RECAPS
PREVIEWS
EXTRA TIME
YANKS ABROAD LOCKER ROOM
 
mmee
Culver City, CA
Post #136
Wednesday January 7, 2015 10:51pm

Joined Mar 2014
Total Posts: 2,147
Original post from dolcem

This is a common misconception repeated incessantly on these forums.


I'm not necessarily talking about the league in a freeze-frame here. I'm talking about it across the next decade. Across time, these two concepts don't compete with each other very heavily:
1) US player development
and
2) MLS per-player average salary compared to average salaries around the world.
2a) foreign per player
2b) domestic per player
Each team is going to have to spend most of its money on #2, although all the USMNT fans wish it was on #1.

And generally speaking, more salary = better players = better team = better league. Sure, there are exceptions for chemistry and other factors..... but that doesn't change the rule. You cannot say this is not true in the broad view. That's asinine.

2a) Spending $x on y# of foreign players is not the same as spending $2x. For any import, finding a player who can command 2x will generally get you a better player.
There are an average of 8 foreign roster slots per team. You make it sound like there are 2-3.

2b) The league will want to try to hold on to the best low-to-mid salary domestic players as it competes with the Norwegian league, the English Championship, and so on. In the long run, that will matter. Right now, if we had half of the domestic players who play in low-Premier, Championship, Norway, Eredivisie, etc- in MLS, it would change both domestic average salary and league quality.

So where's the illusion here? Are you really saying that:
-spending more gets you a better team so haphazardly that it's not worth it? That a 300k/year player is only 5% better than a 100k/year player across 30 games??
-there is no one to spend the money on in terms of worldwide player population??

dolcem
Post #137
Friday January 9, 2015 6:46pm

Joined Nov 2012
Total Posts: 1,805
Original post from mmee

I'm not necessarily talking about the league in a freeze-frame here. I'm talking about it across the next decade. Across time, these two concepts don't compete with each other very heavily:
1) US player development
and
2) MLS per-player average salary compared to average salaries around the world.
2a) foreign per player
2b) domestic per player
Each team is going to have to spend most of its money on #2, although all the USMNT fans wish it was on #1.

And generally speaking, more salary = better players = better team = better league. Sure, there are exceptions for chemistry and other factors..... but that doesn't change the rule. You cannot say this is not true in the broad view. That's asinine.

2a) Spending $x on y# of foreign players is not the same as spending $2x. For any import, finding a player who can command 2x will generally get you a better player.
There are an average of 8 foreign roster slots per team. You make it sound like there are 2-3.

2b) The league will want to try to hold on to the best low-to-mid salary domestic players as it competes with the Norwegian league, the English Championship, and so on. In the long run, that will matter. Right now, if we had half of the domestic players who play in low-Premier, Championship, Norway, Eredivisie, etc- in MLS, it would change both domestic average salary and league quality.

So where's the illusion here? Are you really saying that:
-spending more gets you a better team so haphazardly that it's not worth it? That a 300k/year player is only 5% better than a 100k/year player across 30 games??
-there is no one to spend the money on in terms of worldwide player population??


You're not listening to my argument.

Of course the general tendency is that $=talent but it is more complex than that. Especially taking inflation into account, Argentine and Brazilian players get paid peanuts compared to Mexican players (or English players). But they are much better because they come from superior soccer cultures. A player is made by his development not by his salary. What is not a 'general rule' but rather a fact is that paying the same player more will not make him a better player. If anything, he will get worse because of decreased motivation (this happens a lot in any sport). Increasing the salary cap just means paying the same players more and adding a bit of sugar on top from abroad: the odd yank (and really only a handful of players would stand out, a drop in the bucket of a league with hundeds) and slightly better foreign imports (but not much different because the cream of the crop works there way on up through the chain of South American or European leagues).

Raising the cap will have a slight impact but the real factor here is development. The core of a league is the players (and coaches) it develops, which is why Argentina, Brazil, and Holland have solid leagues even with all the top players snatched away, as well as great national teams, even though two of them are super poor. If anything, the increasing financial clout of MLS teams is hurting the national team because it's keeping our best national team players from testing themselves at the highest level. Mexico has the same problem.
GET A CLUB TEAM
mmee
Culver City, CA
Post #138
Friday January 9, 2015 10:27pm

Joined Mar 2014
Total Posts: 2,147
I think the disconnect is that in my original post, I said nothing to contradict what you've said here, yet you quoted and followed it with:

This is a common misconception repeated incessantly on these forums.


That post was about nothing but Liga MX vs MLS average salary, (despite the fact that the highest-earning 5-6 DPs make more than anyone in Liga MX).

So who's not listening?

skangles
DC
Post #139
Friday February 13, 2015 2:01am

Joined Jan 2013
Total Posts: 5,412
Vegas has been eliminated as an option by Garber but he's now talking to San Antonio and St. Louis along with Minnesota and Sacramento.

Come on St. Louis!

hamsamwich
Post #140
Friday February 13, 2015 4:17am

Joined Oct 2013
Total Posts: 3,023
St. Louis should definitely be in MLS. They love soccer and I know a team would do well there. Can't speak on the other ones as well because I don't know much of their soccer traditions. But st Louis will do well, especially as you figure they will get a push with the Rams leaving town. They will also have a natural rivalry with SKC and chicago.

EKneezy
Atlanta
Post #141
Friday February 13, 2015 6:31am

Joined May 2013
Total Posts: 3,076
Dont sleep on Sacramento. They've got some heavy hitters behind them financially. Plus their USL team is very popular

MSantoine
Post #142
Friday February 13, 2015 1:39pm

Joined Nov 2012
Total Posts: 3,723
If the Rams leave for LA its even more reason to put a team there. You'll have a fanbase looking for a new team to support

kjperuch
Post #143
Friday February 13, 2015 4:39pm

Joined Oct 2013
Total Posts: 223
Yeah I think Sacramento has this in the bag. Money persuades...

Page 10 of 10
«« First « Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10

Keep up with the latest moves by Americans around the world during the January transfer window.
RECENT POSTS
Yanks Face Relegation in England
Tale of Two Young Yanks in Europe
Wagner Nears Premier League Goal
YA lineup prediction vs. T&T
THIS WEEK'S HEADLINES

RANDOM TAGS FROM PAST WEEK...
Thailand, World Cup, United States, Chile