EPL and Liga MX might not be physically located in the US, but by pretty much every way that matters, they are bigger in this country than MLS..
True. Thing is, though, he's apparently slated to replace the only guy on the roster making over $2 million, so it would still be one. Now, on transfer fees, we have a different issue. Atlanta seems willing to regularly pay significant fees for younger players, and arguably MLS's system of accounting for them against their cap arguably does not provide enough means to do so, if they are going to be counted as DPs. Perhaps Young DPs shouldn't count. I think the real main difference with such a rule change is that MLS would become a more defensive league. If a team's 3rd best player is slightly weaker, but it's 6th/7th/8th best guys are better, those guys are likely to be less offensively-oriented (ie you're starting to spend real money on CBs and DMs, which we don't really do much now). On balance I don't think I'm enamored of that idea, but I can see why they might do it, as the current rule set has somewhat NBA-ified the league, and MLS teams might get better in international competitions with more roster balance. I just think the reactions I've seen seem to misread the likely intent here. I don't think owners go from adding DTAM, which is an obvious move to let spending clubs pull away, to pulling the third DP slot in order to bring them back to the pack, in one season. If they're pulling the third DP slot, I think it's likely for other reasons.
If I were a player, the thing I would fight for the most is better travel conditions. I'm not saying every team needs a pimped-out charter jet; but cramming the teams in the back of a Jet Blue red-eye flying between Orlando and Portland isn't doing anything positive for the quality of play.
The removal of the third DP would be a step away from the current super club era of MLS. At this moment, the only clubs challenging for the title that are not super spenders are the ones with a huge advantage in academy and youth development.
https://www.spotrac.com/mls/cap/ says the top two payrolls are clubs not in playoff position. If you rank D.C. ahead of Montreal using points per game, more clubs in playoff position are in the bottom six payrolls than the top six payrolls. The bottom half of payrolls includes two of the top three clubs in the Red Bulls and FC Dallas, along with D.C., who has averaged more points per game in their last 13 games than any club has for the whole year. If the Red Bulls play FC Dallas in MLS Cup, those clubs combined will have a lower payroll than Toronto and Los Angeles Galaxy have by themselves.
There are other things not taken into consideration when it comes to clubs who spend big and are not doing well. One of those things has to do with player selection and how players adapt to a system and/or team. We have seen many times that player X plays good in one team then is bought by a better team and does poorly. In the case of LA Galaxy and their DPs, I believe this is what happened. The Dos Santos brothers seemed never took MLS seriously or never adopted or never lived up to expectations compared to how now Rooney with DC has done. Does money help? It sure does that is why Real Madrid, Barcelona, and other heavy hitters are most of the time on top. Can teams with a lower budget but well run academies compete with club that spends a lot? They sure can and we are seen that too in MLS. I just don't see how; More TAM + 3 DPs is better than more TAM + 2 DPs. More TAM should be added regardless, the problem is the 3rd DP. Let the teams that are taking advantage use them. You can always fall back and just use 2 or 1 DP.
Couple of thoughts here.. For the purpose of this thread, there is allegedly going to be a good size bump to the salary cap included in this CBA. Some of that will obviously go into increased salaries for existing players, but it will also mean that MLS can fit better players in under the cap. Additionally, if it is spent well, TAM can be used to get more than one above average player. They might not be as good as the DP individually, but collectively it is generally better to have two+ above average players on the field than 1 way above average player.. That’s also assuming that the third DP is way above average.. MLS teams have, historically, had mixed results with DPs. Some certainly turn into Josef Martinez, but there are also <insert a Rapids DP here> who aren’t that much better than your average MLS player..
Are there any other hot topics for the CBA besides free agency, minimum salary/salary cap, TAM, and solidarity payments? Other than those; DP is fine at 3, but it would be great if the # of international slots is reduced by 1 per team. I don’t see what’s wrong with the # of DPs other than certain teams spending far more than others. What is a problem is the % of foreign players in the league. This year is much improved from a HG perspective, but let’s see if that trend continues in a non-WC year.
As I understand it (and somebody correct me if I'm wrong) but international slots aren't in the CBA, those are decided by USSF.
They certainly set the maximum. I suppose MLS could always mandate a rule below that. Not sure why they'd ever consider it though.
This is a problem when MLS stops expanding. As long as MLS expands, they need foreign players. It's incredibly difficult for a league to have the level of play rise despite basically doubling in size. More Americans play in MLS than have in the past.
Arguably that method of accounting misses more than it captures. For one thing, there are the one-offs, like Toronto FC's collapse after having made the Cup Final twice in a row. There are also strange contract structures--for instance, Ignacio Piatti is making $4.7 million this year, ten times what he made last year; it seems clear that his contract was back-loaded. Also, your statement about DC United is incorrect, because you're counting Rooney's performance for the team, but due to reporting lag, his contract is not in those numbers. DC is most likely not currently in the bottom half of payrolls (although if you want to count him at half a year, I think that would add $2.5M, which would put DC right in the middle, which is also where they sit in the table). Another problem relating to Atlanta is that their salary number does not jump out at you, but they spend dramatically more on transfer fees than most of the rest of the league. (And none of us know what teams spend on youth development, but I suspect that let's say the Red Bulls and Dallas are spending more than the Eathquakes and Rapids). I suspect that if you monitored total spend over multiple seasons, you'd find a correlation between that figure and performance, and that's even accounting for teams like the Galaxy, who are paying guys who don't perform because they sell tickets. True, though you could make an argument that because MLS loves to import players at the skill positions specifically, it might mean that a number of our youth prospects might not be getting the playing time they really should in order to advance their development.
Jeezus H. Willickers. Seriously - Nobody is holding anyone back in MLS. Nobody. SEM and the Salary Budget and DP rules and TAM/GAM and Generation adidas and Homegrown Players aren't bugs - they're features. Arthur Blank bought into MLS because of SEM and the Salary Budget and all the other rules - not in spite of them. How do you not understand this? Atlanta United and Seattle Sounders are not being held back from spending all their big attendance revenues on players and crushing the rest of the league. Joe Roth and Arthur Blank are on board with the rules in place. They're not looking to take the shackles off - because there are no shackles. The whole business plan of MLS isn't "training wheels" it's the business plan of MLS for today and the foreseeable future. There was never a plan to do away with SEM or the Salary Budget. They're the main attraction. Pro/Rel idiots claim some untold billions will flow into professional soccer in the U.S. if only MLS didn't exist. Well MLS didn't exist until 1996 and professional soccer in the U.S. was one unmitigated disaster after another for nearly a century before then. Since MLS, billions actually have poured into professional soccer in the U.S. I hate to break it to you, but the money has poured in because of MLS. Because of the salary rules. Nobody in MLS is going out of business these days. MLS is a sure bet. It's a sure bet for the owners. It's a sure bet for the players. Teams aren't running out of money and not paying their bills in MLS. Can La Liga or Serie A make the same claim? How about the top divisions in Argentina and Brazil? Solid financial planning is not "holding anyone back" - it's making sure there'll be a tomorrow for everyone involved. And that's where the CBA comes in. It allows the players to have a say. It gives the players some ability to make sure they're fairly compensated and get their fair share of the revenue streams. Arthur Blank is "all-in" on MLS. He bought in because of the rules over team rosters and spending. What part of that do you not understand?
I meant that MLS teams can't grow as a business just by increasing stadium attendance. They need TV viewers, and lots of them.
The part that means the dream fictional owner can't come in and turn ATL/SEA/TFC/etc. into Man U/Real Madrid overnight.
Fun fact, even those clubs are "being held back by Financial Fair Play". I mean, why can't Barcelona sign anyone at any time for any amount? Oh, they've got a transfer ban? FREE BARCELONA!!!!!11111!!!!11oneoneone!!!!
Do you have any information on this expansion of American minutes played in MLS? With so many players getting green cards without reducing # of international slots basically ensures teams can field a team without american players. Which was never the goal of the league at any time in its history.
You're right about at least some of that. Atlanta hasn't been around long enough to do an average payroll for five or more years. https://us.soccerway.com/teams/united-states/new-york-red-bulls/6571/squad/ and equivalent pages for other clubs and years have the minutes and a flag showing the players' nationality. You can add it up.
If your statement were remotely true, which I'm sure you realize it is not, it would mean that all the owners are pushing forward equally. That would mean the Jorge Vergara and Tony were doing as much to push the league forward as Phil and Arther Blank. Not necessarily. Just because something works, doesn't mean it can't work much better or everything was done well. Overall, I think most would agree the league is well run, I personally believe things like TAM and DP had more to do with internal compromises between ownership factions than any strategic optimization. What saved MLS from failure was probably not the GAM/TAM, GA, or DP rules but instead a focus on presenting real soccer to real fans. If the league had continued to focus on soccer mom's using greater and greater gimmicks, the league probably would have folded. I think the focus on pinching penny's held the league back and we should thank guys like Anshutz, Tim Leiweke, and Blank for demonstrating that increased spending on talent can mean significant growth into a world wide respected league rather than NASL ruin as many used to argue. He bought into the league because it was successful - not for any particular set of rules. There is a good chance he doesn't share the same views as all the owners on how to best grow the sport. What is best for Atlanta, LA, New York might not be best for Vancouver, Colorado and Montreal. Just like in the past what might have been best for MLS wasn't necessarily best for Tampa Bay.
I think he's ignoring the fact that MLS was worried about bankruptcy for over a decade. It was indeed training wheels and that was because MLS pre-2009 struggled greatly for ad revenue. In 2009 Brek Shea was still considered a hot prospect for the international level. It's silly to ignore MLS's past. The discussion between players and owners started early because they're both in agreement about increasing salary, but have disagreements about everything else on the table. Also MLS does not want to risk losing face with a players' stike. MLS wants the ad money to keep rolling in.
So, of course, I did. Looks like MLS teams, on average, have given about 40 percent of minutes to Americans, with RSL the highest at 57% and Vancouver and NYCFC the lowest at just under 21% each. Some other intrepid person can go look and see how that compares to a previous MLS season or seasons, but, just for comparison's sake (and because I had the numbers handy), in 1982, original NASL teams had about 14% of their minutes taken up by Americans, with the Sting the highest at 27% (only three MLS teams are below that figure today). Original NASL teams had quotas of North Americans who had to play, and they were usually a Canadian or American goalie and a back of one nationality or the other. (The quotas shifted over time.) This has nothing to do with the CBA, per se, I just was curious based on someone's question.
I don't know, if the UEFA superleague happens (I still think it won't happen) why not have a team in New York city (well massive travel is one huge reason to not have it). But going by economics, plucking a team in NYC may be very valuable (obviously this implies this would be a rogue league that will not care about Federation sanctioning).