Excellent article by Paul Tenorio and Pablo Maurer of The Athletic (subscription required) that goes into document produced by Boston Consulting Group in 2016 that has guided the plans of MLS since then. https://theathletic.com/1362372/2019/11/08/ I know it is a subscription required article but if you download the app I believe you get 3 articles free per month. It really is a great story to read for MLS diehards. A few items that popped out for me (remember that these are 2016 takes)... 80% of league telecasts were local feeds but 80% of actual viewers watched the other 20% of MLS telecasts that were broadcast nationally 4 teams in 2016 produced a profit, Seattle, Portland, Sporting KS and Real Salt Lake. The report suggested that MLS stop throwing money at academies and put that money towards foreign talent. The survey stated that MLS fans would rather have better players than homegrown players. The survey also suggested shortening the season enough that it starts in Feb. and ends in August so that more emphasis can be put towards the playoffs and post season competition with Liga MX Plus a lot of other great tidbits that is showing up now in MLS.
Just came to see if this had been posted. Great tip on the mobile app. It's a tremendous article with lots to dig in and I think this forum would find a lot in it. It pretty much confirms the reason for TAM, as the study recommended spending more on spots 4-11 to alter issues with quality of play perception. The de-emphasis on player development part is in there a bunch. Another tidbit: The article notes this does not appear to have happened yet.
I assume it's ok to post a chart of revue and costs excerpted from the article? Plus, the Athletic isn't disabling hot-linking (yet...)
When it comes to the Supporters' Shield, it was created by the fans for the fans. So I wonder if that " only 6% of MLS consumers view it as meaningful " conclusion is accurate. I would think support for it is much much higher.
For as much as people (including the MLSPA) complain about TAM it was a necessary rule tweak in order to see how it effected quality of play and how teams would take advantage of it. Like DP slots they are ways to experiment with cost structure without changing the salary cap straight away and seeing exactly what the results were. I think that it will go away in the next CBA and you'll see the league put some of that into the cap and some will go straight to allocation money (and GAM will once again just become allocation money). Not surprised. From a purely business standpoint academies make almost no sense right now. League-wide spend is something like 100 million a year and, right now, you aren't getting that sort of return. You put 5 million a year per team into player acquisitions and salary and you will get a much better immediate return. The real hope is that in the next few years that teams can start producing enough players that are roughly as good as the players you could have acquired with that extra 5 million (plus, if they sell a few that is just extra money). From a business perspective MLS should still be in the infrastructure and using any additional capital to grow the business, not investing in long term plans that may or may not payoff (especially when you are investing in additional infrastructure for those plans). I doubt it is much higher. People outside the supporters groups (which is a pretty big majority) probably don't even know what it is. And there are plenty of people I know in supporters groups who don't care about it.
Academies are rarely a profitable endeavor on their own. This is why FIFA introduced the Training Comp & Solidarity Payment mechanism. Now that MLS has opted into that, academies should prove more worthwhile from a business perspective. From a long term quality perspective, it's almost essential in making those players outside the first XI better. Especially if USSF hopes to sell domestic soccer via the USMNT.
I can believe 6% of all consumers feel that way about the Shield. But i bet if it was weighted by amount of consumption that number would go up. How much? I’d be interested in that.
In a league with salary caps and other mechanisms that ensure every team can win, academies become even less of a priority when you can just sign players from all over the world. In a long term perspective, in a 30+ team league academies can become more of a priority if a quota for american/canadian players is set. Then good american players become more valuable and there is an incentive to develop your own instead of having to purchase at an overprice.
This will be one thing I'll never agree with. FIFA and UEFA introduced it as a way to allow teams to keep making money off of players after Bosman. Up until Bosman a team owned a player's rights even if they were out of contract, so teams needed to pay transfer fees for any player. FIFA and UEFA drug their feet for 3 years until the EU courts said if they didn't set rules for allowing out of contract players to move for free then the court would. The congress before that is when the framework for training comp and solidarity mechanisms came in. It was never about helping out the little guys, it was about finding a way around the EU ruling and allowing teams to continue to make money off of out of contract players.
I hesitate to post this, as I do not subscribe to the Atlantic, but on the subject of 'profiability', please remember: 1) All the SUM money is excluded (I believe) 2) All the money from non-soccer events at the stadium (if owned by the owner/team) is also excluded. If I am in error on those two points, please disregard.
One of the justifications for MLS was having a local league would boost the national team due to player development. Of course FANS prefer better players over HG ones, that isn't the point (and it is a biased question).
This does not seem to match up with what we are seeing. Especially, if this study was done 3 years ago (2016). Seems teams/league are putting a very large emphasis on building academies and very expensive training facilities.
I agree. 6% is very hard for me to believe. I will say this however...as the league grows and we will get to a point soon where teams don't play every other team, the Supporters Shield will become even less important. This will have to happen or else they will have to expand the season to more games. Likely as soon as next season at 26 teams, teams won't play every other team. To use the play every team in your conference twice and every other team once they would have to have 37 games next year. I see that has HIGHLY unlikely. So you have to do one of the following next season: not play every team in your conference twice not play every other team once move to smaller divisions than 13 team conferences (at 26 would have to be unequal number of teams in each division) play more than 34 games My guess is they choose #2.
Yeah, the league has certainly pushed forward with development. However, I think the report was right to the extent that whether academies are worth it or not is an open question.
Three years on from this article and MLS clubs have witnessed players from their academies being sold for a good chunk of change, so for sure this perspective has changed. If your Academy is run right and you can sell even 1 youth talent to Europe or Mexico every few years, it is worth the effort. Stack your MLS roster with boys that grew up playing for the crest! 5. play every team in the league once a season, the following season reverse the home and away Eventually in a 32 team league that is 31 league games and the +1 of the USOC. So that is a minimum 32 match fixture list guaranteed to the fans. Also allows MLS HQ to market to each MLS city that their team and their stars will play the stars of each and every other market. In short, the DP's that one city has will battle your small market team or likewise big spending DP team each and every season guaranteed.
Also worth mentioning that Homegrown Players don't count towards the salary cap. FC Dallas basically got a lot out of both Jesus Ferreira and Paxton Pomykal and neither were counted in the salary cap.
MLS will keep promoting the Supporters Shield as an achievement. In a league of soon to be 30 teams you need accolades available for teams to achieve some kind of glory.
But next year that would only be 25 games. They would have to play some teams twice. They aren't going to cut the league from 34 to 25 games in one season. They really like the 34 number. The 1st 5 seasons they played 32 The 6th they played 26-27 (not sure what that means). 7th - 28 8th - 9th - 30 10th - 11th - 32 12th - 15th - 30 the last 9 seasons - 34
Maybe, but to me as a hardcore fan the Supports Shield means much less the day teams don't play every other team. To be honest it becomes completely pointless to me at that point. I won't be alone. If only 6% find it important now...that number will be less when not all teams are played. The conference season winners will be important and I would assume that is that the league will focus on when that day comes. Eastern Conference Supporters Shield winner and Western Conference Supporters Shield winner (or whatever they would call it).
Pump the brakes. Alphonso Davies is the first true Home Grown to be sold for serious money. After that you have Tyler Adams being sold at a discount and a good sell on percentage. Miazga got a nice bit of coin too. After that though? There are currently a handful of teams that are getting results from their academies (consistent contributors in MLS): RSL, FC Dallas, RBNY, & Philly. After that you have Atlanta, Seattle, SKC, TFC, Vancouver, LAFC, LAG & NYCFC who are pouring a ton of resources into their academies. Inter Miami is also putting a lot into their youth program as well. For much of the rest of the league though, youth development is largely seen as a very expensive league mandated sunk cost
Very true. That's because there are clubs like mine in Houston that have a Front Office that couldn't sell water to a dying man in the desert much less cultivate youth talent in a market like ours that is stacked with potential youth talent to draw on. Or at least that is what many outsiders keep writing about, our local talent pool here in East Texas and how our club has not been able to grow players from it over the last 12 years.
No doubt. I was thinking down the road to 2024ish. When Garber has solidified the expansion run for MLS and finally decided to cap out our league with say 32 teams a la the NFL with 32. So with 32 teams that is 31 opponents to match up with. Then the one guaranteed USOC match to package in with a MLS to plan for. So MLS HQ could settle for the 32 slate over 34+1. Or if Don Garber wants a 34 team league than 33 league games +1 USOC could be done for a fixture list. Again, the premium is that all teams see each other, keeps the balanced schedule, Supporters Shield can grow in promise as the points race is again, balanced fixtures for everyone year after year. Fans see the DP's of every team.
That's not going to happen. The schedule is going stay regionally unbalanced. They're not going to stop having home & away LA/LA, Seattle/Portland, NY/NY, etc. just to make sure that Sacramento plays Montreal every year.