New Ben Knight blog

[MikeD]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/soccerblog (pasted in below as well)

I agree with Ben that the MLS structure inhibits the league's international competitiveness (as demonstrated by New England and Chivas getting knocked out by a couple of mid-level CONCACAF clubs, TFC getting beaten in the Voyageurs Cup and the many US Open Cup upsets this year)

However, I don't agree with his proposed solution (a two-tier league).

IMO, the way to make MLS teams more competitive is to:

1) significantly increase the salary cap (perhaps $500k a year for each of the next four years and then reassess?),

2) improve depth by increasing the roster sizes (perhaps 3 additional senior slots and 1 additional developmental slot?), and

3) raise the maximum salary for developmental players above the poverty line (something like $30k or $40k would not bankrupt the teams and would give the players a liveable, if modest, wage - this would improve player development by enabling MLS teams to pay enough to keep decent prospects rather than lose them European lower leagues)

IMO, this would give the larger teams that want to be competitive in the Champions League some leeway to improve without making the MLS completely uncompetitive. The smaller teams that don't want to spend all the way to a higher cap obviously wouldn't have to.

***

Knight: A two-tier MLS?

Ben Knight, today at 9:26 AM EDT

We're in pure fantasy land this morning, folks. Just you, me and a dumb idea that landed on my shoulder the other day, and will not leave me.

This past week – and coming weekend – we are getting textbook lessons in the limitations of Major League Soccer. The single-entity structure, tight roster limitations, maverick scheduling and salary cap have added up to the New England Revolution being pecked to death by pigeons in the CONCACAF Champions League, and Toronto FC charging their loyal, vocal fans full fare to watch them hobble out against Chivas USA tomorrow with nine key contributors away on international duty.

Here's what you face if you're an ambitious team in this deeply self-protecting soccer loop:

- Lots and lots of games. Regular season, U.S. Open or Voyaguers Cup, Super Liga with the Mexicans, CONCACAF Champions League, MLS playoffs.

- Tight financial restrictions. Even if you generate millions of dollars selling players, the league sharply limits what you can reinvest in on-field talent.

- Small roster. This murdered New England the other night, when they had no healthy forwards to send out in their 0-4 loss to Joe Public of Trinidad.

There are benefits, of course. MLS teams can't spend themselves to death, like the old NASL did. They also get access to a draft of incoming players, something North Americans take for granted, which would be considered bizarre – even illegal – in the rest of the world.

This whole Champions League thing blew in very quickly. MLSers started planning for this year not even knowing they might face a six-game international group stage overlapping the playoff stretch drive at home. The Revs just played nine games in a calendar month. They must secretly feel that their chances of returning to the MLS title game for a third-straight season are significantly higher, now that they don't have to tour Mexico, Honduras and Montreal.

To accommodate all competitions, MLS felt it had no choice but to schedule league matches on FIFA international days, which is why Toronto will be so short-staffed this weekend – in a match they desperately need to win. The game goes on, even though both teams said they were willing to reschedule.

So … where are we?

A few days back, I wrote that it might be time to rethink the structure of MLS. That got some chuckles Stateside, where long-time fans of the league said “Here's Toronto coming to the same conclusions we all did years ago. Isn't that cute/funny/sad?”

Okay. Guilty. But everything about Toronto FC has been about moving things forward. The changes in how soccer is perceived – and supported – up here have been astonishing. I still routinely look out at BMO Field, packed with boisterous fans, surrounded by downtown Toronto and the lake, and cannot believe any of this is actually happening.

Also – I'm a guy who wants world football to be less about money, and more about skill. So why am I lobbying to de-socialize the only league out there where money doesn't call all the shots?

Because MLS teams are going to get nuked out there – and there's very little they can presently do to defend themselves.

So here's my dumb idea:

What if an ambitious club – New England, Toronto, the L.A. Galaxy – went to the league and said “we're out?” The team forks out millions and millions of dollars to buy its franchise in full, and frees itself from the salary cap and all MLS spending and roster restrictions. The league gets a pile of money, and any other club that wants to stay in the existing structure is allowed to.

Here's the kicker: teams that opt out remain in the league and on the schedule, but are now free to chart their own course – and face their own risks. If they spend themselves to death, so be it.

I have no idea if any MLS side is even considering such a thing. But the day is coming. As soon as the CONCACAF Champions League popped up, I believe this scenario became inevitable.

So … why should MLS agree? Having created a level playing field for all, why allow a few renegade teams to tear up their carefully protected turf?

Because the present structure is reaching the breaking point. Allowing for a two-tier MLS – one structure for independent clubs, the same old safety net for everyone else – lets clubs move out when they are ready, without forcing the gaping horrors of the open market on franchises that are not.

Workable? No idea. But I've come to notice, in soccer, that any idea that suddenly makes sense to a wide range or differing interest can happen – very quickly. That's exactly how Toronto FC was born in the first place.

If I were the New England Revolution today, I think I'd be wondering how long Salt Lake and Columbus are going to delay my development? If getting a four-goal home-field mouthwash from a tiny club from Trinidad is worth knowing that the Colorado Rapids can sleep safely in their beds tonight?

And if I'm Toronto FC, looking past the smoking ruins of my roster – and quite possibly my playoff chances – I might be starting to wonder if the league I bought into is smaller and more restrictive than the dream that brought me here?

If this opt-out idea can't work, what can? How long do we really have to stand here and take this?

Some of these chicks will soon be ready to leave the MLS nest. A way to accommodate that dream – and still keep the league together – must be found.

Comments?

Onward!

[DarnCherry]

The article spells voyageurs wrong!

[piltdownman]

The first thing MLS needs to do is not put them same teams in Super Liga and the Concacaf Champions League. Second thing they need to do is reward teams in these competitions with a higher salary cap.

[piltdownman]

The first thing MLS needs to do is not put them same teams in Super Liga and the Concacaf Champions League. Second thing they need to do is reward teams in these competitions with a higher salary cap.

[michaeltfc91]

^^^^^ Definetly agree!!!

Teams who finish 1-4 in MLS should advance to Champions League. Teams 5-8 should get the SuperLiga kind of like UEFA Cup, for secondary teams. Also US Open Cup and Voyageurs cup should last the whole season and teams should play only 1 game a month maximum in the us open cup/voyageurs cup. With this the maximum of games is 30mls, 4 playoffs, 4 cup, and 14 champions league for 52 maximum.