Single Entity Thingamabob

[Chewy Unikronik]

On a boring Sunday morning, I was thinking about the the whole single entity thing and how much I dislike it.

Not allowing a team to make their own roster moves, without having to go through the league, and being dictated as to when and where they can use any profits is silly.

I understand the need for fiscal responsibility, but if we sell Edu, WE should be able to benefit from it immediately!

Anyways, this was originally brought to mind when pondering the waste that is the expansion draft. What a piece of crap that is for all involved. I'm not a Eurosnob, but a soccer team being permitted to chose players off of other teams is nutso. Only possible of course due to the single entity structure.

The other item that becomes possible from all of this, are trades. Man, I dislike this more than anything else. Although they get paid (not that well, mind you) to play a game, you have to feel for players who are FORCED to play in places like Kansas City or Dallas, just because they are traded there.

It may be a regular thing in other sports, but it just does not work in the world of soccer. The overall world structure for player movement, does not fit this.

If I were one of the better players in the world, this is one thing that would DEFENITELY scare me away from this league. The knowledge that my rights can be moved, without my consent, doesn't jive so well.

To sum it all up... I personally cannot wait for the last rounds of expansion to take place, so that they can finally stop hand holding teams and do away with the single entity. No more expansion drafts. No more league input on player contracts and movements. No more trades. Hell, no more college draft either.

[rocker]

i think it was an awesome thing to get the league started and growing.
it's probably starting to hinder things. My problem is how long it takes to get contracts signed and approved.
i think the salary cap is excellent, and no matter what they do with structure in the future, the cap needs to stay. But the league is probably multiplying "parity" in a number of ways when a salary cap is probably all you need for parity.

The one great reason to keep the single entity (and this comes totally from the owners' perspective) is that it means they don't have to deal with the players in the same way other NA leagues do. If each team was a separate entity, they'd have to abide by certain antitrust laws, meaning the players have more power to negotiate otherwise they could sue MLS for antitrust. Right now, as a single entity MLS is like 1 company in law and those rules don't apply. Thus the players can't negotiate revenue sharing the way the NBA and NHL does. The league has to negotiate still, but it's on MLS's terms -- particularly as it pertains to the cap number and revenue sharing with players. Certainly the league doesn't have to say to players "look, we'll give you 56% of total revenues."

I know in Europe they don't have single entity, but they also don't have things called "players unions" who sit down and negotiate revenue sharing agreements. So it's a power play here.
That's 1 reason good reason behind having single entity that has nothing to do with the onfield product.

[Beach_Red]

Just for argument's sake, though, that, "Overall structure for player movement," really seems to be one-way movement of the best players to the richest European teams.

Whether it's a single entity, or an agreement of independent teams, some league structure is a good idea to keep every team competitive.

And players may have a "choice" of where they play, unless they only get one offer. Whether it's a single entity with trades or not, if KC is the only team that makes you an offer, you end up in KC.

I think both the MLS and Euro systems are flawed in different ways.

[flatpicker]

does the average soccer player in Europe get to choose where they play?

Don't teams buy and sell players? Isn't that a managerial decision? How is that different from trades?
It's just one commodity for another.

... note... the above is a serious question... I don't fully know what player movement is like over there. Never paid that close attention.

[Hitcho]

Flat Picker Man - when a player is traded in Europe (or any other league of independent clubs not run as a single entity), it requires two things. First off, the clubs have to agree a price and agree to sell/buy the player's registration rights. Secondly, the player has to sign a contract with the buying club. If he won't, then he cannot be forced to go anywhere. he can see out his current contract with the selling club, and then move on a Bosman free transfer to whoever wants to sign him, so long as they can agree a contract in terms of wages, length, etc.

I think this puts too much power in the hands of agents personally, who extort clubs on a crazy basis based on the fact their clients can leave for nothing in a few years and the club loses its investment. But the laternative is worse: ie, the selling club can stop the player from signing with anyone else even after his contract has expired and he's not being paid, because they own his rights. This is exactly what the Bosman decision was designed to prevent (Bosman was being screwed by his club which effectively amounted to a restriction on the right to work - one of the founding freedoms underpinning the European Union Treaty).

[Fort York Redcoat]

does the average soccer player in Europe get to choose where they play?

Don't teams buy and sell players? Isn't that a managerial decision? How is that different from trades?
It's just one commodity for another.

... note... the above is a serious question... I don't fully know what player movement is like over there. Never paid that close attention.

One note is how much coverage the top players get who can decide when and where they want to play is misleading. Much like our leagues over here the lower the skill level of the player the more likely he just wants to play on the best team he can in the best league he can.