Obviously you've never looked at the NFL and NBA salary numbers in relation to the so-called "caps" in those leagues. The Washington Redskins salaries in 2001 exceeded the NFL's cap by some $33Million. Last year, 19 teams exceeded the NBA's salary cap, including the New York Knicks, who more than doubled it. ( http://www.insidehoops.com/nbasalaries.shtml )
however they had to pay a luxury tax for every dollar they are over the cap. MLS doesn't have anything like that
Lalas is a retard in this regard. He's seems like a very likeable guy on a personal level, but man, he spouts some goofiness from the front office. The one I'm tired of hearing is "The league won't survive without a strong New York." Get over yourselves guys. The Giants and the Jets have won three Superbowls between them and the NFL is doing just fine.
The only reason we keep hearing about the Metro"stars" being a super club is because AEG and MLS want to embed the idea into our heads, we will hear this over and over again because AEG will shell out the big $$$$$$$$$ to make sure that the Metro"stars" are a league winner come 2007..... Am not saying the metro"stars" will get Messi, Ronaldhino, or Robino, but they will get some big guns to help them win the title.. We would have heard this phrase for sooooo long, by 2007 a year in a half that we won't even challenge it, because the fan by then would have expected it... That in my opinion is the reason we will hear the world Metro stars and Super club together for about the next 2 years.
If you mean we don't want our sport ridden by steroids and strikes or lockouts every 10 years or so, you're right. But baseball recently began phasing in an innovation that I think would be perfect for a fully mature soccer league: a luxury tax on the most expensive teams. As a lunatic billionaire owner, you can spend as much as you want to field a winning team... but after a point you've got to pay a hefty tax and share the wealth with the poorer teams in the poorer markets. Seems like a nice compromise to me between socialism (MLS) and the more pure free-market systems (European leagues). However, a straight-up salary cap makes a lot of sense to me too... I happen to like parity, and the fact that the same four or five teams are not always winning this league. And if they are, it's not because of money.
Look at their schedule and results. They were a mediocre team throughout much of the early season, but were the best in the league from the moment they got Gomez integrated (August) onward. From 11 August through MLS Cup, DCU lost only twice. They won 9 and tied 4, counting the NE Revs playoff match as a tie, for what would be 31 points in 15 games. (Not only that but the other three ties and one of the losses all came in a row in mid to late August. From 11 September on they were 8-1-1). That whole "get lucky" myth is quite common, but in 10 years no MLS team has ever quite pulled it off. (Colorado in '97 came close, getting all the way to the Finals after a losing regular season, but they were pretty clearly outclassed in the Cup Final. You can argue the Revs came close the year they appeared in the Final, but their luck wasn't in the playoffs per se, but rather that the East sucked enough that year to get them a 1 seed.) It's an argument for just the opposite, if you figure that important signings in August are likely to be common.
No, they can't be a SuperClub until they start wearing spandex and capes But, seriously now, wouldn't a SuperClub also be measured by how large their fanbase is?
I agree with you on some level but the last thing you want is for the worst organization in the league to be in NY. I've always felt this hurt MLS with the national media. MLS has virtually no presence in this market at all. its all a result of Metro being so pathetic. In the beginning of MLS there was actually alot of coverage of MLS here but after Metro turned into MLS version of the Arizona cardinals the media basically has totally dropped them. The NY Times doesnt even send a reporter to their home games anymore. That being said, MLS tried to hook them up so they would be a good team and it has just never worked out due to poor management so even if they let them blow the salary cap I dont think it guarentees them winning anything as has been proven in the past. This is all Lalas hype in my opinion just trying to desparetley get some media attention for the team in this market.
That's probably true, and I'm not opposed to the league doing something about it, as long as they don't overdo it. I think Andy Mead pointed that out, and I agree. In NY, there's often so much noise you have to shout to be heard.
If DCU or SJ wins the MLS Cup (which is the standard for League Champion) than in 10 years, the champion would have been either SJ or DCU 7 out of 10 years. Is that your definition of parity? Your issue is that you don't think the MLS Cup determines who the champion is. You think it's regular season. But as long as schedules are unbalanced, and the league says the Cup winner is the champion, than the regular season schedule can't be used for determining who is the champion (which is what you imply should be the standard). You know, DCU has had a couple of pretty sucky years too. But do you really think the "97 and "98 DCU squads weren't pretty dominating? Especially if you want to look at regular season records combined with playoffs? Or consider the amazing run that SJ had with Yallop? Stan Collins pretty much dealt with the misperception that DCU was a substandard team that just got "hot." Here's another way to look at this issue of "getting hot" at the right time. Practically every team in MLS has games that are just real stinkers--matches where the team is blownout and/or badly outplayed. The team loses by a bunch of goals and deserves this loss OR perhaps steals a win or a tie but deserved to lose by a couple of scores. For instance, Columbus was the poster child for the team that got results in matches where they deserved to lose. This year, every team in MLS (including NE, including SJ, including Chicago) could point to multiple matches where they've lost by a couple of goals and/or other matches where they were badly outplayed (even if it ended up 1-1 or maybe a narrow loss). This year, DCU has had arguably the most consistent season of any MLS club--they've only had one such game where they played badly enough to deserve to lose by multiple goals (and did--to Dallas at RFK). Now I'm not arguing DCU is the best team in MLS. I'm not even arguing DCU is a superclub. In fact my original position was that a superclub has to do more than win some championships in the league. If DCU wins MLS Cup this year, they will have won 5 out of 10 years. Hard to argue that isn't dominating.
Its hard to say DC hasnt dominated since they have been in 5 out of 9 finals and won 4. Even last year, by the end of the year they were clearly the best team down the stretch and in American playoffs all that matters is who is the hottest at the end. As much as I hate to say it, they seem to be doing the same thing again.
MLS needs a superclub so we can be like this league. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050811...0YLMxIF;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl
the structure was designed originally to survive 10 years without folding. Once ownership isn't 50% AEG and more investor groups start taking over as in DC, the salary cap can be lifted and other things can change with that allowing it to become more like the major american sports
This is just my opinion, but I don't see them lifting the cap or creating much variance for another ten years. If MLS wants to make the league a more entrepreneurial pursuit, give them cap exemptions on players they develop. Teams can develop extensive training academies in markets they elect to enter on the youth level. Kids playing under their academy structure can be called up to pro status and are tied to their pro club for, say, 4 years, unless they are released/traded. These players count for no more than 50K on the cap no matter how much you pay them.
Your most likely right that it will take a while. Maybe 10 years even. But eventually i can see it happening.
As I understand it, these rules are getting a bit bent already. I believe LD and EJ both have salaries above the cap, but only the league maximum figure counts against the team. Is that right? Does anyone know about how that works?
They bent the rules so that they could pay EJ enough to stay around. He was being seeked by other clubs overseas and offers were made for him but were shot down by MLS. Thats why we need to have it up to teams how they deal with their players. Not that Lamar Hunt would've been willing to give him up.
They always did that to one extent or another. Before EJ, Landon and Freddy, Josh Wolff was the league's highes paid player at $400k. Razvo was making $350k. I feel sure Valderrama and Etcheverry made more than that. And don't be surprised if we learn that these guys aren't the last, either. I think the league is shifting its policy to try to keep young, dynamic Americans in the league longer (or permanently, if they can). My best guess at the next target would be Clint Dempsey, who because he doesn't have much transfer value and hasn't yet starred with the NT, wouldn't cost as much as those three, but I would still expect him to sign an above-max-cap deal fairly soon.
going back to the superclub thing, i don't think we have defined what a superclub is: 1. financially sound, superbly financially sound 2. really good on the field 3. a large fan base 4. history 5. attract interest globally i'll say those make up a superclub DC United, got all five, they're the MLS superclub Chicago, got all five, MLS superclub Metros, got 3 n 5 Crew, 1 NE, 1,2,3,4, not sure about 4 KC, 2 LA, 1,3,4,5 co, 1, 2 real, n/a chivas, n/a sj, 2,4 dallas, 1,2
Since year one of MLS, the league has had players at "maximum salary" but then paid them more. I believe that originally they rationalized this as Marco Etcheverry made $270K but than Adidas (through a sponsorship deal) paid him another $500K or whatever. There have been a bunch of players in the league's history who have made more than the MLS max. There is even one instance of a player (Hong Bo of LA) who a consortium of Korean businesses here in the States paid for part of his transfer fee (b/c it was more than MLS was willing to pay or LA had on their allocation).
I've got to disagree. 1. None of the MLS clubs meet standard #1. Some are better managed than others. But none of them are cash cows yet ala ManU. 2. Really good on the field? Well, SJ and DCU have won 6 of 9 championships and been in 7 of 9 finals. And I think MLS is under-rated in terms of level of play. But fans overseas aren't clamoring to see MLS clubs on tour or get broadcasts of MLS teams. So I'd say that #2 is a no. 3. A large fan base? There is potential there. But none of the MLS clubs has a large fan base. DCU probably has more recognition outside the States. After that (believe it or not), it might be...Chivas. 4. History? That's a real limit for a league that's barely 10 years old. If history is a factor than that probably rules out all MLS clubs. If you mean consistant, sustained excellence, than there are probably only 3 clubs that would qualify: DCU, LA and SJ, maybe Chicago. 5. Attract interest globally? None of our clubs do that. DC United got some mention after the Vasco win. LA probably got a little press after qualifying for the Club Championship tourney that was canceled. Chivas probably has as much or more recognition than any other MLS club outside of the USA. There are no superclubs in MLS.