Well teachers manage to survive. How much does a Public School Teacher in Boston, MA make? The median annual Public School Teacher salary in Boston, MA is $63,094, as of May 30, 2018, with a range usually between $55,080-$72,845 not including bonus and benefit information and other factors that impact base pay. (My ex-girlfriend has worked in education in NYC for the last 13 years and makes just over $60k but has found a way of living comfortably (since paying off her student loan) and I'm sure teenagers and kids in their early 20s would have no problem sharing). And you picked a bad example because there's no MLS team or training facilities in Boston. NYCFC's training facilities are 20 miles north of the city on the cheaper side of the Hudson and the Red Bulls' facility is 25 miles west of the city.
I've no numbers, but quality young players donot sign a contract if that's too low. EPL clubs always lurking in our Kindergartens for talents to snap away. But a policy is youth players pay should be in line with the salary structue build up of the club. So when a kid wants too much, he can go abroad.
So it should do everything right like ASL 1921-1933, or ASL 1933-1983, or NASL 1968-74, or NASL v2 2010-2017? And which MLS owners are making money? I read that MLS is losing $100 million a year. Are you suggesting that people shouldn't pay to watch soccer that's below the standard of the World Cup? That goes for 170 international teams and hundreds of leagues worldwide. That goes for FC Cincinnati and Sacramento, that goes for Liga MX, Eredivisie, CSL, Campeonato Brasileiro, that goes for the EFL Championship, BL2 and Serie A. Academies that are charging their students $10k a year?? (I do agree with comp but I'm not sure it's legal for under 18s in the US). And not to mention all those ridiculous rules keep domestic players hostage and the way the league treats fans is despicable (see Columbus Crew fiasco).[/quote] You never heard of the NASL fiasco when teams were relocated all over the place often after a year or two? Who feels MLS should fold so we can have a real open soccer pyramid without restrictive rules aimed at keeping US soccer in eternal mediocrity? What good is the league today and why should it continue to exist?[/QUOTE] Going back to the original post, how do you plan to fund a real open soccer pyramid? When most of the european leagues formed players were traditionally amateur and paid a small amount to play. By the time professional leagues were founded clubs were well established and the hierarchy just fell into place. Bayern Munich were a huge team even before German soccer went professional in 1963. To start teams from scratch in a country where startup costs are huge, you're talking 10, 20 maybe 30 years if it survives to become what MLS is today. Example of what happens in an open system with no spending limits. NASL 1968-1983 (examples) ASL 1933-1983
AC Milan is banned from Euro competitions for the next 2 seasons if they would qualify. For next season it means Atalanta takes their spot in Europe. Reason is the new owners spent far in excess to what AC Milan has as revenues.
CFG recently bought 44% of Girona shares intending to use then as a feeder club. Could Rocco have considered buying Milan as a Cosmos feeder club? It's a shame that their plans to build a 25,000 seater stadium in Elmont never materialized.
You never heard of the NASL fiasco when teams were relocated all over the place often after a year or two? Who feels MLS should fold so we can have a real open soccer pyramid without restrictive rules aimed at keeping US soccer in eternal mediocrity? What good is the league today and why should it continue to exist?[/QUOTE] Going back to the original post, how do you plan to fund a real open soccer pyramid? When most of the european leagues formed players were traditionally amateur and paid a small amount to play. By the time professional leagues were founded clubs were well established and the hierarchy just fell into place. Bayern Munich were a huge team even before German soccer went professional in 1963. To start teams from scratch in a country where startup costs are huge, you're talking 10, 20 maybe 30 years if it survives to become what MLS is today. Example of what happens in an open system with no spending limits. NASL 1968-1983 (examples) View attachment 130750 View attachment 130751 ASL 1933-1983 View attachment 130752 [/QUOTE] Why did you wait 6 pages before addressing the OP? 6 pages that were filled with contrary opinions to the OP, I might add...
Going back to the original post, how do you plan to fund a real open soccer pyramid? When most of the european leagues formed players were traditionally amateur and paid a small amount to play. By the time professional leagues were founded clubs were well established and the hierarchy just fell into place. Bayern Munich were a huge team even before German soccer went professional in 1963. To start teams from scratch in a country where startup costs are huge, you're talking 10, 20 maybe 30 years if it survives to become what MLS is today. Example of what happens in an open system with no spending limits. NASL 1968-1983 (examples) View attachment 130750 View attachment 130751 ASL 1933-1983 View attachment 130752 [/QUOTE] Why did you wait 6 pages before addressing the OP? 6 pages that were filled with contrary opinions to the OP, I might add...[/QUOTE] wait so you are saying that wynalda's plan of decertify mls and install nasl as the first division overnight wouldn't fix anything but throw the entire thing into chaos? I am glad you and I finally agree on something but you are still missing a big issue. one of the pro/rel tin foil crews biggest dreams is that there are just like billions waiting to be invested in clubs if al of that happened. MLS is worth billions right now regardless of what the tinfoil hat crew says. If overnight us soccer ripped that up and turned that billions invested by the really rich and make it hundreds of thousands of dollars so cities along with owners of the franchises would lose hundreds of millions of dollars...do you really think other rich people would run to invest in the new 'pyramid'. heck no they'd all fear the same thing would happen.
Why did you wait 6 pages before addressing the OP? 6 pages that were filled with contrary opinions to the OP, I might add...[/QUOTE] wait so you are saying that wynalda's plan of decertify mls and install nasl as the first division overnight wouldn't fix anything but throw the entire thing into chaos? I am glad you and I finally agree on something but you are still missing a big issue. one of the pro/rel tin foil crews biggest dreams is that there are just like billions waiting to be invested in clubs if al of that happened. MLS is worth billions right now regardless of what the tinfoil hat crew says. If overnight us soccer ripped that up and turned that billions invested by the really rich and make it hundreds of thousands of dollars so cities along with owners of the franchises would lose hundreds of millions of dollars...do you really think other rich people would run to invest in the new 'pyramid'. heck no they'd all fear the same thing would happen.[/QUOTE] We're on the same page. Based on recent or potential share acquisitions DC and Orlando are both valued at $500-$600 million and Swansea City at $140 million. According to Forbes the 2 Milan teams are valued at around $600 million and Leicester at $500 million. If DC are worth $600 million how much must Toronto and Seattle be worth?
History teaches that it's a mistery why certain clubs become immens popular. In Rotterdam we had several clubs that had established themselves with decades history before Feyenoord was founded. Sparta Rotterdam (1888) was founded 20 years before Feyenoord and Excelsior about 6 years before. Several (amateur clubs) had years (sometimes decades) head start, but somehow Feyenoord caught up and left them in the dust. Why? Nobody knows. The start was a humble one (a pub club), using a shop as a dressing room and on a crappy make shift pitch. Somehow, despite the crappy circumstances, they got some success and rose to next levels. So nine years after the birth they moved to a new location where in the end capacity for 12000 fans was created. 16 years after birth they managed to grab the national title. The rising number of fans brought about plans for a stadium. 29 years after the make shift pitch they built a revolutionary stadium, unique in Europe. Capacity jumped to 63000 for an amateur club. Why this went like it went is a big question, but it shows you need many (humble) clubs, from which some for whatever reason catch the imagination. It all starts with a few fans for them. What I see in discussions is the burning desire to have clubs immediately as fully matured entities with the qualities of clubs that took decades to learn the trade. That's not realistic. Clubs built status by being successful and become better and better. You can't just start a club and expect it to be a powerhouse in a few years time.
So Sparta were 76 years old when Dutch soccer went professional in 1954. When was pro/rel introduced?
It was there when Feyenoord promoted from the Rotterdamse Voetbalbond to the NVB in 1912. When it was introduced I've no idea, but I guess it exists since the foundation of the NVB (later the KNVB, when it became Royal) in 1889. We were one of the 7 founding fathers of the FIFA in 1904 and also of the UEFA in 1954.
It's the shares in SUM that DC and Orl and every MLS team represent, which is the real value. It's not the team itself, unlike your foreign examples.
View attachment 130752 [/QUOTE] Why did you wait 6 pages before addressing the OP? 6 pages that were filled with contrary opinions to the OP, I might add...[/QUOTE] my bad is there a point at which you are no longer to reply to the original topic?
If SUM is valued at $2 billion based on the Providence Equity Partners' Sale, and each MLS team owned 1/23, hich they don't, that would work out at well under $100 million per team. And if a share in MLS costs $150 million then it stands to reason that their share in SUM is no more than that. Which doesn't explain why DC United are worth 4x as much as Swansea City.
Foreign teams have all kinds of other business interests that factor in their valuation, I don't really see how shares in SUM is demonstrably different than capitalizing on opportunities provided by the team's brand, for example.
Swansea's TV money is worth $140 million but they're only valued at $208 million. They don't own their stadium but neither did DCU.
Nope. If you want you even can resurrect a thread that has been dead for years. I did once by accident....or did I do it more often
The difference is obvious, isn’t it? MLS controls costs. In the Prem, if you don’t pay you don’t stay.
Why did you wait 6 pages before addressing the OP? 6 pages that were filled with contrary opinions to the OP, I might add...[/QUOTE] my bad is there a point at which you are no longer to reply to the original topic?[/QUOTE] Eh? It just seems dumb. We moved on from the absurd OP position: "We should fold MLS", to spend multiple pages talking about ancillary things related to how MLS is run. It would seem to me to be beating a dead horse to quote the OP now, as if it were an opinion held by anyone else in this thread, in the middle of conversations that are not starting from the OP's suggested "fold MLS" stance. I never know how the heck they value all these expensive sports teams. Sure, everyone says that the Milwaukee Bucks are worth billions, but I've also heard that most of those NBA teams lose money, so how the heck does that work? How many Antetokounmpo jerseys do you need to sell? Or is it just the "brand" shenanigans, that nebulous value of the NBA shield and a spooky Buck's head...
Well DC and Orlando are appently worth $500 - $600 million based on share sales, so it's real money. Swansea were valued at £100m ($132m) in 2016 based on share sales. Forbes valued Orlando at $272m and DC United at $230m in 2017. Galaxy were #1 in MLS. Napoli are #20 in the world (partly based on lack of debt).