Except there's two NY clubs in MLS ... and LA I know they can. The CLB/MON match up was a posterized example of what the actual issue is. HOW the money is spent. Despite being DWARFED in payroll spending CLB was beyond competitive until Zelerayan was ineligible to play leg 2. Already without Molino, that was a death knell for CLB. WIth MON you've got a guy like Janssen covering for Funes Mori up top. Remove the spending restrictions and these stories would be written much differently even at the same levels of spending we've got now. Also, it's the top end of LigaMX that is a step ahead. Past CA/MON/Leon (maybe)/CRUZ/TIGRES .... the rest of the clubs aren't ahead by much or at all from top to bottom of the league. Even if it's only 6 or so, we'd be competitive with the MEX clubs as there's only 4-5 of them that spend in that manner as it is. We already spend more on individual players than any LigaMX club does. Gignac is the highest paid at 4.6m$ But again, how the rest of the salary money is spread is the difference.
If budgeting was the only factor, I'd say MLS has over performed with 3 finalists in 6 years. But we know Liga MX over-spends on Mexican players (as do teams in Los Angeles). There's no depth with the current regulations. For instance TFC called up teenagers to cover for their injured DPs. But I'm not complaining.
Pretty sure they won’t ever announce a merger and then also announce that MLS clubs are still financially handicapped within the new structure.
The current structure is what provides the beloved parity, though. If you open up the roster spending, you're going to see the exact same stratification across the league that everyone blames on pro/rel elsewhere (which has nothing to do with pro/rel - it has to do with spending caps). It won't be Old Firm level, but you're definitely going to have a hierarchy of haves and have-nots.
Then they won’t do it. Pretty simple. But if the project ever happens they won’t go through the trouble of merging leagues just to create a full time CCL where MLS Conference clubs don’t even have the option to spend in accordance with Liga MX Clubs. I don’t think the owners are that ignorant of the actual soccer.
Are you sure about that? Finishing last hasn't stopped FCC from spending millions on transfer fees and players. Most MLS teams have at least one Billionaire in their investor group. Adding LigaMX teams to the fold would increase the amount of money from media deals substantially. Which would in turn increase the amount of money teams have to spend on players.
Atlas finished 7th in the Clausura. “A high percentage of Mexican football’s income comes from the USA,” Irarragorri wrote in an open letter posted to his Twitter account. “Their league [MLS] has been growing in an ordered, slow, but consistent way in all senses: commercially, infrastructure, financial structure, diffusion and on the field.” “It’s probable that the possible creation of a North American super league is best for MLS in the short-term and for Liga MX in the medium term, but over the long-term it is best for both and the potential to add value and create jobs is immense,” wrote Irarragorri. “Without doubt it is an alternative that should be explored and analyzed.” Atlas owner Alejandro Irarragorri.
Here's an exercise using my stand point that 15-25M$ cap (floor to ceiling) with 3DPs OFF THE BOOKS would instantly make the league explode. TFC spend 24.5M last year with POZ/JOZY/PIATTI as DPs with Bradley as a TAM (and 19 of the 24.5m) 2020 with what I'm talking about. Now they're off the books with my view point. Does TFC still spend up to the ceiling of the cap? If so we can EASILY build a rather fantastic roster just with players in MLS (for realistic approach as they're in MLS, clearly they'd come play in the league). But what if they still only spent the 24.5 total despite the three DPs being of the salary books? Well, we've got 5.5M to work with so: I'LL KEEP: Omar Gonzales DF 450,000 Ayo Akinola FW 124,256 Jonathan Osorio MID 750,00 Richie Laryea DF 56,250 Auro DF 276,666 TOTAL: 1,657,172 I'LL SIGN: Cristian Espinoza FW 500,000 Sebastian Lletget MID 312,666 Brooks Lennon DF 150,000 Eloy Room GK 354,694 Pedro Gallese GK 150,000 Milton Valenzuela DF 321,300 Lucas Zelarayan MID 54,000 *(reported number) Diego Chara MID 550,000 Kacper Przybylko ST 277,000 Joao Paulo MID 370,000 Walker Zimmerman 600,000 Jacob Glesnes DF 180,000 TOTAL: 3,819,660 TOTAL SPEND: 5,476,832 -----------------------Room----------------------- --Lennon--Gonzo--Zimmer--Valenzuela-- -----------------------Paulo----------------------- Espinoza----Pozuelo---Zelarayan----Piatti ----------------------Altidore---------------------- BENCH: Bradley Glesnes Lletget Chara Auro Przybylko Gallese RES: Lareya Akinola Osorio That's 21 players (HG and other salary exempted players would round out the roster) and several lineup options, with depth, that I'd trot out against any LigaMX side. The spending is there as are the players. The league just won't let the clubs put them together. Sure, but regardless of the rules or lack of for spending, there will always be a regular top set of clubs (or ones that continue to rotate to the top). We see it right now. SEA has been arguably the best team overall in MLS in their entire existence. The Galaxy continually rise to the top despite how shit they can be sometimes. What the league can do though, is adopt from the other sports here and have a FLOOR. That's why my stance is 15-25M spending cap (floor cap and ceiling cap). As long as you set a minimum standard of spending that isn't astronomically lower than your ceiling (and add in that you have to use at least ONE off book salary slot) and you'll still have your parity, especially with playoffs.
You can't really do this 29 more times, though, I don't think, can you? I guess this is the bit I'm skeptical of: all we hear from MLS is that the measures that are in place are in place to keep them financially secure. Yes, a merger with LigaMX would almost certainly increase revenues, and I could absolutely see a team like Houston changing hands to a new ownership group and absolutely exploding with the possibility of LigaMX clubs in play, but then again, maybe not? What incentive would owners have to spend? Implementing a floor would have to be at the behest of the owners and I don't see why any owner would want that: those that are willing to spend would love for their divisional rivals not to and those that want to milk their franchise for minimal effort would have no desire to spend more, either.
I don't think the criticism of the Kroenkes or the Krafts is that they don't have the money to spend or that they don't spend on the clubs (Krafts, maybe) but neither of these teams really light things up with their rosters. So with the caveat that I think we can agree that roster depth is the main division between MLS and LigaMX right now (and that that can't be addressed with the spending rules currently in place), we do have an idea of who spends money and how much and infer that the same general patterns would probably apply should the rules get opened up some. There are teams like the Galaxy and Toronto who will spend as much as they can and teams like the Whitecaps, Dallas, and Houston who will spend a little as they possibly can and that gulf will only broaden. So you can increase the amount of money coming in, but that doesn't guarantee that that will go into improving the squads significantly because there's hardly any incentive to.
You have the whole world to select from. Portland for insurance, only has 3-4 American born regular starters. TV ratings, sponsorship and attendances. There's already a floor of $9.25M per club including allocation money. I would expect TV money per club to at least double, so $15-$25M with an average of $20M is not to much of a stretch.
This is true, but a lack of funds isn't the Rapids biggest problem. Its the lack of any caring from KSE. There's no pressure on team president and GM Padraig Smith from his bosses to get better. As long as he brings the team in on budget every year and avoids any major PR issues he'll have the job as long as he wants it. I've met Padraig many times, I know he wants the team to do better, but there's a difference between trying to build a team to get results on the field, and being forced to build the whole organization to be better top to bottom. Three's just no pressure to do that in Commerce City. I'd be more interested in seeing that attitude change than having KSE drop another $5M on the team. Because without the former the latter isn't going to matter much.
This is kind of my point about all of this: you would think all of the reasons that are supposedly incentives to not just invest, but be invested, i.e.: would exist today - I mean, why do we think these incentives aren't there today and why would being rewarded even more for the effort incentivize a more actively engaged ownership?
good thing there are no examples of teams spending themselves into oblivion, or spending and still not winning. all mls teams spend more, league "instantly explodes" and there are no unforseen consequences, nossir, none.
You don't though: we have international roster restrictions, we have visa requirements. So this would imply that the league is single-entity? The floor is a result of MLS providing those salaries, isn't it?
I wouldn't have to. There'd clearly be tiers of this. Just using the players in MLS as of 2020, we can get to at least HALF the league (if not 2/3) without much effort as NINE clubs spent over 13M last year (with another NINE spending at least 10M). Hell, LAFC for example: 14.37M spend 8M of that was Rossie/Vela/BWP We both know they're GOING to spend more than that. But their roster doesn't need much tinkering and I'd have 6.37M to use if I did it the way I did my TFC example? I could turn them into a buzzsaw with hardly any effort with that 6.37M ... and I think this is one of the biggest "misses" by folks that shite on or dismiss MLS. They really aren't that far off ... For instance, let's bring Zimmerman back (600,000) - sign Frei (337,050) - sign Pizzaro (805,525) - sign Nick Lima (125,00) - sign Valentin Castellanos (274,806) 5 players and 2.14M of the 6.37 I had, and now that LAFC team is frightening. Initially everyone would have the incentive because it's much easier to return to the top than to climb there from the bottom. For clubs like your HOU example it is potentially transformative for what they can be. Plenty of MLS clubs could be "hemispherical" in clout if they can capture the MEX side of their potential fan base. The potential heights of some of the MLS clubs surpass Club America, IMO, if they could ever capture both US and MEX sides of the fan pool that they have. The other, at least initially, is to engrain your business as part of what is making the thing, the thing. Exposure, acceptance, and upon that your return. Easier to sell if you're 2010 RSL as opposed to 2020 RSL. Of course, we all know the more you put in the more you can get out. And yet, the NFL where some of the biggest MLS owners come from has a HARD FLOOR. Truly, the make up of the owners right now seems as though they'd be for it. They want to push the league forward. It does LAFC/SEA/ETC no good to take three steps forward but still be playing Houston version 2020.
There are 420 international players (55.2%) on MLS rosters. For senior rosters it's more like 75%. Visa rules are fairly lax, a foreign player can be signed in days, and there's an easy route to a green card, which takes players off the international roster, Andy Polo being the latest example. Polo joined the Timbers for the 2019 season from Morelia and just returned from a trip to his native Peru where he just picked up his green card. I would expect a hybrid initially but based on the growth in valuations and actual returns the single-entity looks very attractive to Mexican owners, especially if they could jump on the bandwagon for free.
How many top quality players do you think are around in the world? Not enough for all top teams in the world. Otherwise the prices wouldnot skyrocket like they did since the Pogba transfer. So any idea that the mls could become a star destination is just unicorn fantasies. The reason why the top 4 sports of the USA tower over mls is because these are US only sports in the sense that they're essentially domestic with some token leagues abroad that are essentially minor leagues. Soccer on the other hand is a global sport with the gravity in Europe. It's not an American dominated sport.It's a sport with a global reach and with it comes a decades long imprinted awareness of the status of silverware from a certain area. There are three soccer tournements that matter in the global arena, the WC, the Euros and the CL. All other are regional affairs. The illusion the mls can get to the status of the NFL etc. is funny, as you have to up the quality of the league so far that it requires a collapse of the European football to realize that.