Wages of the top 13 MLS players vs. wages of the top 15 Liga MX players

Yoshou · Aug 22, 2014

Achowat said: ↑

Man, why do you guys always throw this shit on us?
Click to expand...

Because you're already buried in it. One more shovelful won't be noticed.

vevo5 · Aug 23, 2014

Yoshou said: ↑

And therein lies the problem.. While Seattle, Toronto, New York, and LA might be able to afford $15m in salary, the rest of the league cannot.
Click to expand...

A simple solution to this problem is to have every clubs live within their means.

This can be done by eliminating the economically-stupid DP Rule and installing a 33% salary cap.

SALARY CAP = 1/3 of a club total REVENUE, then

Seattle Sounders 48.0 mil revenue = $16 mil salary cap
LA Galaxy 44.0 mil revenue = $14.5 mil salary cap
Portland Timbers 39.1 mil revenue = $13 mil salary cap
Houston Dynamo 32.6 mil revenue = $10.8 mil salary cap
Toronto FC 30.9 mil revenue = $10.3 mil salary cap
New York Red Bulls $28.1 mil = $9.37 mil salary cap
Sporting Kansas City $27.7 mil = $9.23 mil salary cap

Clubs can always spend less the 33% cap so they don't go bankrupt.

I have a feeling that Liga MX are thanking their lucky stars that MLS isn't smart enough to install such a system. MLS focusing on parity parity parity will mean that Liga MX will continue to be better than MLS in many many years to come.

Bubba1971 · Aug 23, 2014

vevo5 said: ↑

A simple solution to this problem is to have every clubs live within their means.

This can be done by eliminating the economically-stupid DP Rule and installing a 33% salary cap.

SALARY CAP = 1/3 of a club total REVENUE, then

Seattle Sounders 48.0 mil revenue = $16 mil salary cap
LA Galaxy 44.0 mil revenue = $14.5 mil salary cap
Portland Timbers 39.1 mil revenue = $13 mil salary cap
Houston Dynamo 32.6 mil revenue = $10.8 mil salary cap
Toronto FC 30.9 mil revenue = $10.3 mil salary cap
New York Red Bulls $28.1 mil = $9.37 mil salary cap
Sporting Kansas City $27.7 mil = $9.23 mil salary cap

Clubs can always spend less the 33% cap so they don't go bankrupt.

I have a feeling that Liga MX are thanking their lucky stars that MLS isn't smart enough to install such a system. MLS focusing on parity parity parity will mean that Liga MX will continue to be better than MLS in many many years to come.
Click to expand...

Those revenue numbers are driven in large part to the DPs.

I don't care if MLS is better than Liga MX. I mean I do, but it isn't a priority. I want a solid, profitable league. A bunch of Bulgarian dudes may be awesome players, but they don't pay the bills.

I think you're having a problem with the fact that MLS's priority is being a stable league rather than a good league.

Achowat · Aug 23, 2014

Bubba1971 said: ↑

Those revenue numbers are driven in large part to the DPs.

I don't care if MLS is better than Liga MX. I mean I do, but it isn't a priority. I want a solid, profitable league. A bunch of Bulgarian dudes may be awesome players, but they don't pay the bills.

I think you're having a problem with the fact that MLS's priority is being a stable league rather than a good league.
Click to expand...

"Good league" here, I presume, being about the quality of play on the field when compared to other leagues in other nations.

KCbus · Aug 23, 2014

vevo5 said: ↑

A simple solution to this problem is to have every clubs live within their means.

This can be done by eliminating the economically-stupid DP Rule and installing a 33% salary cap.

SALARY CAP = 1/3 of a club total REVENUE, then

Seattle Sounders 48.0 mil revenue = $16 mil salary cap
LA Galaxy 44.0 mil revenue = $14.5 mil salary cap
Portland Timbers 39.1 mil revenue = $13 mil salary cap
Houston Dynamo 32.6 mil revenue = $10.8 mil salary cap
Toronto FC 30.9 mil revenue = $10.3 mil salary cap
New York Red Bulls $28.1 mil = $9.37 mil salary cap
Sporting Kansas City $27.7 mil = $9.23 mil salary cap

Clubs can always spend less the 33% cap so they don't go bankrupt.

I have a feeling that Liga MX are thanking their lucky stars that MLS isn't smart enough to install such a system. MLS focusing on parity parity parity will mean that Liga MX will continue to be better than MLS in many many years to come.
Click to expand...

How many times are you going to post the same nonsense before you figure out that people by and large don't agree with you?

If you tie the salary cap to revenue, you set up a self-fulfilling cycle where the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. The richer teams will be able to spend more money on players, giving them an unfair advantage, which will feed itself, make that advantage bigger, and pretty soon it's a runaway league.

You keep tweaking your little formula because you seem to suffer from the impression that you just haven't quite found the magic number that will make everyone happy. Newsflash: There is no magic number.

We.
Aren't.
Interested.
In.
A.
League.
Where.
Certain.
Clubs.
Can.
Buy.
Championships.
By.
Repeatedly.
Outspending.
Everyone.
Else.

JasonMa · Aug 23, 2014

KCbus said: ↑

We.
Aren't.
Interested.
In.
A.
League.
Where.
Certain.
Clubs.
Can.
Buy.
Championships.
By.
Repeatedly.
Outspending.
Everyone.
Else.
Click to expand...

WAIIALWCCCBCBROEE?

vevo5 · Aug 27, 2014

KCbus said: ↑

If you tie the salary cap to revenue, you set up a self-fulfilling cycle where the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. The richer teams will be able to spend more money on players, giving them an unfair advantage, which will feed itself, make that advantage bigger, and pretty soon it's a runaway league.
Click to expand...

Isn't that how sports league like EPL, Serie A, La Liga, Bundesliga, MLB, NFL, NBA, NHL, NCAA basketball, NCAA football are able to grow?

What if MLS focus on GROWTH (at the expense of parity) for the next 10 years and at the end of this 10 years, MLS will focus on PARITY again?

We.
Aren't.
Interested.
In.
A.
League.
Where.
Certain.
Clubs.
Can.
Buy.
Championships.
By.
Repeatedly.
Outspending.
Everyone.
Else.
Click to expand...

It seems to me A LOT OF American soccer fans prefer that system. Superclubs system has its benefits.

You don't like it because your favorite club would be disadvantage. I only care about the league and if MLS is able to surpass Liga MX in just a few short years, that would be a BIG STATEMENT on the North American sporting landscape.

As fans, we would get much higher quality of soccer too. Of course, you would hate that.

vevo5 · Aug 27, 2014

Another benefits of straight up 33% revenue salary cap, DP Rule elimination, free agency is transparency.

Each club has X amount of salary cap. Each club can have X amount of players. Go and sign them if you are able.

Right now, MLS has too many contrivances.

Formidable. RT @RunnerLuis My all-time MLS Best XI. pic.twitter.com/4JH4FIcumd
— Brian Straus (@BrianStraus) August 26, 2014

KCbus · Aug 27, 2014

vevo5 said: ↑

As fans, we would get much higher quality of soccer too. Of course, you would hate that.
Click to expand...

Really? That's what you think? I'm pro-salary cap because I hate quality? You had four days, and that's the best you could come up with?

vevo5 · Sep 2, 2014

KCbus said: ↑

Really? That's what you think? I'm pro-salary cap because I hate quality? You had four days, and that's the best you could come up with?
Click to expand...

option 1: Higher quality MLS but your favorite club Columbus will do poorly (the have nots of MLS)

option 2: or a lower quality MLS because the top clubs are held back but your favorite club Columbus have a level playing field through enforced parity.

You choose option 2 (lower quality MLS) for obvious reasons. I would too if I'm a fan of a small club. Ask fans of Stoke or Hull if they favor a EPL in which they have equal shot of winning the title but the quality of soccer is poorer or a EPL where they have almost no shot at winning the title but the quality of soccer is better.

Also, you are not pro-salary cap. You're pro enforced parity. There are many ways to get a salary cap and allow the top growth clubs to grow. For example, each club can spend 33% of its revenue on player salaries is a salary cap.

As you stated, you don't want MLS RICH CLUBS from getting richer. That's like EPL saying they don't want to see their RICH CLUBS from getting better. If EPL RICH CLUBS don't get better, the whole league will get left behind.

If you tie the salary cap to revenue, you set up a self-fulfilling cycle where the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. The richer teams will be able to spend more money on players, giving them an unfair advantage, which will feed itself, make that advantage bigger, and pretty soon it's a runaway league.

p.s. It's the "run-away" league that enable it to GROW. EPL, Bundesliga, La Liga, Serie A grew to their full potential by this mechanism that you described.

NFL, MLB, NBA, NHL, NCAA basketball and NCAA football too.

What's wrong with letting MLS grow to its full potential by employing this same "run-away" league mechanism?

KCbus · Sep 2, 2014

vevo, I'm getting really, really, really tired of you. You're a complete one-trick pony who's only interested in flooding the boards with the same thing over and over again. I'm convinced you don't even watch MLS games, because I've never seen a single post of yours that referred to one. Which would make you a troll. I don't understand why you can't just leave well enough alone, even though you've been repeatedly shown that people don't agree with you.

So I'm not going to waste a lot of time on this, but I am going to address it once. You can choose to believe me or not; there are plenty of other posters who read my stuff who would back me up on this. But you're going to believe me or you won't. If you don't, there's no number of words I could type to convince you otherwise. Nor would I bother, because I'm already getting weary of you. But here goes:

My pro-salary cap position has nothing to do with what club I support. It has to do with what I consider to be in the best interests of MLS. I know that's hard to believe for you open-up-the-checkbooks-and-MLS-will-take-over-the-world types, but I believe it, and so do a lot of others.

vevo5 said: ↑

option 1: Higher quality MLS but your favorite club Columbus will do poorly (the have nots of MLS)

option 2: or a lower quality MLS because the top clubs are held back but your favorite club Columbus have a level playing field through enforced parity.

You choose option 2 (lower quality MLS) for obvious reasons. I would too if I'm a fan of a small club. Ask fans of Stoke or Hull if they favor a EPL in which they have equal shot of winning the title but the quality of soccer is poorer or a EPL where they have almost no shot at winning the title but the quality of soccer is better.
Click to expand...

Truthfully, I don't give a damn what EPL fans would say. It's neither here nor there. We're talking about this side of the pond, with a soccer culture that's still evolving. Theirs is pretty much set.

Your definition of "quality" just differs from mine. If the Seattle Sounders could spend enough money to have 11 players on the field at once making $1 million or more, yes -- their team would have a hell of a lot more quality. But if their opponent didn't, the soccer would NOT be better. The soccer played by Seattle would be better, but there are two teams on a field during a game. "Quality" soccer to me is two teams playing hard, playing with skill, and playing a competitive match where you have at least a certain amount of doubt about the outcome. If Liverpool or Real Madrid take the field against a hopelessly outmatched opponent, and they're kicking them about from first kick to full time, they might be showing amazing "quality", but the game will suck. As will most of the games they play.

Further... I'm getting tired of this bullshit term you keep throwing around, "enforced parity." There is no such thing. If there was, Toronto would have made the playoffs by now, and Chivas USA wouldn't be a perpetual dumpster fire, because MLS would have "enforced" a way to make them better. If there was, L.A. and Seattle wouldn't be among the league leaders eight seasons out of ten, and MLS wouldn't be making up rules on the fly to make sure marquee players magically land in the big markets. There is no "enforced parity." There is a system that leads to parity because it gives everyone a chance to reasonably compete. But by and large, if you succeed in MLS, it's good on you, and if you suck, that's on you too.

Also, you are not pro-salary cap. You're pro enforced parity. There are many ways to get a salary cap and allow the top growth clubs to grow. For example, each club can spend 33% of its revenue on player salaries is a salary cap.

As you stated, you don't want MLS RICH CLUBS from getting richer. That's like EPL saying they don't want to see their RICH CLUBS from getting better. If EPL RICH CLUBS don't get better, the whole league will get left behind.
Click to expand...

Why does everything have to be viewed through the prism of the EPL? The EPL could get left behind by the other leagues and still be pretty damn good, first of all. But if you could find a way to make ALL THE TEAMS richer, I'd be all for that. Because you get both -- better quality AND competitive matches/leagues.

p.s. It's the "run-away" league that enable it to GROW. EPL, Bundesliga, La Liga, Serie A grew to their full potential by this mechanism that you described.

NFL, MLB, NBA, NHL, NCAA basketball and NCAA football too.
Click to expand...

Yeah. And the NFL, NBA, NHL all have caps now. They instituted caps, in part, to control runaway spending and address competitive imbalance. MLB has a luxury tax that works a bit differently. Even the NCAA, where the athletes don't get paid (allegedly), they've still found a way where the big schools monopolize the best talent the overwhelming majority of the time. (And, oh, hey -- I've just stumbled onto an example I can use as proof that I'm not just acting out of self interest: I'm an Ohio State Football fan, and I don't even turn my TV on for 2/3 of their games, because they're unwatchable.)

What's wrong with letting MLS grow to its full potential by employing this same "run-away" league mechanism?
Click to expand...

Sincerely,
The NASL

vevo5 · Sep 4, 2014

KCbus said: ↑

vevo, I'm getting really, really, really tired of you. You're a complete one-trick pony who's only interested in flooding the boards with the same thing over and over again. I'm convinced you don't even watch MLS games, because I've never seen a single post of yours that referred to one. Which would make you a troll. I don't understand why you can't just leave well enough alone, even though you've been repeatedly shown that people don't agree with you.

So I'm not going to waste a lot of time on this, but I am going to address it once. You can choose to believe me or not; there are plenty of other posters who read my stuff who would back me up on this. But you're going to believe me or you won't. If you don't, there's no number of words I could type to convince you otherwise. Nor would I bother, because I'm already getting weary of you. But here goes:

My pro-salary cap position has nothing to do with what club I support. It has to do with what I consider to be in the best interests of MLS. I know that's hard to believe for you open-up-the-checkbooks-and-MLS-will-take-over-the-world types, but I believe it, and so do a lot of others.

Truthfully, I don't give a damn what EPL fans would say. It's neither here nor there. We're talking about this side of the pond, with a soccer culture that's still evolving. Theirs is pretty much set.

Your definition of "quality" just differs from mine. If the Seattle Sounders could spend enough money to have 11 players on the field at once making $1 million or more, yes -- their team would have a hell of a lot more quality. But if their opponent didn't, the soccer would NOT be better. The soccer played by Seattle would be better, but there are two teams on a field during a game. "Quality" soccer to me is two teams playing hard, playing with skill, and playing a competitive match where you have at least a certain amount of doubt about the outcome. If Liverpool or Real Madrid take the field against a hopelessly outmatched opponent, and they're kicking them about from first kick to full time, they might be showing amazing "quality", but the game will suck. As will most of the games they play.

Further... I'm getting tired of this bullshit term you keep throwing around, "enforced parity." There is no such thing. If there was, Toronto would have made the playoffs by now, and Chivas USA wouldn't be a perpetual dumpster fire, because MLS would have "enforced" a way to make them better. If there was, L.A. and Seattle wouldn't be among the league leaders eight seasons out of ten, and MLS wouldn't be making up rules on the fly to make sure marquee players magically land in the big markets. There is no "enforced parity." There is a system that leads to parity because it gives everyone a chance to reasonably compete. But by and large, if you succeed in MLS, it's good on you, and if you suck, that's on you too.

Why does everything have to be viewed through the prism of the EPL? The EPL could get left behind by the other leagues and still be pretty damn good, first of all. But if you could find a way to make ALL THE TEAMS richer, I'd be all for that. Because you get both -- better quality AND competitive matches/leagues.

Yeah. And the NFL, NBA, NHL all have caps now. They instituted caps, in part, to control runaway spending and address competitive imbalance. MLS has a luxury tax that works a bit differently. Even the NCAA, where the athletes don't get paid (allegedly), they've still found a way where the big schools monopolize the best talent the overwhelming majority of the time. (And, oh, hey -- I've just stumbled onto an example I can use as proof that I'm not just acting out of self interest: I'm an Ohio State Football fan, and I don't even turn my TV on for 2/3 of their games, because they're unwatchable.)

Sincerely,
The NASL
Click to expand...

You believe the current system, including the current DP Rule, is the best thing for MLS. I don't. I believe there is a better system. One that would allow MLS to be better than Liga MX in just a few years.

I don't have a favorite team. I'm a fan of MLS as a whole. From my point of view, MLS can be a lot better with a simple rule change.

We can agree to disagree.

As for the NASL, their system was free spending, not a 33% salary cap. And the soccer market back then is totally different from today.

Do you think MLS will go bankrupt like NASL did with this system?

SALARY CAP = 1/3 of a club total REVENUE, then

Seattle Sounders 48.0 mil revenue = $16 mil salary cap
LA Galaxy 44.0 mil revenue = $14.5 mil salary cap
Portland Timbers 39.1 mil revenue = $13 mil salary cap
Houston Dynamo 32.6 mil revenue = $10.8 mil salary cap
Toronto FC 30.9 mil revenue = $10.3 mil salary cap
New York Red Bulls $28.1 mil = $9.37 mil salary cap
Sporting Kansas City $27.7 mil = $9.23 mil salary cap

Elninho · Sep 5, 2014

If it's a revenue-based cap, I'm not sure 33% is viable in MLS, because MLS has much higher expenses than most European leagues. Keep in mind that even teams that don't make the playoffs and crash out of the Open Cup early (i.e. those that travel the least) still travel more during the season than UEFA Champions League finalists.

Achowat · Sep 5, 2014

vevo5 said: ↑

You believe the current system, including the current DP Rule, is the best thing for MLS. I don't. I believe there is a better system. One that would allow MLS to be better than Liga MX in just a few years.

I don't have a favorite team. I'm a fan of MLS as a whole. From my point of view, MLS can be a lot better with a simple rule change.

We can agree to disagree.

As for the NASL, their system was free spending, not a 33% salary cap. And the soccer market back then is totally different from today.

Do you think MLS will go bankrupt like NASL did with this system?

SALARY CAP = 1/3 of a club total REVENUE, then

Seattle Sounders 48.0 mil revenue = $16 mil salary cap
LA Galaxy 44.0 mil revenue = $14.5 mil salary cap
Portland Timbers 39.1 mil revenue = $13 mil salary cap
Houston Dynamo 32.6 mil revenue = $10.8 mil salary cap
Toronto FC 30.9 mil revenue = $10.3 mil salary cap
New York Red Bulls $28.1 mil = $9.37 mil salary cap
Sporting Kansas City $27.7 mil = $9.23 mil salary cap
Click to expand...

It's almost as though no matter how many ways you tweak the numbers, people still think it's a bad idea.

Kappa74 · Sep 5, 2014

Anyone wondering what MLS would look like under vevo's tenure, should look no further than the recent Chivas-Seattle game. A truly dire game of soccer watched by no more than a thousand souls. If this kind of mismatch appeals to you, just become a Barca or ManU drone and be done with it. Don't give us some crap about being a fan of the league. You're not, and nor are the hordes of drones who only watch their beloved super club on TV. They could care less about Levante, or Blackpool, or Columbus. MLS, though not of the highest quality, is competitive and a damn fun league to follow. I understand you would like to see some mechanism to help push the quality forward, but your idea would most likely destroy the competitive nature of this league. No thank you.

ceezmad · Sep 5, 2014

Kappa74 said: ↑

Anyone wondering what MLS would look like under vevo's tenure, should look no further than the recent Chivas-Seattle game. A truly dire game of soccer watched by no more than a thousand souls. If this kind of mismatch appeals to you, just become a Barca or ManU drone and be done with it. Don't give us some crap about being a fan of the league. You're not, and nor are the hordes of drones who only watch their beloved super club on TV. They could care less about Levante, or Blackpool, or Columbus. MLS, though not of the highest quality, is competitive and a damn fun league to follow. I understand you would like to see some mechanism to help push the quality forward, but your idea would most likely destroy the competitive nature of this league. No thank you.
Click to expand...

To be fair, we also watch one or two pre-season games live every other year, when the super clubs come to the USA.

usernamefriendly · Sep 6, 2014

vevo5 said: ↑

p.s. It's the "run-away" league that enable it to GROW. EPL, Bundesliga, La Liga, Serie A grew to their full potential by this mechanism that you described.

NFL, MLB, NBA, NHL, NCAA basketball and NCAA football too.

What's wrong with letting MLS grow to its full potential by employing this same "run-away" league mechanism?
Click to expand...

What's wrong is that those leagues can be boring as hell a lot of the time. I laugh when I hear someone call the EPL the most competitive league in the world, as if they forget that 75% of the league has no chance in hell of competing for the title and maybe half of the remaining clubs have a legit chance. Teams don't try to compete, they try to survive. Bet you good money that, fi you could get the truth out of them, there are plenty of owners and managers who'd admit to going in every year with no intention of pushing for a higher spot. They just want midtable mediocrity and that lion on the bottom of their jersey numbers.

The system in Europe is rotten and it's destroying the game, even the rules design to control the spending aren't working FFP rules were circumvented with mass loans instead of sales. LA Liga has two dominant teams and number of clubs in deep financial issues seemingly every year. Finally Atelico breaks through and they get carved up, Southhampton does well in the EPL and they get ripped up as well. Italy desperately needs a shot in the arm and Germany, while financially fit, has a team in Bayern that wins half the damn titles.

Why the hell would we do anything to our system that could push us in that direction? I'm a New York City boy, born and raised but I never liked the Yankees spending 200 million whiles others spent 19. The system was crap and I didn't want my team constantly bleeding the smaller markers dry, what's the f-----g point?

I want MLS to open up the spending but not at the risk of destroying small markets. I don't see a league made up of four or five dominant cities as exciting, even if mine is one of them. Right now I can go to Red Bull Arena and enjoy a competitive game at a very reasonable price. What the hell is the point of going if the majority of the league is crap?
Especially after the bigger clubs establish dominance and start charging premium? Oh yeah, being part of the big club is great but what about your league? How do the other teams grow when new fans latch onto the big clubs?

"Oh you just got into soccer?"
"Yeah,"
"Where you from?"
"Ohio."
"Oh your a Crew fan?"
"Naw, NYCFC."

F-----g ridiculous.

vevo5 · Dec 22, 2014

Duane Rollins, @24thminute )

I have heard some light rumblings that a two tier, luxury tax, cap might be on the table in MLS CBA. it was from a player source though so..

Idea would be that there would be a soft and hard cap. Say $4m soft cap and $6m hard. Money paid between 4.1-6m is taxed w/ money spread out

That could simply be what they players are hoping for. I like the idea though. Since eliminating the vile thing altogether isn't possible.

[question about it being separate from DP designation] it would be a new salary category. Again, this could just be player spitballing.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/fo...-England-earning-average-2-3million-year.html

vevo5 · Mar 5, 2015

Aaron Stollar‏@aaronstol
This deal will ensure MLS will continue to be run and "led" by its most mediocre owners and least ambitious organizations. #MLSCBA

If MLS let clubs that can be SUPER be super clubs, their rising popularity will help lift all of MLS. Too bad MLS strategy is to hold them back so they can't grow vs. their natural potential.

vevo5 · Mar 5, 2015

p.s.

Which would get MLS to its goal of top 10 leagues in 2022?

the current system ($4.2 salary cap by 2019)

or

a 33.3% of revenue as the salary cap?

Parity will be sacrificed for a MLS that is better than Liga MX in a few years. Good trade-off IMO.

The growth potential of NYC FC, Seattle, Toronto, LA Galaxy will be much greater than any Liga MX clubs. Catch up. Surpass. Elevate the whole league by association.

KCbus · Mar 5, 2015

P.S.: You've been asked, repeatedly, not to post the same exact thing over and over and over and over and over and over and over again.

So STOP DOING IT.