The new CBA includes a $4,500 per team win bonus - that is up from $2,750. YTD MLS has paid out about $500,000 in win bonuses. Some of the increase is eaten up by the increased roster size. The bonus is paid in "real time" according to MLS execs - so I picture Drew Carey in the locker room with a wad of $100s paying them to the Captain as the team counts it out "One hundred. . . two hundred. . . three hundred..." Overall - adjusting for roster size - the new win bonus represents a 51% increase over the old win bonus. The problem though is if every team distributes the win bonus evenly - we're talking about each player only being paid a measly $175 a win v. $115 a win under the previous contract. You can improve the numbers if you get teams to just pay the bonus to the 18 guys who suit up and make the game day roster - you'd then be looking at about $250 a game v. $150 in the old world. That's a little bit better in my mind - but still not enough to really have any impact if you want to reinforce any behaviour. Curious though to see what number would move the performance needle if any. You could argue that playing time, natural competitiveness, and the prospect of future contracts are actually far more critical links to on field performance than a spot win bonus. Also - if MLS is paying our say $750k a year in win bonuses (but in microgrant type levels of $175 per player here and there. . .) I wonder if just investing the $750k-$1m roughly each yearwould produce better results if it were paid either a) in lump sum $750k to MLS Cup winner - $250k to runner up etc. . . or b) invested in MLS Acadamies. Thoughts?
The distribution of the win pool should be inverse to a players salary. If a player makes 40k they should receive more money than a player making $280k. Giving out $175 to a player making $280k is pointless since it won't be worth as much to them as a player making $40k. Instead you give say $500 to the low salary player and practically nothing to the high salary player.
Does everyone on the roster get the bonus money or just the players who played, or who suited up? ------RM
If a lousy < $200 bonus makes you play harder as a professional player you have no business in this game. In that sense I don't think expenditure yields any performance change at all. For the higher salary players its chump change, and the $40k a year guys the incentive to play hard is not going to work in Burger King once you get cut. A $500k team prize and $20,000 player prizes attached to the US Open Cup on the other hand could breath life into a competition that is aching for some real commitment. I'm not saying it is MLS's place to do this, just merely pointing out that there may be better ways to spend this cash as the OP says.
I don't think putting bigger prize money on the MLS Cup will provide any further spur to people competing for it - it and the Supporter Shield are kind of the pinnacle, teams are fighting hard for that no matter what (despite the way LAG are playing...). $1m into Academies seems like a drop in the ocean. I'm not saying I know where the money should go, but at the levels we are looking at its hard for it to be truely impactfull. It'd pay 40 players $25000 annually .. could be used as scholarship money or something like Generation Adidas wages for young players. 2 extra on each team to take the rosters to 26 ....? ....