That’s only true if you exclude the 300,000+ people who dedicate about 4 hours and an average of, let’s say, $50, attending matches in person. I think excluding those people and all that money is a bad idea. Do you agree?
Well, MY retort is that social media only vaguely resembles real life, and a business that bases its strategy on social media hot takes is liable to make bad decisions.
I could be wrong, but I doubt it…you don’t “hear” them. You READ them. Am I correct about that? (If not, you have an incredibly unique friend group.) If so, again, social media is only vaguely related to real life. A business that doesn’t realize that is in trouble.
So, I read the Messi Effect and I'm basically telling you what is in the book. The book was obviously written before the MLS and Apple had any data on the switch to Apple TV. The conversation in the book was that EPL gets billions in media money and Liga MX could get more but they still haven't consolidated their media deal like MLS. The EPL deal in the US alone is for 450 million and no production cost. The last deal MLS was looking for 400 million and that was a wakeup call for the owners. When Messi came to the league they believe he changed things and now is the time to improve the league and how that might be done.
Gotta give it to Messi. MLS is lucky to have the GOAT and him actually care! He came here to compete. He found a major roadblock though, something he isn't used to. But those are the type of players that MLS needs, not just come here for a paycheck. Messi just wants to win everything there is to win. Now thinking about it, MLS screwed him out of a possible trophy by having only a set number of MLS teams compete in the USOC.
EDIT This is supposed to be a response to post 105 What if MLS makes a change that gains them $50M per year in TV rights, but costs them $60M in stadium revenue? The answer is, they’ve lost $10M. These things don’t happen in a vacuum.
No, I live in Philly and have a few buddies from out west who follow the Sounders. They work down the street and came in one day with some gear on and we started talking MLS. They were Siant Joe's students when I met them at the bar. Last year we had a lot of banter going back and forth when the Union had a season to talk about.
For me a drive to Monterey is just 3 hours while a drive to watch the closest MLS team to me, Houston Dynamo, is 6 hours away. Also, watching Houston Dynamo is more expensive than watching Tigres or Monterrey. But the point isn't what YOU or I can do or can't. The point was about watching on TV, not driving to see a game. Oh by the way....what is MLS doing to capture new fans from cities that don't have an MLS team? I won't include myself and say because I became a fan anyone should do it too (@Paul Berry ).
1. Ok fair enough, but have you ever gone to Monterrey? 2. TV viewership is your point. I don’t think it was the point of the discussion. You are only seeing this through the lens of TV viewership, which I’m arguing is a mistake.
What happens if the 50 million is because they picked up more fans that live outside the US? I don't understand why you are arguing with me. Read the book and argue with the owners. I'm just telling you what I've read. . Personally, if I was King of MLS, I would go a different route. . I like the idea of a ceiling/floor cap for MLS. 15/30 million cap to start. Homegrown players cap exempt for first four years from the day when they sign to the first team. 3 DP players stay but they don't count against the cap. 3 DP Homegrown player that don't count against the cap but they can play on any team as long as they started as a homegrown in the league. Leagues Cup would get a revamp with games in all three countries tied to Supporters Shield Standing and Liga MX combined season. Just me but no one from MLS headquarters had given me a call yet.
1. Have been invited many times to a Tigres game but, nope, haven't gone. But the point wasn't about making it about me or you but of people in general. 2. Viewership was the point as the conversation was about the media deal. The media deal doesn't involve people going out to stadiums. The media deal is based on viewership numbers in the US which EPL and Liga MX have better numbers than MLS.
Gotta understand by now some of these guys don't like anyone talking bad about MLS. That's why they like to counter anything and everything that doesn't agree that MLS is perfect as is. They'll even counter what the owners said in the book that was made about them and say those owners are wrong.
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2026/jun/08/fifa-vice-president-victor-montagliani-world-cup Seems like CONCACAF might have the next head of FIFA one day.
What are you going on about? GTFO, everyone here calls MLS out on their BS all the time. It does not matter what we all THINK the owners (MLS) should do. What matters is what we think they WILL do. At the end of the day MLS has a perception problem. That poor perception has lead them to where they are today with regards to broadcast deals. Couple that with the changing economic realities of the media landscape and MLS is in a precarious position. They need to spend more money to improve the on field product in order to make MLS a more attractive TV property. They're changing their season calendar in order to make it easier to buy and sell players. Unfortunately by doing this, it's aligned MLS with the start of American Football, along with the business ends of the NBA and NHL. The traditional players that MLS so desperately wants to get that TV Bag from don't have any room for MLS now (Disney, NBC Universal, Paramount, Fox). They also aren't about to dismiss three decades worth of data that says that MLS doesn't draw nearly enough eyeballs consistently to justify forking over hundreds of millions of dollars every season.
And that's new and very positive. A couple of years ago the prize money for the CCL was $500k and the CWC wasn't very lucrative. So there's definitely a reason for owners and fans to take it more seriously. I've never said things can't get better. You just read every post through your mud coated glasses.
So what's your plan @STR1 ? In the context of the subject of this thread. All you've done in this thread is criticize other people.
For the new CBA: 1. Max cap hit of $1 million rising to $1.5 million 2. Salary budget + allocation money $15 million rising to $25 million 3. Transfer fees to be amortized outside of salary budget 4. 3 loans from per club per year outside of salary budget (attract young European talent) CBA can be amended depending on TV revenue.
Looking at Monterrey salaries Sergio Canales $5,644,080 Lucas Ocampos $2,438,800 Sergio Ramos $1,672,320 Óliver $1,184,560 Jesús Corona $1,114,880 Germán Berterame $1,114,880 Anthony Martial $1,045,200 Gerardo Arteaga $905,840 Jorge Rodríguez $766,480 Fidel Ambríz $648,024 Erick Aguirre $648,024 Héctor Moreno $641,056 Víctor Guzmán $627,120 Stefan Medina $627,120 Ricardo Chávez $627,120 Santiago Mele $599,248 Carlos Salcedo $585,312 Roberto de la Rosa $397,176 Luis Reyes $348,400 Luis Alberto Cárdenas $348,400 Iker Fimbres $285,688 etc
Sergio Ramos wasn't paid that much. It was reported that his salary was close to $4M a year. Those salaries look similar to MLS salaries but they don't deal with transfer fees that are included in a salary budget or using GAM to "buy down" players, amongst other things. MLS is screwing itself over (as usual) by including transfer fees in the salary cap.
How is that screwing itself? Explain the steps here. I don’t get it. The cap is there for a couple of reasons. The two main ones are ensuring sustainability and trying to maintain parity. You not liking a decision is not the same thing as MLS screwing itself. You try to make words mean things other than what they mean. You should stop doing that. Those of us who are native English speakers find your posts confusing.