You guys being n00bz and him agreeing with you aren't mutually exclusive 
Mls CBA 2015 Thread
- Thread starter franchise646
- Start date
As a fan, I want the best soccer in the US and the best USMNT. I don't see how the MLS status quo helps either goal. It gives us decent soccer and decent USMNT players, but isn't the goal to be better than that?
I appreciate what these early owners have done, but time is coming for a change. Either MLS stays small potatoes or they make changes to improve. TV ratings will not increase with the current model. You have a solid base of fans who come to games. The gate is not the problem, but if you want casual fans to tune in and buy your merch you need to give them a reason... i.e. world class players - lots of them - and in their prime. It's great that RSL is successful locally, but no one outside of Utah is going to go out of their way to watch them on TV or buy their jersey unless they have star power. MLS needs to open up if they are honest about being a top league.
I am not going to worry about billionaires losing money. If they have issues with losing money than this is probably is not for them. I am sure they took a lot of risks to get where they are professionally, but for some reason sports is suppose to be "safe". Everyone in the soccer world loses money to earn money/prestige/cups, but MLS tries to immune these 20 owners from risk. I like how people are all pro-capitalism until it comes to sport.
Rather be a noob than support the status quo.
I appreciate what these early owners have done, but time is coming for a change. Either MLS stays small potatoes or they make changes to improve. TV ratings will not increase with the current model. You have a solid base of fans who come to games. The gate is not the problem, but if you want casual fans to tune in and buy your merch you need to give them a reason... i.e. world class players - lots of them - and in their prime. It's great that RSL is successful locally, but no one outside of Utah is going to go out of their way to watch them on TV or buy their jersey unless they have star power. MLS needs to open up if they are honest about being a top league.
I am not going to worry about billionaires losing money. If they have issues with losing money than this is probably is not for them. I am sure they took a lot of risks to get where they are professionally, but for some reason sports is suppose to be "safe". Everyone in the soccer world loses money to earn money/prestige/cups, but MLS tries to immune these 20 owners from risk. I like how people are all pro-capitalism until it comes to sport.
Rather be a noob than support the status quo.
Him saying is what got him in trouble, he should have kept his mouth shut "I can't talking about it".
But that's the point, if billionaires weren't willing to lose all that money, there wouldn't be any fantasy NASL 2.0 around now leading the charge. There would be no MLS. American pro soccer would be in the dumps, non-existent and nothing for us to argue about on forums.
I think too many people, not just on here, think that some kind of natural evolution would have given us some great pro league in 2015. It's taken 20 years and millions and millions were blown to get to this point.
Do I think players should get more, sure. But if you were an owner and you've been bleeding on your investment for 10+ years only to recently make a little profit (like expansion fees, TV deals); do you think the first thing you do is blow up your safety system and start paying players much much more? (which by the way, the first NASL died because of player salary wars, thanks for the legacy Cosmos). Of course you wouldn't, you would slowly change things.
By the way, the players union has never NEVER asked for the single entity structure to change nor have they asked an absorbent amount of salary increases. The big problem is free agency. So apparently we are making up more issues than actually in play.
This is a good take and all, but from the owners point of view, an investment of tens or hundreds of million dollars must necessarily give a pretty nice return. You don't get that rich by being careless, you do it by being calculated. The fact that there is such a risk that the league collapses or no money is made, a risk you recognize, means their expected return must be even higher.
If the MLS model doesn't lower risk or increase profits, investments will stop coming. There are tons of ways to spend that much money with guaranteed returns or risky high yield returns. The owners are so often painted as villains, but they are just playing the game, anyone else would do the same in their shoes.
If he hadn't said a thing we wouldn't know what the owners were thinking. Remains to be seen if that hurt or helped the players cause. BTW I read the fine was $250k.
I know you know this, but free agency in a salary capped league does not increase overall salary outlay.
Most of what is on twitter says it's 150, but yeah the reason he is in trouble and was told not to talk was because we now have confirmation of what the owners are thinking.
Its the manner in which it was said and the timing. It was insulting to the players and is counter-productive to everyone at this critical time.
Talk like that could cost the league millions if it sends the players over the edge...
This:
The only reason that sounds legit for denying free agency is to prevent the end of single entity. I don't see how player cost matters if you have a cap. It is not like the league forces you to sign DPs. Good teams have competed and won without. If you raise the cap to match other US leagues (from < 30% to about 45-50% of a team's budget) you are taking about a $5m cap. That is not too outlandish. Single entity just protects owners from themselves.
MagnusPax is right that the players are focusing on free agency, so I'll agree to disagree on the rest. But when the league reports losing $100m last year I just have a hard time trusting them.
The only reason that sounds legit for denying free agency is to prevent the end of single entity. I don't see how player cost matters if you have a cap. It is not like the league forces you to sign DPs. Good teams have competed and won without. If you raise the cap to match other US leagues (from < 30% to about 45-50% of a team's budget) you are taking about a $5m cap. That is not too outlandish. Single entity just protects owners from themselves.
MagnusPax is right that the players are focusing on free agency, so I'll agree to disagree on the rest. But when the league reports losing $100m last year I just have a hard time trusting them.
It seems they are worried about one stupid owner killing his team with bad contract decisions, that the league as a whole would then suffer from.
I think Hansen said it well, many of his co-MLS owners, unlike him, own teams in NBA, MLB and NFL. They hate free agency there and hope that it never happens in their new league. Most likely the real heart of the problem.
So maybe he is not meant to be an MLS owner. That's my issue with this whole thing and monopolies in general. MLS has created an artificial environment where there is no incentive to be better. I want MLS to be more than a 4th teir league and the owners should want that too.
I am not saying do this over night, but no one can think of a 5-10 year blueprint to take the next step that is going to come anyways?
Didn't I agree not to get into this?
So if the issue is not cost (since there is a salary cap) what do you think the real reason they don't want free agency? They just really want to be in full control of where the players play? This is the part I can't answer.
Similar threads
