Rafa Marquez to MLS is great; but a quick word of caution
by Steve Davis on Aug 1, 2010 2:02 PM EDT
Email
Print
The Red Bulls have called a news conference for Tuesday to introduce their newest (and third) Designated Player. They haven’t said publicly who it is – but I’d wager a full case of delicious Pacifico Cerveza that his name will rhyme with Mafa Raquez.
The amount of media pop will not reach Thierry Henry proportions along traditional media platforms, but this will be huge news on Spanish Language channels. As captain of
I do love the attention all these DPs are getting for MLS, and I love the thought of seeing a truly quality team finally fill up the (and potentially light up) the land’s most influential media market.
But let’s make no mistake about one thing: the arms race is on. And we should all be slightly weary of where it will all lead.
Don’t think for a second that
So, once
And it may work for the league.
Don’t forget, RSL won the title with a “No DP’s allowed” salary structure at a time when the rules allowed only one, with the possibility of gaining another. Now, you can have two and even a third for paying what amounts to a small luxury tax ($250,000 to be distributed among the other clubs).
So, I have a feeling the RSL model won’t work for long, although Jason Kreis’ team is good enough that they’ll be contenders this year, for sure.
This could easily create a rich vs. no-so-rich divide – and I’m not sure that’s a great thing for the sport.
It’s all unchartered waters for this league, and I’m not sure it will be a bad thing at all. I’m just saying, let’s all keep a close eye on this.
28 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I think the key is to get a lot of teams with 3 DPs
Because that makes the pool of teams splitting the 3rd DP tax smaller, giving them more allocation, letting them buy some good not quite DP players.
As for RSL, I expect that they will use a DP or two in the off-season to retain their strike force.
Let’s say 8 teams get 3 DPs (LAG, RBNY, TFC, SSFC, Chicago, DCU, PDX, VWFC) next year. This wouldn’t be stunning. That would mean that 10 teams would be splitting the 2M$
200k Allocation dollars each for the “small market” sides. Allocation is gold in this league. 200k salary ignoring the cap
I am not a Supporter | I am not a Fan | I am a Sounder
Sounder At Heart
I wouldn't expect more than 1 DP in DC as long as we're at RFK
There are reasons why our DP has to be a low-end one like Boskovic (who looks pretty good, but he’s not a “name” at all). Until we make progress on the stadium front, or until Chang finds the investment partners he’s looking for, DCU loses too much money playing at RFK to pay someone a ton of money outside the cap.
On top of that, we already got burned once going for a big name DP when Gallardo came, briefly showed interest, then got hurt and wiped his hands of MLS. That was a $1 million+ mistake, and when you lose money at every home game, you can’t afford mistakes like that.
by ChestRockwell on Aug 3, 2010 5:37 PM EDT up reply actions
A lot of interesting angles here
Different approaches to DPs: NY has gone as big as big can be with their 3 DPs while Seattle has gone a different way with signing talented, but lesser-known players – none of which probably command the kind of salary any of NYs DPs do (I guess Landin showed us that you need to make sure you scout these guys very thoroughly before they sign, though). Other teams might go the route of keeping players who would otherwise go to Europe around with a DP salary. Especially with extra allocation, you have to think that the not-so-rich teams can afford at least one or even two lesser-known DPs if they really want to (whether they want to is another question).
Also, DPs do not a team make: even if you have 3 of them. Sure Henry and Angel looked great together up front, even spectacular at times. But Houston still tied. By tying up so much of the salary cap in DPs, that leaves less money to get reasonable talent across the rest of the roster. And with the number of MLS games probably increasing year-by-year as well as the other competitions teams can be in, depth can be just as important as a few quality players.
My brain just won't let this pass, so sorry for being nitpicky.
do you mean wary instead of weary? although both could be true.
I may not have been sure about what really did interest me, but I was absolutely sure about what didn't.
Nitpick II
“uncharted” instead of “unchartered”
Otherwise, I think it’s a great post with a great point; we’ll have to keep an eye on the ramifications of the new rule.
yeah ...
… and be sure to keep an eye on my GSP as well (grammar, spelling, punctuation). I do miss the weary-wary sometime. I’ve probably gotten the other one wrong my entire life. Life without an editor (on the blog) can be dicey …
DPs are not a bad thing
I think that at this point, almost any DP is a good signing. By showing that international players can come here and earn a living, it only helps legitimize the league for future DPs. I don’t see any issue with the ‘arms race’ problem you talk about. It happens in EPL, La Liga, etc as well as MLB. Those leagues are doing pretty well. The influx in talent (even if it is only on a few teams) will be a positive for the league.
doing well
So let’s review doing good, clubs hundreds of millions of dollars in debt (those are the successful ones), you had a team miss payroll several times and almost go into administration in the EPL and several in LaLiga are close to that point. This in leagues where there are billion dollar TV deals.
There is no way that NYRB can pay for their players based on the teams earning, this is a move by a big brand to use the team as nothing but an advertising tool. I am fine with teams who can afford to pay their players with their own bankroll, but for MLS to really become a successful league there needs to be a balance. This is a huge attempt (in my opinion) to get the big market teams to be champions (LA, NY, and to some extent Seattle), you have to believe that the MLS brass believes it is better for those markets to be the champs than Columbus and Salt Lake. LA has a ton of money in their ownership group, and their ownership of the HDC is what makes them profitable, only Seattle is drawing crowds large enough to support their spending and I have no problem with teams that can pay their bills spending more.
Steve is right on target with this article, it is uncharted waters but we will never know if it is really working because I don’t expect MLS or Red Bull to tell us how much they make or loss this year. Hell this is a team that with a brand new stadium that is averaging 9,000 empty seats. Yes their attendance is up over last year, but with all the hype over their new stadium and a team playing much better than last year and they still have 1/3 of their stadium empty.
We all know that Seattle is pulling in over 35,000 per match and I have no issues or questions that they are a club able to make money, despite not playing in a stadium they own. They have done a brilliant job of marketing in their community, and you have to believe they will lead MLS merchandise sales this year. Since the beginning MLS has operated in debt and without an overall profit as a league, this type of spending without a solid plan to increase incoming revenue is dangerous for a league that is still trying to establish itself. Sorry, Dave 200K in allocation money to each team isn’t crap, that really is one player so for a team with deep pockets to get Juan Pablo Angel, Thierry Henry, and Marquez while a team without those pockets to get a Bobby Boswell is exactly the have and have not situation that Steve warns about. You are right that allocation money is the key, but until those numbers become public and how they are allocated from MLS becomes public, they remain a very questionable factor to me.
scouting
200k can be used to bolster a couple of incoming players from South America or Africa, where they might be on the edge of being able to transfer to a Europe but not quite. If a team scouts correctly, then they can offer a contract for 150k and add another 100k allocation. This, giving the player of quality a reason to leave their current team. I don’t know if the difference between a designated player and an on the edge designated player would be that different. Teams still have to find the best fit. Scouting becomes key.
Exactly
200k can buy you a Fredy Montero AND a Jhon Kennedy Hurtado at ZERO cap hit.
That’s two all stars for free.
I am not a Supporter | I am not a Fan | I am a Sounder
Sounder At Heart
A part owner of the Sounders owns Qwest
Which means for all practical purposes, the Sounders own Qwest.
by CarlosT on Aug 2, 2010 2:44 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Red Balls
Just some local perspective on the team and their new stadium:
I’m from the metro area originally, but now I live in NE CT. (much closer to the Revs, but as a lifelong CT resident and Jets fan I’d rather cut off my arm than have one dime of my money go into the coffers of Kraft and the Pats.) I’ve been a supporter of the team for 5 years or so, and for most of that time I lived close enough to the city to go to a game anytime if I wanted to. But yet I only ever went to one, and that was because I got tickets for my birthday.
The new stadium is slightly easier to get to, and at the beginning of the season I said to myself, ‘ill have to get out there and check out a game one day.’ But it wasnt until they signed Henry that I actually looked into getting tickets, train info, etc.
The point is that the team needed something, in a media market that more or less ignores it on a regular basis, to the point where the local sports radio doesnt even give scores for all of the games, to get people interested, and get them in the door. The team has been miserable for most of their history, despite putting together a few good runs, and the experience they offered at their rented stadium prior to this year was frankly poor.
most MLS franchises made the mistake in their early years of catering to the casual sports fan, or to families, which might explain why of the 9,000 or so fans who attended that one game at Giants stadium with me, about 7000 were under the age of 11. These moves for Henry and Marquez are designed to foster credibility with soccer snobs, and get them to take a second look at MLS, to come out to the beautiful new ground, and hopefully to get behind a winning team.
As steve mentioned in an earlier post, winning is what will build a fan base, and I would add that that’s especially true in New York. I haven’t had MSG network since I moved up here, but I noticed before I left that their soccer coverage was expanding, and thats another thing that could really help the team and the league, in terms of both revenue and exposure. I know its not realistic to expect a Red Bull version of SNY or that other team’s network, but partnership with regional sports networks is something I hope the MLS brass are looking into. CSN which we have here in CT carries the Revs games, but apart from that there is minimal coverage of anything MLS.
OK what's the answer then?
Do you continue to run the league on a shoestring and hope that a few superstars come through? You point out that Red Bull Arena has been a third empty for many games this season. Could that be because people don’t want to pay to see Seth Stammler and Dane Richards?
Of course MLS could always fold up its tent in New York and LA and allow the Columbuses and Salt Lakes to carry the league. Good luck with that.
by Matthew Conroy on Aug 3, 2010 12:09 PM EDT up reply actions
my point exactly
the new arena was not enough. big name players are a big step in the right direction, it gets people in the door, but the novelty factor will wear off if they don’t bring in some trophies.
(Hell, with the Mets going in the tank this year 7/16 of NY baseball fans will have nothing worthwhile to watch, maybe they’ll get into soccer.)
No one wants to see teams bankrupt themselves to sign big names, but im sure RB sees this as an investment. If this group can win a championship or two or three, the team will be finally established as an entity in MLS and they can build from there. The DP rules keep some structure and prevent full-blown NASL meltdown while allowing the teams with the capital to jump ahead on team development.
Hell, RSL is a team that won the MLS cup...
This is a huge attempt (in my opinion) to get the big market teams to be champions (LA, NY, and to some extent Seattle), you have to believe that the MLS brass believes it is better for those markets to be the champs than Columbus and Salt Lake.
Definitely a very creative conspiracy theory. I don’t believe it, but lets explore. Taking steps to make these teams champions would be a good business move for merchendising and would have a higher upside on future ticket sales. However, I think this theory is flawed given the facts of league parity, no free agency, weighted drafts for incoming US players, etc. Nice try though. I’m suspicious that comments like these are tossed around so that when LA, NY, or Seattle win the MLS Cup, an “I told you so” can be just as easily tossed out with further conspiracy theories. RSL won the freaking MLS cup. The fact that they won (and the manner in which they won) proves a lot about exactly how fair this league is. Frankly I think the league is on pretty high moral ground overall. Comments like this are misguided and misinformed.
Hell this is a team that with a brand new stadium that is averaging 9,000 empty seats
That’s one way to look at it. Another is to realize that NY average attendance is up 23% from last season. By comparison, RSL won the MLS cup last season and their average attendance is up a whole 2%. I think it’s a fair argument that winning a championship should drive sales as much as (probably more than) a new stadium yet RSL has failed miserably in this regard.
Slight correction
I did the math wrong on NY’s average attendance increase. They’re actually up 30%. RSL’s 2% increase was, however, calculated correctly. Obviously this doesn’t change my points at all. In fact, it further strengthens them.
The issue is historical
Overspending on big name players played a big role in bringing down the NASL.
Los Angeles is like Manchester. There is a red team that wins championships and a blue team that doesn't.
One tweak: recurring cost
The one tweak I’d like to see is for the 3rd DP slot to have a recurring tax, not the paltry $250k fee in perpetuity it has now. Obviously a lesser number, maybe just $100k, with it divvied amongst the other teams based on the number of DPs they have.
Because the MLS Yankees aren’t going to be the NYRB or the LAG, it’s going to be Sounders FC. They are starting to use their DP slots on very talented, young players, with the latest speculation being that Fredy Montero could be the 3rd DP before the start of next season. And if they’re smart about it, and the Sounders front office is very smart, a team can turn their DPs into an allocation money laundering operation. Take Fernandez, for example: at 24, the Sounders can keep him for three years, continue to develop him, and then sell him on in his prime. As long as they can get $750k for him, they’ll get $500k in allocation dollars. If they do the same with Fredy, no could argue they’d get less than that. So another $500k in allocation money. If they continue to use one slot for a veteran star and then use each of the other two slots to generate a talent they can sell on every 4 years (allowing for some misfires), which is especially easy of those talents start as non-DPs (Montaño at 19 is one of those, as is Zakuani), then every other year you’ll selling on a player for $500k in allocation dollars, or increasing your cap by $250k a year. And if a team viewed this as a competitive advantage versus a revenue generator, they could start spending more on the DP players than they sell them on for, guaranteeing that $500k in allocation money comes in even quicker.
Without some yearly tax on the 3rd DP, (smart) big clubs are going to get to have their cake and eat it, too.
As a Sounders fan, I don’t want a league where we win the Cup every other year and F.C. Dallas is always at the bottom of the table with barely 5,000 fans in the seats. Foregone conclusions aren’t good for the league and they aren’t good for the sport.
I see where you're coming from, but
there’s a lot more risk and variability in players than that. There will be misfires and there will be guys the team doesn’t sell off or gets less than that for, etc. It’s not a factory, though I would agree that so far the Sounders’ scouting dept has been very good. The danger isn’t that cut and dried and even if it were, it would take a good few years for any team to get that much advantage on the league. If it’s even possible, even with multiple DPs.
I think Denz’s arguments are much more convincing. I’m not sure I totally buy it, but in the long run, the spending argument is much more applicable and dangerous. I wouldn’t want the MLS to be similar to the EPL, with various teams going bankrupt every few years. I also wouldn’t want a small handfull of teams to consistently dominate the standings, but I still don’t see that happening. Let’s see how RBNY does on the field this season before anyone gets too worked up. I still think a solid roster of good players a la RSL can compete with multiple DP teams until proven otherwise. LA was effectively a multiple DP team while the rest of the league had only 1 allowable DP and they weren’t that great until their other talent exploded.
Don't count your championships and cash just yet...
Players do hit walls, get injured, lose interest, fight with their coaches, and/or look for greener pastures. The Fernandez signing upside is very high (I sure am hoping the Fire can do something similar) but it is not all smooth sailing as you suggest. If it were so ‘easy’, every team would be doing it or they will start copying. You think other teams are going to sit on their hands and shrug their shoulders if Seattle is winning everything? Strategies get studied, ambitious people are hired away from successful organizations, bad luck falls upon everyone.
by Chicago Illinois on Aug 2, 2010 4:14 PM EDT up reply actions
Another beautiful thing about the beautiful game...
is that I don’t think it will matter much in terms of winning championships until we get teams made up of primarily DP talent and willing to spend to get in when other teams can’t or won’t.
In the meantime, the eleven players that make up a soccer team can not be largely brought to a higher level of play by one, two or even three very good-to-excellent players. Look at recent champs and you would see that DP’s were not involved in the RSL or Houston championship rosters.
I think the DP rule at this point is much more about effects made off the pitch and all of those are good in my opinion – notoriety, exposure to fans who may not have otherwise attended an MLS match (Eurosnobs, I’m looking at you), etc.
Keep ’em coming I say…
I disagree
Two or three very good players can definitely raise the play of a team. One can, if it’s the right one. Sure, DP-aided teams haven’t won the MLS cup yet, but so far there haven’t been that many teams with DPs for that many seasons and there’s only been one DP allowed. I think that will change. Maybe not this season, but within the next couple. I still think teams w/o a DP will be able to compete because not every DP will really raise the play of the team or contribute to the level they were expected to, but some will. MLS has so much parity that anything which shifts the playing field a little in one direction or another can really make a big difference. Especially in the playoffs, where individual quality can really make a difference in a couple of matches. RSL was far from some offensive juggernaut in the play-offs. One goal against in the championship would have sunk them – you’d have to think that a front two of Angel and Henry, for example, very well might have gotten one.
I’m sort of ambivalent about whether or not the DP rule will really be a huge change. It will really show the haves and have-nots pretty clearly, but will it make some teams totally unable to compete? I’m not sure. I’d have to say that in a couple of seasons, an RSL-type team could certainly still make the playoffs, but winning another cup might be a longshot.
AEG is pretty agressive when it comes to these things
…as long as it doesn’t involve their orange kitted step child down in Houston
"Well, at least our players kept their helmets on, so that showed some intelligence"-Bob McNair
by papabear on Aug 2, 2010 12:50 PM EDT via mobile reply actions
yeah...not only was he a failure
but he barely qualified as a DP. His salary was in line with the rest of the better paid non-DP players in the league. The transfer fee was the difference
"Well, at least our players kept their helmets on, so that showed some intelligence"-Bob McNair
I'm going to switch around your sentences bc I have more to say about the former
“Real Salt Lake, after all, won a title with no DPs.”
In fact, every MLS Cup team has been without a DP. Granted the rules have changed significantly but perhaps we should start worrying about the teams with multiple designated players dominating the league when it actually starts to happen?
“And it may work for the league.”
It sure will work for the league. Forced continual parity has been going on for 14 years now and it isn’t drawing people to FC Dallas. Do you think Dallas just needs to get out the word that they are tied for 4th place and people will be tripping over themselves to buy tickets while simultaneously kicking themselves for not doing so before?
Players like Thierry Henry don’t just increase ticket sales at their home stadiums, they up the attendance numbers wherever they travel on the road too. Soccer fans who look down on MLS want to see the big names before they attend and regular people will be 10000% times more open to going to see something if they know a recognizable face or two. Instead of bankrupting teams like Dallas, the designated players might actually save them with an injection of money every year. Guaranteed attendance draws will also make struggling MLS teams more attractive for purchase and relocation. I don’t want to see any team moved at this point but if a team does start to struggle and go into bankruptcy, more investors from big markets will line up to save the team instead of having the league contract after careful expansion.
by Chicago Illinois on Aug 2, 2010 5:54 PM EDT reply actions
Yet it works in other markets
10 teams are averaging over 14,000 this year, San Jose and KC are both around 10K, because of their stadiums and not because of fan interest. So let’s look at the other 4 markets:
Columbus Crew – averaging 13,984, which is up 6% over last year. They are two time winners of the supporter’s shield and in first place in the East and yet they have a hard time drawing. The first SSS in MLS is nothing fancy, but clearly this team isn’t being impacted by a lack of quality on the pitch.
Colorado Rapids – averaging 13, 214, which is up 6% over last year. This is a team that has a nice stadium, but since moving there has struggled to treat fans right, they made a clear effort this year to improve their fan relations. The team is competitive and has been in the playoff hunt until the final day of the regular season each of the last two years.
New England Revolution – averaging 11,796, which is down almost 10% from last year. They have struggled on the pitch and play in a stadium that simply isn’t friendly to the sport but is owned by the owners of the team. This is the first year that they have really struggled and are likely to miss the playoffs in a long time. I have read that they are finally taking some steps to work with their fans to figure out how to improve attendance.
FC Dallas – averaging 11,231, which is up almost 30% from last year. Location, location, location, is one of the biggest issues they placed their stadium very far away form what was their old location (the Cotton Bowl) and away from the main urban population centers. Public transit is a joke to the stadium. The issues in Dallas go beyond location, they have burnt a number of bridges with the youth soccer community over the years and those problems continue to plague them. Yes they will get a lovely pop when Rafa comes to town (more then Henry), but those fans will come wearing Mexico jerseys and will not come back until the next time he or another one of their hero’s show up.
There are plenty of issues that could come with DP’s and yes away teams will get a pop when a popular player comes to town, but I doubt that they will be lining up around the block to see Mista or De Guzman. No team (other than LA) has ever had more than one DP (New York tried but Reyna lasted like 3 matches). Now you have teams with 2 and 3, and the impact is already being seen. The 4 bottom teams in each conference have no DP’s, of the top 4 teams in both conferences only 3 have no DP’s, while 5 have them. DP’s are no guarantee of a trophy, as we know any team can have the soccer gods smile on them and beat any other team, on any given day. We have also never seen the number or quality of DP’s coming in be higher than the recent crop.
