CPL General

[Unnamed Trialist]

We need to get some perspective on the salary cap and how it is playing out. 

Just 7-8 years ago the minimum salary in MLS was so low players could not really pay their basic expenses. How do I know this? A player on a Canadian MLS team told me it was the case, and that he shared that difficulty with a few other players on the team. So if MLS took so long to properly evolve to get the mininum to livable standards, we should not be surprised by a a few years' lapse in CPL.

Second, usually you have to be able to dedicate yourself full-time to football if you are a pro. No part-time jobs out of necessity, if you want to do other things they are investments or other projects that you want to do. Comparatively, many lower tiers in European leagues are at the edge of professionality, in fact only England and Germany have a truly viable third tier and only England a fourth tier you can stay full pro in. As @youllneverwalkalone has rightly said, doing some academy work coaching could compensate a low salary, this is what happened with lots of players when our teams were in USL. Others did summer camps and the like. I am not sure this is viable for CPL.

Then, it does have to be said that a shorter season perhaps does allow for players to look for some alternative options in the off-season to complement their income. Only that in this case, being winter, they cannot get involved in summer soccer camps and the like. As I see it, a player in major leagues that can play year round should have at least 6 weeks holiday, in North America they get more than that.

Next, there is no way we should only be blaming the salary cap for being too low. I'd say there is another more important problem: the rest of the budgets are not being properly controlled. There is no cap on office staff, on technical staff, on marketing people, or on club presidents and FO. I'd like to know the spread between what the coaches are making and the players. You cannot have only the players bearing the brunt of budget restrictions, and the rest of the club being paid market values. Seriously: what do you think Brennan, Hart, Gale, are making? Is Rob Friend getting paid? I would suspect it is more than any player on their teams. Raise the salary cap and that will just force clubs to go leaner on the rest. You can't have the players in precarious labour conditions, all that means is they are the ones subsidising the post playing career projects of the ex players and others coaching in CPL. We fans go to see the players, and the league is for their development.

So the salary cap has to rise, slowly but surely. And other costs have to be controlled better. A collective bargaining agreement would do well to ensure this happens, that player salaries approach the percentage of CPL club budgets that is most habitual internationally, meaning over 50%. And that the league might establish a year round minimum salary with benefits, such as year round health benefits and support, so we do not have people playing in precarious salary conditions alongside players who are in the comfort zone.

[The Real Marc]

But why is everyone so convinced that low salaries are only resulting from the cap and not supply, demand, and market leverage?

The idea that a Sergio Camargo type player needs a supplementary income seems pretty reasonable given that a year earlier he was playing amateur in the same town with Cavalry’s feeder club, and his club career has been largely low level USL.

The creation of Can PL has given him a broader stage but in terms of sports economics it hasn’t altered his value that drastically in a year. 

A union will do more for wages than a cap increase, IMHO - improving wage minimums, distribution, benefits, and stability. A cap increase is going to help the Edgars that have options and leverage, not the Camargos that are going to play Can PL no matter what and can be easily replaced when the dream has run its course.

Edited February 18, 2020 by The Real Marc

[Bison44]

The cap is there to make sure we made it to year 2 and 3 and 4.  Once the league is established with more/better corporate sponsors, viable revenue streams and healthy gates then they can start thinking about dropping or raising it significantly.  (When TFC joined MLS, wasnt the minimum salary 36g??) A cap is needed not for parity but to keep owners from spending themselves out of a league before it even gets off the ground.  It'll come up when the league is ready, but like UT mentioned, the players better not be the only people with their wages being controlled.  

 

[MM3/MM2/MM]

4 minutes ago, Bison44 said:

T (When TFC joined MLS, wasn't the minimum salary 36g??) 

 

In 2007 and a few years after, developmental players were making $17,000.00

[The Real Marc]

The cap is about establishing cost predictability for investors - it is in owners best interest so it’s not going away.

Cap benefits re: parity are helpful for league HQ in a league where teams with highest attendances are more than double the lowest - avoiding imbalance based on financial resources is secondary but beneficial particularly in a small league.

A cap doesn’t stop someone from spending themselves out of the league because they can still do that within a cap system if their resources are limited and they’re a moron.

Edited February 18, 2020 by The Real Marc

[deschamp86]

If I was off for 6 months a year I would probably be working a second job as well regardless of whether I needed the extra money

[narduch]

35 minutes ago, MM3/MM2/MM said:

In 2007 and a few years after, developmental players were making $17,000.00

Even lower than that. Guys like Gabe Gala were making $12,500 in 2007.

[Reign]

2 hours ago, Mikmacdo said:

Some CFL players work jobs in the offseason, its not considered semi pro. 

Hell the UFC heavyweight champion still works as a firefighter. 

I would never use the UFC as a point to argue treatment/payment of athletes. The ufc is disgustingly bad at underpaying and treating their fighters like shit.

[Cblake]

2 hours ago, Bison44 said:

The cap is there to make sure we made it to year 2 and 3 and 4.  Once the league is established with more/better corporate sponsors, viable revenue streams and healthy gates then they can start thinking about dropping or raising it significantly.  (When TFC joined MLS, wasnt the minimum salary 36g??) A cap is needed not for parity but to keep owners from spending themselves out of a league before it even gets off the ground.  It'll come up when the league is ready, but like UT mentioned, the players better not be the only people with their wages being controlled.  

 

The minimum salary for MLS in TFC's first season in 2007 was $12,900 USD. That was for development contracts that maxed out $17,700 USD. The minimum senior contract was $30,000 USD. The Reds had a mish mash of young Canadians on those $12,900 deals, Nana Attakora, Andrea Lombardo, Gabe Gala, David Guzman, Cristian Nunez, Joey Melo. Lombardo I remember was living at home taking the Dufferin bus to BMO every day before being upgraded to the senior minimum of 30K. The upgrade is what got him into trouble when he played at York following his release from TFC. 

In 2024 the minimum is rising to $109,000 USD under the new CBA. Each team has 18-20 players on its senior roster, and their minimum rises to $81,375 this year. Each team has up to eight players on its reserve roster, and their minimum goes up from $56,250 last year to $63,547 this season and $85,502 in 2024.

http://s3.amazonaws.com/mlspa/2007-08-31-Salary-Information-Alphabetical.pdf?mtime=20190611125445

Edited February 18, 2020 by Cblake

[Cheeta]

1 hour ago, The Real Marc said:

...

The idea that a Sergio Camargo type player needs a supplementary income seems pretty reasonable given that a year earlier he was playing amateur in the same town with Cavalry’s feeder club, and his club career has been largely low level USL.

The creation of Can PL has given him a broader stage but in terms of sports economics it hasn’t altered his value that drastically in a year. 

...

 

Long response, Clanachan, amongst others, has brought up the fear of wage inflation that the CPL quota system could create.   And he was correct to.  Overnight the CPL needed 100 footballers who qualitfy as Canadian whilst lacking the financial means to lure them away from most of the rest of the world.    Sergio Camargo's market value, by virtue of his passport, is inflated in the CPL market.  And it's only going to get worse as more teams join. 

And no its not as though his value in the CPL is double what it would be in USL.  But its more, to be sure its more.

Pay it, don't pay it.  Boiling it down quite a bit but basically Gale couldn't hold onto LBG because he thinks he can do better for the same money or less, Wanderers thinks otherwise.  We'll know soon enough who's right. 

Shorter response, there's an endless amount of cheap foreign talent out there.  There's a very finate amount of affordable Canadian talent.  You're going to have to overpay for it because the low salary cap and quota system won't allow for enough foreign talent, in quality or quantity, to paper over too many shortcoming on the Canadian side of the roster.       

 

[Kent]

5 hours ago, MM3/MM2/MM said:

I would assume in most loan cases the loaning team is picking up part of the salary.  So for CanPL purposes what portion is the league counting towards the salary cap, the amount the player is earning with the parent club or the amount being paid by the CanPL club.   Could be a huge difference.   They could also being using a formula not determined by the actual #s.

I would hope they only count what the CPL team is paying. My hope is that the purpose of the salary cap is to keep costs down, not to stifle teams from being good. If it is about keeping costs down it shouldn’t matter how much the player’s loaning club is paying him. If the league can get a player of 150k dollar value for only 20k by way of a loan, and that player can help get results in inter-League competitions, or can make highlight reel plays, then that is a great deal for CPL and it would be foolish to prevent it.

[Bison44]

^^^ This  And if rumors are true, the league has set limits on how many loans a team can have.  Its the same rules across the board, all teams have an opportunity to improve the squad without breaking the bank on a likely CDN from MLS who cant quite make the breakthrough yet  

[Cheeta]

^ No, it's doesn't just have to be about money.  It's also not always the player's choice to leave or not necessarily that the manage wasn't happy with the value they received from a player the previous year.  It could just be that the player doesn't fit into things going forward.  Doesn't have to be anything negative at all.  However..

Think some, if not all the players, who many Valour supports would have liked to have held onto for 2020 agreed to play last season "on the cheap" as it were.  They invested a year in the expectation the following season would be more profitable, if they lived up to expectations.  As it became clear it wasn't going to be any more profitable, as was implied, they took that as a big "fu'k you" from Gale & Co., returned the favour in kind and moved sideways leaving Valour to start from scratch.

Does that sound like it has the ring of truth to it?  Valour not exercising the option year of a player's contract, the year that includes an increase and instead offered a new contract at current wages?  You know low-balling the player because Gale though they didn't have anywhere else to go?  Hope not.  Hope it's just my cynical gearbox making angry noises.  Doubt it though.     

 

 

  

  

 

[Cheeta]

OOPs.  Almost forgot.

A lot of us were pleasantly surprised by the quality of the league last year, some of that was down to low expectations, but the CPL won't have that benefit this year.  And as pleasantly surprised as we all were there was waaay too much daylight between the quality players on every teams roster, (mostly the players with some pro experience), and the less than quality players (mostly rookies).  It showed in every match with every team.  Can't have that on a successful team and with the domestic pool for this league being so tiny, as a manager who likes his job, you've got no other choice but to look around the league to poach existing players. 

Or you could bring in another kid and hope he's good enough on enough nights that you get to keep your job.  

[Unnamed Trialist]

6 hours ago, Kent said:

I would hope they only count what the CPL team is paying. My hope is that the purpose of the salary cap is to keep costs down, not to stifle teams from being good. If it is about keeping costs down it shouldn’t matter how much the player’s loaning club is paying him. If the league can get a player of 150k dollar value for only 20k by way of a loan, and that player can help get results in inter-League competitions, or can make highlight reel plays, then that is a great deal for CPL and it would be foolish to prevent it.

The standard model in Europe is that the new club of a loaned player pays the salary, in its entirety. They are getting a piece they need without having to pay a transfer, and they pick up the salary cost. 

For players with very high salaries, yes, a part only could be paid, but not gifting the player to the new side.

It would be rare for a new club to only pay 15% of a salary that is not enough for the team loaning out, it makes more sense to have that player on their books.

Only with young players who can't get minutes on a first team or is a reserve player needing a challenge might the original club accept the receiving club pay less of the salary; that might have been the case when Ballou was loaned to Albacete by Barça. 

I completely agree that what should count towards salary cap is what the club is paying, strictly. And if it is just a part of the original salary, that makes loans potentially very beneficial for a club, you can get real quality for less. 

I too heard there was a loan restriction, I think that Gil Marín said, as you comment, that it was two players. Meaning the rest have to be signed outright.

The solution is multiple:

-establish a minimum salary

-don't overpay the top tier, don't break the bank on high-profile players

-improve travel and schedule to allow teams to have a shorter roster

-facilitate short-term entry of local amateur players to cover injuries (we saw this when a keeper was out)

-slowly raise the salary cap, even if by 4-5% a year over the next 4-5 years.

-support players in quality ways in things like providing shared apartments, support to travel and move to the club, health benefits, and even, if need be, finding or setting up part-time work for players. I know that this is rather common in Spanish 4th tier which is totally regional and where salaries are too low. Quite often the club asks club STHs who are business people to help out. I think we are a ways away from this last aspect still.

Edited February 18, 2020 by Unnamed Trialist

[Ozzie_the_parrot]

13 hours ago, Ams1984 said:

Raise the cap for sure. Better yet, eliminate it, or at the very least, make it relative to a club’s income. I don’t think the cap is there for ‘parity’ to begin with, it’s there to ensure financial viability of the clubs. Anyways, ‘parity’ is both a fallacy and an undesirable one at that. ‘Parity’ is 20 West Broms not 20 Liverpools. It’s much better to let stronger markets grow and pull the rest of the league up with them! (Increased ad revenue, tv viewership, etc). 

Are you familiar with what happened with the original NASL, or the second one for that matter? Every time this approach has been tried in soccer in North America in recent decades it has led to the league folding due to an unsustainable wage inflation spiral.

Beyond that West Brom have a large support with loyalties handed down through the generations since the late 1800s. Teams that become a perpetual also ran in a start up league with no promotion and relegation tend to quickly lose their intial fan base amd fold. A level of parity that gives every team a chance at winning a championship eventually is vital at this point.

The Premiership analogies should be avoided as it's very much in the realm of fantasy to even think in those terms for a league based mainly on Canadian players. Eight sustainable Barnet or Yeovil level clubs would be enough of an achievement for now.

7 hours ago, Cheeta said:

....Think some, if not all the players, who many Valour supports would have liked to have held onto for 2020 agreed to play last season "on the cheap" as it were....

Definitely possible that players expected more money in year two with a cap raise. If Rodrigo Gattas is to be believed this is what was planned for 2020 and beyond:

https://northerntribune.ca/rodrigo-gattas-life-in-canada/

...Look, the league started with some budgets, I don’t know the amount, like the MLS, the same for all the teams. Next year it’s going to go up and the idea is that one player per team can get out of that budget, then two and grow, to bring those figures who come back, but have a name and attract the public...

Suspect year one wasn't as good as expected from a crowd standpoint and they've scaled back their ambitions accordingly for now.

Edited February 18, 2020 by Ozzie_the_parrot

[Ams1984]

3 hours ago, Ozzie_the_parrot said:

Are you familiar with what happened with the original NASL, or the second one for that matter? Every time this approach has been tried in soccer in North America in recent decades it has led to the league folding due to an unsustainable wage inflation spiral.

Beyond that West Brom have a large support with loyalties handed down through the generations since the late 1800s. Teams that become a perpetual also ran in a start up league with no promotion and relegation tend to quickly lose their intial fan base amd fold. A level of parity that gives every team a chance at winning a championship at some point is vital at this point.

The Premiership analogies should be avoided as it's very much in the realm of fantasy to even think in those terms for a league based mainly on Canadian players. Eight sustainable Barnet or Yeovil level clubs would be enough of an achievement for now.

Definitely possible that players expected more money in year two with a cap raise. If Rodrigo Gattas is to be believed this is what was planned for 2020 and beyond:

https://northerntribune.ca/rodrigo-gattas-life-in-canada/

...Look, the league started with some budgets, I don’t know the amount, like the MLS, the same for all the teams. Next year it’s going to go up and the idea is that one player per team can get out of that budget, then two and grow, to bring those figures who come back, but have a name and attract the public...

Suspect year one wasn't as good as expected from a crowd standpoint and they've scaled back their ambitions accordingly for now.

A league that failed a few decades ago has nothing to do with the CPL:

1) the world has changed immeasurably since then. Not only is the commercial aspect of the game much more advanced now, but so is technology. Decades ago gate was everything, now it’s not. 
 

2) there is absolutely zero evidence that a lack of ‘parity’ is what caused that league’s failure. 
 

3) New NASL folded mostly because MLS already occupied the field. The league may have been economically challenged, but they were destined to fail when the USSF and MLS teamed up to exclude them. Again, there is zero evidence that it had to do with ‘parity’. 
 

I hear this a lot from people... it’s as if ‘parity’ is the lifeblood of North American sports. I have never seen any serious compilation of dispositive primary authority based evidence to suggest that ‘parity’ even helps slightly. It is something that you may view as desirable, but it is by no means evidenced to be important at all. It is my view, and evidence supports, that the most successful (on and off the field) soccer leagues in the world do not care at all about ‘parity’. 

Edited February 18, 2020 by Ams1984
Autocorrect is stupid!

[Ozzie_the_parrot]

17 minutes ago, Ams1984 said:

A league that failed a few decades ago has nothing to do with the CPL:

1) the world has changed immeasurably since then...

Having been an adult back in the 80s, it really hasn't changed so much beyond having a few different gadgets. One Trudeau replaces another and instead of having a former straight man for a chimpanzee as US president there is an eccentric former reality TV star who is able to connect with the lumpen element within American society in much the same way with moronic levels of nationalism.  Will be interesting to see if the second incarnation of the XFL does any better than the USFL in longevity terms. The people who launch gridiron leagues like that have never seemed to learn the lessons from the previous failure unlike what happened with MLS moving on from what happened with the NASL and MISL by going with the single entity model.

Edited February 18, 2020 by Ozzie_the_parrot

[Unnamed Trialist]

34 minutes ago, Ams1984 said:

A league that failed a few decades ago has nothing to do with the CPL:

1) the world has changed immeasurably since then. Not only is the commercial aspect of the game much more advanced now, but so is technology. Decades ago gate was everything, now it’s not. 
 

2) there is absolutely zero evidence that a lack of ‘parity’ is what caused that league’s failure. 
 

3) New NASL folded mostly because MLS already occupied the field. The league may have been economically challenged, but they were destined to fail when the USSF and MLS teamed up to exclude them. Again, there is zero evidence that it had to do with ‘parity’. 
 

I hear this a lot from people... it’s as if ‘parity’ is the lifeblood of North American sports. I have never seen any serious compilation of dispositive primary authority based evidence to suggest that ‘parity’ even helps slightly. It is something that you may view as desirable, but it is by no means evidenced to be important at all. It is my view, and evidence supports, that the most successful (on and off the field) soccer leagues in the world do not care at all about ‘parity’. 

I think you are wrong, and the degree you are mistaken is equivalent to how categorical you are being. Many  simply do not understand what is driving much of world football into irremediable debt, with some very pernicious consequences (game fixing, money laundering, misuse of public funds for private benefit).

Almost all club failures in recent decades, and in the case of the North American model, league failures, can be attributable to overspending on players to get results, as well as on other capricious concepts. 

CPL not only needs to restrain itself on salaries, it needs to do so on everything else, including admin and technical direction costs. I would personally take a look at coach's salaries: if we have 7 and now 8 coaches being paid more than any single player on the respective team, we are screwing ourselves that way too.

[Ams1984]

25 minutes ago, Ozzie_the_parrot said:

Having been an adult back in the 80s, it really hasn't changed so much beyond having a few different gadgets. One Trudeau replaces another and instead of having a former straight man for a chimpanzee as US president there is an eccentric former reality TV star who is able to connect with the lumpen element within American society in much the same way with moronic levels of nationalism.  Will be interesting to see if the second incarnation of the XFL does any better than the USFL in longevity terms. The people who launch gridiron leagues like that have never seemed to learn the lessons from the previous failure unlike what happened with MLS moving on from what happened with the NASL and MISL by going with the single entity model.

Wow... not sure what to make of that! I’ll just ignore the political bit. 
 

It’s a bit intellectually untenable to suggest that the world, especially the world of media broadcasting, merchandising, and corporate relationships, hasn’t changed since the 80s. 
 

Also, I still have yet to see dispositive evidence of any causal correlation between a lack of ‘parity’ and the failure of a soccer league. 

[The Real Marc]

11 hours ago, Cheeta said:

Long response, Clanachan, amongst others, has brought up the fear of wage inflation that the CPL quota system could create...

Shorter response, there's an endless amount of cheap foreign talent out there.  There's a very finate amount of affordable Canadian talent...

 

And that's a rational line from Clanachlan but it's overstated and not accurate for the forseeable future. What's interesting is how everyone just bought it. It's a cover for the real reason for a cap which is creating cost certainty on one of the few costs that can be controlled for all teams by HQ.

Sure, there is a finite number of Canadians playing soccer. But that number is in excess of what the league needs to fill roster spots in a seven-to-ten team league, as evidenced by the oodles of Canadians playing for peanuts (or no nuts) in marginal leagues or far-flung locations - not to mention local guys for whom pay is a secondary concern. The league has had no trouble staffing up, and that's without legions of higher-paid Canadian pros returning home from Europe and without emptying USL of all Canadians, let alone the Fury.

I'm not arguing that Camargo's value isn't higher in Can PL. What I'm arguing is that it's really not that much higher given supply and his lack of market leverage and that's why cap increases won't go to guys like him. These players have already shown they'll play for expenses and a stipend in USL or a bedroom and pocket money in barely-pro European leagues. Few fans willing to spend money on Can PL are going to stop watching because a Camargo-esque player decided to be an accountant and is replaced by someone slightly less skilled. Save for York 9, these teams are competing for dollars with minor and junior leagues in other sports, and not with direct soccer competitors. Any player deterred by Can PL salaries is either Europe-or-bust or not up for pro career to begin with.

The idea that guys like that are now pulling in 20 000$ to 30 000$ probably represents a decent share of the value they've created for their clubs/CanPL - particularly considering the fairly limited financial returns being pulled in by teams.

Who needs each other more? It is clear that Can PL has the leverage, and that's why a salary cap increase won't go to the mid and lower range players who are really just filler.

 

[narduch]

18 minutes ago, Ams1984 said:

Wow... not sure what to make of that! I’ll just ignore the political bit. 
 

It’s a bit intellectually untenable to suggest that the world, especially the world of media broadcasting, merchandising, and corporate relationships, hasn’t changed since the 80s. 
 

Also, I still have yet to see dispositive evidence of any causal correlation between a lack of ‘parity’ and the failure of a soccer league. 

Yes. Its totally silly to act like Canada and North America are the same as when NASL first failed.

Another factor is that our population has increased quite a bit from the early 80's. And that trend is set to continue.

I personally find MLS boring now. Part of it is the forced parity (which is slightly skirted by the DP rule). But that also has to do with the expansion getting out of hand. MLS really needs to trim down to its 20 best cities.

Edited February 18, 2020 by narduch

[narduch]

16 minutes ago, The Real Marc said:

And that's a rational line from Clanachlan but it's overstated and not accurate for the forseeable future. What's interesting is how everyone just bought it. It's a cover for the real reason for a cap which is creating cost certainty on one of the few costs that can be controlled for all teams by HQ.

Sure, there is a finite number of Canadians playing soccer. But that number is in excess of what the league needs to fill roster spots in a seven-to-ten team league, as evidenced by the oodles of Canadians playing for peanuts (or no nuts) in marginal leagues or far-flung locations - not to mention local guys for whom pay is a secondary concern. The league has had no trouble staffing up, and that's without legions of higher-paid Canadian pros returning home from Europe and without emptying USL of all Canadians, let alone the Fury.

I'm not arguing that Camargo's value isn't higher in Can PL. What I'm arguing is that it's really not that much higher given supply and his lack of market leverage and that's why cap increases won't go to guys like him. These players have already shown they'll play for expenses and a stipend in USL or a bedroom and pocket money in barely-pro European leagues. Few fans willing to spend money on Can PL are going to stop watching because a Camargo-esque player decided to be an accountant and is replaced by someone slightly less skilled. Save for York 9, these teams are competing for dollars with minor and junior leagues in other sports, and not with direct soccer competitors. Any player deterred by Can PL salaries is either Europe-or-bust or not up for pro career to begin with.

The idea that guys like that are now pulling in 20 000$ to 30 000$ probably represents a decent share of the value they've created for their clubs/CanPL - particularly considering the fairly limited financial returns being pulled in by teams.

Who needs each other more? It is clear that Can PL has the leverage, and that's why a salary cap increase won't go to the mid and lower range players who are really just filler.

 

Last year Rocket Robin reported that a number of League 1 Ontario players were not willing to make the jump to CPL because of how low the salaries are.

[yellowsweatygorilla]

34 minutes ago, The Real Marc said:

And that's a rational line from Clanachlan but it's overstated and not accurate for the forseeable future. What's interesting is how everyone just bought it. It's a cover for the real reason for a cap which is creating cost certainty on one of the few costs that can be controlled for all teams by HQ.

Sure, there is a finite number of Canadians playing soccer. But that number is in excess of what the league needs to fill roster spots in a seven-to-ten team league, as evidenced by the oodles of Canadians playing for peanuts (or no nuts) in marginal leagues or far-flung locations - not to mention local guys for whom pay is a secondary concern. The league has had no trouble staffing up, and that's without legions of higher-paid Canadian pros returning home from Europe and without emptying USL of all Canadians, let alone the Fury.

I'm not arguing that Camargo's value isn't higher in Can PL. What I'm arguing is that it's really not that much higher given supply and his lack of market leverage and that's why cap increases won't go to guys like him. These players have already shown they'll play for expenses and a stipend in USL or a bedroom and pocket money in barely-pro European leagues. Few fans willing to spend money on Can PL are going to stop watching because a Camargo-esque player decided to be an accountant and is replaced by someone slightly less skilled. Save for York 9, these teams are competing for dollars with minor and junior leagues in other sports, and not with direct soccer competitors. Any player deterred by Can PL salaries is either Europe-or-bust or not up for pro career to begin with.

The idea that guys like that are now pulling in 20 000$ to 30 000$ probably represents a decent share of the value they've created for their clubs/CanPL - particularly considering the fairly limited financial returns being pulled in by teams.

Who needs each other more? It is clear that Can PL has the leverage, and that's why a salary cap increase won't go to the mid and lower range players who are really just filler.

 

Financially, this might make sense for the league, and fans (at this moment anyways) might not be driven away by the standard of play. But I think it's troubling to basically have a league that's 'pay to play' in the sense that you'd basically need to be supported by your family to have a career in soccer at those wage levels. Conversely, if you have your own family to support, as I assume will be a bigger problem in a couple years as players come of age, you're forced to drop out of the league and find other work.

Rhetorically at least, this league was about bringing professional football to the country, and without proper remuneration for players, it's difficult for me to call it that. We can't have players basically subsidizing the league. And I am not one to be naive and argue that the league should be spending at MLS levels, but as unnamedtrialist has said, there may be ways to cut costs elsewhere if only to bring the cap up a couple hundred thousand. For example, I am really up for lowering travel costs by splitting the league up into conferences. Even a $150k increase to the cap would bring average wages up to $40,000, which is much more feasible for players. You provide a marginal increase to the cap, alongside instituting a minimum wage to prevent younger players from subsidizing certain players at the higher end. That way, players at this level can still make a living and if they're good enough they can make the jump to even higher wages w/ MLS.

And while wages aren't the only reason, this is why I keep harping on about having a players union, that way they can actually bargain for things that will help the entire profession and improve professionalization of the sport.

Edited February 18, 2020 by yellowsweatygorilla

[The Real Marc]

 

51 minutes ago, yellowsweatygorilla said:

Rhetorically at least, this league was about bringing professional football to the country, and without proper remuneration for players, it's difficult for me to call it that.

And that's the crux of my thinking - all this kerfuffle over increasing the salary cap is about helping work around the (strangely) negative emotions some have re: the perception of the Can PL as largely semi-pro.

We've had a successful first season. Why all the fuss? Ideally, league wages would be living wages or at least make up a significant component of a player's annual income. Once a league generates enough revenues, a union will help ensure those dollars are shared more equitably and sustainably among the players. In the interim, a union will help raise the salary floor and provide benefits, etc.

Advocate for a cap increase if you want a high quality import or want to bring a guy like Simeon Jackson home or want Kyle Bekker to buy a semi on the Mountain. But advocating for a cap increase to support the mid/low-range guys is about emotion, not economics or soccer outcomes. And it won't help.

There is nothing wrong with a league being semi-pro or having a semi-pro component.

Outside the big five, the AHL, and AAA MiLB, pay to play is what keeps sports leagues alive.

Edited February 18, 2020 by The Real Marc