Trecker: Are MLS owners' priorities in the right place?

Old hat by now. The poster Khan defends AEG by saying that MLS is a real estate business:

https://www.bigsoccer.com/forum/showthread.php?t=279570&page=3&pp=15

 

In regards to Trecker's point, does anyone think AEG would do what Wayne Huizenga right now is doing to the Florida Marlins?

(Huizenga bought an expansion franchise Florida Marlins, then once he got a World Series championship, sold everyone on the team before selling the team. Now that the team is no longer his, he has jacked up the rent for the Marlins in an effort to get rid of them and out of his stadium he has for his Dolphins.)

 

What does Trecker know about the business of sports? Does he have a background that would provide any kind of insight or authority? I don't think so. He is Jim Rome posing as a soccer writer.

 

Haven't read this, but since it is JT, I will assume he only presents about a quarter of the story, and presents it the way he wants to.

Someone let me know if I'm wrong and know if it's even worth wasting my clicking power on.

 

You're not wrong. Good call.

 

Funny things is that I don't see much to disgree with. Considering it is Jaime Trecker, I think it is pretty much on target. And it is something I have written about in the past. Remember the slogan, "It's Your Game"? Well, unfortunately, that's all it has turned out to be, a slogan.

Paul

 

My response for what it is worth......

Jamie you smug lookin bastard,

While I couldn't agree more about the KC/SJ confusion, you'd have to admit that the stadiums are a means to an end. They are a way for the teams to develop some extra revenue to keep the league going. The second half of your article seems to ignore the large sums of money spent by the league to retain or regain the likes of Landon Donovan, Eddie Johnson, Clint Mathis, Tony Sanneh and others. The stadiums add to the credibility and viability of the league and have limited the "will MLS be around next year" questions. Addias wouldn't be around without those stadiums. They are rich guys getting venues built, but if that "evil" means I have a league to root for and not to weep the passing of, so be it.
Regards....

 

While there isn't much to disagree with, there is no proof of his main thesis that the O/I are just interested in MLS to get venues for other buisness (ertainly, this is possible)... it is always safe to make such editorial assertions when the proof will be 5-10 years in the future (when people have forgotten what you said)...

...if the O/I abandon teams after getting venues...

...or if the O/Is don't increase salaries and investment in the product on the field when the teams/venues (collectively) become profitable...

THEN we will know that what he is saying is right...

I, for one, believe that he is talking out of his hat... we can't expect the O/I to markedly increase investment in what is happening on the field until that investment will gain them a profit (or at least cut their losses)... that is the way things work... until there are appropriate venues that replace the major financial drags on the league (see: NY, DC), I think that it is appropriate to cut the O/I quit a bit of slack...

Rand

 

Trecker is right in so far as he takes it. He asks the right questions but does not follow to what may be the logical answer.

Before MLS can spend more money on players / talent they have to prove to be a viable, profitable business. They have to make money first. Stadiums can help do that for MLS. Talented players playing in a league losing money will not last long. First turn a profit - then start developing talent. I don't like it. I accept that even though I do agree MLS could do more realtively cheaply to raise the talent level without killing th eleague. Am I naive to believe this?

The Earthquakes move to Houston is a bit puzzling in so much as the stadium / ownership situation is so similar to what they had in San Jose. This is only a better situation if Houston gets a stadium and an owner faster than they would have if they had stayed in San Jose. It is odd however that with the agreement MLS and the City of San Jose now have that they moved the team. Why not wait it out?

I'll bash on MLS as quickly as anyone - but 12 teams and 10 years later I will give them the benefit of the doubt that they know how to run their business.

 

Example of Trecker logic:

"these are the same owners who seem unwilling to pay money to lure soccer talent or invest in the wider American soccer infrastructure to develop it. Remember: it's adidas that's kicking in that $15m a year for a reserve league."

Because adidas paid the $15m (essentially for naming rights), that means the owners don't care (and adidas does?) about creating an infrastructure. The owners created the product that makes Generation adidas possible; they sought out the contract. But they don't care?

Ridiculous.

 

i seem to recall United winning the 2004 MLS cup not the Quakes.

 

Trecker only addresses the facilities issue and as Northside Rovers points out, the league may be addressing the most important issue first. Giving the owners the benefit of the doubt would assume that once the stadiums are in place and the league is profitable, the players will be paid more and the player development will go deeper.

My feeling is this. The owners have spent a lot of money to get MLS to this point. They want to take advantage of the fact they can build facilities where they can make other revenue to recoup some of their losses in the early years. I don't blame them. I just hope that 10 years from now the league salary "cap" isn't at the same level as it is today and the grass in all of the SSS isn't ruined from 10 concerts in the month of June. I think MLS is moving in the right direction and Jamie is just pointing out the dark possibilities.

MLS showed me their "focus" by moving the Quakes to Houston. They forsake a group of fans in one city for another they don't even know will materalize. Then they say there will be a San Jose rebirth in a couple years when the league can get a stadium built. To me it is a step backwards. I think Jamie makes some good points in this article and all fans of the league should read it with an open mind.

 

alright, I'm no trecker fan but I'll nut up and admit that he makes some important points.

Most of these stadium deals are pretty greedy and it sucks that soccer fans end up defending them because the owners are exploiting something we love for profit. As a fan of the league I've just seen them shred a big part of their history in San Jose so I can watch guys play on astro-turf in <b>Hellish</b> temperatures next year just so they have a better chance at a stadium built with public money. This is all doubly fvcked if there is any corruption/misappropriation of funds involved.

This may be old sh!t but that doesn't make it stink any less.

 

I scanned it and have one question:

What makes anyone think this is the finish line?

There is a CBA that helps push salaries up. Is it a lot? No, but it is progress. A reserve league expanded rosters last year. Is it a lot and are those guys making money hand over fist? ******** no, but it is progress. There is a push to get higher-profile players into the league with higher salaries. Will that solve all the problems? No, but it is progress.

MLS is not perfect and some fans do spend time having to defend decisions that aren't the strongest because the critics seem to take snapshots and hold them up like things will never change. And they often omit the small, but real progress that is made on some issues.

If MLS were still playing with 18 man rosters with no reserve division and showed no indication they would ever collectively bargain with players, maybe the Treckers of the world would be 100 percent right.

But the league is a work in progress so people like Jamie Trecker, who was reportedly turned down for a job by MLS, have to act like nothing good has ever been done when, in reality, the league has chosen to move faster on facilities than players because, in my opinion, it's not worth breaing the bank on players if you don't set up the revenue streams to support those decisions down the road.

 

Agreed. Trecker is an idiot. The owners got the deal.

 

I completely agree with you right here Rocket. Owners for clubs in other leagues (Europe for example) care so much about the team is because the team and it's fans actually turn profits for the club (owner) so it's in the owner's interest to bring in the best players in the world to that club. It's an investment....EVERYTHING is an investment in life. You buy a car? investment buy a house? investment For an owner a club is an investment and if it's not turning profit or showing them some kind of potential for return then it's not a good business move.

If they're trying to turn a profit on soccer then let them because without their interest we will never have a CHANCE for a succesful league in the states. let them make money, let them receive profit because we fans of US Soccer can then see professional soccer. Don't bite the hand that feeds you guys!

 

So, MLS seems to have become big enough business that soccer venues can get built with public money. Why does Trecker think Dave, Phil, and Lamar owe US Soccer even more financial support. If some concert promoter can ride the coattails of MLS--or if MLS can ride some concert coattails--big damn deal. If you want to be greedy, American Soccer isn't the place t odo it.

 

Once again, more ridiculously lame Trecker tripe...how surprising



THANK GOD we have Garber and co. running the league, as they know what's up.

 

Well, if in 15 or 20 years, MLS teams are still losing money then the league should fold IMO. It shouldn't take 30 years to establish a marginally profitable league. Fortunately, I don't think that will happen.

Their is some merit to his article but to be honest, its all conjecture and heresay because MLS is such a cloak and dagger operation. I mean, players salaries have only been made public recently for goodness sake, how is anyone supposed to know the in's and out's of the economics behind it? That means we're forced to trust what the owners tell us in regards to their business losses/profits/operations. For years, the emphasis has been on building SSS. We've pretty much been told, more or less, that with a SSS a team can be profitable. Well, in the next 2-3 years, we'll see about half off the leagues franchises with SSS and that will be the tale tell sign IMO. If those team's owners are still complaining about not making any money, it will draw the ire of many a fan and community at the least and at the worst, lead to the demise of the league. If those owners are starting to turn a profit, I think you'll see a dramatic increase in the money spent in player/sport development to improve the product on the field.

 

Trecker makes a good point when comparing the situations in KC and San Jose and though it is nothing new it is good for more people in the media to point this out and keep the pressure on MLS and expose the absurdities of the way the Quakes move was handled. But I am not so concerned about the public financing aspect of the recent stadium deals. I think public financing should be a big part of any stadium deal because of the larger impact that a stadium can have on the community. I think if certain communities around the country were a little smarter they would see that now is the time to build a stadium. The league is still small enough that if a community decided to pursue a stadium they would pretty easily get a team. Once the league is at 20 teams it may not be as simple.

A public approach can tie the facility in with other redevelopment projects that are important to the community and not just geared towards corporate profits (youth fields, shops, community centers, other sports facilities, hotels, etc.). I am frankly a little amazed that more communities are not seriously thinking along these lines, but I guess that just speaks to the reality of soccer in this country. Too many people in positions of power don’t believe soccer can work. If anything MLS does a poor job of selling this aspect. Has AEG ever shared the numbers for the Home Depot Center? They surely must be good otherwise they would be looking to get out the soccer business all together.

Does anyone disagree that the league is still losing money overall? These owners need to do things to get profitable as soon as possible and if it means mutli-use facilities with public financing so be it. Sure some of the owners have deep enough pockets to put in more of their own money but they have business decisions to make. I think AEG has been good for the teams that they are committed to own. Having owners that are so diversified is a double edged sword. Good for them to absorb the early losses but bad as they may not always be focused on soccer.

 

It's called bait and switch: Hey guys, we need a stadium! But soccer won't pay for it, so we need your money.

The switch part comes when AEG makes moolah from hosting other events and is loathe to share much with the community that helped them build the thing in the first place.

I'd be very interested in what kind of terms they negotiate with local municipalities in terms of revenue-sharing.

 

Trecker presents us with one of these every time he writes something, doesn't he?