MLS labor talks stall as work stoppage looms--Ives

[Pigfynn]

Not sounding good boys and girls.

http://www.soccerbyives.net/soccer_by_ives/2010/02/mls-labor-talks-stall-as-work-stoppage-looms.html

[Pigfynn]

Really not liking this quote from Onstad:


"All I can say from our standpoint, from the player's standpoint, is that we're ready for a work stoppage," Onstad said. "We're very unified and the guys are adamant that there needs to be major changes in the CBA and right now it's just not on the table, and as far as we're concerned, we don't want to play under those conditions."

[sully]

"ready for a work stoppage" - Are you ready to severely damage or even kill this league? 'cos that's what would happen I think.. Pity..I thought both sides were further along..

[flatpicker]

http://www.transitioning.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/man-head-an-table.jpg

[TFCRegina]

Well, I guess it was smart for the TOA to buy the NASL name. Looks like we have a new first division coming along...

[Super]

I'm pretty confident they'll hammer out a deal in the last minute. Neither party wants to kill off this league. On the other hand, neither party wants to play the role of bitch in the partnership. Not sure how they can compromise on the outstanding issues, though. Seems to me there can only be one winner - and that's the scary part.

[Ron Manager]

There is often alot of last minute posturing in these labour disputes as a set deadline looms. I don't think it's worth hitting the panic button yet. Could just be some pressure to get the owners to try another offer.

[Nuvinho]

I am suprised that the don't meet on weekends. I know that other leagues, when it comes closer to crunch time, they don't leave the boardroom. I guess next week will be long days for them.

[scooter]

idiots

[TFCRegina]

http://www.majorleaguesoccertalk.com/mls-facing-unmitigated-disaster/8196#comments

My response and first article for MLS Talk. Feel free to rip me apart. :D

[Redcoe15]

:willy_nilly:

Fuck.

[arbogast]

WOAH, everyone, take a breath and....RELAX!
As someone who works in the Labour movemet, I've seen this rhetoric a million times before, all this is, is a public tactic to apply pressure to management and get them sweating. Yes, Onstads language is direct and it doesn't leave room for much interpretation, but this type of stuff starts to happen when things get down to the wire. And frankly it usually pisses off the other party, further entrenching them in thier position. Both parties know it's suicide to lockout the season and let's face it, the players dont make enough cash to withstand a long work stoppage, so he's blowing a lot of hot air. It's posturing, that is all.

[Super]

WOAH, everyone, take a breath and....RELAX!
As someone who works in the Labour movemet, I've seen this rhetoric a million times before, all this is, is a public tactic to apply pressure to management and get them sweating. Yes, Onstads language is direct and it doesn't leave room for much interpretation, but this type of stuff starts to happen when things get down to the wire. And frankly it usually pisses off the other party, further entrenching them in thier position. Both parties know it's suicide to lockout the season and let's face it, the players dont make enough cash to withstand a long work stoppage, so he's blowing a lot of hot air. It's posturing, that is all.

But if this is all text-book, what's to stop the league from just sitting back and saying "Hey, the players will give in before the season begins"? The problem I see here is that it's not a matter of raising a salary by X amount, or giving X amount of vacation days or whatever - where you can easily compromise. To me the outstanding issues do not bend, and that means either the league gets what they want, or the players do - but neither party can come out winners. Losers, yes, but that's only if a strike happens and effectively kills the league. That is what worries me.

However, having said that, I will be BEYOND furious with the league if they kill off this league over issues as STUPID as these - that quite frankly are grossly unfair to the players. If a player signs a 4-year contract, to me they should be released and allowed the freedom to join any other club at the end of that contract. Also, clubs should own their own player-contracts. This is beyond stupid stuff that GREATLY devaluates this league (outside of the salary cap shit).

[rocker]

no need for the league to break down yet.. they still have time for an agreement.. so MLS will push it to the last hour to see if the players will give them anything. Like arbogast, I've been through these things before in unions and nothing gets done early. It always goes to the end... that's just negotiation. The clock is a powerful thing in negotiations. MLS probably is willing to give in a bit but they'll wait for the players to give them more.

[james]

they gotta work something out because everyone knows the league will not survive a strike!

[Pookie]

WOAH, everyone, take a breath and....RELAX!
As someone who works in the Labour movemet, I've seen this rhetoric a million times before, all this is, is a public tactic to apply pressure to management and get them sweating. Yes, Onstads language is direct and it doesn't leave room for much interpretation, but this type of stuff starts to happen when things get down to the wire. And frankly it usually pisses off the other party, further entrenching them in thier position. Both parties know it's suicide to lockout the season and let's face it, the players dont make enough cash to withstand a long work stoppage, so he's blowing a lot of hot air. It's posturing, that is all.

Agreed

When I read the story, I was interested to see that they used current player situations and names that fans would recognize. They are putting a real face on a single issue and attempting to apply public pressure.

Both sides need to win and a win is public as much as it is business.

Behind the doors, they may have an idea as to which areas the league is willing to move on. If this is one, by going public they signify to the league the one concession that can get a deal in place and give themselves an opportunity to win public merit points with their members.

[ensco]

Why do people want this settled on these terms?

TFC (and the 3 or 4 other strong franchises) would be far better off if MLS weren't a single entity. Even if MLS fails, it could/would quickly be restarted along lines that allow the better teams to properly compete for better players.

[Redcoe15]

WOAH, everyone, take a breath and....RELAX!
As someone who works in the Labour movemet, I've seen this rhetoric a million times before, all this is, is a public tactic to apply pressure to management and get them sweating. Yes, Onstads language is direct and it doesn't leave room for much interpretation, but this type of stuff starts to happen when things get down to the wire. And frankly it usually pisses off the other party, further entrenching them in thier position. Both parties know it's suicide to lockout the season and let's face it, the players dont make enough cash to withstand a long work stoppage, so he's blowing a lot of hot air. It's posturing, that is all.
I hope you're right. I started hyperventilating when I first read this.

[Beach_Red]

Why do people want this settled on these terms?

TFC (and the 3 or 4 other strong franchises) would be far better off if MLS weren't a single entity. Even if MLS fails, it could/would quickly be restarted along lines that allow the better teams to properly compete for better players.


How many teams do you think would be in that league? Would any games be on TV? Would there be any sponsors?

I'm starting to wonder if soccer ever will succeed in the US. They may simply have too many team sports already and there may not be enough room in the market for another major league.

[Pookie]

Why do people want this settled on these terms?

TFC (and the 3 or 4 other strong franchises) would be far better off if MLS weren't a single entity. Even if MLS fails, it could/would quickly be restarted along lines that allow the better teams to properly compete for better players.

Ah, but would TFC even exist if there hadn't been the cost controls around the initial investment?

Seems to me that the reason folks are lining up to invest in this league is a function of the way it is currently structured.

[ensco]

How many teams do you think would be in that league? Would any games be on TV? Would there be any sponsors?.

Probably a similar number of teams, but you'd have "have", and "have not", teams. Same as in all other leagues in the world.

Re TV it couldn't be worse. Right now, unless there's some other event adjacent affecting ratings, MLS draws less than horse jumping, or poker. For TV to work, you need marquee teams that people want to see.

Same comment for sponsorship dollars. Current structure is hurting, not helping, attract sponsors.

[jloome]

Probably a similar number of teams, but you'd have "have", and "have not", teams. Same as in all other leagues in the world.

Re TV it couldn't be worse. Right now, unless there's some other event adjacent affecting ratings, MLS draws less than horse jumping, or poker. For TV to work, you need marquee teams that people want to see.

Same comment for sponsorship dollars. Current structure is hurting, not helping, attract sponsors.

Actually, this model largely killed the NASL. I know you're in finance, Ensco, but the market isn't always right. If you take away artificial market constraints, the largest markets simply outpsend their opponents, which often requires them going well beyond what their market can support.

You're right, the league does need to spend more. But simply removing any constraints by going to an open model would be detrimental to the game.

The parity in MLS isn't about competition, although that's a benefit too, in my eyes -- it exists to stop idiot owners from spending their way to greatness, going far beyond the mere competitiveness you're talking about within the economic model's constraints, and instead being mere reflections of their ego.

Secondly, as we've seen with the Glaser purchase at Man Utd., the more freedom a large multinational owner has within the economic model to manipulate debt, the more likely we'll see the league used for issues of pure economic manipulation, not the promotion of football.


Capitalism, like all belief systems that become orthodoxies of faith, has to have limits, due to intractible human nature. There has to be a middle ground between the artificial and limiting current structure and the no-holds-barred use of the almighty buck to compete.

[ensco]

jloome, I was there, and this whole idea that salaries killed the NASL is reconstituted hogwash. It's BS.

The NASL was killed because it had weak owners, and dramatically over-expanded into horrible markets (Tulsa, Jacksonville, Honolulu and...dare I say it, Edmonton, jump to mind). But the cities that are today MLS cities, they did fine in terms of NASL attendance, same as those cities do today.

Good ownership, SSSs, and maybe well-located stadiums are the things that have proven to matter in the MLS model. The single entity pay model doesn't matter to the model, there's no proof of it, and frankly an awful lot of people come off sounding like mouthpieces for Don Garber when they uncritically repeat this.

[Gazza_55]

jloome, I was there, and this whole idea that salaries killed the NASL is reconstituted hogwash. It's BS.

The NASL was killed because it had weak owners, and dramatically over-expanded into horrible markets (Tulsa, Jacksonville, Honolulu and...dare I say it, Edmonton, jump to mind). But the cities that are today MLS cities, they did fine in terms of NASL attendance, same as those cities do today.

Good ownership, SSSs, and maybe well-located stadiums are the things that have proven to matter in the MLS model. The single entity pay model doesn't matter to the model, there's no proof of it, and frankly an awful lot of people come off sounding like mouthpieces for Don Garber when they uncritically repeat this.

How are you going to get good ownership in a pro soccer league without a salary cap?

Who in Kansas City is going to spend $80m for a SSS when they know clubs in Toronto, NY, Seattle, or LA could have a wage bill 5 or 10 times that of the Wizards?

And by the way, the NASL failed because the owners outside of NY spent millions on aging "superstars" to try and keep up with the Cosmos.

[ensco]

the NASL failed because the owners outside of NY spent millions on aging "superstars" to try and keep up with the Cosmos.

This drives me nuts. It happened, but not as much as you imply, and it's just not the reason the league went under. The NASL was mostly a hodgepodge of NCAA no-name players and aging internationals, same as MLS is today.

The NASL had multiple owners in weak markets who couldn't make payroll without the drug of expansion fees. This already happened in MLS too, in Miami, and I wonder if it's happening again...if it is, MLS will die too.

[arbogast]

But if this is all text-book, what's to stop the league from just sitting back and saying "Hey, the players will give in before the season begins"? The problem I see here is that it's not a matter of raising a salary by X amount, or giving X amount of vacation days or whatever - where you can easily compromise. To me the outstanding issues do not bend, and that means either the league gets what they want, or the players do - but neither party can come out winners. Losers, yes, but that's only if a strike happens and effectively kills the league. That is what worries me.

However, having said that, I will be BEYOND furious with the league if they kill off this league over issues as STUPID as these - that quite frankly are grossly unfair to the players. If a player signs a 4-year contract, to me they should be released and allowed the freedom to join any other club at the end of that contract. Also, clubs should own their own player-contracts. This is beyond stupid stuff that GREATLY devaluates this league (outside of the salary cap shit).

Umm those arent easily compromisable issues, I can say that from experience. They are usually the root causes of strikes in unionized work BUT there are always compromises and deals to be made in those situations. As fans we all understand and feel your frustrations ad I feel the same way as you about player contracts, but there is always room for negotiation even in entreched positions. It's about compromise and sometimes that compromise is all about the optics and packaging of deal so the union can sell it to their members as a win and management can do the same. If they settle on limited freeagency during this round of bargaining, the union can seel it as a foot in the door they have set a precedent and can fight to expand it in 3 years time, while managemet can say look, we gave a bit on freeagecy, but we got a lower cap dollar. optically that's a win win. I really don't see a strike, I know Ives reported that the players are prepared but I'll say this again, the players do not make enough money to go on an extended strike like the NHL and MLB players did. The fact is, these guys need to work and everyone knows it.

[Beach_Red]

This drives me nuts. It happened, but not as much as you imply, and it's just not the reason the league went under. The NASL was mostly a hodgepodge of NCAA no-name players and aging internationals, same as MLS is today.

The NASL had multiple owners in weak markets who couldn't make payroll without the drug of expansion fees. This already happened in MLS too, in Miami, and I wonder if it's happening again...if it is, MLS will die too.


You could probably make a case that the "drug of expansion fees" (I love that phrase) has also done a huge amount of damage to the NHL.

[Gazza_55]

This drives me nuts. It happened, but not as much as you imply, and it's just not the reason the league went under. The NASL was mostly a hodgepodge of NCAA no-name players and aging internationals, same as MLS is today.

The NASL had multiple owners in weak markets who couldn't make payroll without the drug of expansion fees. This already happened in MLS too, in Miami, and I wonder if it's happening again...if it is, MLS will die too.

By weak markets do you mean NEW YORK. The Cosmos averaged 45,766 fans from 1978 to 1980 and played in Championship Games in front of 77k and guess how much the owners made. Nothing.

[ensco]

^Nobody is saying that the Cosmos are the model. btw MLS/Anschutz bringing Beckham in sure reminded a lot of people of the Cosmos "model".

MLS is better than the NASL was. The turf in those days, the ashtray stadiums, it makes me cringe to remember it. But there were lots of successful teams not using the Cosmos model....Vancouver, Seattle, Tampa, Minnesota for sure, probably others I can't remember right now.

[Beach_Red]

^Nobody is saying that the Cosmos are the model. btw MLS/Anschutz bringing Beckham in sure reminded a lot of people of the Cosmos "model".




Except the single-entity makes it nothing like the Cosmos "model." Bringing in players to the Cosmos helped the Comos (or, actually didn't but that was up to them). MLS bringing in Beckham is quite different in that it was supposed to help the whole league.

I guess people are still debating the results, but if it increased TV revenue and sponsorship revenie and that kind of thing then the whole league would benefit, not just one team. That difference seems to be what we're talking about here, isn't it?

(or maybe that's the other thread, I'm getting mixed up ;))

[dantdot]

MLS responds
http://www.soccerbyives.net/soccer_by_ives/2010/02/mls-responds-to-players-union-criticisms.html

A lot of stuff here, probably deserving of its own thread.

[jazzy]

MLS responds
http://www.soccerbyives.net/soccer_by_ives/2010/02/mls-responds-to-players-union-criticisms.html

A lot of stuff here, probably deserving of its own thread.

So definitely no free agency ever! OK, fair, but I need explanations of how players can not be basically slaves to the team. As I have said the teams should be able to sell players and receive a majority % of the $, and in return that $, has to be reinvested into the team. The players are basicly commodities, then, so, whats in it for them?

[Shway]

I this whole situation unbelievable, to the point where i dont know who to believe. The MLSPU is stating barely anything is ironned out, while the league is offering up 60million on players, that means the salary cap would go up to 3,750,000 per team to spend. The MLS officials seems like there saying one thing to MLSPU and then saying something to us, or MLSPU is saying the MLS officials arent getting anythingworking to get a deal in place. Because theres no way a statement from Pat Onstad stating that there nowhere near close, they havent agreed upon anything, and the MLS officials are saying they have been willing to address every area, except free agency.
Which I believe, but all of this is confusing ..........

















just like this post

[olegunnar]

Isn't free agency impossible until there are unique owners for each team?

[TFCRegina]

Isn't free agency impossible until there are unique owners for each team?

It's not, MLS just wants you to think it is.

It's no different than signing with a different division of a company.

[ag futbol]

I this whole situation unbelievable, to the point where i dont know who to believe. The MLSPU is stating barely anything is ironned out, while the league is offering up 60million on players, that means the salary cap would go up to 3,750,000 per team to spend.

Don't drink the cool-aid. Until we see where MLS got that 60M number it means jack shit. Is it stretched out over 10 years? over how many teams? There are lots of ways to male things sound great when they really are not.

Remember this is the same league that says it gives our 1M dollars in supeliga winnings, then funnels 80% of that right back to it's own coffers and gives the players a small portion.

They want you to believe it means 60M per year spread over all existing teams in pure salary format, but i highly doubt it.

[olegunnar]

It's not, MLS just wants you to think it is.

It's no different than signing with a different division of a company.

I'm not sure you understood what I posted. I'll give you an example.

Say Jimmy Conrad was a free agent. Say we want to sign him. Say Columbus (Hunt Sports) doesn't want us to sign him but they have no cap room to match our offer....but...Dallas (Hunt Sports) has more $$ to offer than we do...so they offer more than us, not because they want him, but because the owner wants to protect its good team. We don't get Conrad, Columbus wins the East.


That's not really legal.

[ag futbol]

It's not, MLS just wants you to think it is.

It's no different than signing with a different division of a company.
Very true, and they'd also have to explain all the internal coaching changes over the last couple of years. They are employees too after all.

[ensco]

One of the comments in Ives had an analysis showing that the $60 million translates to $10 grand per player per year. Whoop-de-doo.

Re free agency, I kind of get the league's position. If I were a player, I'd put the size of the cap much higher on my list of problems. Players do have free agency outside the league, just not within it.

[TFCRegina]

By weak markets do you mean NEW YORK. The Cosmos averaged 45,766 fans from 1978 to 1980 and played in Championship Games in front of 77k and guess how much the owners made. Nothing.

This is virtually the same for most sports clubs in the world.

Hell Barca won just about every single title they could this year and they barely netted 10 million.

Man U has been a money losing club for a while, at least in terms of cash flow. The value and revenue keeps it a going concern and gives it good credit, which allows it to operate.

Very few sports clubs make profits. There's a saying, not just in football, but in all sports. The only way to make a small fortune in football (or sports) is to start with a large one.

Sports operate in highly competitive environments where the inputs for a premium product are very expensive. Clubs which intend to win have to pay top dollar.

I will put forth that free agency, restricted (as I propose on MLS Talk) is probably the best way to go. No budging on the matter will lead to the league dying. Moving too far will do the same. RFA will allow salaries to be kept down, while still allowing for some control for the players. As it stands, they're nothing more than glorified serfs, one step above slaves.

[TFCRegina]

I'm not sure you understood what I posted. I'll give you an example.

Say Jimmy Conrad was a free agent. Say we want to sign him. Say Columbus (Hunt Sports) doesn't want us to sign him but they have no cap room to match our offer....but...Dallas (Hunt Sports) has more $$ to offer than we do...so they offer more than us, not because they want him, but because the owner wants to protect its good team. We don't get Conrad, Columbus wins the East.


That's not really legal.

Not really. As it stands, MLS owns the contracts. Essentially, when you sign for TFC, you're signing for the TFC Division of MLS. It's like signing with Apple, you can work in the iPod Division, or you can work in the Macbook division.

The case which you describe is possible, and it would be unfortunate, but it is hardly illegal. It's the basis for competition.

Let's put it in these terms. Assume there's an overarching bureau, Bureau A, which runs two divisions (D and C) in a company, and there is a division B, which is in the company but in a different bureau. Bureau A has to compete for budget dollars with B's overarching Bureau, and John Doe is a highly talented widget maker who worked for D in Bureau A. Unfortunately, D has decided to go in another direction, which means they have to hire other staff and this uses their salary allocation. But John Doe is very talented. So Bureau A simply offers him a contract through Division D, also within the same organization. This prevents him moving to Division B who wants to hire him, and allows them to remain competitive.

Shady dealings? Absolutely, illegal...no.

[Red CB Toronto]

Does FIFA not have policy about players being out of contract? I have never understood how the MLS gets around transfer rules, when say a player is traded from one team to another outside of the FIFA tansfer windows, how does this work.

[TFCRegina]

Does FIFA not have policy about players being out of contract? I have never understood how the MLS gets around transfer rules, when say a player is traded from one team to another outside of the FIFA tansfer windows, how does this work.

Not being transferred at all. He's simply being moved from division to division. Single entity is a single corporation, so this wouldn't count as a transfer. He's just being moved around the internal organization.

[TFCRegina]

And with respect to out of contract players, what MLS is doing is borderline illegal. I say borderline, because it's perfectly legal in sports. If it was any other product or in another country, what they're doing would be considered illegal.

I pointed this out, again in my article on MLS Talk, or in the comments section.

I challenge anyone to find a business where they can put a price on a person's out of contract rights. Non-free agency is illegal because it is, in effect, serfdom. If Microsoft tried forcing Apple to pay for former employees who switched sides, there'd be lawsuits and damages awarded.

[Oldtimer]

MLS responds
http://www.soccerbyives.net/soccer_by_ives/2010/02/mls-responds-to-players-union-criticisms.html

A lot of stuff here, probably deserving of its own thread.

They've drawn their line in the sand, as have the players.
Now it's time for the lockout on February 25th.

[Nuvinho]

If free agency happens, who would be playing for Columbus, Dallas, or Kansas City? If you were a player, and had a choice between playing in a big market team or one of these small market teams.....where would you play?

There should be tho some rule to allow out of contract players to move, maybe something like what the MLB does with compensation picks.

For example-If you sign an out of contract player:

For Under 100K you get a compensation pick at the end of round 4
For 100K to 200K you get a compensation pick at the end of round 3
For 200K to 300K you get a compensation pick at the end of round 2
For greater than 300K you get a compensatoin pick at the end of round 1

[TFCRegina]

If free agency happens, who would be playing for Columbus, Dallas, or Kansas City? If you were a player, and had a choice between playing in a big market team or one of these small market teams.....where would you play?

There should be tho some rule to allow out of contract players to move, maybe something like what the MLB does with compensation picks.

For example-If you sign an out of contract player:

For Under 100K you get a compensation pick at the end of round 4
For 100K to 200K you get a compensation pick at the end of round 3
For 200K to 300K you get a compensation pick at the end of round 2
For greater than 300K you get a compensatoin pick at the end of round 1

If the cap is in place? Plenty of people would be. The cap keeps the lid on salaries. Players will go where they are going to be paid.

[Oldtimer]

The NASL failed because of several different things, not one single thing:

(1) Over-expansion.

(2) Poorly qualified owners, anyone who could pony up $100K was "in." Owners frequently had no long-term commitment, were just trying to make a fast buck from the "next big thing."

(3) Overspending as teams tried to keep up with the Cosmos (yes, it did happen with some teams).

(4) Imbalance, as the Cosmos won 2/3 of their games, and other teams didn't have a chance.

(5) Stupid gimmicks and North-American unique rules that made purists flee.

(6) No-one ever mentions it, but there was a severe recession in 1983-1984.

[Red CB Toronto]

Is there another single entity league anywhere in the world, I wonder if FIFA might have a say in this matter.

[Beach_Red]

The NASL failed because of several different things, not one single thing:

(1) Over-expansion.

(2) Poorly qualified owners, anyone who could pony up $100K was "in." Owners frequently had no long-term commitment, were just trying to make a fast buck from the "next big thing."

(3) Overspending as teams tried to keep up with the Cosmos (yes, it did happen with some teams).

(4) Imbalance, as the Cosmos won 2/3 of their games, and other teams didn't have a chance.

(5) Stupid gimmicks and North-American unique rules that made purists flee.

(6) No-one ever mentions it, but there was a severe recession in 1983-1984.


Except for #6, all of these are the result of #2 - poor decisions by ownership. NASL didn't turn away wealthier, better qualified owners to have the ones they did, they took whoever they could.

MLS has structured itself to try and avoid that problem.

That line about making a small fortune in sports by starting with a big fortune is often true, but the big exception is the NFL. Guys like Ralph Wilson paid very little for a team worth close to a billion dollars today. Every NFL team is worth far more than it cost and none are in debt and that's only because the whole league is strong.

That's the only model for a league that will attract good owners these days - firm limits on spending.

[rocker]

Non-free agency is illegal because it is, in effect, serfdom. If Microsoft tried forcing Apple to pay for former employees who switched sides, there'd be lawsuits and damages awarded.

It's not illegal because there are other pro soccer leagues you can play in.... like the NASL. It only restricts movement within the company. Microsoft is fully within its rights to define how employees move within its company. Now, if an employee wants to leave Microsoft for Apple they can do that -- their rights are not restricted (unless they have a clause to that effect). If an MLS player does not like this situation, they are totally free to go play in the NASL (as many players have done when they turned to the USL... or when they decide to play in Norway).

Nonetheless, there is no absolutely right position here. One can advocate free agency, but it is not "right" in an absolute sense. The reason limited free agency exists in other NA leagues is that the players *negotiated it* based on their power position. The determination of whether free agency will exist should come from a power struggle between sides, not because some God (or Garber!) comes down and says "it should be so." The players need to fight for this if they want it, not expect MLS to just give in for nothing.

In a practical sense though, I don't see a big deal here. Sometimes people give names of players who left MLS but still have their rights owned by MLS teams and they can't get back... but that doesn't mean any MLS team wants them. Similarly, you have a guy like Perkins leave on his own free will for Europe, where he enjoys himself. Then he wants to come back to the league, and he goes to the exact team he wanted to go to! Similarly, TFC had Huckerby's rights but he found a way to San Jose. If a player is good enough he'll go where he wants to go.

[Pookie]

^ actually, it is not uncommon for companies to require their employees to sign "Non-Compete" agreements in that they can't just up and leave "Microsoft for Apple." Usually, there is a period of time that must expire between jobs before an employee can make such a transition.

It is done to protect "inside" information from being shared between competitors.

[ensco]

That line about making a small fortune in sports by starting with a big fortune is often true, but the big exception is the NFL. Guys like Ralph Wilson paid very little for a team worth close to a billion dollars today. Every NFL team is worth far more than it cost and none are in debt and that's only because the whole league is strong.

That's the only model for a league that will attract good owners these days - firm limits on spending.

I don't think this is what distinguishes the NFL. What's different about the NFL is the huge TV revenues, a result of (i) some good fortune, and (ii) a relentless focus on excellence in terms of the TV product.

[Beach_Red]

I don't think this is what distinguishes the NFL. What's different about the NFL is the huge TV revenues, a result of (i) some good fortune, and (ii) a relentless focus on excellence in terms of the TV product.


Yes, the TV contract is the key, but no, it wasn't good fortune. It was Pete Rozelle getting all the owners to agree to share the revenues from it equally and for the league to negotiate with the networks as a single-entity - the opposite of what baseball was doing with each team looking for a TV contract from a local TV station.

The NFL was not a hit on TV initially, even after the AFL and NFL merged the league itself was buying time and selling the ads itself. Moday Night Football was really an infomercial. And it was pretty far from a "focus on excellence" ;).

But it was what allowed the league to become so strong and profitable. Look at the NHL with teams being propped up by the league, scrambling to find any owner who doesn't look like he's about to go to jail (unless he wants to move the team to Canada). Look at the amount of EPL teams in debt - and aren't some of those looking for owners? The NFL has 32 debt-free teams, none for sale and an expansion franchise will have to pay a billion dollars to get in (Houston paid $700 million).

And it may not be officially a "single-entity" league, if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck....

[ag futbol]

It's not illegal because there are other pro soccer leagues you can play in.... like the NASL. It only restricts movement within the company. Microsoft is fully within its rights to define how employees move within its company. Now, if an employee wants to leave Microsoft for Apple they can do that -- their rights are not restricted (unless they have a clause to that effect). If an MLS player does not like this situation, they are totally free to go play in the NASL (as many players have done when they turned to the USL... or when they decide to play in Norway).

Two problems that will drive a truck over that argument in court:

1) why is the definition of "company" different for coaches than it is for players. Clearly we have seen multiple people get fired and re-hired by other "divisions" of the same company. That doesn't pass the smell test.

2) The players will go to court and argue that division one soccer is different than division two soccer, and it will pass. So despite NASL being in existence it's not really an alternative because the pay is less and so is the overall skill requirement.

Regardless of whether MLS declares itself one company or multiple teams the court will throw out the rule because it unfairly restricts the movement of labor. Courts have been very consistent about throwing out non-comp agreements on employees, this will be no exception.

[jazzy]

Food for thought....article from MLS New York fan on issues; quite revealing esp Serious comments:
http://www.bigapplesoccer.com/columns/mytwocents.php?article_id=22680

[Beach_Red]

Food for thought....article from MLS New York fan on issues; quite revealing esp Serious comments:
http://www.bigapplesoccer.com/columns/mytwocents.php?article_id=22680


This guy makes some very good points. Especially about the need for free agency. It should probably be in return for guaranteed contracts, as he says, if NFL playrs don't have guaranteed contracts, with only one other football league in the word to play in, why should soccer players have guaranteed contracts with dozen of other leagues to play in? And free agency would fix the Serioux situation.

[sarsippius]

Food for thought....article from MLS New York fan on issues; quite revealing esp Serious comments:
http://www.bigapplesoccer.com/columns/mytwocents.php?article_id=22680

Tremendous points about the non-financial (reputation) argument made here. Locally, I can picture Bob McCown going on a tirade about the same thing ("Soccer?!? Told you so!").

MLSPU and MLS need to wake up. Posturing aside, this is too close for comfort, and is obviously making supporters all over the league upset.

I wonder what this would do to the US World Cup bid...

[Roogsy]

I agree with the opinion piece EXCEPT when it comes to guaranteed contracts. These salaries are so low, players who start on the team's roster for that year, should have their contracts guaranteed for that year. I am not saying guarantee the contract over the life of the agreement, just for that specific season. In essence, moving the guarantee date from July to March, that's it. Since players as of July have their contracts guaranteed for the year, why not just make it so the players are not concerned whether halfway through the year they will lose their paycheque and then deal with cancelled contracts after the season is done. Making a player lose his job halfway through the year is cruel in my opinion, especially in a league that pays it's players so little.

If we were talking about million dollar contracts, I'd have a different point of view. But making a young family man lose his $60k job halfway through the year is unconscionable.

[Beach_Red]

If we were talking about million dollar contracts, I'd have a different point of view. But making a young family man lose his $60k job halfway through the year is unconscionable.

Non-guaranteed contracts AND no free agency is too much, yes.

But non-gauranteed contracts for a sport in which there are a thousand teams in the world is okay, I think. Lots of people have non-guaranteed contracts in lots of fields and they know that going in (so, by the way, starting March 5th on CTV watch the new show The Bridge so maybe I'll get a contract for season two - it's not guaranteed ;)).

[Hitcho]

I am still nervous about this. So far all we've had is extensions of bargaining time and no real movement on the sides meeting on common ground, especially the free agency point. At some point, one side is going to get pissed off and walk away (probably the players, since the league has nothing to lose by letting things roll on as they are without signing a new CBA). I think that would be armageddon day for MLS and the sport of football in America.

Without expressing a view on which side I would stand by, I do think that the players may have to just suck it up and accept that free agency is nto going to happen in MLS, at least for a while. It's a unique league in terms of world football but that's because it is constantly playing catch up with the other major sports in the US, in a country where most of the population are suspicious of football or just don't care about it. That's not going to change soon, it's a long term evolution.

For MLS to continue to exist and grow, it needs to be a weird creature. Either the players accept that or they need to find jobs in another league.

Having said that, the league should be bending on other issues to sweeten the deal. I don't know if they are or not. I am trying to keep my head in the sand on this one until the season starts, and hoping that at some point there will be an announcement that all is well and the MLS world lives on. :D

[sarsippius]

http://soccerlaw.wordpress.com/2010/02/21/mls-and-union-cannot-risk-mutually-assured-destruction/

Thanks to Josh Mayers in Seattle.

[Hitcho]

http://soccerlaw.wordpress.com/2010/02/21/mls-and-union-cannot-risk-mutually-assured-destruction/

Thanks to Josh Mayers in Seattle.

Interesting article, thanks. many people seem to agree that the league would implode if a strike took place. I don't agree. I think some teams would implode, but enough would survive that the league as a whole would still be a viable entity afterwards. For example, TFC would survive no problem. No way would we lose enough fans/demand even from a whole locked out season to sink the club. Seattle is probably the same, and LAG. Some teams would likely sink - dallas, the piss stains, etc. But as soon as the league began again the likes of Partland and Montreal would be waiting to join (assuming a long term agreement had been signed when the league resumed).

Sure, the league would look quite different and there may be some fundamental changes to it as a result, but unless so many teams folded that it was financially impossible to keep it afloat, I think it would survive. And the WC helps this. Some sponsors will be reluctant to give up on MLS unless they have to with a WC around the corner, for example.

Of course, a down-sized league still hurts the vulnerbale players just as uch because they will be the ones without jobs after everything has come out in the wash. So those guys are the ones with msot to lose, whichever way you look at it. Top players will have jobs in the revived MLS or abroad if the league folds. Lower order players get screwed in both scenarios.

Which makes me think that the union would never actually got for a work stoppage (posturing aside).

Of course, if the writer is correct and the league would fold under the financial implications of any kind of work stoppage, even if some individual clubs would not, then that still may not be armageddon day. I could see the "bigger" or more financially stable teams forming a new league of their own, much like the EPL, without the single entity system and without the ludicrous amounts of parity. Would it fly? Who knows, but it would be an interesting if risky experiment.

[THA BUTCHA]

Interesting article, thanks. many people seem to agree that the league would implode if a strike took place. I don't agree. I think some teams would implode, but enough would survive that the league as a whole would still be a viable entity afterwards. .

I agree.

If MLS folded it would not be the demise of soccer in North America.

a new league would be created without all the nonsense MLS is famous for.
and soccer in north america would be better off.

Heck . I even think an all canadain league with minimal foriegn player restrictions would also work at this point.

SOCCER has never been MORE Popular in this country.


SO I SAY...LET THEM STRIKE.
Let everything blow-up in their faces.

[James17930]

Here's another great article from SI.com talking about some things not getting any mention elsewhere:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/writers/andrea_canales/02/22/mls.labor/index.html

[DOMIN8R]

Paul James

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sports/soccer/mls-needs-to-raise-salary-cap/article1477649/ (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sports/soccer/mls-needs-to-raise-salary-cap/article1477649/)

[Roogsy]

Paul James

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sports/soccer/mls-needs-to-raise-salary-cap/article1477649/ (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sports/soccer/mls-needs-to-raise-salary-cap/article1477649/)


While Garber and his owners will point to the Kansas Citys and Columbuses of the league that lose money each year while generating significantly less revenue than their competitors, in doing so, they begin to highlight the real issue that now confronts them. Can the smaller-market teams really be justified if the end result is the suppression of player salaries to levels that limit global competitiveness? Unless they can loosen their restrictions and find a more palatable solution, the answer is no.


AAAAAAAAAAMEN!

[ag futbol]

Agreed. It's a basic point but an important one.

And frankly I do not blame the players one bit if they walk out. The situation guys like Serioux and Dave Vandenberg find themselves in is ridiculous. What’s been put on the table is extremely thrifty, yet these guys seem willing to lump all that for some basic rights.

What’s going to happen with limited free agency? Small market teams will have to work hard to attract players (who says they don’t right now?), costs to retain players will go up slightly but less guys will be forced to leave the league due to being brutally lowballed by un-interested potential employers. Overall it’s a huge win and it wouldn’t do anything outside of the cap.

[ag futbol]

Here's another great article from SI.com talking about some things not getting any mention elsewhere:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/writers/andrea_canales/02/22/mls.labor/index.html

I think this article is poorly thought out to be honest with you.

The example of a young player is ‘Luis Gil but that’s rather a-typical compared to the dozens of prospects who earn bottom end wages. Ok the D-roster is gone but is that REALLY up to the players to bring back? The league couldn’t even fill the spots to begin with.

She sites the strike as a knock against the MLS “model” in Europe but she fails to consider what’s actually being debated. Having some sort of Europe wide non-free agency would be a total non issue, because it would never be able to be implemented. I think the main idea is still expense control, which still looks valid and Germany proves the point as they already have it (tied to revenue).

And don’t even get me started on the euopean MLS fans idea, how does that even make the print?

[ensco]

Name another business that makes decisions that help them in Kansas City and Columbus but hurt them in New York and Los Angeles.

[rocker]

Name another business that makes decisions that help them in Kansas City and Columbus but hurt them in New York and Los Angeles.

A better analogy is to government. Governments "waste" lots of tax money from big cities to ensure that less-served areas have a similar level of service. It's a matter of equity, particularly when you're trying to grow something (a nation, or a minority sport).

Private businesses have no obligation to ensure equity. They don't make money somewhere? They just leave. MLS already left some markets, and should be very careful with doing it again.

On another note, some people have mentioned just leaving these cities and going to other markets that are better -- well that doesn't serve the purpose of growing the game, and it assumes there are many other markets that would be better than the current ones. But beyond the current expansion prospects (Van/Port/Mtl) and perhaps St. Louis, there really aren't any better locations that will have grass SSS and will guarantee fan support greater than the current cities.

[DOMIN8R]

^ But equity might be a reasonable argument given that the league is made up of owners who each own a franchise. Every franchise has an equal say and vote. So KC, Columbus and Dal have as mush say as LA, Tor and Seattle.

No?

[Beach_Red]

Name another business that makes decisions that help them in Kansas City and Columbus but hurt them in New York and Los Angeles.


Airlines have to serve a lot of markets and sometimes some of them aren't as profitable as others. I work in TV and sometimes networks air shows that they know will be far more popular in some parts of the country than others - but they still won't allow local affiliates to show something else in that timeslot even if it might get better ratings.

We've been over this plenty of times. MLS will only survie and grow if it gets good TV ratings and it'll only get good TV ratings if it's a truly national league. It's exactly the same reason the NHL hs poured so much money into markets with little interest in hockey.

[billyfly]

I say don't count anything else a club might give against the cap. MLSE could give a guy a car/condo etc and still only pay him 50,000 etc.

[Super]

I say don't count anything else a club might give against the cap. MLSE could give a guy a car/condo etc and still only pay him 50,000 etc.

But then what's the point, really? Isn't the point of a salary cap to stop clubs from spending beyond their means? So what's to stop Columbus from getting a big, fat loan to give Henry a life of absurd luxury beyond even his wildest dreams?

Hey, hey, ho, ho, the salary cap has got to go - period. Audit the clubs yearly to make sure they're not spending beyond their means. If they're spending above their means you slap a salary cap on that particular club until they've corrected themselves. End result: vastly better league - and some clubs would certainly be able compete in the Concacaf. Also, we'd probably get more respect internationally - which should bring in more money for everyone.

[billyfly]

^Its not the same technically and Henry (or any other DP) is a bad example.

This is for guys making peanuts. It doesn't up their take home pay but they don;t have to worry about room and board and such.

[jazzy]

I live for these games, severe fun in the summer, and have met so many great people, I WILL be majorily disappointed if this season is jepardized, BITTER! If a player is released, put him on some kind of wavers, to be claimed, and raise the minimum salaries.........is that too much to ask.....not possible?

[Whoop]

I know guys who play hockey in Europe who get a vehicle and a condo, on top of their salary.

I think it's a good idea.

[ag futbol]

We've been over this plenty of times. MLS will only survie and grow if it gets good TV ratings and it'll only get good TV ratings if it's a truly national league. It's exactly the same reason the NHL hs poured so much money into markets with little interest in hockey.
And unfortunately that has been a huge failure. Because the existence of a product in a market does not guarantee you sell it or that you get a TV deal.

If NASCAR (my least favorite sport, but best run one in NA) had tried to follow that model, it'd be holding their annual race in Montreal losing money hands over fist, insisting that the people in Daytona can't have what they want until Montreal earns money. Luckily they new better. They pumped their largest markets full of a high quality product and expanded outward in time. So now NASCAR has enough hype around it where it can go to Montreal and have a hugely successful race. It's the anti-NHL and it works.

If the biggest markets get what they want, it will be more money for everyone. Saying we can't move forward until the weak links get it together could easily be death by a thousand paper cuts. There is no guarantee these losers will ever amount to anything.

In fact, since everyone likes to quote the NASL so much, why don't they acknowledge the league stuck with some really shit markets that helped bring the whole thing down.

[Roogsy]

And unfortunately that has been a huge failure. Because the existence of a product in a market does not guarantee you sell it or that you get a TV deal.

If NASCAR (my least favorite sport, but best run one in NA) had tried to follow that model, it'd be holding their annual race in Montreal losing money hands over fist, insisting that the people in Daytona can't have what they want until Montreal earns money. Luckily they new better. They pumped their largest markets full of a high quality product and expanded outward in time. So now NASCAR has enough hype around it where it can go to Montreal and have a hugely successful race. It's the anti-NHL and it works.

If the biggest markets get what they want, it will be more money for everyone. Saying we can't move forward until the weak links get it together could easily be death by a thousand paper cuts. There is no guarantee these losers will ever amount to anything.

In fact, since everyone likes to quote the NASL so much, why don't they acknowledge the league stuck with some really shit markets that helped bring the whole thing down.


This....I like this. Somebody listen to the man.

[Oldtimer]

I think the main idea is still expense control, which still looks valid and Germany proves the point as they already have it (tied to revenue).


People forget that the Bundesliga originally had almost as many roster/salary restrictions as MLS. They liberalized it to the current model (tied to revenues). The Bundesliga still stands as a league with a decent amount of parity, too.

[dag]

From today's New York Times:

February 22, 2010, 4:58 pm
M.L.S. Labor Talks Get Hot

By JACK BELL (http://goal.blogs.nytimes.com/author/jack-bell/)The protracted labor negotiations between Major League Soccer and the union that represents the league’s players over a new collective bargaining agreement, conducted under a cone of silence and extended twice since the original Jan. 31 deadline, burst into public view over the weekend. (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/soccerinsider/2010/02/mls_responds_to_players_commen.html)

With another deadline (this Thursday) looming, several players spoke publicly and commented on social media like Twitter. In response, the league made its second in command, President Mark Abbott, available to speak to the news media.
Abbott’s two biggest points: M.L.S. is prepared to play the 2010 season under the terms of the existing C.B.A., the first negotiated by the league and its players, and said, “We’ve communicated that the league doesn’t have an intention of commencing a lockout.”

That appears to put the pressure on the players. All 16 M.L.S. clubs are engaged in preseason training, with a handful, including the Red Bulls, preparing for the Walt Disney World Pro Soccer Classic in Orlando, Fla., starting on Friday and another group of clubs training in Arizona.

M.L.S., which operates as a single entity, owns all player contracts and tightly controls player salaries, is loath to lock out its players because of soccer’s relatively high profile in a World Cup year; the debut of a new team, the Philadelphia Union; and the unveiling of a long-awaited new stadium, Red Bull Arena, in Harrison, N.J.

And although at least two other major North American sports leagues, the N.F.L. and the N.B.A., are and will soon be dealing with negotiating collective bargaining agreements with their players, the issues facing M.L.S. and its players are quite different.

Most labor negotiations (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/writers/andrea_canales/02/22/mls.labor/) are matters of give and take, but in M.L.S. it is hard to fathom what the players may have to give. (They had a median salary at the start of last season of $88,000, according to union figures.) What they want is a different matter.

In a league in which many young players, nearly all of them Americans, can earn less than $30,000 a year, the union is seeking higher entry-level pay. Under the current system, contracts are not guaranteed and there is no free agency within M.L.S., a system that goes against the system in world soccer and in professional sports in the United States.

For example, two players — Dave van den Bergh of Dallas and Kevin Hartman of Kansas City — have completed their contracts with their clubs, which have declined to exercise a unilateral option to re-sign them. But the clubs retain the players rights unless they leave the country. And even when and if the players should return to M.L.S., they are not free to sign with the team of their choice (which is what happened to Brian McBride when he returned to M.L.S. from Fulham of England after a handful of seasons).

“We’ve been hopeful for a while that we were going to make progress, but we don’t feel there’s been enough progress at this point to feel optimism on the players side,” Chris Klein, the Los Angeles Galaxy’s union representative, told Soccer America (http://www.socceramerica.com/article/36895/tension-mounts-as-cba-deadline-nears.html). Klein added: “Why are our players leaving at an alarming rate to go play in Scandinavia? What are the reasons for that? It’s not just the money, it’s the fact that contracts are guaranteed, and once that contract is up he has the freedom to move.”

On Saturday, Abbott told The Associated Press that the league had made “significant proposals” that he said address guaranteed contracts and option years. “If the players choose to strike, it won’t be because the league hasn’t made significant proposals,” he said. “It will be because the players continue to insist on changes in our system that we simply can’t make.”

League and union representatives were scheduled to hold another negotiating session in Washington on Monday. The clock is ticking.

[bgnewf]

Frankly I don't buy the "poor finances" story of MLS nearly as much as many others do.

Soccer United Marketing is a cash cow, and the league has a, relatively speaking, decent handle on costs. On top of that there is all the expansion dollars coming in this year and next (Upwards of $100 million +). Yes there are some weaker sisters (KC, Dallas, Columbus, etc.), but the league has added two (soon to be three with Philadelphia) strong franchises in Seattle and Toronto that undoubtedly make money.

It might surprise some of you to learn that Soccer United Marketing is responsible for selling the US English and Spanish broadcasting rights for the World Cup, which for example I am sure makes a nice little chunk of change for the league...


If this league was in the poor shape the owners claim it to be in then I do not think that there would be clubs building new expensive stadia (RSL, Red Bull, KC) and new cities (Vancouver, Portland, and maybe Montreal) lining up to join the party.

I understand the cost control angle but I think the ownership is being far too unreasonable on issues like free agency, DP allocations, player movement and of course players on the bottom end of the scale making next to nothing in salary.

Let's hope saner heads prevail on both sides.

[ensco]

There are lots of reasons to side with the players, but SUM isn't one of them. It's got nothing to do with MLS per se, and it's not nearly so big as is suggested above.

[TFCRegina]

Frankly I don't buy the "poor finances" story of MLS nearly as much as many others do.

Soccer United Marketing is a cash cow, and the league has a, relatively speaking, decent handle on costs. On top of that there is all the expansion dollars coming in this year and next (Upwards of $100 million +). Yes there are some weaker sisters (KC, Dallas, Columbus, etc.), but the league has added two (soon to be three with Philadelphia) strong franchises in Seattle and Toronto that undoubtedly make money.

It might surprise some of you to learn that Soccer United Marketing is responsible for selling the US English and Spanish broadcasting rights for the World Cup, which for example I am sure makes a nice little chunk of change for the league...


If this league was in the poor shape the owners claim it to be in then I do not think that there would be clubs building new expensive stadia (RSL, Red Bull, KC) and new cities (Vancouver, Portland, and maybe Montreal) lining up to join the party.

I understand the cost control angle but I think the ownership is being far too unreasonable on issues like free agency, DP allocations, player movement and of course players on the bottom end of the scale making next to nothing in salary.

Let's hope saner heads prevail on both sides.

You're right. MLS is not very poor. SUM makes up huge sums of the money. You have Mexican team rights in the US owned by SUM, among other things. The Pan-Pacific Championship and Superliga are also SUM babies, and they net them a tidy profit. The league is not poor at all, it just hides its wealth.

They have good accountants.

[flatpicker]

They have good accountants.

http://images8.cafepress.com/product/30663868v3_480x480_Front.jpg

[Detroit_TFC]

Baseless prediction - players strike for a week but settle for commitment from the league to set up an ongoing joint union/league discussion on player movement.

Seems ridiculous but I really do think this is the only way that the players can get any progress on this issue. If they go out on a do-or-die strike on free agency, they are doomed. Not the league or the game. The players union, and to a large extent, the fans because half or more of the season will be lost. This is not to say the players are wrong in wanting what they want, just in a power struggle with league, MLSPU's ability to hurt the league and leverage a victory through a work stoppage is limited.

[jloome]

My take: http://www.rednationonline.ca/Owners_have_more_to_lose_on_contentious_free_agenc y_feb_23_10_column.shtml

Basically, I'm suggesting it might make sense to move to a mediated resolution on free agency, because the league is going to run out of options other than "throw them a bone."

[SoccMan]

Seriously people I can't believe people honestly think that pro soccer in North America would survive if the MLS were to fold. If this league were to fold it's over people. Do you people know how long it has taken soccer in North America to get even at the level that the MLS is today. The NASL folded in 1984, we did not have a league in North America comparable to the NASL until 1996 when the MLS was born. If the MLS was to fold I will predict there will not be a serious pro league in North America in our lifetime. Could you imagine the field day the mainstream media would have with soccer if the MLS folded, give your heads a shake people!

[TFCRegina]

People forget that the Bundesliga originally had almost as many roster/salary restrictions as MLS. They liberalized it to the current model (tied to revenues). The Bundesliga still stands as a league with a decent amount of parity, too.

Yeah, except I buy 'Soccernomics' study about parity. It's something which was mimicked from studies from the NHL, NBA and NFL.

All show that dynasties are good for the league...they bring in more interest and revenue...even with the weak teams.

It's one of the reasons why I love Green Bay. They are a small market team in a big market league and they've won the Super Bowl numerous times. They defy the odds, even if in recent years they've been weaker. Same with the Roughriders...although that's more of a blood thing.

[TFCRegina]

Seriously people I can't believe people honestly think that pro soccer in North America would survive if the MLS were to fold. If this league were to fold it's over people. Do you people know how long it has taken soccer in North America to get even at the level that the MLS is today. The NASL folded in 1984, we did not have a league in North America comparable to the NASL until 1996 when the MLS was born. If the MLS was to fold I will predict there will not be a serious pro league in North America in our lifetime. Could you imagine the field day the mainstream media would have with soccer if the MLS folded, give your heads a shake people!

NASL 2.0 would survive. But yes, MLS would be a press field day.

[Beach_Red]

Seriously people I can't believe people honestly think that pro soccer in North America would survive if the MLS were to fold. If this league were to fold it's over people. Do you people know how long it has taken soccer in North America to get even at the level that the MLS is today. The NASL folded in 1984, we did not have a league in North America comparable to the NASL until 1996 when the MLS was born. If the MLS was to fold I will predict there will not be a serious pro league in North America in our lifetime. Could you imagine the field day the mainstream media would have with soccer if the MLS folded, give your heads a shake people!


Do you think there's any possibility that a Canadian league might work now? If TSN or other sports channels got behind it like they did the CFL?

I ask because I'm not sure soccer will ever be a major sport in the USA, there's just too much competition from baseball and the NFL and NBA in every market but many Canadian markets really have no summer sport except 8 CFL games.

It just seems a shame to tie the future of pro soccer in Canada to the US market.

[rocker]

good column explaining the free agency issue:

http://www.nutmegradio.com/mls-free-agency-why-won%E2%80%99t-mls-budge/

[flatpicker]

Yeah, except I buy 'Soccernomics' study about parity. It's something which was mimicked from studies from the NHL, NBA and NFL.

All show that dynasties are good for the league...they bring in more interest and revenue...even with the weak teams.

It's one of the reasons why I love Green Bay. They are a small market team in a big market league and they've won the Super Bowl numerous times. They defy the odds, even if in recent years they've been weaker. Same with the Roughriders...although that's more of a blood thing.


I've always enjoyed leagues with dynasties.
But the gap between rich and poor teams should be controlled to certain degree.
The EPL for example is not what I would consider a good model... that is just spending out of control.

But as long as spending is tied to individual team earnings (and not the depth of owners pockets),
then the gap shouldn't be ridiculous.

[Beach_Red]

I've always enjoyed leagues with dynasties.
But the gap between rich and poor teams should be controlled to certain degree.
The EPL for example is not what I would consider a good model... that is just spending out of control.

But as long as spending is tied to individual team earnings (and not the depth of owners pockets),
then the gap shouldn't be ridiculous.


I guess it depends how you define dynasty - The NFL is one of the most parity-driven leagues in the world but it's very rare for a team to repeat as Super Bowl champions.

Maybe when our governments and banks spend money like it's from an endless pit and drive up debts so far we have to invent new numbers, people are starting to appreciate sports team managements that can win and still stay within their means. Managing a salary cap has become another skill teams look for in management and I like it better than looking for some Russian sugar-daddy.

[Oldtimer]

I've always enjoyed leagues with dynasties.
But the gap between rich and poor teams should be controlled to certain degree.
The EPL for example is not what I would consider a good model... that is just spending out of control.

But as long as spending is tied to individual team earnings (and not the depth of owners pockets),
then the gap shouldn't be ridiculous.

You're describing the Bundesliga.

[rocker]

I've always enjoyed leagues with dynasties.


I don't. cuz it's never been my team that has the dynasty!

[Stouffville_RPB]

I guess it depends how you define dynasty - The NFL is one of the most parity-driven leagues in the world but it's very rare for a team to repeat as Super Bowl champions.



Not sure I can agree with you there.

1970's Steelers dynasty
1980's 49ers
1990's Cowboys
2000's Patriots

[Beach_Red]

Not sure I can agree with you there.

1970's Steelers dynasty
1980's 49ers
1990's Cowboys
2000's Patriots

Okay, so a salary cap does not breed parity, it allows for dynasties to develop. That's what we want, isn't it?

[felipe]

Not to quibble..but parity in the NFL is a relatively new thing - introduced with the salary cap in 1995, it took a few years from there to take hold...

So a salary cap in actuality does breed parity - barring individual management incompetence. For reference please see - Leafs, Maple...

[Beach_Red]

Not to quibble..but parity in the NFL is a relatively new thing - introduced with the salary cap in 1995, it took a few years from there to take hold...

So a salary cap in actuality does breed parity - barring individual management incompetence. For reference please see - Leafs, Maple...


Sometimes I think 1995 was only a couple of years ago -- sign of my advanced age, I guess ;).

And in any league there will be some management better than others. Shouldn't competence be the biggest factor in a team's success? What we've seen, at least the NFL, is that the salary cap hasn't kept back any team - the Lions can't win, not because they can't spend as much as the Pats, but because they are poorly managed.

[rocker]

salary caps simply mean equality of opportunity not equality of outcome. It's not like everyone finishes 15-15 every year.

we as citizens, for example, believe in equality of opportunity for everyone. But that doesn't mean we believe outcomes should be made equal by some force.

DC United has won more and achieved more in MLS than any other team. Until their recent scuffles they were almost like a dynasty. Since other teams have equality of opportunity DC United could not relax and just throw money at their problems, so they didn't win everything. But they won more than the rest. On the other hand, NY with the same advantages of opportunity have never won shit in the same amount of time. The salary cap didn't make them winners. They still fucked everything up.

I love the fact that the salary cap neutralizes inherent spending advantages and forces teams to use brains, scouting, coaching, academies to develop an advantage. That's a great challenge!

[TFC07]

Seriously people I can't believe people honestly think that pro soccer in North America would survive if the MLS were to fold. If this league were to fold it's over people. Do you people know how long it has taken soccer in North America to get even at the level that the MLS is today. The NASL folded in 1984, we did not have a league in North America comparable to the NASL until 1996 when the MLS was born. If the MLS was to fold I will predict there will not be a serious pro league in North America in our lifetime. Could you imagine the field day the mainstream media would have with soccer if the MLS folded, give your heads a shake people!

Or this gives us a chance to create our own league (Canadian league). I am sure CBC, Sportsnet, TheScore and maybe TSN2(?) will be all over this league.

[Super]

salary caps simply mean equality of opportunity not equality of outcome. It's not like everyone finishes 15-15 every year.

we as citizens, for example, believe in equality of opportunity for everyone. But that doesn't mean we believe outcomes should be made equal by some force.

DC United has won more and achieved more in MLS than any other team. Until their recent scuffles they were almost like a dynasty. Since other teams have equality of opportunity DC United could not relax and just throw money at their problems, so they didn't win everything. But they won more than the rest. On the other hand, NY with the same advantages of opportunity have never won shit in the same amount of time. The salary cap didn't make them winners. They still fucked everything up.

I love the fact that the salary cap neutralizes inherent spending advantages and forces teams to use brains, scouting, coaching, academies to develop an advantage. That's a great challenge!

If this system is so superior then why are we the only league in the world to run things this way?

To me the salary cap system stiffles growth. There is only one reason for it and that is to prevent teams from spending beyond their means - or to prevent one team from having a leg over someone else. Communism in sports.

I think you'll always find there to be two camps on this issue - those who love it, and those who hate it. There is no convincing either side that one system is more superior than the other. I will forever and a day feel that the salary cap creates a Mickey Mouse league where teams with shit support has as much opportunity to win as a team with great support. It also creates odd, random results - and takes away any and all interest some people may have in following games as there is no such thing as a surprising result, or a big team, or quite frankly any of the little details that make any other league in the world worth following.

That, I'm sorry, is just impossible for me to accept, and certainly, most definitely, it hurts the league - not just in practical terms, but definitely in the eyes of others.

And finally, seriously, I have to ask you this question on a personal note: are you okay with your hard-earned dollars NOT going towards bettering TFC? Because I'll tell you, I'm DEFINITELY not!

[Whoop]

Or this gives us a chance to create our own league (Canadian league). I am sure CBC, Sportsnet, TheScore and maybe TSN2(?) will be all over this league.

Like the failed Canadian baseball league?

We already have/had a Canadian league. The sportcasters won't be rushing to throw around money to cover it.

[Beach_Red]

If this system is so superior then why are we the only league in the world to run things this way?

And finally, seriously, I have to ask you this question on a personal note: are you okay with your hard-earned dollars NOT going towards bettering TFC? Because I'll tell you, I'm DEFINITELY not!


Okay, I'll take a shot atthe answers, though we've been over this many times before here and we simply disagree. I mean, we have the same goal, we're just looking at different route to get there.

1) MLS is the only league that runs this way because it's the only league that started ten years ago in the most competitive sports league market and it needed some kind of edge. Every ports league that has triedto start in north America in the last 40 years has failed - and there have been quite a few. So, MLS came upwith this plan as the only one that could have gotten any investment at all. (and really, the NFL is pretty much a single-entity in all actions and it has 32 profit-making, debt-free teams -- a lot of leagues in the world would like that situation).

2) For now, yes, I'm, okay with my money going to strengthen the league. See #1 for the reason. I like having pro soccer in Toronto - but it could easily fail again.

If MLS survives and enough rich owners can be convinced to get involved, it will change the way things are done - but that' a big IF.

[Super]

Okay, I'll take a shot atthe answers, though we've been over this many times before here and we simply disagree. I mean, we have the same goal, we're just looking at different route to get there.

1) MLS is the only league that runs this way because it's the only league that started ten years ago in the most competitive sports league market and it needed some kind of edge. Every ports league that has triedto start in north America in the last 40 years has failed - and there have been quite a few. So, MLS came upwith this plan as the only one that could have gotten any investment at all. (and really, the NFL is pretty much a single-entity in all actions and it has 32 profit-making, debt-free teams -- a lot of leagues in the world would like that situation).

2) For now, yes, I'm, okay with my money going to strengthen the league. See #1 for the reason. I like having pro soccer in Toronto - but it could easily fail again.

If MLS survives and enough rich owners can be convinced to get involved, it will change the way things are done - but that' a big IF.

I understand and agree to some extend that a salary cap may need to be in place to protect the league - that's perfectly fine with me. But to me it's a stretch to also say that this system, and the parity that comes with it, produces a good product - because to me it doesn't. So anyway, to me the arguments FOR the salary cap is a little off. On one hand it's in place to save the league from financial collapse, and yet when certain clubs want to spend extra, and CAN responsibly spend extra, they're told that they can't because it would hurt the parity of the league. On the other hand people are saying that parity produces the best product - and that's why a salary cap should be in place (because God forbid we should get some super clubs).

So what are we protecting here? The parity? Or the financial well-being of the league?

[Beach_Red]

I understand and agree to some extend that a salary cap may need to be in place to protect the league - that's perfectly fine with me. But to me it's a stretch to also say that this system, and the parity that comes with it, produces a good product - because to me it doesn't. So anyway, to me the arguments FOR the salary cap is a little off. On one hand it's in place to save the league from financial collapse, and yet when certain clubs want to spend extra, and CAN responsibly spend extra, they're told that they can't because it would hurt the parity of the league. On the other hand people are saying that parity produces the best product - and that's why a salary cap should be in place (because God forbid we should get some super clubs).

So what are we protecting here? The parity? Or the financial well-being of the league?


The financial well-being. No league has parity, no matter how many artificial contraints are applied, no matter how hard they try. Over time some teams will do better than others because they are better managed. If the salary cap gets high enough, we'll get some supe clubs (unfortunately, Toronto won't be one of them because it's corporate-owned and has middle-management mentality which will never be able to make the bold moves required).

But for the financial well-beng think of the league as a condo building. Sure, your unit can be very well-maintained but if the other units in the building aren't, or if the building's foundations crack and fall apart it doesn't make any difference how well you've kept up your unit, it falls too.

I'm sure when the league went looking for investors they were told people might buy a share of the league, but not of an individual team. Sports ownership has a history of vry poor ownership and the most succssful leagues are the ones where owners are kept in line the best.

[Roogsy]

good column explaining the free agency issue:

http://www.nutmegradio.com/mls-free-agency-why-won%E2%80%99t-mls-budge/

Man, that is an incredibly well explained article.

I learned lots there, thanks Rocker.

[James17930]

Man, that is an incredibly well explained article.

I learned lots there, thanks Rocker.

Yes. To me, this is the most salient point:

"At the end of the day, free agency comes down to a simple question: What evidence does MLS have that supports their position that single entity treatment is the key to long-term success? If the league has thoroughly researched its position, it should be able to articulate why this path is the best way forward for the league’s long-term success. The league should explain its rationale in detail if it wants to take the public position that free agency is off the table. Otherwise, observers are right to be skeptical of the league’s general claim that single entity is necessary in perpetuity."

[dag]

I don't know necessarily which side in this dispute has the better argument, nor do I know which side would be more heavily impacted. But I fear a prolonged strike could cause serious, if nout outright terminal, damage to professional soccer in North America.

A strike in the National Football Leage, Major League Baseball, or the National Basketball Association would have serious ramifications for everyone, and would be felt by millions of fans who follow those leagues. But a prolonged labour dispute involving Major League Soccer could very well kill the league. How many people really care about soccer in America?

[Roogsy]

I don't know necessarily which side in this dispute has the better argument, nor do I know which side would be more heavily impacted. But I fear a prolonged strike could cause serious, if nout outright terminal, damage to professional soccer in North America.

A strike in the National Football Leage, Major League Baseball, or the National Basketball Association would have serious ramifications for everyone, and would be felt by millions of fans who follow those leagues. But a prolonged labour dispute involving Major League Soccer could very well kill the league. How many people really care about soccer in America?

At the end of the day, the issue of fair compensation, the ability to work when a team no longer wants you and the fact that the players get paid substantially less as a percentage of revenues than any other professional league in North America puts me squarely on the player's side.

Not to say they need to get all the concessions from the owners, but the truth is now is the time for the owners to pay for years of having players contracts held hostage and underpaying players.

With the World Cup coming up, the players will not have this kind of leverage over the owners for a long time. The need to capitalize now and I think they know it.

[Keystone FC]

A strike in the National Football Leage, Major League Baseball, or the National Basketball Association would have serious ramifications for everyone, and would be felt by millions of fans who follow those leagues. But a prolonged labour dispute involving Major League Soccer could very well kill the league. How many people really care about soccer in America?

I think a better league to show just how much a strike or lockout affects it's status in the NHL.
When they had their lockout a few years back it REALLY put a damper on hockey enthusists here in the states. I know my affection for hte sport went down quite a bit.
Plus, the NHL and MLS are quite similar in that the NBA, NFL, and to a point MLB are stand alone leagues. They really don't have competition within their sport for fans. The NBA is IT as far as pro basketball. The NFL is IT as far as pro football. The MLB is IT as far as pro baseball.
NHL has to deal not only with its own minor league system but also small pro leagues here and in Europe that may take away some of their viewership and marketing.
MLS has to deal with EPL, Serie A & B, SPL, Spanish League, French League, J League...etc. You can, and will, watch a match every day of the week from a different league other than MLS so every day the MLS is in jeopardy of becoming the old NASL every day they don't promote themselves.
The real nail in the coffin would in sponsorship. Anyone of they many MLS sponsors could easily transfer their resources to another league that is still playing or just shut down it's 'American' unit because they already are a global brand, i.e. Adidas.
On the plus side due to the lack of coverage here in the States the MLS could shut down for 2 years and then start back up again and no one would know the difference...except those of us who care.

[ensco]

The players won't strike during camp, because doing so gives management time to bring in replacements.

The owners can't start the season like this, because the players can hurt them badly by just walking out whenever they feel like, say after a couple of games, or after the World Cup break.

Notwithstanding Abbott's public statements last weekend...

the more I think about this, the more I think the league has to lock the players out before the season starts.

[TFC247]

At the end of the day, the issue of fair compensation, the ability to work when a team no longer wants you and the fact that the players get paid substantially less as a percentage of revenues than any other professional league in North America puts me squarely on the player's side.

Not to say they need to get all the concessions from the owners, but the truth is now is the time for the owners to pay for years of having players contracts held hostage and underpaying players.
"Years of having players contracts held hostage" is quite extreme when considering the fact it wasn't that long ago when owners were losing money by the chunks yet players were still getting their paychecks regardless. It wasn't a charity back then, and it's not a charity now. Meaning, you get paid what you negotiated.

As far as getting paid, in terms of dollar figures, I always wondered how much more these guys should really get paid? There're extreme cases, such as kids getting paid in minimum wages, or handful of players getting paid in several millions. But for the majority of players, who're in between, are they really worth that much more? I mean, one of the common complaint about MLS is how shitty the players are. In other words, if they're shitty now, they'll still be shitty even if they get paid. You look at TV rating, probably the single biggest factor in contributing to the revenue in pro sports, it's getting better but it's still miniscule in comparison. The fact that only way MLS cup would be shown on network TV just so it can replace the infomercial should tell you something about the popularity of the league. Or how about the average attendance other than maybe 3 or 4 clubs. Without Seattle and their +30K, I believe the attendance actually went down, even from the earlier days. And I'm not putting the sole blame on the players nor the owners. I'm only pointing out the reality of soccer (domestic league) and the struggle in North America. I'm not on either players or owners side, if they do raise the cap significantly and spend the money, I'm all for it, it's not my money. But if they do and if I was given a choice, besides increasing the minimum wage, I would rather want to see majority of that money go towards bringing in quality foreign talents than towards current crop of players. The league is littered with likes of Barretts and Garcias. The thought of paying them any more than they do now just want to make me vomit.

[jaahuuu]

It's one of the reasons why I love Green Bay. They are a small market team in a big market league and they've won the Super Bowl numerous times. They defy the odds, even if in recent years they've been weaker. Same with the Roughriders...although that's more of a blood thing.
Aren't these the only pro teams in North America that are directly owned by the public?