Past potential Investor/Operators: Woud they still be interested in MLS?

I don't know of any specifics, but I am wondering why some of the major NASL investors haven't jumped into MLS. In particular, Lee Stern of Chicago Sting fame and the Ertugun? brothers from the old NY Cosmos.

I do think there will be significantly increasing interest in MLS over the next 5 years as these new stadiums come on line and more and more teams shift into the black. Clearly, MLS with its single entity control of costs, and its business model tailored to SSS that double as mid size entertainment venues are begining to demonstrate a finiancial sweet spot in sports.

For all the angst spread over these boards over the viability of MLS, more time spent on understanding MLS's business model and its application indicates MLS is here for the long term and is poised for expansion. Garber has presented this three tiered model of Owner, Market and SSS many times and can be used as the criteria to evaluate any upcoming MLS moves.

While the overall picture for MLS is very bright, that's not necessarily true for every team. In particular, based on the business model and Garbers criteria for long term success I have to worry about San Jose. They are as Soccer America put it "the Lost Franchaise".

 

Any names of multi-millionaires/billionaires that may have interest?

I like the single-entity system and salary cap (despite despising it on economic grounds for any other industry) but I think at some point single-entity will hold back MLS when the individual teams are all profitable. A hard NFL style cap should allow for inidividual investors at some point. It will hurt the value of the large market teams but with the right investors they could be sold (Anschutz will probably hold onto LA). A hard cap means no Yanee like mega-teams and may hurt the league in NY and LA but overall should be good for everyone (see NFL) except the players wanting to earn larger salaries (I find MLS with athletes playing for 24k and most <100k refreshing). At some point the league may lose many to Europe but I don't think it will be that big of an issue during my lifetime (US are getting better and really good but won't be that much superior to the players overseas).

 

I'm not sure I understand what you're asking. It seems the MLSPU has almost no influence and wouldn't have any say in any changes made. I was more talking about the following: As the quality of talent increases (Convey, Gaven, Adu, etc.) there will be more demand overseas for young American talent. MLS in nowhere near competing with Europe if they start serously raiding the top young talent. Sure players like Donovan and Adu want to stay near home. If the cap stays too low there is a possible huge revolt/drain of talent to Europe if the US continues doing well in the WC. I don't think this will be a major problem. Abolishing single-entity would possibly undo the salary cap allowing NY/LA, etc to pay much more to keep these young stars home. But I don't think that is a good think for the league (I can't help but believe the NFL has it right vs baseball, hockey, and in ways basketball (Soft cap) in the the parity and quality of teams in every market keep excitement for league strong across the entire country).

A lack of a cap would mean Cosmos-like teams in NY/LA may become dynasties like the Yankees, Red Wings, Real Madrid, etc. I don't think this would be good for MLS but I may be wrong. I'm just saying that I think single ownership will eventually be good for MLS but probably needs to be kept in restraint by a hard cap (there's one now anyway). A cap lowers the value of selling NY, CHI to new investors so AEG may think twice about it (copare the value of the Yankees relative to Devil Rays to the Jets relative to the Bucs). An interesting possibility in the future is a true World League (say in 30-50 years) which would need strong NY, LA teams to gain entrance.

 

Wasn't Milan Mandaric one of the owners of the NASL Sand Jose Earthquakes? Today, I believe he is the chairman of Portsmouth in the English League.

You were right on the name of the article, I couldn't quite remember, but I still think San Jose is has a very, very difficult road to hoe and is in danger because each of Garber's three tiers in San Jose's case are shaky.

 

NFL style caps create mediocrity which means even more of what we have now..

When was the last time the Rangers won the Cup?

How many have they won the last 25 years?

Who won the last world series?

How many series did the yankees win in the eighties when they were still the richest?

Don't let the NFL owners fool you.

The only point of a hard cap is to keep as much money in their pockets as possible.

The only reason they got such a sweetheart deal for themselves is because football players are dumb enough to have a former player negotiatiting for them while the onwers send lawyers.

Do you want a league where you best players are released every year because some owner doesn't want to pick up his salary.

This league has enough medicority as it is we don't need more.

 

Sure a cap has plenty of downsides. Aren't pro sports players generally overpaid anyway and poor role models for our youth who ignore education at expense of a lottery chance of suceeding insports. Owners in MLS have taken a sizable hit and won't make significant profits for years to come. In the NFL every community feels a chance to win and that keeps interest. Without hope how do you expect a market to embrace a team. Without a cap, NY would need 6 teams to even the playing field. This would restrict the geographic extent of the league. I hate the economics of wage restrictions but see the value in sports. What I think is necessary is salary caps but also enforced minimum team salaries near the level of the cap. Tying the cap to league revenues should work, but might not in practice. The biggest problems of the cap are squeezing out solid veterans and forced trades. Tight maximum individual salaries may help, but it starts getting too communist and takes away incentive for the top players to excel. The NBA idea of exemptions to keep players on the same team is an idea but gets messy. Until the league is more viable with SSS and greater interest careful restrictions on salaries appears necessary. Deep down I'd like for a pure free market system to work but can't accept it yet. NFL seems to me to have a much better system than MLB. I think p40 has been a great setup and the league needs to start a pension system.

I'll take mediocrity over a Yankee-Devil Rays system. It doesn't take a genius to pick NY as one's exclusive market (paraphrasing George Will). Unless teams have free reign to invade each others markets, you don't have a capitalist system and have serious monopoly issues (most pro sport leagues do). Constant relocation and bilking local governments has to be considered though I support funding for reasonable facilities that make a team financially successful and provide for other community events.

 

Goddy, I think your thread's been hijacked.

 

Bull.

1) A person spends all of their free time between the ages of 8-18 honing their skills to become one of the elite performes in that field yet can't reap the benefits of this effort until they are, in most cases, 21 yrs old. Then they are told they only have ten year window to make all the money they will need to live the rest of their lives. How can they be overpaid? Who decides who is overpaid?

2) I have no kids but when I do they will know better than to hold up people they don't know as role models. This sports star as role model crap is just that crap.

Nonesense. I ask you again how many world series have the wealthiest teams in the baseball (mets yankees) won in the last twenty years. How many stanley cups have the rangers won in the last twenty years. How many NBA ttiles have the knicks won in the last twenty.

You have provided no evidence that lack of salary caps tilts the balance in favor of the teams with money.

This will never happen.

The best way to do it is to develop lots of talent. Players in this game in europe and south america know they can lose their jobs very easily because there is so much talent around the world waiting for a shot so they have to play harder. Unlike in NBA NFL NHL MLB where there is a limited amount of talent and few players are evre in jeoprady of falling out of the league barring retirment.

How can you praise caps in one breath then praise P40 in the other? P40 is nothing but a salary cap dodge. Can someone please enlighten me as to why P40 is so great.

1) Tell me again how many title the yankees have won the last 20 years? Were you alive in the 80's when the yankees were stinking up the joint when they were still the richest team.?

2) The badly mismanaged teams of baseball should not be used to wage any serious argument about economics.

You have yet to prove how money will lead to anykind of massive imbalance that you seem to percieve but obviously doesn't exist.

 

Hummmmmmm. To get back to your thread, I am surprised that Alan Rothenberg hasn't formed some owership group to buy an existing team or setup an expansion club. I guess he doesn't want to risk any part of his 7 million dollar payday he had with the 94 World Cup.

As for Pele I'm not surprised he's stayed away from investing in MLS. Blessed with incredible talent on the field, he has not demonstrated much acum in business. I could see some other investor who might be interesting in reforming a "Cosmos" team bring Pele in as a rallying point.

The one person that seems somewhat of an enigma on investing in soccer is Tampa Bay's Glazer. For years MLS tried to woo him into MLS by purchasing the Tampa Bay team. When that effort failed and MLS could not find anyone else that would be interested in the South Florida team, the team was contracted. A year or so later Glazer starts buying shares in Manchester United and today is one of its biggest sharholders. That would make Glazer the second major American Soccer investor, along with Mandaric, to go with the EPL instead of MLS.

 

I'm not saying a cap is perfect. I'm not saying it doesn't have many, many faults. I just think that overall the NFL has benefited vs the other sports cause of it's cap. Sure it gives parity vs. dynasties, that's up to the individual to decide which is better, pure opinion. Very difficult to "prove" fininancially, too many variables.

Should anyone spend "all" of their free time on one thing. Should that be encouraged? I stated (I think here) the impotance of pensions. I'm as free market as anyone in politics, but Shaq making 30 million a year for basically being born a great athlete vs. top scientists improving this world for a fraction of this doesn't strike you as a little unfair. It's not a huge issue to me and I'm not advocating it be legislated against. I just don't see the problem of MLS putting in a max salary to protect the quality non-superstar veterans that squeezed out and don't make enough to retire on. Are you denying that kids in inner cities see NBA stars as their role models and focus their entire energies on this "lottery chance" instead of valuing the importance of education as a fallback? It's a free world, but it happens.

I'm not going to do an analysis of this, It's common sense for anyone watching sports. Sure teams can spend and lose. Teams can invest well in youth and win for a couple of years. But invariably the leagues are dominated by the richest teams and poor teams almost never stay on top but for a short while.

The NBA enforces a minimum salary cap. In the NFL I don't think many teams far below the max, revenue sharing is key.

Proof of this?

p40 is a great system to me. Pure opinion. It ensure top players can justify skipping the college game. The college game could be great and I generally enjoy college sports more. But the NCAA has idiotic restrictions. The limited # of games and the limits on training throughout the year seriously hamper the development of national team players. They benefit from becoming p40s at 16-18 to compete with the grads of the Euoropean youth system. p40 is a great fallback to ensure that youth aren't pushed out of the league and those with potential are given a shot to develop. Only with Adu has it become a serious cap dodge. The p40s have been in the draft for 5 years and teams that don't want to draft/trade for them are foolishly limiting their depth (and then whine about it like Nichol).

Prove an imbalance doesn't exist. I dont' think there are enough fans out their who don't by into the imbalance argument to justify research into it (I'm sure fans of other sports have done the research so hopefully it will come out here). The Yankees have been to more WS than anyone else. I was alive the entire 80s. Their salary may have always been near the top but recently it's size versus other teams and the increased ability of free agents to move teams is significant. The Yankees overpay for talent at most positions. Then when it doesn't work out (Knoblauch-sp?, Henson). The just eat the salary and get another player. It's fundamentally unfair to some that this is the system. If you want a pure market system, then sure it's fair. I agree in mostly unrestricted free markets but they don't seem to work in pro sports. Baseball has an anti-trust exemption. Teams have unwarranted "territorial rights". Teams often fail to understand deeper idea that it may be in their financial benefit to cooperate (I can't prove this). I'm definitely no economist, but game theory might apply here (just an idea).

 

I'm here in TB. I think he on principle didn't want to invest in something that was going to lose him money. I don't understand why he mind the extra tenant in Raymond James but we do have USF football there now (not sure about late 2001) like Temple in Philly.

I'm basing this on limited info, but my impression is that Rothenberg isn't that wealthy and wouldn't want to lose money on MLS short-term and probably couldn't make the cash calls comfortably.

 

Sad that the Mutiny went away, but another team with no chance of a decent stadium option (ie size)? We already have that it KC and NE, no thanks.

 

No its not parity versus dynasties the only two noticable dynasties of the last twenty years are the yankees (after years of sucking due to Georges meddling) and the 49ers after years of being allowed to violate the cap. You have failed to answer any of my questions because they destroy your argument.

Is that any of your buiness? Is it any of mine.

No. But I see you have a personal problem with this percieved wrong. I don't believe in unrestrained capitalism but if you have a commodity that is valuable you should be able to sell it without restriction. In this country people will spend thousands of dollar for season tickets to some sports team but if you tell them you will raise taxes $500 dollars to fund education they will vote you out of office. Sports have great value in this country and there is great demand for it so as a result it generates a lot of revenue and the people primarily responsible for that deserve their cut.

Your belief that some professions have more value than others is just that your belief.

And the parents are to blame when you have kids you are responsible for their welfare and upbringing. Are one of these people who v=believes we should change the world 'for the children'?

No its your perception that you think is fact. Its not. The fact that you refuse to answer my questions about how many titles the richest teams have won the last 29 years proves that you know this and just don't want to admit it.

The fact that you are 'not going to do an analysis of this' shows you lost this point.

What do you call domination? Winning four or five tiles after decades of futility? You are not allowed to construct your own reality then try to pass it off as the real world.

Is this the same NBA that says the cap will be $45 mill next year yet the Knicks will be allowed to spend $95 million? That NBA?

The fact that non performing players get replaced and/or marginalised every year in european soccer. The fact tha guys like Derek Bell after not getting a contract extension from the Pirates said he was going into 'Operation Shutdown'. Yet he was still in baseball the next year.

Rationalisation. You are talking out of both sides of you mouth. Its either a cap doge or its not. You can say oh it just recently became a 'serious' cap dodge. So its ok to dodge the cap as long as you only do it a little? Nice. so that means I can ignore all your previos posts made praising the value of caps.

How does one disprove a negative?

Translation there are enough ignorant fans who think the same way I do to justify me dodging your questions.

How world series a team went to decades ago doesn't prove an imbalance exists now.

1) Your argument was not that about its size versus other teams it was that the rich teams dominate. How many world series have the mets won the last 20 years agian. True to form you will not answer that.

2) What 'increased ability of free agents to move teams' ? Free agents have had the same ability to move sonce before the 80's why did the yankees suck then? Why doesn't you theory apply then?

How many world series has the richest team in the world won the last 20 years. You can decry their methods all you want but until you prove that they win simply because they have money and not because they have a comopetent front office you are simply talikng smack.

In your view.

In your view . You have provided no proof. Just you biased views about what is fair and unfair.

If money is so important why have my The expansion florida marlins won as many world series as my new york mets?

How does this fit your theory?

 

Rothenberg is a very successful attorney and by any measure very comfortable, but he's no where close to the types of billionaire or mega millionaire operator/owner types like Anshultz, Kronke, Hunt, Kraft or Vegara. Back in the 60s when Lamar Hunt owned the Dallas Tornado and Dallas had lost over a million the prior year, a reported asked how he could manage that kind of loss. Hunt's reply was that he would be start to get worried in a couple of hundred years.......

Glazer is in same sort of billionaire class and could easily afford dabbling in both Man U and an MLS team. Unlike Anshultz and Hunt, Glazer doesn't have a personal vision or drive to establish soccer in the US. I think Glazer missed a huge opportunity in a very different way. A hundred years from now long after his investment in the Tampa Bay Bucs have been long forgotten, Anshultz and Hunt will be remembered as father's of American Pro Soccer.

 

It's interesting you brought up multiple teams in cities. This may actually be a way to go.

The modern era of Major League Baseball from the creation of the American League in 1901 until 1952 had 5 cities with multiple teams (Boston, Chicago, New York, Philadelphia, St. Louis). What would be wrong with MLS following a similar model?

I was initially bothered by Chivas joining the league as a second Los Angeles franchise. Now, I've come to see the possiblities and common sense of it. Occasional discussions on the MetroStars boards about a "real" New York City franchise being created in the future often brings out passionate support or indignation. It would be a furious rivalry. LA's going to get a taste of that next season. If successful, why not spread it around?

I don't believe this would be exactly restricting the geographical extent of the league, but maximizing what sould be natural soccer hotbeds in the country. Of course, I'm referring to urban settings. They would be the target for multiple franchises. Cities with large and ever increasing immigrant populations. No one is going to bother sticking a second club in Kansas City or Columbus or Denver. They can have their single franchises. But LA, New York, Chicago, right off the bat. Why not?

If the league eventually expands to 16 clubs, there will be enough franchises in the small "middle-of-nowhere" places that some of you think is the future of the league. Well, I say go to the cities and milk that population for all its potential. THAT'S where the future of the league really is. Not Oklahoma City, Tulsa, or some of those other little places I hear mentioned all the time. What Daddy Warbucks in his right mind wants to invest in a franchise there?

Give our great cities a big inner-city rivalry to heat things up. This exists all over the globe in soccer. Why not do it here?

 

The inner city rivalries are nice but they are not a priority because they provide benfits that come at the expense of spreading the league.

Using your model two teams in NY LA CHI in a 16 teams league means 13 cities which means the league will have little more exposure than it has not.

I don't see the logic of asking already struggling teams have to compete for already scarce resources.

As facr as these small town go. Its just dumb. Its desperation to expand and is indicative of the league misguided belief that soccer moms will be the underpinnings of our fan base. Wrong.

Down the road these small teams will end up being contracted/moved ala SJ/TB/MIA/KC.

 

Way too many arguments in one post for me to respond to each. I have no desire to convert MLS fans into salary cap fans since MLS has a cap and its not going away anytime soon. Sure teams can win with low payrolls, but not for long. Look at the Marlins, they sold off the team after the first WS victory. Tell me how many WS have the Yankees won in the last 10 years? How many titles have the Lakers won? How many cups have the Red Wings won? Who are the current dynasties in the NFL? The Cowboys and 49ers were for a while but look how far they fell (the cap caught up with them). The Bucs missed the playoffs this year, the Rams went from "dynasty" to average very quickly. The NFL has extreme parity, good or bad. Sure a couple of franchise might be really well or really poorly run, but mostly all teams are the same (like MLS). When was the Lakers, Red Wings, Yankees last losing season? I don't follow other sports very closely but look at the bottom teams in baseball and hockey, most have been bad for a while. What are we arguing? I say a cap leads to parity and I like it (my liking it is opinion). How does this financially benefit the league? Very hard to say, but it's my impression that the NFL is profitable for most all. Not so in the other sports.

Up through the 80s I think MLB had many, many players stay with one team for careers or at least long stretches. I'm pretty sure free agency has become more widespread in baseball but I'm no baseball expert.

p40 hasn't been a cap dodge until now with Adu. They mostly make 30k/year and most teams have averaged about 2-3 per year on the roster.

 

Which I agree with.

The question is not how often small teams win. The question is where is the proof of this domination by big market teams.

How many have the Mets won?

How many have the Knicks won?

1) They have won 2 the same number as the small market avanalnche and penguins and fewer than the devils

2) How many have the Rangers won.

3) How did edmonton win all those titles with no cap?

One IN 54 YEARS.

How does that fit you theory

I have been very strong with my language to you in this thread and some of it may be over the top. But are you insane? The Rams won 1 superbowl how were they a dynasty.

The nfl has extreme mediocrity.

Is that good to you. Do you want MLS to aspire to be like the NFL? Souless corporate entities that have no personality at all.

How many winning seasons have the knick, rangers and mets put forward lately?

You can't create your own reality. You can't say money allows rich teams to dominate then only look at the well run rich teams and ignore the poorly run rich teams. If you theory doesn't fit all such teams that means it is without merit.

Hockey expanded too much in the 90's baseball teams go out of their way to not spend money revnue sharing ahs ruined baseball because there is no salary cap minimum that teams must spend.

We are arguing your theory that doesn't make sense.

You are entitled to it.

All well and good I hope MLS gets there one day. But medicority is bad and boring. See current MLS.

But they had the option to leave but chose to stay. Don't you see how this blows away your theory?

Its is still a dodge. Is it okay to break laws only a little?

BTW are you ever going to answer any of my questions?

If the money is so important why are the Mets Rangers and Knicks so remarkably unsuccessful?

Just answer that and i will drop the whole thing.

 

Do you agree there are too many arguments?
Then why does your post have 16 parts.

You incorrectly quoted me:

Originally Posted by swedcrip34
How many have the rangers won?

I never asked that. Keep your argument honest.