What type of salary cap is best for MLS?

The problem is that still won't sell a ton of tickets. I hope they increase the cap though, so MLS can get better players. The whole DP rule was designed to install 1 poster boy on every MLS team, so that reguardless of quality the stadiums will sell out and teams make more money. Sure they could increase the cap and get more players like JPA, but as we have seen, that didn't change anything. NY still gets crowds of about 10,000 people. However when Beckham came to town there were 65,000+ people that attended the game.

 

This guy gets it.

Short of becoming the EPL there is no quick fix to get attendance from 15K to 45K. It doesn't matter how much you raise the cap by, people aren't going to start coming instantly. The key is deciding how much more money you want to pour into the league (in an increased salary cap) knowing that the payoff is years, if not decades, away. I just don't see how an extra 25 million a year gets the league to profitability in the next 10 years, when the league is on the cusp of profitability now.

 

I talked with my buddy who's a die hard redskins fan, and really doesnt appreciate MLS, i tried really hard and he just doesnt care for it. He respect teh EPL though, and all the big teams in the world that i support, for instance boca or argentine league games. He'll watch games with me, and say how much more fun and exciting those games are compared to the MLS. He doesnt care about superstars, beyond the ones i talk up. He understands the passion people have for socer around the world, and he understands the quality seen in argentina for exmaple compared to the MLS, so could the average schmo'.

Its all about the product on the field, bringing in good young (probably unknown to the normal average guy) players, will improve the on the field product and bottom line that is what will sell a league. Not some gimmicks or bringing in some over the hill players that are name recognizable but just half of what they used to be.

Look at etcheverry for example, unknown player at the start of MLS to anyone in the US, but known in south america, and respected. He came here and earn the leagues respect and turned DC United into what it is today. He was no Del Piero, Romario, Or Maradona at the time, but he bgrought the on the field product and sold the game to many aruond the DC area based on the beautiful soccer he brought with him. He was getting paid like i think 400-500k yearly back then with addidas money attached too from what i can remember, We can bring these kind of players to every team, and make this league better. Not to mention make USA soccer better.

 

Exactly. The current style of play in the league (fast, physical) can be rather boring to watch at times. Unfortunately, from a historical perspective US players haven't been taught how to play a technical, skill-based style of game, so it's unlikely that the league can change without bringing in a more concentrated crop of foreign players (meaning, simply throwing together a bunch of players from different countries/playing styles isn't going to work.) A modest raising of the salary cap may be enough to lure some quality foreign talent with the hope being that they may provide a boost to their team's play.

 

I am not (and I hope nobody else) is trying to claim that a bump up in the cap will have people going from 15K to 45K, of course that is crazy, who is claiming this? But the goal should be to reach those big numbers one day, and that has to be a slow gradual process, of increasing the cap. 1 reason why it has to be slow, as pointed out is that other players will not become convinved overnight and you wouldn't be able to bring them in anyway.

The DP rule is a great rule to get those once a year, HUGE crowds, and with those, maybe some will get hooked. Obviously not all, but some and then the next year, the huge crowd comes again, and again some more get hooked, and then you create a positive snowball, and it works even better when there are multiple true DPs out there. By true DPs I don't mean a player that is just taking up the slot, I mean somebody who can get a large number of people just to see him play.

In a couple years time, Henry and Ronaldinho will be reaching their MLS years, and I think its important that the league bring them in. Even in their age, they will still have a tremendous ammount of quality, and Henry has talked about enjoying his time in the US on trips

 

Wait, in your last post you said it would take a few years for the the first team to get to 50 million in revenue.

Lets say few = 5. So at that point if 5 teams have spent an extra $5 million a year on the salary cap you've spent an extra $125 million to get one team to $50 million in revenue. Meanwhile you've lost some revenue from the non-superclubs (and yes, you will lose money from those teams). Lets say $500K a year per team lost. So that's an extra $25 million you've "spent" in that time.

You've now spent $150 million to get 1 team to $50 million in revenue. You may have better soccer, but will you have investors?

 

I have read somewhere that what might be included with a proposed luxery tax would be a provision that would prohibit teams from borrowing in order to pay salaries, ie all salaries must be paid for out of pocket.

Owners have told their players to take paycuts in the NBA and the NHL. That's why CBA's typically last 3 or 4 years, to have the leeway to come back and reevaluate the previous contract and it's feasibility for the future. At some point, the league hast to take the next step, otherwise we will be here in the same place 20 years from now with a niche league and a group of owners who are afraid of their own shadows.

QFT

You need a few marquee franchises for the league to be able to create an identity. Had LA actually been able to win with Beckham on their team; do you think there would have been empty seats or low ratings for an MLS final with Beckham in it?

This is why the NBA, NFL, or MLB have thier "dream championship". The NBA cashed in on the Lakers vs Celtics finals, as did the MLB with the "Subway Series" and the ALCS between NY and Boston. And it's almost criminal how much money UEFA is going to make when Barca meets Man U in Rome. No we don't want what the EPL has or worse yet the NASL had, which is why we shouldn't go with an entirely capless system that doesn't put money back into the league. But it's time for some clubs to begin to create an identity that makes the general public actually care that they exist.

 

...no need to "give Seattle" anything...they already have it. Trust me, they own MLS. Seattle and Garber arent about to water down or let dissipate the fan excitement up there. They know the product they put on the field at the beginning with Montero was a financial fluke (150k loan? from Col), and will require more spending to replicate or increase next year. They've opened up more seats and put for sale those tickets. This means they are raising the bar. There's no conflict here, they'll get what they want next year. The only question is what other teams follow suit.
Great analysis pc4th

 

Anyone that's arguing an increase in quality wont induce attendance growth is off the reservation. If you use JPA and RBNY's lack of growth, you must counter that with the clear growth seen in Columbus, Chicago and LA. Quite frankly, MLS is not up to par, and a higher ceiling on salaries should help us continue mine South American talent, which has undeniably helped grow our league. This is not just the DPs, it's the Monteros, GBS', Moralses, the mid level guys that drastically improve the technical skill on the field. This need for increased salary cap is only furthered by the rather rapid expansion. With 3 more teams added in the next 2 years, the American talent simply can't provide the league with the talent required for continued growth.

I've always been for a soft cap with a luxury tax, and it seems much of BS agrees. We shouldn't look at it as a method of attracting "Eurosnobs", but continuing to grow the Latin fanbase and hopefully attracting more young soccer fans. South American and even Mexican talent (especially considering growing problems with drug gang violence) can greatly help this league grow, and only a modest expansion of the cap is needed to better compete.

I also think adding another DP slot may be a good idea, yet another area to allow ownership groups to add big-name talent that can provide a Blanco/Beckham-esque impact on attendance and profile that can continue to shift the burden to individual owners, that when coupled with an increase in salary cap will keep clubs from being forced to put all their proverbial eggs in one basket.

 

I still don't know if now is the right time to increase the cap, but I wouldn't mind if the DP didn't count towards the cap.

 

But there's a delay between the investment in the better players and the actual attendance growth. If MLS increases the salary cap in the next offseason so that they could go buy the best 32 (2 per team) young players from South America we're not going to see a 2K attendance increase for every team in 2010. Short of bringing in the best 20 players in the world there is no one thing MLS can do to increase the attendance by 2-5K across the board in 1 year.

pc4th is advocating dropping 20-25 million extra in salary spread between 4-5 teams starting next year. That will absolutely work for those teams...eventually. I just think that by the time the league could show a profit on that decision there won't be much of a league left.

 

Not really a big fan of caps in the first place, but I was thinking about this today:

why not have a rule similar in spirit to the NBA's Bird Rights. Only have it a little different. For every season that you are with a team, the percentage of your salary that counts towards the cap number drops by 5% (or 10% of you like). For example, using the 5% number, if a player is entering his 10th year with the team, and he is slated to earn $1 million his cap number would only be 500k.

I think the biggest thing this rule would do would be to incentivize clubs developing academy prospects. If you have a kid at your club from the time he is 12 years old, you would be able to offer him at least double what most other clubs could in order to keep him on your team if your owner had the cash to afford paying a salary over the cap.

I don't know any fan that likes the veteran cap casualty effect that happens all the time in the NFL.

 

im in favor of a soft cap. it allows teams to keep the players they develop instead of losing them to free agency. but i would like there to be a luxury tax with it so teams cant sign their players for stupid amount of money for the sake of keeping them.

EDIT: i would like there to be restricted free agency aswell. mls will suck as long as mls does the contracts.

 

I really like this idea. Would the years of service begin upon entering the Academy, or upon signing the first senior contract?

 

I don't know. Maybe there would just be an added, if you were at the team for 3 or more years before your first pro contract, that is a built in extra 10% off, and then 5% for each year after the pro contract. Also, I don't think that the rule should only apply to consecutive years of service like Bird rights. That way, if you train a player and then that player wants to go and play NCAA soccer for a couple years (or gets traded and comes back like Christian Gomez), you can still take advantage of the rule if you sign the player back.

I don't know exactly how academies are structured in MLS, but each team's catchment area is so large that from U11 - to as old as maybe U15 level, MLS clubs could have their own academy leagues as opposed to academy teams. Anyway, the rule would provide a serious incentive for owners to invest in local youth development (or even some young international recruitment (can someone say naturalized Brazilians playing for the US )), and teams that are successful would have a serious competitve advantage over teams that could not or choose not to develop youth.

 

You state this like its a fact, and yet I see nothing unjust about it.

In the NFL I sure don't see any Giants fans saying its not fair that we have to play by the same rules as the Bills.

 

I'd prefer a tiered system whereby the League pays salaries up to ~$3M per season (per team obviously) with teams responsible for anything beyond that. It would encourage teams to develop more revenue streams and try and get more butts in the seats as more money generate=more money to spend on players.

 

I believe Club America's payroll is 25 mil. Anyway, it will be interesting to see what the LA galaxy are worth after this year or next w/out beckham.
They were worth 100mil according to forbes..putting them with Chivas & Club America from Mex as only 100 mil dollar valued clubs in N. Amer.
I think there already has been political rankering going on behind the scenes. I may be wrong, but I just couldnt get the whole "we must get beckham back" stance from LA in dealing with AC milan. From a performance stance, it didnt make much sense. Since LD is not a DP, they could've traded for a 2nd one and traded in becks for 2 AC milan bench guys. That would've improved performance. I just have a feeling that league-wide marketing concerns entered into the fray. Either that, or the galaxy person doing any negotiating was not the brightest of the bunch.
Better performance on the field would've ensured commitment from their 25k + fans, while not benefitting other teams in the attendance dept.
Keeping the same salary for each team ensures equal performance on the field, and unfortunately also ensure the same fan turnout in the longrun(13k, give or take a couple of thousand). Attendance for LA is way down.