Bonuses Better than Beckham?

Before getting to the point of this post, I want to make one thing clear: YES, I know that Beckham's signing with Major League Soccer (MLS) represents a unique shot at raising the league's profile as never before and that that shot has already paid some fairly clear dividends. (The open question, though, is one of the permanence of this raised profile). Put another way, I'm not trying to make an apples-to-apples comparison with what follows.

And here that is...

About halfway through his return to the syndicated column world, Jimmy Conrad, of Wizards, radio, and online jibberish-fame, poses a serious question about the best way to build the game in this country:

"There are other ways to make this work. We could invest our resources into gambling, display our love in Las Vegas, and take advantage of a growing addiction for many people. Or we could use the money already promised to the Chosen One [ed. - yep, that's Beckham] to spread the wealth with per game bonuses for each player. If we put a meaningful amount on each result ($1,500 a win, $500 a tie per player, and prorate the net sum by playing time, being on the roster, etc.), then the level of play in practices and, more importantly, games, would vastly improve.

Without digging into the absolute truth or falsity of this statement - for example, one could argue that more money to the same caliber players won't result in meaningful change - I think it can be safely posited that once Beckham's playing days in MLS come and go, the concept Conrad lays out here should be kept in mind at the very least. If nothing else, some attention should be directed to noticing any unforeseen impacts the current, rather severe if sharply focused, wage gaps might produce.

On a personal note, this is the first time I've used "David Beckham" as a label for a post...remarkable.

(########)