Wham, TAM, Thank You, Ma'am
- Thread starter sbrylski
- Start date
Why exactly? I don't see any Americans that are all that underpaid. There are quite a few who have gotten more due to TAM, but it's only the ones who deserve it.
Forcing an MLS team to pay Mikey Lopez more just means he'll be in USL.
Also, to someone suggesting $100k min, you think RJ Allen gets a shot if that is a rule? Fuck no. I still don't know if he's worth it.
Frankly, and I only exaggerate slightly, but to hell with ever raising the salary cap. It's stupid to do it. This is a far smarter approach for the foreseeable future.
Last edited:
Been preaching this for forever. You get paid something to play soccer. If it's not enough, fucking walk away.
Guess what? Players didn't strike and no individual player I'm aware of quit to take another job offer. You know why? They don't have that bad of a deal at all.
All of that said, I do think the league should and probably will be forced into a more reasonable approach to free agency. But it will take a while, because as it stands, pretty much everyone gets fairly close to free market price.
Maybe there are some Americans who could make more in the Championship if that were a real option, but it's not MLS's responsibility to overpay due to U.K. work permit laws and their customary overspending.
Last edited:
Charter flights aren't on in prime time. Just leave it up to the team. Problem solved. it has an actual impact for the club, so they bear the costs and benefits.
SUM makes money with TV contracts. TV contracts go up with better product. Better product needs $$. You can bet that some of that expansion money is going towards salaries. The owners are thinking massive long term valuation, not short-term compensation for devalued shares.
Just to answer your question quickly... because a permanent salary cap increase allows teams to buy better players, more depth, increases the quality of play, and increases the global competitiveness of the league. Also, it sets a new base from which future salary cap increases can be made, leading to further improvements in players, depth, quality of play and competitiveness.
Doesn't TAM do all of that, but even moreso because teams can't even be strong armed into overpaying a current player because the rules prevent it?
Sure, but it's temporary. I agree with you that it's certainly a good tool to prevent overcompensating current players that don't necessarily deserve an increase. However, the problem with it being temporary is that teams can't plan for the long term based on TAM. They can't really build a longer term roster with it, because they don't know if more TAM will be introduced in the next season, or the next, or the next. Also, TAM, GAM and all other kinds of Garber bucks, although useful tools while the league is still growing, detract from transparency and accessibility of the league to casual fans, or really any fans that aren't MLS experts.
Kind of a chicken/egg thing here. The reason MLS demands billionaires to be behind their clubs is because they have the capability to make investments in the product to bring those higher TV salaries. The expansion fee's should have no direct impact on that investment. If owners are dependent on expansion revenue in order to grow the quality of play, then the league is in serious trouble.
Look at it a different way like at a casino. Better to play with the house money rather than always going in to your pockets. Sure you can hit the ATM up, but why do it when you can reinvest your winnings?
At what point has allocation money gone down? The cap could be lowered in more or less the same manner. Neither seems likely to happen.
I would argue that it has little impact on the growth of the league, either way. In fact, the unknowns of allocation money just pretty much reflects every signing in other leagues. Maybe a few clubs disclose fees paid and salaries, but it's not a generally held practice. Quite the opposite, from what I can tell.
I mean, I just don't see people turning off the tv because the guy who scored was paid with allocation money. Fans don't really have a right to club financials if they aren't shareholders. No one in MLS is, nor most top flights.
C'mon, this is a throwaway line. This isn't a place to debate economics I suppose, but I feel compelled to state it's not nearly this simple by a long shot. I also didn't say everybody.
Anyway, to give you another reason to pay our athletes more - to inspire more to actually pursue soccer. Even if today's young athletes "make it," they're way better off studying finance or engineering, or a number of other fields. Or using their athletic talents in other sports. Start drawing top athletes off the basketball court and into soccer would be amazing for this sport in the US.
If I were part of the liberal intelligentsia, I would point out that there is a lot of racially coded language here. But I'm not. I would also either exult you for your compassion or condemn your view that sports should hold a slot as a reasonable way to "make it". I honestly don't know which because again, not my thing, as my board handle probably indicates to everyone.
I just wanted to see moral superiority felt like for a minute. And honestly, it did make me want to sniff my own farts for a few seconds. Then, it was just a pervasive dirtiness.
(All of that to say, I think there is likely something to what you're saying. But I don't know how much given the global reach of pretty much every league.)
If I were part of the liberal intelligentsia, I would point out that there is a lot of racially coded language here. But I'm not. I would also either exult you for your compassion or condemn your view that sports should hold a slot as a reasonable way to "make it". I honestly don't know which because again, not my thing, as my board handle probably indicates to everyone.
I just wanted to see moral superiority felt like for a minute. And honestly, it did make me want to sniff my own farts for a few seconds. Then, it was just a pervasive dirtiness.
(All of that to say, I think there is likely something to what you're saying. But I don't know how much given the global reach of pretty much every league.)
Lol, I actually thought about that when I wrote the post. By "made it" I just mean playing sports for money as a professional. And by "basketball" I mean any more popular and richer sport. I know plenty of white guys from the burbs that this applies to who may choose another sport over soccer for the earning potential and popularity.
Really? We have to drop that kind of shit here? Stupid, damaging bullshit labels.If I were part of the liberal intelligentsia, I would point out that there is a lot of racially coded language here. But I'm not. I would also either exult you for your compassion or condemn your view that sports should hold a slot as a reasonable way to "make it". I honestly don't know which because again, not my thing, as my board handle probably indicates to everyone.
I just wanted to see moral superiority felt like for a minute. And honestly, it did make me want to sniff my own farts for a few seconds. Then, it was just a pervasive dirtiness.
(All of that to say, I think there is likely something to what you're saying. But I don't know how much given the global reach of pretty much every league.)
Now should I respond with ...
Well if I were part of the science hating, race bating, nazi alt right that now owns the entire Republican party, I would point out ...
Jesus, this is why I spend time on these boards and not on politics sites.
ETA: Yes, I'm probably over touchy today watching news of a climate change denier being named to
Last edited:
TAM is a focused increase of the salary cap. It is designed to compel the teams to spend the extra money on players 4-7, rather than spreading it around between larger numbers of players farther down the roster.
I instinctively don't like that because I'd rather let the teams decide for themselves how to best spend the money. But, I get why they have the rule - it brings in more highly skilled players, and it prevents the extra money leaking out to players who don't have the option to seek more money in a different league.
I instinctively don't like that because I'd rather let the teams decide for themselves how to best spend the money. But, I get why they have the rule - it brings in more highly skilled players, and it prevents the extra money leaking out to players who don't have the option to seek more money in a different league.
Wasn't trying to start a holy war, just giving him a hard time over the lack of political correctness in his post. I would have been interested to see where that (your "...") went, though.
I don't understand your critique anyway. It was simple economic argument - the higher paying the industry, the more people will desire to enter it, especially when competing with related industries (other sports) paying an order of magnitude more. Add in a high fail rate, there's an even a bigger need to make the eventual payout worth the risk. This is a universal argument that was tailored to soccer v other sports in my earlier post.
You're the one who made it about social justice or something.
This guy did:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ds-luke-mishu-retires/?utm_term=.c29e8275eb8c
62.5k for however long he had left in a sports career wasn't enough. Forgoing developmental years in the business world wasn't worth it to him at that price and it makes sense. He'll likely get the same salary in the business world but by sticking with it he will get hefty pay raises over the years. Soccer was going to flat line till he gets cut at 30, then what was he going to do, take an entry level job with a bunch of 18-20 year olds. Smart move in my opinion.
You could give him an extra 50k-100k a year, but you'd only be teasing him along, making him dependent on the relatively good salary only to have the rug pulled out from under him when he gets an unfortunate injury or just gets old.
Great find. And just like you say, it's best (economically efficient, anyway) for him and society as a whole that he made that decision. The ideal situation is gradually these players are all pushed out or down to USL by the market.
Frankly, I'm of the opinion that if you're 23-25, and in the Mikey Lopez (I think he's probably younger than that age range, but I use him only as an example of someone with below par talent) neighborhood talent-wise, you shouldn't be taking minutes from younger players with more upside.
I think the league is probably right to attempt to make the middle "fatter" by focusing on youth. I'm behind anything that exempts young players from salary caps or anything else. Then, you can meaningfully increase the cap when you've raised a class of players that represent an improvement in the MLS median/mode player.
Similar threads
