Most of them?? According to those numbers only 5 out of the 14 leagues I listed pay more than the MLS, in what universe is 35% most of anything? And according to this study http://www.americansocceranalysis.com/home/2015/1/26/visualizingmlssalaries the avg. MLS salary is closer to 204€. And what makes you think those(and many others around the world) leagues aren't better? Results? It can't be that. The MLS hasn't won a international tourney in how long?
First off, I've never claimed MLS would surpass Liga MX in quality. All I said was with better players, mainly better foreign imports, I would put money on an MLS team winning the CCL. But this isn't going to happen for some time. But yes, money plays a vital roll in the quality of a league, though as you point out it's not always the case. Players in Brazil make much more than players in Argentina, but I think Argentina has a slightly better league. Most of the leagues you mention either pay their players more or just aren't at the same level. Only one league you mention outside of the Americas (Europe and the two from Asia) has a lower payroll than MLS and that's probably Sweden. If you think Sweden has a superior league then MLS you're delusional. In the Americas only Brazil, Argentina and Mexico all have higher payrolls; all are better than MLS. Of the remaining CONMEBOL countries: Colombia, Uruguay, Paraguay, Ecuador, Chile, Bolivia, Peru and Venezuela, I think the first two have payrolls similar to MLS. From top-to-bottom I would only say the first 3-4 might be better than MLS. Overall, in Costa Rica clubs neither have larger payrolls nor is the league better than MLS. Ajajuela could easily win MLS, Herediano and, at the moment, Saprissa would compete for a MLS title. After that there is nothing. So yes, money plays a very vital roll in the quality of a league.
Here are some league averages for you: MLS $215k per player Costa Rica my guess somewhere around $50k per year and most of that is with the big three clubs Argentina $300k Colombia $200k Chile $100k Peru, Ecuador, Paraguay ??? South Korea $150 Japan $200k Netherlands $350k Belgium $300k Portugal $400k Switzerland $350k Sweden $135k
Most again? I already replied to the other poster that according to those numbers on 35% of the teams I listed pay more than the MLS, and thats according to an old study. And LOL at "arent at the same level" every league that is under the MLS , in that study, is better or equal to. So I think that the Swedish league is better than the MLS, and you think that the championship is better than Liga MX, but Im the delusional one The only S. American leagues not better than the MLS are the Venezuelan and the maybe the Bolivian. Thing is Costa Rican teams get the benefit of playing the same International tourney as the MLS, of which they have won 6 while the MLS has only won 2, so its delusional to say that the MLS is better overall.
You're delusional and I'm delusional. We can agree on that. History from decades is a fools folly for you to say CRC teams have won the regional championship more time. Uruguay has won more World Cups than Spain! I take the last three years over the last 30. MLS vs. CRC in the CCL 6 wins, 2 draws, 4 losses, 20 goals scored, 15 goals conceded. MLS/CRC vs Liga MX in CCL: MLS: 4-6-8 19-29 CRC 3-4-9 12-31 Overall record of the top three leagues (Liga MX, MLS, CRC) vs each other: LMX 17-10-7 60-31 MLS 10-8-12 39-44 CRC 7-6-15 27-51 Sorry let met clarify. I will count eight that are at MLS level. I think South Korea is higher than $150k as that number is five years old. Japan and Colombia are from two years ago. The MLS number closely reflects this season. That's over 50% not 35%.
So basically what your saying is, you dont know the numbers of those leagues so you will throw them in your favor because you cant admit defeat?
You don't know the numbers either as you said they were from three years ago. Edit: sorry, you said from an old study.
Then you tell me why the MLS is better than the Costa Rican league? Neither league has won anything in recent times. The MLS has the (undeserved) benefit of having double(normally) the number of teams in the competition, yet has absolutely nothing to show for it. The last CCL two CR clubs made it out of their group, that also had a Mexican team. The MLS on the other hand, had the entire tournament retooled to avoid Mexican clubs. A luxury CR, and the rest of CCAF dont get.
If your argument here is that Peru and Sweden have better leagues than MLS because they've won international tournaments more recently, I'm afraid I'm going to have to ask you to try again.
How they perform against each other in recent times is how any person without an agenda would do it. You show me that Costa Rica is outplaying MLS head to head in recent years and I'll concede because that makes sense and I haven't ever bothered to calculate that myself . But don't sit here and quote titles won in the 70's and act like that's still relevant today. That insults my intelligence and yours.
Well then if neither the MLS nor the Peruvian league nor the Swedish league have won anything. The it's pretty smug to say that the MLS is better. However the Swedish, and Peruvian leagues are in much tougher confederations, therefore they they get the benefit of of the doubt VS the MLS. Last CCL Costa Rican teams VS MLS 3 wins 3 losses and +2 goal ratio However like I mentioned before, 2 CR teams got out of groups with Mexican teams. The MLS is spared from playing against Mexican teams, in the group phase, due to mediocre results.This whole competition is skewed in the MLS's favor, and even then they cant get results. This is why I put the Costa Rican league above the MLS. When the MLS can get results in a non rigged playing field, then you guys can start to claim superiority over them.
You should have stopped after quoting the w-l record. There you were making a point. So two CR teams made it out of a Mexican group? So has Guatemala. And two MLS teams have knocked Mexican teams out in the knockout rounds which no one else has done since the CCL began. Do you even remember that? You'll probably say that they weren't trying but that's more valid to say about the group stage. And let's not ignore that twice CR teams have had the chance to make a final head to head with MLS teams and lost both times. There are arguments to be made both ways. I do think CR deserves more spots. But I think that should take the form of an expanded tournament with MX, U.S. And CR all getting 4 spots a piece. I will never agree with giving MX more spots by the tournament needs variety. Not to be a Mexican mini-tournament. But it seems to me that this has always been more about finding reasons to take spots away from the U.S. than giving spots to CR. I won't say that there isn't an argument to be made but the arguments that you gravitate towards are very selective and subjective. The only thing that's objective was your first sentence.
Good for Guatemala MLS teams have only eleminated Mexican teams since the format was changed towards MLS's favor. There is no reason to expand the Tournament why should the MLS not lose spots? They have as many as liga MX. Yet, in the entire history of the CCL all MLS has to show for it is two second places, even after being spared MX teams in the groups. The MLS deserves 3 spots including Canada. So I think the CR league is better than the MLS and im being subjective. And the people that think the opposite arent? You dismissed my argument using historical results, in which CR is clearly ahead of the MLS, Claiming that cups won in the 70's shouldnt be used to gauge current standings. Then you said a h2h record is more apt. So I gave you the latest h2h record, in which CR is ahead by a pinch. Then I showed some perspective in how CR has to face MX teams in both, groups and knockout rounds. And then you went on a rant about MX, and expanding the CCL, and how im trying to find reasons why MLS should lose spots.
Well, MLS has won the Champion's Cup. But to answer your original question... You believe that these leagues are better because you have given them the "benefit of the doubt", not because they actually are.
LOL ok then swedish team has won the UEFA champions league, and a peruvian club has won Copa sudamerica (and much more recently thsn MLSs last cup) Champions league>>>copa sud>>>>>>>CCC No that went for the Peruvian league, and the Swedish. Also the CR league. But the rest are undoubtedly better.
Oh but you dont mind MLS keeping 5 spots for the CCL when they have underperformed in the tournament right? FOH
I don't understand either. MLS doesn't deserve the spots they already have. In a fair confederation, they'd lose at least one of those spots based on results. It's like paying a guy for doing nothing. Totally undeserved.
Some data comparing MLS vs CR Stats since 2008 (modern era of the CCL) QUARTERS: LMX: 24 MLS: 16 CR: 6 SEMIFINALISTS: LMX: 18 MLS: 5 CR: 4 SECOND LMX: 5 MLS: 2 ALL OTHERS: 0 FIRST LMX: 7 ALL OTHERS: 0 Since 2008 CRC has placed higher then MLS just once (in 2013-2014). In the 2014-15 CCL this was the first time CRC have more teams in the Quarters then MLS (Also the first time they have more teams then MLX too). Using the excellent coefficient data there are 2 CRC teams currently ahead of MLS, because of their good showing in the 2014-15 CCL, but there are 7 MLS teams in the top 20 compared to 2 from CRC. Top 20 Clubs: Monterrey 77.8 Santos 68.8 Alajuelense 63.8 America 60.8 Herediano 60.4 LA 58.2 Cruz Azul 57.8 Toluca 52.8 Seattle 45.7 Montreal 45.7 Tijuana 44.3 UANL 38.8 Pachuca 38.8 UNAM 37.8 Houston 37.7 KC 37.7 Toronto 36.7 Morelia 33.8 Olimpia 33.4 DC United 33.2
Costa Rica only gets 2 or 3 clubs per CCL, so of course MLS has an advantage in CCL coefficients when comparing the fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh clubs in each league. If you do a fair comparison and play fourth vs. fourth, fifth vs. fifth, sixth vs. sixth, and seventh vs. seventh between MLS and Costa Rica with each club hosting one game, I think MLS would score more aggregate goals over the eight games. The UEFA country coefficients divide each total by however many clubs that country had in UEFA competitions that season. You could change your list of Quarterfinalists, Semifinalists, and Second Place clubs by dividing each total by however many teams MLS and Costa Rica have had in the seven CCLs combined. I think Montreal qualified once before they joined MLS, but I would still group them with MLS clubs for this, so that group would have 35 clubs (5 per CCL including the Canadian club). Clubs would count once for each CCL they were in, not once total. Clubs eliminated in the defunct Qualifying Round would count as having participated.
LMX has had 28 clubs since 2008 MLS has had 35 clubs since 2008 CR has had 13 clubs since 2008 So it would look like this... Stats since 2008 (modern era of the CCL) QUARTERS: LMX: 24 (85%) MLS: 16 (45.7%) CR: 6 (46.1%) SEMIFINALISTS: LMX: 18 (64%) MLS: 5 (14%) CR: 4 (30%) SECOND LMX: 5 (17%) MLS: 2 (5%) CR: 0 (0%) FIRST LMX: 7 ALL OTHERS: 0 We are essentially tied in the quarters at 46%. CRC showed well in the Semis with 30% to MLS's 15%, but obviously we beat them in the Second place category with 5% to CRC's 0%.