Do you think a player like Antonio Valencia would be playing in Wigan if it weren't for how big Manchester United is? A club like Wigan would have to punch above its weight for some time before it could break into the top 4, and then would need to pull out some deep CL runs and not have many or any down years, but in 15-20 years time, with excellent managing, they could win the prem. Also, winning MLS Cup/the Premiership is not the be all end all. And which would you rather be if you are from Kansas City: A random 1 in 18 chance of winning MLS Cup with a not so talented team in a not so talented league OR virtually no chance of winnign MLS cup but you get to watch a talented team in a talent rich league amongst the most talented in the world, with legit short term goals of qualifying for SuperLiga
Sort of. If the league can keep the home talent a little longer and attract good talent from abroad then it makes the league better. And your right some teams will blur that line but as long as the check and balances stay defiened then we dont have a problem like LA does. No wonder they counldnt compete when the supporting cast wasnt supporting. The cap raising isnt the biggest problem its the defineing and enforceing them.
Its about winning or haveing the opportunity to win, thats what this league offers an even playing field. I cant even keep a straight face saying wigan and cl in the same sentance. C'mon last year nobody would have even bet that the Crew were going to be in the playoffs much less win the whole thing. If your question is would I rather be a Crew fan (which Im not DYNAMO BABY!!!) or a Wigan fan then paint me yellow.
I don't know if this has been mentioned, but lets say for the teams that are generating a profit, allow them to take lets say 50% of that profit and add it to their salary cap, so if they generated 5million net profit last year their cap would be be 2.5million more this year. Also adding the soft cap and hard cap for other clubs not generating a profit but adding that extra for teams who can turn a profit. If a team generates profit in year 1, then with the extra cash spent on players they don't generate a profit in year 2, have no penalty but if they can't turn a profit in year 3 then their cap gets reduced based on their losses. This would allow some leeway with the cap and teams who can turn a profit are rewarded. To prevent clubs from having too much salary cap you could limit the extra amount up to $5million. This would stop teams like Man City, Yankees, Chelsea, etc from being able to spend a lot more money on squads then other teams. Also maybe have a salary cap bonus based on the average amount of fans teams draw in. Not a lot, probably only in the hundreds of thousands or less but just another bonus for teams that can draw crowds. Also gives the owner another reason to try and get fans at the games. Example: Soft Cap - 2.5 million Hard Cap - 3.75 million Extra Bonus (based on net profit) - $1.00 - 5 million Crowd Bonus - <10,000 - nothing Crowd Bonus - $10,000-$15,000 - $50,000 Crowd Bonus - $15,000-$20,000 - $75,000 Crowd Bonus - >$20,000 - $100,000 Max with no benefits -3.75 million Max with benefits - 8.85 million I don't know if that is a feisable option for the cap but basically it would be the soft cap, hard cap plus benefits. I don't know how much the three teams makes net income wise, but I'm guessing it can't be too much (like more than 20 million). The 5 million cap for extra is just a number I came up with and could be lowered to 3 million to lower tha gap between clubs, but I think giving profitable clubs more leeway is a good system.
Interesting thoughts. It's incredibly complicated. But then again, every single rule in MLS is incredibly complicated, so they'd probably love it.
Option A please. And as a Rapids fan I expect we would be in exactly this situation. If there's no real chance for us to win the league then that's the day I start following lacrosse or something.
Let's get real. Under a hard:small cap ratio of 3.3:1, you're not setting up a ManU vs. Wigan situation. In EPL, the differential in payroll is 15:1. We're talking 3.3:1 payroll differential max under the Snowden model. Let's not get carried away here. Competitive balance would be maintained.
And Toronto FC, DC United, Vancouver Whitecaps will also spend $10m if the players are their squad warrant it. I also think Chicago, Colorado, Salt Lake and Houston will spend $4m to $6m if they were getting a million or two from revenue sharing. I don't hold out hope that the Krafts or the Hunt Sports Group will ever have a payroll greater than $2m a year.
with the mls getting new franchise fees-- with the distinct possibility of $ 140 mill USD when 4 new cities come into the league by 2012-- there will be enough $$$$$ to at least double the salary cap which should be kept in place-- the majority of the extra salary $$$ should be used to keep the good young NA players and try and entice the european-based NA players to come back to the mls; also the designated player quota should be at 2 with the team owners picking up the tab not to exceed $ 2 mill USD for the 2 players; further, the extra franchise fees should also be used in allowing more roster players because of the increasingly heavier schedule of games and encouraging each team to set up young player academies in their areas-- the total cost would be in the range of $ 60 mill USD out of the $ 140 mill USD -- the rest of the extra franchise $$$$ should be used to reimburse the owners and be kept in the coffers for any dark days. with a higher quality of product on the field, attendance-- in theory-- should go up which means the $$ to continue to pay the players will be available-- its time for the mls to allow for some individual owner decisions and encourage a further development of the league without going into no salary cap which would be a disaster!
How many times do you have to have this explained to you. You can't spend one time fees to boost the salary cap because eventually the money will run out, and unless revenues have doubled in that timeframe to maintain the jump in the cap, you can't maintain that level. I've used this metaphor in the past and here it goes again. You make $50,0000 a year. You have a budget that allows you to live withing your means. A rich uncle dies and leaves you $20,0000. You go out and buy a new car and move into a new bigger apartment. Your bills now run your budget up to $60,000 a year. In two years you either need to get a $10,000 raise at work, or you will be stuck with a car payment and rent that you can't afford. You get evicted, your car gets repossesed. Now you can't shower and you have to take the bus to work. You are habitually late to work and you smell funny resulting in you getting fired. Now you're giving blowjobs underneath the interstate for $5. O.K., so that last part was just for added effect, but hopefully you get the idea. The only way to use expansion fees to raise the cap would be to keep expanding indefinitely. That's called a Ponzi scheme. Look it up.
With such a small salary cap in place, a 3.3:1 ratio is a massive difference. I'll say it again, it's the difference between having the MLS All Star team playing against the Colorado Rapids. It would be an ass whooping every single time.
Hard Cap (like NFL and the current MLS cap system)--------You can't spend more than the hard cap. For MLS, you can't spend than $2.3 mil a year on player salary. Soft cap with floor/ceiling (ceiling 20-25% above floor) like NHL ----------The lowest you can spend is $41 mil and the highest you can spend is $57 mil. However, you don't pay any penalty for spending up to $57 mil. Soft cap with luxury tax & floor/ceiling (ceiling 20% above floor) Assume MLS cap is $2.5 mil. Teams can spend 20% more ($0.5 mil more) but have to pay a luxury tax. So in order to get a $3 mil cap, that team will pay out for example $1 mil that will distributed to low income teams. So if LA/NY/TOR/CHI/SEA/DC/VAN/HOU wants to have $3 mil cap while the rest of MLS have $2.5 mil cap, these teams will each have to pay $1 mil in luxury tax. This $8 mil luxury tax will be distributed to low income teams.
HOw could DC United justify spending that much if the 7 million is coming out of their pocket and they already are losing more money than any other MLS team? Considering Vancouver is yet to sign a single player, I don't think we can safely predict what they would spend. And Toronto is yet to sign one DP or show any real signs of going big, and with their stadium already selling out, blowing up their salary budget won't bring in any increases in ticket sales, so what's the business sense for them? I think you are giving other organizations way too much credit for being willing to spend some money.
No it isn't. The players on the "spending" teams that get displaced filter down to the not-so-much spenders and so on, until you weed out the crap players. For example, you bring in Freddie Ljunbergs, you displace Dwayne De Rosarios, the De Ros filter down to displace the Omar Cummings, and so forth. The whole league improves, including the Colorado Rapids. It's a way of raising the cap, without actually raising the cap. You simply put it on the rich owner's backs, to a certain degree. They won't run wild under 3.3:1.
Intersting....... I def, could see our league taking one of these approaches..... AFTER we get established. Personally i feel if we could get close to what hockey pays we'd wreck anything mexico can bring to us, and go toe to toe with the best in south america(boca, internacional, Sao Paulo, River, etc.)
Small market owners (and their fans) will want MLS to stick with the current hard cap. Big market owners (and their fans) will want MLS to be more flexible with the cap. The compromise: Big market teams can spend 20% more than the small market teams. However, they will have to pay a luxury tax. This will be distributed to the small markets. Neither will be happy. But both segment will get something out of this. Big markets can spend 20% more than the salary cap. Small markets get to revenue-share the millions of dollars of luxury tax. This will be good for the league as a whole. Successful teams in big markets is good for the league as a whole. And MLS will do better in international competitions. However, fans in small markets (CLB, KC, COL, RSL etc..) will not be happy because they know their owner will not pay the luxury tax and be content with $2.5 mil cap while other MLS teams have a $3 mil cap. Not to mention, these owners will get a share of the luxury tax. The current CBA expires Dec 31, 2009 (less than 8 months away). I sincerely hope that this will be the model for the next CBA and not a hard cap. Galaxy fell from 24,000 average in 2005 to 18,000 average in 2009 because the team have not made the playoff for years.
And there's the problem. While the soft cap/luxury tax system takes care of the small market owners it doesn't help the small market fans. Maybe the large-market fans posting here are willing to take the attendance hit. If so, good luck, enjoy the league, no hard feelings, but I'll take the $600+ I spend every year on the Rapids and put it towards something else. (And anyone who thinks that KSE will do anything but the bare minimum for the Rapids hasn't been paying attention to how they've been running the Rapids up to this point, stadium excepted)
It's only 20% disadvantage. $2.5 mil vs. $3 mil. And this will help the league as a whole. With the right coach, manager, a $2.5 mil team can beat a $3 mil team to the MLS Cup. It's not like this will stop the Rapids or Wizards from ever winning the championship. Come playoff time, it's just a lucky goal here and there and walla title. It's a lot easier for the Rapids to win the title than 16 Premiership teams from winning its championship. This is much better than NHL, NBA, MLB and 99% of soccer leagues in the world where the disparity of payroll between top and bottom is much larger. p.s. MLS is willing to lose 2,000 fans from the small markets if they gain 2,500 from the big markets. Even with a championship team, Columbus can't even draw better than 8,000 for its last home game.
This statement would be true if MLS was interested in only having a four or five team league. MLS needs to figure out a way to at the very least maintain attendance levels if not increase them in order to ensure that teams like Columbus or Colorado remain viable assets to the league. It does not want to create a system that depleats revenues from already struggling clubs. So what? MLS gains 500 fans, but in the process they lose a franchise. I'd say that's a net loss.
How would they lose a franchise exactly if a team draw say 500 less than they did before? It's not like these teams can't compete year after year. It's not like a $2 mil payroll budget competing against a $12 mil budget (like the J-league). It's $2.5 mil vs. $3 mil. And most teams will not want to spend that much because it would be expensive. Columbus: SSS Colorado: SSS KC: SSS soon RSL: SSS In most leagues, the top team draw about 5 times the smallest team. And they don't revenue share. MLS share these revenues: 1. National TV 2. National sponsorship 3. 30% of ticket revenue 4. 30%?? of shirt sponsorship? 3. profits from SUM luxury tax might be another source of revenue share.
Here's the J-league figure for player salary for 2009 http://www.japanesesoccer.net/wordpress/?p=1912 (1) Urawa Reds - 1,250,000,000 Yen = $12.5 mil (2) Gamba Osaka - 1,050,000,000 Yen (3) Kashima Antlers - 830,000,000 Yen (4) Vissel Kobe - 730,000,000 Yen (5) Kyoto Sanga FC - 7 00,000,000 Yen (6) Oita Trinita - 650,000,000 Yen (7) Jubilo Iwata - 640,000,000 Yen (8) Kawasaki Frontale - 620,000,000 Yen (9) Kashiwa Reysol - 610,000,000 Yen (10) Shimizu S-Pulse - 590,000,000 Yen (11) Nagoya Grampus - 580,000,000 Yen (12) FC Tokyo - 560,000,000 Yen (13) Yokohama F Marinos - 520,000,000 Yen (14) Omiya Ardija and Sanfrecce Hiroshima - 510,000,000 Yen (16) JEF Utd Chiba - 480,000,000 Yen (17) Albirex Niigata - 360,000,000 Yen (18) Yamagata Montedio - 250,000,000 Yen = $2.5 mil And they are doing pretty well too. Code: 2008 2007 increase/decrease --------------------------------------------------------------- 01. Urawa Reds 47,609 46,667 +942 02. Albirex Niigata 34,490 38,276 -3,786 03. FC Tokyo 25,716 25,290 +426 04. Yokohama F. Marinos 23,682 24,039 -357 05. Oita Trinita 20,322 19,759 +563 06. Kashima Antlers 19,714 16,239 +3,475 07. Kawasaki Frontale 17,565 17,338 +227 08. Shimizu S-Pulse 16,599 15,952 +647 09. Nagoya Grampus 16,555 15,585 +970 10. Gamba Osaka 16,128 17,439 -1,311 11. Jubilo Iwata 15,465 16,359 -894 12. Tokyo Verdy 14,837 7,327 +7,510 13. Consadole Sapporo 14,547 12,112 +2,435 14. JEF United Chiba 14,084 14,149 -65 15. Kyoto Sanga F.C. 13,687 6,629 +7,058 16. Vissel Kobe 12,981 12,460 +521 17. Kashiwa Reysol 12,308 12,967 -659 18. Omiya Ardija 10,714 11,741 -1,027 --------------------------------------------------------------- Total 19,278 19,081 +197 MLS is basically holding back teams that could be a lot BIGGER. As a result, it is hurting the league as a whole. Imagine NY and LA drawing 30,000+ with top players that could compete internationally while helping the small market teams with revenue sharing/luxury tax.
^^^Everyone is quick to forget how sometimes in this league are taking losses still overall, and some barely making money. Until MLS teams become more profitable i dont see them raising the cap, much if any.
with the $ 140 mill USD money to be generated with 2-4 new teams by 2012 (estimated $ 35 mill USD/team), the league has ample resources to increase the salary cap without asking owners to fork the money over-- to improve the on-field product, double the salary allotted to $ 5 mill USD, expand the rosters to 24, develop soccer academies for promising young players-- all in all, the improved product should help increase the attendances so the salaries will be looked after year after year-- cost will be about $ 60 mill USD, leaving at least $ 80 mill USD to give some financial return to owners and keep some in the league coffers for emergencies- 'prime the pump' and take the mls to the next level
Where are you getting the $60 million price tag. How do you know how much it will cost to set up youth academies? The $2.5 million bump in the salary cap alone would cost $45 million in one season. So you're saying the cost of setting up youth academies that can develop talent is going to cost $15 million league wide. You also assume that it will only take one year for MLS to double it's revenues in order to maintain the salary cap. You can't possibly be stupid enough to think this idea is a good one, yet you post this exact same thing on every thread that has to do with the salary cap, and it gets explained to you every single time why it can't work. Do you spend twice as much as what you earn each year, assuming that you're going to get a 100% raise before you run out of money?