucks. That does more damage to their image than helps it.
None of which really deals with a central point here: Why didn't anyone come in for the guy. He seemed like the perfect post-cup pickup.
Depends, if O'brien has an European passport. Barcelona has their foreign non euro players spots booked, with Rivaldo leaving and Riquelme arriving. Barca, by the way, paid just $10 mil to get Riquelme, when Boca just 18 months ago was asking for 30 mil, which once again tells you about today's market.
Re: Pope is under paid at 260k Um, well, some of them. I know attorneys that make only a fraction of that. Overpaid louts!
long story short: MLS is poo and needs to die now for the sake of US Soccer and for US overall reputation throughout the world. Growing a centrally based league with centrally based contracts and multi-team single owners=bad for soccer. What is it that the "C" in FC stands for? Why is it that even plc's stick to a club structure rather than becoming a dark entity for a handful of big sponsors? Because it doesnt work, see here 6 years of MLS in the red and a growing player agitation with the way the league is progressing and dealing with it's buisness. I knew it was a doomed NBA II type system when the A-League was snuffed and MLS treated their new cash-cow like a new old-boys club. And for all the people that want to say "look what's its done for US soccer", I say P-40 and internationally based players are much more responsible for the increase in US play than a mediocre joke league that must be on it's 4th or 5th life-sustaining loan and can't pull a decent non-US name that isnt a washup. Why cant americans support soccer WITHOUT "MAJOR league" being envolved? Why do we have to believe that a relegation/promotion system wouldnt work in the US and that we are limited to what few teams the MLS CEO's want us to see? Why cant smaller clubs with local sponsors look to grow into larger clubs? You know, there is a reason that every league in the world works in a similar way. ************************************************ "growing a fan base", the fan base is here to support REAL football and REAL leagues (see here the ancy americans leading up to mid-august for the EPL, La Liga and the rest of europe as well as the not-too-enthused ho-hum attitude of another may, another mls "season"). Long, nonsensical rant summation: let it die if it wants to die, the support not there to treat it like a "5th major sport" then let it be it's own system outside of that system of ESPN-filation and single-broadcaster pocketwashing. And as far as "growing the league" by keeping the good young players in, just how willing are Brazilian sides to keep there young players at home to develop vs. sending them overseas and giving their youth players more shine? How many WCs have they won? oh, thats right...