- Jason Davis

There was a conference call I wasn't on this afternoon. I hear that MLS ExViceP Todd Durbin talked about developments on the player acquisition front. Some of it was of the "Hey! Look at what we did!" variety. Some of it was to announce a change in the Designated Player rule that will allow clubs to identify and sign younger players above the usual salary limits. A tiny bit of it was to reveal that the league has signed Eddie Johnson and that GAM will be allocated by the usual means at some point in the next two days.

Whatever the breakout of time spent talking about each topic actually was, it's the new twist on the DP rule that is obviously the talking point. Owners are naturally adverse to risk, which younger players that require DP designations (usually due to transfer fees hitting the cap) are. Who knows how many times coaches have returned from trips to Central and South America giddy over a young player their club could have had for a reasonable fee, only to be told the cap hit would be too large or the club is holding on to DP slots for "accomplished" names. Maybe not that often, but it certainly happens.

by Robert Jonas - Center Line Soccer


With much anticipation, the inaugural MLS re-entry draft arrived this week with a varied assortment of players available for selection. Big name veterans like Guillermo Barros Schelotto and Juan Pablo Angel and modestly paid options like Luke Sassano and Joseph Ngwenya populated the initial list of 35 players that went un-tendered by their original teams. This draft was lauded as a breakthrough moment for the players of MLS, who in their negotiations earlier this year on a new Collective Bargaining Agreement with the league wanted greater flexibility in changing teams in the off-season — a form of free agency if you will in a league where all player contracts are owned by a single entity. Yet when the big event commenced this previous Wednesday, it concluded
with only two players selected, and in as much time as it takes me to brew my morning cup of tea.

There's a bit of jockeying to be done, but the MLS Cup playoff field is set.  Playoffs are what Americans do; be you a traditionalist or not, it's hard to argue that this particular playoff season isn't setting up to be a barn burner.    The "best" team over the course of the season might not win (though we don't know who that is quite yet), but that the price we pay for heightened excitement.

The idea that MLS is headed down a dangerous path with increasing investment in players like David Beckham and Thierry Henry is not a new one.  Nor is the inflammatory notion that doing so will create NASL redux, a repeat of history that will inevitably lead to the league's collapse.

My calendar says August 12th, which means that the MLS transfer window for attached players ends in just a few days. Considering the rather busy summer we've had for MLS signings, it would hardly be a surprise if all of the big splash moves have been consummated and the window will close without another name player joining MLS.


Call me greedy, but that makes me a little sad.


Oh, I know - with Henry, Marquez, Nkufo, Fernandez, Castillo, even Mista and Boskovic, MLS has added a slew of talented and expensive players to the mix. It should make for an exciting stretch run, and we're already beginning to see the fruits of the broadened DP rule on the field. I'm particularly struck by how much one player can affect the confidence of his new teammates; it looks to me like several Red Bulls have upped their game since Titi arrived in Harrison.


I should be sated, I suppose. But the silly season hit MLS full force for the first time in 2010, and damn was it fun. From nonsensical rumors to the what everyone knew was inevitable, MLS teams garnered headlines in places the league had never gone before. That's half the point, of course. These are good players though, players that should in almost every case help their teams be better. The ceiling is higher for some because of the talent they joined, but the league as a whole will undoubtedly benefit from a bump in the number of high-class footballers. If the play is better and attendance increases because of select signings, it's hard to see a negative in the Summer of Signings.


So bring on more, I say. Why isn't that Ronaldinho deal done? Can MLS somehow pry Raul away from Schalke? Where's New England's obviously needed Portuguese star? How do we convince Kroenke to spend some cash? Shouldn't Chicago have a third DP?


I'm hunting rumors in foreign-language sources, I'm looking for any indication MLS teams are still searching, I'm scouring page after page of blog posts and "reputable" reporting for a whiff of something, anything, coming.


Omar Bravo will be a Wizard? That's great! Oh, in January. Hmmm...


Rooney to Seattle? Of course, it's not Wayne. Not much to get excited about there.


If it is done, if MLS teams have exhausted themselves for this particular window, consider it mission accomplished from a profile standpoint. Perhaps Henry would have brought the league increased attention all on his own, the way Beckham did in '07 but to a somewhat lesser degree; but with multiple players of recognition and quality signing in one fell swoop, MLS multiplied the effect. Providing clubs with options to mitigate the DP salary cap hit as well as purchase a third slot has proved to be a stroke of genius from most angles.


That's if you like good players plying their trade in your backyard in stadiums now fuller because they're there.


Which is why I don't want this window to close without squeezing everything out of it humanly possible.


Can I have just one more? I'd even settle for a non-DP most people have heard of...or a goalkeeper.


Damn, this is getting sad.

The dawning of a new era in Major League Soccer, one in which New York can outspend everyone and acquire a trio of high-priced talents, has inevitably created a bit of worry. "Parity" has for so long been the overriding principle of the league that one must wonder how the relaxing of the DP rule might affect the competitive balance. NFL-bred Don Garber is now in charge of a league that is creeping out of its fifteen-year old box; where the league is headed, and if that direction might create a top-heavy competition or an NASL-style downfall, is suddenly the question du jour.


Steve Davis is concerned, Clemente Lisi floated a question, and Tom Dunmore outlined the disparity between the new MLS reality and Don Garber's all-for-one background. Dunmore's piece provides framing and prompts natural questions while Lisi and Davis are more direct in their insinuations that MLS is playing with fire by letting loose the purse strings. For the latter two, perhaps years of observing MLS and watching the league go through pains to get where it is today, combined with the shadow of NASL (which Lisi evokes throughout), makes skepticism natural.


And I'll admit, even as I'm exhilarated that MLS is lurching forward dramatically, I wonder if it might be too much, too fast. Luckily, there are a few facts that make this MLS version (what are we on now, 2.5? 3.0?) a far cry from the NASL. In fact, I laid out some reasons for that belief in a post for Four Four Two just last week. Even the question of competitive imbalance is up in the air, with the second half of the 2010 season giving us our first glimpse at a flashier MLS and what it might mean on the field.


I get it, it's scary. Money is going out the door at an alarming rate in some cities while others sit on the sidelines and might be marginalized because of it. But only time will tell if Red Bull's spree will bear fruit, if LA is destined to dominate the league, or if Chicago's gambles will pay off. Three pricey stars, the maximum any team can assemble, guarantees nothing; this is especially true with the uncertainty of the playoffs looming over everything.


I run hot and cold on the need for parity in MLS. As a practical matter, I believe that LA and New York need to be good for the league to gain more national prominence. That might mean smaller markets suffer competitively, but smart management and good coaching can turn even the league's "poorest" clubs into contenders. Never has success on the field guaranteed success at the box office. Winning matters, but marketing soccer in America is a tricky proposition even when a club is scoring goals and threatening for titles.


I hardly think parity will go out the window with a sudden burst of spending limited to a few players per team. Nevertheless, MLS has moved further away from "Parity Above All" in 2010 than ever before. Will the fears be realized?


Expect more backlash, both of the even-handed Steve Davis-type as well as the more indirectly inflammatory Clemente Lisi-type as the "new" MLS shakes out.

It's finally here...Thierry Henry announcement day. Kinda. It's in the New York Times, so we know it's real, and after all the nonsense, acknowledgment is step one. No more beating around the bush. No more games, no more subterfuge, and no more clever marketing. The Red Bulls have an aging, cheating, France-disaster contributing (because they're ALL contributors, Anelka-like petulance or not) all-time great striker on their hands, and dammit if he isn't going to help them fill up that beautiful new building of theirs.


I imagine it's like freaking Christmas for Red Bull fans. I'm happy for them. I can put my cynicism on hold for the moment, because tough the timing is unfortunate, I have high hopes for what TH14 can bring to Le Toreaux Rouge. On the field, provided he can adjust quickly to the MLS style of play, he will score goals. Off the field, he will be the highest-profile ambassador for the league since you-know-who, and hopefully with a clearly picture of how he will compose himself.


He already has a leg up on Beckham because his arrival does not coincide with an injury. Henry will debut in a friendly and not in the league, but that's neither here nor there for the moment. Playing in America's media capital will give him ample opportunity to play league pitchman in his likable way, and while I'm reserving judgement on New York's chances to win it all until I see Henry make them markedly better, his arrival brings a rich new element to the rest of the campaign.


Rumors of a third DP landing in Harrison are swirling now. With Angel, Henry, and another possible name player, New York will suddenly live up to their rightful status as big market behemoth. The checks and balances of caps and playoffs make it extremely unlikely that they can run away with a title, but I am reveling in the silly nature of it all.


Even if the revised DP rules make little difference beyond New York and New Jersey, installing the mechanism for the richer teams to separate themselves, even if it's only in fading star power, is a step in the right direction.

Major League Soccer has been out of balance for the last few years. Yes, there's salary cap and roster restriction-mandated parity, a reality that frustrates some even while it guarantees a majority of the league's teams have a chance to win a championship each and every season. And yes, small or non-existent margins mean that many clubs are hesitant to tip the scales for themselves the one way they can, with the designated player rule.


But in the areas of flash and hype, the attention-grabbing, headline-stealing, PR-directed battle for status and awareness, MLS has been tilted dramatically to the West.


The LA Galaxy are a "flagship" MLS franchise because they inhabit the country's second largest market. They have deep-pocketed owners, a first class stadium, and the will to spend money to "grow their brand". This has manifested itself in the signing of one of the world's most visible players in David Beckham and the resulting firestorm of notoriety that followed. In the contest for headlines and mainstream coverage, the Galaxy are winners by a wide margin. No one else in the league, even those few clubs that have signed designated players like Seattle and New York, come close. Add the small detail that the Galaxy have the league's best American player in Landon Donovan, and Los Angeles has garnered the lion's share of interest from the non-soccer segment of the American sports community, the gossip industry, and observers abroad.


Let's consider it a good thing then, that the New York Red Bulls appear on their way to balancing the situation. Finally out of the crumbling, ill-fitting, club-crippling Giants Stadium and settling into Red Bull Arena, New York has all of the prerequisites for an American club looking to make a name for themselves.


Big market? Check.


Owners with deep pockets? Check.


A first-class venue? Check.


And the willingness to spend doesn't seem to be lacking either, with news coming down last week that the Red Bulls plan to buy a third designated player spot as is now allowed by MLS rules. Since New York currently has just one DP in striker Juan Pablo Angel, it's seems safe to assume that they'll be splashing the cash on big name talent as early as this summer.


Perhaps the signings won't bring the club on-field success, though early returns on the Hans Backe/Eric Stover era are positive. That aforementioned parity can be a bitch, excuse the expression, and it will take more than a few aging European stars to bring the Red Bulls their first championship trophy. That hasn't kept the team from making grand pronouncements on their intentions, claiming they can win it all as soon as next year.


The universe, even the American soccer version, needs balance. Attention in all forms is good for a growing league like MLS, and it doesn't matter that the Galaxy and the Red Bulls dominating the headlines by spending more than anyone else is akin to two Darth Vaders doing battle in a maelstrom of footy evil for rest of the country. Perhaps it's not yin and yang, but it does represent progress; the two cities of Los Angeles and New York are connected to one another throughout the history of American sports, and there's no reason that shouldn't be true in soccer. No club should run ahead unchallenged for profile supremacy, and it's about time New York's club took its rightful place as a leading light in Major League Soccer.


Major League Soccer will be better with a New York team acting like a New York team. It looks like that time has finally come.


Sure, it's distasteful when the richest teams get all the attention and outshine teams that "do it right" or are able to win despite a small-market handicap. But villains grow passion in direct opposition; if people love to hate New York (which some already do) the way so many already love to hate LA, that's a massive victory for MLS.

Major League Soccer has made some significant changes to the Designated Player rule, presumably to encourage more teams to bring in top-quality, big-name, and marketable talent.


Will it have the intended effect? It's impossible to know at the moment, though it does look like clubs might consider signing a DP thanks to a smaller cap hit and the ability to pay down that hit further with allocation money. Sure it's a little complicated, and the vageries of the system mean we're not exactly sure who is sitting pretty and who doesn't have a dollar to spare, but we might be staring down the barrel of a small wave of new high-priced international talent coming into the league.


But this is where the danger starts. Though there's an element of risk involved with any signing, there is particular pressure to get it right when the player in question is going to make so much more than anyone else on the team; it doesn't matter how marketable a player is if he comes in and stinks up the joint. Seattle got it right with Ljungberg, a player with enough skill and gas left in the tank to make a difference in MLS. Dallas didn't when they signed Denilson a few years ago, a player with ample talent but zero drive to succeed. Perhaps even more important than the question "Is he good?" is the question "Will he fit?". Despite the reputation as a middling competition, MLS is not an easy league to adjust to.


Rumored candidates for MLS offers in the near future include Thierry Henry, Raul, and David Trezeguet. There should be no questions on Henry, who would be great for any MLS club but would work particularly well in New York. Players on this level aren't the ones we have to worry about, because unless they get injured, they should be solid contributors at the very least; they may not dominate the way people would expect them to, but a complete flop is unlikely. It's the guys a level down, perhaps with ample talent but a more checkered past, or those that might be unable to acclimate to the style of play, American culture (think language), or any number of other issues that might arise, that bring the biggest risk.


Cheaper clubs should be ready to buy in now. The cap hit has fallen, there are mechanisms to bring it down further, and a prorated value has been established for a player signed in the summer. As long as an owner is willing to pay a star out of his own pocket (still not an easy sell), the ability to construct a proper team is not significantly impacted by one, or possibly even two, designated players.


The concern then, is that clubs sign players for the right reasons, both because they can impact the their team's fortunes and because they might provide a bump at the gate or in the team store. Research is important, and decision makers can't simply jump at a name because he is a name; there's a requisite amount of due diligence that has to be done before a player is added. Age, injury history, cultural adaptability, and especially the opinion of the head coach and his coaching staff are a reasonable place to start. Find out if your target has his head on straight about coming to the States, impart upon him that it's not going to be as easy as he might think (and that it might hurt a little bit), and pull the trigger only when you're convinced that his contributions could be significant.


Even if it sounds obvious, it's impossible to have faith that every club looking for a DP will get it right. If the numbers increase, there are bound to be some failures; philosophical questions about the rule aside, it's the rate of failure to success that will have long reaching effects on how such players are viewed both amongst the fans and team leadership.


Each owner of lesser means than the Galaxys and Red Bulls of the world will need to make a decision; massive name with huge marketing potential, and the natural massive salary to go with him, or the lesser known player that could help the team win but is unlikely to move the attention needle in any real way. We've had the latter on a few occasions, and the results have been a mixed bag; for every Schelotto, there's a Marcello Gallardo.


As the Boston Herald's Kyle McCarthy said on this week's American Soccer Show, the league's intention is to encourage teams to sign superstars. Not very-good-but-ultimately-unknown-in-the-US players like Gallardo and Claudio Lopez, but big names that will resonate in the club's community and bring serious credibility to the league through association.


There are still significant penalties for signing a Designated Player, no matter the change in the rules. But doing so doesn't prevent clubs from putting together a decent roster, and the new wrinkles provide a way to limit the funds tied up in one name. If owners decide to make the move now, putting money on the line now covered by the league's collective salary pool, they'll need equal parts bravery and intelligence.


Do they have enough of either?

It's such an interesting domestic league we have. Parity may be the law of the land thanks to salary caps, roster restrictions, and limited budgets, but that doesn't mean there's no push to let the richer clubs throw their cash around.


Today is a perfect example, as the Designated Player rules Don Garber suggested were coming during last week's conference call have come down. Teams have been handed a second DP slot and can purchase a third, and new mechanisms will allow them to deflect some of the salary cap impact that such signings will have. Add to the mix a pseudo-luxury tax rule, and this one is going to have some interesting implications.


I'm unfortunately short on time today, so instead of an analysis of the changes, I'm going to give you the league press release and let you work out your thoughts in the comments.

***

MLS Adds Second Designated Player Slot Per Club

Clubs may purchase third Designated Player slot; New budget charges unveiled

NEW YORK (April 1, 2010) – The opportunities have doubled for Major League Soccer’s clubs to pay select star players above their club salary budgets. All 16 MLS clubs now have the opportunity to sign at least two Designated Players. The Designated Player Rule is a mechanism that in 2007 began allowing an individual club to pay one player any amount above a fixed salary budget charge. The club salary budgets are an expense shared by all MLS owners.

Under its new parameters, the Designated Player Rule also gives clubs the option of “purchasing” a third Designated Player slot for $250,000 that will be dispersed in the form of allocation money to all clubs that do not have three Designated Players. Designated Player slots may be used to sign and retain existing MLS players, but they are no longer tradable.

“Expanding the Designated Player Rule is another example of MLS’s commitment to providing top-level soccer for our fans,” MLS EVP of Player Relations and Competition Todd Durbin said. “After three seasons, we have seen that the Designated Player Rule improves the quality of play, creates intrigue and discussion, and enhances our clubs’ distinct on-field identities. We will continue to see varied approaches from our clubs in assembling their rosters, and these changes will give them increased flexibility.”

Durbin will answer questions from media members via conference call this afternoon; details are below, followed by a list of current and former Designated Players

A club’s salary budget will be charged $335,000 for its first Designated Player under contract, $335,000 for its second Designated Player under contract and $335,000 if it signs a third Designated Player. If a Designated Player joins a club’s roster in the middle of the season, that club’s salary budget for the year will be charged $167,500.

The previous budget charge for a club’s first Designated Player, $415,000, accounted for approximately 18 percent of that club’s salary budget. The current rules reduce that budget charge to approximately 13 percent of a team’s salary budget.

Additionally, clubs have the option of “buying down” the budget charge of a designated player with allocation money. The reduced charge may not be less than $150,000. Allocation money are funds, separate from the club salary budgets, provided by the League based upon finish in the previous season, fees collected for the transfer of a player abroad, expansion or exceptional circumstances. Allocation money may be used to reduce the portion of a player’s compensation that counts against a club’s salary budget in connection with signing players new to MLS, or re-signing existing MLS players at the end of their contracts.

In the event that an MLS club transfers a Designated Player under contract to a club in another country, that MLS club will recoup the amount it has spent on that Designated Player before any additional transfer revenue is shared with the League.

These changes to the Designated Player rule are effective immediately. The Primary Registration Window -- in which MLS clubs can conduct transfers to acquire players under contract in leagues of other countries -- concludes April 15. The Secondary Registration Window opens July 15 and closes August 14, 2010. Registration windows always apply to the country of destination in a transfer. Players out of contract may be signed at any time.


Current Designated Players in MLS:
Name, Club (Seasons as DP)

Juan Pablo Ángel, New York Red Bulls (2007 - )
David Beckham, LA Galaxy (2007 - )
Julian de Guzmán, Toronto FC (2009 - )
Landon Donovan, LA Galaxy (2010 - )
Luis Ángel Landín, Houston Dynamo (2009 - )
Freddie Ljungberg (2009 - )

Former Designated Players in MLS:
Name, Club (Seasons as DP)

Cuauhtémoc Blanco, Chicago Fire (2007-2009)
Denilson, FC Dallas (2007)
Luciano Emilio, D.C. United (2008-2009)
Marcelo Gallardo, D.C. United (2008)
Claudio Lopez, Kansas City Wizards (2008)
Claudio Reyna, New York Red Bulls (2007-2008)
Guillermo Barros Schelotto, Columbus Crew (2009)**

**Active but is no longer a designated player.

***


Again, we knew this was coming once the CBA deal got done because Garber essentially told us it was; but this news does reinforce my belief that at least a few names are coming post-World Cup.


Will this significantly change the league? I'm not sure about that, though New York, Seattle, Toronto, LA, and one or two others might be separating themselves from the rest of the pack, at least in terms of big name talent, very shortly.

MLS could use a few more of these

As Jason Davis commented on yesterday, Don Garber has again been talking about the renewal of the designated player rule and the possibility of adding a second DP slot. I’d like to make a pitch to the Don if he or his people read this: Steal a page from the Aussies.


The A-League has the “Marquee Player” tag that is similar to MLS’ DP rule. Beginning in the 2008-09, the A-League also implemented the “Junior Marquee Player” rule. This Junior Marquee must be under 23 and $AU 150,000 of his salary doesn’t count against the cap. I would structure things a little differently, namely, I’d bump the age up to under 25 and have only the first $150,000 count against the cap. Because of the US college system, there is a smaller pool of U-23 players in MLS than in the A-League. Also the Generation Adidas program, fills some of that gap at the youngest end of the spectrum.


There are multiple reasons that I think this would be a better move than adding another DP slot, starting with the limitations of the current DP rule. Because of the size of the contracts necessary to invoke the DP rule, the players brought in under this rule will be older, established players that can be used for soccer and marketing purposes. When players like Schelotto, Joseph, Twellman, and De Rosario do not need to be DPs to be in the salary confines of the league, then a decent amount of high level talent can be bought without using the slot. Loading up on players at this pay level is impossible given the cap, but fielding a player of this caliber and a DP is already a possibility. For instance, Columbus’ movement of Schelotto out of the slot still makes me suspect that they will be one of those teams looking to grab a player after the World Cup.


The second limitation of the current DP rule is one of supply. Currently there are 16 DP slots, with that number rising to 18 or 19 next year. There are currently 5 DPs in MLS. Even if that number doubles this summer with teams like New York, Philly, Columbus, DC, and Chicago positioned to grab DPs this summer, at some point the pool of players worth the DP tag and willing to come to MLS starts to get shallow. While that number is likely more than the mid-teens, is it really anywhere near the almost 40 slots that would exist by giving every team a second slot?


A DP slot oriented to younger players counting $150,000 against the cap for a player like Davies, Altidore, Holden, Edu, Bradley, or Adu would certainly have made it easier for MLS to have attracted or kept these players for a few more years. The combinations of DPs and junior DPs in MLS leads to awesome potential tandems. Charlie Davies receiving through balls from Ljungberg, Altidore on the end of Beckham crosses, Adu learning from Henry.


Outside of attracting and retaining US nationals, a junior DP slot would incentivize clubs to go find and then retain the next Fredy Montero. While his base salary was $155,000 last year and not substantially over the limit that I’ve put forward, there are other young attackers in South and Central America and Africa that MLS could compete against European teams for with this structure. Also, a player like Montero could be brought in under normal rules for a year and then offered an increase using the junior DP slot if his performance warranted it.


While theoretically tradable, DP slots have rarely changed hands. The reason for this illiquid market is obvious, it’s difficult to imagine getting a DP slot back. While not every team wants to drop $700,000 on an impact player even if only $400,000 counts against the cap, few want to give away the ability to do it in the future. Paying $250,000 for a developing 23 year old and only have $150,000 count against the cap may be more enticing for some clubs. It’s not that hard to imagine a team like Dallas trade its DP slot to a team like LA in return for a package including LA’s junior DP slot. Also, as MLS continues to expand its commodity list to include reentry draft picks, more creative trades should be expected and a different type of DP would be another bargaining chip to get deals done.


The flexibility offered by having junior DP slots gives MLS clubs another way to build their teams. More flexibility means more personality in a league where clubs can have a generic feel. Incentivizing keeping American talent and scouting better young foreign talent would mean more in long term league growth than the ability to have 40 high paid players nearing the end of their careers. Finally, a move like this would fill a void for super-talented Americans in MLS: sign as Generation Adidas, graduate from GA and sign a junior DP contract, turn 25 and become a full DP. Currently that middle piece is missing which makes it hard for MLS to retain them. For all of these reason, if MLS expands it DP rules, it should seriously consider following in the footsteps of the Australians.

When David Beckham went down with his unfortunate achilles tendon injury a few weeks back, I wrote that the loss of their English superstar increased the league's imperative to sign a new star. That logic was based solely on the prospect of a Beckham-less MLS, one that would want for mainstream attention in the US and a higher level of interest from abroad.


Some of the loss of Beckham will be mitigated by a new found fan respect for Landon Donovan, however, because the American star finally proved himself in Europe. But no matter how much Donovan has raised his stock, he can never be the star Beckham, Henry, Raul, or Shevchenko are, or bring the soccer credibility to the league that they would.


So the imperative remains. And if Don Garber's recent statements are any indicator, the league appears ready to make a push to bring in more top-level talent this season. Garber intimated that the Designated Player rule is up for review, and changes could be in the offing that would increase the DP slots for each team. Though only a handful utilize theirs now, an extra superstar would certainly be handy for teams like LA Galaxy, New York Red Bulls, Toronto, and Seattle. New York's link to Thierry Henry was renewed again today courtesy of The Telegraph, and if the Red Bulls are intent on making a large splash in their market with their new arena as the linchpin, a second (and possibly third) big name would go a long way.


There's also belief that a new DP slot will be added that is roster and salary cap-exempt; this would free up clubs who are currently hesitant to bring in a big name player to do so without hamstringing themselves elsewhere.


If MLS clubs are going to dip their toes into the high-priced waters this summer, it will be due in part to leveraging the World Cup; post-tournament signings can either be name players American fans will have seen play in South Africa, or big names who missed out but are still bright stars in the football world. American soccer fans coming out of the World Cup will be more likely give MLS a chance if they might see a Henry, Trezequet, or Shevchenko on the field at their local park.


Perhaps the imperative, then, isn't just to sign Thierry Henry or a player of his ilk to replace Beckham, but to to bring in a larger wave of players in the mold of Freddie Ljungberg to do the job. Spreading money around to several stars should create a larger marketing impact on the established soccer community in the United States, even as it fails to have the pop culture impact that Beckham did. If the league is serious about going after soccer fans in this country who don't currently follow MLS, then it's a strategy that makes sense.


It's going to be an interesting summer, both because the American performance at the World Cup could raise soccer's profile dramatically at a time when MLS is better prepared take advantage once the tournament is over, and because MLS appears ready to spend money (even if it's not in the way some people would like) to raise its profile and become more attractive.

David Beckham won't be playing soccer for the foreseeable future. It's very possible he won't be playing soccer, at least professionally, ever again. At the very least, Beckham is faced with a long recovery, a slim chance of appearing late in the MLS season, or a 2011 return.


As Jamie Trecker and others have pointed out, this leaves Major League Soccer in a difficult position from a marketing standpoint; even if Beckham, or the architects of the Beckham plan, failed in the goal of pushing the sport into the American mainstream, he did have some effect on both attendance and merchandise sales.


The question now becomes, is it necessary to replace Beckham as MLS' marquee recognizable player?


Whether you choose to term Beckham's influence on MLS and its fortunes a "success" or a "failure", it's impossible to deny that there was some positive benefit. Beckham was the nitrous oxide to an engine that has slowly been building speed over time; his appearance on the scene bolstered attendances (though this has since dropped off dramatically), sold jerseys, and put the league in the public eye both here and abroad on a much larger scale.


A ready-made replacement for Beckham's role in the MLS business model has already been linked to the league: Thierry Henry. Though Henry is well down the celebrity food chain, at least in the United States, he would bring a footballing cache that Beckham struggled to due to injury and a single-minded focus on making the England World Cup team. The drop off from the Englishman to the Frenchman would be significant, but replacing even 50% of Beckham's influence is better than replacing none.


Henry may have been on his way to MLS eventually regardless of Beckham's presence. The rumors of his signing with New York surfaced because Henry has an affinity for the country and that city, and because the Red Bulls need to make a splash in their market. But the imperative to sign Henry, if MLS feels it necessary to fill the gap left by Beckham's injury, has multiplied dramatically in the last twenty-four hours.


We can debate the merits of the DP rule, and we can argue about the wisdom of signing ultra-expensive talent when much of the league makes less than the average accountant; but MLS made their superstar bed three years ago when the Beckham experiment began, and may be loathe to go back to their former condition, where a truly marketable name was wanting.


Henry will sell jerseys, put a few more butts in the seats on the road, and do the flashy work of scoring goals when Beckham could not. From a strictly business perspective, he might even be an upgrade (depending on the salary, of course).

A Special Series by Rob Luker

This is the final installment in Clarkson University business student Rob Luker's "American Soccer Business Plan". You can read Part I, American Soccer Ambitions here, Part II, The Role of MLS here, and Part III, The Role of USSF here.

***


Part IV: How To Fix It


Up to this point I’ve been doing a lot of jabbering and explaining about the problems with Soccer in America but have fallen short of offering clear cut solutions. While I do believe the ideas I will present would help, I do not know anything for sure because of my position of being on the outside looking in when it comes to MLS and the USSF. But, if everyone thought everything was just fine, then no improvements would ever be made to the system, which is why I’m writing this, and presenting is as a theoretical solution.


To summarize, the past three parts of this series look like this:

1. American Soccer fans want their club and national team soccer to be better.

2. MLS needs the USSF in the short term (for the most part)

3. The USSF needs the MLS in the long term even more.


Obviously, before any of my proposals could happen a new collective bargaining agreement must be reached between the MLS owners and players. A lockout could put the league a decade back financially not to mention any momentum that MLS as a league has right now would be gone. The only interests I have in the CBA regarding player development and this series involves the minimum salary for a player/rookie and the resulting effect it has on the Designated Player rule. The minimum salary must be raised, and that goes without saying. By raising the salary floor more American talent should theoretically stick around and play in MLS rather than hopping over-seas to a Scandinavian league which doesn’t get the media coverage MLS does. The Designated Player rule has its pros and cons, but in the end I think it should stay for now. In a league with a strict salary cap to promote parity and overall financial responsibility, the DP (obviously) allows teams that can afford a star (or two) to get them. This is key to obtaining and, more importantly, retaining the average American sports fan. I would like to think that most Americans know who Thierry Henry is (I have a feeling I’m wrong though), and if Henry ends up in NY you know there will be some chatter about his presence.


Another small tidbit to help MLS and in turn the USSF is better scheduling between the league and USSF/FIFA. Although this idea isn’t revolutionary it should go without saying that MLS should step to the side when the USMNT is playing; as it only hurts MLS for the most part. To the best of my knowledge as a soccer fan, FIFA and CONCACAF makes the dates for international competitions blatantly clear and obvious, and MLS should do all it can to avoid these dates. Soccer is one of few sports where international competition reigns over all others, and Mr. Garber and company needs to just make the extra effort; as it should pay off.


Let us now move to the major proposals I will make regarding the future of Soccer in America. In my opinion, it would be the best business decision for MLS and the USSF to invest what money is available into altering and further organizing the North American soccer youth system and pyramid. By doing this, the USSF and MLS will eventually solve their problems regarding the quality of play within the domestic league and for the USMNT. How should the organization look? Look no further than another North American-born sport that has quite an international flavor to it when it comes to the domestic league here in the USA. I’m talking about the sport I have grown up on, currently play, and plan on coaching: Ice Hockey.


Hockey and Soccer have very similar paths to professional play for most Americans, Canadians, and Europeans. Here in North America, you grow up playing youth (USA) or minor (CAN) hockey. If you’re good enough you play in high school or go straight to what is called Junior hockey, to which there are many varying levels. Following that, you either go to play Major Junior (fast-track to the NHL), or you go to play college hockey in the USA. Finally, if you are lucky enough, you have landed somewhere within the pro-ranks (if not the NHL) via the draft or a try-out, and you have to work your way up. In Europe, though, players are brought into Professional team academies, just like in soccer, and are eventually brought up through the ranks. If they can make it to the NHL, the leagues know they can’t keep him, and they let him go after his contract is up.


As you can see, the youth pattern for Soccer and Hockey here in North America is somewhat similar. This is why I think eliminating the MLS SuperDraft would be a major mistake by MLS and the USSF. Going to college and getting an education is a special part of American culture, and using sports is definitely one way to do that. If anything, MLS and the USSF should be putting more and more importance on the college game in order to raise the quality of play. Completely eliminating a potential source for future American soccer talent makes absolutely no sense to me. Plus, from a business standpoint, MLS clubs do not have to spend a dime (theoretically) on these players before they are drafted, just like in American college football.


By employing a system similar to what Hockey and the NHL has set up, they could create makeshift academies (Junior-hockey level) by establishing agreements between MLS clubs and the Junior teams. In the past, the NHL team that selected a Junior player actually paid the club a small amount of money for the development, but that is no more. Along with this, to enable MLS clubs to expand their rosters and develop players at a slightly lower level but with more affiliation, I propose that the USSF organize the two levels below the MLS to have minor league-like qualities. I am not necessarily proposing full-blown affiliations, but with MLS clubs being franchises there is no other way to allow slower players to develop without some sort of a minor league affiliation between MLS and the lower divisions. Not only does this help MLS and the USSF with additional player development, it also helps the lower divisions financially as they would be an affiliate to MLS and the USSF.


"But Rob, what about players who can’t afford to go play “Junior” Hockey/Soccer?" That’s where the high school and college game comes in (subsequently, the Draft). Well guess what, I was one of those players. See, in Hockey, plenty of young American and Canadian talent go to waste because Division 2 and 3 hockey have become waste-spots for 22 year old Canadian freshmen (who used all their junior years) who are bigger and stronger than an 18 year old American high school graduate (who probably still played good hockey). But, because of the MLS SuperDraft and the Combine, high school and college soccer still matter. If you eliminate the Draft, you eliminate a major portion of potential soccer talent.


The system is not perfect, but neither is the academy one Europe employs either. The fact of the matter is that the European system of academy football and hockey have just been around much longer and is ingrained into their culture. US Soccer, meanwhile, is in a transitional period to the point where a higher quality of play is needed within the domestic league and on the national team scene (if they want to take the next step). To force an academy system, which might not make much sense to a potential soccer parent, would be a mistake in the long run. What I think MLS and the USSF need to realize is that they are sitting on a mountain of potential soccer talent for the world to enjoy. In order to solve their one of their biggest current issues, (quality of play) they need to invest into their Research & Development department as much as possible. Outsourcing (buying talent), will prove to be too difficult over time as the market is too big and far too expensive for some MLS clubs. So as the CBA expires and we head into another decade of the 21st century, I plead MLS and the USSF to keep an eye on the future. As I’ve alluded to before, we American soccer fans only want a good league and success for the US teams, and as the NASL proved before, you can’t just spend money to make a league good.

By now you've probably heard the news that Toronto FC has signed Canadian international Julian de Guzman as their first Designated Player. The signing makes sense for many reasons, not the least of which the fact that he's just a very, very, good player.

I don't have a problem with Toronto working within the system as it exists and bringing in what amounts to a national soccer hero; but I've turned completely on the DP rule, and JDG's signing is just another indication to me that the league has it all wrong.

I wrote a column for MLS Daily on the subject of de Guzman to Toronto and the DP rule in general when he was first being wooed a few months back; it's still relevant, has become timely again (for the most part), and so I present it to you here.

Toronto FC has sauntered up to the vault, inserted their key, opened the door, wheeled in a cart, loaded it up with gobs of cash, and slammed it right into the available arms of one Julian de Guzman.

The Canadian international is the team's first Designated Player target, a hometown boy with European experience, quality to spare, and a marketable name to sell to TFC's football mad fan base. $7 million over two years (the assumption is that it's USD) is the rumored offer, and it would make the midfielder the second highest paid player in MLS, behind only you-know-who.

I'm not a TFC fan, and I certainly don't speak for any, but I have a few reservations.

Whether de Guzman accepts the lucrative deal isn't really what concerns me. TFC would certainly be better off with him in the fold, and his class is undeniable. There's no reasonable soccer fan that would lament their team doing what the Reds are doing. But as a fan of MLS the enterprise first and foremost, and as someone who roots for the league's ultimate success over all else, I have to wonder: Is this the path that MLS clubs should really be taking to relevancy?

Toronto FC must really, really want de Guzman. MLSE's massive offer is said to dwarf any he might receive in Europe, and there's an obvious reason for that; simply put, it will take that kind of cash to lure a player in his prime away from the brighter lights of the continent to the much weaker MLS. TFC should be applauded on the one hand for doing what it might take to bring a player of solid pedigree and who lacks the "over the hill" tag into a league with none of the cache of Europe's top competitions. Yet, and this isn't about the dollars involved, or MLSE's bottom line, I get the feeling that this type of move is exactly what MLS clubs should try to avoid as they push on into a future that includes the "Beckham Rule".

I'm not really a "slow and steady growth" kind of guy. I'm as impatient as the next fan, and I'm desperate for MLS to raise the salary cap significantly so clubs have more ammunition to go after better players. But, and even though it may seem counter-intuitive, the DP rule runs counter to my hopes for the league; the larger the disparity between the top paid guys and the squad players, the more inconsistent quality will be and the more frustrating it will be for those high-talent stars who do make the leap. If you're a giant fish in a tiny pond, you tend to get bored and disillusioned rather quickly; the recent hubbub over David Beckham's time with the LA Galaxy and his "lack of commitment" is exactly the type of problem that the league faces whenever the DP rule is utilized to lure players like de Guzman here.

I'm all for more money being spent. I just want it to be spent across the board, even-handed, and on a number of players that can actually make a marked difference. It's not always enough to throw money at a problem; it's often necessary to be discerning with that money, to make sure to focus it in a way that doesn't do more harm than good. Julian de Guzman deserves whatever he can get and MLSE has the right to spend whatever they choose in whatever way the rules allow. But it's hard for me to ignore what the offer represents, what it might mean for the development of MLS, and how high-profile signings like de Guzman could ultimately restrict the growth of the league.

I know, I'm probably judging de Guzman prematurely and unfairly. He could very well be happy ending up at BMO Field, doing his best to push TFC towards glory, and aiding in raising the profile of his club even further than it's already gone. Faultless too is TFC, for whom the Designated Player rule is something to be exploited; with a talented player of de Guzman's background (i.e., Canadian) available, money to burn, and a fan base desperate for a big splash move, it would be folly of them not to explore the possibility of obtaining his services. He's the Golden Goose, there for the taking, the player that might possibly put them over the top while instilling civic pride in the local populace at the same time.

But what MLS needs is a solid group of mid-level talents, not one or two guys for whom MLS is a step down. For every de Guzman, there's twenty bench players, barely scraping by on wages many of us would scoff at, doing their best to live out their footballing dreams while lining up alongside guys who could buy and sell them fifty times over. It's this disparity that I find distressing, and what TFC's offer to de Guzman thrusts into my MLS observer's consciousness. The league's long term future will be built on the median level of its talent, not on splashy contracts given to players that would certainly be plying their trade elsewhere if the money was equal. The rules, as they currently exist, hold the league back from true respectability rather than pushing them forward as those that set them obviously believe.

De Guzman. Right for Toronto FC, wrong for Major League Soccer. Rather, it's what de Guzman represents that's wrong for the league, and you'd be hard pressed to convince me otherwise.

Sorry about posting old content if you've already read it; it's Friday, and I'm being lazy.

I felt like opining a little tonight, so here's a relatively brief view on the Designated Player rule in MLS, a rule that is up for review after the season and has been a topic of conversation among the owners at this week's All Star Game.

Before I begin, a brief selection from the MLS roster rules:

"The Designated Player Rule allows the League to sign players (under the League's single entity system) whose salary will fall outside of the team salary budget and whose cost above the salary budget charge will be the financial responsibility of the club for which they play. A Designated Player's salary budget charge will be capped at $415,000 per annum in 2009, but his actual compensation is higher. Each team initially received one Designated Player slot, and clubs are allowed to trade Designated Player slots. However, no team can have more than two Designated Players. The Designated Player Rule is a three-year initiative that will conclude after the 2009 MLS season when its future will be reviewed."

That's the DP rule as it currently exists, word for word, directly from the website of Major League Soccer. It sounds nice, doesn't it? Star power sells in America, or so the theory goes, and adding a big name that won't completely cripple a team's ability to assemble players within the constrictions of the salary cap (although it still might) would seem to make a lot of sense.

Only, I'm not buying it.

Soccer is a team game after all, and adding one player, no matter his star status or pedigree, who will still eat up a significant portion of the salary cap (18%), seems to go against the nature of the sport. One player doesn't make a team. The logical conclusion then, is that the although DP rule is intended to raise the quality of MLS through the signing over uber-talented players, that effect will be mitigated by the collection of mediocre talent surrounding those players.

Cliche alert.

You're only as strong as your weakest link.

Perhaps quality isn't really the point; perhaps the DP rule is simply intended to raise the profile of the league through the acquisition of marketable names. The most famous, highest paid, and original DP (you know who) embodies that approach; while the results on the field have been poor, the attention gained, shirts sold, and hype built has made the endeavor worthwhile. Right?

Or not. Too many of those casual fans that gravitated towards the star power of Brand Beckham flitted away rather than stick around and give themselves (and their money) over to MLS. For a moment in time, it seemed worth the imbalance that the DP created. But the league knows, and Don Garber has admitted, that their sales pitch should be aimed at the established soccer fans, not the shallow gawkers; the former have yet to indicate that they'll give their money and time to a league made up of teams with one shining star in constellation of lesser lights.

MLS is facing a dilemma (although I'm not sure they realize it): sell out and throw money at past-their-prime names who will no doubt bring momentary spikes in attention and revenue (tickets sales, shirts, etc.), or buy in and invest in the future of the league, allowing teams to spread more money around, increasing the level of play and hopefully attracting all of those anti-MLS American soccer fans that we know exist.

If it's an either/or situation, I'm fully behind "buy in".

Maybe it's not either/or. Maybe MLS is truly capable of doing both; investing in the overall quality of the league by letting its owners spend more across the board, while also aiming for those big splashes by holding on to the specific dispensation that allows teams to declare one highly-paid player special.

This, we can only hope.

But if I was a betting man - and I'm not (often)- my money would be on DPs, and DPs alone, being the basket where MLS chooses to place all of its egges. Nevermind that many teams are either wary or unconcerned with the rule, believing they have the right plan to produce a winner without a DP or are simply afraid that dumping too much cash on one guy will come back to bite them if things don't go as planned.

DC United and FC Dallas fans, I'll pause for you to curse.

It's unlikely, that have-it-both ways scenario, and I can't shake the feeling even as the Board of Governors (i.e., the owners) prepare to review the DP rule (per both Steve Davis and the MLS rule book), that MLS has its priorities all out of whack. It's one thing to be self-aware, to know that you're not hitting the mark as you should, and to express a genuine understanding of that fact; it's another thing entirely to turn away, reset and refocus, and change your aim.

I realize that half the battle for MLS, its owner/investors, and the fans of the league is getting other people to notice. Designated Players, as long as they are of a certain caliber (and by "caliber" I mean fame rather than ability), are an easy way to drum up interest; but for lack of a better word, Designated Players are an MLS boondoggle.

Just in case you're not familiar with the word:

boon·dog·gle (bōōn'dô'gəl, -dŏg'əl)
n.
An unnecessary or wasteful project or activity.

That's it in a nutshell for me: even on field successes like Guillermo Barros Schelotto represent misplaced priorities on the part of MLS, because they are so rare. Simply put, quality players whose salaries are "reasonable" in world football terms ($750k this season) should be more plentiful in the league. The only way to bring more in is the allow teams greater freedom with their salaries, be it through a direct raising of the cap, or through a soft cap.

We can't expect MLS clubs to become solid talent-evaluators overnight. We can't expect them to wake up tomorrow with the ability to pull good, cheap, talent out of what the greater world has to offer. MLS can't just say "do better" to its clubs and ignore the problem, leaving the league's talent level to stagnate.

Designated Players are a nice shiny toys, ones that MLS owners can show off to all of their friends around the country and the world, as if to say "See? We have high priced talent, too". But they solve nothing in the long run, and only distract from the real problems the league faces. New, soccer-savvy fans aren't going to come running because some American or Canadian club signs a world famous footballer; they'll come running when the game played here begins to resemble the one played half a world away that they watch on their televisions.

Through Steve Davis' excellent new blog comes word that the DP rule is up for discussion at MLS All Star Game (or was, I'm just a bit late passing this along).

While I think the changes that Davis says might be under consideration would increase the effectiveness of the rule, I'm not convinced that Designated Players don't hold back MLS. I'm working something up on the subject, and will regale you with my thoughts on the matter in the not-too-distant future.

Among the changes rumored to be under consideration are a lowering of the cap hit for DP's (currently $415k), which would obviously increase the incentive for some teams to go out and pick up a big name player. Currently, only six teams take advantage of the rule.

While I have no doubts that a few big European and South American names might be interested in playing here if the money is equal or close to it, the risk/reward equation still makes it tough for MLS teams to pull the trigger.

Two issues, somewhat related, that I felt like expounding upon a bit today. The business of MLS is almost as important as the play on the field , and interests a lot of us (though I don't blame you if you don't care).

CBA Negotiations Opened "Recently" According to Garber

According to a Sports Business Journal report that I cannot link to because that site is subscription only (thanks to Jamie Trecker on Twitter for the heads up), MLS commissioner Don Garber has said that management has only recently opened negotiations with the players union on the new collective bargaining agreement.

The current CBA expires at the end of January 2010.

While the logical part of me understands that "make them sweat" is a solid negotiating tactic on the part of the league, especially in the current economic environment, I can't help be be a little disappointed. MLS has enough of a struggle ahead of it without any labor issues cropping up and ruining whatever momentum there may be. I had hoped "good faith" would trump "good business" in this situation, and that both sides would come to the table anxious to work out a deal that benefits everyone.

I tend to lean towards the players in this situation, generally because the numbers at the low end of the pay-scale are so ridiculous, and maybe that's coloring my reaction. The owners, as business men, absolutely have the right to pursue whatever course of action they believe will end with them getting a favorable agreement; but soccer in the US is not strong enough to handle a pure get-the-best-deal-you-can negotiation. That doesn't mean that the league should roll over, just that they must recognize that this CBA isn't just about business. It's also about projecting an image of MLS and proving to the fans that things are moving in the right direction (meaning salaries are going up, because we relate salaries to quality whether that's true or not).

Let's hope, despite the "late" start, that things go smoothly and that MLS works out a deal beneficial to the players yet capable of sustaining the league as a business.


The DP Rule Under the Microscope

Avoiding the Drop has a nice review of the Designated Player rule, one that has me wondering about the last line of the text as it is written in the MLS rulebook:

The Designated Player Rule allows the League to sign players (under the League’s single entity system) whose salary will fall outside of the team salary budget and whose cost above the salary budget charge will be the financial responsibility of the club for which they play. A Designated Player’s salary budget charge will be capped at $415,000 per annum in 2009, but his actual compensation is higher. Each team initially received one Designated Player slot, and clubs are allowed to trade Designated Player slots. However, no team can have more than two Designated Players. The Designated Player Rule is a three-year initiative that will conclude after the 2009 MLS season when its future will be reviewed.

Perhaps I'm alone, but I don't think I knew the rule would come up for review after this season. That may be due, in part (or in total), to the CBA expiring; reviewing the rule makes sense if you're not yet sure what the salary pool for non-DP players will be.

So is there any chance they'll repeal it? Doubtful. It would be awfully sticky to back out of those DP deals that already exists, and grandfathering them would only penalize teams that don't currently have DPs. Whether they actually would sign one is immaterial; the inability to do so wouldn't be fair, and we know that MLS is all about what's fair and creates parity.

I wouldn't care if they did repeal the rule and grandfather in the six contracts that exist, but I'm not MLS.

The only legitimate way to change the DP rule without creating a mess (again, it's doubtful they will) is to institute the "soft cap" for which some have lobbied. With the soft cap set at a predertermined salary pool contribution, and then augmented by an additional amount the clubs could spend out of their own pockets, nothing would need to change. The DP rule would go away, teams would have more freedom to sign players, and everyone would be happy.

Or at least I would.

The new column is up over at MLS Daily; it's my take on how TFC's offer to Julian de Guzman represents that wrong direction for MLS.

Read it. Thanks!

Signing Players Like de Guzman Hurts MLS, And Here's Why