MLS/SUM: European free agency market for star players

Discussion in 'MLS: General' started by pc4th, Aug 31, 2007.

  1. pc4th

    pc4th New Member

    Jun 14, 2003
    North Poll
    Club:
    Los Angeles Galaxy
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Agreed!

    Ballack and Beckham did. And many NBA/MLB players do. They know that free agency is where the money is. For example, Alex Rodriquez turned down a contract extension from the Mariners for $17 mil a year and became a free agent. He got $25 mil a year from another team.
     
  2. nutella

    nutella Member

    Nov 11, 2006
    Plateau
    Club:
    FC Dallas
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Ok, so two players did, that means they all will.

    The NBA and MLB are a whole different "ballgame" from the soccer world. In American sports there is only one major league, in soccer there is at least four. Therefore, free agency in soccer is much different than free agency in American sports.

    Also, you may not realize that when a player is sold, he negotiates his own salary, it's not like they are slaves. If Chelsea sold Essien to the Baltimore Blast and Essien didn't want to play in Baltimore or the Blast didn't offer him enough money, he wouldn't have to go. Just because a fee is agreed on between teams doesn't mean the deal will go through (example Mido to Birmingham).
     
  3. RichardL

    RichardL BigSoccer Supporter

    May 2, 2001
    Berkshire
    Club:
    Reading FC
    Nat'l Team:
    England
    Beckham didn't run down his contract. He just wasn't offered a new one, and he wanted a new one. He didn't quit Real, they let him go.

    Ballack ran down his contract to leave Bayern. It wasn't because he wanted to take advantage of "extra money" from being a free signing.

    He was the highest paid payer at Chelsea, but as has been seen, all the other top players now want Ballack-level style salaries. That is exactly why paying players higher than usual salaries just because they were free would be a terrible idea as far as clubs are concerned.
     
  4. pc4th

    pc4th New Member

    Jun 14, 2003
    North Poll
    Club:
    Los Angeles Galaxy
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6976231.stm

    Another proof for the unbelievers. 280m pounds ($560 mil) in 2006 and 420m pounds ($840 mil) in 2007 coming out of the Premiership. That's $42 million per team on average in 2007. Imagine the salary of top baseball players when each Major League Baseball team have $42 million less per year.
     
  5. RichardL

    RichardL BigSoccer Supporter

    May 2, 2001
    Berkshire
    Club:
    Reading FC
    Nat'l Team:
    England
    so what were the salaries like when baseball had $42 million less to spend each year?

    Were they flatter, like in soccer around the world, or were the top players still paid proportionately far more, as now?


    I'd guess "B" and I'd also guess you wouldn't be able to explain, if true, why.
     
  6. pc4th

    pc4th New Member

    Jun 14, 2003
    North Poll
    Club:
    Los Angeles Galaxy
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I don't know the answer. But I know that salary of top baseball players will drop if the team have $100 mil to spend instead of $142 mil. How much of a drop? 20-30%? Again. I don't have an answer. Though you are right that top players will be paid proportionately more.

    But one way to find out is to compare top player baseball salary today to top player salary 7 years ago. Assumming that 7 years ago, baseball teams on average generate $42 mil less a year.

    Let's find out.

    Average MLB salary (2006): $2,866,544
    Average of Top 5 MLB player salary (2006): $22 mil
    Ratio: 13.03%

    Average EPL salary (2006): £676,000 ($1,352,000)
    Average of Top 5 EPL player salary (2006): $11 mil
    Ratio: 12.30%

    Granted, median salary would be better. As you can see, the average baseball player earns 13.03% of what the top 5 MLB player earns (12.30% for average Premiership player). So this "flatter" is a myth.


    http://sport.independent.co.uk/football/news/article357006.ece
    MLB

     
  7. RichardL

    RichardL BigSoccer Supporter

    May 2, 2001
    Berkshire
    Club:
    Reading FC
    Nat'l Team:
    England
    how about lower budget baseball teams right now?

    How's the pay scale look for them?


    That average salary for the premiership is rather misleading as it includes the multitude of youth players on pro contracts. The fact is, in baseball you'll regularly have guys on $10 million a year playing in the same team as first choice players on $1 million a year.

    You don't get players on £13000 a week turning out regularly for Chelsea alongside Ballack & Terry with their £130,000. Sidwell went to Chelsea as a squad player, and he's on £50,000 a week.
     
  8. pc4th

    pc4th New Member

    Jun 14, 2003
    North Poll
    Club:
    Los Angeles Galaxy
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    That is also true for the elite MLB teams like Yankees, RedSox. It is rare to see a $1 mil starter for that team.

    The payroll for 2007

    1. New York Yankees $ 189,639,045
    2. Boston Red Sox $ 143,026,214

    What would happen if the Yankees and Red Sox have a net transfer spending of $50 mil EACH AND EVERY YEAR? Can they afford to pay top players $22 million a year when they have $50 mil less each year?
     
  9. pc4th

    pc4th New Member

    Jun 14, 2003
    North Poll
    Club:
    Los Angeles Galaxy
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Hypothetical: each EPL and MLB (20 teams only) team generates $150 mil in revenue. Total revenue: $3.0 bil. They will spend 60% of the total revenue on players (net transfer fee + salary)

    EPL

    Revenue: $3.0 billion
    Player budget (60% of $3.0 bil): $1.8 billion
    Net transfer spending: $840 mil
    Salary budget: $960 mil

    MLB

    Revenue: $3.0 billion
    Player budget (60% of $3.0 bil): $1.8 billion
    Net transfer spending: $0 mil
    Salary budget: $1.8 billion

    Which one do you think benefit the top players more? EPL with only $960 mil to spend on salary or MLB with $1.8 bil to spend?
     
  10. pc4th

    pc4th New Member

    Jun 14, 2003
    North Poll
    Club:
    Los Angeles Galaxy
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I know that. And I am not debating that. I'm just debating the fact that if Essien plays out his contract at Chelsea and go on a free transfer, another team might be willing to offer him big buck since they don't have to pay $50 million for him in transfer fee.

    Same thing with Robben. Real Madrid paid $52 million for him. If he plays out his contract at Chelsea, he can earn a lot more money on the free agency market. He is costing Real Madrid $92 million for 4 years ($52 mil in transfer fee + $10 mil a year salary for 4 years). Real Madrid would be GLAD to pay him $20 mil a year in salary for 4 years if he comes on a free.
     
  11. superdave

    superdave Member+

    Jul 14, 1999
    VB, VA
    Club:
    DC United
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    As has been pointed out to you countless times, it doesn't work like that.

    Since you bring up the Yankees and the Red Sox, allow me to point out that Dice K's salary was not lessened by the enormous transfer fee paid by Boston. Which is a real life, rather than hypothetical, refutation of your argument.

    Not that you're the type to let objective reality slow you down. So carry on.
     
  12. RichardL

    RichardL BigSoccer Supporter

    May 2, 2001
    Berkshire
    Club:
    Reading FC
    Nat'l Team:
    England
    how glad will they be when all the other top players want to be on $20 million a year too, even the ones signed for fees?

    Or do you think the other players will be happy that their teammate earns vastly more than them, just because he came on a free?
     
  13. pc4th

    pc4th New Member

    Jun 14, 2003
    North Poll
    Club:
    Los Angeles Galaxy
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Like I said, it would have to be 'en mass' with most of star players going on a free to make it work.

    Ballack came to Chelsea on a free. He got a seven-figure signing on fee and his salary was the biggest in the Premiership at that time. Imagine a player like Cristiano Ronaldo/Messi/Ronaldinho on a free transfer at the prime of their career. If a team who is willing to spend $100 million for such a player ($50 mil transfer fee + $12 mil/year salary), wouldn't that same team be willing to spend $20 mil salary/year to get such a player. If not that team, then another team would be willing to make the deal.
     
  14. pc4th

    pc4th New Member

    Jun 14, 2003
    North Poll
    Club:
    Los Angeles Galaxy
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    How do you know it won't work in real life?

    Real Madrid spent $120 million (net) on transfer fee in summer 2007. If all the players they got were on a FREE, they would have spent ZERO. They will have $120 million EXTRA. Most of this extra $120 million will be spent on player salary. Common sense really.

    Since you're knowledgable about American free agency system. Imagine the same for European soccer. Imagine a world where European soccer employs the same system as American sports (star players play out their contract and become free agent). Imagine how Real Madrid/Chelsea/Man U/AC Milan and the likes don't have to pay $50 million for a player.
     
  15. Taoism

    Taoism Member

    Apr 13, 2007
    Winnipeg, MB, Canada
    Just when you think and hope a thread has died.... :eek:

    Cheers!
     
  16. RichardL

    RichardL BigSoccer Supporter

    May 2, 2001
    Berkshire
    Club:
    Reading FC
    Nat'l Team:
    England
    no they wouldn't, as the thing about transfers is that even if the top sides are spending twice as much as they receive, they still are, on average, getting half of that fee back when they sell. A transfer fee can be treated as an investment of sorts. Salary can't.

    IF that happened, and club did have, for example, 30% extra each year, then it's almost certain that extra 30% would go on salaries, just as every price rise through tv money has resulted in more being spent on salaries.

    But just as those increases haven't seen star players' salaries rise hugely in comparison to the rest, those no reason to assume "extra" money available due to their being no fees would result in star player salaries rising hugely compared to the rest either.

    You keep ignoring this point and pointing to american sports, and assuming that becuase it happens there then that must be the natural order of things. You never stop to consider why that might be the case because you've just decided it's purely down to transfer fees, and you just keep banging out the same point in thread after thread without any hint you've given the matter any deeper thought.
     
  17. superdave

    superdave Member+

    Jul 14, 1999
    VB, VA
    Club:
    DC United
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I told you in that post, you blockhead!!! Dice K's transfer fee didn't reduce his salary!!!
     
  18. pc4th

    pc4th New Member

    Jun 14, 2003
    North Poll
    Club:
    Los Angeles Galaxy
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Resorting to name calling now? And without proof to back up your claim.

    Dice K (Daisuke Matsuzaka) transfer fee DID REDUCE his salary. As a free agent, he could have gotten around $15 mil a year, but instead he only got $8.67 mil a year.

    http://www.boston.com/news/local/ma...alifornia_in_final_attempt_to_sign_matsuzaka/

    Dice K salary: $52 mil over 6 years ($8.67 mil/year)
    Dice K posting fee: $51 million
    Total spending: $103 mil

    The RedSox was willing to spend $103 million on him for 6 years. That's $17 mil a year. However, the RedSox was not willing to spend $150 mil over 6 years in salary + posting (transfer) fee.

    So he only got $8.67 mil/year in salary.

    Also, read this:
    http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/putting-a-price-on-matsuzaka/

    Putting a price on Matsuzaka.

    As a free agent, the experts predicted he would get around $15 mil a year. Instead he got $8.67 mil a year as a non-free agent. And this is not a reduce in SALARY????
     
  19. superdave

    superdave Member+

    Jul 14, 1999
    VB, VA
    Club:
    DC United
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    "Boras said"???? Do you have any idea how hilarious that is?

    And then, "IF" he's one of the top 15 pitchers in the league next year??? Well, what would he be worth if he sucks donkey dicks?

    And a quote from Epstein when he's dealing with Scott ********ing Boras????

    :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

    Good Lord.
     
  20. pc4th

    pc4th New Member

    Jun 14, 2003
    North Poll
    Club:
    Los Angeles Galaxy
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Boras wanted $17-20 mil a year. He got $8.67 mil a year. That's very low for a pitcher like Dice K.

    Epstein stated that the RedSox was willing to pay $100 mil for him. If he was a free agent, the RedSox would be willing to pay $100 mil for him over the 6 years period.

    How is that not a salary decrease? If he was a free agent, he would get at least $12-15 million a year. Instead, he only got $8.67 millions.

    Let's say Dice K and Zito are about the same in ability. Zito is a free agent. Dice K is not. Both cost $100 million over 6 years. However, Zito gets $17 mil a year and Dice K only $8.67 million a year.

    How is that not a salary decrease?
     
  21. pc4th

    pc4th New Member

    Jun 14, 2003
    North Poll
    Club:
    Los Angeles Galaxy
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Agree. That's my point.

    Elite clubs don't want to. Trust me. They want the players NOW instead of waiting an extra 2-3 years for them to become a free agent. The saving from having no transfer fee would pass on to the players.

    That's is why it is up the elite players to do it. It's very simple.

    Top 30 soccer players in the world

    1. Play out their contract.
    2. Don't sign any extension.
    3. No transfer.


    As a result, Chelsea, Man U, Liverpool, Real Madrid, Barca, AC Milan, Juventus have $30-40 million extra each year. They will use it to attract these free agents.

    They don't have to pay them $17 million a year in salary. Just pay $10 million a year in salary so that the wages would not be disportionate toward the rest. However, these elite players would receive $28 million signing-on fee.

    Salary: $10 mil/year for 4 years
    Signing-on fee: $7 million a year for 4 years.


    This is the same as $17 million a year in salary. It's just a MASK. An obvious one. Ballack received a huge signing-on fee when he was a free agent to Chelsea.

    I wonder why Scott Boras (the elite agent in MLB) haven't done this for European soccer.

    Scott Boras: "How would you like to earn $17 mil a year instead of $10 mil a year?"
    Elite soccer player: "How?"
    Scott Boras: "Play out your contract. Don't sign extension. No transfer. Become a free agent."
    Elite soccer player: "It's that simple?"
    Scott Boras: "Yes."


    It is truly that simple. If Scott Boras sign the top 30 elite soccer players and commit them to the above. Players like Messi, Cristiano Ronaldo, Ronaldinho, Kaka etc.....Salary would be about the same as top players now: $10 mil a year. But they also have signing-on fee let's say $7 mil a year.

    Best thing about this is that MLB restrict rookie to 6 years and Japanese Baseball 9years before they can become a free agent. In soccer, no such restriction.

    In addition, European Soccer operates as a FREE MARKET. No salary cap. No luxury tax. Teams will compete and break the bank to sign the elite players. Much more favorable.
     
  22. pc4th

    pc4th New Member

    Jun 14, 2003
    North Poll
    Club:
    Los Angeles Galaxy
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I want everyone to think deeply about this question. If you think you can answer, please try.

    What would happen if the top 30 soccer players in the world all play out their contract and become free agents?

    ---The effect on elite 'buying' teams (Man U, Chelsea, Liverpool, Real Madrid, Barca, Milan, Juventus etc..)
    ---The effect on the elite 'selling' teams (Porto, Benfica, PSV, Ajax, Lyon, San Paulo, Riverplate etc...)
    ---The effect on the top 30 players
    ---Would soccer leagues put restrictions on how players become free agents (6 years in MLB and 9 years in Japanese baseball)
    ---The effect on the sport. Would there be more trades?
     
  23. Rommul

    Rommul Member

    Aug 26, 2003
    NYC
    This question has already been answered you just refuse to listen to anyone besides yourself

    This right here is yet another example of your complete lack of knowledge of the sport and its internal machinations. European leagues have absolutely no power over when players become free agents, the Bosman ruling took care of that.

    Do you see how completely ignorant you are of the realities that surround these leagues?

    The very fact that you keep harping on free agency is a clear indication that you don't entirely grasp the issues at hand here. You are looking at this through the prosm of American sports where players don't have other options to play elsewhere and assuming the same forces are at work there.

    Free agency is an internal league matter. It makes absolutely no sense to restrict the movements of players within your own league (since any ruling by any one league wouldn't be applicable across borders) when football is a worldwide market. The only league in the world that does this is MLS and they lose almost all their star players as soon as they become eligible. That is exactly what would happen everywhere else if they tried this nonsense.

    The very fact that you choose to use quotes from an agent as PROOF of what a player would definately make is the clearest indication that you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.
     
  24. superdave

    superdave Member+

    Jul 14, 1999
    VB, VA
    Club:
    DC United
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    What is the highest salary ever paid to a pitcher with ZERO major league experience?

    I'm gonna go out on a limb and say it's your boy, Dice-K.

    QED.
     
  25. Placid Casual

    Placid Casual Member+

    Apr 2, 2004
    Bentley's Roof
    Shoot yourself
     

Share This Page