Is there any good analysis of the constraints that GMs and soccer directors are working with coming from their ownership? For example, FC Cincinnati’s front office seems to have much more money to play with from its owners than say, DC. What do the owners expect their organizations to be able to accomplish given the resources at their disposal?
There's about a half-dozen teams – Miami, Atlanta, Cincy, both LA sides, Chicago – who are *really* going for it. With ownership willing to spend for big-name veterans, high-upside young players, MLS free agents, coaches, front offices, to buy out endless bad contracts, etc.
Everyone else is balling on a budget to one degree or another.
Sure, but I guess there still seems some variation between the different teams that have harder budget constraints. It appears that the ownership of Philadelphia and Dallas have different expectations, and a different business model, than say Nashville FC. To be honest, with most of the MLS teams that aren’t just going for it, I don’t understand what the business model is and how that connects to the decisions that the organization makes. Dallas, Philadelphia, and maybe Columbus seem like exceptions, insofar as it appears that the organizational goal is to become really good and successful at developing and then selling players. And the NY teams are supposed to function as cogs in the City and Energy Drink (spit take) soccer groups. I can also see the LA teams, Miami, Chicago, and Atlanta ownership seeing long term upside in club value in being competitive and developing fans both locally and across the US (and for Miami internationally), in part because capturing more attention in the metro/media markets is really valuable. And Cincinnati looks like mostly a passion project to me (base on what I heard from one of my parents, who worked for and with the Lindners). Is the idea for the teams in the muddled middle to avoid the wooden spoon and just let the value of the club appreciate in value? How does ownership of clubs like that think about and evaluate their management team, given that on field success probably doesn’t have much impact on a clubs value?
I don't think what you're describing is unique to MLS. There's variations between the way clubs are run in any league, right?
If you want to dig into the numbers on all of it to get a feel for granular investment and overall spend, and then come up with an overall thesis, I highly recommend the Soccerwise spreadsheets.
Thanks for the reply. I was hoping that someone else had already done the work. I might look into it when things get slow at work (usually November and December for my line of business, and assuming that the economy doesn’t tip into recession and we start reducing headcount, etc.)
Is there any good analysis of the constraints that GMs and soccer directors are working with coming from their ownership? For example, FC Cincinnati’s front office seems to have much more money to play with from its owners than say, DC. What do the owners expect their organizations to be able to accomplish given the resources at their disposal?
There's about a half-dozen teams – Miami, Atlanta, Cincy, both LA sides, Chicago – who are *really* going for it. With ownership willing to spend for big-name veterans, high-upside young players, MLS free agents, coaches, front offices, to buy out endless bad contracts, etc.
Everyone else is balling on a budget to one degree or another.
Sure, but I guess there still seems some variation between the different teams that have harder budget constraints. It appears that the ownership of Philadelphia and Dallas have different expectations, and a different business model, than say Nashville FC. To be honest, with most of the MLS teams that aren’t just going for it, I don’t understand what the business model is and how that connects to the decisions that the organization makes. Dallas, Philadelphia, and maybe Columbus seem like exceptions, insofar as it appears that the organizational goal is to become really good and successful at developing and then selling players. And the NY teams are supposed to function as cogs in the City and Energy Drink (spit take) soccer groups. I can also see the LA teams, Miami, Chicago, and Atlanta ownership seeing long term upside in club value in being competitive and developing fans both locally and across the US (and for Miami internationally), in part because capturing more attention in the metro/media markets is really valuable. And Cincinnati looks like mostly a passion project to me (base on what I heard from one of my parents, who worked for and with the Lindners). Is the idea for the teams in the muddled middle to avoid the wooden spoon and just let the value of the club appreciate in value? How does ownership of clubs like that think about and evaluate their management team, given that on field success probably doesn’t have much impact on a clubs value?
I don't think what you're describing is unique to MLS. There's variations between the way clubs are run in any league, right?
If you want to dig into the numbers on all of it to get a feel for granular investment and overall spend, and then come up with an overall thesis, I highly recommend the Soccerwise spreadsheets.
Thanks for the reply. I was hoping that someone else had already done the work. I might look into it when things get slow at work (usually November and December for my line of business, and assuming that the economy doesn’t tip into recession and we start reducing headcount, etc.)
Fingers crossed on that recession bit.
Your theory that league parity is starting to fray makes all of this even more fun.
Absolute Unit looks like exactly what I've been looking for, so ty for that link/rec.
Matthew, do you think the league will ever just publish salaries with this instead of leaving it to the MLSPA?
If it happens it won't be until after the new CBA is agreed, so 2028 at the earliest.
We inch closer to the MLS version of Dunc’d On
Meeehhhhh
You’re not a fan?
I like Hollinger a lot.
He’s really good