Dear MLS - This Sea of Mediocrity MUST END!

Oh, they are quite good attacking... but their defending is shambolic. I coached a high school team that could defend better than that.

There are some teams in the East that are quite entertaining to watch.

 

EPL or La Liga anyone?

 

MLS in the very long rum will have no choice but to copy the EPL model....I believe around 2010-2012 when the league will have defined itself at least in terms of number of teams and soccer specific stadium... the owner will have no choice but to start looking seriously into opening up their pocket books and start bringing better and more experienced player,,, otherwise the league will always remain fledging in nature.

Recently, I called in to a radio talk show (Giorgio Chanaglia and Charlie Stilitano) and spoke to Shep Messing (was a guest), whom I personally like as an announcer and I think he is pretty much MLS savvy, and raised the question as to whether the owners should start opening their pocket books now... and his answer was a resounding yes.... he felt that its time for MLS to revert back and give the right to the owners to decide how much money they wish to spend on players.

I happen to have a little too much time on my hands right now and hence I listen to many soccer shows including 606 from the UK. And the feeling in the UK is very much unanimous; if not for foreign players the EPL would be doomed to failure. In fact I believe Arsenal has 11 foreign players on their team and ironically most of their coaches and Futball announcers in the UK are foreigner as well; including now Fabio Capello for the National Team.

Don Garber is not a stupid man he knows very well that for the league to really take off it will mean spending big on players.

 

What you couldn't think of any other YAs.

At a glance, Dalby is with Colorado and Jaqua is back, bringing back Troy Perkins wouldn't really help anyone outside of KC or LA, and Kyle Veris?

You realize most of thos guys outside of the first group couldn't make an MLS roster. Adrian Cann? Marco Bras? Cam Weaver I think was an A-Leaguer.

And to pay them would crush the league. So good thinking.

 

DC would gladly take Perkins back.

 

Is it really the general consensus that even a modest raise of the salary cap would doom the league to the fate of the NASL? As much as the more grizzled among us remember what happened, I'd have to think that the current team owners probably have those learn-while-you-sleep tapes recanting the whole tale to build it into their subconscious to not make the same mistake.

Even doubling the cap would put it at around $5.2 million, no? There are still single players (not even very good ones) that make more than that without being called a DP. Are profit margins truly that thin, despite the fact that the USMNT has shown that people will show up if the soccer is at a respectable enough level? As much as we love them, nobody's gonna call them world class or CONCACAF a top-flight crowd.

 

I agree with you, and personally it does factor into which games I choose to watch each weekend. I'm not sure the quality of play is better, but it sure seems [i/] to be better. Galaxy games at the HDC, Fire games at Toyota Park or TFC games at BMO are usually a pleasure to watch, regardless of the opponent. They are attractive venues, the teams typically draw good crowds and have enthusiatic supporters groups. They offer a glimpse of what I hope the league will someday be in all of its markets.

 

You see, the great BS fear is that some of the most successful business people on this planet -- people who have amassed vast personal wealth -- are too dimwitted to figure out how much to spend on their small soccer teams without smashing them into the rocks of insolvency.

MLS isn't the NASL. These owners aren't those owners. They'll be just fine.

But the league has to trust them to do more than just write out an expansion fee check with a bunch of zeros on it.

 

Without a branded kit Sounders v. Portland would like similar to RSL v. Rapids, quality speaking.

 

Of course it would be. American football and soccer were never meant to be played on the same field. Both the stadiums you just mentioned also have artifical turf, so play would go up of course.

 

So where is the extra money going to come from that is needed to raise the cap?

The MLS still doesn't seem to care about the USOC (KC played reserves vs Carolina last week).

MLS is better than USL D1.

What is so great about having super clubs and 10 teams that have no chance at all to win the championship? European soccer sucks because of this.

 

Yes one thing for sure is that it is not as easy as you want it to be, things like this take time... for now we are just getting better because of the veterans coming to retire here but sure enough in the future we will become a greater and more respected league, example the Premier League isnt as old as you think it is, it was founded in 1992!! I believe MLS has a chance, we just have to give it time.....

 

This argument can be viewed either from the pessimistic perspective where the glass is half empty or the optimistic one where the glass is half full. I, who has been a rabid fan of MLS from its very inception and who has been following the develompment of the league with bated breath, I see enough positive things happening that, at least for now, I remain optimistic.

Let me remind our readers that we should not lose sight that MLS is a little over 12 years old and if we compare it to lets say the English Futball league, which evolved into the EPL, was founded in 1888 making it 120 years of age. And with all that soccer tradition and longevity, England did not qualify for Euro 2008.

Unlike other soccer fans around the world, MLS fans better be extremely patient and be somewhat content with small incremental positive signs along the way. Ideally we sure want the Christiano Ronaldo , the Drogba to play in MLS but reality dictates it aint going to happen anytime soon. We have to look at the big positive picture view of what the league is doing and has done under the leadership of Don Garber, which I personally think is quite remarkable:

Soccer Specific Stadiums
A successful franchise in Toronto
The addition of several new teams in various markets
Good sponsorship such as VW, Microsoft etc…
The signing of designated player (Beckham, Blanco)
Decent ESPN/ABC TV contracts
SuperLiga Competition
The resurgence of the Earthquakes
FSC taking an active role in showing and talking about MLS

We honestly cannot take this aforementioned list of accomplishments for granted and at least for now it should give the MLS fan pause to think and something to cling to. And yes the level of play is not where we all want it to be and when we get down and frustrated we must remind ourselves that MLS is still very much in its infancy.


Once more thing, whether we like it or not, MLS is very much at the mercy of its owners and we sure want them to stick around for a very long time by not letting them bleed to death.

 

I don't see any MLS team having a $100 million roster, but as this thread started, even a $5 to $8 million roster would allow for a much better brand of soccer IMO.

As for where it comes from, we have had this conversation in many other threads, but I continue to advocate letting owners spend some of their own money on payroll if they wish to do so. I wouldn't require it, but I would let them do it.

John Madden likes to tell the story of when he first drafted the great punter Ray Guy. Guy's booming punts traveled so far that the special teams coach complained to Madden that the coverage team couldn't get down field fast enough to tackle the return man before he was up to full speed. Madden's response was "then get faster guys on the coverage team." Had MLS been in charge, you get the feeling they would have told Guy not to punt the ball as far because it wasn't fair to the slow players.

I realize MLS is concerned about its teams in smaller or less lucrative markets, but it can't continue to keep the lowest standard of pay and play just so those teams can keep up IMO. Even so, I don't see the disaster many fear if Owner's can match the money allocated by the league with an equal amount of money from their teams. If pushed to do more, I think most teams would find a way to do so.

 

You seem to be under the mistaken impression that the rules are written by someone other than the owners - the salary cap level is set by the owners themselves.

Continued modest growth in the salary cap is necessary for the continued growth/improvement of the league. But that's way different than tripling it overnight.

 

The DP rule has taken the league up a notch in terms of quality. Unless you are the RedBulls ofcourse. For us, the quality (or lack there of) is on par with what we have seen in years past.

 

DP improved LA. Of course having 3 DPs really helps. DP helped Chicago - at least until the last month. Who else did it help?

 

Helped Red Bull last season in a HUGE way.

Look at those teams and a couple other non-DP but still big time ('DP quality' players). Emilio, Scheletto, Gomez for example.

These players give you that reason to tune in. That guy to key in on. That excitiment. Clever passing. Great goals. A little more sophistication. Etc.

Since the DP rule, the level of play (very generally speaking) has been a step up. Seemed a little more last year than this, but maybe thats because I am a Red Bull fan and watching the garbage' they are rolling out there each week.

Again 1 level up in quality. Not off the charts difference.

 

No, I'm under the impression that there is a difference of opinion among the owners about the level of spending that is appropriate.

Money matters, and MLS can't bring in better players, or retain its best young players, without spending more of it. As long as the league is responsible for funding every nickel of salary for all but a handful of players and providing every team with (potentially) the same amount of payroll, it will be hard to fund that growth.

It's pretty simple. If you think more spending on players would help improve quality (and personally I do), the league needs to find new revenue to fund that spending, and the Owner's represent the single best source of that funding IMO. Now, the league could force the Owners to pay into a fund and redistribute that money to increase every team's cap number by the same amount, which I don't think is fair because it would be mandatory, or it can make that added contribution voluntary by letting teams supplement the league's payroll for their rosters. In other words, if Bob Kraft doesn't think he needs to spend more, he wouldn't have to, but if RBNY does, it could.

I would make the league's contribution the salary floor and let teams spend some of their own income up to the cap -- which is exactly what the parity driven NFL does. The NFL salary floor is 75% of the cap, and is nearly covered by shared revenue from TV and NFL Properties, but the owners fund the rest.

It can be done, but MLS needs to tweak the model for how it funds salaries.

 

No.

 

There is an interesting thread on MLS jersey revenue that suggests the ten teams with shirt sponsors (excluding RBNY) are generating about $23 million annually. Keep in mind the owners must pay MLS a flat $200,000 fee when they do these sponsorships, but they keep the rest.

It illustrates the point that much of the new money flowing into MLS, including money from the soccer specific stadiums -- that ancillary revenue for parking and concessions, 70% of the ticket revenue and any savings from lower stadium rent -- together with these shirt sponsorships stays with the owners. It doesn't go to the league to pay player salaries (save 30% of the ticket revenue).

If the league wants to spend more on players, it has to find a way to access some of this revenue.