The Cost vs Quality Conumdrum

by CarlosT on Nov 23, 2009 4:21 AM PST in Major League Soccer Comment 38 comments

The 2009 MLS season is now in the books, and a final long on quantity (120 minutes plus penalties), but short on quality has crowned Real Salt Lake the champions. I'm sure the streets of Salt Lake City will be in full Rio Carnaval mode well into the middle of the day. Elsewhere, GMs around the league will roll into their offices and continue the process of building their teams so they can take RSL's place on the podium next year. The long term strategy of MLS has always had a strong emphasis on containing costs and anyone familiar with the history of soccer in the US knows why that is. Blockbuster transfers for international superstars will not be a featuring in MLS for a very long time. Instead, finding bargain players will be key to MLS success and the true test of GMs across the league.

The league is entering what Dave likes to call MLS 3.0 phase. MLS participates in international competitions, tying the league into a system of competitions that can lead all the way to a world title. The league now largely avoids "Americanizations" and plays the game by the same basic rules as the rest of the world uses. The exceptions such as playoffs and the lack of a promotion and relegation system, while irksome to the purists, have been implemented in such leagues as Brazil and Mexico, countries in which soccer can be said to have had some success. In short, MLS has matured into a league that is part of the world soccer community and the trend is headed in the right direction.

The big challenge facing MLS is converting the US soccer fan into MLS fans. At the moment, a fan of soccer without a an interest in a particular MLS team, doesn't have a lot of reasons to watch MLS. The level of play in MLS is still clearly inferior and cable and satellite networks such as ESPN, Setanta, Fox Soccer Channel, and GolTV allow a fan to watch game after game from Europe, South America, and even Asia and Australia. The best of these leagues feature teams with nearly unlimited budgets who scour the globe to find the very best talent. Many of these fans may sample an MLS match here or there and find the play rough, amateurish, and not particularly appealing. That was certainly true of the final and it was not a display that would have convinced a soccer fan not already sold on the league to invest time watching MLS.

To make that final sale with soccer fans, MLS needs to improve the standard of play and this is going to require that the league push the envelope on both cost containment and parity. Some of the ways this could happen include:

Some form of free agency.
At the moment, if a team makes an attempt to re-sign an out of contract player, they retain his MLS rights indefinitely. While this may be a great way to avoid the bidding wars that can sometimes accompany free agency, it also makes it harder for MLS to retain out of contract players. Take the example of Guillermo Barros Schelotto. The Crew have made an insultingly low renewal offer that is over 60% lower than his previous contract. Schelotto is now awaiting other offers, but because the Crew have attempted to re-sign him, any other MLS club interested in his services has to compensate the Crew with a player or money. Conversely, a foreign team can simply make an offer directly to Schelotto himself without involving the Crew in any way. The upshot is that if an MLS team and a foreign team have equal resources to spend on acquiring Schelotto, the MLS team will be at a disadvantage because it will have to divert some of that to appeasing the Crew, while the foreign team can spend it all on Schelotto himself. Given that many foreign teams have much greater financial resources than MLS teams, the disadvantage can be enormous.
Filling the DP slots
Now that Schelotto is out of contract, there are ten out of the possible sixteen DP slots in the league remaining unused. While having a Designated Player isn't a guarantee of success, good DPs raise the standard of play in the league and that's something MLS desperately needs. The ball control, passing, and finishing skills of your standard MLS player are still very rudimentary and that leads to a pinball style of play where the ball carroms semi-randomly around the field for long stretches of the game. Ten more players of the Beckham/Ljungberg caliber could make a big difference in reducing that short of play to a minimum and moving MLS toward a more sophisticated standard of play. At a minimum, MLS should consider measures to push teams to either use or trade their DP slots. The simplest way to do that is to make the DP salary cap hit automatic, regardless of whether the slot is filled or not. No team could ever afford to throw away that much of their salary cap, so they must either find a good DP or deal the slot to someone who can use it.
Be first to top quality players, especially on free transfers
This is somewhat related to the previous point. Recently I posted on the giant missed opportunity that Juninho represented for MLS. To recap, Juninho Pernambucano, one of the worlds greatest free kick takers and top attacking midfielders, became available earlier this year on a free transfer and made it clear that he was willing to leave Europe. He ended up signing a two-year, $2 million per year contract with a Qatari club, a deal that is fairly average for an MLS DP, as it would have been third out of seven at the time (Landin had yet to sign at the time). Before the DP rule allowed MLS teams to offer contracts on a par with world standards, an opportunity to sign a player such as Juninho was irrelevant and could be ignored. Those days are in the past.

As I mentioned, measures like these would push against the long standing and well justified policies of cost containment and parity in MLS. However, caution can be stultifying and counterproductive if it becomes a veto against any innovation that might involve some risk. The one risk MLS simply can't take, however, is allowing the level of play to remain stagnant and mired in mediocrity.

0 recs | Comment 38 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

It is the chicken or the egg argument

There is an old saying that, “You have to spend money to make money.”

Now, I understand not wanting to blow up the salary cap because the league does want to control costs. But, the MLS cap of about 2.3 million is too low. The owners of MLS teams are rich and it is their money to spend, so I won’t tell them they have to spend their money.

However, the Kraft’s and the Hunts likely spend more than 2.3 million in players they have released in regards to their NFL teams. Every MLS owner is super rich or they would not have been chosen for MLS ownership in the first place.

Without going crazy, there should be some middle ground that can be found where the salary cap can increase without harming the owners.

I know it seems obvious to us, but having a better on the field product will increase the number of people paying attention to MLS and that will increase revenues.

I also want to make the point that it is just not being able to attract good players, but what is equally important is to keep the good players that MLS has developed from leaving to Europe for a payday.

Now, I agree that for all the reasons that you stated MLS needs more DP’s. MLS should also lower the amount a DP counts against the cap. When a team currently takes a $415,000 cap hit, it means that less is being paid to other possible players that could increase quality of the team.

by Coug1990 on Nov 23, 2009 10:37 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

I agree on pretty much every point

I recognize that the MLS doesn’t want costs to spiral out of control, but at some point the talent pool is going to become too thin to adequately support 4 (potentially 5?) expansion teams in three years. The slow growth model is a good one, but at some point some of the rules – be it in terms of the salary cap, dp slots, free agency, or what have you – is going to have to change if the league doesn’t want to risk product quality stagnation/decline.

(By the way, I was a long time reader of the site, but the last time I visited was before the change to SB Nation. Needless to say, as a big fan of Field Gulls and Lookout Landing, I think it’s awesome you guys are on here now.)

by J Sep on Nov 23, 2009 1:50 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Excellent points...

I think this is dead on, Coug1990.

Better play = more money. More money = better play. It’s a virtuous cycle. The trick is balancing the worthy goals of cost containment and parity with better play. The quickest way to do this is to raise the cap and follow CarlosT’s suggestions.

by zeagle on Nov 23, 2009 4:00 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Krafts and Hunts

These guys the architects the most tightly controlled system in the world to insulate themselves from risk – the single entity. Professional sports should be a risky business. It isn’t healthcare. It isn’t insurance. It’s not all about shielding from risk, but that’s the Faustian bargain under which we toil. We need to stop coddling them, and that’s what promotion, relegation, and independent clubs will do.

By 1950, we had given them the name Football. Now we’re letting them decide how to run the sport they robbed. Sounds like a scene from the Godfather.

by soccerreform.us on Nov 23, 2009 5:42 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

thoughts on making the league better

These are all excellent suggestions, CarlosT. I’m down with all of them. I particularly agree with the DP comments.

Here are a few things I have been thinking about lately related to the subject:

*Can we bring more revenue into the system to alleviate some of the cost constraints? This is no doubt a constant pursuit of the league office. But I’d love to hear others thoughts on the subject. Better television deal, more creative naming rights, etc.

*I understand the theory that the easiest fan to convert is the US Soccer fan who is busy watching other soccer all the time. But this also ignores the huge pool of fans who are casual soccer fans who don’t watch a lot of soccer but could be turned on to the MLS. Me for instance. I watch the World Cup — I attended a few matches when I lived in Europe but I did not watch soccer regularly until the Sounders came to town. And that is the same with every season ticket holder in my immediate vicinity at Qwest. My guess is that describes a lot of the Sounders FC nation. It doesn’t change the basic premise that you need quality play to attract more fans, but I do wonder about the league’s obsession with the existing US soccer fan. They may be targeting the wrong low hanging fruit.

*The previous post about officiating gets directly at this quality of play conversation. It is difficult to attract casual fans, US Soccer fans or good media attention when the officiating is so poor. Even when there are quality players on the field, the officiating continues to prevent good play. Improve officiating = improved play = more fans = more money = improved play = more fans.

by zeagle on Nov 23, 2009 4:22 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

Sounders can have it all

As a guy who is putting together the final touches on an organization that working to bring promotion/relegation and independent clubs to the USA – and I’m only sucking up a little here – the Seattle Sounders have the supporter base to make it in a post single entity world that includes promotion and relegation. And I mean “make it” in CONCACAF and onto the global stage.

Problem is: MLS

As a DC United guy, and even with the Timber reincarnation, I can tell you that as things wear on, interest will wane. After a decade, the problem is pretty clear: clubs are simply not independent in MLS. Everything is dumbed down thru the single entity salary caps, squad size limits, redistributing wealth from strong to weak clubs, and immunity from relegation. And that makes it an exhibition league. Fans don’t need to understand this to lose interest – they just lose interest.

No offense intended against supporters, players, and the community. I’ve subscribed to the notion that we have to support the soccer we have, but we’ve been waiting for well over a decade now, and it’s still pretty much the same, or worse.

You don’t have to ride this horse. MLS average attendance records were set in 1996. Don’t let them hijack the name of a club that saved them. One of the last three surviving outdoor pro clubs in the USA in 1986. A club with a tradition longer than most, and supporters to match.

When we pry this thing out of the closed league single entity, the Sounders can be as good as they want to be, can go as far as supporters can take them, can spend as much money on players as they decide to.

With supporters like you, and without all of these MLS measures designed mostly to insulate their owners from risk – not to bring better quality soccer to the USA, they will be a force to reckon with on the world stage.

Seriously.

by soccerreform.us on Nov 23, 2009 5:11 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

Scotland

Why would mimicking Scotland help US soccer?

I am not a Supporter
I am not a Fan
I am a Sounder
Sounder At Heart

by Sounder At Heart on Nov 23, 2009 8:46 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

NFL

You’d rather mimic the NFL?

by soccerreform.us on Nov 24, 2009 10:28 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I find that MLS will be stronger

With the NFL model which allows smart teams to become dynasties that shift than MLS being strong with 1 or 2 perrenial teams with the rest of them sucking.

I have no interest in being an American version of Rangers playing against teams that suck for 26 matches a season.

I am not a Supporter
I am not a Fan
I am a Sounder
Sounder At Heart

by Sounder At Heart on Nov 24, 2009 10:39 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

We're not Highlanders

We’re a whole lot bigger than Scotland. Should the day come when four or five clubs push out the envelope of American play, God bless them. For me, that’s way better than 20 micromanaged mediocre clubs. We will have four or five clubs that can take the game to any club on the planet – and the Sounders should be one of those clubs.

IF it does shake out that way, it will take a while to shake out. Watching that process will be worth the price of admission.

Gotta stop letting them decide how good our clubs can be… even if that does work in the NFL.

by soccerreform.us on Nov 24, 2009 3:57 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I'm curious

What lead to the downfall or failure of the original NASL?

by Coug1990 on Nov 24, 2009 4:20 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

note on Mexico and Brazil

Both countries employ promotion/relegation.

Australia is the only other major soccer nation that doesn’t employ it. In 2008, they promised to implement it soon.

by soccerreform.us on Nov 23, 2009 5:28 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

That is true now but it hasn't always been the case

I actually support both getting rid of the playoffs and instituting promotion and relegation, but I wanted to get the point in that neither playoffs or no promotion/relegation are “Americanizations”. I also realize that neither of those changes will ever happen.

I should have been a little clearer, though. I know that Mexico used playoffs at one point, but I don’t know if they lacked promotion and relegation. I do know for a fact that both of those statements are true for Brazil.

by CarlosT on Nov 23, 2009 5:59 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Agreed

There has been experimentation with the closed league model. It has failed soccer on so many occasions – at least six times here in top league play alone.

I can’t name an open league that failed. It’s stable by nature. No overarching league meddling in club affairs is a really good thing in this sport. In fact, I credit the system, as much as the sport, for dominating the planet.

by soccerreform.us on Nov 24, 2009 10:32 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

USL has failed

And honestly Open Leagues constantly have teams failing every single year. All the teams that go down are absolute failures that have no shot at a meaningful title the next season.

Plus 1 or 2 others wind up in administration every year.

20% of the LEAGUE fails.

I am not a Supporter
I am not a Fan
I am a Sounder
Sounder At Heart

by Sounder At Heart on Nov 24, 2009 10:40 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Better that clubs fail than leagues

Why shouldn’t clubs that can’t generate support fail? I don’t think we’re in danger of mass club failure.

Scores of American soccer leagues have gone down with all their clubs. You support one of a scant few teams that have survived the carnage – at least in name only. I think it’s bogus that MLS doesn’t allow Sounders to officially connect their histories – another curb against real independence.

The benefits to lower leagues are huge. Ask any Battery or Rhino supporter. USL, like all the other closed lower leagues, fails b/c it is closed. Nothing builds the bottom of the pyramid like pro/rel.

Benefits to the first division are obviously dicer to discuss with some MLS supporters – not so with Seattle supporters. The sky is truly the limit. If owners sell for fear of relegation, somebody is going to get the bargain of the century – unless you guys go through the same interest wane that the rest of MLS has gone through first.

In open leagues, building teams is more important than marketing strategies.

by soccerreform.us on Nov 24, 2009 12:35 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Another statement that is factually inaccurate

Sounders have maintained strong connections with their NASL and USL past. Two banner hang in Qwest from the USL Chamionship seasons. Dozens of players have been honored in pre-match and are employed by the club at various levels.

The problem is not that the owners would sell, they would just not vote in favor of losing tens of millions of dollars, just like Anschutz, Hunt, Kraft, etc. This is the same reason why the EPL is exploring EPL2 so that it can only relegate 1 team rather than 2 from the highest profit levels. This is also the reason that Serie A wants to completely seperate from Serie B.

I am not a Supporter
I am not a Fan
I am a Sounder
Sounder At Heart

by Sounder At Heart on Nov 24, 2009 12:51 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Not in official stats.

MLS went to great lengths to separate Sounders from history. Banners are great, but the truth is, they have been sorted out as different entities.

A rising tide lifts all boats. If I didn’t believe that open leagues would grow American club soccer by leaps and bounds, I wouldn’t bother. By the time the top of the pyramid opens, only the least passionate among the owners will still fail to recognize the benefits. If I didn’t believe that an opened second division would more than equal paltry MLS attendance, TV audience, and quality of play, I really wouldn’t be bothering with this. There would be absolutely no point.

Of course billionaire owners, if given a chance, would insulate themselves from relegation. That doesn’t mean it’s right.

Twenty five times more Americans are watching pro wrestling than pro soccer.

That makes no sense, except in a world where we admit that MLS, and their model, is a flop – just like all of their closed league predecessors.

by soccerreform.us on Nov 24, 2009 4:12 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

IF MLS is a flop

Why are more and more European leagues trying to emulate it?

I am not a Supporter
I am not a Fan
I am a Sounder
Sounder At Heart

by Sounder At Heart on Nov 25, 2009 10:02 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

In what way?

Cost controls are always given lip service after big money flies around in a transfer window, but rarely are there serious moves to implement anything in that direction. Also, a lot of the measures used here in the US might even have legal issues in Europe because the teams are all independent businesses and not franchises. And if any moves are made to introduce those limits, pretty much any member of the G-14 would be likely to file suit to block it.

by CarlosT on Nov 25, 2009 12:17 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Serie A, EPL and SPL

Are all looking to further seperate themselves from the current second divisions.

Platini has added a spending limit, although tiny, and is exploring adding a roster limit as well.

I am not a Supporter
I am not a Fan
I am a Sounder
Sounder At Heart

by Sounder At Heart on Nov 26, 2009 6:32 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I remember the debt service article that you wrote earlier this year

It was eye opening

by Coug1990 on Nov 26, 2009 10:20 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Serie A is not emulating MLS

They’re looking to emulate the EPL, which broke away to reduce financial ties to the league structure that had existed before and allowed Premiership teams to make more lucrative TV and sponsorship deals and keep more of that money for themselves. Serie A wants those same kinds of privileges and doesn’t want to put so much money into Serie B. There will still be promotion and relegation between the leagues, just not the kind of revenue sharing that existed before. The main motive is to increase the funds they have available so they can match the spending power of English clubs and go further in European competitions. So, it’s pretty much as far from MLS-style as you can get. It’s not about containing spending, it’s about generating more revenue so they can increase their spending.

I’m not sure about EPL or SPL since I don’t really follow those leagues.

I know that Platini has put forward the idea of a spending cap, but as far as I know, nothing has been instituted. I he asked the EU Parliament for a special exemption be made for sports under EU competition law, so there are legal hurdles to be cleared before any MLS-style measures can go forward.

by CarlosT on Nov 26, 2009 10:48 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Debt limitation was approved this fall

And so in 2012 a team over that limitation will not be allowed to participate in the CL.

As for Serie A and B, I recall reading in one article that they would drop to only 1 relegated team and no balloon payment. After a few years of that the leagues would basically stagnate. As the bottom end would close off, sperating them from B.

I am not a Supporter
I am not a Fan
I am a Sounder
Sounder At Heart

by Sounder At Heart on Nov 26, 2009 11:22 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I haven't seen that about Serie A

Not that it can’t still be true, but I haven’t seen anything like that regarding the split between Serie A and Serie B. Do you remember where you saw that? All the sources I’ve seen so far have the motivation being an emulation of the EPL and obviously EPL continues to have promotion and relegation.

The Financial Fair Play measures that UEFA recently announced will unfortunately have the opposite effect of what they intend. Under that scheme, the rich clubs like Man U and Real Madrid who generate enormous revenues will have even more buying power in relation to other clubs. The big money in transfers might be reduced somewhat, but the disparity in resources will grow larger. It’s unsurprising that owners of top clubs such as Roman Abramovich favors these kinds of measures, because it effectively kills the challenge from clubs like Man City, which have very wealthy backers but limited revenues. Chelsea have the revenues to still afford top players, and won’t be too badly affect, but Man City would be done as a contender on the transfer market. Top talent would concentrate even more at top clubs than it does now.

by CarlosT on Nov 26, 2009 12:24 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I'll try and find the story I read on the Serie A

and I fully agree with your interpretation of the Financial Fair Play rule. It is basically cutting off the midlevel clubs from ever becoming large.

Thereby CLOSING the once open system.

I am not a Supporter
I am not a Fan
I am a Sounder
Sounder At Heart

by Sounder At Heart on Nov 26, 2009 7:48 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Serie A breakaway

You are correct, I can not find a change in the relegation rules (probably got myself confused with the 19 to 1 vote in favor)

But with the new debt limitations, and the financial change more clubs will be cut off from ever competing in the top flight.

Four LEga Pro (3rd Tier) clubs folded within the last summer due to debts and expenses occurred as they toppled down the ladder; it is about to get much worse.

FFP will stagnate the top tiers in Europe and kill the second tiers.

I am not a Supporter
I am not a Fan
I am a Sounder
Sounder At Heart

by Sounder At Heart on Nov 28, 2009 10:50 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Which is why I'm confused by Platini's push for FFP

His public statements are all in favor of parity, but FFP would obliterate any possibility of it. Like I said before, the owners of high revenue clubs have every reason to be supportive of such measures because it makes their spots in the elite safe forever. But can Platini not see the obvious consequences? Or is he actually on the side of the big clubs?

by CarlosT on Nov 29, 2009 5:07 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I think he sees it as a stepping stone to a salary cap

He’s wrong, but that is likely what he sees.

Of course I always thought that a cap on rosters would mean more. It would distribute the talent better throughout the world, and it would not cut back on player salaries.

I am not a Supporter
I am not a Fan
I am a Sounder
Sounder At Heart

by Sounder At Heart on Nov 29, 2009 10:22 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Relegation will never happen in the US

for the same reason that Joe Roth told Drew Carey that he would let the fans “fire” the GM, but he would not let the fans hire the new GM. Money. Joe Roth did not want to give ultimate control of his $30 million investment away.

If anyone was going to make the ultimate decision that has a big affect on the bottom line, it was going to be him.

With relegation, an owner gives up control of his investment.

I see a couple of problems. The first is that to get accepted into MLS, teams currently pay around $40 million in expansion fees. If a team gets relegated from the 1st division to a 2nd division, the team is automatically worth less. Why would any owner agree to that?

Now, how much did the team in the 2nd division team pay in expansion fees or for the privilege of playing in the 2nd division/? I can guarantee you it would not be the same as a 1st division club paid.

So, the 2nd division club paid millions less than the 1st division club and now upon promotion gets the benefit of their club being worth as much as clubs that paid millions more?

Next, let’s talk national TV contracts. What would happen if the top TV markets were suddenly relegated and replaced by smaller TV markets? Do you think the networks would want to sign a long-term contract knowing that they could lose NY, LA, Sea, etc.?

There would have to be some language that the networks pay less if that occurred, which would drive down overall league revenues. Again, why would a MLS owner agree to that?

Relegation is great in theory, but not practical in in the US.

by Coug1990 on Nov 23, 2009 10:03 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

Good points

I don’t mean to nitpick – but we’re talking more than just promotion/relegation. You can’t have pro/rel with salary caps and other tight league controls. It all goes away. I know some we’ll have to pull it from some MLS owners cold, dead hands. That’s a classic sign of addiction. If they want safe investments, I suggest getting out of professional sports, instead of turning our top division into an exhibition league to protect their pocketbooks.

Open league owners get full control of the club under these circumstances. With full control comes greater risk, but like I said, Sounder support is phenomenal – your club, if it maintains current interest, only gets better without all the MLS control – assuming passionate owners.

On the franchise fee:

When we make the transition, all MLS clubs get initial first div status for their troubles. Under our plan, MLS doesn’t get exposed to relegation until it has worked its way up, and dramatically expanded, the pyramid. By that time, I expect second div teams will pass MLS in attendance and TV ratings. Sounds ridiculous? Right now, WWE averages 25 times more viewers on USA network than MLS gets on ESPN. There is nowhere to go but up.

Also, I’m happy with parachute payments if and when top clubs go down to second div.

On TV:

If you need an example of long term TV contracts for team sport competitions that don’t have a fixed roster of players, look no further than the NCAA basketball tournament.

True, open leagues benefit the lower leagues the most. Outside of Seattle, LA, Portland, and maybe Houston, DC – in places without significant supporter bases and supporter groups – relegation should be scary. Hopefully it will help them find the supporter base that you all enjoy. If not, they should go down, not sit around and wait for allocation cash every year.

You are right – plenty of MLS owners, addicted to their single entity risk abatements, will never go for this. They have a long term plan for the league, which includes all the risk averse nonsense that makes it an exhibition league.

We will need an independent and courageous federation to stand up for it. I fully expect a couple of MLS owners will take their balls and go home in this process. Those who stick around will be glad they did.

Today, getting relegated to USL, or whatever our fragmenting second division is called these days, would suck. Four years into a pyramid that opens, and dramatically expands, from the bottom up, it will be a totally different story.

The key missing element in MLS is that supporter activity does not actually benefit the team that generates it. It gets spread around to the league. And that might work in the NFL, and MLB, and even NBA for now.

It just doesn’t work for soccer.

Open leagues are not theoretical. They aren’t like quarks or antimatter. They created the most dominant professional sport on the planet. By a ridiculously wide margin.

Yet, here we are:

Pro Wrestling – 5 million viewers
Pro Soccer – 200,000

This thing is broke, and there’s a proven model out there to replace it. Yes, it scares billionaires who have long enjoyed the entitlements of a closed league. But if that’s the worst effect – we’re in excellent shape.

by soccerreform.us on Nov 24, 2009 11:13 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

Who would fund the balloon payments

You are ignoring that going down a division in other nations kills teams so badly that they get balloon payments and it still kills there profits.

In fact you ignore that in Italy, England and Scotland the top league are and have considered closed systems, because they see that as a key to making more money.

And equating Wrestling and Soccer tv ratings is a massive mistake. They have absolutely no relationship. None. Except maybe due to match fixing in European leagues that went public this week.

Your arguments place 100% of the success of the EPL and others based on the open model, while ignoring dozens of other issues. There is no way to refute you with facts, because they can not exist. You appeal entirely to the emotion of the Big4 Leagues, there isn’t a test in their nations as to Open v Closed systems. But what I do know is that while yes Japan has pro/rel it is not an open system and they seem to be doing quite well. Australia may have pledged pro/rel but they don’t have it, and even if they do it won’t be an open system. Those two nations are probably the strongest parallels to the USA/Canada as in neither nation did they have top flight soccer until the mid90s or later, and they also have favorites sports that are locally dominant.

Oh, and your statement “supporter activity does not actually benefit the team that generates it” is factually wrong. It is the only statement you have made that can be proven true/false. It is clearly False. Galaxy makes tens of millions a year in Profit. Sounders do as well. Other teams do not. DC United has a financial loss every year. There are distinct Haves and Have Nots in MLS. It is not purely communist situation.

I am not a Supporter
I am not a Fan
I am a Sounder
Sounder At Heart

by Sounder At Heart on Nov 24, 2009 11:54 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

profits yes. improvements with them? not really.

Yes, Sounders and Galaxy make profits – no doubt. It was not entirely accurate for me to say that they can’t use some of these proceeds to benefit their club. They can blow lots on one or two DPs. (seems there is a gentlemanly agreement not to go to two DPs, since no club has tried) After that, under MLS micromanagement, they can’t turn those profits into club improvements. I can tell you understand the game enough to know that one or two highly paid stars do not change a soccer team the way they change an NBA team.

True, wrestling and Soccer have no relationship. But a lot more people play soccer in this country than hit each other with chairs. There is a huge potential supporter base out there that MLS can’t reach, and I’m sticking to the fact that their model is the reason why.

Open leagues built the sport. The world uses them. Players want to play in them. In comparison, MLS is an exhibition circus.

J-league, w/o salary caps and with promotion/relegation, is open enough for me…

I can only give you the facts of open league success outside of the USA, because our major sports have never adopted it here. We are an island of closed league soccer mediocrity in a sea of open league football success.

I understand your arguments, but what is your vision? I think it’s reasonable to grow TV audiences by five times, at which point they will still only be 25% of wrestling audiences.
Why haven’t we gotten there? Is the weird format we’re using really free of all responsibility for these pathetic numbers?

Yes, open leagues make ownership risky. Yes, we’ll need courage and vision to pry it out of this situation. There are no examples of a major open league going bankrupt or defunct. It is stable, and perseveres, all over the world. It will work here, even though it exposes our coddled sports owners to more risk than they are used to.

That risk and open league drama sells tickets. It is a big part of the game. If the FA chose a closed league, single entity model for english football in 1880, I don’t believe we’d be here today talking about the Sounders today.

If we’re talking factual correctness – I can’t let your argument that we didn’t have top flight soccer here until the mid nineties slide!

We have had top flight soccer here since the 1920s. We were the only member of FIFA north of Argentina until the mid 20s. We went to the semis in the first World Cup with players from our first top flight league, ASL. Archie Stark, of Bethlehem Steel FC, still holds the world record for goals scored in a top flight league with 64 in 1925.

Not to mention NASL, which drew an average of ten times more viewers on ABC in 1980 than MLS draws on ESPN today. Whose Cosmos outdrew the Yankees and the Giants in the 1970s. Whose Sounders you cheer today.

We’ve messed it up in the closed league model since 1894.

by soccerreform.us on Nov 24, 2009 1:21 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

Dude

I’m calling you on it again

“two DPs, since no club has tried”
DC United carried two DPs
Red Bull New York has had two DPs
with the Grandfather rule LA Galaxy had three when they had Beckham, Donovan and Ruiz.

You can’t call any league you mention but the NASL a national league. They just didn’t cover the nation. MLS is barely a national league now. As for 1980s tv ratings, you also realize that Dynasty drew better than any prime time drama does now? It is a very different world, you are suggesting a 20th century model that the very leagues you worship are trying to ignore. UEFA and FIFA both are calling for fiscal restraint while you are tying yourself to what Blatter and Platini see as the problem.

As for players not wanting to play in MLS, I think if you researched that you would find it is not true. International agents desperately want their players here. Players want to play here. The cap only needs to go up. I’m an advocate of a tiered luxury tax myself. It could be used to provide salary relief for the have nots and still permit the haves to sign a higher level of talent.

Roster caps are essential. Players need to play. Leagues without roster caps have dozens of players who do not play the game, and good American players suffer due to that.

And their must be a Reserve League, or, as I would prefer, Reserve Teams must be allowed to participate in the lower tiers here in America. Currently USL forbids this, but the new NASL seems to allow it (likely why Vancouver and Montreal are involved). This model has been a success in Spain and Germany.

I am not a Supporter
I am not a Fan
I am a Sounder
Sounder At Heart

by Sounder At Heart on Nov 24, 2009 1:32 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Good comments Dave

I’m curious, how many real markets are there in the US? How many metropolitan areas can support a team or two? There is a reason why football, baseball, basketball, etc., put their teams in major cities; it is where the population bases are and that drives tv ratings and attendance.

I know there is this romantic notion of the European leagues, But, no league in the US will be like it is in Europe. Europe doesn’t have all the other sports leagues that the US competes for sports dollars and each country in Europe is small, so it is easier to follow your team from stadium to stadium.

He also complains about MLS as basically second rate and he is correct in some aspects, but it is a very young league. Does he think the NFL, MLS or NBA was as strong when they were 15 years old as they are now?

He is right when he says soccer in this country (MLS) needs reform, but he is trying to take it in a direction that just will never happen.

by Coug1990 on Nov 24, 2009 2:33 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Missed a couple points.

In the 1920s, ASL was almost as national as the National League, which only went as far west as Chicago. ASL II did go fairly national, and lasted fifty years before taking the well-traveled-closed-soccer-league-route-to-bankruptcy.

TV comparisons are dicey between 1980 and now. But the fact that pro wrestling kicks MLS ass in the ratings today speaks to the point even better.

Reserve games are fine.

I don’t follow Blatter and Platini, but I do tend to agree with them. Open leagues really do work wonders for soccer. They are stable, and just don’t go bankrupt. They made it thru depressions, recessions and world wars, while our leagues went down one by one.

Dare to dream. When we open the leagues, and triple the number of clubs in the pyramid, we will finally build the bridge between three consecutive decades of record youth participation and our pro game. I don’t know if that is good for KC Hunt’s and NE Kraft’s other sports, but it will be really great for our club game.

by soccerreform.us on Nov 24, 2009 5:06 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

don't let apathy get in the way

NCAA sports still crush pro sports by a lot of measures, despite small markets. Let supporters and the free market decide. Especially in this age of media fragmentation, markets are becoming less and less relevant

This isn’t theory, it isn’t romance. It’s tried and true fact. Soccer prospers in open leagues, and doesn’t survive well in closed league captivity.

If Sounders supporters want it, they can have it. Right now, no first div supporters benefit more from the open league. If you all remain unconvinced, we truly are doomed to a century of mediocrity in which pro wrestling continues to outdraw pro soccer 25 to 1!

I do support efforts to control Real Madrid type spending sprees. It has to be done at the regional level, and every club should only be able to spend monies they earned thru soccer activities.

Even Garber and Gulati don’t totally discount the possibility of pro/reg and open leagues. They just put the cart before the horse, in order that we might might them enough money to entertain us with more than an exhibition league, that Real Salt Lake wins.

They are reaching such a tiny percentage of potential fans – it’s just ripe for reform…. the market is there, and it’s not the sports fault that MLS can’t reach it. They’ve simply taken all the romance out of it. Real Salt Lake isn’t a Cinderella story. They are just a product of MLS policies that replace performance with parity. It’s spoon fed soccer.

Believe it. Sounders v Man United for all the chips. You all have the investors, the supporters, and the spirit. It really could happen outside the single entity MLS. We really can get there, if we want to.

by soccerreform.us on Nov 24, 2009 4:46 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

If you are trying to convince any of us

Then stop using wrestling as a comparison. Pro Wresting on TV is not a sport, it is a soap operatic entertainment. There are written story lines that the actors follow.

Soccer in the US is a sport. Use an apples to apples comparison, not an apples to a toaster comparison.

Next, stop talking about the 1920’s. Talk about the here and now to make your points. Things are so different now than they were then in every respect.

Also, use statistics when you throw out something like “NCAA sports still crush pro sports.” Anyone can write something that may or may not be true, but without anything to back up what you write, it just does not mean much.

There is no anti-trust agreement, so there is nothing stopping any rich person in any city to start a team and/or competitive league. Why has this not occurred already?

Again, I like your passion, but so far you have not changed anyone’s mind. What I see are cities wanting to join MLS, not trying to create an open league.

by Coug1990 on Nov 24, 2009 6:18 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs