flickr
videos
community photos
friends of tias
categories
contact
Feel free to contact me for anything related to TIAS, your information will not be shared with anyone.
designated players
to spend or not to spend (bo knows)
It’s an obvious question, but a good one; maybe the best one in today’s sports market. Would you rather pay to win, ala Chelsea and the New York Yankees, or would you rather build through development programs, such as Arsenal and the Atlanta Braves? It’s a particularly interesting question for MLS. For the last ten years, the league has held teams’ checkbooks at bay by essentially becoming the stingy parent dulling out allowances to its children. It was for good reason, but the reasoning needs to grow along with the league. With the establishment of the Designated Player Rule, whether it brings in all the world’s best players over 30 or not, MLS is setting a new course for growth, albeit a course without much designed direction or promises of higher base salaries, salary cap lifts, etc. In essence, MLS may be changing their answer to our question. For the last decade, they obviously sided with slow growth through development, but without a real development system that didn’t exactly work wonders, though it kept the league in the black. Now there is are inklings that it’s time to spend some more money as growth has been tempered by the emigration of many of the best players and criticisms of a boring league. Is it time to start the spending?
David Keyes discusses the issue in the context of the latest buy-out of an English Premiership team. New Liverpool ownership – the fact that they are foreign (American in Liverpool’s case) is a debate for a different day – is promising to right the ship by spending some money. Some people would rather not take the Chelsea route, but others understand that except in rare cases, in order to compete, you need to spend some money.
It isn’t so simple for MLS, whose main priority has been to keep the league afloat before worrying about the product on the field. As this (hopefully) begins to change in the second decade of the league, one has to wonder how this new industry-wide bourgeois mentality will affect MLS and subsequently the American game. I’m not ready to jump to conclusions as Paul Gardner and Frank Dell’Apa did in already claiming the Designated Player Rule has done all it will do, but I think we’ll see this larger question debated ad nauseum in the coming years.
Will this be a problem for MLS in the future? We already have a few markets that seem to be trying on their designer Yankee-like shoes, while others continue to float on by in small, placid markets. Is it going to be LA, DC, NY, and the rest (with apologies to Houston)? Most leagues from MLB to EPL are falling in this line, with moderate amounts of success. But try telling that to the Kansas City Royal Fan still crying into his Bo Jackson jersey.
So, does it matter to you how your team wins, as long as they win? Let your voice be heard: the comments section is waiting for you to continue the conversation.
marc
on Feb 28th, 2007 - 12:19pm
Personally, I tend to prefer the development route, but I think in today’s day and age, some type of path down the middle might be feasible. As a fan, I find it hard to be loyal/excited to a team if the faces are always changing or you don’t even know the players. I was never a huge baseball fan (or even really a minor one), but I could rally behind the Orioles because they had a local hero by way of Cal Ripken. Getting that kind of calibre player to remain in one place grows ever harder, but it really can solidify a team, develop a sense of place/identity, and put down some roots. In Serie A, think Totti (AS Roma)–worldclass player loyal to his hometown roots. Michael Jordan defining the Bulls or the think of the early DC United teams.
Some more spending in the league can help, but if you get a couple teams that become too dominant because of it, I think the overall “product” will suffer. The designated player rule seems like a short-term gain, but MLS’s next step will probably be the more important one as they will have to deal with issues like handling native league stars vs. imports (ala Donovan vs. Beckham when the Galaxy is no longer allowed to have 2 players over the salary cap in 2008).
It’s a fine line to walk, but I actually like how conservatively MLS has approaced it. I think they’ve built a stronger foundation for it and can now start spending more freely. Hopefully, without creating a mercenary-for-hire system.
Ric
on Feb 28th, 2007 - 5:41pm
I think MLS is trying to do a little of both: bring in the expensive stars they can, but start bringing in youth with the development and reserve systems (yes, the youth development system is new, but its a step in the right direction). I think if we can raise the profile of the league though big stars, build new talent, and then hopefully retain that talent, we can become a better league.
On that note, through, a raise in the salary cap is sorely needed–the developmental player minimum is disgraceful; even if they dont raise the cap, they could at least try to help their kids pay for rent or food. Word was FIVE Red Bulls last year had to share an apartment, and I think the league prevents the teams from helping their players out much with housing/food. That needs to change, especially when we have players going to smaller Euro leagues with similar quality but better pay, or leaving the league to go back to school or to work elsewhere.
kjersten
on Feb 28th, 2007 - 6:58pm
It’s a hard decision, but I think I’d rather my team stick to the more (at least until recently) conventional routes. Like Marc said, nothing unites a team more than a homegrown hero. And nothing can break a solid support system like a sudden foreign tidal wave wiping out a familiar team - even if it means the team wins more games and gains a few (fairweather) friends. I’m not against buying new or foreign players at all - but I think for a team to be suddenly and completely comprised of these players is terribly disappointing to a loyal fan.
However, I think I’m guilty of following teams/games that do use money and power to win over any other method. It’s hard not to. But I know that I’d be more proud of a truly loyal but losing local team than of a local team losing its inherent goodness of simply playing.
leave a comment items marked with * are required