Then I guess the way MLS does things is not different from top European leagues. I don't know what Pochetino was talking about. We are on the right path.
Well he did take three goalies from the league and one came back from Europe. I'll stay with the best leagues in the world and the amount of money players make go together like a salt and pepper.
Parachute payments are a reward. And they make the Championship hugely uncompetitive. The only way the rest of the teams can compete is to gamble (Coventry lost $28 million in 24/25 on revenue of $45 million and probably more this season). Some say they're a delayed reward for promotion, so why not give them out when a team is promoted? Well the teams already in the Premier League don't want to give promoted teams an advantage. They would rather mess up the EFL.
He wasn't intimidated by the big stage of Arrowhead Stadium because he'd been there before, thanks to MLS.
Hull City are facing a 6 point deduction in the Premier League. "We have overspent and we have to sell some players before 1 July," Ilicali [owner] told a Q&A at the MKM Stadium at the start of the month.
Tbh that might actually math out once franchise values are taken into consideration. I think there's something there, so I'll try to explain. While I get the idea of some kind of limits, especially on predictably unprofitable transfers, they just aren't the same thing as salary. Salary, once you've spent it, is gone, whereas an MLS could spend hundreds of millions of dollars on transfers with zero effect on its finances, as long as what was going out was coming back in. Consider a player that costs $4 million and is on a four year contract. Right now, MLS amortizes that transfer over the length of the contract, so a $1 million a year hit. But this is dumb, because it presumes that MLS teams will let that contract play out and just have nothing at the end of it, which is now how teams do business, unless they're the worst run ones. What will really happen is that teams will try to either sell the player on, or re-sign him, effectively spreading the fee out over a much longer period of time than the contract length. Really transfer fees are paid in order to save money on salary. Further, I believe there are only certain circumstances where selling a player returns 100% of the fee to a club, so that if a team signs a guy for $4 million over 4 years, then sells him after three for that 4 million, that's a net negative on the books, when what they've actually done is a good bit of business. First, I think there should probably ideally be some level of discount on transfers, because you want to incentivize teams to get in the game. If you're waiting around for free transfers, you're usually in for a wait, because they're fewer and farther between, and you're typically ending up with either older or unremarkable players. But there's an external benefit to the league for every good player that's in it, it's not all captured by the club he signs for. Second, I think it would make more sense to amortize them over a whole career, rather than one contract. Or at least the part of a career up until the transfer value would dwindle to something negligible. We'll pick the arbitrary number of 32, in the absence of hard data on it. So let's say the player above was 20, signed on a $4 million fee, that hit would be amortized over 12 years at 333k per year instead of 1 million. Then if there was a discount on it, let's say it winds up at 250k. A much more doable number and aligns incentives better with what we would like teams to be doing. An alternative to that approach would be to only count net transfers over the long term on some kind of rolling multi-year average. I don't have the math skills to process that, but I think it would work. I still think the discount should apply due to the same externalities argument. As of now there's effectively a small tax on them, which at the least should go away. This is true, and there's an ironic effect that also applies to the NBA's individual max salary: if everyone is offering the same money, the players will tend to want to go where it's glamorous, which is to say, the teams that are already winning or are in nice/glamorous places. Manchester United. The Lakers. If there was a hard individual max, everyone would want to play in Miami or LA.
Transfer Fees are the cost of buying a player out of their current contract and transferring their employment to a new club/team with a newly negotiated contract. Transfer fees aren't salaries, as the player doesn't see much if any of them (unless negotiated as part of their contract). Players and clubs/teams both want stability (long term contracts) but also want the freedom to walk away when things aren't in their best interests. The transfer system is a middleground to prevent clubs from just ripping up contracts at a whim and also to prevent players from just leaving whenever they want for a better situation.
Transfer costs can and need to be managed outside of the salary budget. Average transfer balance per MLS club according to Transfermkt: 2021/22 -$3,533,780 2022/23 -$928,164 2023/24 -$413,8251 2024/25 -$1,757,760 2025/26 -$6,563,110 You could give clubs a salary budget and separate transfer budget and have the accountants work out the details.
MLS isn't a selling league yet. Transfer balance over the last 5 seasons in Euros, from biggest net spenders to biggest net income. 1 Premier League €-8,180.71m 2 Saudi Pro €-2,132.51m 3 Serie A €-765.31m 4 Major League Soccer €-480.93m 5 Süper Lig €-419.63m 6 Qatar Stars €-410.91m 7 Premier Liga Russia €-331.81m 8 Liga MX Apertura €-205.22m 9 UAE Pro League €28.40m €-202.98m 10 Chinese Super League €-44.79m 11 Saudi First Division League €-19.31m 12 Libyan Premier League €-15.69m 13 MLS Next Pro €-15.45m 237 Bundesliga €+306.99m 238 2. Bundesliga €+313.26m 239 Allsvenskan €+326.38m 240 Ligue 1 €+333.63m 241 LaLiga2 €+374.84m 242 Bundesliga €+398.69m 243 Superliga Denmark €+469.92m 244 Campeonato Brasileiro Série A €+506.50m 245 Ligue 2 €+513.10m 246 Professional Football League (- 23/24) Argentina €+570.64m 247 Jupiler Pro €+878.63m 248 Eredivisie €+998.01m 249 Championship €+1.11bn 250 Liga Portugal €+1.16bn Take the numbers with a small pinch of salt as transfer fees aren't always in the public domain.
With such drastic structural changes already set up for 2027, I’ve assumed the league intends to see if it can hammer out a new CBA with the union a year early, by January ‘27. There’s no particular reason why you need to wait until the current agreement ends (Jan ‘28) before a new one takes effect. It’s hard for me to imagine how the current agreement - which defines dates, season structure, required vacation time fore players, etc., and sure as doesn’t reference anything like the 2027 sprint season - could remain in place next year. It just doesn’t reflect the reality of how the league has announced 2027 and beyond will run.
Lets not forget that as of right now (at least publicly) there has been no agreement between the league and the union to even switch the season.
The last time they significantly altered the regular season they reopened the contract with the force majeure clause (covid). They're gong to have to actually work with one another voluntarily this time.
And in the NYCFC COO (can't remember his actual position for certain) interview, he sounded like he thought that would be the easy part, because basically the changes favor the players. Time will tell if he's right or if he's naïve.
It should be easy if the plan is, here take all this money. Now if the head of MLSPA is smart, they could add in issues that might drag this out a little since this might be the first time the players have had the advantage in negotiations for a new contract. Free agency, getting rid of trading payers, making trade for cash the standard and how much percentage the player can receive for saying yes or no. Coming off the success of the World Cup and flipping the season you would think they will never get an opportunity like this again.
Increase the minimum wage. Increase the max cap hit and get rid of TAM. Reduce free agency age. Separate bucket for transfer fees. Increase prize money/bonuses, expanding revenue sharing (especially for competitions like the Club World Cup). Create enough flexibility to enable clubs to pitch competitive salaries to home-growns. Maybe phase these in. The CWC is a big revenue generator and a chance to promote the league on a global stage. Do they need to increase CCC incentives/bonuses, even though CONCACAF doesn't pay out until the final?
Teams have to qualify for the CWC......... so unless Fifa arbitrarily awards places to one or two American Teams (Miami if Messi is still around.....) that's not something that'll be a high priority. Leagues Cup will also factor into these negotiations too. TAM is already being phased out, that's in the current CBA. The PA doesn't care so much about the max cap hit. The PA is more concerned with raising the minimum salaries for the players at the bottom of the roster. A budget floor should be something that the PA seeks out. The ambitious teams are trying to pull away, and there needs to be a baseline of spending that is required. The Philadelphia's, Montreal's,Dolorado's, etc. in the league are going to have to be dragged along and not left behind because Miami and Atlanta want to spend like drunken sailors at the Club. Increasing the prize pool for winning MLS Cup and the Supporter's Shield could help to increase stakes in the regular season. Maybe putting in cash prize distribution for making the playoffs and advancing to each round? Cash incentives for finishing higher up the standings? The homegrown rules need to be revamped in order to prevent teams from holding players for ransom that they have no intention of actually signing to HGP contracts and/or playing.
That's why the we need CCC incentives, because winning the CCC is more important than ever, not just for the teams involved but for the league. A % of CWC prize money could be split among teams. In the same way TNS split their Conference money with the rest of the Cymru Premier. There are only 56 players on minimum salary and 61 on reserve roster minimum (I counted) and increasing that is a no brainer. Increase in max cap aka maximum salary allows MLS to keep the Miles Robinsons, Walker Zimmerman's, maybe Seb Berhalters, and sign mid-tier players from overseas without ********ing around with allocation money. But don't we already have a salary floor of salary budget + allocation money? And isn't that more important to the owners than players? Isn't that already in the CBA, section 10.7? Yeah they need to be revamped. On the other hand you don't want Miami and LAFC signing every kid who can kick a ball, raiding others teams academies. like Man City and Chelsea do in England or the top teams in Belgium and the country just to the north of Belgium.
Max Cap is what a players budget charge is against the budget. In order to increase the max salary (prior to becoming a DP player) will require raising the budget. Miles Robinson is a Designated Player, and he never left. Same with Walker Zimmerman.. He's never left MLS, and has been paid millions of dollars. F***ing around with allocation money actually helps the mid and low tier teams keep somewhat up with the Miami's, Atlanta's, LA's, FCC's in MLS. IMO, 100% of transfer fees from selling HGP's should be able to be converted to allocation money. This would give real incentives for teams to invest in youth development. It also rewards those teams that already do have robust academies. IMO, I don't see that happening with the youth prospects in the US. We're already seeing kids leave LA and NYC to go to Philadelphia's academy. Players see and know which academies offer them a true pro player pathway. What the league doesn't need is more Barjung Darboe situations. With the calendar switch, player well being will be a talking point. The PA could ask that a portion of transfer fees from selling non-homegrown players has to be spent on facilities. It could also go into a League fund for facilities upgrades for the northern teams, possibly with a league match contribution for those funds. MLS being a single entity, this is in the best interest of the league as a whole. In order to keep the teams in Toronto, Montreal, Colorado, Minnesota, etc. those teams are going to need an indoor practice area, and under soil heating for their stadiums.
Not a hot take, but a couple sincere questions here. I don't have the answers, but I'd like to hear what others think about these questions. What would happen if the minimum salary was not counted as part of a team's budget or as part of any player's countable salary? Would the MLSPA agree to an additional international summer break friendly for each team if the proceeds went toward establishing a pension plan for MLS players? MLB did this with the All Star games, with good effect. Would this make either staying in or coming to the MLS a better option for some players?
They could just do this now with the All-Star game and the Campeones Cup instead of making another game. For me, I just rather take almost every training wheel off and have floor/ceiling Cap with three DP players who don't count against the budget and add three homegrown DP players who also don't count against the budget. Teams would be responsible for the salary of all their DP players. Just do some form of financial fair play rule tied into the DP's. As a Union fan I rather see more teams spend than small teams protected. It's time to let sporting directors build rosters with less restrictions.
Why would MLS need to take an additional Summer Break, when we've been told that they won't be playing during the Summer with the Calendar switch?
I forgot Miles was a DP. Zimm is around because of TAM. If you raise the salary budget and max cap hit that takes care of that. Let's set the max cap hit is raised to $1.5M, you still have GAM to cover the rest. Aren't those teams rewarded through transfer fees and solidarity payments. Didn't MLS have a minimum academy spend of $1 million about 10 years ago (Paulson was complaining)? I saw something recently that suggested even the half-hearted owners were spending $2.5,M a year. By comparison the minimum spend for a cat 1 academy (24 teams) in England is £2.5 million, so not that different. I'm sure there are all sorts of incentives that could be given but is the PA really focused on that? Not every academy is going to get every call right. Alex Freeman was rejected by Miami as his parents had to work really hard to get him into Orlando. MLS home-grown territory rules only protect 9 players per club, right? Certainly we don't want clubs abusing those times. But is it a PA issue? Toronto has an air supported system that covers their training pitches (Farley Dome).
Raising the Salary budget along with raising the max cap hit....... cancels one another out. Say the salary budget is increased by $5M. The max budget cap hit is increased to $1M. If Miami pays Messi $20M / year his budget hit is $1M. If they also pay Casemiro $6M/yr, his budget hit is $1M...... how exactly does this help teams? A good number of teams are ALREADY paying more than 5 players $1M+ per season. Please explain how this accomplishes anything. In this hypothetical 5 players will now cost teams $1M/ea against the budget instead of $700K/ea against the budget.
By max cap hit I mean the maximum you can pay a player before you use AM or a DP slot. Pay DPs outside of the salary budget. Does that solve the issue?