CONCACAF Champions Cup Failure-- Is It the Salary Cap?

Jeff Carlisle has a few ideas about how to make MLS sides more competitive in the CONCACAF Champions Cup after yet another semi-final failure.
http://soccernet.espn.go.com/columns/story?id=524521&root=mls&cc=5901

He notes that the salary cap puts MLS teams at a disadvantage. Well, that's definitely true with the Mexican clubs. But what about Saprissa? I imagine they've got a good salary budget but also that it's not ridiculously out of line with MLS. But MLS teams still haven't done well against Costa Rican squads.

If we can afford better players, why aren't we doing better? Costa Rican squads even pull off upsets of Mexican teams, something that MLS teams have only done once since the current home and away format was implemented in the 2002 tournament. In fact, the Costa Rican teams have done SIX times in that same time period.

So what's up? I can think of a few reasons:
(1) MLS players aren't used to the refs. Latin American refs aren't as likely to let the same challenges go as MLS refs do. You can also make the argument that CONCACAF refs simply suck, but frankly that's another question. MLS defenders need to be aware that the games will be called tightly and that home teams will generally get good calls. And... they need to adjust their games accordingly.

(2) MLS players aren't used to the playing style. I remember DC United going down to Mexico City in 2005 with a fairly good squad. They got their rears handed to them 5-0. The much-maligned David Stokes had clearly never seen anything like it. And Mike Petke, who might have, still got himself sent off. This is one of those things that I expected would be better with DC United this year. They've got guys who have played in Libertadores. They've got a healthy South American contingent. And, to their credit, I thought it looked like they knew what they were doing down at Pachuca. But it still wasn't quite enough.

(3) MLS players aren't used to the environment. Playing at Pachuca is hard. Playing at Saprissa is hard. Even Toronto's BMO Field isn't going to compare to the hostility of the crowds. But again, I thought MLS was moving in the right direction by getting more players who are accustomed to these environments. There's just one problem...

(4) Fitness does matter. Last summer's Superliga games between MLS and Mexican opposition may have been glorified friendlies, but they didn't feel that way. If you can draw anything from them, it's that fitness does matter. At this point, some idiot usually says "That's just an excuse." No, it's called an explanation and if you don't understand the different intentions behind excuses and explanations, nothing written in a blog is going to help you.

So, I do wonder if MLS teams wouldn't have better results if they were fit. For that reason, I think Carlisle's suggestion that MLS give CCC teams a few more bye weeks a little self-defeating. The teams would probably prefer not to play on Sunday and then have to fly to Costa Rica, but the fact is that they need more games ahead of the Cup matches-- not fewer. But yes, MLS might want to try to schedule a bit more with Cup ties in mind...

(5) Dollars go further in Central America. I read somewhere that the top salaries in Costa Rica were around $15,000 a month. There are tons of MLS players who make more than that. But if that's the case, then why aren't our guys better than their guys? There's no doubt that if pure dollar amounts were the only thing that mattered, a lot more of the Costa Rican (and dare I say Mexican) stars would be here. But I'm willing to bet than $225,000 goes a lot further in San Jose (Costa Rica) than it does in San Jose (California). As much as the American dream may be attractive to soccer players, living like a prince in your home country also has to be worth something. Macroeconomic factors do have an effect on how attractive players are (as the recent exodus of American players illustrates-- nothing like a cheap dollar to make Nate Jacqua a hot transfer target....)