On the most recent Match Fit USA podcast, Nathaniel Baker of American Soccer News and I discussed the issue of parity in Major League Soccer. Specifically, we talked about Nathaniel's notion that while early results indicate a gap between the good and the bad in 2009, parity is still the law of the land, and things will get back to normal shortly.

We also discussed (forced) parity as a concept, and whether MLS is suffering or benefiting because of it.

It's a difficult question to answer, and one that splits those who are fans first from those who appreciate the business concerns of the league.

It's definitely a tricky question, though it may not seem so on the surface. Parity means more teams with a chance to win every year; the assumption is more fans will remain interested as long as parity reigns.

I'm not so sure that's the case.

In the U.S., we have working examples of both schools of thought: the NFL strives for parity, levelling the field through salary caps and other restrictions, while Major League Baseball maintains a more free-market mentality, allowing its richest teams to spend at will.

Both are wildly successful, both draw millions of fans, and both have a license to print money; this fact makes it difficult to see either as a potential guide for MLS. What to do? Use enforced parity to cast the widest net possible for fans but hamstring attempts to improve quality, or let the biggest clubs spend the most, possible alienating fans of smaller clubs?

Hmmm...

MLS has its reason for the salary cap, player-movement restrictions, and travel rules (which are a different story and should be dropped immediately). They're mostly valid, mostly defensible, and mostly appropriate. Nothing is likely to change for a very long time (think ten years or more), so maybe it's not even worth thinking about.

But what if?

What would MLS looks like if all of those parity-ensuring rules were thrown out the window?

Would New York and LA dominate, spending more than other teams by factors of ten?

Would New York and LA even be the teams that would most benefit from having the shackles removed?

Those teams in their own stadiums or with favorable (or free) leases would be ahead of the game immediately; without the albatross of a poor stadium situation (poor DC) handing around their necks, those clubs would simply be able to carry more of a salary burden than other clubs.

Most likely to benefit the most? In the short term, those aforementioned big clubs, plus Seattle, Toronto and maybe one or two others. But I don't believe the gap would be so large as to completely skew the competition; the playoffs (assuming they remain in place for the foreseeable future) would allow for the possibility of a magical run for a smaller-budget team.

Perhaps that's the key, and the trade off that MLS fans should hope for: as nice as a single table would be, I'm more than willing to forget about it if the crushing financial restrictions are removed/lessened. Imagine a league with teams able to spend on reasonable talent, but with competitive balance still maintained to a degree thanks to the playoff structure.

Wouldn't that be nice?

The bottom line for me is this: everyone, and I mean everyone, involved in Major League Soccer is aware of the NASL shadow that hangs over soccer in America. At what point does the league finally decide that the owners "get it", that self-restraint on their part is a given as long as that NASL elephant sits in the room, and that the league cannot continue to grow without a bit of spending?

Don't get me wrong. I understand why the league exists in its current form. I understand why owners and teams are handcuffed by overly restrictive salary rules. I understand why every contract is league-owned, why the allocation list exists, and why willy-nilly spending is strictly prohibited.

That doesn't mean I have to like it.

At some point, MLS and it's investors are going to have to let these teams stand on their own two feet. Forced parity just seems so...un-American.

I may have not come within a mile of coherent thought at any point, but I'd love to get your thoughts.

Is forced parity good for the long term health of the league, or a outdated concept that now holds it back?