- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
The cost of $100 million
Posted on 3/31/16 at 10:41 am
Posted on 3/31/16 at 10:41 am
quote:
I remember sitting in my British literature class at the clueless age of 16 and reading George Orwell’s dystopian masterpiece, 1984. Admittedly, I think the book should be required reading for anyone who thinks they understand the landscape of American soccer. Years later, one of many of the book’s loaded lines aptly applies to the reality of American soccer discussions, arguments, and narratives that continue to divide people who love the game into fractious subcultures all vying for their argument to be taken as gospel. The line, “Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past” is the party slogan for Ingsoc, the English Socialist Party. Was George Orwell onto something?
The cost of $100 million
Fantastic read!
2
Posted on 3/31/16 at 2:41 pm to loJic IVOK
quote:
According to findings from Forbes and Businessweek, franchise fees in Major League Soccer have increased at a rate of 18 percent since its inaugural season. In 2012, the franchise fee for the Montreal Impact was approximately $40 million. The franchise fee for New York City FC was valued at $100 million in mid-2014 and 2015. The average value of a franchise in Major League Soccer is approximately $103 million, reflecting an increase of 175 percent over a span of the last five years according to Forbes. It’s not hard to see the financial gain the owner-operators in Major League Soccer covet and vehemently protect.
That other MLS thread going on right now can do well with this info
Posted on 3/31/16 at 2:50 pm to JohnZeroQ
As I alluded to in the other thread, I think we're at the point where MLS is an enemy of the advancement of the game in America as well as our national team.
Posted on 3/31/16 at 2:51 pm to Draconian Sanctions
quote:
I think we're at the point where MLS is an enemy of the advancement of the game in America as well as our national team
That's incredibly stupid.
Posted on 3/31/16 at 2:53 pm to hendersonshands
another apologist for billionaires who want to limit development and competition via monopoly and crony capitalism. Forced mediocrity may work in the NFL when you're the only game in town but it doesn't in soccer when consumers have options.
This post was edited on 3/31/16 at 2:55 pm
Posted on 3/31/16 at 2:54 pm to Draconian Sanctions
quote:
another apologist for billionaires who want to limit development and competition via monopoly and crony capitalism.
Says the QSG fan...
Posted on 3/31/16 at 2:54 pm to Draconian Sanctions
quote:
another apologist for billionaires who want to limit development and competition via monopoly and crony capitalism.
I never said I was a fan of the way the MLS is run, but cool strawman.
Posted on 3/31/16 at 2:56 pm to TN Bhoy
quote:
Says the QSG fan...
you mean the team fighting UEFA's attempt at the mediocritization of Europe via the illegal FFP cartel scheme?
Posted on 3/31/16 at 3:15 pm to loJic IVOK
The Orwell lede is hilariously overwrought and doesn't serve to address the question at hand.
His idea for a team to operate outside the American soccer structure is also asinine. It might be one of the dumbest suggestions I've ever read.
He lacks significant context in his argument about the method that youth development takes. Literally in every example of teams restructuring their youth systems (Belgium, Germany, France), it took the FA of each of those countries to institute country wide changes with the help of the league. He's focusing on teams instead of focusing on incentives for youth development.
Here is a litany of articles that provide context on the German restructuring in 2000, and how much they spent (I believe I read somewhere they spent betweeon 50 m and 100 m Euros a years).
LINK
LINK
LINK
LINK
His idea for a team to operate outside the American soccer structure is also asinine. It might be one of the dumbest suggestions I've ever read.
He lacks significant context in his argument about the method that youth development takes. Literally in every example of teams restructuring their youth systems (Belgium, Germany, France), it took the FA of each of those countries to institute country wide changes with the help of the league. He's focusing on teams instead of focusing on incentives for youth development.
Here is a litany of articles that provide context on the German restructuring in 2000, and how much they spent (I believe I read somewhere they spent betweeon 50 m and 100 m Euros a years).
LINK
LINK
LINK
LINK
Posted on 3/31/16 at 3:17 pm to Draconian Sanctions
quote:
another apologist for billionaires who want to limit development and competition via monopoly and crony capitalism.
That's the direction Europe is headed. Billionaires want to protect their investment. It's a shame to see.
Posted on 4/1/16 at 6:49 am to Draconian Sanctions
quote:
another apologist for billionaires who want to limit development and competition via monopoly and crony capitalism. Forced mediocrity may work in the NFL when you're the only game in town but it doesn't in soccer when consumers have options.
something something something
FFP
Posted on 4/1/16 at 7:48 am to Draconian Sanctions
Then MLS won't make it, if they can't compete financially.
The thought that MLS is hurting development is incredibly asinine. Maybe it's not moving as fast as it could be, but color me shocked that you don't understand why American franchise owners aren't going to follow the European model down the over leveraged and under capitalized rabbit hole.
I don't agree with a lot of things MLS does, but they have been a net positive,and will continue to be a net positive.
The thought that MLS is hurting development is incredibly asinine. Maybe it's not moving as fast as it could be, but color me shocked that you don't understand why American franchise owners aren't going to follow the European model down the over leveraged and under capitalized rabbit hole.
I don't agree with a lot of things MLS does, but they have been a net positive,and will continue to be a net positive.
Posted on 4/1/16 at 9:29 am to Cocotheape
I have to agree that the MLS is a positive for US soccer but it still is way too limited to have great effect. Our biggest challenge is geography and the infrastructure needed. Both Germany and England are roughly the same size as the state of Louisiana.
England has roughly 5300 clubs and 7000 teams. Every team is with in driving distance of each other. There are top academies everywhere. If you are a top player access to high quality development is there regardless of the fact that it is free. If you live in most states (including Louisiana, Miss, Alabama) then there are no US Development Academy programs to play for. There is no amount of money you can spend in America to make those types of systems work here. The population density, geography, and entrenchment of other sports are too high barriers to entry from a cost standpoint.
If you want soccer to catch on here as a viable professional sport then you must get more geographic coverage through a system of promotion and relegation. It would encourage areas outside of major markets to field teams and grow players. It would help get more players in high quality systems even if it continued to be pay to play. Would instill the grassroots soccer system that we need to grow the sport and give local areas a team to get behind with a chance of making it to the top league.
The current MLS owners would never allow a promotion and relegation system as they would stand to lose too much money if they were relegated.
Overall, I thought the article was pretty crappy. It doesn't present any real viable solutions as the only way to go from here is a system that grows high quality coaching and competition across a greater geography and creates more lower division pro teams that locals can get behind.
England has roughly 5300 clubs and 7000 teams. Every team is with in driving distance of each other. There are top academies everywhere. If you are a top player access to high quality development is there regardless of the fact that it is free. If you live in most states (including Louisiana, Miss, Alabama) then there are no US Development Academy programs to play for. There is no amount of money you can spend in America to make those types of systems work here. The population density, geography, and entrenchment of other sports are too high barriers to entry from a cost standpoint.
If you want soccer to catch on here as a viable professional sport then you must get more geographic coverage through a system of promotion and relegation. It would encourage areas outside of major markets to field teams and grow players. It would help get more players in high quality systems even if it continued to be pay to play. Would instill the grassroots soccer system that we need to grow the sport and give local areas a team to get behind with a chance of making it to the top league.
The current MLS owners would never allow a promotion and relegation system as they would stand to lose too much money if they were relegated.
Overall, I thought the article was pretty crappy. It doesn't present any real viable solutions as the only way to go from here is a system that grows high quality coaching and competition across a greater geography and creates more lower division pro teams that locals can get behind.
Posted on 4/1/16 at 9:33 am to Cocotheape
quote:
The thought that MLS is hurting development is incredibly asinine.
You have a league where:
A) the rules are very carefully tailored to ensure nobody can get too good.
B) not only is there no punishment for fielding a poor team, you're actually rewarded.
C) the convoluted development rules go out of their way to limit competition via the absurd "territory" system.
The owners have brainwashed a healthy portion of the fans that all of the above is somehow either 1) okay or 2) necessary. Neither are true.
Look at MLS's relationship with the USSF. Look at the absurdity of the current D1 requirements (which couldn't be met by a number of EPL and La Liga sides). Look into what happened to the San Antonio Scorpions. MLS is not concerned with growing the game, they are concerned with protecting their monopoly and their tax shelter.
Posted on 4/1/16 at 9:35 am to Draconian Sanctions
Franchise model going to franchise model
Posted on 4/1/16 at 10:23 am to Draconian Sanctions
And with all you've said, valid or not the league is still a net positive for US soccer. You think NASL's shoddy confederation could do better? MLS is absolutely concerned with growing the game, insomuch as it grows their profits.
I'd love for you to explain the mechanics, in detail of how MLS franchises make effective tax shelters.
I'd love for you to explain the mechanics, in detail of how MLS franchises make effective tax shelters.
Posted on 4/1/16 at 11:00 am to crazy4lsu
I'm not sure how to respond. It's like i've been Don Garber'd.
Those German articles also state that the clubs and the FA worked on youth development. Not the Bundesliga and some privatized marketing firm.
Bot on my friends
Those German articles also state that the clubs and the FA worked on youth development. Not the Bundesliga and some privatized marketing firm.
Bot on my friends
Posted on 4/1/16 at 11:06 am to Cocotheape
quote:
You think NASL's shoddy confederation could do better?
I don't know, but the arbitrary D2 label has hurt them immensely. Let's take away MLS' protection from the USSF and see how actual free market competition works.
quote:
I'd love for you to explain the mechanics, in detail of how MLS franchises make effective tax shelters.
This article details it pretty well.
LINK
Posted on 4/1/16 at 11:28 am to Draconian Sanctions
quote:
B) not only is there no punishment for fielding a poor team, you're actually rewarded.
I'm sure you're referring to pro/rel here, but the only thing you get for being poor is higher SuperDraft picks. Not a huge reward.
Posted on 4/1/16 at 11:44 am to Draconian Sanctions
That article admits to not knowing the details of anything and then claims that the tax benefits are worth the investment. I'm sure MLS is well structured for tax benefits but losing money to save taxes is almost never a winning strategy, if the losses are real (and since that article uses those losses as a basis to claim the league is mediocre then they certainly believe that to be the case).
Free market competition often entails attracting powerful people who can improve the political status of your league, NASL has failed at that, MLS has not. USSF is not a government entity, NASL only have themselves to blame for their D2 label and continuous failure (if MLS is mediocre, then I don't know what else to call the two bit NASL but a failure). They most certainly operate in a free market and have been outmaneuvered and beaten at every turn by MLS.
Free market competition often entails attracting powerful people who can improve the political status of your league, NASL has failed at that, MLS has not. USSF is not a government entity, NASL only have themselves to blame for their D2 label and continuous failure (if MLS is mediocre, then I don't know what else to call the two bit NASL but a failure). They most certainly operate in a free market and have been outmaneuvered and beaten at every turn by MLS.
This post was edited on 4/1/16 at 11:46 am
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News