MLS to become a selling league?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If it’s not one of the five, it’s a selling league

In the rest of the soccer world, leagues do not sell players; clubs do! There are no selling leagues. There are selling and buying clubs. Some leagues have more buying clubs than others. MLS is a single entity (club MLS) which sells franchises to its members (DCU, NYRB, etc). Players sign their contracts with MLS. I don't know if there is any other league in the world that exercises the same degree of centralized control as MLS does. It is a very inefficient economic model.

And yet MLS has managed to survive, grow and thrive, as opposed to earlier attempts at a US soccer leagues which failed.
Might be less efficient than other leagues, but it's working.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If it’s not one of the five, it’s a selling league

In the rest of the soccer world, leagues do not sell players; clubs do! There are no selling leagues. There are selling and buying clubs. Some leagues have more buying clubs than others. MLS is a single entity (club MLS) which sells franchises to its members (DCU, NYRB, etc). Players sign their contracts with MLS. I don't know if there is any other league in the world that exercises the same degree of centralized control as MLS does. It is a very inefficient economic model.

And yet MLS has managed to survive, grow and thrive, as opposed to earlier attempts at a US soccer leagues which failed.
Might be less efficient than other leagues, but it's working.

It is only working for a handful of MLS owners, with strong ties to NFL. It does not work for players or fans. The US has a world class soccer market, which is held back by MLS, which essentially runs the USSF. Japan established its league around the same time as MLS was established, but has much better results because it's model is superior both economically and in a sporting sense. In fact, Kashima Alters knocked out Concacaf champion from the club world cup this week for which we failed to qualify. And, Japan also had a respectable showing in the WC for which we failed to quality.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If it’s not one of the five, it’s a selling league

In the rest of the soccer world, leagues do not sell players; clubs do! There are no selling leagues. There are selling and buying clubs. Some leagues have more buying clubs than others. MLS is a single entity (club MLS) which sells franchises to its members (DCU, NYRB, etc). Players sign their contracts with MLS. I don't know if there is any other league in the world that exercises the same degree of centralized control as MLS does. It is a very inefficient economic model.

And yet MLS has managed to survive, grow and thrive, as opposed to earlier attempts at a US soccer leagues which failed.
Might be less efficient than other leagues, but it's working.

It is only working for a handful of MLS owners, with strong ties to NFL. It does not work for players or fans. The US has a world class soccer market, which is held back by MLS, which essentially runs the USSF. Japan established its league around the same time as MLS was established, but has much better results because it's model is superior both economically and in a sporting sense. In fact, Kashima Alters knocked out Concacaf champion from the club world cup this week for which we failed to qualify. And, Japan also had a respectable showing in the WC for which we failed to quality.

What people fail to understand is MLS is a cartel that's indifferent to the quality of play as long as there's a profit. They don't have any incentives to care because the league structure insulates them from risk..

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If it’s not one of the five, it’s a selling league

In the rest of the soccer world, leagues do not sell players; clubs do! There are no selling leagues. There are selling and buying clubs. Some leagues have more buying clubs than others. MLS is a single entity (club MLS) which sells franchises to its members (DCU, NYRB, etc). Players sign their contracts with MLS. I don't know if there is any other league in the world that exercises the same degree of centralized control as MLS does. It is a very inefficient economic model.

And yet MLS has managed to survive, grow and thrive, as opposed to earlier attempts at a US soccer leagues which failed.
Might be less efficient than other leagues, but it's working.

It is only working for a handful of MLS owners, with strong ties to NFL. It does not work for players or fans. The US has a world class soccer market, which is held back by MLS, which essentially runs the USSF. Japan established its league around the same time as MLS was established, but has much better results because it's model is superior both economically and in a sporting sense. In fact, Kashima Alters knocked out Concacaf champion from the club world cup this week for which we failed to qualify. And, Japan also had a respectable showing in the WC for which we failed to quality.

What people fail to understand is MLS is a cartel that's indifferent to the quality of play as long as there's a profit. They don't have any incentives to care because the league structure insulates them from risk..

The quality of play has risen dramatically in the last decade or so.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If it’s not one of the five, it’s a selling league

In the rest of the soccer world, leagues do not sell players; clubs do! There are no selling leagues. There are selling and buying clubs. Some leagues have more buying clubs than others. MLS is a single entity (club MLS) which sells franchises to its members (DCU, NYRB, etc). Players sign their contracts with MLS. I don't know if there is any other league in the world that exercises the same degree of centralized control as MLS does. It is a very inefficient economic model.

And yet MLS has managed to survive, grow and thrive, as opposed to earlier attempts at a US soccer leagues which failed.
Might be less efficient than other leagues, but it's working.

It is only working for a handful of MLS owners, with strong ties to NFL. It does not work for players or fans.

Huh?
Players are making more money in MLS every year, and attendance and TV ratings keeps rising.
Seems like it's working well for players and fans.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If it’s not one of the five, it’s a selling league

In the rest of the soccer world, leagues do not sell players; clubs do! There are no selling leagues. There are selling and buying clubs. Some leagues have more buying clubs than others. MLS is a single entity (club MLS) which sells franchises to its members (DCU, NYRB, etc). Players sign their contracts with MLS. I don't know if there is any other league in the world that exercises the same degree of centralized control as MLS does. It is a very inefficient economic model.

And yet MLS has managed to survive, grow and thrive, as opposed to earlier attempts at a US soccer leagues which failed.
Might be less efficient than other leagues, but it's working.

It is only working for a handful of MLS owners, with strong ties to NFL. It does not work for players or fans. The US has a world class soccer market, which is held back by MLS, which essentially runs the USSF. Japan established its league around the same time as MLS was established, but has much better results because it's model is superior both economically and in a sporting sense. In fact, Kashima Alters knocked out Concacaf champion from the club world cup this week for which we failed to qualify. And, Japan also had a respectable showing in the WC for which we failed to quality.

What people fail to understand is MLS is a cartel that's indifferent to the quality of play as long as there's a profit. They don't have any incentives to care because the league structure insulates them from risk..

The quality of play has risen dramatically in the last decade or so.

Maybe by luck, but that's about it. And MLS teams do, on occasion, develop good players who are worth selling to Europe, like Zach Steffen.

There's a lot to praise about Atlanta's owners. They hired Tata Martino as a coach, and have made a deal to bring River Plate's rising star Gonzalo Martinez to the team. But don't try to use DC United as an example. They were better 20 years ago, and the only reason they don't suck now is because they wrote a big check to lure Wayne Rooney into retirement.

Bottom line: MLS is about doing what's best for the Benjamins, not for soccer. Occasionally, the two coincide, but it's by chance, not by design.



Bottom line

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If it’s not one of the five, it’s a selling league

In the rest of the soccer world, leagues do not sell players; clubs do! There are no selling leagues. There are selling and buying clubs. Some leagues have more buying clubs than others. MLS is a single entity (club MLS) which sells franchises to its members (DCU, NYRB, etc). Players sign their contracts with MLS. I don't know if there is any other league in the world that exercises the same degree of centralized control as MLS does. It is a very inefficient economic model.

And yet MLS has managed to survive, grow and thrive, as opposed to earlier attempts at a US soccer leagues which failed.
Might be less efficient than other leagues, but it's working.

It is only working for a handful of MLS owners, with strong ties to NFL. It does not work for players or fans.

Huh?
Players are making more money in MLS every year, and attendance and TV ratings keeps rising.
Seems like it's working well for players and fans.

MLS is boring. I'd rather watch a Premier League game on TV than go to Audi Field. And salaries for most players suck.

[Anonymous]

I desperately want to like MLS but it’s painful to watch. Underfunded South American leagues and European B leagues have better soccer.

[Anonymous]

Here's are some MLS owners with NFL ties. Arthur Banks (Atlanta Falcons owner), Kroenke Sports & Entertainment a/k/a Stan Kronke's company (LA Rams owner); Lamar Hunt (dead, but used to own Kansas City Chiefs); Clark Hunt (current KC Chiefs part owner);Robert Kraft (Patriots owner); Paul Allen (Seattle Seahawks owner); Jeff Berding (long time Bengals executive); Garber (MLS commissioner, CEO of SUM, worked for NFL for 16 years). This is a pretty powerful group.

[Anonymous]

Did you just put up the names of 2 dead people?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Did you just put up the names of 2 dead people?

It provides a historic prospective, especially with the influence one of them had on the league. All ownership interests stay with the family when the owner dies unless the will provides otherwise. So what's your point?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did you just put up the names of 2 dead people?

It provides a historic prospective, especially with the influence one of them had on the league. All ownership interests stay with the family when the owner dies unless the will provides otherwise. So what's your point?

Wtf is your point?

[Anonymous]

RantingSoccerDad wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did you just put up the names of 2 dead people?

It provides a historic prospective, especially with the influence one of them had on the league. All ownership interests stay with the family when the owner dies unless the will provides otherwise. So what's your point?

But then two of those (the Hunts) overlap.

So that's ... six owners. (Plus Garber, who is a lonnnng way removed from his NFL days by now.)

Actually, make that five. Berding *works* for FC Cincinnati. He's not the owner.

Let's examine ...

- Kraft, New England. Pretty well reviled, but it's worth noting that he, Anschutz and Hunt came up with the big money to save MLS in early 2002.

- Hunt, Dallas. See above. Also, FC Dallas has a terrific youth academy and is now the host of the National Soccer Hall of Fame. Lamar Hunt also was a unicorn -- a carryover from the NASL to MLS.

- Allen, Seattle. The Sounders started with a strong affiliation with the Seahawks, but they've gone off on their own since. The majority owner is Adrian Hanauer, who ran the Sounders in the lower divisions before moving to MLS.

- Kroenke, Colorado. Owns so many teams now in so many sports that he's probably forgotten he owns the Rapids.

That leaves Arthur Blank, who built Mercedes-Benz Stadium with soccer in mind as well as football. He also hired sharp guys like Tata Martino. And the club built a $60 million training facility.

So, yeah, the "NFL controls MLS" trope doesn't hold much water.

These are very rich and powerful individuals. Don't underestimate them or their influence. MLS is mediocre by design. The mediocrity cannot be attributed solely to the lack of American talent. In 2017, only 43 percent of MLS players were born in the US so almost 60 percent are players from other countries. MLS is a buying league, but they just buy mostly garbage level "talent."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

RantingSoccerDad wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did you just put up the names of 2 dead people?

It provides a historic prospective, especially with the influence one of them had on the league. All ownership interests stay with the family when the owner dies unless the will provides otherwise. So what's your point?

But then two of those (the Hunts) overlap.

So that's ... six owners. (Plus Garber, who is a lonnnng way removed from his NFL days by now.)

Actually, make that five. Berding *works* for FC Cincinnati. He's not the owner.

Let's examine ...

- Kraft, New England. Pretty well reviled, but it's worth noting that he, Anschutz and Hunt came up with the big money to save MLS in early 2002.

- Hunt, Dallas. See above. Also, FC Dallas has a terrific youth academy and is now the host of the National Soccer Hall of Fame. Lamar Hunt also was a unicorn -- a carryover from the NASL to MLS.

- Allen, Seattle. The Sounders started with a strong affiliation with the Seahawks, but they've gone off on their own since. The majority owner is Adrian Hanauer, who ran the Sounders in the lower divisions before moving to MLS.

- Kroenke, Colorado. Owns so many teams now in so many sports that he's probably forgotten he owns the Rapids.

That leaves Arthur Blank, who built Mercedes-Benz Stadium with soccer in mind as well as football. He also hired sharp guys like Tata Martino. And the club built a $60 million training facility.

So, yeah, the "NFL controls MLS" trope doesn't hold much water.

These are very rich and powerful individuals. Don't underestimate them or their influence. MLS is mediocre by design. The mediocrity cannot be attributed solely to the lack of American talent. In 2017, only 43 percent of MLS players were born in the US so almost 60 percent are players from other countries. MLS is a buying league, but they just buy mostly garbage level "talent."

Rich and powerful individuals? You don’t say. They’re billionaire sports franchise owners, duh. Are there many middle-class pro sports owners out there?