Shame on FIFA for the Miami decision. And shame on them for trying to screw over existing, longterm sponsors by insisting the 2025 CWC is a “new” tournament, outside of existing sponsorship agreements, rather than the expansion of the annual CWC (which FIFA says is continued as the FIFA Intercontinental Cup). But Adidas and Coke have called them out on it: https://amp.theguardian.com/footbal...e-adidas-coca-cola-club-world-cup-sponsorship
No shit. Still doesn't change the fact that IF MLSHQ wants to significantly change how rosters are constructed between now and the end of 2027 one or more of below things will need to happen. Either: 1.) They rip up the existing CBA and collectively bargain a new one (highly unlikely) or 2.) Introduce new player acquisition mechanisms or 3.) The league does away with the max budget charges and DP rules and/or makes the salary budget static. IOW every team has the same budget, use it however you see fit. A 4th DP wouldn't make the overall rosters better either. It would actually decrease the amount of money teams could spend on the rest of the roster as it would add another max budget charge player.
It's MLS. They won't do shit. Majority rules and majority of owners don't want change. They prefer the slow but steady pace to continue for another 20 to 30 years. Next CBA don't expect much.
MLS owners are greedy and want all the money is all I ever hear. Over a 100K in attendance for two games that wouldn't have happened two years ago is a metric that feeds this theory. If adding GAM to every teams budget can't be done because the players will need to renegotiate, I would love to represent the owners on that one. We have a mechanism where money can be added based on a threshold being reached with Apple and the way we think we can increase that is by adding more GAM. If you aren't interested in more money in your pocket and are willing to wait three years, well I hope your career last that long to get there because statistically the odds might be against you. Apple and MLS are true partners and after the threshold the league gets fifty cents on the dollar and the player's get money from that. Slow and steady kept the league from going under and building infrastructure but higher profile player' are helping generate more revenue and in case anyone has forgot the head of Apple after signing Messi mentioned he hopes the owners spend more.
I thought things were going to change this past CBA. They didn't, at least not much. I thought things were going to change with Apple. They didn't. I thought things would change with Messi. They didn't. Next CBA they'll increase more xAM but keep or add some restrictive rules like they always do instead of make them simpler. At this point I don't expect anything. It's MLS after all. On a side note....those that wanted Columbus Crew to be gifted the CWC how do they feel now? They didn't win the Supporters Shield and now will be without the MLS Cup. Not saying I agree with FIFA gifting it to Miami but at least, so far, they have the Supporters Shield to show for. Let's just see if Atlanta makes the most funny thing ever in their 3rd game.
I'm not sure Messi playing in next years CWC is that big a deal to those who will watch the CWC. To be honest, I've never watched a game mostly because I wasn't sure when it was happening and on what platform it was showing. If you think FIFA is all about sporting merit instead of growing the game, I think you're being naive. . When it comes to this past CBA, I can't understand what you thought was going to change since it happened during COVID and they ripped up the signed agreement and did another one. You might think nothing changed but free agency age was lowered as well as service with the club. They now fly charter instead of commercial. The minimum salary for senior roster players increased from $81,375 in 2021 to $125,875 in 2027. The minimum salary for reserve roster players increased from $63,547 in 2021 to $97,700 in 2024. Doesn't sound like much but compared to just ten years ago they know play in new stadiums with modern training facilities. I myself don't think they would add five million a team like some speculated on X but I think you could change what counts towards the budget. Transfer fees would be the easiest as they Pro rate them with the length of the contact and count as salary for players that aren't a DP
Some changes are made mid CBA as we saw with the DP/U22 thingy. It's not like they have to rip up and renegotiate the whole agreement. As far as the CWC is concerned the CONCACAF teams are going to struggle to get out of their groups even with a 4th DP or a ton more GAM because the UEFA teams are so dominant. One of two will with fluky results. And of course the "haters" (no-one here) will pounce on that to say how terrible the league is but when you're entire payroll is less than one of the opposing player's salary you're not going to waltz through. As far as the CBA not changing anything, TAM was a major change. And let's remember, when I started watching NYCFC in 2015 the fifth highest paid player, Chris Wingert, made $215k. Now we have sub international quality American players like Sands and Parks making over $1 million each and Christian McFarlane, who's only made 4 MLS starts in his career, makes more than our starting keeper back then.
Don't know how true it is but supposedly FIFA doesn't allow clubs from the same owner to participate in the CWC. Pachuca and Leon belong to the same owner. Another "Inter Miami pick" incoming but this time from Liga MX?
1853820486146302205 is not a valid tweet id There's a special transfer window in early June so technically Miami could sign Neymar and Ronaldo on a 6 week loan.
And who owns MLS? Is it one person like Pachuca and Leon? If there were a problem with any two MLS teams in the CWC FIFA would of said it. The reports or better yet rumors I've seen come from Mexican media.
I don't think the teams are owned by MLS. An Investor/Operator owns a portion of MLS which gives them the right to field a team in the league. The local investors set up Seattle Futbol Club LLC to be the I/O and own the team, for example. They contract for use of a stadium, pay the front office and team staff, sell the tickets, pay the bills other than player salaries, etc. When a team sells to new owners Seattle Futbol Club LLC gets those proceeds, not MLS. MLS does hold the trademarks and related elements of the teams in the league but I think Seattle Futbol Club, LLC is the owner.
What's the point of "opening up" the roster rules for MLS anyway? So maybe we'll become as good as Argentina or Brazil leagues? That won't move the needle. Needless expenses. If you have dreams of MLS being as good as Europe then you'll need to spend like Saudi. Ready for players on billion dollar contracts?
Who does? How are these shares allocated? The teams are owned by the league. The investor/operators buy the right to operate them. (I will eat humble pie if proven wrong). When a club joins MLS, the ‘owners’ of that club are actually buying operational rights, not the club itself. So MLS might decide they want an expansion club based out of Birmingham, Alabama. They then invite anyone who is interested in the opportunity to apply for the right to do so. That person or business has to buy their way in so they become an investor-operator of the league, and then they can run their club as they like (up to a point). https://www.mlsfootball.com/fundamentals/who-actually-owns-mls-explaining-the-single-entity-model/
How is "the team" defined? MLS owns the player contracts and trademarks and controls the franchise rights that let the team participate, but I'm not sure that constitutes "the team" when the coaches and staff and front office and stadium ops, etc. are not employed by MLS. The part directly controlled by MLS is not something that can actually function on its own, so is it "the team?"
San Jose Earthquakes are owned by MLS. John Fisher is the lead investor/operator. MLS controls the revenues and expenses of the league and its teams. All revenue generated by the league belongs directly to MLS. MLS then distribute profits (or losses) to its investors/team “owners”. In Fraser v MLS the appeals court summarized it thus "MLS and its operator/investors comprise a hybrid arrangement, somewhere between a single company…and a cooperative arrangement between existing competitors." "MLS owns all of the teams that play in the league (a total of 12 prior to the start of 2002), as well as all intellectual property rights, tickets, supplied equipment, and broadcast rights. MLS sets the teams' schedules; negotiates all stadium leases and assumes all related liabilities; pays the salaries of referees and other league personnel; and supplies certain equipment."
Is the coaching staff part of "San Jose Earthquakes?" Is the stadium? The sales staff? None of those are controlled or owned by MLS. When the San Jose Earthquakes announce they have hired a new coach, who has hired him, MLS or John Fisher's company Earthquakes Soccer LLC? It's much more complicated than saying the league owns the team, when so much of what we consider the team is under the auspices of the local entity and not League HQ. This isn't true. Ticket revenue is split between the league and the home team. Teams sell local sponsorships and keep all of the revenue. Just a couple of examples. Some aspects of this are no longer true. The league negotiating all stadium leases is a glaring one.
It's not that complicated. Legally Liverpool FC is part of The Liverpool Football Club and Athletic Grounds Limited. Legally San Jose Earthquakes is part of Major League Soccer LLC. Fisher, Wolff etc owns Earthquakes Soccer, LLC. Earthquakes Soccer, LLC is an investor in MLS and the operator of San Jose Earthquakes. If Fisher and Wolff walked away from San Jose Earthquakes tomorrow the Earthquakes would still exist because as its part of MLS as are all the player contracts. There are some complications. The ticket revenue is split. Local sponsorships are made by Earthquakes Soccer LLC. They also pay some of the DP salaries. I'm not sure how the stadium leases work in an era of soccer specific stadiums but if ES LLC sold their stadium to a minor league baseball team and they decided to reconfigure the stadium for baseball MLS might have a say. They'd probably threaten to move the team to Indianapolis.