Why does MLS have to be so different?

I firmly believe that MLS has all these rules and differences solely for the good of the league. And I think it is important that they do this. They say they handle each case in regards to allocation individually so, no, they dont exactly know the rules. If they didnt have the allocation process, then it is very likely a minority of teams (LA, Seattle, NY) would get most of the returning national team players. That could significantly undermine parity in the league, something that has always been a primary goal of MLS. If we dont have parity, I dont think the league will survive or prosper.

The Robles case proves this point. When he found out he couldnt go directly to NY but had to go through allocation, he changed his mind. Good I say. He's too stupid for this league anyway if that's where he wants to play. I do wish they would make one addendum to the allocation rules though. I wish they would allow a player to return to his former club or his hometown club as a way of avoiding allocation. Maybe there is already an allowance for that I dont know, but I think it would be nice. It would also reward clubs that develop players good enough for the Nats, which would be a way of providing some compensation for losing them to Europe.

The rules I think are a little dubious and baffling are the discovery rules. Regardless though, I get tired of all the complaining about MLS being different. It has been growing and improving even though the economy has been crap for four years. The Japanese league and the Australian league are both looking at the way MLS is doing things because of the problems they are having. The average salary in the A league is higher than MLS but it is not as good, and there are concerns about the survival of teams. To me it is obvious for all to see that MLS is doing it the right way.

 

Nobody likes parity. People like superstar teams with a decent roster of teams after that. It's like this in all sports. If the NBA had a bunch of good teams, but no great teams then they wouldn't get nearly as many fans as they got. Basketball was at its peak in the 80's when there were a few great teams and a bunch of good teams like the Nuggets and Mavericks behind them. I think it would do the league some good to let players go where they want.

 

If nobody likes parity than why is the NFL the most successful league in the country? The NBA's decline is not related to parity. It's due to the fact that the game has changed so much and the star players arent what they used to be. I know that sounds very :character-oldtimer: , but it's true. Besides attendence at MLS games is higher than that of the NBA.

And why MLS aims for parity, the DP rule is a way for superstar teams to develop. Columbus and KC certainly cannot afford the DPs that LA and NY can. I dont recall LA and NY getting any special treatment in terms of allocation order, it's the DP rule that has given them an advantaage. I just think that MLS has found a nice balance of allowing richer teams to spend some money and attract superstars while insuring that MLS grows beyond just a few teams. These things were not done with past leagues and look what happened. USL and NASL are still constantly having problems. Also MLS is requiring and incentivizing it's teams to invest in their youth academies and youth player development. It's a balancing act.

 

The NBA isn't in decline, quite the opposite, and this is coming from a frustrated Portland fan, but that discussion is for a different thread.

After reading the article, the allocation is both confusing and arbitrary, but let's not pretend the MLS can deviate from their business model. It's still in it's infancy and has wisely followed the NFL's model (easily the best run league, in any sport, anywhere in the world). The NFL does have parity, but individual franchises' success is dictated by how well they are run (Steelers w/6 SB wins, Lions and others ZERO SB appearances).

As opposed to the Prem or La Liga or Serie A etc. where basically the same 2 teams play for the title every year, 2 or 3 more to fill out the CL spots, and the rest looking to stay in the league. I'm a Fulham fan and will never change, but it does kinda suck that I have as much chance to walk on the moon as my team does at winning the league in my lifetime.

The MLS will eventually loosen up on player movement, but right now the health of the league as a whole is priority one.

 

Heather, are the crap teams from last year that will be crap again this season due to favoritism by the league or the poor management of the individual teams? I feel for DC since their fans set the bar for all other fan groups to follow, but the organization is at fault. From that article it looks like the Galaxy have outworked everyone else while staying in the guidelines, and will have to dismantle next year.

The NFL would still be successful w/out question, but if they got rid of the 'parity rules' i.e. inverted draft, salary cap, and revenue sharing, ten franchises would immediately sink w/out any hope (Buffalo, Minnesota, CIncinnati, etc.) of competing.

 

The NBA is on the rise and that's because there are superstar teams forming. The interest in the league skyrocketed after LeBron went to Miami with Bosh. Nobody cares at all that Charlotte sucks because everybody is watching Miami, Chicago and the LA teams.

 

I thought DC was supposed to have a stadium like years ago? I remember reading about stadiums way back in 2004 on bigsoccer.