T O P
Coltons13

Welcome to the cycle of MLS, Charlotte FC! Here's your welcome pamphlet: \>Stage 1: Hype \>Stage 2: Struggle \>Stage 3: Frustration with weird and arbitrary league rules \>Stage 4: Bargaining to try and solve league's problems \>Stage 5 (You Are Here): Think you have found solution to league's problems \> Stage 6: Realize everyone in room isn't smiling because they're proud of you, they're watching and waiting for you to realize you've solved nothing and have only begun your journey into the void of despair that nothing really changes because for every Blank there's a Sugarman \>Stage 7: Pin all hopes on next CBA negotiation \>Stage 8: CBA makes small steps forward \>Stage 9: Pin all hopes on next World Cup cycle \>Stage 10: Despair at slow pace of change \>Stage 11: Repeat


atxtj

You forgot about step 11a (optional): Pony up major equity stake to well known international footballer


rolldog

Nailed it. Would also add "Pin all hopes on next media rights deal." Every time you read a quote from an insider about when things will change, it's always "not this media rights deal, but the next one will be the real gamechanger..."


kurapikas-wife

Hahaha so true


ajabernathy

Thank you for the pamphlet.


xxtoejamfootballxx

Ironic that mention Sugarman when we're one of the deeper teams in the league.


Coltons13

You're deep because you invest in your academy and acquire cheap, talented players that way. Not because you spend heavily on players.


drewuke

Can a team truly be deep if they never rotate their players?


ajabernathy

Schrödinger's Depth


lionnyc

If depth is the issue, then you have to increase the cap but more so increase the spending on players 7-20 on the roster. Whether that's minimum salary or something else, that's up to the strategy committee to decide.


LoonHawk

MLS: Introducing DAM - Depth Allocation Money.


alxhooter

We could work towards being more in line with the rest of the world and simplify salary structure. OR We could have an Allocation Money for every single letter of the alphabet.


thempage

This is it https://imgflip.com/i/6gvyly


SovietShooter

>If depth is the issue, then you have to increase the cap but more so increase the spending on players 7-20 on the roster. Here is the problem with that - do the players currently on the MLS rosters suddenly get better if you increase their pay? Are they going to change roster rules to allow more international players? If so, what kind of international players are going to be brought in for depth? Aging Euros or South Americans? Young South Americans and Eastern Europeans?


cheeseburgerandrice

Yep the answer isn't as simple as just more money when we're talking about depth. The quality of the depth in a league with international limits has to do with the quality of the American talent pool. Which isn't fixed by just throwing money at the top layer of it.


SovietShooter

Yup. Realistically, the only way you can improve roster depth without increasing international roster slots is by increasing the talent level of the domestic pool. The quickest way to make an impact there is to find a way to keep young American prospects (aka U18 Academy players) from jumping to Europe at the first opportunity.


liberocinderace

Of course, that’s never going to happen because MLS will never be a destination league for players talented enough. Now, convincing players staying a few more years at MLS before making the jump is another story.


xjoeymillerx

You wouldn’t even really have to increase spending. You could still spend 20 million and get deeper. You just wouldn’t spend the 7 million on one guy.


gogorath

But for 25 teams, that IS increasing spending.


xjoeymillerx

Well, not everyone is gonna spend to the cap right now either. As Long as you set a floor everyone is comfortable with, it’s fine.


gogorath

Right, but I'm just speaking to the point that it's not just about structure, it's about total spend. And really more about the latter for MOST teams.


xjoeymillerx

Yes. And im sure that most teams would like the freedom to spend what they want, where they want.


gogorath

I'm sure. But there's this weird narrative that flexibility is the key here, when in reality, teams spending where most teams spend are pretty much spending how they'd spend it. A few teams at the top may be forcing more payroll to DPs like Insigne that they otherwise would, but the bigger driver of league wide quality is going to be MORE spend rather than flex. Even if they want flex.


xjoeymillerx

the bottom is spending is what the bottom is spending. They just need to spend more money. If they set a 15-17 floor and a 22-25 cap, we would see a huge jump in quality. And it would only require the bottom teams spend just about where most of the league is anyway.


gogorath

Right, but that's still more spend. I'm all in favor of that. I just think people are delusional that salary structure is holding the Earthquakes back. Or even some of the top spending teams. Toronto? Definitely could re-allocate. Atlanta? I'm not as sure they are taking a different approach than they are right now ... I mean, they'd spend MORE, but if they were limited to the spend but were more flexible, I don't know that they are allocating Almada's tranfer fee to depth or something. Maybe. Would be interesting to hear.


johanspot

Honestly, teams should be able to trade their U-22 slots to teams like Atlanta that would value them more. So far the impact on the field for these slots has been pretty low. IF a team would rather take GAM for their slots to increase production more directly without paying out of pocket they probably should be able to so even low spending teams benefit from the initiative. Maybe even let the team giving up the slot negotiate a percentage of any profit made on the player to spread out the money even more on these lottery tickets.


xjoeymillerx

It’s not holding the earthquakes back. The Earthquakes are holding the Earthquakes back. It’s making the top and even the middle teams get creative with their spending and it makes the bottom of the roster worse.


saltiestmanindaworld

I don’t think we will actually see a jump for a few years. The American talent pool just isn’t deep enough. Sure if you loosen international slot limitations,but without that there’s only so many quality players out there atm.


fdar

Part of the point of the weird rules is to preserve parity my making spending a lot more than everybody else inefficient (precisely because past a certain point you just have to concentrate extra spending in a few top guys rather than across your squad). Sure, the teams doing a ton of spending would rather be able to spend that same money however they want, but that would widen the gap with "cheap" teams.


xjoeymillerx

“Cheap teams” would have to step it up, like they should be doing anyway. Top spending teams might even be able to spend less, AND make their team better by distributing 5-7 million they spend on that superstar, buy a 2 million dollar salary player instead, and have 3-5 million to upgrade the rest of the roster, which is the real problem with competition for MLS teams.


fdar

> “Cheap teams” would have to step it up Yeah, that's precisely the problem, they don't want to. Weird spending mechanisms are to some extent a compromise between teams that do want to spend and those who don't. So yes, teams that spend a lot would like more freedom to spend the way they want, but making it harder for them is very much the point.


xjoeymillerx

Then they need to sell their teams to someone that will. They’re holding the league back.


_tidalwave11

They cant though. Theyd have to renegotiate with the players again.


RCTID1975

I'm not sure about the current CBA, but in the previous one, it allowed MLS to increase salary caps and minimum salaries without renegotiating. Basically, anytime MLS wants to put more money into player's pockets, they could with minimal effort. And when you think about it, why wouldn't the players want that?


AMountainTiger

If the reporting around it was to be believed (would be really nice if someone would release the full text like the MLSPA did with the last one), the current one does require a share of increases to go into unrestricted spending pools (basically to avoid a repeat of TAM). But there is no reason to think the league can't unilaterally increase spending if they want.


RCTID1975

> But there is no reason to think the league can't unilaterally increase spending if they want. Exactly. If the league wants to spend more money, why on earth would the players specifically not allow that in a CBA. That wouldn't even make sense.


FranchiseCA

MLSPA doesn't want to increase pay so substantially and quickly that it replaces many of their members. Increased pay over time, especially if accompanied by roster size increases, is what they want.


Overthehightides

The answer is because the players on lower end salaries are afraid they would be replaced by higher paid players. The MLSPA's job is to look out for all of its members. There is a good share of players that are making sub 150K who could be on the chopping block if all of a sudden teams could go out and spend 20 million with no restrictions. So the MLSPA needs to make sure they are looking out for those players.


eddygeeme

Exactly I was debating someone on here that the cap can't just be increased thought they can add spending via Allocation monie just as they did under the last CBA deal, but that's even been limited as the players fought to get TAM gradually reduced and shifted to TAM. There seems to be this belief among some that MLS can just raise the cap to $20m unilaterally. That's not happening outside it increasing to $20m during the CBA via TV revenue increasing it to $20m.


MisterB_66

Because the vast majority of said new money would go to players not currently in the union, they would basically be hurting their own possibilities of getting raises. The current MLS players aren’t going to vote to approve things that could hurt their own job security.


eddygeeme

Again this is correct though some are ready to debate you on here that you're wrong and the agreed up cap set in the CBA can be increased unilaterally. Some folks smh. MLS has the right to increase Allocation Monies as at least in the last CBA they had that opportunity. To increase the cap outside of the agreed upon mechanisms like TV revenue sharing MLS and MLSPU would have to reopen and modify the CBA.


johanspot

THis is incorrect. Please stop spreading misinformation. The Players have negotiated a minimum amount of per team league salary budget but they did not negotiate a maximum.


eddygeeme

No it's not stop being childish


johanspot

For people who want the correct answer directly from the CBA >For each year covered by this Agreement, MLS agrees that *the per-Team Salary Budget shall be no less than the following*: 2015: $3,490,000 2016: $3,660,000 2017: $3,845,000 2018: $4,035,000 2019: $4,240,000 Please let us all know where you think a maximum was set in the CBA.


kiddvideo11

In the past MLS didn't have to negotiate with the players when they decided to add DPs, TAM and GAM. If they decided to add another mechanism to circumvent the players CBA deal to better the game then they could do so.


_tidalwave11

The previous guy mentioned the Salary Cap and thats part of the CBA. Also if im not mistaken, the players negotiated that they need to be a part of the discussions to introduce additional things like TAM, DPs etc. Whether or not they need to sign off on it idr.


Kyunseo

We've been getting some interesting comments put out there recently. First from Adrian Hanauer and now from Zoran Krneta.


PizzaSounder

What did Adrian say?


Kyunseo

https://twitter.com/samstejskal/status/1521582596995444737


willdesignfortacos

Sam Stejskal had a great article about how this could work in The Athletic last season. The key bit: >Let’s imagine a hypothetical world in which the current MLS roster rules didn’t exist. Let’s say the league instituted an annual spending floor of $15 million and ceiling of $30 million. Amortized acquisition costs would be included in that range, but all other restrictions and designations would be removed. That leaves us with about the same level of spending as at present, just without DPs, TAM or the U-22 initiative. > >In that world, clubs would be able to spend exactly as they see fit as long as they remain within the floor and ceiling. If they wanted, teams like Toronto and Miami could reallocate the $10+ million of payroll they currently spend on their three highest-paid players more evenly across the top-10 or 15 members of their squad. Such a move would likely require those teams to sacrifice a bit of star power, a real loss for a league that needs all the attention it can get. But it would also probably result in a more talented roster overall, and for around the same level of spend. [https://theathletic.com/3009792/2021/12/10/out-of-balance-as-2021-ends-mls-continues-to-show-that-improving-quality-of-play-isnt-top-priority/](https://theathletic.com/3009792/2021/12/10/out-of-balance-as-2021-ends-mls-continues-to-show-that-improving-quality-of-play-isnt-top-priority/)


FranchiseCA

As an Old Man™, my reflex is to think "these are the bigger rosters." Of course, this is second to "wait, which cities have teams now?"


FlyingCarsArePlanes

"You mean we don't just rotate playing the Fire, Crew, and Red Bulls every week?"


FranchiseCA

It's weird when people complain about how USOC and playoffs means playing a nearby team a _fourth_ time in many years.


Key-Antelope-6839

Add more dp spots or increase the cap


KrabS1

My heart wants both, my head is hoping for a cap increase (just because I'm not optimistic about the league ramping up spending that quickly). The Total Soccer Show just had a talk about this, and hey made a good point on why increasing the cap would probably make a bigger difference than more DP spots. The trick with using more DP spots to create depth is that they still count as a max hit vs the cap. So, if you had 5 DP spots with the same cap, you would have 5 players at $612,500 each (total cap hit of $3,062,500), and only 1,837,500 remaining cap space for the rest of the roster ([based on this source from major league soccer soccer](https://www.mlssoccer.com/about/roster-rules-and-regulations)). Obviously this is already an issue - but, it seems possible that more DP slots would actually hurt the depth of most aggressive teams (as it would be hard to justify not filling those slots if you're walking into international competition). A real increase in cap space feels like it would be huge, though. Between DP slots, young money, homegrowns, and GAM, its not hard to imagine putting together a fairly deep team. The whole thing is still awkward with all these buckets, but if you're used to other American sports, its not SO bad.


SCarolinaSoccerNut

Adding more DP spots won't help. It just increases the top-heavyness of MLS rosters. The better solution would be to get rid of DPs, TAM, and all the other nonsense all together and just have a general salary cap of around $20-25 million. This would allow clubs to spread their spending across the entire squad, not just the high end, which would create much deeper, more balanced, and more competitive squads. But, of course, that means the cheapskates would actually have to get off their ass and start spending in order to compete, which is why it won't happen.


itsallgoodie

You’d need some Messi clause to allow teams to pay a player or two as much as they want though.


KevinDLasagna

What would we call that though? Some sort of designated salary player? DSP seems clunky.


itsallgoodie

What about just designated player? DP for short.


KevinDLasagna

I like how that sounds


itsallgoodie

It could work


SCarolinaSoccerNut

No you don't. Just tell Messi that if he wants to play in MLS, he needs to accept a salary that would fit under the cap. If he doesn't like it, tough. Let him play in Qatar.


johanspot

I think you 100% do. There are players who have significant off the field value for markets that need to bring someone who can move the needle. Don't make teams choose to be bad on the field to bring in a big name. Schweinsteiger is a better example to me than Messi. Schweinstiger was overpaid for his on the field contribution but he was a good thing for Chicago as a team because of his off the field value.


LtDan61350

And we squandered it.


Somebody_Call911

To me, DPs exist because big names are a draw. Whether they are big players from Europe closing out their career, or new young players looking to make a splash, having stars who shoulder a disproportionate percentage of chance creation is exciting and should in theory bring in more viewers than smarter roster construction.


SCarolinaSoccerNut

It's not 2007 anymore. MLS doesn't need overpriced geriatrics to get legitimacy. It's time for the league to focus exclusively on improving the on-pitch product.


Isiddiqui

Look at the amount of press (positive) that MLS received when it was reported TFC was signing Insigne. That will, in fact, improve the on pitch product and would not happen if there wasn't a mechanism to pay certain players higher than their cap hits.


EnglishHooligan

Hell, just at the impact Zlatan had. El Trafico 100% benefitted from having him from the first one onwards.


death_by_retro

And where did that get the Galaxy? It won them nothing


Caswell19

That absolutely has nothing to do with what the comment was about


eastbayquake

Set a salary floor and punish teams that don't meet it? Though that would be pretty harsh with how tricky contracts and signing players can be...and would force teams to rush signings. I'm also hearing people reading this saying promotion/relegation!! Ha...


johanspot

Hard cap at say $22M but where the highest paid player doesn't count so teams can splurge and bring in a name with high value off the field that doesn't hurt them on the field. THough probably what they will end up doing is discretionary GAM just so that teams can fill out rosters better. Maybe more flexibility to re-claim some space in the case of season long injuries.


xjoeymillerx

Easy peasy. Imagine what that does to the bottom half of the roster.


eddygeeme

Cap can't increase with out redoing CBA they can add more DP spots and add more GAM


Isiddiqui

Yep, DPs and GAM exist so owners can add more spending without giving up leverage in CBA negotiations.


down_up__left_right

Problem is the owners still haven’t realized that unlike other American sports that’s not really leverage. They’ve gone into multiple CBA negotiations basically hoping the players would fight for that and it hasn’t happened so it might be time for the owners to admit that they’re the ones who most want that. In others American sports the top talent from the whole world is either entirely or at least mostly in the league so a high cap means the players already in the league get more money. MLS is not at the peak of the sport so a higher cap just means teams will go out and buy better players from elsewhere. Some current starters will become bench players, current bench players will become deep depth, and current deep depth will become unemployed. So instead the union will continue to fight for things like more free agency, better travel conditions, and higher minimum pay levels.


overscore_

Does the CBA limit the floor of the cap or the ceiling? Or put another way, does the CBA specify that the cap is At least X amount, At most X amount, or Exactly X amount?


johanspot

The CBA limits only the floor of the cap.


overscore_

Yup, just looked it up myself since I had my doubts on eddy's very confident statements.


johanspot

Yeah, it is sort of an academic conversation because in practice MLS has always preferred to target the money. That also means that any owner that doesn't want to spend extra doesn't have to spend a dime. But 100% only the minimum cap level is negotiated. And again, this is probably where on this sub it would probably be useful to call it a league paid salary budget rather than a cap for how MLS does it.


eddygeeme

I said I wasn't sure on the floor from the very first post. I stand by the cap we're talking to different things and claiming one person is wrong or right. Increasing the cap is very different from setting the floor. Thought that floor is VERY low lol. I think most ppl when they say raise the floor are talking to 10-15mil. Again tho the cap can only be raised via the TV deal . They can add money via Allocation. I've never seen ppl be such in a rush to tell someone they are wrong on something that's been so obvious. I followed this league long before Atlanta got in the league. Maybe I do know what I'm talking about. I will say when I'm not sure of something to. As I said with the floor in my first reply to you. If I'm wrong will also admit that. That said no one honestly knows what could be secretly written in the new CBA as it hasn't been ratified yet per Allocation Disorder guys they said this in their last podcast.


eddygeeme

The cap the limit for sure, but on the floor that's a good question. Sort of uncharted territory because it's never been done. But it does limit the ceiling.


overscore_

Just looked up the previous CBA (since we don't have the text of the new one): >For each year covered by this Agreement, MLS agrees that the per-Team Salary Budget shall be no less than the following: AKA it sets a floor for the cap, but MLS can increase it.


eddygeeme

What was the listed amount provided link. I'm not sure this interpretation you are thinking is correct from previous CBA. Setting a spend floor is one of the things many have talked about and wanted for years. The Allocation Disorder guys have even talked about it at one point, among many things to make the rosters more efficient.


overscore_

The CBA is available for download on the mlspa website. There's been a spending floor since at least 2015, probably longer. The CBA sets a floor for the salary budget, and additionally a spending floor of 95% of that budget league-wide. The budget floor is section 10.6 part a) of the previous CBA, while the spending floor is section 10.6 part h).


eddygeeme

The new one is available if so that's news. Good find on the floor but GOD thats low. However what I initially told you about not being able to add to the cap outside the TV deal is correct. MLS can only add Allocation monies or increase a new spending pot. So not sure why you slighted me in the prior post. What I told you is correct. The other guy is just saying stuff he's debating me about a floor when I'm pretty sure I told you I was unsure you said it was in old CBA I asked to see it. He has yet to show anywhere in the CBA or any instance of MLS unilaterally raising the cap in present day times because there is none. He's mixing up the spending increasing via Allocation money as the cap getting increased. In theory MLS has no cap it's technically a Salary Budget.


johanspot

> The cap the limit for sure I'm sorry but this is just incorrect.


xxtoejamfootballxx

This is untrue, they can increase it just not decrease it.


eddygeeme

Before we go down this tunnel. They can increase spending yes. That means and has been shown to mean spending via Allocation monies which was agreed upon and they did last CBA. The cap is agreed upon set limit their is a floor under the last deal. However increasing the cap would require a mid CBA modification. This CBA as has been reported has a mechanism via TV revenue for the actual cap to rise. Rains spending via Allocation processes doesn't equal the cap rising. There seems to be confusion there. Not one time in modern MLS history has MLS unilaterally broken a CBA and unilaterally increased the cap.


johanspot

>However increasing the cap would require a mid CBA modification Please stop saying this because it is incorrect as I have shown you directly from the CBA.


eddygeeme

No I will not I'm correct. Again just one time Shoe me a example of what you say is possible has happened. What you are arguing and dying on the hill for is wording that you interpreted one way. The way it was meant and applied meant and was different from how you interpreted. I'm not gonna argue with you all day. Show me a example of modern MLS unilaterally mid CBA raising the cap. There are others in this thread giving reasons why it won't doesn't happen. Go debate them on you hypothetical we are dealing in reality.


johanspot

I quoted you directly from the CBA but your English isn't strong enough to understand it


eddygeeme

Lol "stron" you mean strong try to use correct grammatics before hurling insults. Assuming I'm a foreigner bud.


johanspot

> Assuming I'm a foreigner bud. I didn't assume you were a foreigner. BUt You don't understand the phrase "no lower than" so that is a failure of your english language compensation even though I quoted you directly from the CBA.


xxtoejamfootballxx

>However increasing the cap would require a mid CBA modification. This is wrong, dude, I don't know what else to tell you. Increasing the cap would not break the CBA and would not need a modification. You are arguing with a lot of people in this thread and you clearly do not understand how the legal text works and quite possibly don't even understand what a cap floor is from reading your responses. What you are saying is literally 100% incorrect.


eddygeeme

Who's alot of people lol. Only one guy now 2 including you not sure that constitutes alot of people. There are just as many people saying what I'm saying. The fact the other side saying they can hasn't shown one example of them doing it other than citing the piece in the last CBA which allowed for increased spending which meant and was intended in the sense of Allocation spending says we're right. Show me the example where MLS just upped the cap a million or two mid CBA go ahead I'll wait.


xxtoejamfootballxx

You understand that a cap floor literally means you can't go lower but that you CAN go higher. That is spelled out in the CBA, which does NOT have a cap ceiling. Other leagues, like the NFL, have cap ceilings which would require changes to the CBA to increase the cap. This is extremely straight forward and you are incorrect. You can continue to dig your heels in, but that doesn't change the fact that you are wrong.


eddygeeme

You do understand that modern MLS has NEVER unilaterally raised the cap mid CBA. Unless you want to show a example rather than try to pose hypothetical legalities like you're a lawyer you're the one wrong bud. There's no precedence here at all just folks just a few guys tryna debate.


xxtoejamfootballxx

So your argument here is because MLS never did it, it's not legally possible? >try to pose hypothetical legalities like you're a lawyer This whole conversation is about a hypothetical. This isn't some court case based on precedent, it's literally spelled out in the CBA. Your logic makes absolutely no sense. I'm confused why you're even trying to argue this when you're so obviously wrong. A cap ceiling is a thing that exists, and it is not in the MLS CBA. Again, straight forward as you can get, you're wrong.


johanspot

> You do understand that modern MLS has NEVER unilaterally raised the cap mid CBA THere is a huge difference for what they are allowed to do and what they have done in the past. You get that right?


johanspot

THat isn't true, the cap only sets minimum amounts. THe owners can increase allocation money as they wish to.


eddygeeme

That's what I've said lol we agree.


johanspot

Except they can also increase the cap... the CBA only sets the minimum amounts so we absolutely do not agree.


eddygeeme

We are saying the same bro no need to disagree. You can't increase the cap. The way the CBA is set up if you look at the MLS Chart on https://www.mlssoccer.com/news/major-league-soccer-mlspa-ratify-new-collective-bargaining-agreement- You have Salary Budget charge Aka cap you can't change that that's negotiated under the CBA with Roster spending limits ex. Min/Max Salary Budget. Next you have TAM and GAM you used to be able to change TAM until the MLSPU went to war against it this CBA. Gradually shifting TAM to GAM. That leaves GAM as the only pot of money you can add resources to UNLESS they create a new pot of money. SAM aka Senior Allocation Money.


johanspot

> You can't increase the cap. Except you are wrong. The CBA only sets the minimum amounts.


eddygeeme

You're reading it wrong you can add money spend more but you can't change the cap it's always been like that you can add Allocation money but not just change the cap.


johanspot

> You're reading it wrong you can add money spend more but you can't change the cap I'm sorry, but this is just incorrect and you really need to stop spreading this lie. I'll even go look it up for you since you continue to spread misinformation. WIth the caveat that they haven't released the latest CBA: >For each year covered by this Agreement, MLS agrees that the per-Team Salary Budget shall be **no less** than the following: 2015: $3,490,000 2016: $3,660,000 2017: $3,845,000 2018: $4,035,000 2019: $4,240,000 THe league can increase this, these numbers are just the FLOOR. NO LESS means a floor, not a maximum.


eddygeeme

Bro you are wrong they can add Allocation money and increase the Salary budget through the TV deal. But they can't just go oh we feel like changing the cap to $15m. Seems you are confusing when they added TAM and increased it each year as adding to the cap. The cap didn't change from the set agreed amount TAM did. They can add Allocation monies. Just not on a whim add on millions to the actual cap. Thats said this is going off previous CBA history. No one has this copy it's still being ratified.


RCTID1975

I've been saying this for years, but IMO, what should happen is: 1) Decrease DPs and increase TAM. Do this until there are no more DPS 2) Decrease TAM and increase GAM. Do this until there is no more TAM 3) Decrease GAM and increase the salary cap. Do this until there are no more silly stupid roster rules and just a flat cap. This is a controlled transition that helps preserve parity, and give adequate time for teams to adjust, scout, and recruit for the changes. Having no other rules than the cap allows teams to build however they want. If they want that flashy Chicharito and bad depth, go at it. If they want a more level team with great depth, good for you.


comped

How many seasons would that be under your timeline?


RCTID1975

Probably 10-15. It's not a fast process in the least, but nothing here can be fast if you value the league and what it is. DPs are the biggest challenge to get rid of, but once they're gone, you can escalate the process of getting rid of AMs


jasonlp03

I think it's time. Also, get rid of "discovery rights."


tigersanddawgs

How about less buckets? Even with the limits on overall spending, less buckets would allow some roster depth to be improved. Obviously this plus more spending is ideal


rrock13

This. Plus additional international spots proportional to the roster size increase.


johanspot

Eh- for how quickly players can get green cards now, I don't know that international slots really need to increase.


xxtoejamfootballxx

The buckets and rules are specifically in place to promote specific types of spending, and have worked as designed.


tigersanddawgs

I get why they’re there, but I’d rather clubs be free to spend their allocated money as they please. This would promote more diversity of models and allow increased efficiency of dollar spend


xxtoejamfootballxx

Because the current system has worked perfectly and achieved the desired results. MLS has to grow strategically, not just throw money around for the sake of it.


tigersanddawgs

I think the league is in a place where the training wheels can come off and the best GMs will thrive and bad ones fail and be replaced. It seems we have a different philosophy of how the league should operate and that’s ok.


xxtoejamfootballxx

The current rules aren't "training wheels" they are the reason MLS has successfully, stably grown and is still growing. Each rule has a purpose, and a big part of the is the limited US/Canada talent pool. Just going to a cap with no buckets forces up the price of US talent because of the international roster spot limit. Because of that we have rules in place to improve that situation (homegrown player rule, for example.) In order to build out younger international depth they put the U22 rule in. TAM was meant to allow teams to bring in better players that don't necessarily have the star power to make them worth taking up a DP spot, and raise the ceiling of teams. Depth continues to be an issue in MLS but one that is being targeted with the academy system and u22 rule. They may bring in some new mechanism to push that through faster, but removing the guardrails will not solve the problem of a relatively shallow US talent pool.


amat3ur_hour

I would be completely okay with a much-simplified structure that has a $15 million salary cap, $7.5 million salary floor, 2 DP slots per team, and maybe something like the U22 initiative if we're feeling ambitious.


bailout911

This is something SKC very much needs implemented yesterday. Losing 2 of 3 DPs and not being able to do anything to replace them due to the current cap structure basically hamstrung the team for the entire season. Now, that's not even close to the only problem SKC has right now, but it's a significant factor.


Joe_Immortan

Is roster depth really an issue in MLS? Or just at Charlotte FC because they’ve overloaded certain positions?


CptSplashyPants

Fuck yeah! Maybe now we'll be able to overpay bench players that don't produce on the field instead of just DP's that don't produce on the field!


Sermokala

Jokes on you we keep our dps on the bench.


Pbrisebois

¿Por que no los dos?


Mini-Fridge23

Just increase the salary cap and let teams spend how they want. Some teams will use it for players 1-7, others will use it for 7-20


Donkey_Douglas_

LETS GET THAT CAP UP BABY!!!! 👏🏻


ZDTreefur

It's easy to just increase the floor, it's harder to fill the team with players of that caliber. Unless international player restrictions lessen, there will just be a bunch of overpaid American/Canadian players. Domestic talent needs to improve at the same rate. It's getting better, but is it really there yet to just remove most rules?


kbless

Hmm more roster rule changes coming?


Coltons13

Extremely doubtful. I'll believe it when I see it. The Sporting Director of a brand new club doesn't strike confidence that he has some great deal of insight that's been missing for the past [X] number of years. This has been an ongoing conversation in the league FOR YEARS. Old-school owners have always held it back and will continue to do so. No major changes will come outside of CBA negotiations because neither side (players/owners) will make concessions without getting something in return.


overscore_

That's not necessarily true. TAM was added outside of a CBA.


Coltons13

Sort of - the creation of TAM (or something like it) was contained within the CBA - it allowed for MLS to make a change to allocation types or amounts, so that was negotiated beforehand, it didn't spring up out of nowhere unilaterally. Edit: [Specifically, this section of the 2015 CBA allowed for the creation of TAM](https://imgur.com/a/42mQCpd)


overscore_

Right, but I would characterize the creation and implementation of TAM as fairly major and mostly outside of the CBA, even if the CBA allowed MLS to do it. I don't remember if we have the full text of the current CBA, but I imagine it allows MLS to increase spending if it wants, and just sets a floor.


Coltons13

Yeah, I'm sure there's some flexibility. But some of the suggestions I've seen here about wholesale roster format changes are just impossible without CBA revisions - like fewer roster category buckets or more DP slots or something. Those are major changes.


overscore_

Yeah scrapping the whole system and just doing a spending floor and ceiling is pretty impossible, but MLS can outright increase the salary budget, throw more allocation money out there, lower the DP hit, etc.


johanspot

What we (incorrectly) call a salary cap should instead really be called the salary floor. That is the amount that every team in the league has decided to pay equally as a league and there is no reason for any team to drop below it since it doesn't come out of the owner's pocket.


overscore_

Well, we should call it the salary budget. Because there's a floor of spending for that budget, which is 95% of it league wide.


johanspot

Totally. League paid salary budget I think is the most correct and would eliminate a lot of confusion.


johanspot

The players have always given the owners the ability to increase the existing pools as much as they want. The owners even have the ability to have more DP's that count zero against the cap. If the owners want to make the pie bigger for the players, this won't be an issue.


Coltons13

>If the owners want to make the pie bigger for the players, this won't be an issue. Right, but part of the point of my top-level comment there is that they'll never, ever do this without gaining a concession from the players in return. Never, it simply doesn't happen in pro sports collective bargaining. The existing pools can be modified as needed, sure, but some of the suggestions in this thread are wholesale changes to roster structure that are impossible without CBA revisions.


johanspot

> but some of the suggestions in this thread are wholesale changes to roster structure that are impossible without CBA revisions. >some of the suggestions in this thread are wholesale changes to roster structure that are impossible without CBA revisions. The league can raise the cap. They could add unlimiated GAM. They could have unlimited international slots. They could have 30 DP's that all count zero against the league paid salary budget. The owners have a MASSIVE amount of flexibility to increase spending how they want to.


Coltons13

Right, but again, they aren't going to do that without the players conceding something because it raises expenses without any material gain for themselves. Why would Sugarman, Kroenke, Hunt, or any other cheaper owner vote to approve that?


johanspot

Except they did with TAM? You say this would never happen, even though it happened.


Coltons13

Okay, my apologies. It has happened once in limited fashion as already approved within the confines of the CBA targeting a specific type of player. This is very different than the wholesale changes being suggested in this thread.


johanspot

> Never, it simply doesn't happen in pro sports collective bargaining. Except they did with TAM. They waited until the CBA was signed and then went back and made the pie bigger.


lordcorbran

That was a weird case where the owners had expected the players to fight for a significant rise in the cap in the CBA negotiations, then the players focused on other things, but the teams had already planned for the increases. They designed TAM in its initial form specifically so it could only be spent on players from outside the league because of that.


johanspot

Or to put this another way, this was a weird case where the owners finally realized the low spending was holding the league back and they chose to pay the players more even though they didn't have to. It is just crazy to me to think that it is impossible to imagine the owners paying more because the lack of spending is pretty clearly causing the league to be held back at this point.


xjoeymillerx

No need to search. It’s simply just setting a cap and getting rid of the weird mechanics. No DPs, no gam or TAM, just a 25 million hard cap. Don’t even really have to spend more. Just spend it differently.


Scratchbuttdontsniff

Except the current model WORKS and is actively being researched by MANY European leagues outside the big 5ish who want competitive tables each year while being workable for all owners. You want ambitious owners who are willing to sign a big name (Insigne, Bale, Messi) or take a gamble on a kid that may get sold for triple (Almiron, Barco, Rossi etc) outside the cap... the DP system is actually brilliant for the league. You don't want to get rid of it.


xjoeymillerx

I absolutely do. A team with 25 one million dollar players will be better than one with a few high priced players and a roster full of 500 million players, or even less.


Scratchbuttdontsniff

But the entire point of the DP is that they don't count that much against the cap number.... the owners who are ambitious buy the expensive player and still fill up the roster with other million dollar players.... it's the entire point of the mechanism..


ngower

We don't need any convoluted or complex mechanisms. DP, TAM, U-22 are all working to bring in good talent. We just need either (a) something to give USL/Academy players next to no cat hip in their first year of a contract or something, or (b) increase the salary cap so there's more potential to replace the $90k earners with $300k earners (in terms of the type of player who typically draws these contracts). Revs went from paying Jones, Kessler and Bye like $80k to $250k in two years (entirely valid raises) but that eats up a lot of money that could be used to bolster the guys down-roster who might someday make that same leap.


lordcorbran

Homegrown players already don't count toward the cap on their initial contract, and we're also starting to see teams use U22 and Young DP spots to retain guys on lower cap hits after that. Having a strong academy is how you get real depth in this league, though that doesn't help Charlotte right now.


battles

MLS should keep rules that encourage domestic bias and youth development, imo. removing or reducing cap weight for US Citizens is a change I would support, but importing skilled foreign players undermines American Soccer development.