today's la times had an eyebrow-raising article about david beckham's appearance at the home depot center this past week. however, it wasn't the usual "beckham said he might play in mls one day" fluff piece. It included some quotes from tim leiweke (2nd in command at aeg) on the future of the league and a proposal that the league investors will be discussing at phil anschutz's denver ranch this week (this meeting has been known about for some time; however, the reason for it was not). in short, the league is considering some radical changes that could result in higher payrolls, an influx of big name players into the league (a la the nasl), and more autonomy for individual teams with regards to marketing and advertising. here are the highlights... i really don't know what to make of this. the proposed marketing and advertising change would be welcomed, as local control is a good thing. locals know the market, not mls hq in nyc. however, its been pretty well-documented that sister clubs just don't work that well, if at all (dc-leverkusen, metros-boca, fire-morelia, etc). i don't understand the league's fascination with it at all. and the big fish. i don't know what the financial implications of such a move would be. but from an on the field viewpoint, this could do wonders for the league, as long as the foreigner limits remain. however, i don't think that the league should be chasing around premadonnas. increase the cap significantly- fine. but don't go around looking for name players who merely want to retire. bring in 26 year olds who can earn a paycheck in la liga or the premiership but aren't superstars. those are the kind of guys we need in the league. those are the ones who will bust their asses for the crew on a cold wednesday night in front of 10,000 fans. what do ya'll think?
MLS really should't make major moves in this direction until #1. One team to one owner has been accomplished (maybe AEG/Hunt with two each) and #2. 70+% of the league is in SSS's. At this point, the league will be ready to reap the benefits of more talent. Right now, I'm not sure an increase in talent level would really make a big difference with a total lack of marketing and less than stellar atmosphere in the NFL stadiums.
Suppose MLS increases team budgets by 300%, 400%, 500%. Should they blow it all on one big name player or hire many relatively unknown players? Sorry to hear Leiweke is proposing this. His team has the best home attendance. They have their own stadium "the cathedral of US soccer". Their new coach has brought in a lot of foreign players. Typical suggestions by a big market team that will be unfeasible by small market teams.
What would be better is if MLS increased the salary cap dramatically so that the league can attract the absolute TOP players from all over CONCACAF before they go to Europe. Ruiz should be making AT LEAST $300,000 a year, not the crap that he makes now. Get these top players more cash. Also....in the future we can attract top young American talent knowing that they can make a good living playing soccer here.
I have no problem at all with better players coming to MLS. But I think money spent on an increased marketing budget would do a lot more for the overall health of the league.
It says Leiweke and AEG are behind this. It's good to see that Phil isn't shy about spending more money. They should wait a few years until the majority of teams have stadiums. 2008? Anyway, the salary cap probably is more important. You could have better teams by spending an extra million or two in salary than with the transfer market. But I'm glad to see Leiweke's aggressive stance. He's a soccer guy and he wants this to be successful.
HUGE HUGE HUGE mistake. Sure it would be great for us fans, but in term of $$$, it's a huge mistake. Just do a cost-benefit analysis and you will find out why. Cost: -Transfer fee for these big-name European players would average around $40 million. 5 players = $200 millions. -Salary: About $6-8 millions for each player a year. Benefit: -publicity/media -increase in attendance (but by how much?) -increase in TV ratings (but by how much?) -increase in merchandise/sponsorship (but by how much?) The question is that can MLS recoup $200 millions if it has 5 big-name European players? Better solutions to make MLS more attractive to fans (in my opinion) are: -all owner mandating 'team attacking, offensive soccer' strategy (Chivas USA owner is doing it and we all know they don't have the talents to pull it off, but they are still doing it. Now if all owners mandating this, it would be fair to every team. What do MLS got to lose from such a mandate? If coaches don't play attacking soccer, hire those that will and make it clear that it is expected of them.) -get players from Brazil that can dribble past players. Fans love to see it. See all the 'aww and ooo' when Beasley dribbled past players in yesterday USA game. -support the Supporters Sections. They are the sole reason why there is an atmosphere at games (beside when goals are scored).
signing a player like Beckham could be considered a marketing expenditure. The press generated would be enormous.
I hope at the meeting, these owners don't "group think" because it would be a terrible mistake. Having one big name European player on each team would not increase the quality of play that much. Revenue would double at most but costs might increase 10 folds. And after 3-4 years, what can MLS do? Transfer more big name players? Only top teams in Europe can afford this because they have a very large fanbase, a large stadium (50-70 k), huge TV contract, large sponsorship deal, shirt deal, etc.... Also, look at Chelsea, they were doing it, signing big name European players and they lost around $150 million in 2003/2004 season. I hope Leiweke's big name European players is not what I think it is.
So would the costs in signing a player like Beckham. Transfer fee: $40 million at least Salary: $8-10 million a year. maybe on a free-transfer, but there is no way the top player in the world in term of revenue-generating would go on a free transfer.
Not only would the press coverage be enormous, but I'm certain that the games he plays in would make the "Freddy-effect" pale in comparison. If Freddy can get an extra 5K to every game, then Beckham could probably get 20K. 20,000 x $15 per ticket = $300,000. $300,000 x 30 games = $9 million. Add in other revenue, from hotdogs, t-shirts, etc, and the actual monetary impact of Beckham coming to MLS for one year, and the final number might be more like $12-15 million. That probably wouldn't cover the cost of bringing him over here, but if you factor in the extra press coverage, and possibly some more lucrative sponsorship deals, then maybe it just might be worth it in the end. I think it all comes down to this: If Beckham came over here, what type of sponsorship deals could he get for himself, and what type of sponsorship deals would it lead to for the whole league? If AEG and MLS can get some satisfactory answers to those questions, then we might just see something like this happen.
MLS is heading in the right direction. Slow and steady growth. Once our teams are in their own stadiums,the league will be set for success. MLS's average attendance is on par with the NBA,NHL and Arena League.
I had a feeling the league was going to go this way soon. Let's face it, MLS gets zero publicity and utterly lacks stars to create publicity. For the most part it has become a faceless league. IN the USA, sports are promoted more through stars than teams. If MLS ever wants to get on Sportscenter and get more press I always felt this was the next step. As long as they do it wisely and don't get in an NASL trap, I think this would make the league much more compelling to the average person.
MLS needs better foreign players, not foreign "stars". Once we get the sort of South Americans the Mexican league is getting, the sort of Africans the French league is getting, the sort of Eastern Europeans the Bundesliga gets, we'll be well on our way to greatness. So far, the Central Americans and Caribbeans are providing this sort of quality starter at a comparatively low price (Ivan Guerrero, Loco Rodriguez, Tiger Fitzpatrick, Gonzalo Segares, etc.). It's these "glue" foreign guys--not just Ruiz or Pando--that must get still better to truly improve the league.
Will this happen sooner than we think? Has movement already begun on this by the league or is has it only been discussed before? -G
I don't have that much faith in Tim being a "soccer guy" he actually said "Beckham is the world's greatest player on TV last weekend. I think that this whole idea with affiliation with Euro teams shows that their knowledge of Football as a business over there is nil. I like the current direction of MLS and think the only thing holding it back is the US sports media (espn and your local paper). To spin this positively maybe there are talks going on with one of the networks about weekly national coverage. If you get some big names, CBS will contract you for weekly reg. season bla blah blah... just a thought.
The problem with this philosophy (which I agree with on many levels) is that while it will certainly improve the quality of play in the league, it won't add any buzz or increase marketability for it. The league's level of play is far better now than it was in 1996, but the buzz factor is not nearly as high, even with expansion, Adu and the Donovan fiasco in the last two years. The best case scenario for MLS is a combination of the two. To increase the overall level of play by increasing the quality of the average player, while also bringing in a few star players to get people through the gates. The first half of this will happen naturally as this country produces more quality players, but the second can only come with a big financial splash. You need to glitter to get them in the door, then the substance to make them into fans.
beckham cost Real Madrid £24.5m to buy from Man Yoo.. That's $44.5m in today's cash...not sure what is was then.. that was also TWO YEARS AGO His transfer now would not cost $40m...if he's in the last year of his contract, it'd be not even half.. Not that I am advocating buying beckham, but there are very very very very very few players that would cost any team anywhere 40M It would be damn funny to see Beckham at Rice-Eccles on AstroTurf though.. or Ronaldinho coached by Andrulis??
Field Turf. and nowhere near as funny as Pele, Cruyff, Best, Beckenbauer and the rest of the greats on the old style Astroturf in the NASL.
If Beckham came it would be on a free transfer. He has said many many times he is going to stay at Real Madrid for two more years, that's how long his contract lasts, and then he'll see where he wants to go. So when his contract is up he could sign in MLS for free. Also even though he still may be making 7 million or so a year MLS might not have to pay for it all. I think MLS did a similar thing with Donovan when they first signed him when they had Nike pitch in for part of his contract. MLS could team up with Adidas(if that's who sponsors him) to pay for part of his contract. Then they could only count part of his contract, 300,000k or whatever the max salary is towards the cap; just like they do with Donovan(who makes about a million a year), Adu, Wolf, all those guys who actually make more than the max salary. I'm not saying this is going to happen just that it would be feasible even by MLS standards. Also I dont see what's wrong with MLS continuing it's current philosophy of build slow, build stadiums, develop young Americans and sign quality players from our region, while at the same time signing one or two major soccer stars from around the world. When the league first started this is essentially what they did and it seemed like they generated alot more buzz. What a better way to get publicity for all of MLS's achievments, games, and stadiums then to have a thousand press there to cover Beckham and also have to write about the new stadium he is playing in, in Harrison.
Becks is still too expensive, IMO, but Figo may not be. Real is ready to dump him and, when his $10M contract expires in a year, he may be willing to play for just a few mil. No transfer fees will be required. Mexico has done that with a few aging Euro-based stars, some of whom have done better (El Butre, Biyik, Kalusha) than others (Bernd Schuster, JM Bakero). And there are more than a few players like that. Others could be available on loan. The Argentine league has gotten Palermo, Ortega, Gallardo, Castroman, Salas back from Europe and they can't be making all that much down there. PS. But I don't want no flopping GKs like Barthez or James.
Bringing in top-class players would really make a difference in places like NY and a dramatic increase in salaries would make a big difference with the likes of Chivas USA, where if the pay is there and the competition is improved, the best Mexican players may be tempted to give MLS a shot... The big difference now is that the standard of play is now credible; and adding world-class players to a sound foundation only makes sense, and would really help put fannies in seats in the big markets especially.
Figo could do wonders for Metro attendance. There is a huge Portugese population in Northern New jersey.
I agree. I think we are going to see MLS move in a player aquisition role soon. I think they took the slow and steady thing as far as they can. Especially, now that MLS will be controlling more venues soon.