Most things in life have mixed benefits. These guys are really smart business people. They realize the rules undermine their teams ability to bargain but also realize rules transparency helps their product. But they aren't going unduly punish the Galaxy for bringing a huge gate attraction like Zlatan and doesn't cut out Atlanta's ability to set a high bar with Almiron. Count on them coming to a solution maximized things to their benefit and limits the fallout. I have no idea what is coming but I'm already seeing the trail balloons for Galaxy keeping their 4 with Alessandrini bought down by some new higher level of TAM. Since Galaxy weren't even in the playoffs and Dos Santos is a DP in salary only, and DP's have been bought down by increases of TAM in the past two years this solutions would not shock me - along with a blurb about restructuring Alessandrini's contract. Atlanta United is a different ball of wax. Cup winners - huge transfers. TAM angle won't work here. So basically they are going to broker a loan deal for Barco. To do otherwise would put the integrity of the league in jeopardy and they want to go anywhere near there.
Your concerns about being "unbalanced" are about as applicable as people worrying that increases spending will lead MLS becoming the NASL all over again. These are not binary any "unbalance" is shaping up to be nothing like the Old Firm example you used. You pretty much argue against your own position here. The rapid growth in the past few years has come during a period of significantly increased "unbalance." Where once teams all had the same "budget" now some teams (like Toronto) can not only spend much higher amounts on their 3 DP's, they can also spend another $1.2 M to shore up the rest of their roster. But to your point it is important most fan bases in the league legitimately feel their team has legitimate hope. Maybe not a legitimate shot to win the league every year, but instead a legitimate shot to regularly be a contender in a year or two while they rebuild. There is a balance of letting the most ambitious owners like AEG and Blank push the league to higher levels while making sure they are in reach of the vast majority. Notice I wrote most, but not all. Basically the league can't be tethered to a few anchors. If some like New England are going to do nothing, then their fan bases are going to have to be sacrificed for the league to continue to advance. This type of "unbalance" has virtually nothing in common with either Celtic or Rangers winning the title 30+ years in a row.
Yes I noticed the Guardian dig. At least he's not humiliated by having to play in La Liga or Serie A where more than a quarter of the teams average 15,000 or less.
If Atlanta took the full hit on Barco's transger in 2018, why in 2019 wouldn't a $900k DTAM increase get him down into the max salary range? For that matter, if MLS announced an addition $1.5m in DTAM they could get Almiron down to the max.
On your first point, I see that but I think we're talking about different levels of parity. On your second, I'm not sure you're right. As MLS exists now, even with the money flowing in recent years, every club can enter the new season thinking they have a legitimate change to do very well. SKC, Columbus, RSL are the three smallest markets (for 2018) and all created expectations of success. SKC was pretty sure they were heading to another final, and they're a tough style team for Atlanta. NYRB, Philly, Dallas, Portland aren't the nearly the biggest spenders in MLS, but certainly compete well with them. The parity I think US fans will insist upon isn't within any given season, but over time. MLS has that. Any and every club can do quite well. European leagues have structural unbalance. The haves and have nots are predetermined, regardless of manager or transfers or whatever. Scotland is an extreme example, perhaps, but not really much of one. My point is that MLS does not have that structure. It is wise to guard against it. IF MLS didn't have playoffs, one of the lower spending clubs would have won the league in 2018. I have a hard time, though, defending the NE approach. I do think they've made an effort on the field to become better, but everything else just seems to be stuck in the previous years of MLS. Still, I think countering NE can be done quite easily by saying Orlando. Sticking a couple high profile, extremely well paid players on a poorly constructed roster isn't really disrupting parity. Most players on every club roster will average $212k. There will be up to 3 DPs making vastly different amounts, but you have to get to the 11th highest paid to find someone who played in the last MLS Cup and in the top 30 there were only five, including Barco who wasn't playing much, but one difference maker on each other club in the semis. Admittedly, Atlanta also had Martinez at 31. But what Atlanta (along with NYRB and Portland and SKC) did a great job at wasn't spending more money than everyone else, which they didn't, but spending wisely, and building solid top to bottom rosters. Parity should not stop clubs from being smarter than others. LAG popped for some great, expensive, players, but the rest of their roster was a mess and at least was poorly thought through. The structural differences come when the rich are allowed, encouraged, to simply buy all the best players on every other club after each season.
According to Paul Tenorio's article in The Athletic, it doesn't work that way. Even if the team pays the transfer fee in the first year, the budget hit is spread across the entire contract. So assuming Barco has a 4 year contract (I have no idea), his $15 million transfer fee + $1.5 million contract means his cap hit is still $5.25 million even if Atlanta paid it up front. The same is also true with salaries. Let's say a team tries to game the system by back loading a player's salary by paying them below DP level in year one, but gives them a huge pay bump in year 2-4. According to Tenorio, the budget hit is still spread across the entire contract.
Do you mean The Athletic? Or did Tenorio get a piece in The Atlantic? If he did, well done for him. Still, an extra shot of DTAM would solve their issues, I'd think.
You are correct. Athletic. And through the abuse of my mod powers, that’s what it says now. But, from what I understand, DTAM only adds $2.8m. It isn’t an unlimited influx that would allow them to spend the $5m necessary to buy down Barco’s budget hit.
Ha. Well done, and now I look like i can't read. Well played. I was thinking MLS would come up with a new batch of it, which they'd use to buy down probably almiron's salary, unless Martinez is still less after the new deal. I know MLS can't simply make up from nothing more made up from nothing salary rules so easily, though,
Again your second sentence supports my point. MLS has been rapidly moving away from New England yet the Red Bulls had the second best record in league history. When I watch foreign leagues I tend to watch games with Barca, Real Madrid, PSG, Bayern, Man City and Chelsea playing but I don't want MLS to be a league like they play in either. However, if Kraft's and Kroenke's had their way MLS would still be close to USL level in talent and I don't want that either. If the rest of the league decides to leave them behind, I'm all for it. There is a fairly wide middle ground and I'm happy to see the league successfully navigating it.
If my second sentence supports the point you were making, then we're pretty much agreeing in this. The difference might be that I still believe that Kroenke and Kraft deserve a bit of time to adjust to a new reality. I have admitted thought that I am less inclined to give Kraft a break. I'm not sure what the long term strategy is there. A Revs fan might know and correct me but from a distance they look a bit confused compared to others.
In the first decade of the league Kraft deserves a lot of credit. He held fast when others wavered and brought in a competent person (Garber) to run the league. For the next decade he was still ferociously fighting the last battle and holding up the league from being what it could be. Kroenke came in added a stadium an little else. Both are neglected parts of a bigger portfolio. They've had plenty of time.
I agree with the post until the last sentence. As you note, MLS probably would not exist without Kraft (Hunt and Anschutz). It's only been the last 5-7 years, IMO, that he's been completely out of touch. The Revs, from the outside and again, fans will know better, seem like the frog in the pot. Around them, MLS has been heating up and, charitable view, Kraft thought they were fine, until it was obvious they weren't. I do wonder why they haven't had a USL side, though neither do the Crew (do they now?). Friedel might be the guy to move them forward as far as a playing concept. He's got some work to do with the rest of the stuff, though their academy is fairly productive, isn't it? As for Kroenke, what he's done hasn't worked consistently. But he's got a management style and he's sticking to it. He likes stadia, they have one. The USL affiliate setup wasn't working, he's changing it. He hires the people he thinks should run the place well, and is fairly hands off. He can be a bit too hands off, Arsene overstaying his welcome springs to mind. Still, what he does, he likes to do in phases, and this for Colorado appears to be the identity phase. Regardless, MLS is not flush enough to walk away from Kraft and Wal-Mart money They may be annoying, but they are really rich (est combined wealth, about $15 billion), and sports leagues like really rich people.