

Chivas USA to improve MLS
By: Alex | December 10th, 2007Chivas USA would like to improve the MLS by providing better performances on the pitch. Not all teams feel the same way.
I know it sounds weird, but it’s the truth. While searching for more Fonseca rumors, I stumbled upon this article. It talked about a divide in MLS regarding how much the players should be paid (the cap).
So there are two schools of thought.
1. Raise the cap so a better product is on the field. More people will come.
2. Slow steady growth is how we got here today, we should keep it this way.
Now I see both sides of the argument. However, a 4% growth doesn’t sit well with me. Here’s why.
First off, the average inflation rate is 2-3% a year. So we are actually increasing the cap by about 1 percent. These guys deserve better.
Second, a lot of these guys have 5% raises written in to contracts. so what does that leave the team to put towards new talent? Not much.
So the only tool teams have to bring talent to the league are the DP’s. 400k counts towards the cap, while the rest is free. But teams with a DP are kind of screwed. Take LA for an example. Their 3 ring circus drives me nuts, but between Landon and Becks, much of the cap is eaten up. A team trying to bring talent to the pitch cannot afford supporting players. $725,000 of the 2.3 million is tied up in those two. This year that equals to 10 Galindo’s, 14 Guzans, or 5 Ante Razovs. How do you get depth?
So here’s the deal. The LA Galaxy, New York Red Bulls, Houston Dynamo and Chivas USA want to increase the cap significantly to allow the league to grow like option #1.
New England Revolution, FC Dallas and the Columbus Crew like option number two. I call this the MLS will be a feeder league for 20 years option. I’m going to do a little math. Bear with me…
Year 1 2.3
2 2.392
3 2.5116
4 2.611
5 2.715
6 2.82
7 2.93
8 3.05
9 3.17
10 3.3
So at the end of ten years, based on a 4% cap increase the cap will be at 3.3 million (please don’t critique the math). Based on a 28 man roster, that gives the average player $117,857.14 bucks a year. that blows.
So I guess I have a point. Many LOYAL MLS fans watch the sport with the hope that someday, MLS will be a world class league. At this rate, it will never happen.
Please MLS, consider a little bit bigger percentage. Like 7. I like 7. In 10 years, 7 could equal good things. MLS’ time has come.
![]() |
MLS Forums | Chivas USA Results |
Subscribe
|
Print
|
Share
![]() |
Comments
-



Interesting analysis. Raising the salary cap from 2.2m to 2.3m is about the same as not raising it at all. But like you I can see the point behind Option 2. And the plain truth is that soccer is still only gradually growing in popularity.
I think it needs to be somewhere in between: the teams spend a little more, the talent level rises a little, the crowds start growing, the teams spend a little more, the talent level goes up, the crowds get a little bigger, etc. That’s the way it seems like it should work, to me at least.
I don’t think it’s out of the realm of possibility to have a legit 20-team top division soccer league in this country with teams averaging over 20K in attendance. But you can’t force people to like something, it has to grow up organically (and much as you may not want to hear this, Beckham’s arrival, even with his lackluster season on the pitch, has helped and will continue to help grow MLS’ popularity hugely).
Posted from
United States

-



I was waay too drunk last night to follow your logic. I have to admit, the cheap thrill I get when I realize I make more money than a player on the field, is starting to get old.
I say combo of number one and aggressively lifting many roster restrictions. Its time to start thinking how we’re gonna play in MLS and tournaments w/ Latin American clubs at the same time. Bring it!
Posted from
United States

-



Wow, the guy that wrote that article is named Tripp Mickle, I hope that’s a pen name or something.
Posted from
United States

-



Thanks for the comments guys. I agree with Lucas. I see the point of # 2, but at some point the league needs to become more aggressive. Otherwise we will be stuck where we are today. With aging players coming to MLS to die.
It also bums me out that developmental players make 20-30k. I know… love of the game, but they got to eat.
Posted from
United States

-



You want to improve through better play? How…how…retro.
Btw, I thought the Chivas put together an amazing team this year given the salaries paid. And weren’t they way under cap anyway? Would they really go up to the max even if it did increase substantially?
Posted from
United States

-



If we don’t want players to move on, like Galindo, Johnny B, Sasha, etc. we are going to have to raise salaries.
And, if we want to attract talent from FMF, Argentina, or Brazil, we are going to need to raise the salary cap to like $3.8-$4 Million in the next 3 years.
Posted from
United States

-



We were under the cap with a great team. The one thing missing is the Becks factor. Sometimes a big name is needed just to put people in the stands.
I think the team would use up the salary cap. It’s just tough to find the right players.
Posted from
United States

-



2009- Collective bargaining agreement is up. We will probably either A) see a significant reworking of the salary structure to avoid a strike or B) see a significant reworking of the salary structure after a strike. And don’t think a strike will have any effect the last one had the players sitting out of the Nats and the Euro based players not coming in in solidarity. Last time Arena had to call in USL players to prepare for games (and when the strike ended everyone but Clyde Simms was kicked out, Simms promptly transfered from Richmond to DC). I think a strike brings up the scary prospect of WC qualifiers with a USL squad. The players union will get its day if that eventuality comes to pass.
Posted from
United States

-



Chivas are waaaaay under the cap with a great team. The big name factor is a very good idea for them because a lot of people seem a bit hung up on the belief that the club has to come up with an identity in order for people to follow them. It totally goes against Lucas’ “organic” thoughts above. Chivas can organically become an excellent club (consistently picking up and improving undervalued talent, creating one of the best youth development programs in the country) but I guess the demand is for them to spend the cash to create the buzz or something? Maybey its just because thhey share the same market as The Galaxy. Perhaps if they moved — even if its just to Santa Anna — that would be enough. Anyways, I’m rambling. Find name players to build depth before thinking who’se gonna put butts in seats.
Posted from
United States

-



i’m with poketkings here about raising the salary cap in order to keep the young talent that helped us win the western conference. Laurie, you’re right we did have a good year while being way under the cap. but, do you think these YOUNG players who just won the western conference aren’t going to want a raise? one of the top 4 teams in the league should not be the lowest paid team, which is what many of the underpaid players are thinking i’m sure.
Posted from
United States

-



The salary of players is rediculous. Personally if a team wants to spend more than anyone else, let them. Teams have folded under this current slow growth program because they sucked. Mid to low level teams can stay there and still get attendance boosts when the Galaxy with Beckham, Chivas with Fonseca, Red Bulls with ???, fire with Blanco, D.C. with ???. The EPL has 4 major clubs that draw more than 25,000 average attendance. You think Derby is drawing 80,000 like Man U? The lower teams suck for a reason, they have no vision to expand their local product. Columbus could be better, they just have a mediocre coach and a mediocre program. Let Chivas spend and go south to play in big games.
Posted from
United States

-



Melissa,
Chivas should definitely move to Anaheim/Santa Ana. This would be amazing. The area is super loaded with Latino fans of the sport and they would sell out every game. Anaheim stadium parking lot is big enough for a twenty thousand seat stadium and the city is looking for more pro sport development. A little vision and fundign and it happens.Posted from
United States

-



If I had my way, Chivas would move to Oakland. In fact, I wouldn’t be surprised if I had a dream about it really happening. Seriously though, the Santa Ana thing was a recent rumor with some fact behind it since their lease is up either next year or 2009 (I forgot). I think I’m not seeing Chivas renew the lease when the time comes.
Posted from
United States

-



tower0surfer…
As much as I want Chivas to have their own stadium, I really don’t want to have to drive from the 605/91 all the way down to Santa Ana.Besides, if their are so many fans in SA, why didn’t they show up for the Tabasco charity game??
How about Irwindale? The place where they were thinking about putting the Raiders a long time ago. Its just up the 605, near the 10/210, by the Santa Fe Dam.
Posted from
United States

-



bluemeanies beat me to what I was going to say. The CBA will be up in 09, the league wants to expand to 16 teams by then, maybe even 18 by 2010 according to Garber. Those expansion fees are being held for the negotiations. A STRIKE IS NOT AN OPTION. MLS will not, under any circumstance lose a year off of Beckham’s contract.
I think in 2010 we’ll see a cap in the 5 mil area.
Posted from
United States

-



That would be awesome!
Posted from
United States

-



Alex,
New thread…
Rumors of Manchester City receiving Jans Lehman on loan from Arsenal. Does this mean that Arsenal may make a move for Guzan?If so, the Burpo move is going to look really bad!!!
Posted from
United States

-



Did you see Sacha’s been names captain of the U-23s?
Posted from
United States

-



Sacha being the captain of the U-23 is only going to mean good things for his future performance with Chivas. Maybe he will fill the midfield leadership role after Marsch retires at the end of ‘08 or ‘09.
Posted from
United States

-



More specifically than “weird” the claim sounds pompous and self-centered. Made it sound like Chivas was all alone out there. Also, raising the salary cap is hardly the only investment that could ultimately improve the quality of play on the pitch. (Spending on the youth system would do that as well, for instance. Basically any spending that has a positive return is a good idea.)
Now, as to why not up the cap now? One possibility (fear of the CBA) has been discussed. Another is that the league wants to see if the Beckham Effect is a flash in the pan–after all, it’s the only reason anyone thinks MLS has the money to up the cap.
Posted from
United States

Comments are closed













