Inter Miami Testing Roster Rules Shows Why MLS Must Loosen Them

Lionel Messi of Inter Miami CF, left, celebrates after scoring the team’s second goal with teammate Rodrigo De Paul during the MLS match between Inter Miami CF and LA Galaxy at Chase Stadium on August 16. in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. (Photo by Megan Briggs/Getty Images)

Getty Images

Lionel Messi’s Inter Miami have wasted no time preparing for the 2026 season after winning the 2025 MLS Cup.

The Herons completed a free transfer for left back Sergio Reguilón, who has 137 career appearances between the Premier League and La Liga. They inked reigning MLS Goalkeeper of the Year Dayne St. Clair to a free agent contact.

And while it’s not yet official, The Athletic’s Tom Bogert reported this week that the club will bring back MLS Cup Playoff breakout performer Tadeo Allende from Celta Vigo on a permanent contract, without having to use a Designated Player slot on the Spaniard.

All the momentum in the aftermath of Miami’s triumph has some frustrated fans of Major League Soccer’s 29 other clubs into wondering whether Miami is bending the league’s roster rules in ways others wouldn’t be allowed to.

That’s hardly a paranoid take given Miami’s history and a league rulebook that makes it almost impossible for the layman to know what’s in bounds and what isn’t. But the answer isn’t to bring the hammer down on Miami – it’s for the league at long last to overhaul those rules to something simpler, more permissive and more transparent.

That’s the only way forward if MLS wants to foster an environment where more clubs spend as aggressively as Miami while also tamping down on questions of competitive integrity.

Miami’s History Isn’t Exactly Clean

There may have been a time when MLS could simply assure fans that all clubs were operating by the book. But current circumstances make that method alone nearly impossible to trust.

You need only look back to 2021 when MLS sanctioned Miami for violating roster rules in their inaugural season under former sporting director Paul McDonough. The restrictions were severe by MLS standards, but pretty modest globally, where similar violations may have resulted in a points deduction or even mandatory relegation (an option not available to MLS and its closed system.)

More recently, the summer move to sign Rodrigo de Paul may have pushed the rules to an extreme degree. Because de Paul was originally signed on loan, Miami was able to include him on this year’s squad without using a Designated Player spot until 2026 if and when he made the move permanent.

According to ESPN, to comply with MLS rules, Miami had to assure the league that there was no advance agreement in place to make de Paul’s move permanent following the loan term. Yet five days after Miami’s MLS Cup triumph, the club announced it had exercised the permanent transfer option on de Paul’s deal, suggesting it was more or less a formality.

Then there’s the matter of Messi’s first contract. When it was initially agreed, The Athletic reported one of the components saw Messi receive a portion of the Apple TV’s leaguewide subscription revenues, a contention no one has denied.

That’s understandable and maybe even fair given how Messi’s presence has driven an increase in viewership. But it also puts the league in a potential conflict of interest when it comes to rule enforcement.

MLS Shouldn’t Be Punishing Ambition

Let’s not vilify the Herons too much, though. Because the bigger issue is that the roots of MLS are fiscal conservatism, and its roster structures have grown awkwardly from a foundation based on limiting risk rather than rewarding ambitions.

That approach made sense during the league’s early years, when the question was simply whether professional soccer could be a successful business in the United States, rather than how big it could potentially grow. But as MLS has tried to keep pace with its increasing ambitions by implementing additional roster spending mechanisms on a piece-meal basis, it created an overly complicated roster landscape that feels designed to forster allegations of impropriety and conspiracy.

There’s the list of various roster building avenues: Designated Player signings, Homegrown Player signings, Targeted and General Allocation money, the U-22 Intiative and so on.

There’s the fact that, unlike the other four major North American sports leagues, MLS does not even make the general value of contracts public when they are completed. Instead, the MLS Players Association publishes that data on a bi-annual basis, but rarely during a time when new deals are being completed.

And there’s the fact that even as MLS Commissioner Don Garber begins to speak publicly about aspiring to be one of the best leagues in the world, the whole roster compliance discussion villifies clubs who want to spend boldly for the sake of winning, a reality most only dared dream about when the league was launched.

The league has tried to take steps toward more transparency, and in 2025 for the first time released roster compliance profiles for all 30 clubs. But the reality is most informed fans – and many of the league’s journalists – don’t entirely understand everything that goes into building a compliant roster, and are often left guessing at those details whenever a new signing is announced.

And MLS Commissioner Don Garber publicly appears to understand the need for reform. In the last year or so, he has spoken reportedly for his vision of an MLS 3.0. One of the prongs of that vision is the recently agreed schedule flip that will occur after the 2026 season. But another is streamlined and more transparent roster rules that conceivably could go in place when the league owners and players negotiate a new collective bargaining agreement to begin in 2028.

MLS 3.0 Must Serve 3 Groups Of Teams

Whatever shape new rules take need to try to attempt to be fair to three tiers of clubs that currently exist in MLS.

The first tier is teams like Miami, who not only are willing to spend big on players, but also crave stars that can drive commercial success. Miami and Messi are a singularly outsized example, but far from the only one.

The summer moves of Son Heung-min to LAFC and Thomas Muller to the Vancouver Whitecaps are two examples. The LA Galaxy, Orlando City, Seattle Sounders and Toronto FC have also historically made repeated big splashes on big names with European pedigree. They would probably welcome a more permissive spending structure, but might not feel they need it to be competive, at least domestically.

The second tier is teams who are willing to spend big, but either care less about the marketing cachet a player brings or don’t have the commercial appeal to recruit bigger, older names. A lot of very good teams fall into this category, including the Seattle Sounders, Atlanta United and Columbus Crew, who have combined to win four MLS Cups since 2016.

Arguably these are the sides most hurt by the current hodge-podge rule structure, because the easiest way these clubs can make up for not having Messi or Son would be to spread money evenly across the squad. That’s what MLS rules make it almost impossible for clubs to do. Instead, the teams with deep benches usually include multiple draft picks or academy signings playing well above expectations.

Then there are the clubs who conform to tighter budgets. Some of these are MLS founding members who have been slow to keep pace with newer, more ambitious ownership groups. Others are in smaller markets or have smaller fanbases, and others still eschew spending on talent in part because their academy operations have been so successful.

This is the group that will need to receive something from any new CBA in exchange for allowing the other two sets of clubs to spend more freely.