Well these teams are not as well capitalised as MLS teams are nor do they have numerous corpoarte sponsors that MLS. I also suspect that these european teams pay MUCH higher taxes than any MLS team does. I doubt very much the ticket prices are as high as in MLS either.
I feel it comes down to the MLS not being profitable. Until attendences start to suffer because of the loss of talent, I don't see the league raising salaries. It would be interesting to see how much the teams like LA, who are somewhat profitable, would increase their spending on players if they were a separate entity.
Why? If the owners are capitalized (they are), the difference between making $10 million and breaking even and making $5 million and losing $5 million is irrelevant. In each case you're out $10 million in rent. The only way it could have an effect on salaries is if the owners simply didin't have the money available to advance the case while waiting for the return on that investment. They have the cash, so clearly the issue is return on investment. The difference, of course, is that in Norway there is a return on the investment. If by paying Adin Brown what they're paying him, Aalesund has increased their chances of avoiding relegation by x% and increased their chances of a UEFA cup spot by x%, then what they're paying Brown has a potential to provide a return on investment for them. Therefore they're willing to pay Brown an amount of money roughly equal to what they think he'll provide in return revenues (and may not even have to pay that much if Brown will take less). So the solution in MLS would be to re-structure the league so that these same kind of incentives exist for the individual MLS teams: substantial order of finish cash awards, the lion's share of the MLS cup money going to the individual clubs who competed in it, dissolving the amateur draft and allowing the teams to benefit from investing in youth talent, allowing clubs to set their payroll as a percentage of the revenues they generated as opposed to it being fixed across the league, allowing the clubs to retain the money they receive from player transfers in order to re-invest it in the club. By strengthening the link between on the field success and revenues, and by then allowing the team to re-invest those revenues into the quality of the product they are offering, I think you'd see much more potential for growth than you do currently and I think the problems with retaining players would lessen dramatically. Yes maybe parity might suffer some (but it has plenty of room to suffer before becoming a problem), but I don't understand why people think we're better off with our better players in Norway than on D.C. United.
The fact that you're not really addressing the point I was making implies to me that you're not really even trying to see the other side's point of view on this subject, Rommul. Landon Donovan leaving lowers the quality of the league, yes. Ramiro Corrales lowers the quality, probably, although his departure may provide Arturo Alvarez a chance he whouldn't have soon gotten otherwise. Brian Dunseth leaving, no, probably doesn't damage the league. My point is, though, that several years ago, had the Ramiro Corrales or Adin Brown equivalents (say, Wojtek Krakowiak and Jeff Causey) wanted to leave the league, they wouldn't have had the offers that these guys got. So, although losing these guys hurts a little, it indicates that the quality of the league has risen, since average MLS players can get these kinds of offers. If the league's offers for an arbitrary player stay the same, and other country's offers are increasing (in size or quantity), this implies to me an improvement in the league's overall quality. It's really endearing how you treat everybody who disagrees with you like a child. I will repeat, "the league isn't losing many fans." Yeah, sure, it would be nice if the league wasn't losing these guys, but their effect on the league's health is marginal.
Because thinking otherwise would involve questioning some well entenched "truths" about MLS and the game in America. In other words thinking otherwise would involve thinking.
Whose to say it isn't? Whose to say attendances wouldn't be higher with a system more conducive to retaining talent? Being profitable has nothing much to do with anything except PR as far as sports leagues/teams are concerned (unless they are publicly traded). MLB isn't profitable, and it's salaries continue to escalate on a yearly basis as do its franchise values. They continue to pay higher salaries because they believe that by doing so they will see returns on investment equal to or greater than the salaries they're paying. (These returns don't necessarily have to be monetary in nature. George Steinbrenner, for example, gets a significant portion of his return on his investment from the joy he derives from owning a winning baseball team). I need to re-emphasize, if you view paying higher salaries as an additional drain on the finances of MLS, then what you're really saying is that MLS does not receive the necessary return on investment in order to justify the extra expenditure. If that's the case (and I assume that it is), then I think it would be in the league's interests to take steps to remedy that situation because it severely restricts the league's potential growth.
No I think you are the one who is ignoring reality. When was the last time MLS raised the cap? Every year the cap goes unraised the players make less by virtue of simple inflationary pressures. Every other league spends more and more each year on players while MLS tsands still. In other words MLS spend less and less in real dollar terms every year on players. These guys have undoubtedly improved but so has everyone else. Why do people want to pretend that MLS is the only league in the world the is getting better? Players are getting better all the time but the difference is that Africans are well scouted and will go to bigger leagues first. Same with the south americans. They come here for guys like Corrales because they are cheap. I personally love him as an MLS player and think he was unfairly maligned in SJ but there are literally dozens like him all over the europe. But few would be as cheap as he is. The major reason these guys are leaving is because they are cheap. Saying thse guys are leaving because they are better is pure spin. They leave because they can make more money (whether through guaranteed salary or bonuses) elsewhere.
I think the thread very much is on track. If this league can't retain the Kerry Zavagnins, to me that indicates a potential serious problem for the league going forward. Hence the discussion of why that is...
But wouldn't the salaries you'd be willing to invest depend on whether you made $10m or broke even? In theory, AEG and co must be demanding a pretty high ROI given that they've invested so much without much in the way of returns (that we know of!) to date. Wouldn't you agree that needing a higher ROI will put pressure on costs? So, I think higher rents (which I'd note is not a completely fixed cost under many stadium leases-- not that it changes one iota of what you've said) probably do have an effect on salaries. I haven't read the entire thread-- so please forgive me if I've missed something. FWIW, I don't actually think Zavagnin is a marginal player-- I think he's actually a great (MLS) player who absolutely no one would pay to watch. Because MLS is in dire need of "faces", MLS may actually undervalue Zavagnin (compared to McBride and Beasley that are probably worth relatiely more to MLS than just their basic "soccer worth"). Guys like him may, in fact, have the worst deal from MLS.
Attendences might be higher with these guys still in the league, but that is something that is really tough to prove. All we know is that attendences are not dropping without them. Being profitable is more than PR for a league that is in need for new investors. I would think a lot more people would be interested in investing in a league that is making money versus one that isn't. Look at the Arena League for example. I think you are right when you say the league does not get the returns it needs to justify the extra expenditures and it does need to do something about it. As someone mentioned earlier, european teams have the shot at playing in the big money tourneys like the UEFA cup. MLS teams really don't have anything similiar. The CONCACAF Cup (or whatever it is) is worthless when it comes to salary motivation. I remember Agoos, before the Earthquake's matches during the last cup, basically saying that he hated playing in it because the players got nothing out of it. This is more of CONCACAF issue than a MLS issue though. If MLS teams had a chance to make money that doesn't come directly from the league itself, maybe the league would have a greater incentive to increase salaries because there would be a chance for a greater ROI. (Interliga?) (Not sure if that is totally clear, I'm pretty tired.)
Not necessarily. Several other different factors could be at play. The perceived quality of the league could have increased elsewhere (say due to the US team's success in Korea). The pay scale elsewhere may have outpaced MLS' pay scale (I'm almost 100% sure this is true) meaning that relative to competing leagues, MLS salaries have actually gone down. The continued lack of an increase in the cap may have convinced US players that the current pay scale in MLS isn't going to increase any time soon, so maybe they're now less willing to stick around and see what happens. There were 2 less teams with jobs to offer, now there's one less team (realistically Chivas USA is not really an option for most American players, at least not at the moment). It could be a lot of things, though I'd guess the league has improved, or at least the base level American player has improved. One thing I wonder is which of these two payroll scenarios is better for the league: Code: Team Payroll A Payroll B Team A $1,800,000 $3,100,000 Team B $1,800,000 $2,720,000 Team C $1,800,000 $2,380,000 Team D $1,800,000 $2,070,000 Team E $1,800,000 $1,800,000 Team F $1,800,000 $1,800,000 Team G $1,800,000 $1,620,000 Team H $1,800,000 $1,460,000 Team I $1,800,000 $1,330,000 Team J $1,800,000 $1,210,000 Team K $1,800,000 $1,100,000 Team L $1,800,000 $1,010,000
"Profit" and "making money" are not equivalent terms for the purposes of this discussion. MLS made money last year. If it didn't, there's some serious fat it needs trimming since they got at least $40 million in increased revenue over normal. It likely did not show a profit however. I'm saying MLS is lying, I'm saying the two are actually different things. A potential investor may look at the fixed costs of the Giants Stadium lease, true, but that still isn't going to have anything to do with how much they want to pay for players. The two issues are separate. Even if the league was raking in money hand over fist, why pay the players any more money unless it was going to bring more in or they were forced to?
True. But the fact that only one player, Adu, has had a substantial effect on attendences in the past, it is tough to predict how losing these players will effect attendences in the future if they have any effect at all. All this being said, I much rather have these guys playing in MLS, just to be clear. I am just trying to look at it from the league's perspective...
Well I don't think the UEFA cup is Aalesund's main driver for wanting to spend on players. They're chances this year are minimal and plus the UEFA cup doesn't make you that much until you progress to a stage where you're playing bigger clubs (the bigger money is when you get a big chunk of a 50,000 gate at Anfield and the TV money with it). They're main motivation is avoiding relegation, a financial circumstance whose effect could be, to an extent, mimicked by MLS through order of finish prizes. I assume the Norwegian teams also have order of finish awards as well. My point is that if you don't give the teams in MLS substantial incentives to cultivate additional revenues, you're going to find them unwilling to invest in order to do so, and in the case of player salaries, unable to because of league rules.
Maybe, maybe not. Maybe he's the only one with an effect that can be directly seen, but that doesn't mean that the loss of several players in total hasn't had some cumulative effect. Nor does it mean they haven't had an effect on things with longer term implications than a single season's attendance (franchise values, TV ratings, return customers, merchandising, etc.). It is, however, obvious that around the world in every sport on the planet, fans are more willing to pay to see higher quality players than lower quality ones. If MLS is different, why? And if so, how the hell do we change that because it really is horrible news for the growth prospects of the league. How do you expect to grow a fanbase when the existing one is indifferent to the quality of your product?
I think you said it just about right here. I love the line -- a great player who absolutely no one would pay to watch. I think each and every team can use a couple of these players to blend together the "stars".
But what if they would pay less to watch his replacement? More to the point, if you had a system where winning more games meant greater revenues, then Zavagnin would be worth more money to a team. If indeed the cummulative effect of losing a dozen Zavagnins is very much negative while losing one is not, then clearly the problem isn't losing Zavagnin, but the structure that is allowing so many of the players of his level to leave.
I think one problem with financial payouts to teams in the MLS based on finish is that the league would be both paying and receiving them. They would not go to the separate teams like they would in Norway. Now the incentives to players might increase the level of play by making the regular games mean more, but that thought might take us even further off track.
Well obviously you'd have to change that in order for it to work, and you'd have to allow teams to have their payrolls indexed to the individual revenues of the team, rather than having them capped at the same level for all of the teams.
For me, the timeline for the league going forward will be this (extremely simplfied): SSS's for every team -> Overall Profitablity -> Separate owner for each team -> Increased Competition between teams -> Significant increase in talent I think the league will continue to grow over the next couple of years, but I think the league will really take off after the single entity is gone.
Will people pay more to watch better talent? Of course (but only if they notice it). So MLS will be hurt by players leaving if (a) there aren't similarly talented newcomers and (b) the fans are sophisticated enough to notice it. Of course voros's underlying points are right. The only question is one of degree. Is MLS appreciably worse than before? I think yes, a little bit. Put me in the camp that thinks MLS was best in 2001. This has probably cost the league some growth. But how much growth? And how much money would it take to have a sufficiently large effect on the quality of play that the casual fan would notice?
The league's not growing, or at least it's popularity isn't. It does need to continue to grow, it needs to start growing. The league's structure inhibits that by emphasizing cost reduction over revenue generation. My timeline would be: Increased revenues -> Increased revenues -> Increased revenues -> Increased revenues -> Increased revenues. The other stuff (every one) becomes a lot easier under such a timeline. The question is, what does MLS have to do to head in that direction. The only plan MLS seems to have right now is to extort stadiums from the taxpayers of suburban municipalities. The libertarian instincts in me are insulted, I suppose, but if they can pull it off that's fine I guess. Then what? And if they have something, why do they have to wait until they complete their stadium boondoggles before undertaking it?
If such an opportunity existed, would the teams be able to keep all the money they earned or would be redistributed to everyone else? I think that answers your question.