How many second round picks in our draft go to US1? We're talking about a couple of guys out of a pretty big pool. While Needham was ranked highly by the pre-draft columnists, that's not the same thing as the MLS coaches ranking him highly. The Galaxy had a chance to draft Needham in the second round and instead took Ty Hardin. And Ty Hardin should be a poster boy for the dev roster system. He was originally signed to a dev roster contract but once he turned into a starter he was bumped to the senior roster.
The problem is that these "nickel stock" players are costing a whole lot of nickels to watch play. I believe that no player in MLS should take the field in a game in front of paying fans unless he's making somewhere north of $50k/year. I mean really, what are we talking about here? Probably only around 150K per team increase on salary per year. Is that really such a big deal?
Did the less-than-full stadiums when they came back for a second time suggest that maybe those were one-time things? Also, those teams have traditions you can't buy. If D.C. United bought the entire Arsenal starting lineup and threw them out on the field in United uniforms, they might actually decline in attendance because people identify with Moreno, Olsen, Gomez, etc. I saw that happen in hockey -- a successful ECHL franchise moved into the AHL and saw attendance drop even though the hockey was much, much better. Sure, if MLS can improve the quality of play, they should pull more of the Euro and Mexican fans through the gates more often. But that's a slow process without a quick fix. Comparing the NFL to MLS is like comparing apples and aircraft. Besides, NBA teams don't always get their second-rounders. Why? They don't have any developmental guys. If you can't make the 12 (15, with the injured list), then you have to drag your butt over to Europe or gut out the bus trips in the NBDL and CBA. Does that strike anyone as fair? Couldn't the NBA afford to expand the roster to 20 and pay the extra eight guys at least $60K a year?
Uh, yes it is. It is clear that by reading this thread, a fair amount of BigSoccer posters have never worked for a for-profit company. If you suddenly bump the developmental player's salaries up to $50K, which would be nearly a 300% pay increase, then every other player (and more importantly, their agents) would expect a 300% pay increase as well, if not more. After all, the developmental players don't see the field much, so the regular starters would most likely want to see some cash as well. So where are you going to come up with the cash? Higher ticket prices, concessions, parking, merchandise, etc. While most of the league's owners are quite wealthy, and the league has experienced an influx in investment in recent years, at most 5 teams are in the black, and Garber has yet to announce that the league is profitable (and you better believe he would announce that). If you want the low quality players of MLS to make $50K a year, you better be ready to pay for it. No one is forcing these players to sign contracts. If Ben Olsen wants to turn Needham into a hero for the union, go ahead, but if he were worth more, he'd be earning it somewhere else.
As much as I find the developmental salaries to be embarassingly bad - and quite frankly, unneeded - PR for MLS, I can live with the developmental salaries as they are, give or take a couple K. However, the one concession I'd like to see MLS make is to agree to provide housing for the DP kids, especially considering the huge differences in the housing markets between places like KC and Columbus and San Jose and New York. I know for awhile (and perhaps they still do) that the minor league Rochester Rhinos and Richmond Kickers had sponsorship deals with local apartment complexes and in exchange for some advertising the players were able to live there cheap or free. If a USL team can do it, MLS should be able to do it. And if an MLS team doesn't want to cut that kind of a sponsorship deal, have the teams buy or rent a house and have 6-8 of the guys living in it, gratis. Or, arrange something like you have in minor league baseball and junior hockey where local families take guys in and in exchange for providing housing the families get free tickets and gear, etc... There are creative ways to help the players out so it's less of a financial hardship without MLS teams having to pay a lot more in salaries.
If you read all my posts you will understand the context of what I was saying. I do not endorse paying a current $20k/year player $50k. I endorse having more $50K (three or four would probably do) players on the roster. Players with similar talent/experience as current 50k players. These players are out there to be had (top American youth playing in Scandinavia, CONCACAF talent, etc.) I would then leave the $20K players in the reserves/academies. If they prove their worth in those roles then a team can promote them to the MLS roster by increasing their salary to the $50K minimum. If a club has to pay someone a minimum of $50K/year to appear in a single MLS game then they will think twice before throwing a "nickel stock" scrub out there and passing him off as a pro worthy of MLS admission prices. All I want is more accountability to the fan. Only on the bizarro board that is BS would this cause me to be disagreed with by...fans.
Was it this thread or the other thread in which I ran through two starting lineups and subs, finding only two developmental guys, maybe two more in the 30K range and not many more under 45K? Also, you're likely to end up with a lot of the same players. Would you be that much more excited to see Seth Stammler and Chris Leitch if they were making 50K? Probably not, and I'm sure you'll see this bumped up in the next CBA. You and your sensible solutions. You'll get us all in trouble.
I've worked for two for-profit companies and that has nothing to do with this issue. No one's suggesting that simple changes to player salary structures are also easy to implement. That doesn't change the fact that I, for one, would like to see an increase in the lower end. You're right, some players may decide that they're worth more, and put pressure on clubs and on the league to get increases too---it's up to those clubs and the league to bow to that pressure or stand firm. It's up to the clubs and the league to determine how much they value players' labor*, and as you've said, no one is forcing the players to play in Major League Soccer. It's up to the players to negotiate and to determine whether they're satisfied with the clubs'/league's final salary offer. *Again, within the bounds of US labor laws and business ethics (should that apply).
Let me toss this question out for general consumption: Where was the outcry when the CBA was signed? We all knew about this -- it's just getting more play now because you have more reporters paying attention now that Beckham's here. (And yes, the extra scrutiny could be one reason MLS should bump up the salaries. Perception does indeed matter, so I'd see that as a far better argument than the ones usually made in these discussions.)
Aren't we talking about MLS dev. players? They are in the top 1% of their profession? What profession? Top 1% of professional soccer players worldwide? No. Top 1% of American pro soccer players? No. Top 1% of MLS players? No.
OK. Well, that claim is wrong. If they were worth that, they'd be getting it. If they're not now working as soccer players, they ain't going to be worth $50K. There's only one Scott Garlick. EDIT: Who are the young guys in Scandanavia? Emphasis on "young." Damn few. Now, were any of them offered Dev contracts? If the answer is none, which it is, you're wrong.
I'm not sure you really are informed on the situation. We're talking about the handful of Dev. players on each team, not the 23 (I think) senior roster players. Those guys hardly play, and the ones who do and are good quickly graduate off of the Dev roster. But thanks for playing.
I was thinking broadly - potential pro soccer players in this country. In order to reach MLS in the first place, they had to be pretty damned good soccer players relative to the competition. I agree with what most have said on here: the distinction of the dev player relative to their status in MLS - the top-flight league for US - is unclear.
The Rapids do this, KSE owns and/or had a deal with an apartment complex that allows the players cheap rents if they live there.
The bottom line is that it looks like most people would like to see these guys get a few more bucks. On the other hand, there is little evidence that MLS is missing out many guys as a result of their low balling. So until MLS is forced or feel the need to become more charitable it is unlikely they will just decide to pay players $30,000 a year what they are paying similar players $8 bucks an hour for now. Except for some good karma, there just doesn't seem like there is alot to gain. Interesting thread and debate nonetheless...
Not really. If Alex Rodriguez generates $25 million in additional revenue for his employers, him receiving $22 million doesn't seem like he's being overpaid to me. If athletes were being consistently overpaid in those sports, eventually the leagues would crumble under the weight of those losses. And once again, the flipside of the same coin: nobody's holding a gun to the owner's head and forcing them to pay that kind of money for players. The owners must feel they're getting value for those salaries (monetary or otherwise) or else they'd stop doing it. To me, the players most likely to be overpaid relative to their value to the club probably _are_ MLS developmental players. Still, even if most of their value comes from reserve matches and warm bodies for practice, the league gets value because the storm they'd face if they tried to pay even less would be immense.
In my opinion that's the only good reason. The downside is there's no guarantee that this level of scrutiny will stop if they're bumped up to say $20k. You can certainly live on $20k (you can actually live on $12k if you know all the angles), but I'm not sure that's going to stop these types of articles.
Good point, I should have been more precise. I was commenting on someone's post talking about the morality/ethics of paying someone $75,000+ per season to play a sport in comparison to paying the same amount for someone to provide education at a college or university. From the club's standpoint A-Rod's salary is worth it; as for whether it's worth it to society at large to pay athletes millions of dollars a year, well, that's a totally different incendiary thread.