MLS salaries not so inequitable
With the recent slew of Designated Player signings there have been a fair number of people fretting over the possible stratification of MLS.
They see teams like the New York Red Bulls spending nearly $16 million on player salaries while others like the San Jose Earthquakes are barely spending $2.5 million and are worried that MLS is headed down the dreaded path of haves vs. have-nots.
With the MLS Player Union releasing updated salary lists yesterday, I figured now might be a good time to take another look at this issue.
Right away, you notice some obvious things. The Red Bulls basically lumped on $10 million in salary by signing Rafa Marquez and Thierry Henry to $5 million-plus annual salaries. We also see that the Fire have leapfrogged the Sounders and Toronto FC for No. 3 on the list with a combined total of about $5.7 million. There's also an obvious gap from Nos. 4-5 with TFC spending about $5.2 million and the Sounders are down to about $2.9 million now that Freddie Ljungberg is off the books (although I assume the Sounders did have to pay about half his salary). Alvaro Fernandez is on the books for $300,000.
If you look a little closer, though, I'm not sure the problem is so glaring.
Sure, the top-end salaries stand out like broken noses, but they are only two or three players on a 24-man roster. As we're reminded time and time again, roster depth is at least as important as high-end talent.
Once we look at median salaries, for instance, the inequities are not so clear.
The team with the highest median salary, for instance, is the Philadelphia Union at $119,000 annually. The top three median-salary teams, in fact, are all outside the big four spenders. Philadelphia, Columbus Crew ($112,000 median) and Kansas City Wizards ($110,000) all spend less than $3 million on player salaries.
The Sounders are actually among the lowest median salaried teams at $73,000, more than only the New England Revolution ($71,000) and Chivas USA ($68,000).
No team has more than 15 players making at least $100,000 and no one has fewer than seven. Of the 16 teams in the league, 13 have between 13 and nine players making at least $100,000 a year.
The team with the most $100,000 players is the Wizards, a team that lacks a Designated Player and doesn't have anyone making as much as $250,000.
New York (13), Los Angeles (12), Chicago (13) and Toronto (12) definitely have their share of well-paid players, but it doesn't strike me as swaying the balance of power.
I won't deny that some teams are going to outspend others, I'm just not convinced that it's going to ruin the league. As we can see here, every team decides how it's going to spend its money differently. I see no problem with that.
One thing seems clear to me, under the current rules it's basically impossible for a team to buy a championship.
| Total | Median | <100k | |
| New York | 15.7m | 97k | 13 |
| Los Angeles | 11m | 99k | 12 |
| Chicago | 5.7m | 100k | 13 |
| Toronto | 5.2m | 93k | 12 |
| Kansas City | 2.9m | 110k | 15 |
| Dallas | 2.9m | 80k | 14 |
| Columbus | 2.9m | 112k | 12 |
| DC | 2.9m | 81k | 11 |
| Seattle | 2.9m | 73k | 9 |
| New England | 2.9m | 71k | 9 |
| Philadelphia | 2.7m | 119k | 13 |
| Colorado | 2.7m | 80k | 10 |
| Salt Lake | 2.6m | 90k | 12 |
| San Jose | 2.5m | 95k | 11 |
| Houston | 2.5m | 96k | 11 |
| Chivas USA | 2.5m | 68k | 7 |
31 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I was surprised
at Fernandez’s salary. $300k seems like a steal for what we got.
One thing I was thinking about – Keller makes some good cash for a top rated keeper. No other keeper in the league makes over $200k. When he retires that’s a good chunk of cap space that will be freed. And there are a lot of good keepers in the league that we could conceivably sign.
Also…looking at some of the 2010 draftees – I’m shocked at what some of these guys make, compared to those drafted in 09 or 08. Corben bone has made two appearances for Chicago and is making $136k. Dilly Duka has made one appearance for Columbus and is making over $200k. Compared to Lenhart, who’s making $40k, or Justin Braun who’s making $65k. These newbies must’ve had some badass agents working for them. Jack McInerny and Toni Stahl are also good examples, each making over $100k.
I think our FO absolutely has the right idea in what they are doing. I won’t lie – I think it’d be pretty good to have the Henry’s and Marquez’s of the world play for us and have a huge DP budget. The flashiness is pretty sweet. But, I love the reserved approach to finding talent and paying reasonably for it, rather than paying extra for the name.
Forgot about him
Of course, he’s sort of a one off type guy in my example. What I’m basically saying, is that when Keller retires, we can get a money keeper to replace him for half the price if we don’t promote Boss.
by chrisperry1983 on Aug 21, 2010 11:28 AM PDT up reply actions
Maybe the year Keller retires...
is the year Hahnemann decides he wants to comes back. Would be cool to have another keeper who is from the Seattle area play on the Sounders!
GA players
make a lot. That’s how they entice them into the MLS and draft. But the cap hit is minimal.
Ahh gotcha
Kinda seems like regular draftees are getting jacked on that, but that’s how it goes. Just makes me laugh that Philly signed all these guys that are making zero appearances and getting paid huge sums. That low cap hit has to run out at some point though I’m sure?
by chrisperry1983 on Aug 21, 2010 11:27 AM PDT up reply actions
Sooner or later
things are going to have to shift. For all the rhetoric around how wonderful it is to have a league that’s competitive from top to bottom, most fans want to be a part of a top four that is clearly separated and superior to the rest of the pack (imo).
I’ll go ahead and say it: now that I’ve seen Fermandez’ salary, we definitely got a deal. After the past three games, I wasn’t so sure. No question he’s a skilled player, who will go both ways for a team…. but I already felt we had plenty of those kinds of players. There isn’t a single “impact” DP on this team ala Montero (what a bargain HE is!) and I felt that it’s what the team really needed. Keller, steady and, at times, spectacular, definitely top tier. Hurtado when he was healthy, very steady, very dependable and there’s at least three more on the team, imo. So, he’s (Alvaro) is a great value, but I really expected the team to go out and spend 5-10 mil a year and bring in a player who would rip this league a new one AND be relatively young (29-30). Perhaps that’s just not doable right now (MLS, turf, Seattle), but I guess I was naive enough to believe that enough money will make ANYONE sell their soul.
29-30 isn't young
it is past peak
I am not a Supporter | I am not a Fan | I am a Sounder
Sounder At Heart
Young enough
Always depends on the player, of course, but many player are still very much in their prime at that age. Central defenders, for instance, tend to hit their peak usefulness a little later than a forward.
I don't think I have the time right now
to give it the attention it might deserve, but it would be fun to see a ranking of PPD: Points Per Dollar. Perhaps looking at the first half of the season, what has happened since the summer signings, and where teams are expected to finish.
Keep in mind that not all big salaries are there to put points on the board
Sure, everyone is trying to win, but a lot of the big salaries are there for revenue as much as wins. How many actual points has Beckham actually earned for LA? Not many. I’m sure the dollars spent for each of his 7 goals is astronomical. But was his (at the time) highest salary by a long shot still worth it? Possibly, given how many butts he put in the seats. Same with Henry and all of the Mexican national team players suddenly dotting MLS rosters.
I like how the Sounders went about it. Ljungberg was maybe 50/50 name recognition versus wins. But he did the name recognition part of the job, helped get people into the stands, and now that the house is packed the Sounders don’t need name recognition anymore, and the next two DPs were about wins.
If you mean team points
I was actually going to do that, but got distracted. Something I’d definitely like to do though
Because if it's not Love | Then it's the bomb ... | That will bring us together
by Jeremiah Oshan on Aug 20, 2010 3:14 PM PDT up reply actions
That is what I meant
and you have a great point sidereal, I guess the bottom line is about profit, not necessarily wins. As a fan, I like to think it is all about wins though :)
I like that you looked at the median
I think that if you have a good team with no DPs, you can probably make it a great one by adding that last player or three. But if your team isn’t that good to begin with, no three players are going to help you run away with the league. Given the limit on DPs, I think that teams still really have to do well with their roster as a whole to get to the top of the league.
You asked, I deliver
Here are the rankings for $ per point. I decided to base it off median salary and used the current ppm to predict a final point total.
$ per point
Dallas 1,532
Los Angeles 1,540
Salt Lake 1,610
Seattle 1,782
Colorado 1,819
Columbus 2,025
New York 2,096
New England 2,139
San Jose 2,206
Toronto 2,262
Chivas USA 2,283
Chicago 2,377
Houston 3,047
Kansas City 3,492
Philadelphia 4,464
DC 4,527
Because if it's not Love | Then it's the bomb ... | That will bring us together
by Jeremiah Oshan on Aug 20, 2010 4:54 PM PDT reply actions 1 recs
My thing about the salary cap is....
…that the league’s overall quality could be increased significantly if it were set at a higher – but not too much higher – amount. If it were, say, $4 million, with a few buy down options, just moving up by $1,500,000 would increase average player salaries by about $60,000, and in the grand scheme of things, would not really cost the MLS that much (keep in mind that with a $4 million cap, SSFC wages could still be covered entirely by the xbox money, and many other teams could cover a big chunk of that with their kit sponsor money). Higher quality players overall, with more depth (let’s face it, very few teams in this league have bench guys whose supporters don’t immediately cringe at the thought of them being on the pitch), increases the quality of the product, especially on TV.
If there were buydowns, it would cause a little bit of imbalance…. but let’s be honest here, competitive balance hasn’t exactly drawn fans to places like Dallas and San Jose. Instead, the places that actually get butts in the seats (Seattle, now New York, Toronto, Phila) can rake in tons of cash and be semi-attractive for DPs…. while killing their overall depth since the DPs take up so much cap room. I have a feeling that we’ll still be getting strong attendance for years to come, but if your team will never really be great – or is obviously outclassed internationally – it isn’t quite as enticing for the average sport fan to get sucked into it. Really, a league with a few teams with three or four DPs surrounded by $100,000-$150,000 players playing against teams with $200,000 starters and $100,000 subs/reserves would be much more attractive to fans, as well as potential DPs who actually have a choice between here and Europe, and it wouldn’t exactly break the bank.
Just an observation
I think raising it that significantly would then really start to show the haves and have-nots, and maybe start the downward spiral of overspending.
by chrisperry1983 on Aug 20, 2010 5:24 PM PDT up reply actions
I think if it were totally uncapped, that’d be one thing, and I realize the numbers I threw out are a significant percentage increase, but really….. it would not be that big of an impact on the bottom line for most clubs, and with a better quality product, you could see advertising and ticket sales increase. If we just removed the cap or set it way, way higher, I could see a pretty big risk, but as it is, a professional league of mediocre teams is a long run risk as well. I’m not suggesting we repeat the new york cosmos here, but the product just isn’t that good as is… and really, without the expansion teams of the past couple seasons, overall attendance would be stagnant, at best, for the league right now.
I agree with you 100%
I am for an increased cap. How much, I don’t know. It just sounded like you were talking about haves and have-nots mostly, but then wanting to increase the cap.
by chrisperry1983 on Aug 21, 2010 11:30 AM PDT up reply actions
I guess my main point regarding the haves/have nots was that there seems to be an incredible fear of imbalance in the league, but some imbalance is OK. Just like the article pointed out, the higher drawing clubs would probably use more of their cap money on DPs (thus having less for the rest of the roster), so the competition between teams that use DPs and teams that don’t would kind of have a similar effect as it does now – just at a higher level of competition overall, and probably with more roster stability. Higher quality players from 7-26 on the rosters plus longer term roster stability is really what I’m dreaming of.
Re: San Jose
Yeah there are have-nots at around 2.5 million, but San Jose’s 2.5 million figure DOES NOT reflect Geovanni’s salary, which should certainly bump it up to 3.0 to 3.75 million.
Win or lose, we will always be here for you.
by johnjahafanclub on Aug 20, 2010 5:45 PM PDT reply actions
This is true
Although I don’t remember calling any of these teams “have-nots”. In fact, the whole point of the story is to illustrate that there aren’t really any have-nots, at least not as many as some would have us believe.
Because if it's not Love | Then it's the bomb ... | That will bring us together
by Jeremiah Oshan on Aug 20, 2010 5:55 PM PDT up reply actions
I would almost consider them "haves"
They have a good, solid team. They are just lacking in a couple areas. They are also wasting money on two starter quality keepers with Cannon and Busch. Although, now that Cannon broke his ankle I suppose it was lucky they have Busch too.
by chrisperry1983 on Aug 21, 2010 11:32 AM PDT up reply actions
Player Inequity
All the salary cap talks about the disparity (or lack thereof) between the small and large markets teams. The real disparities are between the salaries of the players on the same team.
I’m glad there’s no longer the shameful $12,000 developmental salaries, but there’s still quite a gap there. I’d love to see the cap raised gradually to the $4 million range with the max (non-DP) salary staying at the $335,000 range.
That way more starters and rotational guys can make that $100,000 salary which I think will improve the overall play of the league more than adding more expensive DP salaries.
Salary cap of $3.1 million by 2014
I went and looked at the CBA again. There’s an automatic 5% increase each year through 2014 so the salary cap will be roughly $3.1 by the 2014 team.. Raising it to $4 million shortly thereafter wouldn’t be much of a stretch.
by Dizzo on Aug 20, 2010 6:32 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Currently MLS teams average only 1M$ per team from media rights
Doubling that would ALL go to player salaries.
No joke.
The best way to dramatically increase salaries is to watch games and get that new 3 network contract
I am not a Supporter | I am not a Fan | I am a Sounder
Sounder At Heart
Versus
Hopefully they get Versus to pick up MLS next season. They have worked wonders for the NHL.
Win or lose, we will always be here for you.
by johnjahafanclub on Aug 20, 2010 11:37 PM PDT up reply actions
Local VS National TV
I’m not very familiar with sports media and such but don’t MLB teams get most of their revenue from local tv contracts instead of national? FOr instance, the Mariners have a pretty massive contract from FSN. Do you think the low national tv numbers for MLS and the strong local tv numbers for teams like Seattle will lead the league to work more on Local tv deals?
I would guess not since small market teams probably can’t get anywhere near the large contract teams like Seattle and Toronto can probably get. Just curious what someone who used to be in the business might think.
Local numbers are never going to help as much as national numbers
One of the main problems that MLS has is that fans of teams are not fans of the league.
If just 50% of season ticketholders around the league watched the national broadcasts the ratings would nearly double.
One solution would be to have destination TV (similar to NFL, same day/time every week) and on multiple national English language options (I’d like Vs, ESPN and FSC) with two regional options at each time slot. Something like Friday Night (ESPN2), Saturday Afternoon (Vs) and Night (FSC) and Sunday Afternoon (FSC) would be better than the random televised times primarily on Saturdays.
And levearge the SUM/USSF/MLS relationship and insist that US Open Cup gets a match of the week as well. Maybe even say “If you want the US MNT you must put MLS on a station with greater reach once a month” FSC = Fox, ESPN2 = ABC, Vs = NBC.
I am not a Supporter | I am not a Fan | I am a Sounder
Sounder At Heart
by Dave Clark on Aug 21, 2010 11:08 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs

by 
















