Note: as some seem confused by my intent, this diary is not suggesting that billionaire owners in MLS are nice guys just being fair to each other. #AllBillionairesAreBastards.
This is about the competitive fairness in MLS, regardless of the capitalistic aims of those billionaires who are owners in MLS.
For example, the fact that only six EPL teams since the 1995-1996 season is analogous wealth and power accruing at the top, and the fact that 16 different MLS teams have won an MLS Cup in that same timeframe shows the benefits of “redistributing” wealth and power.
Thanks,
RFrancisR
——————————————-
European soccer is a ruthlessly capitalistic venture in which the 5-6 teams in Europe each spend hundreds of millions of dollars on their rosters in an effort to buy permanent spots as the top of the table in their leagues.
The teams that don’t have that kind on of money are forced to suffer at the hands of these giants with the threat of being kicked out of the league if you have a bad enough season.
Nothing is done to compensate the losers. They don’t get the best “draft pick” the next year. They don’t even have draft picks. The winners just stock up on talent even more by spending even more.
The owners of the rich teams don’t share revenues with the owners of the poor teams. They don’t have to pay the poorer teams for spending above the salary cap. There is no salary cap.
This might not surprise you, but this means the powerful have a monopoly on power. In European soccer, the rich get richer, and the poor get exiled.
Want proof? Since the 1995-1996 EPL (the top flight league in England) season only six teams have won the league championship. The reason for this? A literal and massive wealth gap.
The champions of the EPL this season, Manchester City, spent $191m on its player payroll. The team that finished last? Sheffield United. They spent $27.8m on player payroll. The results are not surprising, are they?
In the US? From a competitive standpoint, Soccer is more “socialist.” While there are payroll gaps, the differences in the biggest spending team is proportionately less disparate from the lowest spending team.
Inter Miami, MLS’s biggest spenders, spent just over $17 million dollars. The lowest spending team the Vancouver Whitecaps has an $8.7m payroll. The team that won the Supporter’s Shield, the regular season championship trophy, last season, the Philadelphia Union has a $9.3m payroll. The team that won the MLS Cup, the post season champions, last season, Columbus Crew has a $13.5m payroll.
In Major League Soccer losers get the top draft pick of new young talent entering the league in the Super Draft. The winners have, more or less, the same salary budgets as the losers.
The teams share revenues. A portion of the profits from a rich team go to help compensate the losers who would obviously have revenue issues because fans buy less tickets for losing teams, and sponsors pay less for sponsorships when your team have fewer fans.
Teams that lose get “general allocation money.” It is used to help teams acquire better players by allowing teams to “buy down” a players salary.
For example, if you only have $300,000 left in your salary budget, you can acquire a player who makes $700,000 and pay $400,000 in general allocation money so that only $300,000 is charged to your salary budget.
See? In the US we do understand that in competitions there will inevitably be losers. We do understand that we should compensate losers by having the winners help compensate the losers and give the loser a batter shot in the next go around.
In sports, we understand that losing isn’t always about “making bad decisions.” It isn’t about being lazy. And we know that sometimes you lose even when you are as talented or even more talented than your opponents.
We understand that when you have more access to resources it can give you a competitive advantage that makes harder for others to compete with you. For example, we know that teams in large markets have more access to fans, and teams in small markets have less access to the resource or fans.
We do understand that you can be harmed in your efforts to succeed and to win through factors that are no fault of your own.
In Major League Soccer, they understand that if one of them fall, it harms the whole league. They understand that keeping every team solvent is as necessary for those at the top as it is for those at the bottom.
Does this compensate the losers strategy work? Since 1996, the year MLS launched, 19 of the league’s current 27 teams have participated in the MLS Cup. Sixteen of the current 27 teams in MLS have won the MLS Cup. Fourteen MLS teams have won the Supporters Shield, which is awarded to the regular season championship.
But why can’t we do the same in our economy for the people?