Don't ask me why, but I got to thinking in the shower this morning about Major League Soccer's development and how it might be helped or hindered by its structure and financial restrictions. Thankfully, Don Garber's mug didn't enter my thoughts.
Being a bit wet behind the ears in MLS terms - and economically retarded - I don't really know the ins and outs of the league's financial rules, but the basics are enough for this discussion: salary capping and designated players.
In the pub last night, I was chatting about MLS and my little 'soccerball' project with friend and colleague Briggy Smalls, a cynical bloke who spent a year living in New York as Major League Soccer began to grow.
In my opinion, the biggest problem facing MLS is that it is behind the NFL, NBA, NHL and, probably, NASCAR (only joking) in the American consciousness. That's some pretty stiff competition, but shouldn't necessarily impinge on the developing quality of what is still a very young football league.
And yet it's poor quality which Briggy credits with his ability to go six months in the US without seeing a game, and then leaving after 15 minutes when he did. Briggy is an Arsenal supporter.
With Phill Jupitus and Gab Marcotti discussing the European Club Association's whisperings about transfer outlay restrictions tied to a percentage of turnover (essentially salary capping) in this week's The Game podcast, I'm wondering whether clubs being allowed to spend over and above their means might be what pushes a league forward.
Here's the idea: clubs like Manchester United, AC Milan, Barcelona, Real Madrid and so on spend ludicrous money, thereby improving their own quality. Then the next clubs down have to improve too. It's paradoxical, but financial freedom improves the league's quality. But it's absolutely not commercially wise, and it damages competition.
In the MLS, the restrictions, aimed at keeping the league and its franchises afloat and maintaining competition, do not just cap salaries. They cap quality.
So I guess what I'm essentially saying is that if you want competition, all the models to date mean you must trade-off against the quality of your league.
There are probably models out there which enable quality to thrive while maintaining competition. If you know of one, let me know.
Your comments are welcome, as always. How can the MLS improve its quality? Is it worth jettisoning the salary cap or is it more important that, say, Houston Dynamo don't run away with the league year after year? What's the solution?
(Photo: Sports Business Daily)
4 comments:
Fist, unfortunately, NASCAR being ahead of MLS might not be a joke. Stock car racing certainly gets much more coverage from our sports media than MLS.
As for the financial restrictions versus competition question, ask a more difficult one, why don't ya?
It's the central issue around which the entire endeavor revolves. Financial restraint is a MUST for MLS because of the standing of soccer in the U.S., but it's probably the single most frustrating aspect of the league for anyone who wants to see the game grow here (like me). If I thought the league could survive and not end up on NASL Memorial Scrap Heap, I'd vote for no salary cap. Parity (a prominent buzzword in American sports circles) is nice, but it's no guarantee of overall success, and as you point out, it may hurt quality. The problem on this side of the pond is that there is no precedent for the situation MLS finds itself in; the two other big time leagues in this country (NFL and NBA) that have salary caps can afford to because the competition for players from foreign leagues is nil (NFL), or essentially nil (NBA).
I really could ramble on about this for hours, and it will now probably be all I think about for the rest of my day. And it's all your fault.
It's a given that I'll be addressing the MLS cap issue on my blog at some point in the future, so I'm sure you'll get all of my feelings/frustrations more in-depth then.
Granted MLS is 5th or 6th in the pecking order when it comes to sports in North America but when summer time rolls around, the only competition is baseball. Given the rising profile of football/soccer in the US and Canada, I think it's safe to say the horizon looks good for MLS...especially if the continent is awarded another world cup.
You're spot on with your assessment that the league is capping quality with its salary restrictions, but to look at its face doesn't tell the whole story.
Take Carl Robinson for example, he was offered more money in England but opted to stay at Toronto FC for a measly $300000 because the cost of living here (in Canada at least) makes it worthwhile in the long run (cheaper housing, health care, energy, etc). There's also the fact that a lot of latin american and carribbean players come to MLS on the cheap and offer great quality considering the resources.
Also, the cap is due to raise after next season when the players association is up for another collective bargaining agreement with the owners and league. Most speculation I hear of talks of a doubling of the salary cap to near $5mil. That still sounds low but its not so bad given the above examples and the fact that MLS is somewhere between Championship and League One level.
There's nothing wrong with a salary cap, the question is really what the cap should be at. Right now it's about 2.2 or 2.3 million. It goes up slightly each year.
Big thing is that right now the sport still isn't popular enough to warrant a big rise is cap/salaries.
But don't be confused by one of Martin's comments, the salary cap is NOT tied to the players association's arbitration with the league.
Wow, huge comments! You've all made very interesting points, so thanks for enlightening me. Looks like a never-ending debate!
Post a Comment