One of the most hot topic issues in MLS is the salary cap. To be honest, I’ve followed the league since it’s inception and sometimes the rules still perplex me, but here are some rule changes that I would argue would benefit the league. HGP and domestic players are cap exempt for life. -Historically, I’ve argued that just HGP should be cap exempt for life but I’d expand that to domestic players as well. At the very least, I’d say HGP are 100% cap exempt, meanwhile domestic are 50% cap exempt. The idea is we want clubs to be able to build super clubs if they can develop their talent. DPs should be totally cap exempt players. And the number should be increased to four. -The idea is each team can pick 3-4 players that the club can pay whatever the hell they want. There should be an allotment of 10-20% increase for returning MLS players that does not count against the salary cap. Call it the Loyalty Rule. -For instance, player X makes $100,000 in 2018. If he returns in 2019, he could be paid $120,000 but counted at $100,000. This would give teams some flexibility in keeping their key players. The rest of the players would fit under the salary cap rules.
That essentially means each team is going to spend their cap on like 5 players. With 8 international spots per team but eliminating DPs from that list, and returning internationals not counting their 10-20% increases against the cap, you're really looking at 5 or so players a year that would count fully against the cap if you exclude domestic players. What's the point of a cap in your scenario?
So, for 2018m the cap was just north of $4m, right? But clubs also had $1.2m in TAM, plus another $2.8m in different TAM. So, that's an $8m salary budget, really, before DPs. Forbes lists the Rapids as the lowest revenue MLS club, by a bit, as well, at $18m in 2018. So, without a DP, Colorado could spend $8m on their roster and account for 44 percent of revenue, which on the high end of the sweetspot for what a sustainable, responsible club can spend on it's players. MLSPA shows that Colorado has DPs, so they actually spent $9.4m on players ($2.5m on Howard?). So that's 52 percent of revenue which is less than ideal (to be fair it isn't batshit crazy as is standard in England these days). At the bottom of the revenue ladder, it doesn't matter what you do, there isn't any more money to spend. The top of the revenue ladder, LAG bring in $63m and spent $17.5m on players (GDS costs $6m a year?), which is a huge underspend v revenue, 28 percent. Your systems doesn't help the bottom of the revenue ladder, but is a massive boost to the richer clubs (or clubs with owners willing to lost a lot of money). MLS makes a big deal out of parity. and I think they are wise to do so. There's already a spending gap, which hasn't proven too much of a obstacle to parity, but if the richest clubs could double their spending again, does this create a league of haves and have nots? MLS overall really can spend more on players. but that isn't across the board. IMO, the best thing MLS could do right now is invest a chunk of money into raising the underperforming revenue clubs, then raise the basic cap (or increase Garberbucks, doesn't really matter to me)
Cap implies maximum spend. The MLS salary budget is a minimum spend. It's the money allocated by the league for you to spend on player salaries. On top of the salary budget there is general and target allocation money which can be traded. Then there is the budget exempt spending. Point is, it's a salary budget, not a salary cap.
We’re at a point that we need a way for the most ambitious teams to pull away from the pack. In the very near future, we are looking at 28 teams. We could lose some of those non hackers, IMO. Where? I don’t see an English style promotion/relegation.... but a sort of self regulation to the USL championship for the teams like the Rapids who are dragging the rest of the league down with them.
But it doesn't even do that. How much domestic talent on MLS teams was developed by them? Even the teams best at development? Essentially with the Rapids (a truly bad team) they would be spending their money on: Johan Blomberg - Other than the raises that don't count towards the cap Sam Nicholson - Ditto Jack Price - Ditto Tommy Smith - Ditto Danny Wilson - Ditto Nicolas Mezquida - Full salary A grand total of one player that counts fully against the cap. And its not like they could have spent better since Price, Smith, and Wilson are already full cap-hit players. Maybe they upgrade a position to two (Blomberg of Mezquida) but otherwise how do these rules drive what you're claiming?
The logic is flawed for a bottom feeder like the Rapids. Instead, think the big dogs: Atlanta, NYRB, Seattle, Timbers, Toronto, SKC, LAFC, LA Galaxy, etc. not Rapids, Revs, and Crew (historically) who are stuck in MLS 1.5 I’d want to see a team where they can build their superclub if they can develop the talent. For instance, let’s use Atlanta as a hypothetical... Let’s say, whether this part happens or not, Bello, Goslin, Carleton, Vasquez, become the next Alaba, Isco, Busquets, and Lewandowski. Then they produce a couple domestic John smith’s who are the next Varane, Sule, Carvajal, De Gea, and Modric. And, they still need some help so they go out and buy Bale, Mbappe, Ronaldo, and Messi as DPs. They would be unstoppable in the world. Now, I know that’s something that’s not likely to ever happen to develop talent that good across the board but the point is it could theoretically happen. And that’s why this is important. We need to provide a pathway for success. Otherwise we will always be strapped with the curse of mediocrity. It’s time to dream bigger. Atlanta United have proven if you dream big, dreams can come true. We need to strive for more.
And that's why this is a flawed system. Anything that's designed to promote superclubs at the expense of creating perennial also-rans is a horrible idea. Though this idea really amounts to "eliminate the cap in a way where we can still claim to have a cap to keep some people happy".
Well, I guess we just disagree that MLS should allow teams to become better. That’s alright. Some fans want almost complete parity, however, I would argue that this leads to a lesser product and I’d rather see MLS produce some of the world’s best clubs. Secondly, the difference in my plan and complete elimination is that it requires a team to develop talent over engaging in major spending wars.
Except it doesn't since very domestic player doesn't count against the cap. Why would a team develop its own players instead of just buying the best ones?
There are 107 home grown players under contract to MLS teams which is about 80 more than 5 years ago. And teams are rapidly expanding their academy programs.
Because if the domestic player develops into the next Mbappe then there’s no concern about cap restrictions. So, the path to excellence is domestic player pool development meanwhile the path to mediocrity is through only buying up foreign players.
But under your rules any team can buy the domestic Mbappe with no penalty. So how does that drive development any more than the current rules?
What penalty do you speak of? Domestic players become a premium because they can be paid DP money if they’re good enough to warrant that payment. Encouraging teams to develop what they have. There is the absence of penalty for growing domestic talent. There is no ceiling for domestic players meanwhile there is a ceiling for importing talent.
Right but you're not addressing the fact that the Rapids could develop the next Mbappe, then LA (either one) could come in when his contract is up and offer him a million more than Colorado is. LA has no incentive to develop anyone knowing they can out bid most teams for any domestic they want. With all domestic players being cap exempt that means that the richest teams will just buy the talent, not develop it. Right now, with only homegrowns being cap-exempt (and then only for a little while, which that part of it I'd agree needs changing) there's an incentive to develop your own players. If every domestic is cap-exempt it becomes a game of buying the best domestic players (which includes lots of internationals as green card holders), not a game of developing your own. Which, again, is more evidence this is really "get rid of the cap but don't say you're getting rid of the cap".
Well, 1. that would help the USMNT which would help MLS inadvertently. 2. If the Rapids can’t pay what the Galaxy are offering the domestic Mbappe, why should they keep him if he was a free agent? Or better yet, why not transfer him and let Rapids earn a transfer fee? 3. The cap remains for foreign talent so there is a difference, and you can keep repeating “get rid of the cap, but don’t say you’re getting rid of the cap” but I would say, “finding creative ways to grow domestic talent and allow the ambitious clubs to grow instead of rewarding mediocrity.”
Allowing you to pay the domestic players more money doesn't make domestic players better. It means you're paying the same players more money. And MLS should do whatever it feels is best for itself. Not the USMNT.
And again you haven't explained how your plan incentives developing your own talent. Because it doesn't.
Yes, I have. Over and over again. You just disagree; which is fine. ...rereading through all this; honest question: are you just trying to be confrontational? I know a lot can be lost through the internet so I want to give you the benefit of the doubt, but it seems to me like you’re defending your mother’s honor after me calling her a dirty name. What’s even your stake in this? You can disagree without being hostile. I’ve noticed a trend and it seems to be like this little clique who just goes around bashing anyone who talks about ideas and the same little cohort seem to support them. I can think of six posters off hand, some who are “moderators” too, who I can name off hand who seem to belong in that same clique. Point is, we’re just discussing soccer. It should be fun. We can talk to each other how we would do at a bar... but the way some people talk to each other on these forums, I would really like to see them talk person to person in that fashion. In short, I’m not going to get into an internet fight with you about this. If we want to debate the subject respectfully with each other, I’d love to do that, but I’m not going to continue to engage in a conversation where there isn’t mutual respect.
Recent US sporting history would indicate that parity sells, however. Not parity in any given year. We love to see a dominant season, but parity over time. We really love to see a club that was at rock bottom rise up and dominate. We love the notion that at the beginning of any season the playing field is levelish. People love the Royals, Cubs, Astros lineup of World Series winners, and that clubs such as Denver, Baltimore, Indy and Philly can win a super bowls, but can also suck. I think the long term health of MLS is largely reliant upon gate revenue, and gate revenue stagnates, falls, if markets see sucking in their DNA. I agree that there are always lesser clubs and greater clubs, but it shouldn't be a built in feature of the league. A quibble with your strategy for domestic players. If you want to create more high end talent, doesn't exempting all domestic work against that? Ideally, you'd want to encourage developing players (which really is happening right now, as Paul Berry pointed out). If MLS clubs had total domestic exemptions, the path to first team football for homegrowns becomes much more difficult.
Basic psychology we can agree on: I want to win therefore I need the best tools in my toolbox. That point is universal; just getting there is the question. Under this proposal, there is room within developing domestic players to have better players. How? If I was the club, what I’m going to do is invest my resources into building the best academies and affiliated youth clubs in order to produce higher end talent. That higher end talent I would not be restricted on what I would pay them so if a player deserves a bigger paycheck to keep him, I will. If I am not interested in developing talent; then I could go out and buy foreign talent, but eventually I’ll hit a ceiling for the level of talent at my disposal. Currently, if I am the club, I have limited reason to develop domestic talent because what’s been shown throughout the league; I’m just going to go out and buy foreign talent. This is what has been shown throughout the league... there’s no difference between just getting talent in South America and growing talent here. Moreover, there has been many cases of domestic players not receiving a pay increase because of cap restrictions. For instance, look at Michael Parkhurst and Greg Garza. Why should Atlanta have to lose those players to stay within the goal posts when they want to sign a better player? I would like to see Atlanta be a better team than they were last year. But because it’d be unfair to the Rapids or whoever can’t keep up; how is that fair to Atlanta? That’s restricting growth. So the current system restricts growth of the club and league. Ultimately, when it comes to parity... too much parity is not a good thing either. At some point we need some force to set the bar higher. That is, if we all agree, our common goal is to have the best league in the world we can have. And with 28 teams and growing approaching, we are not a league on the ropes anymore. If a couple get lost in the pack then that is not the end of the world for the league. But maybe that is the fundamental point that we disagree on; I’m not for forced parity. Now, I don’t want to create a situation where one club can dominate because they’ll just buy the best talent around the world and the others can’t compete... but this isn’t that system. But this system does break some of the shackles of parity...which is a good thing for the league.
Two points: SKC is and was quite interested in developing talent. They saw EPB as a long term fixture of their defensive back line, but they didn't see that future starting for a while because they had better CBs, domestic and one was a DP, at that time. I believe this is a good example of s problem your solution presents. the more money they can spend on domestic talent the tougher it is to justify getting kids in the game. I have to assume while we are exempting folks from the cap, we are not lowering the cap? That also means the league is paying a great deal more for international talent, because there are fewer cap pressures (instead of paying for up to the max salary on 28 players, the cap would now apply to 8 international slots per club (they can be traded, so some would have more, others less). I don't object to the idea of an average of 8 players earning $500k a year on MLS rosters, in addition to the domestic players earning as much as the market will bear. I think that would mean an uptick in the overall play. But, from a financial sense, it is an entirely different system. If 20 players per club on average are cap exempt, that really is simply dumping the cap, isn't it? Exempting all domestic players would mean that, as there are only 8 int slots per club. My earlier issue, which is don't destroy the weak just yet, try to stengthen them, applies. I think this is our primary difference. But I would like to see HG players be exempt for at least some time, until they're 26 maybe (no research, but throwing out a number). I do think the salaries will continue to rise, and pretty quickly in MLS. The situation you are talking about might work with a league that has already grown up better than with one that still that's just starting to see what it can become.