And they did so, even though they were in 0.000000% chance of being relegated. They're stupid organizations, but some levels of crap don't require organizational brilliance to recognize. And they don't need the threat of being "punished" to address.
Not to mention, if you’re a fan of the USMNT “releasing the purse strings” likely means Americans get even less playing time than they do now. TAM has already reduced the number of American starters per team, but imagine the excitement of the rumored $10+ million salary budget when teams can average $500k per player. How many Americans are actually worth $500k?
Please note that I am not a pro/rel supporter in any way. It will never happen. I just get triggered by people saying the current system is fine because it makes it sound like it's perfect. There are pros and cons to both systems. My only objection to pro/rel is business related. IMO in terms of competition it's better in every way.
I still don't understand why mods allow these idiotic personal attacks. So many people should have been banned by now.
Due to the foreign player limits, the value of American players will go up, and they will be sold to Europe more rarely. Unintended side effect?
I'm curious about which years you're looking at in your NHL example? The NHL expanded from the 'Original Six' to the 'Second Six' in 1967 (12 teams total), and added two teams every two years through 1976 (18 teams). One team ceased operations in 1978, but then the league added four teams from the WHA in 1979 (21 teams). That's an increase of 15 (actually 16) teams in 12 years.
People in MLS who I don't know need to be punished so the people in Europe who I don't know won't laugh at me for being a fan of American soccer and so people on Twitter who I don't know can feel better.
I counted the years wrong. 67-68 was the Season 1 of the expansion era, which makes 79-80 Season 13, the first one with the absorbed WHA teams and 21 teams total. So a net gain of 15 teams in 13 seasons, not 14 as I previously stated.
Well according to folks in another part of BS............. The correct answer is likely around what you posted: not nearly as many as people would like to believe. Although, if raising the salary budget causes top prospects such as Sargent, McKennie, etc., to pause when deciding to skip MLS it would be worth it.
Oh man, the yanks abroad fools would freak the ******** out if even more Americans played in MLS. It would be glorious!!
On the one hand, yes..................on the other hand the more yanks playing in MLS would draw those misguided fools to these parts
Maybe theoretically, but practically not really. What's the difference between the same handful of lousy organizations in MLS sucking every year, and an alternating handful of lousy clubs sucking in the premier league/winning in the championship every year? What percentage of promoted teams survive 3 years in the premier league?
It's more that perennial failures usually get relegated to the far deep and are never seen again, and also the potential for exciting, intense games at the bottom of the table at the end of the season.
I disagree, but I think it's a matter of personal preference. I would personally prefer to watch teams battling for the playoffs, because at least those teams are somewhat decent. Most of the "relegation battles" that I have seen have been absolutely terrible soccer. Yes, it's dramatic, but ugly as sin. I also think pro/rel has a tendency of cementing in the upper echelon. A team can't build from within to challenge for the trophy because they are too worried about staying up. However, as I said, competitively, it's a personal preference. Business-wise, it's completely horrible.
I don't think salary is why Sargent didn't take the Home Grown contract with SKC. I think he saw EPB whither on the vine and get limited minutes. Oddly, Vermes is now throwing his kids into the deep end. Go figure.
It's not just pro/rel that created the stratification of leagues in Europe. It's also Champions/Europa Leagues. Get past the group stage in those competition and teams get €10+ million in Europa league. Champions league can pay over €80 million to the winners. This is on top of their regular league games. So, in EPL, the top 6 teams have significantly more money than the mid table teams. At the bottom, you essentially have 6-ish recent expansion teams. At the top you have 6 teams that can out spend everyone. That leaves 8-ish permanent mid table teams that are unlikely to go down, and unable to spend enough to break into the top 6. I like the MLS parity model because all teams can be competitive. I would like the salary budget to be 2-3 times what it currently is. The quality of American players is also increasing.
Not really "odd" when you have 10 senior players out injured and have just had to apply for an emergency loan to fill out your matchday squad..
Parachute payments have created a bunch of yoyo clubs. Burnley, Sheffield United and Norwich are 3 of the clubs who have beat the system though astute use of their Premier League bonanzas. Huddersfield will get maximum parachute payment next year having survived two seasons at the top.
This is absolutely true. I mean, I don’t have a problem with that, because I’m one of the people who believes MLS should do whatever it thinks is best for itself and not the national team. But if teams have bigger budgets, and are spending the money, they’re going to be more selective about WHO they spend it ON. I’m still not for a drastic raising of the salary cap, though, because the higher the cap, the more likely there will be a gulf between top and bottom.
Maybe. Although a fair number would probably just set up camp revering some bench Yank in Denmark or somewhere as the best American player of all time.