Jones signs Designated Player contract with MLS, joins Revs

Jermaine Jones

Photo by


After weeks of wrangling, Jermaine Jones has finally signed with Major League Soccer.

The U.S. Men’s National Team midfielder has signed with the league and will join the New England Revolution for the rest of the season. Jones has signed a Designated Player deal and was allocated to the Revolution over the Chicago Fire via a blind draw announced at halftime of the Portland Timbers vs. Seattle Sounders game.

According to a report in Goal USA, the Revolution will pay Jones $4.5 million in total over the 2014 and 2015 seasons, and have a club option for 2016.

“I’m very excited to come to MLS and join the Revolution,” Jones said in a statement. “New England is an exciting team on the rise, and I believe I can come in and help the team make a push toward MLS Cup. Playing with the U.S. National Team has given me a great connection with the American fans and I’m looking forward to playing in front of them every weekend. I’m ready to get started with the Revs.”

In the Revolution’s press release, the league explained how Jones ended up with the Revolution.

“As a designated player of a certain threshold, Jones was not subject to allocation ranking for dispersal to an MLS team,” the statement read. “The Revolution and Chicago Fire expressed an interest in Jones, and had the available salary budget and a designated player slot to accommodate him. Following a blind draw between the two clubs, Jones was assigned to the Revolution.”

Jones has been a free agent since July 1, after his contract with Schalke 04 expired. Jones most recently played for Besiktas on loan. Jones starred with the USMNT at the 2014 World Cup, playing in all four games and scoring a magnificent goal against Portugal.


What do you think of this news? Surprised to see Jones move to New England? How do you see Jones fitting into the Revolution’s lineup?

Share your thoughts below.

This entry was posted in Featured, Major League Soccer, MLS- New England Revolution. Bookmark the permalink.

154 Responses to Jones signs Designated Player contract with MLS, joins Revs

  1. JB says:

    single entity is so stupid. It really needs to go. Can it must justified much longer?

    • Landy Cakes says:

      Yes. While fans do want the league to get better and to be taken seriously… What we really want is for the league not to go out of business. It was only about 10 years ago when it looked like the MLS would go bust and was contracting. The great fear is that letting the individual teams free to pursue their own “DP” players will lead them to spend themselves into oblivion. The history of American sport is scattered with far more failed professional leagues than there are succesful ones, after all.

      • beto says:

        Really don’t understand this argument. The salary cap should be enough to keep expenditures manageable all this other single entity rules, drafts, discovery tags, allocations, coin flips, etc are soooo obnoxious and really bring the league down

        • michael f. sbi Mafia Original says:

          Totally agree. And their line about “As a designated player of a certain threshold” is ridiculous. How about defining what that threshold is? How is it different than Dempsey & Bradley’s?

        • The Imperative Voice says:

          I basically agree that the league should have a modest salary cap, no allocation or DP exceptions, however I believe in the draft and in allocating players out to the weaker sides first (if they want them). The strength of MLS is having a lot of competitive sides and few Chivas teams that require patience to support. If you go down the road of either exceptions or open spending tempered by “fair play” then some teams will outspend others, the league will tier based on spending, and we’ll have EPL Lite, slightly better soccer but only x number of competitive teams and then a second tier of teams that win nothing but celebrate their upsets like the darned Super Bowl. Over time that would be destabilizing because TFC is the only team I know where people attend a (traditional) loser well. Chivas has deteriorated badly since they lost competitiveness after Bradley (though they once were a well attended playoff side), and if you look at a team like Columbus, before Schelotto they were down in the 4 figures when being rebuilt. I don’t think you can expect American fans to show up just to watch a team play out a schedule like in England.

      • JB says:


        You simply put financial regulations in that prevents clubs from spending too much. Something similar to financial fair play. Then your doomsday scenario becomes impossible. You don’t need single entity.

        • don Lamb says:

          A free market would have created a potentially unstable and unsustainable product. I am thankful that the sport has not been on such fragile ground in this country and that is in large part due to the way that MLS has operated.

          • JB says:

            no it wouldn’t. MLS clubs would still have to spend within their means. Every league on the planet outside of America operates in a free market and you don’t see them going broke because of it.

            When will people like you stop repeating this nonsense?

            • STX81 says:

              Off the top of my head:
              Rangers FC

              Let’s not forget how much financial instability haunts Man United fans who were all pissy about club debts even when they are winning a bunch of trophies a few years back.

              “Twenty-Two Spanish Soccer Clubs Have Entered Bankruptcy Protection”
              link to

              You are also ignoring the establishment of FIFA’s fair play rules that restricted many top euro clubs including Man City from buying players they coveted. Yay, free market!

        • The Imperative Voice says:

          Few things you leave out on fair play. Wanna know why it’s so important to make UCL? Millions of dollars in ticket sales and potential prize money. Those teams can then perpetuate their advantage with that added income.

          Some teams are inherently more attractive sponsorship targets. Those teams never hurt for sponsor dollars even if they tank.

          What about City, where they are owned by one wing of the UAE, then sponsored by several state companies? How much of that is permanent capital, and how much is transient sponsorship? If an emirate spends out of their mind, and might not be able to sustain it long term, but can show OK on a balance sheet today…..what then? What if the entity sponsoring a team goes bankrupt, or is spending more than it can afford? Does West Ham get credit for a bankrupt sponsor that comes off the shirt? How does a regulator figure that out.

          What if one state has tougher taxes than another? Texas has no income tax. Others do. The former looks better on a balance sheet.

          What if a league-wide TV deal makes teams look healthier than they should?

          What if some teams are run more like a business while others are provided more like a gift to the city or a non-profit? What if I like my stadium without a corporate name, or my shirts without a corporate sponsor?

          The “league” doesn’t usually go broke, individual teams do. The EPL continues when Pompey is relegated and detonates, ditto Gretna and Rangers in SPL. The league is usually an administrative operation, the teams are the ones with millions in turnover running financial risks.

          We have a stable and growing league 20 years later. Why mess with it? So we can bring in players the current interest and revenue levels won’t justify?

          • BMD15 says:

            Well said….

          • Ali Dia says:

            +1. This is really important and well said.

            There is nothing healthy about the European model and they are very much aware of this… they just dont know how to stop it. Dysfunction is the long-term result and it’s become obvious. While Europe is trying to implement some bizarre (probably unenforceable) set of “financial fair play” rules so it can stop the bleeding and maybe reap the benefits of modest parity, MLS has no reason to worry about such a farce. The system was set-up to provide this benefit from the jump.

            Why throw away the single biggest differntiating advantage compared to global competition? MLS figured out that the success of the league is a fundamental condition of the success of its teams… this is the whole thesis of MLS. While many people here seem to think it makes us a “joke” to Europeans, I would confidently suggest it makes MLS the envy of most every other league.

    • don Lamb says:

      To me, it’s been brilliant. MLS has been diligent in growing the league, and there would be a LOT of risk in going to a free system. How about we at least get through the planned expansion to 24 teams before cutting the cord?

      • Cosmosfan says:

        LOL, single entity isn’t about slow growth or any of the things i have listed here. It exists for one reason and one reason only, to provide owners with a wonderfully protected business model where they can artificially suppress market forces to the benefit of the owners.

        Truth is single entity could die tomorrow and the league could implement a hard cap and the league would grow just fine over time. The downside would be the owners couldn’t collude with each other to drive down player wages and benefits or receive the cozy little unreported cash calls.

        • wandmdave says:

          I’d rather be a fan of a team that will exist long term than be a fan of the Cosmos. If NASL and the Cosmos continue to thrive it will be because they are riding the coattails of MLS and the job they did expanding soccer’s fan base in this country. Not because they don’t have single entity or a lack a salary cap.

          • Cosmosfan says:

            I couldn’t care less of who you’d rather be a fan of, if you are incapable of discussing the finer points of the single entity model and what it means you should probably just stay silent.

            • don Lamb says:

              Single entity provides stability in a league that needs stability. Hopefully the training wheels will be taken off soon, but the league is still fragile. Creating this league without a centralized structure would have been ridiculously risky, and there is a very good chance that the league would not have survived, much less be thriving as it is.

        • Ali Dia says:

          Saying single-entity exists for the purpose of providing excellent protections profit-seeking owners is absolutely correct. Explain to me what is wrong with this. Seems like a bright long-term idea for everyone who depends on the league and its teams. Sustainable business model = Most important condition for success of member parties.

          Europe is dysfunctional and an example of what needs to be avoided. Billionaires have turned an already unsustainable system into madness that threatens the survival of “big clubs” and modest clubs alike. I’m sure most European clubs/owners and their leagues wish they had the benefit of such a feature, rather than living in fear of being relegated, missing out on Europe, etc.. It’s a system of fear and guarantees most teams never risk competing for the title. FFP is the band-aid they’ve come up with– a nightmare to implement and enforce… don’t expect much reduction in the massive losses being experienced by most European clubs on an individual and aggregated basis.

          Does a salary cap solve this? Maybe, if you can figure out how to set it. No easy task when NY/LA teams will want it to be 5-7x what the middle market does. And now you have teams with polarized incentives, depriving you of a second key benefit of single entity– Active promotion of parity.

          Want to see a wildly successful league? That would be the NFL. A league that swears by parity. It has rubbed off on the other American team sports leagues. The slowpoke is baseball, and it’s no accident that this is because baseball has the closest thing to a “free market” structure. The league is powerless to the downward momentum.

          Struggling to see your point about player wages in MLS being driven down unfairly. I have not heard of this, and it would seem counterintuitive in the context of market forces. Soccer players are lucky… there are dozens of leagues that they can move to if they don’t like the wages offered here. MLS does not benefit from a below-market wage if it is losing talent to its competitor leagues. NFL players are not so lucky.

    • Gary Page says:

      The key is TV money. Once the contract for MLS rights gets high enough, then they can divide the money up equally, put in a decent overall salary cap and let the chips fall where they may after that. I think the last contract is getting close to that. When you compare MLS to European leagues, MLS attendance is not that much less (except for Germany), but the big European clubs do a lot better with broadcast rights and marketing, like club jerseys, etc. Also, most small market European teams, even in the big leagues, aren’t doing all that well, so there’s something to be said for the MLS approach.

      • flagermunsen. says:

        Your comment just seems way too logical for these discussions when those who want to bash MLS at every opportunity. I’m still pinching myself that this league has survived and is now on the verge of thriving.

      • Kosh says:

        + 1

        Thank you.

      • The Imperative Voice says:

        They can do that because the secondary aspects beyond attendance are more lucrative. We have OK TV deals and sponsors. Seattle has excellent attendance but most are just OK in terms of elite leagues, some are not so much (Chivas). When we have the revenue of those teams, we can justify more spending.

        You seem to be suggesting we could be less small potatoes but the TV deal reflects ratings reflects actual interest now. You can’t bootstrap to more spending with TV deals we haven’t earned yet.

      • Ali Dia says:

        Good comment — More TV money is certainly critical and the biggest disappointment of an otherwise succesfful last 5-10 yrs, and an absolutely *must* for the next period. But it is not so easy to do. For starters, the rights are split among multiple parties and the national broadcasts (EPSN/NBC/Univision, with Fox now replacing NBC) have failed largely to advance the brand and establish new viewership. MLS has to displace somebody here and it hasn’t really happened — whether it means convincing morning viewers of EPL etc to shift their soccer viewership to afternoons, or claiming uncommitted viewers of other sports or wknd programming… there has to be a new class of viewer coming online soon. They have been moving chips around but it won’t last like this — they have got to win some big pots and prove they can stake a bigger claim to the resource. I don’t know how continually shifting TV partners is helping, but I hope they have a plan besides cashing the check.

        The other obstacle is the various outlets that have been awarded contracts locally by individual teams. This is really not going so well in my view, other than for engaged existing fans who couldn’t get to the game. Too much of the league’s content is tied up in these wildly inconsistent broadcasts, which usually feature flag-football production quality that is terrifying to anybody besides existing MLS lifers, and Clippers fans from the 1980s. Getting these stepchildren scrubbed up and a little more standardized would be a step forward for a proper TV platform.

        But generally speaking, it’s pretty simple –MLS needs a big idea on TV and it hasn’t had it yet. A big, comprehensive, excellent, well-executed idea. Soon(ish).

    • Kosh says:

      Single entity is about sustaining parity which prevents dynasties and gives everyone a realistic chance to win a title someday. My DC United was crap last year and on Saturday night they sat atop the league.

      Americans hate a loser. Unlike Barnsley folks who will be happy just to stay up if you tell a set of fans in the US that their team has no chance whatsoever to make the playoffs this year you will see the greatest attendance of invisible fans ever.

      Most American’s have first favorite, second favorite and sometimes even a tenth favorite team. That model allows one to latch on to success and stay away from failure even if it means ditching the team in their own backyard. Now you get why the league is trying its best to force feed rivalries – even ones that make no sense. (Cascadia folks you are exempt from this comment).

      This is a business run by businessmen who know a thing or two about making a buck and how to protect an investment. Without parity and the chance that Chivas TBD (I so stole that from The Armchair Analyst) may someday win something and therefore have the chance to reinvent itself then no one wants to buy it or the next club that sucks for a few years. At that point you won’t have to worry stupid single entity because you wont have a league.

      • Cosmosfan says:

        It has zero to do with parity and preventing dynasties…ZERO.

        • don Lamb says:

          It has to do with business, and for the league to have been set up any other way would have been very risky business. That’s not really smart when a) you want something to last a long time, and b) you want to be able to control it’s growth so that it matures in the best way long term.

        • Ali Dia says:

          I would agree preventing dynasties is not exatly the point, although it might be an effect.

          However, if you think it has zero to do with parity, I’d advise you to look around at what works in American sports and what doesn’t. MLS does all the time, and has realized that actively encouraging parity is a key benefit of centralizing authority. I’m not sure I’ve ever seen this disputed… MLS owners talk about it all the time when discussing the structure. Journalists, business analysts, sports pundits, whoever– the desire to cultivate parity is commonly accepted and sure to be mentioned in any discussion of single-entity structures. It is possible to overdose on parity of course, but that is another question.

          You seem to be focused the second primary goal of single-entity: cost-control (and potential exploitation through collusion etc.). Yes the structure encourages owner power and reduces financial risks to owners … so what? A great idea for a new entrant in a volatile global industry. What has the free market system preferred in Europe taught us? Losses are commonplace and wealth disparity is widening to the benefit of very few (probably none in the long-run)…. Financial Fair Play is nice dream but a bandage that will be no match for the bleeding. Cost controls barely exist and I do not see what can be done… everybody is counting on the “have nots” to keep showing interest while their clubs accept losses amidst and the reality of a trophyless eternity. Sounds like tough sell anywhere, let alone here.

  2. YoYo says:

    All that matters is that Jones is happy to play for the Revs. It appears that he is.

  3. N-Whit says:

    That’s too bad. He will be playing on field turf with football lines in front of 8,000 fans per game in a stadium that holds 50,000.

    • Alex says:

      Average attendance for the Revs is over 15,243 – and the stadium holds ~68,756.

      Hope you’re not an accountant….

      • Georkt says:

        The major point here is the field turf and football lines. It turns MLS into a bush league. It will also wear down Jone’s body.

        • MyNameIsAlsoVic says:

          thats probably why he wanted more money if her were allocated to the Revs, in order to pay that famous sports medicine knee specialist from Aspen to do his magic to rectify the sydney lerouix type beating he’ll take.

        • Landy Cakes says:

          I maintain that field turf is a superior surface to natural grass. I just go done playing on it. Its marvelous.

          • homerica7 says:

            For amateurs that have the option of playing on field turf or very poor grass fields, field turf is better. For pros who play on incredible grass fields or field turf, grass is better hands down. When I was a kid I used to play on the grass field that they trained for the WC games at the Silverdome, and it was amazing; way better than any field turf fields.

            • Landy Cakes says:

              The issue is the well maintained part. Even fields that are well maintained, get marred and damaged during the course of play, are subject to rain and heat, ect. Witha turf field you know what you’re going to get every time, rain or shine. With a grassfield (and I do play on some quality ones) if you play a game on it in the rain by the end of the game the surface will be altered, the footing will be difficult. I just prefer the consistency of the turf,

              • Risapres says:

                The argument for field turf is absurd. We are talking about professional soccer. Maintenance of quality natural grass fields requires commitment. Look at the greens on a quality golf course. Go to Red Bull Stadium we are not talking about Sunday over 30 Games. The roll of the ball and bounce is so different on real fields there is no comparison

              • Landy Cakes says:

                Why does it matter if the roll of the ball is different on real grass, if you never play on real grass. I mean there’s nothing abot “different” that makes it inherently superior.

          • This response brought to you by DuPont says:

            Absolutely, and Imitation Icemilk is way better than ice cream. I just had some and it was de-licious.

            • Landy Cakes says:

              Its not the same thing. Maybe its because I grew up as a kid playing pick up soccer on concrete I dunno, but I a prefer a surface that doesn’t change, that’s consistent day in and out regardless of weather. The footing is so much better on turf, you can cut harder you can stop faster.

              • Ingtar says:

                I think the problem is more of a wear and tear issue on the players’ bodies, than a roll of the ball issue. Even the best field turf has less give in the surface that a grass sod field. Playing on it overtime takes a real toll on your joints, especially the hips and knees. That has got to be a concern for older players.

              • Landy Cakes says:

                It is a concern. Its precisely that it gives less that I that I like about field turf. You’re much less likely to slip or because the turf gives way under you.

        • BMD15 says:

          Field turf is still an issue (though it is new this year – and the same one they’re using in Portland I believe).

          And it looks like the Revs have finally caught on to the whole football line fiasco. The past two weeks the Pats have had home games on Friday nights w/ full lines & come the Revs games Saturday nights it’s just the soccer lines showing. Hoping the trend continues.

          • STX81 says:

            There has been very few games on football lines at Gillette for the last 5 years of so. Also NE had brand new turf laid down this season. The same field turf they use in Seattle and a few other MLS stadiums. People are just slow to change the narrative.

      • Alex C says:

        With Jones the attendance should go up too.

      • Georg says:

        Wow Alex thanks for making that look so much better?

        • Alex says:

          Well the OP’s original comment was almost 50% off in attendance numbers. It’s like if you told us you’re 2 inches long – when in fact you’re almost a whopping 4.

      • Eurosnob says:

        But your more accurate numbers do not undermine his basic point that Jones will be playing on a field that was designed for a different sport in a stadium that has more empty seats than spectators.

    • ATXsportsguy says:

      The revs were one of the top teams attendance wise before and during the Taylor Twellman days. They actually average 15,461 for their entire history in MLS. If they field a winner with Jones they will probably draw at least 18K.

    • Duke says:

      Be nice if you knew what you are talking about. I’m a Revs fan and since the Pats have started playing at home this year, they have painted out the football lines every time. I was amazed about this because the Pats were playing on Friday night with the Revs home on sat and the lines were gone. Couldnt see them at all on TV. Also, they have been drawing 15K+ for home games, despite having a very average/low average team.

      I won’t defend the field turf. It sux… but many teams have it now so we’re not alone

      It’s about time SOMETHING fell the Revs way. We are struggling and for once, made an honest effort to sign a big name player and got him. We need it and deserve it

  4. Increase0 says:

    He joined the team with the chance to make the play off. Makes sense.

  5. Jayrod1111 says:

    Hope this draws a few more fans so that the Razor looks only half empty instead of 1/4 full. Please build a downtown stadium Robert.

  6. Reid says:

    Great restaurants in providence, so he’s got that going for him…which is nice

  7. Shawn says:

    cool. still not watching them. Diego probably is lost for usa so no point

  8. Rudi says:

    I’m surprised the Fire didn’t tie the blind draw.

  9. sean says:

    Happy that Jones is finally in MLS.

    It’s funny reading official MLS “explanations” of these sorts of deals. “As a designated player of a certain threshold…..”

    • KJ says:

      Yeah, what exactly does that mean? The league arbitrarily decides what “threshold” a DP is? So dumb.

    • MLS_Soccer_Talker says:

      Yes, Jones failed the DP-O-Meter Test. He only had 2 beeps insteads of 3. He is not DP enough.

    • Just saying says:

      I think they meant since the USA national team player that moves abroad and returns has to go through the allocation process but since he never left the USA not is he returning it’s a whole different cookie. I’m sure that’s why they said Chicago and the New England where the ones really interested.

    • The Imperative Voice says:

      It’s amusing that it’s such a blatant euphemism, like calling a middle aged woman a woman of a certain age. That they used a euphemism and didn’t explain an old or new rule underlines they’re making this up as they go along.

  10. DanO says:

    And just like that, the biggest hole in the Revs lineup is plugged. Hopefully they will roll on from here.

    My neighbor’s place just went on the market Jermaine, nice suburb, great schools, 30 min to Gillette…

    • Alex says:

      There’s also a gaping hole up top. Supposedly there’s another signing about to be announced…

  11. AlexH says:

    Wasn’t there some stupid MLS only transfer deadline a few weeks back? Was I mistaken or did the MLS make an even stupider exception to the rule in the case of JJ?

    • Kyle says:

      That was for players under contract. Free agents and moves made inside MLS can still be made until September 15th.

    • Northzax says:

      You mean a transfer window? It’s a pretty common concept. Even those hacks in Uefa have them, Mickey Mouse leagues that they are.

    • The Imperative Voice says:

      That’s a FIFA window for transfers of contract players imposed on the non traditional schedule leagues, not just MLS. He was out of contract and like the other guy said could be signed prior to our trade deadline.

  12. FRANK says:


  13. Ga1actic0 says:

    Does Kraft still own this team? When are they getting a stadium?

  14. Typical MLS fan says:

    Very fair deal for all. The right team won Jones’ rights fair and square.

  15. JB says:

    to be honest I’m just meh about this league until they drop the single entity structure. I’ll watch it now and then but that’s all. I think the single entity and the current salary cap structure does a lot to harm the quality of the league.

  16. Fischer says:

    Blind draw…yeah right.

  17. Charlie Pendergrass says:

    I am a long time Schalke fan and J Jones fan. Now I am a Revs fan!!! Yes happy to get to see Jones play here in the US!

  18. NASL to EL PASO TX says:

    what an embarrassing league and this team is the most awkward team to get jones. turf, cold city, sucky owner, lost fans and weird name.
    couldn’t get worse but his rich now :)

    • footballisking says:

      Weird name..except for the fact that it’s named after the War of American Independence. I know, that’s weird and everything, but sheesh..c’mon, honestly.

  19. Slap and Dare says:

    He should have signed with the NY Cosmos!

    The NASL has no such crazy player acquisition rules!

    It is true football!

  20. DJ says:

    He signed for the money. No problems with that; I’d do the same at the same stage of a football career.

    That being said, can we all just admit publicly that Don Don controls where any vaguely famous player goes? I.e., you better keep being awesome at player development, Portland and RSL and SKC, because you will never see a marquee player.

    • JB says:

      Anyone he won’t admit it is in denial. The league makes up the rules as they go along. And there’s no reason why the league can’t have individual clubs and free agency. Allocation order? No other American sport uses that.

    • Brett says:

      Revs and fire only teams who showed serious interest. Not to mention revs were almost not a contender bc the were trying to play the Chicago fire card of low balling.

      Still it seems mls does make up rules as they go. And man they post the most vague rules when posting

    • Landy Cakes says:

      I dunno. I think Portland is an MLS darling and when Hank Paulson and Don Garber meet for Merit’s next parent teacher conference Hank will press the case for a marquee player for the Timbers.

      • YoYo says:

        Do they have to sit in little chairs while Merit plays with crayons at the next desk?

        • Landy Cakes says:

          No Hank and Don review Merit’s progress while he sits at the next desk and plays with other people’s money.

    • slowleftarm says:

      “He signed for the money.” Yes, and so did basically any professional footballer. It’s their career after all.

  21. Vermonter says:

    I’m a casual fan of the Revs, and in general a supporter of MLS player allocation rules (or more importantly, I’m not a detractor). But this all feels…weird. I would’ve been more comfortable with “New England was willing to make him a DP, and because he’s a DP, the allocation order doesn’t apply. Oh, and he *chose* NE over Chicago because (insert reasons).”

    Considering they limit the number of DPs per team anyway, can’t MLS just decree that: a team’s willingness to make a player a DP overrides allocation. Done. I mean, it’s a wave of the hand, right?

    • Landy Cakes says:

      Here’s my question what is vermont like. I imagine its a pristine liberal/cheese paradise of mountains and streams and mooses and maple syrup and howard deen? Is this correct?

  22. Del Griffin says:

    The best part of MLS is that the contracts and their details are hidden and rarely a major focus. IMO the worst part of the other big sports on America is the constant talk about the amount and details of everyone’s contract. I really don’t care what these guys are paid, of rather focus oh the game then their business dealings .

    • JB says:

      the salaries of MLS players are released by the MLS players union after each season.

      link to

    • don Lamb says:

      You think MLS is the only league to have crazy contracts? Contracts are, by nature, tedious and complicated, so you better believe that professional athletes and professional franchises have come up with some crazy ones. Check out Bobby Bonilla’s.

  23. Wansteiger says:

    American sports are so socialist…. Bad teams get high draft picks, publicly funded stadia, league-wide TV deals, revenue sharing….

    MLS needs to get rid of these stupid transfer rules for one, plus align with rest of the world too would be nice.

    Such a joke. I am a Fire fan, but Hauptman has really screwed this team, at least they tried, but got messed up by King Garber.

    • beto says:

      Chicago got screwed here! They have been working on this deal for a month now and the laziest team in league won the deal in a coin flip?!?

      • JB says:

        coin flip lol. This is Mickey Mouse. A frickin coin flip.

      • STX81 says:

        Coin flip and 5 million dollars. Chicago didn’t get screwed. Chicago could have locked up Jones over a month ago. They low balled him and gave the Revs an opening. This sounds a lot like free agency.

    • JB says:

      I agree with you for the most part. But league wide TV deals is common. Just look at the EPL.

      The problem with MLS is two words: single entity.

      The league is so micro-managed by the MLS league office that its become a laughing joke. There’s absolutely no reason why MLS can’t follow other American sports that don’t have league ownership and control of teams.

      • Wansteiger says:

        Ah, yeah. I guess I just heard that in Spain, Barca and Real were the only ones with national TV deals which helped their duopoly. Obviously international TV rights seem to be league-wide.

        I am starting to judge the popularity of MLS teams in their market by seeing if they have a radio broadcast in English. Lol.

        There are other things I have thought of about American sports being socialist but can’t think of them.

      • don Lamb says:

        So by “laughing joke” you mean “resounding success,” right?

      • g-dub says:

        MLS is growing, healthy, improving and expanding because of its management. Don will go down in history as a legend. (Except NYC2 which was mishandled)

        • Fischer says:

          How do you know that MLS wouldn’t have been more successful had different league policies been employed? As far as you know the growth of the league could have been hampered by the management.

          • kevino says:

            Because the league is far more successful than anyone would have predicted ten or even five years ago.

            • JB says:

              how so? Attendance is the same and TV viewership is still very low.

            • Fischer says:

              “far more successful than anyone would have predicted”

              Hyperbole much? There are some people who think MLS isn’t as good as it could have been had the management not had a pathological need for top-down control from the very beginning and as we all know, top-down centralized control always results in the best possible product, uh huh.

              • Wansteiger says:

                Oh, salary caps are another example.

                That’s why we suck at CCL, MLS payroll is like 2.5 million (plus a few DPs), while Mexican teams are like 25-30 million.

                Hopefully the new TV deal will up the cap so MLS teams will be more competitive in CCL.

              • Tom says:

                Actually MLS salary cap is over 3M, and I’ve never seen any official numbers for Liga MX. However, your overall point is right that we have a lot less value in our rosters.

          • don Lamb says:

            Who cares “what could have been.” The point is that MLS IS in a great position. This is in large part due to the way it has been managed.

            The risk/reward was WAY too risky to operate any other way. MLS has taken the safe, patient route to grow. Very responsible if you ask me, and the alternative would have been naive and would have jeopardized the future of the game in this country.

            Now, we can begin to look at a scenario where there is no single entity, but that is still a ways off and will require a massive transition.

            • Fischer says:

              Everything you just wrote is entirely conjecture on your part. What could have been absolutely matters when people state as a fact that the league is doing great because of their single-entity philosophy but offer no proof. Generations of kids who played the game and are now adults combined with the visibility of the USMNT could have a lot to do with the “success” of MLS.

              If an owner or ownership group wants to spend their money to build a highly visible team how is that a danger to MLS? It isn’t, in fact it would probably result in higher TV revenue and merchandising if other leagues are any indication.

              I don’t see why dumping single-entity would require a “massive transition”.

              • don Lamb says:

                Are you aware of the old NASL? The risk involved with starting a league like this in a sport that is not followed by the mainstream is EXTREMELY high. There is a large number of failed leagues in the US over the last 20 years (XFL and WUSA being the two that come to mind first). Meanwhile, MLS, which is set up as a single entity, is doing really well. That fact is the most relevant of all!

                In your case, what if 4 of the original 12 do really well, 4 are mediocre, and 4 are failures? Soon you have a league with eight teams and nobody interested in investing in it because there is no stability or promise.

          • Tom says:

            Well, what do we know?
            1) most new leagues fail
            2) the existing leagues were not blossoming *at all*
            3) there are single-entity leagues in the US that are working well

            Certainly doesn’t answer the counterfactual, but it is highly suggestive.

      • BOFO for hire says:

        “There’s absolutely no reason why MLS can’t follow other American sports that don’t have league ownership and control of teams.”

        Wow. There is a very clear lack of understanding of other American leagues if we think MLS operates much differently.

        One thing is true – the NFL, MLB and the NBA are not single-entity in a legal sense. However, over time, they have de facto shifted towards such a structure by centralizing power with the league (as much as is feasible while maintaining separate ownership) because of how effective it is from an economic perspective.

        The NFL, the most successful league in the US, is as close to single entity as it gets without actually being structured that way. Kaiser Goddell has almost carte blanche authority to punish team employees (players, coaches, even owners) for just about anything. The league negotiates all collective television rights, leases just about all IP on behalf of teams (which is why there is a league-wide official manufacturer, Nike), and enforces a hard salary cap. The NFL even punishes its teams for failing to sellout by blacking out games in the local market. New owners must be approved by the league, as do any proposed stadium deals or possible relocations. Coincidentally, the NFL/NFLPA CBA also strongly favors the owners.

        Sounds a lot like… MLS?

        Now are we going to argue the NFL needs changing as well? Make no mistake, other leagues have, as time has passed, strongly shifted power towards the league in the name of strong business. Why wouldn’t MLS follow what has proven to be a successful plan?

        • don Lamb says:

          Well said. Revenue sharing, commissioners overriding trades, drafts and lotteries, collective bargaining agreements limiting/defining player salaries, team salary caps…

          These are features of other leagues that some people here must be ignoring or unaware of.

  24. Louis Z says:

    I hope the Revs get the WC Jones, not the friendly games Jones.

  25. Eric K says:

    I read through all these and…not a single comment about the Revs being cheap? What’s this world coming to?

  26. beto says:

    Coin flips and Chicago getting screwed aside the league has allocated NE a pretty good team.

    Wish my local underperforming mls team could get this treatment

    • don Lamb says:

      Every damn team in the league has drastically benefitted from the moves that MLS has made in recent years.

  27. slowleftarm says:

    I don’t have a problem with some of the financial rules in place to help ensure the league is on a reasonable financial footing and can continue to grow. But there are an absurd number of obscure rules that don’t make any sense and just create a (totally justified) perception that the league just makes stuff up as they go along.

    • g-dub says:

      All leagues have weird ‘rules’, which are ultimately just a series of decisions in the best overall interest of the entertainment product.

      Ie. NBA moving teams to force local subsidies of arenas.
      MLB “luxury tax”

  28. bryan says:

    This is a joke honestly. Their reasoning explains nothing. We already knew he wouldn’t be allocated and would meet that threshold which is clearly tied to salary. The question is, why a blind draft to settle it?! Bradley had the EXACT same offer from SKC, as reported by Ives, yet he said he didn’t want to go there. So TFC it was.

    It’s only after that statement that they claim it’s because he was a free agent unlike Dempsey or Bradley. Which is fair enough. But in the end, this is insane. Which even Garber pretty much admits to.

    Chicago worked hard to get a second contract on the table, and as reported by Goff, it was only then that the Revs expressed interest. At which point MLS rules allow them to get in on it despite Jones only wanting to go there for additional money. Which MLS said no to until we heard later tonight that MLS and NE kicked in a few extra hundred thousand. Was that decision made before or after the blind draw? This whole situation stinks and I actually hate both teams.

    Anyway, glad he’s in the league and glad he will start playing again.

  29. BK says:

    To me a player should have a choice who he wants to play for. MLS has indeed missed out on good players because of their policies. To date it hasn’t discouraged them. In this case, Jones wanted Chicago, MLS sweetened the pot and he accepted the terms. I guess it worked out so no harm but I really hate the policy. If I’m a star player getting recruited by MLS, you better believe I will choose where I go even at the cost of more money

    • BOFO for hire says:

      link to

      It is incredibly rare in American sports that a player gets to decide where they play if there are multiple interested parties. It is much, much more dependent on market factors (who is willing to pay them what they want).

  30. Quit Whining About Soccer in the US says:

    Best part of this by far is that they did it will a Blind Draw.

    I couldn’t ask for a better scenerio to be able to laugh at all the whiners. keep em coming…..
    Tell me about The Don !

  31. RBNY says:

    I always thought that DP contracts were not subject to allocation order anyway. I don’t know why they explained it they way they did here.

    • bryan says:

      we learned after Edu signed, albeit after-the-fact, that a certain threshold has to be met for a DP to skip allocation. this is also why Beasley was allocated.

      the only things strange here is that a new, “pick a name out of a bucket” allocation was added. supposedly because Jones hit this threshold but since he was a free agent, it wasn’t the same as Dempsey/Bradley.

      in other words, just making things up as they go. which MLS has admitted to.