If they are fans of an original club they are likely reluctant to loosen the restrictions. They typically view suggestions that the cap should be raised as an affront to their sensibilities as a MLS fan. Although they never say it directly, there seems to be a fear that the league, or the team they support, could be at risk of failure if the cap is loosened too much.
Fans of newer teams, on the other hand, are frustrated by the restrictions that are placed on their clubs and the league as a whole. Although it's understood that the restriction allowed the league to grow and survive, they feel that the time has come to think a little bit bigger.
Unfortunately, the debate has often become as much about flinging insults at those that disagree with you than it has been about actually talking about the issue. Whether it's my buddy Bill or his
OK, maybe that's not entirely fair. The one overriding argument that does consistently come out is simply that the league can't afford to loosen he cap. If you go with a soft cap like Ben Knight and I have been calling for, then the "rich" teams will spend more on middling players which in turn will inflate the market to the point that the "poor" teams can't afford to be much more than glorified USL sides.
From that, it's suggested, fans in those poor markets will start to tune out of the league and it is only a matter of time until everything goes all NASL again.
I understand their fears -- to a point. I just happen to have more confidence in the league's strength. Yes, the economy has dampened the mood for widespread change. The $10 million figure that's out there is likely about $7 million to high. But, it's foolish to outright dismiss the possibility of taking a more progressive approach.
With Portland and Vancouver coming into the league in 2011 and Philly next year the new wave MLS clubs (along with the larger of the original markets) could start gain more power. Now, it's thought that the old guard still has the votes to resist major increases in the cap. But, add those three votes to those thought to want greater flexibility -- Seattle, L.A., Toronto, Houston, New York, DC United and possibly Chicago -- and it's hard to see how the progressives can be held back forever.
And the world, or the league, will not end.
7 comments:
But a higher cap will certainly mean the death of soccer in Anglophone (oh, Francophone too) North America!
Seriously, the key here is moderation. The league can't grow and get better without more money for teams to spend, and that's the bottom line. If you're happy with the way it is, fine; but I'm not satisfied, and I staunchly cling to the belief that a bigger cap will push things forward rather than back.
I still think the luxury tax is the key. It could be set up so payments to the tax go directly to the next year's player salary pool. This would mean that the haves would still be supporting the have nots, but they would also have a shot at beating Pachuca in a meaningful match.
Hey did you notice that MLS is getting stronger during the financial crisis while EVERY other league in the world of sports has suffered?
nobody knows what the right cap number would be, so it's pointless to argue.... pointless to argue that it should even go up. Unless you believe that the finances of the league have no bearing on the question. Cuz nobody actually knows the financial health of the league. Not even Forbes, which estimates things.
I also find it interesting that people want to increase disparity by allowing teams to outspend other teams. I thought sport was about great competition on the field and not buying wins? I always hear people say "what a great competitive team Man U is -- wow, they really crush those minnows! What great competition that is!!" But it's not competition. Man U isn't better than Portsmouth because of some perfect competitive environment where Man U survived as the fittest. Instead, Man U spent more than Portsmouth and created a disparity in quality, not an increase in competitiveness.
MLS actually is one of the most competitive leagues in the world from top to bottom.
If the financial wherewithal exists to raise the cap for all, then do it. But only Garber knows if that's possible, and what's possible.
If MLS ever got to a point (30 years?) where every team had a $50 million cap for all teams, in today's terms that is, MLS would be the greatest league in the world. The quality would be very high, the competition would be nailbiting every game due to parity that already exists.
We'd have the best of both worlds, rather than introducing disparities.
P.S. I only started following MLS in 2007 when TFC arrived. So I'm not an old MLS fan wanting to keep things the old way.
i cant stand bill archer therefore his opinions on anything dont matter to me. Hes the Guy that was going to boycott the USMNT if thru didnt play the US mex game in cowlumbus. What kinda bull SH!t fan is that. Screw him and his abnoxious im smarter than you writing style. This Comming from a galaxy fan
I suggest the 3 priorities for improving the "fan product".
1) Soccer specific stadiums
2) Focus on referee improvement
3) Better on field talent (increase cap?)
anonymous 7:31 states avery thing that needs to be said the cap has to increase gradually but it has to none the less, by having more money not only will more people want to come but the young ones will want to stay, but the draft and cap has to stay to keep the mls compititive having a whole league capable of winning the title is funner to have 3 competing and the rest watching.
Is the MLS a Ponzi scheme? They pull in $80MM in expansion fees but most of the teams are losing money. If not for expansion would the league be able to survive fiancially?
Post a Comment