Charter Flights and Class Warfare

[Midas Mulligan]

I wonder how well-sourced this is beyond the charter flight thing or if it's more of a "this makes sense" piece of speculation.

https://www.fourfourtwo.com/us/features/mls-next-cba-negotiations-2020-charter-flights-travel

There is currently a tug-of-war, of sorts, occurring behind the scenes in MLS. Some ownership groups are ready to spend more believing the league is primed for growth, and further investment will only accelerate that growth. Other ownership groups are happy to limit their investment, either because they can operate at a profit by doing so or because their resources are more limited than some of the billionaire ownership groups that have come into MLS in recent expansion.
Read more at https://www.fourfourtwo.com/us/feat...20-charter-flights-travel#33vFjB0B4kIKAEVK.99

 

[NYCFC_JD]

I wonder how well-sourced this is beyond the charter flight thing or if it's more of a "this makes sense" piece of speculation.

https://www.fourfourtwo.com/us/features/mls-next-cba-negotiations-2020-charter-flights-travel

That's extremely interesting. I imagined that the rift must be growing amongst the "have" and the "have-not" owners, so interesting to see that speculated about in the media now. I think it's great... increased spending on player salaries and on things like charter flights would be amazing. You hear players, particularly star players, complain about the travel and the flights all the time. It's one of the few things that makes MLS still look "minor league" to outsiders. And I imagine it's been at least A factor in at least a few players deciding not to come to or consider MLS.

The league has controlled spending for a long time, and it should still control it to some extent (some parity is definitely good), but the increases in the last CBA were a joke. The question seems to be when, not if, some of the old owners decide to get out, and the bigger question will be whether there are interested buyers. The current line of groups looking to pay the expansion bid price seems to indicate that there will be.

 

[EganSoccerWords]

That's extremely interesting. I imagined that the rift must be growing amongst the "have" and the "have-not" owners, so interesting to see that speculated about in the media now. I think it's great... increased spending on player salaries and on things like charter flights would be amazing. You hear players, particularly star players, complain about the travel and the flights all the time. It's one of the few things that makes MLS still look "minor league" to outsiders. And I imagine it's been at least A factor in at least a few players deciding not to come to or consider MLS.

The league has controlled spending for a long time, and it should still control it to some extent (some parity is definitely good), but the increases in the last CBA were a joke. The question seems to be when, not if, some of the old owners decide to get out, and the bigger question will be whether there are interested buyers. The current line of groups looking to pay the expansion bid price seems to indicate that there will be.

I don't think "have" and have-not" is the correct terminology. I think for the most part nearly every single team in this league is owned by a billionaire. People like Kraft and Kroenke don't really care about the sporting success of their teams or the league. They are already turning a profit and will want the league to be as thrifty as possible.

 

[NYCFC_JD]

I don't think "have" and have-not" is the correct terminology. I think for the most part nearly every single team in this league is owned by a billionaire. People like Kraft and Kroenke don't really care about the sporting success of their teams or the league. They are already turning a profit and will want the league to be as thrifty as possible.

Haha I definitely had that same thought after posting. Billionaire's definitely are all in the "have" category. More like the "care and want to spend" vs. the "using this to give the Patriots more revenue and don't want to spend" (just to keep it broad and not call out anyone in particular)

 

[SanBartG]

I don't think "have" and have-not" is the correct terminology. I think for the most part nearly every single team in this league is owned by a billionaire. People like Kraft and Kroenke don't really care about the sporting success of their teams or the league. They are already turning a profit and will want the league to be as thrifty as possible.

Except that successful teams tend to make a larger profit than unsuccessful teams.

 

[hatt91]

Could be the start of a rift that could enhance the promotion/relegation debate. The 'have's' that want to spend spend spend could be the top league. And the others who just want to bounce along with a little profit could split into a lower tier division

 

[EganSoccerWords]

Except that successful teams tend to make a larger profit than unsuccessful teams.

That's just not true for MLS for the way the league is set up. NYCFC and Toronto are firmly in the red because of spending on DP salaries.

 

[SanBartG]

That's just not true for MLS for the way the league is set up. NYCFC and Toronto are firmly in the red because of spending on DP salaries.

That's a fair point although they are spending that much on DP salaries in part because they do care about the sporting success of their club. Otherwise, if you were right, they would be "thriftier" with DP salaries. So in a way, you proved my point.

 

[EganSoccerWords]

That's a fair point although they are spending that much on DP salaries in part because they do care about the sporting success of their club. Otherwise, if you were right, they would be "thriftier" with DP salaries. So in a way, you proved my point.

 

[SanBartG]

they are spending the money to be successful with the expectation they will make more money. If they believed thrift was the only way to make a profit, they wouldn't go into the Red in the short term by spending a lot.

 

[EganSoccerWords]

they are spending the money to be successful with the expectation they will make more money. If they believed thrift was the only way to make a profit, they wouldn't go into the Red in the short term by spending a lot.

Tickets, concessions, local sponsorships are the only local revenue streams that teams control.

Everything else is controlled by the league. The big money things like the TV contract and Addidas money are controlled by the league. NYCFC and TFC are not spending 15+ million on DPs because of they think they will profit tremendously more from those local things. It's the big money that's going to grow as the game grows in the future. Guess what Kraft and Kroenke are going to get the same piece of that big money pie riding the big spender's coattails, while still making millions in profit every year as the competitive teams are in the red and banking on future value.

 

[Midas Mulligan]

Guess what Kraft and Kroenke are going to get the same piece of that big money pie riding the big spender's coattails, while still making millions in profit every year as the competitive teams are in the red and banking on future value.

You think? There's no reason that ownership rights have to be equal, nor does profit distribution have to reflect ownership share inside an LLC.

 

[EganSoccerWords]

You think? There's no reason that ownership rights have to be equal, nor does profit distribution have to reflect ownership share inside an LLC.

Competitive balance is the MO of this league. MLS business model is the NFL on steroids.

 

[Keith Putnam]

On a recent episode of the Total Soccer Show, Matt Doyle put forth his opinion that "parity" is either over or about to be over in MLS. It's an interesting listen.

 

[LionNYC]

On a recent episode of the Total Soccer Show, Matt Doyle put forth his opinion that "parity" is either over or about to be over in MLS. It's an interesting listen.

FULL DP ROSTER! WOO!

 

[Fantazma]

Could be the start of a rift that could enhance the promotion/relegation debate. The 'have's' that want to spend spend spend could be the top league. And the others who just want to bounce along with a little profit could split into a lower tier division

MLS
USL
USL D3

but seriouly.....this tidbit plus that "lawsuit" are gonna have to bring some conversation. i guess interesting times coming up for the club structure here, there is allegedly some lower/ amateur league massive restructuring happening for 2018

 

[sbrylski]

there is allegedly some lower/ amateur league massive restructuring happening for 2018

Can you provide any links to discussion on this, even if just rumors?

The things I've read about are obviously the NISA launch in 2018 (teams to be announced as soon as next week), USL D3 in 2019, CPL in 2018/2019, and the NPSL potentially moving to a full season schedule. Are there other wheels in motion?

 

[sbrylski]

Could be the start of a rift that could enhance the promotion/relegation debate. The 'have's' that want to spend spend spend could be the top league. And the others who just want to bounce along with a little profit could split into a lower tier division

Pro/rel will never happen from top down. It's self-relegation and makes no sense. Even the NASL was/is mainly about promotion, not relegation. Promotion as a means to move to D1, and promotion from lower league as a means to fill out the D2 tier.

I'm not a pro/rel advocate, but if I were, I would put all my chips in the NISA. That league is doing it right by starting a professional league with the lowest possible financial requirements (currently D3), organizing regionally, and making pro/rel part of their mission statement.

You don't build a pyramid top down or middle out, you start at the base. It could actually be a good thing for the NASL to fail and a couple of teams drop to NISA to give that league an early boost.

To USL: Indy Eleven, Jacksonville Armada, North Carolina FC
To NISA: New York Cosmos, San Francisco Deltas, California United, San Diego
To CPL: FC Edmonton
Fold: Puerto Rico FC, Miami FC?

 

[Fantazma]

Can you provide any links to discussion on this, even if just rumors?

The things I've read about are obviously the NISA launch in 2018 (teams to be announced as soon as next week), USL D3 in 2019, CPL in 2018/2019, and the NPSL potentially moving to a full season schedule. Are there other wheels in motion?

This is coming from the president of USASA ( who over see all amateur leagues from PDL/ NPSL and below) amateur divisions.

https://twitter.com/x/status/899937007257911296

So from what i have gathered NISA will be a "D3" type league starting with 8 teams and i think 24 was the target (I forget what the site said) so in theory USASA will no be involved since D3 is under US soccer since its a "pro" league. i think they want pro/rel with NASL but i think he said it will take a few years of NISA existence in order to implement it etc.

USL is doing their own thing too....in 2019. i think in theory you can have two 3rd divisions ( at least i dont mind) but i do think something has to happen in D2 having only one league. but well see.

NPSL is part of the tweet i showed above....complete restructuring is supposed to happen, but i dont know how deep will it go....there are other amateur leagues i know about that are regional but at same time there are others like UPSL that also wants to be national etc. so will be interesting to see what the restrucuring consist of. October will be the month when they reveal plans or i think is up for approval of USASA. I think i read he wanted a "Div 4-6" for amateur teams

CPL is its own Canadian thing...i think its good anyway since it seems like a serious push for a D1 league there. i think some CFL owners are involved as well.

 

[Rimil]

Except that successful teams tend to make a larger profit than unsuccessful teams.

A sentence like that is one that pops up in water cooler talk when your not really going too deep into a subject and your coworker say something that on the surface sounds correct and you just give a weak 'yeah' in agreement and moves on. Then when you get back to your desk and you begin to dissect the conversation you just had and you realize, wow, there is no way that statement could encompass all aspects of a the topic; I need to find my co-worker and explain to him that what he just said was a gross oversimplification likely based on anecdotal evidence. And when you do explain to him that there are complex, nuanced situations which more often then not supersede his folksy truism, he says, this is why everyone in our office hates you.

that said, here I go:

If winning meant more profit, why doesn't every team just aim to win? Because actively aiming to win cost money. Spending more money, means making less profit. Good players cost more to buy and cost more in salary. So you probably say to yourself, well let me just scout players before their talent is noticed and they get expensive. To that I say, you're not the only one that had this idea. Your competing with other teams scouts. So either you need better scouts (read: more money) or you need to be lucky (read: out of your control). So winning is either out of your control, or cost money. If those are your options how does winning mean more profit? I suppose you assume it comes from prizes and merchandise sales from being labeled a winner. But if there is even 1 marginal dollar to be made by winning rather then not winning wouldn't you spend it on something to help you win? I mean if you want to win you would, or else your competition will (especially since your costs are sunk so not winning now means no prize which really hurts). But what if your competition is a sovereign wealth fund that doesn't care about marginal cost but rather treats the whole thing as cross advertising and good will expenses for the nation (read: Qatar). How do you compete with someone who is willing to go into the red to win? What if there is more then one of these guys in your league? It becomes an arms race where the top teams are spending to win for the sake of winning. How is this more profitable then hanging around spending near league minimum, collecting a little merchandise money occasionally but bringing in a lot of TV money? Little work to stay relevant, with a chance to catch lighting in a bottle à la Leicester (or almost the Mets). Sounds like a business model that makes a good profit most years, with a cheap up side call attached.