Drat this little league
By Ben Knight
I am so tired of “understanding” Major League Soccer.
All the blessed ins and outs of the league’s financial life-support system. Allocation money, discovery claims, low salary cap and young players who make less money than I do. (And, lately, I don’t.)
Yes, it’s all done a lovely job of keeping Our Little League alive in the bad-old economy. No, players have no guarantees in their contracts, any paycheque can be their last, and if they do get cut mid-season, no other team will sign them.
“It’s the only way it can be,” thunder the league’s defender-protectors, who can’t wait for a season when all sixteen clubs finish within a game of .500. How exciting will that be?
If that’s what you want, BigSoccer, why not save a ton of travel money, put sixteen logos in a bingo bin and draw your champion at random? Then the fans can all spend their ticket and travel money on booze and gummy bears, and no one will have to pay the players a thin, blessed dime!
I know, I know. Be happy that we have a league at all. I am. But I wanted so much more from the current CBA negotiations. I actually like the idea of salary caps in soccer. Just not with such stiflingly low ceilings.
Economy, economy, right, right, the economy.
My highest wish for MLS players, as the contract talks crest the cliff, is that they not sign a new deal. Leave the status quo and see what happens in another year. If you don’t feel better about things then, defer it again a year from now. Do anything possible not to sign a multi-year straitjacket until things brighten up economically.
I know, again … what difference does it make? A stunt like that is going to take so many years, might as well sign the three-year deal and at least have labour peace. Except you won’t, really, and I hate to see current framework “endorsed” for another three seasons.
If this league can’t offer up any way at all to increase the spread between the best and worst teams – a little, not a lot! – they might as well sign a huge advertising deal with an artificial sweetener company, and sew packets of Splenda on to everybody’s shirts.
I want a real soccer league, not one that just cleverly survives at the cost of real competition. The only way to guarantee that every game in October will be meaningful is to rig the whole deal so that nothing means anything.
Best hope now is that MLS annoys enough of its own teams past the point of endurance, and some of the ownership groups start assessing their options.
The Vancouver Whitecaps were made some promises about youth development and the signing of academy players. Doesn’t sound now like they’re going to get anything near what they wanted. Given how important that issue is to them – and to the future of Canadian soccer in general – it’s no wonder there are folks in their front office regretting the decision to move up to the “show.”
I know this column is way too premature. It’s born of frustration, and that’s rarely enough to overcome a snarling wall of facts. I just refuse to accept that the MLS model is the best that American/Canadian pro soccer can ever achieve. MLS is getting way too comfortable, and their slightly gilded little cage needs a good rattle.
For now, I hope the players don’t sign anything.
(And I’m off to see how many times the word “hippie” shows up on the BigSoccer message boards.)
Onward!
February 26th, 2010 at 9:34 am
Ben, the 2009 point ratio from first (Columbus, 49) to last (New York, 21) was 2.33. That is, the best team was more than twice as good as the worst team. How much more disparity to you want? Yes, there was a tight bundle in the middle. It made for exciting playoff races. And that bundle will spread out as the number of teams increases. Give it time and view it as a positive. I’d much rather than parity than the EPL.
February 26th, 2010 at 9:40 am
Well, most of that was the Pop Can sucking galactically, which you can still do even under a tight salary cap.
February 26th, 2010 at 10:43 am
I understand the importance of keeping the Green Bay’s alive and well, to an extent, but this salary cap level is an excuse for the big boys to make absurd amounts of money. MLSE is sitting on a gold mine. I imagine that BMO shirt deal is coming up soon. Tough economy and all, blah, blah, but I imagine MLSE more than doubles what they made the last time around. At some point, fans have to be able to demand more for their dollar. Kansas City fans get what they pay for, but the 16 000 season ticket holders in Toronto should have some clout and MLSE should be able to spend. They do of course, on infrastructure, management etc, but wouldn’t it be nice if they could actually spend profit on their team. You know, the soccer players.
February 26th, 2010 at 11:22 am
You may be interested in subscribing to my newsletter this morning. It might be relevant to your interests.
-FS
February 26th, 2010 at 1:04 pm
msaunde,
Ignored in all this is the fact that at least half the teams in the league are still losing money. Let’s first find a way to ensure the survival of those teams and then worry about letting the “haves” spend a bit more.
February 26th, 2010 at 1:15 pm
Just throwing it out there but can Vancouver get a refund? Seriously? They haven’t entered anything yet. They don’t have a SSS that is going to break ground. They are losing the thing that is most important to them. Why not say… “MLS, it’s been nice but on second thought we’d like our $35 million back”.
February 26th, 2010 at 1:28 pm
Fake Sigi;
Regarding your advert:
I don’t know that anyone has suggested MLS needs to “subsidize” the Canadian clubs in any way. In fact, as the Canadian club (soon to be clubs) generates amongst the highest revenues in the league and some of that revenue is shared, the opposite conclusion might be more accurate.
To the point raised in your blog, the notion that permitting higher spending is a form of ’subsidy’ to Canadian clubs presents a very, very suspect definition of the term. A higher MLS salary cap would permit US clubs to bring back their expensive international stars as well, so I think you are taking a very slanted view of this issue - or perhaps just trying to gain traction for your blog through this type of false assertion. I note that you did not mention MLS’s decision to permit LAG what amounts to a second DP when discussing special rules. Perhaps this was just an oversight?
Canadian fans (and clubs) do not want anything but an opportunity to compete. We understand that our pool of players is much shallower than the US’s. That is our problem to resolve.
It is MLS that has chosen to expand to Canada voluntarily. There has never been any pressure (political or otherwise) to “include” our clubs in the league. This was a choice MLS made based solely on business reasons. As the financial success of TFC shows, this was not an error on their part, nor in any way an attempt at ’social engineering’.
There are rule changes that would help everyone in MLS, and those are the changes we should be seeking. The goal for everyone is to make the league’s on pitch product better (which is what will ultimately produce growth in support, not rigid cost control), not protect anyone’s special interest.
February 26th, 2010 at 1:46 pm
John,
There is a certain argument to be made that MLS currently gets a greater benefit from the ticket money TFC brings in than it does from other clubs. I’ll be honest, I don’t know enough about the financials to argue that issue either way.
I didn’t intentionally leave out the LA issue, but I’ve spoken before about how the MLS central office will in fact tilt the playing field for teams that it feels need help. There have been a number of instances of LA and New York getting “unfair” treatment over the years. By no mean is it exclusive to Toronto.
As for the question of a subsidy, I’m not trying to be misleading. I recognize a lot people won’t agree with me on that question. But in a league like MLS, where the revenue pie is of a certain finite size, any redistribution of outlay is going to take away from something else that could just as well use that money. Perhaps I’m not articulating that point as well as I could, but cf. the discussion on how MLS free agency would rob money from players on the lower end of the salary scale.
Not sure where you’re getting the implication that there was pressure to include TFC in MLS - certainly not a point I was working to make.
As for certain changes being beneficial to MLS, I think we’ll have to agree to disagree.
-FS
February 26th, 2010 at 1:52 pm
Well Well Well, there is a real blog war looming here, I LOVE IT!!
Fake Sigi is just stirring up crap, well written crap, but still crap.
Back to Ben’s post,
I understand the frustration (although I’m not a TFC fan) but don’t you think you’re asking to much to soon Ben? This is going to take along time, and when the MLS finally opens the flood gates of cash, TFC will be right there, and all that pent up frustration will pay off, literally!
side note and back to Fake Sigi,
Pre Italia 90 US Soccer had not a leg to stand on… this cannot be forgotten!
I mean US Soccer can thank the NFL for USA 94 for petes sake cause the tourney would have never gone there if not for the stadiums.
The fact that the MLS wants Canadian Teams in the league is an important one, one that tells me that the MLS ultimately understands that the league can only be a North American league and nothing else. This may or may not mean that Vancouver will loose some of its grip on its own Academy, maybe its a sacrifice VFC is willing to concede in the face of MLS success, I don’t know.
Canadian soccer will improve with the MLS, we will get the injection of millions when we qualify for our next world cup, and we will have the MLS to thank for that in all its “mundane glory”
February 26th, 2010 at 2:06 pm
Fake Sigi, thanks for writing in. Your thoughts are always welcome here.
Before this goes too far, I am not advocating any kind of special treatment for Canadian teams. I just want a chance for teams to spend more of their own money if they choose to. Salt Lake or TFC — it doesn’t matter to me.
February 26th, 2010 at 2:34 pm
As I mentioned to Cris (I think) back on my blog, IMHO, 1984 was much more important than 1990, although 1990 was an important step.
Ben,
I understand what you are saying. As for the special treatment thing, I really need to post a clarification, because I think I’m being a little misunderstood on that point. MLS is already notorious for tilting the playing field one way or another for whatever reason. If TFC gets more international spots or more allocation cash for a variety of reasons, it is what it is.
-FS
February 26th, 2010 at 3:19 pm
Fair comment, FS, but is anyone suggesting that TFC should get such treatment (Int’l spots or allocation cash)? If so, I haven’t heard about it.
If MLS wants to do something to ‘liberalize’ the rules ok, but I wouldn’t advocate giving any individual teams special rules. Perhaps a case could be made for considering all “north american” internationals as domestic players for MLS clubs… doing so would clearly benefit the Canadian teams, but would also allow the US clubs who have Canadians on their roster to use them without using an Int’l slot. I’m not going to argue that such a scheme wouldn’t benefit Canada’s sides more than America’s, but it at least is something that could be applied to all teams equally.
Oh, btw, I didn’t intend to suggest that you had said “MLS was pressured” into accepting TFC. Generally speaking, it’s impossible to go more than 2 posts on a “MLS in Canada” thread before that topic comes up… if I was unintentionally channelling Bill Archer at you, my apols…
February 26th, 2010 at 3:35 pm
I know this post was born out of frustration, but as a Timbers fan I sort of have a different perspective. One of the reasons the Timbers moving into MLS was so important for us is given the geographical dilemma, it ensured our future because MLS’ economic model is stable, and we are in a league with our rivals again. (Yeah, yeah, the Timbers are technically a “new team” next year, but I’m a Timbers fan, not a MLS fan.) We could draw 10,000 people a game, but when the closest team in your league is Minnesota, with no guarantee that team will be stable year in and year out, MLS is huge for us in that regard.
Now, what does that have to do with what you’ve written? Well, while we’re moving into some happy stable closed league, there is still a difference in how much teams are spending - and Toronto has put a lot of money (relatively) into payroll with poor results so far. But Toronto is only on their fourth season. Seattle are on their second. Houston are in their fifth season (/technically/ an expansion club, though everyone knows that’s not true). Salt Lake are in their sixth. Those four teams are doing well off the field, and if you take out Toronto, on the field too, even if Houston doesn’t have their own stadium yet.
What I’ve been implying is that the more successful franchises are still very young, and while it’s legitimate to hope for a sea change in the league’s economic model, that will happen over the course of years, not instantaneously just because the CBA went up. 2011 will be the first season in the league’s history where less than half the teams make the playoffs, for instance, and that will only serve to increase competition - for instance, there were more draws last year because 1) there were more teams competing for fewer playoff spots 2) a lot of teams tied the game up late in order to salvage draws 3) the league as it stands still has a lot of parity which allowed this to happen, even if LA and NY and Toronto spend more than, say, RSL. As more teams compete for fewer spots, more games will be meaningful - last year was particularly fun, even if a “team with a losing record” finished on the magic 8th spot. This will do more for competition than a salary cap raise at a time where the league is trying to figure out how to capture the excitement of a Seattle in San Jose or Kansas City or Colorado - it’s an interesting time for the league, and while not everything is perfect, RIGHT NOW, the league needs an economic model which gives San Jose a chance to make money even if the expense is neutering the teams with the most money to spend. I believe that’s going to change, though, especially once the league stops expanding, and especially if and when the majority of the franchises in the league become profitable. (I don’t know what the list is right now, but it’s small, and I think Seattle and Toronto are the two clubs on there for sure - LA and RSL are probably on there too, while Houston and Dallas also have a shot to be on there).
In a nutshell: MLS is quirky; it’s a hell of a lot better than playing in the USL/NASL; you have a right to be frustrated; but be patient, good things will happen.
February 26th, 2010 at 3:36 pm
I think it would probably be impossible for TFC to compete in MLS without those additional international/US slots.
In regard to the US/Canadian exchange, I believe that is prevented by US labor law.
-FS
February 26th, 2010 at 6:29 pm
So Ben, you’re whole argument here is “raise the cap”?? Is that what I’m reading?
You’re such a smart guy!!!
I say raise the cap too.. but ensure it’s equal for everyone.. that is all. Of course we have no clue what would be the right cap ceiling. That’s up to MLS to decide since none of us really knows the revenues of the league. And the percentage of revenue that the cap should be set at is a subjective interpretation anyways.
I dunno what # the cap should be. $5 million? $10 million? I’m just pulling these numbers out of my butt… it’s not based on any reality. I’m not even sure if the Eurosnobs would care about MLS if the cap was $10 million… not even sure what the quality level would be like at $10 million. Better than now, I’m sure… but significantly better? Who knows? It’s like throwing money into a black hole.
February 26th, 2010 at 6:36 pm
No, my argument is to make it unequal for everyone.
Sure, it would be nice to have a higher cap, but giving each a club a chance to spend some of its own money on two designated players would work a whole lot better.
You just got here, didn’t you?
February 26th, 2010 at 10:14 pm
Sigi:
Not sure if the “US/Canadian exchange” comment was directed at me or not. If so, there would be no change as far as immigration is concerned. I’m only talking about MLS’ designation of the players, and since the US clubs already have Canadians on them, there is no problem in continuing the practise as far as US law is concerned.
Ben:
How unequal? I’ve said before that I don’t think the cap should be so low that everyone can reach it. But I do think that there has to be some link between what the “rich” can pay and what the poor can afford. Do you have any thoughts on what a reasonable exemption might be? $1M, $2M?
My only concern w that is that the extra money used would by design have to be spent on one player. We know from present DP experience that adding one high wage player doesn’t make you a winner necessarily. It also tends to unhinge the clubhouse a bit, I’m told, when you have somebody on $3.5M and other starters dining exclusively at BK. All leagues have salary disparities, of course, but perhaps not in MLS’ range of multiples.
But yes, they have to do ’something’… like sign a CBA as a first step.
February 27th, 2010 at 7:45 am
FS, I just feel that if each team had the right to invest its own funds on two cap-free DPs, some would and some wouldn’t, and the league would become a lot more interesting overnight.
February 27th, 2010 at 9:32 am
John,
Yes, it was directed at you, and I remember reading somewhere that the way MLS designates its players (canadians are domestic for TFC, but international for all other clubs) has something to do with US trade law. I could be wrong, I’ll look up the reference if no one else has time to find it.
Ben,
I won’t belabor the point of parity right now since I’m aware we’re of different minds. But how do you feel about the argument that free agency or more DPs would put downward salary pressure on the non-elite players, potentially squeezing talent out of the league? By excluding DPs from the salary cap, I think you are trying to avoid that sort of thing. But no matter how you slice it, there’s a finite pie of resources to distribute in MLS, and when you spend in one area you’re depriving another. Doesn’t matter if not every team is at the table.
The owners need to do a cost benefit analysis. Would the expense to the league of two uncapped DPs per team in both money (which would be significant, maybe 50% or more of what the owners are spending on salary now) and parity be worth it for making the league more interesting, which would in theory driving higher revenues? And could that money be better spent elsewhere (reserve teams/higher salary cap/dev. salaries/insert your pet hobby horse here)?
Let’s set aside for a moment the fact that MLS would have to pay at least part of the DP salary due to single entity. Maybe that money wouldn’t be capped, but I think the union would have something to say about that.
Personally, I’m not convinced it makes sense to double down on a roster exception that was crafted for a very specific purpose, and to date has only shown mixed results at the gate and on the field.
-FS
February 27th, 2010 at 10:33 am
2 DP’s which wouldn’t affect the cap hit, and could justifiably bring in some merch sales, appearance fees monies for the operator (club) is a pretty solid idea. I’m not really seeing much in the way of an effective argument against it. Here, anyway…
February 27th, 2010 at 11:07 am
Great points, FS, but it’s the non-effectiveness of the single DP that I specifically want to address. One player does not really change a team, but two might.
The reason I want no cap hit is to let each individual team itself decide what it wants to do here. Some would spend money on two players. Others would not. Some of the signings would be helpful. Others wouldn’t.
But just the ways each individual franchise approaches the DP issue would create colour and diversity in what, to me — sorry — is still a very bland little soccer league.
I want to respect the cap and contain overall salary inflation. But I also want different teams to have different approaches.
It’s already sort of happening — Becks-Landon, DeRo DeG — howzabout just opening the doors … a little?
And — hey — thanks for your thorough, thoughtful input. If you’re ever in Toronto, I can preserve your anonymity if you let me buy you a beer.
March 1st, 2010 at 8:29 am
Ben,
Many thanks for the offer and the discussion. This morning I posted up a followup where I made sure to note your and Duane’s responses to my characterization of your support for Canadian subsidization. Of course I put my own spin on it, but I felt it was only fair that I bring up your points since it was so obvious that all the responses I got said I was wrong on that issue.
-FS
March 1st, 2010 at 9:33 am
[...] Full Story Categories: Canadian Game, Clubs, Contributors, MLS, Toronto FC No Comments » [...]
March 4th, 2010 at 11:32 am
I’d like to add that the in my opinion after three seasons of watching very mediocre soccer in Toronto that the TFC front office must be wondering how to sustain the level of interest in TFC and the league. I get the feeling that clubs who come here and get bigger buzz have more proximity to location than the players they bring with them eg TFC vs NY always has a bigger buzz simply because the Red bulls have NY in their name. TFC vs RSL which is a better game has no cache. I have a better understanding about MLS and TFC than most average MLS followers cause I troll through big soccer and other sites religiously but I feel that the general support is not getting involved in the league as much as they could. I’d bet at least 50% of TFC season ticket holders couldn’t tell you who won MLS cup last season let alone the score in the game.
This league, IMO, is at a very crucial tipping point. I’ve said that the purse strings need to be loosened, this does not preclude and undisciplined approach across the board table of every MLS team to suddenly increase the spending. I would like to see an effect where the current haves (Toronto, Seattle, LA , Ny and maybe a few others) can increase their spend and watch as those franchises start to take a grip on the league. This will light a fire under current owners like Kraft who apparently like to keep their little side project ticking over but have no apparent desire for wholesale change. If they don;t respond then maybe they should consider their options. Joe Roth, I’m pretty sure, is pulling his hair out over this league. As long as it’s substantially controlled, I don’t really see a problem.
I’m with Ben as well, I don’t want to see EPL2 over here but I would like to see bigger clubs with a penchant for financial risk take a chance at a little bump in their player quality. The global market for players is such that MLS is probably not even deemed an option for average players from any country. I think that TFC has ambitions way beyond what they can successfully attain under the current single entity environment. I do respect though, the hsitory and progress that this business model has attained.