The ownership split on the salary cap

Regular readers will remember that in my last post on the salary cap, I referenced a BA Duane article in which he talked about the split in the owners group:

With Portland and Vancouver coming into the league in 2011 and Philly next year the new wave MLS clubs (along with the larger of the original markets) could start gain more power. Now, it's thought that the old guard still has the votes to resist major increases in the cap. But, add those three votes to those thought to want greater flexibility -- Seattle, L.A., Toronto, Houston, New York, DC United and possibly Chicago -- and it's hard to see how the progressives can be held back forever.

I was curious about that alleged split, considering it had also showed up in a thread on BigSoccer regarding the next collective bargaining agreement:

According to [New York Managing Director] Erik Stover, there are two factions amongst the ownership.

Faction one includes the Red Bulls, TFC, LA, SSFC, DC, Houston and maybe Chivas, Chicago and Philly (not sure about those three).

Faction two is everyone else.

Faction one wants a substantial increase to the cap - anywhere from 50% (AEG) to 100% (Red Bull) - as well as the DP exemption.

Faction two wants a 10% cap increase and no DP exemption.

Stover's words were apparently in the context of speaking to a New York supporters group.

Anyway, those numbers felt a little high to me. So I poked around about the ownership split, and couldn't find anything. Until today, that is, when what looks like the original article that discussed the split was reposted to BigSoccer in another CBA thread.

The article discusses an MLS board of governors meeting from late 2007, which ended up setting the salary cap for the next two years. From the fine article:

Sources familiar with the discussion said the Kraft family (owners of the New England Revolution) and Hunt Sports Group (FC Dallas and Columbus Crew) favored a modest increase in the salary cap consistent with previous years' growth of 4 to 5 percent, while New York Red Bulls representatives favored pushing it beyond $2.5 million per team.

The debate reflected a philosophical divide between the two groups as the young league continues to wrestle with when and how to spend on players. Traditionally, the Kraft and Hunt contingents have favored controlling player costs and minimizing expenses to foster steady league growth, while AEG (Los Angeles Galaxy and Houston Dynamo), Chivas (Chivas USA) and Red Bull have favored spending more on players.

It's also important to note at that meeting, the board considered two proposals, a $2.3mm cap and a $2.5mm. As such, New York wanting to go "beyond" $2.5mm seems to be an outlier. How much of an outlier, who knows?

Anyway, this "split" amounts to a debate between a 5% increase and a 15% increase in the salary cap. If the same debate is happening today, the next cap would be somewhere between $2.4 and $2.7 million.

Maybe the goalposts have moved. But between message board exaggeration and Stover's purported audience (incidentally, I never did find a direct quote) right now I'm taking his statement with a major grain of salt. There's no question the league will be better off revenue wise with Giants Stadium out of the picture and Philadelphia in the league. But I have a hard time believing that we'll see a 50-100% increase in the cap this time around. And I think those expecting a radical change will be disappointed.