ColoradoBear1;842333315 said:

---

I don't know about always being a joke, but I do agree it won't be top notch (as long as there are other big leagues in the USA that are way more popular and eating up our entertainment cash). The question is whether our best players should playing in the MLS or overseas. I think Michael Bradley coming back to Toronto to play is very telling. As were Klinsmanns comments about Donovan still tearing up MLS but that not meaning anything. A lot, if not all, of the best South American players and definitely all of the best the African players play in Europe and it only helps their national team.

European Leagues/ top teams have a big advantage over the rest of the world that goes beyond money too - the UEFA Champions league is great and it provides further top competition and glory for the top club teams. CONCACAF is trying the same thing, but honestly the level of most of the teams is not all that great (maybe if there were a way to include South American leagues it would be far more interesting... but then the travel is huge and the seasons are messed up). Furthermore, the MLS model is currently to have parity between all member teams, which results in a few stars making millions on each team (if they are lucky) and the rest are journeymen or young players often making $40k.

European leagues see consolidation of talent to the top teams and a steep fall off... but again stars get to play with stars and against stars... and with teams like barcelona, much of the national team plays together on a regular basis. Can one imagine if we had 6-7 national team members playing on a MLS team? And if they got to travel and play other top club teams? I know it's not going to happen, but that's one way to get a good national team.

---

Completely agree with what your wrote. In the US we often speak about the NFL or one of our league's expanding internationally, maybe even with a team in Europe. Any chance we ever get a US based team as part of one of the major European leagues? How many games per week do most leagues play?

ColoradoBear1;842333315 said:

---

I don't know about always being a joke, but I do agree it won't be top notch (as long as there are other big leagues in the USA that are way more popular and eating up our entertainment cash). The question is whether our best players should playing in the MLS or overseas. I think Michael Bradley coming back to Toronto to play is very telling. As were Klinsmanns comments about Donovan still tearing up MLS but that not meaning anything. A lot, if not all, of the best South American players and definitely all of the best the African players play in Europe and it only helps their national team.

European Leagues/ top teams have a big advantage over the rest of the world that goes beyond money too - the UEFA Champions league is great and it provides further top competition and glory for the top club teams. CONCACAF is trying the same thing, but honestly the level of most of the teams is not all that great (maybe if there were a way to include South American leagues it would be far more interesting... but then the travel is huge and the seasons are messed up). Furthermore, the MLS model is currently to have parity between all member teams, which results in a few stars making millions on each team (if they are lucky) and the rest are journeymen or young players often making $40k.

European leagues see consolidation of talent to the top teams and a steep fall off... but again stars get to play with stars and against stars... and with teams like barcelona, much of the national team plays together on a regular basis. Can one imagine if we had 6-7 national team members playing on a MLS team? And if they got to travel and play other top club teams? I know it's not going to happen, but that's one way to get a good national team.

---

One thing with that parity thing Americans love is that the bottom teams seasons still matter in Europe. In the NFL you can take out the 49ers and Cowboys and spread around talent, but the bad teams will always be bad. In europe, that bad team would be playing to avoid relegation. No US sport has that aside from attendance issues in D1A.

The very lowest level of the sport becomes interesting that way. Imagine if Cal were playing this season to avoid relegation. We could easily come back because of how rich we are (like the worst Premier teams), but it would make the season a lot more interesting as a fan.

Of course the very best teams would be internationally relevant as well.

Phantomfan;842333354 said:

---

One thing with that parity thing Americans love is that the bottom teams seasons still matter in Europe. In the NFL you can take out the 49ers and Cowboys and spread around talent, but the bad teams will always be bad. In europe, that bad team would be playing to avoid relegation. No US sport has that aside from attendance issues in D1A.

The very lowest level of the sport becomes interesting that way. Imagine if Cal were playing this season to avoid relegation. We could easily come back because of how rich we are (like the worst Premier teams), but it would make the season a lot more interesting as a fan.

Of course the very best teams would be internationally relevant as well.

---

Good Point.

In US, the bottom teams in NFL and NBA get rewarded with the superstar draft picks. I suspect when they are at the bottom towards the end of season, they don't try very hard to win so that they can get a Andrew Luck or John Elway type player in the draft.

In Europe, it is a completely different situation with the bottom three teams being relegated. That makes the end of the season much more interesting not only for top teams but also for the bottom teams.

Relegation would definitely be more fun in all American sports. I think there is too much public money in these gigantic stadiums though. Would be really hard to get that same money approved if there were a chance of losing the team. As it stands, all owners make money, so why would they risk it? I mean look at the clippers - suck ass for years, would have been relagated many times over I'm guessing, but now worth 2 billion. Owners love the closed system.

Another big difference is the player development system for those under 18. I believe that the european/fifa system is actually illegal in the US as you can't 'own' players under 18 and also can't have players under 16 as 'workers'.

Relegate to what -Triple A, the Canadian Football League, WNBA? Makes no sense for our pro system where there are huge differences in talent and revenue. Would work for college though; we would be competing in the WAC this year.

ColoradoBear1;842333389 said:

---

Relegation would definitely be more fun in all American sports. I think there is too much public money in these gigantic stadiums though. Would be really hard to get that same money approved if there were a chance of losing the team. As it stands, all owners make money, so why would they risk it? I mean look at the clippers - suck ass for years, would have been relagated many times over I'm guessing, but now worth 2 billion. Owners love the closed system.

Another big difference is the player development system for those under 18. I believe that the european/fifa system is actually illegal in the US as you can't 'own' players under 18 and also can't have players under 16 as 'workers'.

---

Clippers would easily get back into the NBA when the Reno Bulls or whatever get relegated the next season, though.

I think you may be right about the development of players. How can we have top players without a system to develop them

GB54;842333395 said:

---

Relegate to what -Triple A, the Canadian Football League, WNBA? Makes no sense for our pro system where there are huge differences in talent and revenue. Would work for college though; we would be competing in the WAC this year.

---

MLB goes triple A. Basketball goes to whatever that low league is called, etc. College football would be D1AA, not WAC.

And if you think wealth is why it wouldn't work, you may have missed that the Premier League is the richest in the world with massive gaps between that league and the league the teams are put in.

Phantomfan;842333420 said:

---

MLB goes triple A. Basketball goes to whatever that low league is called, etc. College football would be D1AA, not WAC.

And if you think wealth is why it wouldn't work, you may have missed that the Premier League is the richest in the world with massive gaps between that league and the league the teams are put in.

---

The Football League in England which I think is number 2 averages 17000 fans per game. A triple A baseball team might get half of that. I'd also bet the soccer team would have TV money and a lot more merchandising dollars

GB54;842333428 said:

---

The Football League in England which I think is number 2 averages 17000 fans per game. A triple A baseball team might get half of that. I'd also bet the soccer team would have TV money and a lot more merchandising dollars

---

True. Perhaps mid major vs major conference (like you say WAC vs Pac) is more in line with the UK.

Actually, it looks like it might be the best example, as the relegated teams can still play for the FA cup if I am not mistaken?

ColoradoBear1;842333389 said:

---

Another big difference is the player development system for those under 18. I believe that the european/fifa system is actually illegal in the US as you can't 'own' players under 18 and also can't have players under 16 as 'workers'.

---

I don't think this is accurate. MLS teams have been trying to develop a similar model over the past 6-8 years and unless something has changed the teams retain rights to players developed within their program.

The way European soccer teams "own" players reminds me of baseball before free agency. I doubt it can be sustained in US with our labor and human rights law. Even baseball with it's "anti-trust" exemptions and tax exemptions, etc. laws had to yield to free agency.

I am very curious how much money the European soccer players get when they are "transferred" (sold) from one club to another. For example Liverpool just got $128 million to "transfer" Luis Suarez to Barcelona. How much did Suarez get? Did he get any of the $128 million? If not, that is very unfair and unlikely to be sustainable in US.

If anyone knows, I would greatly appreciate an answer.

calbear80;842333661 said:

---

The way European soccer teams "own" players reminds me of baseball before free agency. I doubt it can be sustained in US with our labor and human rights law. Even baseball with it's "anti-trust" exemptions and tax exemptions, etc. laws had to yield to free agency.

I am very curious how much money the European soccer players get when they are "transferred" (sold) from one club to another. For example Liverpool just got $128 million to "transfer" Luis Suarez to Barcelona. How much did Suarez get? Did he get any of the $128 million? If not, that is very unfair and unlikely to be sustainable in US.

If anyone knows, I would greatly appreciate an answer.

---

Why would he get any of that 75?

Isnt it paying the club to get him out of a 5 year contract with the club.

This seems like it is like asking, yeah, we fired Tedford, but how much of that 7 million does Cal get?

OzoneTheCat;842333512 said:

---

I don't think this is accurate. MLS teams have been trying to develop a similar model over the past 6-8 years and unless something has changed the teams retain rights to players developed within their program.

---

MLS allocation rules are so messed up I really don't bother to even try to understand them. Are you referring to the homegrown player rule? That just creates an incentive for a local team to keep a 'homegrown' player by creating a salary cap exception, but I don't think anyone is bound. Part of it is that no team has contracts with players - the MLS owns them all. Another part is that most players in development programs do not sign contracts because there is just no money in it, and being a professional means no college scholly (where honestly most players belong anyway). There are a few that sign generation adidas contracts young, which do provide college tuition reimbursement as a part of the agreement.

FIFA transfer rules are also somewhat obscure - but no contract means no selling/transfering players (but it still might be possible to recoup developments costs, which is a completely different scale). Messi moved to Barcelona at 11 right? That basically isn't happening in the US because minors cannot sign contracts or for that matter work before 16.

I agree with calbear80 below that FIFA transfer rules/owning players is messed up. One thing I don't have a feeling on is whether a player can deny a transfer, especially to a foreign country. I presume they can, and this is their bargaining chip to get a newer larger contract. But being sold seems totally unamerican. I would also have a big problem with ANY players being sold/transferred before he is 18 and that remaining binding after 18 - seems that parents could basically sell their kids with those rules. And it seems FIFA is OK with this?

ColoradoBear1;842333710 said:

---

MLS allocation rules are so messed up I really don't bother to even try to understand them. Are you referring to the homegrown player rule? That just creates an incentive for a local team to keep a 'homegrown' player by creating a salary cap exception, but I don't think anyone is bound. Part of it is that no team has contracts with players - the MLS owns them all. Another part is that most players in development programs do not sign contracts because there is just no money in it, and being a professional means no college scholly (where honestly most players belong anyway). There are a few that sign generation adidas contracts young, which do provide college tuition reimbursement as a part of the agreement.

FIFA transfer rules are also somewhat obscure - but no contract means no selling/transfering players (but it still might be possible to recoup developments costs, which is a completely different scale). Messi moved to Barcelona at 11 right? That basically isn't happening in the US because minors cannot sign contracts or for that matter work before 16.

I agree with calbear80 below that FIFA transfer rules/owning players is messed up. One thing I don't have a feeling on is whether a player can deny a transfer, especially to a foreign country. I presume they can, and this is their bargaining chip to get a newer larger contract. But being sold seems totally unamerican. I would also have a big problem with ANY players being sold/transferred before he is 18 and that remaining binding after 18 - seems that parents could basically sell their kids with those rules. And it seems FIFA is OK with this?

---

Thanks for good explanation. I am still unclear if the player gets any of the "transfer" fee or it all goes to the selling club. For example, did Suarez get any of the $128 million that came from Barcelona or it all went to Liverpool? Did Suarez get a larger (more money) contract from Barcelona than he had with Liverpool? What is in it for Suarez? I am using Suarez as an example because I am trying to understand what happens to the transfer money".

"But being sold seems totally un-American."

Very interesting statement. Brings up memories of Curt Flood if not something more sinister.
But if I'm being "sold" for $128 million and get a big piece of that (good question Calbear80), well maybe I can accept it.

calbear80;842334104 said:

---

Thanks for good explanation. I am still unclear if the player gets any of the "transfer" fee or it all goes to the selling club. For example, did Suarez get any of the $128 million that came from Barcelona or it all went to Liverpool? Did Suarez get a larger (more money) contract from Barcelona than he had with Liverpool? What is in it for Suarez? I am using Suarez as an example because I am trying to understand what happens to the transfer money".

---

So I'm still not sure what happens if a player wants to deny a transfer (maybe he just says no?), but it appears that the new team has to void the old contract and negotiate a new one. Plus I saw references to saurez (or agent) getting 5-10% of the fee (maybe that's negotiable too?). He is also taking less money with barcelona than with liverpool. But he wants to play in Spain, and maybe the cultural similarities to Uruguay (unlike England) make up for the money.

At the top level, it seems no one is really getting screwed over, but at lower levels, there is more dissatisfaction with the buying and selling of players because the money that goes to the team is in a way not going to the players. Of course money spent on a transfer fee is money that cannot go to a player's salary, so that really matters when salaries are not in the millions, but are much lower... especially given the length of a sporting career.

I did also notice that players under 18 cannot be transferred from their home country under FIFA rules... unless the player lives within 50 km of the border and 100km from the new team, or his parents/family accompany him to the new country.

I also randomly saw that FIFA requires all member countries/associations to let players travel for FIFA matches like WC qualifying and tournaments. Completely self serving - not sure that is really legal if challenged in many countries, but then if a federation/country challenges, FIFA would probably boot them out of FIFA.

My understanding is that the club x has a contract with player for years/$$ for which they retain the rights to the player (think, NFL drafts a player and then has the sole right to negotiate a K with player). Club y pays a transfer fee to club x in order to get the rights to the player. Players rights to the club is transferred from x to y, and he continues to perform under the original contract he had with club x.

Depending upon the player, my assumption is that they/their agent has some influence in the deal, because the original contract might well have an opt out clause - such that in order for the new team (y) to be sure that they will be able to sign the player, they negotiate a new deal that everyone agrees upon.

At least, that's my rudimentary understanding of it. Admittedly this was told to me over beers by a friend who knows way more than I do about the domestic soccer leagues, so if I'm way off, I apologize.

ColoradoBear1;842334128 said:

---

So I'm still not sure what happens if a player wants to deny a transfer (maybe he just says no?), but it appears that the new team has to void the old contract and negotiate a new one. Plus I saw references to saurez (or agent) getting 5-10% of the fee (maybe that's negotiable too?). He is also taking less money with barcelona than with liverpool. But he wants to play in Spain, and maybe the cultural similarities to Uruguay (unlike England) make up for the money.

At the top level, it seems no one is really getting screwed over, but at lower levels, there is more dissatisfaction with the buying and selling of players because the money that goes to the team is in a way not going to the players. Of course money spent on a transfer fee is money that cannot go to a player's salary, so that really matters when salaries are not in the millions, but are much lower... especially given the length of a sporting career.

I did also notice that players under 18 cannot be transferred from their home country under FIFA rules... unless the player lives within 50 km of the border and 100km from the new team, or his parents/family accompany him to the new country.

I also randomly saw that FIFA requires all member countries/associations to let players travel for FIFA matches like WC qualifying and tournaments. Completely self serving - not sure that is really legal if challenged in many countries, but then if a federation/country challenges, FIFA would probably boot them out of FIFA.

---

Suarez's wife is spanish.

He has been talking about wanting to go to Spain for a while. That is why he was willing to take less money. If he wanted more, they may not have taken him at all.

Most players are at the mercy of the team to be traded, some stars (like suarez) have "no trade" clauses in their contracts often.

The money for breaking the contract goes to the team, not the player (why would a player breaking a contract get any money?). Then the player negotiates a new contract. The buyout on Suarez's contract was 75Mil GBP. Reported when he signed a long time ago. That is 128mil USD. That is where that number comes from. He is breaking one contract to sign another. The club pays the buyout, not the player.

It is no different than if a college coach gets an offer from an NFL team. The NFL will pay to end the contract between the coach and the school, and then start a new contract with the coach.


The reason it confuses Americans is because the contracts are broken and paid off so often, it is as though they dont exist and it looks like players are actually being bought. That is not what it is.

Phantomfan;842334234 said:

---

Suarez's wife is spanish.

He has been talking about wanting to go to Spain for a while. That is why he was willing to take less money. If he wanted more, they may not have taken him at all.

Most players are at the mercy of the team to be traded, some stars (like suarez) have "no trade" clauses in their contracts often.

The money for breaking the contract goes to the team, not the player (why would a player breaking a contract get any money?). Then the player negotiates a new contract. The buyout on Suarez's contract was 75Mil GBP. Reported when he signed a long time ago. That is 128mil USD. That is where that number comes from. He is breaking one contract to sign another. The club pays the buyout, not the player.

It is no different than if a college coach gets an offer from an NFL team. The NFL will pay to end the contract between the coach and the school, and then start a new contract with the coach.


The reason it confuses Americans is because the contracts are broken and paid off so often, it is as though they dont exist and it looks like players are actually being bought. That is not what it is.

---

Thanks Phantom.

Do you know how much Suarez was getting paid by Liverpool and how much is going to be paid by Barcelona?

Since almost certainly it is a lot less than $128 million, would you agree that clubs are getting rich by "transferring" the player without the player seeing much of that money?

Also, in European/FIFA system, does the player ever become free agent?

I am not an attorney, but I don't think the European/FIFA sytem will hold up for long in the American legal system. Isn't that why free agency was created in American sports?

calbear80;842334307 said:

---

Thanks Phantom.

Do you know how much Suarez was getting paid by Liverpool and how much is going to be paid by Barcelona?

Since almost certainly it is a lot less than $128 million, would you agree that clubs are getting rich by "transferring" the player without the player seeing much of that money?

Also, in European/FIFA system, does the player ever become free agent?

I am not an attorney, but I don't think the European/FIFA sytem will hold up for long in the American legal system. Isn't that why free agency was created in American sports?

---

He was getting ~10mil GBP (75M USD for 4 years)

I have read he will be getting 10mil GBP (with a a stipulation for biting that reduces it to 7Mil GBP). I also read he will be getting 40m GBP for 5 years. Not sure what is correct.



Again, though, the term "buying" is a team being aloud to pay off his contract so he can leave. Suarez could have said no (as he did with Arsenal earlier this year). It is not "buying players" it is paying off contracts.

It is as though Rodgers said he wanted to play for the 49ers but is tied to a contract where is buyout is $50mil, and the 49ers offered Green Bay the $50mil buyout. Green Bay can say "no, its a contract" and after talking to the 49ers about what he would make, Rodgers can say "no. I prefer my current deal/team" OTOH, if Rodgers really wants to play for the 49ers, he might just take what they will give him, even if it is less, and he gets "bought" by the 49ers and "sold" by Green Bay. To cover the cost, the 49ers might sell Kap and Gore to some needy team.

That is VS the current NFL system where the player is basically tied to the contract until they get past their contract and then get one season of "free agency"

The idea a player should get any money for breaking a contract is backwards.

At least that is the way I understand it.



As for it standing up in the US: the contract has two or three parts - we pay you this for 5 years. If you leave, you pay us this, if we cut you we pay this.

We fired Tedford in the middle of a contract. He was paid for it. If the NFL had hired him in 2004, they would have had to pay Cal something to cover his contract. In Europe it is called "buying." We dont call it buying here, but it is the same thing.