2018 MLS Roster Rules

[Ulrich]

Here’s the list of regulations:

http://www.mlssoccer.com/league/official-rules/mls-roster-rules-and-regulations

Interesting that there doesn’t appear to be a limit on how much TAM can be used to buy down a Designated Player. Let the rumors heat up that we’re gonna get a “4th” DP this summer (Torres would be a free-transfer).

 

[SoupInNYC]

Here’s the list of regulations:

http://www.mlssoccer.com/league/official-rules/mls-roster-rules-and-regulations

Interesting that there doesn’t appear to be a limit on how much TAM can be used to buy down a Designated Player. Let the rumors heat up that we’re gonna get a “4th” DP this summer (Torres would be a free-transfer).

I'll get working on the tracked changes document comparing back to 2017.

 

[SoupInNYC]

Ok, here we go. prior to the release of the 2018 MLS Roster Rules, I copy/pasted the 2017 Roster Rules to a Word document. Once the 2018 MLS Roster Rules were released, I have incorporated those onto the 2017 document, via tracked changes in Word. Since I cannot upload a Word document here, I have printed to pdf and uploaded to this post.

Items to note:

• First item I want to point out is I'm going to avoid talking about general salary amount increases as those are easy to find and are among the first things sought out.
• This update is chock full of what I'll call administrative and optical updates to get to one set of terminology or to try and be more consistent. The funny thing is, throughout doing this, there are many instances where they are inconsistent with their updates. Examples of items updated are below:
  • Changing the word "team" to "club". Though there are still cases where "team" is used.
  • Updated all dollar amounts to include "US" in front of it (i.e., US$504,375). Though there are still cases where this is not included.
  • Other simple language fixes, making sure "Lamar Hunt" precedes "US Open Cup", removing "AMWAY" prior to "Canadian Championship", etc.
• If a player with a guaranteed contract is waived, all MLS clubs that are interested notify the league and place an offer. In year's past, the club with the highest offer was awarded the player. This year that language has been updated to "player will be awarded based on a number of factors, including but not limited to, which club is willing to absorb the highest salary budget". I take this update to mean that this is no longer who provides the highest bid, but it is now completely up to MLS League decision
• I think we were all aware of this before, but teams now will keep up to 3/4 of transfer fees for players that are not homegrowns, GA players, or have less than 3 years of service after being acquired via MLS SuperDraft. What is interesting here, is they did not address at all the question we had in regards to Jack Harrison. Is he considered as acquired via trade or via SuperDraft? I thought for sure some additional language would be added here to make this more clear.
• Teams now keep 100% of the transfer fees for homegrown players
• Teams now can use $750k of a transfer fee as GAM, up from $650k
• There is no change to the number of international roster spots given to each team (8)
• In the past, teams were awarded $100k of GAM for CCL qualification and an additional $200k of GAM for advancing to the knockout stages of the CCL (this amount was split among all advancing teams).
  • This has now been updated as MLS teams are auto into the knockout stage. All teams that qualify for CCL will now be awarded $140k of GAM. There is no additional amount awarded for advancement
• Last year, TAM could be used to buy down a player down to $150k if they were above the max salary budget charge, but not above $1m (or $1.5m prorated if brought in during Secondary Transfer Window)
  • This year (and dummyrun pointed this out to me on Sunday), they have updated the ceiling amount within the rules to $504,375 (which is exactly what the max salary budget amount is). So it is not clear whether the ceiling has completely vanished, or if this is some mistake in publishing of these rules. Surprise, surprise, this has become more confusing. They also deleted the section on the pro-rated amount for the Secondary Window

Other items I noted that were not changes from last year, but I really didn't take note of until now, digging into this a bit deeper:

• For related party transactions including loans, the salary budget charge is supposed to include both salary paid to the player AND acquisition costs. But then MLS includes a disclaimer that it is still up to the League's discretion. My interpretation of this is we are currently receiving a nice break from the League in regards to Herrera.
• Also, no change from last year, but normally if teams use all 3 DP slots, they have to pay $150k to the league. However, if that third DP slot is used on a Young DP, they no longer have to do so.

Feel free to go through the attached pdf, let me know your thoughts, if you disagree with some of my interpretations, anything I missed, etc.

 

[SoupInNYC]

Additionally, through reading these rules more carefully, I'm still trying to figure out how Atlanta got so much money for Asad going to DC.

• Asad was a discovery signing by Atlanta, there on loan. Since his loan expired, it is not clear based on the rules if he returns to their discovery list or not. If they were to have him on their discovery list, they hold Right of First Refusal, and if they are unable to come to terms there, but another team can, the other team (DC) can offer $50k in GAM to obtain those rights.
• Now, the discovery list may not apply in this scenario since Asad played here last year and may now be considered a "former MLS player". Its hard to tell from the published rules, because they don't address specifically, when a loan expires, but if we are synonymous with "loan" and "contract", then the below would apply:
  • "When a player's contract expires, the player no longer counts against the roster or Salary Budget of the club in question. Subject to the Re-Entry and Free Agency rules, a club retains the Right of First Refusal on the player indefinitely following the expiration of a contract provided attempts were made to re-sign the player."
  • In this case, Asad's loan ("contract") expired and Atlanta made a genuine attempt to resign him (reported amounts of around $300k per year salary offer) so they should maintain their Right of First Refusal
  • The rules also include "For those players on a club's Right of First Refusal list and who were previously on a club's Discovery List, the Discovery Conflict Resolution Process shall apply (i.e., posting of US$50,000 in General Allocation Money)."
  • The way I read this, Asad is on Atlanta's Right of First Refusal list and was previously on teir Discovery List (not sure if I am misinterpreting this), therefore, DC should have to owe Atlanta $50k in GAM (not the $600k combo of GAM/TAM Atlanta is getting)

Now, there appear to be some things left out here, as in specifically how loan expirations are handled, and whether or not Asad previously being on Atlanta's discovery list matters. Or if, once his loan expires, he returns to that list. I'm not surprised this is completely spelled out, because MLS, but I still am not certain that Atlanta receiving all this money appears to be kosher according to the rules in place.

 

[dummyrun]

Last year, TAM could be used to buy down a player down to $150k if they were above the max salary budget charge, but not above $1m (or $1.5m prorated if brought in during Secondary Transfer Window)

• This year (and dummyrun pointed this out to me on Sunday), they have updated the ceiling amount within the rules to $504,375 (which is exactly what the max salary budget amount is). So it is not clear whether the ceiling has completely vanished, or if this is some mistake in publishing of these rules. Surprise, surprise, this has become more confusing. They also deleted the section on the pro-rated amount for the Secondary Window

Yeah, no ceiling is my working guess here. Restricting higher-earning DPs from being bought down never served much of a purpose to begin with, since a team's available TAM already functions as a cap. But I love that the MLS lawyers drafting the roster rules got confused enough by their own bullshit that they accidentally changed the TAM rule to say that the only players who can be bought down are guys who simultaneously are and are not making more than the max budget charge.

It matters what this rule is supposed to say, though. If last year's ceiling has been removed, there's nothing stopping us from buying down Maxi or Medina and spending the Harrison money on a new DP immediately.

 

[mgarbowski]

In the past, teams were awarded $100k of GAM for CCL qualification and an additional $200k of GAM for advancing to the knockout stages of the CCL (this amount was split among all advancing teams).

• This has now been updated as MLS teams are auto into the knockout stage. All teams that qualify for CCL will now be awarded $140k of GAM. There is no additional amount awarded for advancement

Clarification please.

Formerly: Qualifying teams individually received $100k, and advancing teams split $200k. Correct?

New rule: Qualifying teams each individually get $140k and that's that. Correct?

 

[SoupInNYC]

Clarification please.

Formerly: Qualifying teams individually received $100k, and advancing teams split $200k. Correct?

New rule: Qualifying teams each individually get $140k and that's that. Correct?

This is correct.

 

[Fake Jew]

Yeah, no ceiling is my working guess here. Restricting higher-earning DPs from being bought down never served much of a purpose to begin with, since a team's available TAM already functions as a cap. But I love that the MLS lawyers drafting the roster rules got confused enough by their own bullshit that they accidentally changed the TAM rule to say that the only players who can be bought down are guys who simultaneously are and are not making more than the max budget charge.

It matters what this rule is supposed to say, though. If last year's ceiling has been removed, there's nothing stopping us from buying down Maxi or Medina and spending the Harrison money on a new DP immediately.

ZlataNY

 

[dummyrun]

ZlataNY

I say we go all out for a Villa-Zlatan-Torres attack and call them The Expendables.

 

[dummyrun]

Yeah, no ceiling is my working guess here. Restricting higher-earning DPs from being bought down never served much of a purpose to begin with, since a team's available TAM already functions as a cap. But I love that the MLS lawyers drafting the roster rules got confused enough by their own bullshit that they accidentally changed the TAM rule to say that the only players who can be bought down are guys who simultaneously are and are not making more than the max budget charge.

It matters what this rule is supposed to say, though. If last year's ceiling has been removed, there's nothing stopping us from buying down Maxi or Medina and spending the Harrison money on a new DP immediately.

SoupInNYC you'll like this:

I emailed MLS's comms VP about this today, and although he didn't reply, the compensation ceiling was magically fixed this afternoon! It now says "A player must earn more than 2018 Maximum Salary Budget Charge (US$504,375) to qualify for Targeted Allocation Money. The compensation ceiling for such eligible players is set at US$1,504,375 per year."

So there you have it, I guess. You can buy down players whose compensation is up to $1m higher than the max budget charge.

 

[SoupInNYC]

SoupInNYC you'll like this:

I emailed MLS's comms VP about this today, and although he didn't reply, the compensation ceiling was magically fixed this afternoon! It now says "A player must earn more than 2018 Maximum Salary Budget Charge (US$504,375) to qualify for Targeted Allocation Money. The compensation ceiling for such eligible players is set at US$1,504,375 per year."

So there you have it, I guess. You can buy down players whose compensation is up to $1m higher than the max budget charge.

Lol, so they increased the ceiling from last year by $4,375???

 

[dummyrun]

Lol, so they increased the ceiling from last year by $4,375???

No, assuming this is the actual rule, they actually lowered the summer window cap by quite a bit—it used to be $1.5m prorated, so around $3m annually. But the cap outside the summer window was $1m and it was never clear why there was such a wide gap, so I guess they just compromised on this new number? I don't know, sometimes I feel like there's some unpaid college intern making this shit up on the fly and hoping nobody reads it.