I think I've found a way to make MLS games more intense and exciting that is not nearly as crazy as other ideas in the past and is easily doable. It will guarantee fewer ties and help players in the lower salary rank at the same time. Instead of increasing the salary cap or the minimum slightly which may or may not make the players work any harder, MLS can give $10,000 winning bonus to the winning team in every game. Ten thousand dollars come down to $416 (about $6,250 for 15 wins on average)per player which may not be much for those making over $5,000 per game ($150k/year) but it's a lot for the majority of the players who get under $1,600 a game ($50k/yr). For every tie the money stays in the league fund. Imagine how hard most of the players will work, especially late in the game, leaving good impressions on the audience, to get the win. We will see many more intense games with exciting, unforgettable endings bringing back some of the casual spectators. The total amount MLS would have to spend on winning bonuses is no more than $1.5 million ($10,000 x 150 games), equal to raising the salary cap from $1.7M to $1.85M per team which isn't asking for Beckham. If there's an increase of 400 people per game in attendance as a result it will be worthwhile financially. Even if there isn't, it will make many players better through hard work and more attractive to foreign clubs, not to mention making our national team pool slightly stronger. It will also make many hard-core fans happy, IMO and you can't put a price on that.
you'll get flamed for this idea...but...I actually think it's pretty good. Where do you come up with the 1.5M though?
lol, this reminded me of the real world/road rules challenge. but saying how 80% of the teams make the playoffs, extra incentive would help. idk if MLS has that kind of money to lose though?? but i guess it would be an investment.
the XFL tried this .... of course that league died quickly, but not for that reason. it's a decent idea. I kinda like it.
I don't agree with doing this but you actually provide pretty good reasoning for it. FWIW Wynalda suggested the exact same thing, finacial bonuses for wins during Sunday's half time segment.
We've spent countless hours and millions of dollars on researches to find out $416 ($416 x 24 players x 150 games = $1.5M appr.) is a lot of money to the poor people (players in this case).
Remember though, in the proposed plan MLS keeps the loot in case of a tie (which there will always be plenty of no matter how hard the players try to win), so they wouldn't be spending the full $1.5m. Last year there were 41 ties, that takes the expense down to about $1.1m. The league could go back to a 28 game schedule (140 total games) as another way to keep costs down. I think it's a great idea, and I think it's very doable. With the money the league is losing already, what's another $1.5 million a year to a few billionaires? The thing that makes it tricky is that the league wants to expand by two teams, increasing the number of games played significantly. New teams mean new investors, but they may not all be as willing to spend money as Uncles Lamar and Phil. Something tells me Vergara would be into this idea though, as he is always so infinitely confident his teams will win.
what about when a coach on the road wants to play for the tie in the last 20 minutes and the right and left backs in an attempt to get that extra $416 are pressing forward to get extra goal and then get burned on the counter? i'd have to be talked into this idea and so far no one's really doing any serious talkin'.
I was never good at talking people into anything. The idea is to encourage teams to play for wins. I’ve never liked the fact that many coaches play for ties on the road. They are the cause of many dull, unwatchable games, IMO. Too often we see 2 attackers running into unbreakable wall of 5-6 defenders outside the box, turning most of the build-ups (if they were lucky enough to string a few passes together to make a 'build-up') into nothing. I forgot the coach’s part of the bonus. You can add a few more bucks to the total.
Well instead of doing it per-game we could do what the EPL does and give team bonuses based on standings at the end of the season. Except the money would go to the players and coach rather than to the team itself. Even with our double-table structure it could be done, though I'd rather have it be done on a league-wide table basis. That would give the motivation that the 80% playoff chance doesn't give...
I had this idea for a month now, never felt like coming to BS and actually starting a thread though. And, to be honest, I havn't watched more than 15 minutes of MLS games in 3 weeks. For some reason, I don't feel the same enthusiasm watching these games as I did the first 5-6 years. I guess I'm downgraded to a casual fan now.
The only reason I can see now why players wouldn't be trying their best to win every game already is that 8 of 10 teams make the play-offs, so in the grand scheme of things regular season games don't count for much. I would rather see the problem addressed directly by reducing the number of playoff teams to six. The league has always had available the option to add incentives into player contracts for each team victory, if that is something the player and his agent agree to.
This is indeed the best idea. I think a pay out for the winning team is a good idea but it is very "XFL-ish". This league is looking for legitamacy and wants to be compared to leagues around the world and this plan would detract from that.
This is, of course, also a good idea. The only problem with that is it doesn't address the second reason for this proposal, reducing ties. If the bonus was based simply on standings, the players "may" play harder, but what's the incentive not to try for a tie on the road? I personally want to see all teams treat ties as a loss (they are only .33% of a win and that number rounds down) and go balls out to break them in the last ten minutes of a game. A tie should be awarded none, or VERY little, bonus. The compromise answer would be to give a per game bonus for wins, and a season bonus for standings. I don't know if you would split up the proposed 1.5 million to do this or bump the number up, that decision would have to be up to the bean counters.
Do they? Have they ever stated "being accepted by the non ticket buying rest of the world" as one of their goals?
If you shorten the schedule to 28 games, you also lose 2 games worth of revenue - ten chances (league wide) to collect gate receipts. That revenue is more relevant than the cost of the bonus pool.
There are really some good points here. I think people are are the right track here... Player incentives need to be addressed. Players, although they love the game, are always asking show me the money. When you ask a player how much he earns he always says $$,$$$ plus bonuses. The bonuses are key. They make the salary livable. With increased incentives players will play harder, I promise. Not sure what to do about the ties, but it is aweful to see teams tie so often. I know its been said, but ties are like "kissing your own sister."
Its not a bad idea at all. I like it. Its not new but its still good. Player contracts often have personal incentives - like making the All Star Game, Best 11, All-Pro, Rookie of teh Year, 1,000 yards, etc...But far fewer have incentives based on team performance. Some English teams, and other teams I'm sure, have player contracts that have financial incentives and penalties for relegation and Euro qualification. Relegation game battles are frigging awesome to watch. Team based incentives is not the worst way to go to try and incent players and coaches. MLS loves their 8 of 10 in the playoffs - so why not try something else.
The only problem is what if a player gets traded at the deadline? A player works hard all season, only to be traded to a basement-dwelling team? Much less of a problem in Europe, where you rarely see players going from a good team to a bad team as the transfer window closes. The only time a player in Europe moves to a worse team mid-season is if he's not performing well at his current team. A player almost never has to be "sacrificed" in a trade, which is much more common in United States. I'm sure it can be solved, as in splitting the bonus b/w the player brought in and the player traded away, or some sort of compensation. But it's a question to ponder, b/c player movement in U.S. in fundamentally different from Europe.
I don't know if you guys know this, but "point bonuses" were paid in England and other leagues for decades, and was, as the name would suggest, a bonus for every point the team gained, and was paid to every player who played in the game. The size of the bonus would depend on the club, but, in the days of the "maximum wage," these were the main source of a player's income. The idea fell out of use approximately the same time as substitutions came into use, as the idea of how to split the bonuses with those who didn't start was never really resolved. So, debate the issue on its merits, but don't think for one moment that it isn't "soccer" through and through. I happen to like the idea very much, and I'd tie it to points rather than wins, also. Any player who disobeys his coach to get a point bonus would be subject to the same sort of fate as one who disobeyed for any other reason: benching, and ineligibility for any further point bonus.