Seattle and the Salary Cap

Which would essentially eliminate the point of a salary cap.

 

I don't like teams being restricted by salary caps either, but a rule like that would turn off investors, make smaller market teams even more uncompetitive, lead to 3-4 horse races every year, and in all likelihood send many teams overreaching into the red (source: world soccer).

 

It's amazing how quick people are to suggest things that run counter to how MLS got where it is today, and how every domestic league before it crashed and burned.

 

For a league, sure. For individual teams, not so much.

 

The money coming in for Seattle can very easily be spent on marquee players of a higher quality than they have now, which would increase standard of quality at Seattle without leading to league wide changes that put investors off.

Its easy to sell the idea of marquee players to investors, because the onus is on the investor to either makes things happen or not. % of revenue on salary cap is directly telling investors that they are consigned to the limits of their market. The DP rule at least provides the illusion of parity, and gives investors the chance of splashing big money on a name if they choose to.

The game isn't at a stage yet where thats a realistic option; down the line, I wholeheartedly agree that % of revenue cap is the best way going forward.

Also, how much money is Seattle actually making? I'm sure there are profits, but are they that substantial?

 

If you give teams different financial basis for what they can pay players, you begin the creation of an underclass of teams. What has made MLS what it is, and what has made the Mexican league as successful and as popular as it is, and what has made the NFL the biggest, richest, most successful sports league in the world (by far) are the mechanisms that drive parity. (And don't call it socialism, it's not. If anything, it's mercantilism).

You untether MLS from parity and and you can forget it.

 

Irrelevant to the above competition. Their salary distribution is limited to the same constraints as every other team.

You give them the wherewithal to let them pay the players down the line significantly more, that's what you're talking about.

Every team has the ability to pay a couple players whatever they want. Fortunately, soccer isn't a one or two player sport, but teams of 11 at a time, and usually 15-18 significant players.

You upset the financial balance of the league where suddenly some teams are allowed to shell out significant amounts of cash down-roster, you basically are going to blow up the league.

 

And, frankly, it's a pointless discussion, so you can have the last word.

Leagues that get salary caps, (or budgets,) never drop them (unless they're in their desperate death-throes).

The MLS Salary Budget is never going away, so I don't see any point in continuing the discussion (on my end, you can knock yourself out.)

 

Toronto Maple Leafs.
Dallas Cowboys.
Washington Redskins.

Oh and I think every team should have the same maximum amount to spend on players. You want more money for Seattle to spend? ...... Everyone else gets the same cap.

 

Because the luxury tax has worked so well for MLB?

 

It depends on what your metric is, but there is more parity in MLB, than in the top soccer leagues of Europe.

I like the idea that your cap is tied to revenues, this is the goal for soccer worldwide, surely there is a way to do this to prevent teams like,<cough> New England, from just scraping by and on the other hand not going completely crazy and setting up an EPl type disparity. Some sort of allocation money bonus could do the trick.
The reality is a completly revenu based cap would never be passed, but a little incentive is that really bad for the league. Is it bad if we have a couple of clubs that can compete a little better against the Mexican clubs in CONCACAF?

 

Why should there be a correlation between ticket sales and salary cap? Why not beer sales? Or scarf sales? Or parking spot sales?

 

Good point that's why you see scarf sales in every box score, I can't think of a single reason a league would want to encourage attendance. Surely this would not impact TV or advertising dollars.

 

Interesting fact: The Galaxy could pay the salary of Houston, Kansas City, and Montreal COMBINED with their local TV and jersey sponsorship deals.

Point is, attendance will continue to be a diminishing percent of a team's overall revenue.

 

Would allowing some teams to spend more on players encourage overall attendance, leading to a better league wide TV or other advertising deals? If increasing league wide deals is the goal then there are probably much better ways than letting some teams spend more.