Jump to content

Recommended Posts

The average player not even making their MLS bench makes more than many CPL starters. I think that’s a bad valuation of talent, but I also think it could prevent young MLS players from getting loans to CPL, and I think there are heaps of young Canadians that could benefit from a loan. But loaned players would be some of the highest paid on a CPL roster and I don’t think you can guarantee a Simon Colyn, Michael Baldisimo, Raposo or Facchineri would be a home run in this league next season. So it becomes a risk to commit that much of the cap on young players

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Ozzie_the_parrot said:

Given its only active for 7 months, it shouldn't be a shock if the players are working jobs the other 5 months. The main thing is whether they train five days a week in the mornings during the season.

As I referenced Camargo is going to be working during the CPL season. He was taking interviews last week.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lots of thoughts.

It's Year 1, it was a cautious figure and I'm sure CPL brass know it's too low to be taken seriously.  It'll move upwards quite quickly but of course, as has been mentioned, the rub is in where you go to from here.  There is risk involved.

But simply put, to my mind anyway, if half the teams aren't complaining the cap is too high while others aren't complaining that the cap is too low then you need to raise the cap.  Might be hard to do with the owners having the final say but...

And as always the Devil is in the details.  A $750K cap reads differently when say, it doesn't include the $10K you're required to pay each player on your roster for housing & sundry, doesn't it?  Not saying that is what's happening, just suggesting we probably aren't seeing the full picture just yet. 

Also, pet peeve of mine,  if we have a player salary cap to encourage parity, and by necessity that means the cap has to be set at a level which is sustainable by the weakest link within the CPL family, why don't we have travel costs being an equally shared burden by all members of that family?  Does that create a subsidy?  Yup.  Will that subsidy nudge the salary cap upwards?  If your weakest links are also the organizations with the highest travel cost, then also yup.

And finally, development league or no, developing players in this league shouldn't be seeking outside employment, not even in the off season.  Don't care how long the season is or isn't.  Not trying to make it harder for anyone to make ends meet but if it isn't footie 24/7 365 you've missed the 1st leason you need to learn about being a professional footballer.  At any level. 

Raise the cap.

 

 

 

  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Reign said:

As I referenced Camargo is going to be working during the CPL season. He was taking interviews last week.

Do you have a link?? I dont seem to be able to find the video...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Cheeta said:

....if we have a player salary cap to encourage parity, and by necessity that means the cap has to be set at a level which is sustainable by the weakest link within the CPL family,...

...and if that's 750k there obviously are no megamillions being received from the Mediapro deal at this point. If some of the teams are struggling to consistently draw more than 2000 actually in the stadium as was abundantly clear from the Onesoccer coverage towards the end of last season regardless of what the attendance stats might have been there would probably need to be a very high tolerance for red ink on the part of some of the owners for the cap to rise substantially. The league is what it is in other words. Hopefully a large enough hardcore will hang in there as the soccer culture grows and standards improve in the years ahead. Rome wan't built in a day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ozzie_the_parrot said:

...and if that's 750k there obviously are no megamillions being received from the Mediapro deal at this point. If some of the teams are struggling to consistently draw more than 2000 actually in the stadium as was abundantly clear from the Onesoccer coverage towards the end of last season regardless of what the attendance stats might have been there would probably need to be a very high tolerance for red ink on the part of some of the owners for the cap to rise substantially. The league is what it is in other words. Hopefully a large enough hardcore will hang in there as the soccer culture grows and standards improve in the years ahead. Rome wan't built in a day.

As per usual you have no idea what you’re talking about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ozzie_the_parrot said:

If some of the teams are struggling to consistently draw more than 2000 actually in the stadium as was abundantly clear from the Onesoccer coverage towards the end of last season regardless of what the attendance stats might have been there would probably need to be a very high tolerance for red ink on the part of some of the owners for the cap to rise substantially.

To be viable, the clubs only need the paid attendance  (plus all other revenue) to cover their expenses. Of course for a host of very obvious reasons everyone concerned wants ticket holders to show up. But lets be clear that fans not showing up is a secondary problem to fans not buying tickets. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Aird25 said:

The average player not even making their MLS bench makes more than many CPL starters. I think that’s a bad valuation of talent, but I also think it could prevent young MLS players from getting loans to CPL... So it becomes a risk to commit that much of the cap on young players

I don't know much about loans from MLS, but in Europe, loans are a negotiation between two teams. Sometimes very little of the player's wages are picked up by the team bringing him in on loan. Whatever the two parties agree to would be the loan terms: wages, length of loan, expectations of playing time, etc. So, it may be that loans wouldn't hit the salary cap much at all, meaning young Canadians in MLS could indeed be loaned to CPL clubs. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, RickC said:

I don't know much about loans from MLS, but in Europe, loans are a negotiation between two teams. Sometimes very little of the player's wages are picked up by the team bringing him in on loan. Whatever the two parties agree to would be the loan terms: wages, length of loan, expectations of playing time, etc. So, it may be that loans wouldn't hit the salary cap much at all, meaning young Canadians in MLS could indeed be loaned to CPL clubs. 

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.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Cheeta said:

Lots of thoughts.

It's Year 1, it was a cautious figure and I'm sure CPL brass know it's too low to be taken seriously.  It'll move upwards quite quickly but of course, as has been mentioned, the rub is in where you go to from here.  There is risk involved.

But simply put, to my mind anyway, if half the teams aren't complaining the cap is too high while others aren't complaining that the cap is too low then you need to raise the cap.  Might be hard to do with the owners having the final say but...

And as always the Devil is in the details.  A $750K cap reads differently when say, it doesn't include the $10K you're required to pay each player on your roster for housing & sundry, doesn't it?  Not saying that is what's happening, just suggesting we probably aren't seeing the full picture just yet. 

Also, pet peeve of mine,  if we have a player salary cap to encourage parity, and by necessity that means the cap has to be set at a level which is sustainable by the weakest link within the CPL family, why don't we have travel costs being an equally shared burden by all members of that family?  Does that create a subsidy?  Yup.  Will that subsidy nudge the salary cap upwards?  If your weakest links are also the organizations with the highest travel cost, then also yup.

And finally, development league or no, developing players in this league shouldn't be seeking outside employment, not even in the off season.  Don't care how long the season is or isn't.  Not trying to make it harder for anyone to make ends meet but if it isn't footie 24/7 365 you've missed the 1st leason you need to learn about being a professional footballer.  At any level. 

Raise the cap.

 

 

 

  

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). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 by The Real Marc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 by The Real Marc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 ****.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by Cblake

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.       

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^^ 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  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Cheeta said:

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.       

 

Is that why LBG left? I had assumed it was because of the disfunctional Valour dressing room. Same as Bustos and probably also Petrasso. An exodus like that is unlikely to be based on the money.

I'm not sure that CPL will inflate the value of Canadian players much while CPL clubs don't have much money. It is true that demand for Canadian players has increased but that demand is mostly for players who would be playing semi-pro or even amateur otherwise. CPL clubs are not in a bidding war for these players -- other than with each other, and all are similarly financially limited. Also, I suspect the supply of players at this level is plentiful; the base of the talent pyramid is broad. Which means that CPL clubs can make a "take it or leave it" offer and easily find another target if the player decides to "leave it".

This would of course change if CPL clubs had more money and were in a position to compete for the better Canadian players.

Edited by Lofty

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...