There can't be a cap without single entity unless it's collectively bargained. And considering how much trouble they've had getting little things like direct deposit done, I'm thinking that would be a collective bargaining session that wouldn't be over quickly. So the centralized contract system is necessary for there to be a cap unless the owners give up something else. Player aquisition rules are a mess, I'll grant you that. But more autonomy over a dicey investment is how much more attractive, exactly? I'm going to guess that the things you'd include in "more autonomy" (which is a phrase that's bandied about, but I have yet to see it adequately defined) would run counter to the positive effects of single-entity - i.e. the reasons they have single-entity in the first place. So we don't have any Florida Thundercats-type franchises. I'd also submit that many, if not most of the investors who thought MLS was a great idea and are no longer around are no longer around more because MLS isn't or wasn't a terrific investment, not so much because of some perceived inability to have control over their own affairs. We think Ted Leonsis was a guy who didn't get involved because of SEM. I don't know of any others off the top of my head. SEM is a convenient whipping boy.