Jump to content

Recommended Posts

^ 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.     

 

 

  

  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by Unnamed Trialist

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by Ozzie_the_parrot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by Ams1984
Autocorrect is stupid!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by Ozzie_the_parrot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by narduch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by yellowsweatygorilla

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

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 by The Real Marc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Unnamed Trialist said:

...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.

There's supposed to be a salary cap for the coaches as well, so think that part is sorted.

12 minutes ago, yellowsweatygorilla said:

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...

What if your alternatives are flipping burgers or working at the 7/11? Think you are overstating things a bit. Sure there are lots of people who can easily make more with another type of career, but that's not necessarily the demographic that tends to wind up being a pro level soccer player in the first place, because of the various life choices that are involved along the way.

Bottom line is that there were probably more empty seats last summer than the league investors had hoped would be the case everywhere other than Halifax. That factor comes into the equation as well on what's doable and the expectation levels that surrounded this league online have always been very much out in the stratosphere. Think it's a mistake to underestimate the scale of the achievement it would be to have a coast-to-coast ten team plus domestic pro league a couple of seasons from now that can sustain salaries in the $40-60k range for core projected starters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, The Real Marc said:

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.

You must have missed the years of debate and hand wringing on this site about where the players would come from and worry about the quality of the play.  Sure, AFTER the league has had a good quality first season and fully stocked 7 clubs you can say its no big deal.  But plenty of doom and gloomers told us it would be "beer league" low quality semi pro ball without enough money to bring back bigger name pros.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Unnamed Trialist said:

Is Rob Friend getting paid?

I haven't asked but I would doubt he is taking a salary. I assume he stepped in as an owner into that role to save operating expenses. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

-The league is less than a year old.

-Most of the Canadians domestics on CPL teams aren't worth more on the players market, certainly not coming out of our universities, our D3, USL or lower tier elsewhere. If anything, CPL has increased most of their values. 

-We knew from the get go that our pool was thin, being shocked that CPL isn't overpaying for their actual value is plain bad faith. We ALL want Canadians to get paid well and make a good living but it will take time. The reality is not many elsewhere were willing to pay them more so that's just market value rules here.

-The salaries will increase like everyone else, from A-League to K-League and others...yes even MLS so why on earth would it be any different for CPL?

-Truth is that the league opting to find affordable younger internationals capable of increasing the level of play makes them smart. There's lots of talent out there capable of fitting what they are looking for in terms of cost and talent.

-So if CPL isn't a pro league because of the current salaries, MLS wasn't a pro league until much later in it's lifetime. 

better call saul is there anything else i can do for you GIF

Edited by Ansem

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, narduch said:

And to change the subject. Looks like the new kits are being unveiled on Feb. 27. Saw tweets from Cavalry and York9.

Received the email from Forge FC re Feb 27th kit unveiling from  6:30 to 8:30 p.m. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I'll attend the new Forge kit unveiling, it's always a good night at THF Club level, it's doubtful I'll buy one of the new ones no matter how cool they might be!

Share this post


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

What if your alternatives are flipping burgers or working at the 7/11? Think you are overstating things a bit. Sure there are lots of people who can easily make more with another type of career, but that's not necessarily the demographic that tends to wind up being a pro level soccer player in the first place, because of the various life choices that are involved along the way.

The reality is that we have lost players already - we know that. The biggest example is Lefebvre, but I know a whole bunch of L1O players who rejected contract offers, but would've accepted if they could actually make a living on it.

(slight aside, but what underpins my thinking is also that flipping burgers should get you a living wage...)

The other issue though is that it's not like players are only work 6 months as everyone keep saying. Training camp starts in March and the season ends at the start of November. That means a little over 8 months. Players deserve a couple weeks after in the post season, so let's just say 9 months. That means they only have 3 months to supplement their income.

Why do we want people living in poverty (or reliant on family) to subsidize the sport?

And I don't think it's fair to say that wages have no impact on player performances. That only might make sense if you assume player ability remains stagnant and that the current pool of players are willing to work for low wages. Don't we want players to be able to fully commit and focus on training? I know as a teacher, a lot of my students tell me how hard it is to focus on the work while juggling other jobs. It's no surprise that multiple studies have shown finances are one of the major issue for why students drop out of school. I think there's consistencies here with football. I want them to be able to properly commit to this as a career instead of having to see it as a gamble for potential future returns.

 

----

 

And just to be clear, I think close to everything else the league has done in year 1 has been fantastic. I don't see myself as a naysayer for the league. I am also happy with the standard of football on display. 

Edited by yellowsweatygorilla

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry for the tangent, but to come back to the "lack of parity killed the recent NASL" claim. I thought I'd look into this a bit.

Reasons for folding.

City joined MLS: (3) Atlanta, Minnesota, Montreal
City joined USL: (4) Indianapolis, North Carolina, Ottawa, Tampa Bay
Folded before the final season: (3) Fort Lauderdale, Oklahoma City (joined despite there already being a USL team there), San Antonio
Made it through the final season: (6) Edmonton, Jacksonville, Miami, New York, Puerto Rico, San Francisco

Note that Puerto Rico folded but then came back for the last couple seasons. This doesn't take into account whether teams were pushed or pulled to USL, or which of the final season teams would have stuck it out if they could have, but it's worth noting that only Puerto Rico and San Francisco fully folded. The others all went to CPL or NPSL.

Now for the lack of parity in the NASL. Here is a look at the champions for the last 5 years it operated.

Spring champions: Atlanta, Minnesota, New York, Indy, Miami
Fall champions: New York (2) , San Antonio, Ottawa, Miami
Combined table: Carolina, Minnesota, New York (2), Miami
Soccer bowl: New York (3), San Antonio, San Francisco

Total of all 4 combined: New York (8), Miami (3), San Antonio (2), Minnesota (2), San Francisco, Carolina, Ottawa, Atlanta, Indianapolis.

This doesn't exactly scream a lack of parity to me. 9 different teams over those 5 years were competitive enough to win at least a split season, and this is in a league that varied from 7 to 12 teams in size over those years.

Now back to your regularly scheduled CPL discussion. Looking forward to see the new jerseys. Hopefully there there are unique sponsors for each team (I guess I'd give Ottawa a free pass this time around).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, yellowsweatygorilla said:

...I want them to be able to properly commit to this as a career...

I'd want Hamilton Accies to appear regularly in the Champions League. Doesn't mean it's ever going to happen. Life is like that. You don't always get what you want, but there can still be some very sweet moments along the way like when they beat Celtic at Parkhead a few years back for the first time since the late 1930s.

The far side bleachers needed to be filled regularly at Y9 games last summer for the level of league you crave to be likely any time soon. Instead they were giving away freebies by the fistful by all accounts to even be able to get the level of crowds they attracted. The owners are going to decide what they are willing to sustain.

If for the next decade or so CanPL provides a place for players to give pro soccer a try for a few years to see if they have what it takes to move on to a higher level where they could definitely make a career out of it financially then that's still well worthwile. A lot of people will enjoy watching a very decent level of pro soccer, and Tristan Borges and Joel Waterman won't be the last to get that big transfer.

If some players decide another career to pay the bills and playing in L1O on the side is better for them then that's fine as well and is nothing out of the ordinary in soccer terms globally. Only a select few are actually good enough to make the grade and earn the really big money, but that doesn't mean that still being involved in soccer at some level isn't worth it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Kent said:

...This doesn't exactly scream a lack of parity to me....

I stated that it was an unsustainable wage inflation spiral (caused by the overspending of the Cosmos and FC Miami) that helped kill off the second NASL. You have gone off on a bizarre tangent and have even stooped as low as putting something in quotes that was never written in any post as part of building your strawman argument.

Edited by Ozzie_the_parrot

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...