That's great if you live in Bristol, not so great if you live in Split. If MLS expands to say 36 teams, it could give 70 or 80 per cent of Americans a team to root for, playing at the top level, at the same time. It's different, that's all.
I never said it was, but let's not kid ourselves that the expansion fees are intended for club capital improvements: they're dividends for the owners. Oh Lord Jesus No. But that's anathema to very nature of NISA: National Independent Soccer Association. USL would be a better fit. Undoubtedly, single entity prevented MLS from folding at the turn of the century. I don't really see its benefit in 2020. Well, I do, but not for the fans. Uh... that wasn't $5 billion for a USL-C team: that was a $5 billion real estate deal that was using a medium sized SSS to try to avoid NIMBY-ism. Didn't work, though. If this was really about the soccer, for $10 million they could get their franchise and a really nice, empty SSS in Bridgeview. It's the same as the Red Wolves: Bob Martino isn't spending $250 million on their stadium: probably more like $5 million, if that. Operating the soccer team is intended to fit into rounding errors of the actual business. Which is fine! But let's don't act these development projects are expecting to sink a ton of money into their soccer holdings: they're using the soccer part to maximize the value of the rest of the development. Of course it does. Which is why expansion fees are counterproductive towards that goal. So he could have invested in another D1 soccer team in Chicago? Or is it possible that MLS has a monopoly on D1 soccer teams in the USA?
But that payroll has increased year after year. Forbes valued Houston at $33 million in 2008 (their first published MLS valuations) and $200 million in 2019.
Unless you were the investor in the Miami Fusion, the SJ Clash, or Chivas USA (the Tampa Bay Mutiny too, but I don't think they ever had an owner).
We've already had the lesson where MLS is worth more now than in 2001. Chivas is somewhat exceptional case: it's true that a rising tide can't lift a boat that the owner has actively taken an axe to the hull and possibly also set on fire.
Sure - they added two players at $1m a piece. Managed to net them a whole 2 points over what they got in 2018. For perspective, they increased their spending by 30% in 2019 and were still outspent by the Whitecaps by $350k. Zlatan made more last year than the entire Houston team. And the Texans' valuation has increased $2 billion in that timeframe. Is there an example of a major league franchise (in a legitimately major league) whose value has decreased over a 10 year window?
or, again its a return of money to spend on the team. Not rocket science. Okay, enjoy the decentralization I guess and the pretend "rivalries" like Michigan Stars (lol) and Detroit City. The quiet murmurs of another NISA team folding after a single season, as is "every soccer club for itself" I mean, does it matter which timepoint single entity "benefits"? MLS owners already lost millions making this league happen and its increasing support provides new investors to join in. MLS is the most enduring professional soccer league we ever had in this country. I think if single entity is the best way to operate a soccer league, let it be so. Its working so far. Agree, but it comes down to who's going to invest in a pro team there. I think the Red Stars takes first priority there, and the stadium is owned by Bridgeview and operated by Comcast. How is that counterproductive? Its a small return which would be used on each team. If Tepper paid $325 million to be a part of MLS, wouldn't the rest of MLS teams get a equal fraction of the $325 million ($10,833,333) to spend for themselves? Anyone can apply for Division 1 sanctioning. Sports leagues are exempt from anti-trust, so MLS can't really do anything about USL or others from applying D1 sanctioning. Of course, no one has done it since MLS became D1, but it can be theocratically done. Another D1 league with MLS would be seen as increased competition. Investing in another D1 soccer team in Chicago would be just as hard as right now.
Was going to say exactly the same. You seem to be making arguments against me, specifically around "sporting merit" a term I never use. Just to be clear I do favor pro/rel, but not because there is allegedly a clause in FIFA bylaws about it or because it's a civil rights issue. I favor it because I think it's a better system for fans. Simple. And I also think MLS has a RIGHT to set up their competition however they want. Hell they could just pick the two teams for the MLS cup based on who will get the best tv ratings for all I care (as long as they are upfront about it). But I think that in the long run MLS/Soccer would benefit from a form of pro/rel. That'sit. Would love to continue to discuss it with you, or not, but don't make assumptions about my position. I will try and do the same about yours.
Sports is all about dreams that almost never happen, that's kind of the point. But if you take away the dream what's the point of the sport.
Dreams are great, but your business plan shouldn't be based around the possibility of an unlikely one happening.
No, I'm talking about the very clear line we're fed about "sporting merit" that always either gloss over, ignores, writes off, or does bendy math to justify the $$$ in the equation. The darling Leicester is a great example from this thread. Championed by the "sporting merit" and pro/rel crowd the mental gymnastics done when myself and others pointed to the billionaire investment and brand new spending levels they underwent to become Cinderella. Man City ... darlings of the scenario for those folks but uh yeah, literal Billionaire buyout (twice) is what the actual story is. That's literally why Hankinson got out of the soccer game after a few years. He was even in talks with more than one international group in regards to moving the Scorpions up the ladder. The realities of the money involved just 5 years ago were enough for him to get out as he was well out of his depth. The money needed simply to be in the conversation is beyond what people either realize, or will ever admit. SMART PEOPLE that were in the game and had pretty good money have seen what it takes just to be in the conversation and realized that it was too much. That amount has only gone up. Pro/Rel will do plenty of exposure but it ain't going to be as clean and nice as Hankinson's departure from San Antonio's soccer scene. The Delta's would have been a disaster of epic proportions But ... sporting merit (or so we're told). ... even with all of this "incentive" there's PLENTY of clubs in pro/rel set ups that are less than ambitious and/or look quite a lot like these hapless American sports clubs that are bandied about. Even more so, the pro/rel system has caused artificial damage to clubs to occur by way of the NEED to overspend (just to tread water in some cases). ... good thing pro/rel eliminates folks getting loads of money for being shit owners/FOs Outside of that, the 500$m Silver Lake bought into the Man City ownership group puts the value of that club at just under 5b! Good thing FCU of Manchester exists so some schlumpy owner wannabe can realistically buy in, move up, and get a top tier club in Manchester ... yeah? Alexis Sanchez made TWICE what the entire Sheffield United team did in 19-20. Bet there is in pro/rel leagues The very dreams bandied about with pro/rel HAPPEN in our leagues too. We have things that happen in ours that literally can't in pro/rel.
Because it could be $325 million being put towards building a community or academies or facilities or players or whatever. Instead, that just for the opportunity to spend money for those things. I'm not terribly worried about Tepper's money, but it's still a much deeper hole that MLS is putting their new teams in. Is Charlotte really worth 4.5x as much as Atlanta? But let's aside MLS and its billionaires: San Diego's $10 million wasn't distributed among the clubs. And the margins are way lower in the lower divisions. No they can't. For Joe Mansueto to start a rival D1 team in Chicago, he would need to start 12 teams in 3 time zones and sort out 2 more in 3 years. This is an entirely different calculus than building a club. It's building a league, which most people are certainly not interested in, especially when the rival and incumbent has a multi-decades head start. No one is claiming MLS has an exclusive right to D1 or is anticompetitive (well, I'm sure some people claim that, but I think it would be a tough case to prove), but if the only place that sells groceries or home goods in a 20+ mile radius is Walmart, it has a de facto monopoly on those goods and services whether or not it's being explicitly anticompetitive. This notion of anyone being to apply for D1 sanctioning is a strawman: this hypothetical is irrelevant to the club owner.
So you're admitting that the fee goes to the opportunity to invest more in facilities, players, academies et al. Glad we agree on that. Hope you agree that building a professional club requires a lot of capital. Like with Nashville SC new stadium that their owners paid in full, with no taxpayer dollars. Building a league is not a one-man show, sir. More like a group of like-minded folks. Hence "league of teams" Can you explain how MLS, as an organization isn't allowing competition in its own field? There's dozens of professional soccer leagues now. They all compete for player services and with one another called the US Open Cup.
This is pretty academic. Deltas wouldn't have started off in D2 and NASL's financial situation wouldn't have been exactly as it turned out. This isn't a super great comparison. Sheffield United's "budget squad" was in contention for a Europa league position. Dynamo were 8 points off of the last playoff place. If Sheffield's isn't spending enough to stay competitive, there are consequences. Which has doubled in value in that time. And that's despite the fact that there are alternatives to my house, all around the city! I'm not benefitting from artificial scarcity. But that's my point. They're appreciating assets. If a major league sports franchise isn't gaining in value, something is very, very wrong. I don't think it's a terribly useful statistic to use to claim that the system is beyond reproach.
No, I'm saying that money that could be used to build those things in Charlotte are going to Kroenke and Kraft and the Hunts. These same groups have benefitted from every new team to join since Toronto. Charlotte isn't going to get that and they're $325 million in the hole to get started. I'm not generally one to call MLS a pyramid scheme, but... Nobody is arguing otherwise. I'm just not sure how the $325m or $10m (respectively) before you pay a dime for actual soccer things is best use of resources. This is literally my point. Can you explain how Joe Mansueto, as a potential club owner, had an alternative to own a D1 team in Chicago? MLS doesn't have to behave anticompetitively to not actually have any competition. Uh, no. There are 4.
Plus dreams are subjective. Promotion could be cool to me, but less so if it were to a league like the Bundesliga or Serie A where one team in each league is nearing a decade of consecutive titles.
I don't think Tepper is weeping that he has to spend money on an entry to MLS and Charlotte MLS team lol...He knows what he's getting into. See, this is where you guys run out of arguments. "Ponzi/pyramid scheme" "SUM" "Monopoly" Doesn't get tiring and annoying? 10+ years of this. Expansion fees is a good temporary alternative to broadcasting rights. You know Premier League clubs rely on that broadcasting money right? I can't explain for others. Investors are free to spend their money however they want.
Whereas Dynamo's value has increased by 666% in that time. But the money doesn't go into the owners' back pockets it goes into the league, the league that was losing a $100 million a year as recently as 2014 according to the commish. Each teams' revenue is published by Forbes. But MLS teams are spending unprecedented $millions on academies, as well as local feeder clubs. As recently as last week they announced a new DA program. https://www.mlssoccer.com/post/2020...announce-groundbreaking-strategic-partnership Look at MSAs. It's up to the teams to extend their reach, which many are doing very poorly. But Sounders have done a great job of engaging the whole of Washington State.
And what does one have to do with the other? Not trying to pick on you but it's frustrating to see all of the ills of elite European Football (and there are a lot) placed at the feet of pro/rel. Assuming you feel the same frustration when all of the ills of US Soccer (again there are a lot) are blamed on MLS and their ownership and league system.