Making Free Agency work with single entity

[jloome]

I'd like to here people's realistic suggestions for a mechanism to take the competitive bidding out of free agency, thereby allowing MLS to keep single-entity status.

I realize none of these will be anyone's ideal. That's not the point of the exercise. I'd like to hear people's ideas for a compromise that would work for both the players and league.

Here's mine:

I'd suggest players could have a highly modified form of free agency after five years of league service.

After five years, the player gets his own rights, but can only negotiate once his current contract has expired, giving his own club time to develop a package that would meet his needs and advantage in resigning him.

There would be no bidding, and instead teams would submit a proposed contract maximum value to the league. The league would assign rights based on a combination of the overall value of the offer and the player's value to the league.

The teams would then be assigned his rights, similar to the current system for discovery players. The first team gets to make an offer first, then the second etc. until the player gets the deal he likes. If none of the bidding teams makes an acceptable offer, the highest dollar offer is combined with his preferred location and an offer is made back to each team by location successively until accepted.

If no one bites at the top dollar offer, the player can repeat the process with the second best dollar offer, best location etc.


It removes the process of bidding against each other from the negotiation, so that teams can maintain they are not competing in business with one another. Single entity is protected, players get freedom to maximize their local market value and still decide where they want to play, and teams can't get into escalating free agent races.

Boom, problem solved.

Plus the league could more rigidly structure the division of the cap to ensure teams don't sign too many high priced free agents, causing a potentially damaging push for premature cap increases.

[Beach_Red]

Doesn't the low salary cap take care of competitive bidding?

[Gobi]

http://sciencetraveler.files.wordpress.com/2008/08/lolcat_what.jpg

Sorry, it's Friday.
Please to be explaining to me at Shoeless tomorrow.

[Ossington Mental Youth]

Doesn't the low salary cap take care of competitive bidding?

essentially what i believe however there is the arguement that teams will over pay a player (the money being spent is the leagues so if they can short change a player they will)

i figure if you want to 400k for Dave Van Den Burgh go ahead, its your cap do waht you want with it

[ensco]

hmmm...if forced to make a trade-off, I think players might care more about picking the team/city where they play/live, as opposed maxing out salary

[Beach_Red]

hmmm...if forced to make a trade-off, I think players might care more about picking the team/city where they play/live, as opposed maxing out salary


Sure, but it would probably depend on the salary.

At some point, though, even owners who believe in the single-entity are going to want more freedom to run their own teams, aren't they?

It really seems to me that if a team is within the salary cap and has enough domestic players that's enough roster restrictions. If one team cuts a player and three other teams want to bid against each other to hire him, as long as they're within the cap, what difference does it make?

[jloome]

hmmm...if forced to make a trade-off, I think players might care more about picking the team/city where they play/live, as opposed maxing out salary

That's why both sides get right of offer and refusal at each stage; you're essentially mediating an acceptable package without the teams going head to head.

Oss, no, the cap isn't enough, because teams that blow their cap on too few players to meet fan expectations are likely to try and address that by pushing for more spending ability.

Plus, just having a cap doesn't protect single entity status, because once teams start bidding against each other directly, it can be argued they're competing. If you do it by centrally negotiating, you avoid a possible anti-trust suit from the players.

[jloome]

Sure, but it would probably depend on the salary.

At some point, though, even owners who believe in the single-entity are going to want more freedom to run their own teams, aren't they?

It really seems to me that if a team is within the salary cap and has enough domestic players that's enough roster restrictions. If one team cuts a player and three other teams want to bid against each other to hire him, as long as they're within the cap, what difference does it make?

YOu're talking about ideal situations. Again, we don't have an ideal situation. It's needs to be a compromise both sides can accept, i.e it protects the legal single-entity status of the league.

[Yeoman]

i've tried to re-read this several times
just doesn't work in my head, nor do i like it at all.
give them free agency
how would you like it if your old job had the rights to you and you couldn't be re-hired anywhere else you choose to do so?

[jloome]

i've tried to re-read this several times
just doesn't work in my head, nor do i like it at all.
give them free agency
how would you like it if your old job had the rights to you and you couldn't be re-hired anywhere else you choose to do so?

You're not understanding the system, Yo. You CAN go anywhere you like under this. You have right of refusal until you get the deal you want.

It's just a laborious mechanism because you need a laborious mechanism to get around breaking up the single-entity status.

But you still get final say on where you go and how much you make. You just can't pawn one offer off against another, because the team's aren't directly bidding against one another.

[Ossington Mental Youth]

Oss, no, the cap isn't enough, because teams that blow their cap on too few players to meet fan expectations are likely to try and address that by pushing for more spending ability.

Plus, just having a cap doesn't protect single entity status, because once teams start bidding against each other directly, it can be argued they're competing. If you do it by centrally negotiating, you avoid a possible anti-trust suit from the players.

good points

[Yeoman]

well why have a wait
that's still what they'd have to do
wait five years before they can?
that i don't
be entitled to it as soon as they sign on

[CoachGT]

So have you sent this on to the league offices yet?

[jloome]

Nah, hell, I'm sure they'll figure something out. I think once they hit mediation it was a sure sign they're going to cut a deal eventually, and if neither side will budge on their basic principle, it'll have to be something like this.

[troy1982]

Your solution wouldn't work because MLS doesn't have "clubs" in the sense you are thinking because MLS is the club.

I don't think you grasp the issue at hand. The problem is how can you claim you are a single entity before a court if you have teams bidding for a player. This is why MLS will not grant free agency as it puts the whole fundamental of the league in jeopardy.

The league has already spent millions defending itself the last time the players brought the league to court and won. I can't see them just giving it up this time

[ensco]

I don't think you grasp the issue at hand. The problem is how can you claim you are a single entity before a court if you have teams bidding for a player. This is why MLS will not grant free agency as it puts the whole fundamental of the league in jeopardy.

The league has already spent millions defending itself the last time the players brought the league to court and won. I can't see them just giving it up this time

Sorry but that's not right, at all. Except for the part where you say the league is worried.

1) Lots of businesses have competitive bidding models within a single ownership system (eg fast food franchisees).

2) The league spent virtually nothing the last time. 8 fringe players filed in 2000, the case was thrown out in a district court. You can find bs threads that discuss it, lots of people think that the issue wasn't really decided by that minor suit.

If I were MLS, I wouldn't want to see the MLS players union take this on for real.

[jazzy]

I'd like to here people's realistic suggestions for a mechanism to take the competitive bidding out of free agency, thereby allowing MLS to keep single-entity status.

I realize none of these will be anyone's ideal. That's not the point of the exercise. I'd like to hear people's ideas for a compromise that would work for both the players and league.

Here's mine:

I'd suggest players could have a highly modified form of free agency after five years of league service.

After five years, the player gets his own rights, but can only negotiate once his current contract has expired, giving his own club time to develop a package that would meet his needs and advantage in resigning him.

There would be no bidding, and instead teams would submit a proposed contract maximum value to the league. The league would assign rights based on a combination of the overall value of the offer and the player's value to the league.

The teams would then be assigned his rights, similar to the current system for discovery players. The first team gets to make an offer first, then the second etc. until the player gets the deal he likes. If none of the bidding teams makes an acceptable offer, the highest dollar offer is combined with his preferred location and an offer is made back to each team by location successively until accepted.

If no one bites at the top dollar offer, the player can repeat the process with the second best dollar offer, best location etc.


It removes the process of bidding against each other from the negotiation, so that teams can maintain they are not competing in business with one another. Single entity is protected, players get freedom to maximize their local market value and still decide where they want to play, and teams can't get into escalating free agent races.

Boom, problem solved.

Plus the league could more rigidly structure the division of the cap to ensure teams don't sign too many high priced free agents, causing a potentially damaging push for premature cap increases.

wow, deep well thought out, just think 5 years is too long, for me, two things that are ridiculous are 1) low level of pay for bottom rung players..+2) If you are released, should be like NFL, you're free to go where ever you want, and I mean you can't walk out of a contract.

[prizby]

screw any realistic suggestion

until the MLS actually starts listening to someone other than Don Garber, there is no need to waste our time here

[Roogsy]

Would this stand up to the single-entity test? Because in my opinion, that is the league's biggest concern, not whether free agency drives up bids on players.

[troy1982]

Sorry but that's not right, at all. Except for the part where you say the league is worried.

1) Lots of businesses have competitive bidding models within a single ownership system (eg fast food franchisees).

2) The league spent virtually nothing the last time. 8 fringe players filed in 2000, the case was thrown out in a district court. You can find bs threads that discuss it, lots of people think that the issue wasn't really decided by that minor suit.

If I were MLS, I wouldn't want to see the MLS players union take this on for real.

My point is the OP hasn't address how MLS will be able to protect itself legally if free agency is introduced and also how can MLS out bid itself for a player since we don't have individual clubs.

[TFC John]

Maybe it's because I'm reading "the Fix" by Declan Hill right now but another solution is also obvious. Let the league do whatever they want and the players will make their money off of gamblers by fixing games. That's what happened in Britain in the 1950's and in Asia 10 years ago. In a league that has so much "parity" who could even tell if an MLS game was fixed? A player who feels he is mistreated by his club is open to bribery to throw a game.

[jloome]

wow, deep well thought out, just think 5 years is too long, for me, two things that are ridiculous are 1) low level of pay for bottom rung players..+2) If you are released, should be like NFL, you're free to go where ever you want, and I mean you can't walk out of a contract.

I'm not sure you'd get the owners to agree to less than four.

But yeah, obviously the retention of rights thing really has to go, as long it doesn't void an existing deal with the league. That's just unnecessary.

On minimum salaries, my understanding is that it was agreed early that they would be going up by at least inflationary amounts.

Troy, again, I'm not sure you read it. The whole point of the exercise is that they're not actively bidding against each other. They're putting in a series of offers to the league, the league is tailoring a package, then assigning rights.

There is no competitive one-on-one bidding in this. There's competition, but it's mediated by the single-entity, so it wouldn't violate anti-trust.

[jloome]

My point is the OP hasn't address how MLS will be able to protect itself legally if free agency is introduced and also how can MLS out bid itself for a player since we don't have individual clubs.

Actually, that's the entire point of the thread. There is no bidding against each other in this model. So yes, it has addressed that.

[troy1982]

Actually, that's the entire point of the thread. There is no bidding against each other in this model. So yes, it has addressed that.

"....If none of the bidding teams makes an acceptable offer, the highest dollar offer is combined with his preferred location and an offer is made back to each team by location successively until accepted."

from your OP.

[jloome]

"....If none of the bidding teams makes an acceptable offer, the highest dollar offer is combined with his preferred location and an offer is made back to each team by location successively until accepted."

from your OP.

Bidding is not the same thing as "bidding against each other." The equivalent would be a closed tender process for a contract.

And even within single entity, the clubs are separate businesses; they pay their own internal staff separately. The league is only single-entity with respect to players, not other MLS employees.

[Canadian Blue]

Teams should only be able to spend what they earn in football related revenue.....this should go for all leagues

[mmmikey]

And even within single entity, the clubs are separate businesses; they pay their own internal staff separately. The league is only single-entity with respect to players, not other MLS employees.

I think this is the part of mls claiming single entity that bugs me the most. I do like the tendering process u came up with, it's constructive and doesn't involve either the "status quo" or blow it up arguments. definitely in short supply!! but it's disturbing that mls is able to argue they are single entity when outside of player contracts they are most definitely a multiple entity league. Certainly seems a little too convenient, and I'm sure it doesn't sit well with the players..

Any idea what the relative compensation is for the front office and coaching staff ppl?

It's a valid point that player compensation is a sporting teams greatest expense (aside from debt payments *cough*) so MLS needs to control it for the stability of the league (putting aside arguments that some markets will get carried ;).

It seems to me the real issue here is that alot of MLS teams don't have the money to use in player movement and that outside of that there is no other item of significant value.. once UFA is introduced, it will concentrate more money into the hands of the DeRo's (not calling him greedy, its his right, but he is demanding high compensation so he is a good example to use) of the MLS, while leaving less for the mid tier players.

there needs to be a way to allow players to have greater negotiating rights, while still providing limits to the spending a team can do. maybe something along the lines of breaking the cap down into salary increments. slots of 300-400k, 200-299, 150-200, 100-150, 75-100, etc on down with smaller granularity as the price goes down. each team then is allowed a max number in each slot (2 top end, 2 of the 2nd, 3 of the third... etc). along with the signing of a player of a particular salary slot, assign a compensation requirement.

i.e. -team 1 has a player making 175k and his contract is up for renewal. he has obviously become a star but they already have 2 contracts at 300-400k.
-team 2 uses a top level salary slot to offer him a deal in the 300+ range.. the player JUMPS at it, however team 2 must now compensate team 1 with a first round draft pick in the next draft.
-if team 2 doesnt have the pick? they can't off any 300-400k contracts that year to other MLS FA's unless they were released by their previous club. maybe they can offer a reduced level contract at a lower 200-299k range where they have the compensation needed (2nd rounder??). or team 3 steps in because they do have the pick required..
-team 1 loses a young star, but they now get a top level pick to refresh their squad.
-if the player is cut by the club (ie serioux), no compensation is received.

this would provide players that DESERVE it an opportunity to rise in pay and to move about the league. this would also allow a player who have been cut, to freely seek a new deal from another team. also, it removes the heavy haggling that goes on with some of these trades, since the compensation system is preset. u either have a pick, or u don't.. i also like the idea that you could limit a dumb GMs ability to destroy the teams salary structure and in the end negatively affect the product on the field (*cough* mo *cough*).

of course this is NOT a well thought out process... ;) but the point is there is many ways to limit the (over)spending and provide compensation to teams within MLS without requiring a single entity system that restricts player movements and a teams ability to go out and try to improve itself. its just a matter of providing checks and balances.

[ensco]

jloome called it. They are instituting some sort of re-entry draft for players out of contract.

[rocker]

jloome called it. .

he called for a re-entry draft?

[Ossington Mental Youth]

jloome called it. They are instituting some sort of re-entry draft for players out of contract.

HAHA was just coming to say the same thing

[mmmikey]

at least they came up with SOMETHING! players probably clinched it by saying "hey... u could trade rights to your draft slots too!!!"

[TFCRegina]

Probably.

Re-entry draft won't increase salaries, but it will allow players who are unwanted by certain managers to catch on with a different team.

What it means is a grudge bearing manager can't ruin a career.