Wish this CBA was done already so teams can plan and move on with the preseason. Too bad they can't sort this stuff out prior to training camps. Will suck if any of our decisions are hanging in the balance but I am sure like every team they are.
Wish this CBA was done already so teams can plan and move on with the preseason. Too bad they can't sort this stuff out prior to training camps. Will suck if any of our decisions are hanging in the balance but I am sure like every team they are.
That is true, but they do seem quite limited in scope.Originally Posted by Califax
"Canadian courts will enforce non-competition and non-solicitation agreements, however, the agreement must be limited in time frame, business scope, and geographic scope to what is reasonably required to protect the company's proprietary rights, such as confidential marketing information or client relations[36] and the scope of the agreement must be unambiguously defined."
Also, I don't think it's relevant to these circumstances. Though fair enough, there may be provisions that prevent movement within certain fields outside of football - but I think the decision by the courts indicate that the appetite for this is quite low.
I want to make this clear. My point is that.. not having Free Agency is not akin to slavery. Which is not only a ridiculous comparison it is a little offensive.
As MLS is a Single Entity, players are paid by the league, their contracts are with the league. Free Agency would be like a Data Analysis at XYZ Company in Toronto saying you know what I've been here 15 years... I want to be some place warmer. I'm going to call up the XYZ company's offices in LA and ask them if they would let me work there. If my Manager wants me to stay and deal with winter than he can give me more money or more vacation.
You would laugh at that person because it is a silly idea. Players who have signed with MLS know that it is single Entity. And I'm sorry Free Agency is not something I believe in I think it causes more problems than it solves, and results in inflated salaries
I'd rather see Fully Guaranteed Contracts, High minimum wages, fewer option years and, an increase in the salary cap. Those four things are worth striking on. Free Agency that only affects a few players is not worth striking over.
Lets think about it for a second.
Limited Free Agency which is the best you could hope for. Means that players of a certain calibre can once their contracts are up, talk to any other team in the league, or any other team in any other league.
Currently there is a Re-entry draft, where all players that fall into that range get put and teams that think they may want them get first pick. If they don't get picked they aren't wanted and they can go do what ever they like for the most part. If they do get picked then that team gets a chance to offer a contract.
What the players are unhappy about is... they don't want to talk to Columbus, they want their agent to talk to a Superstar club and try to get them in LA, or New York.
That is what it is... they are willing to strike over the re-entry draft. If you remove the Re-Entry Draft what happens.. very little. Except the Players might be able to start a bidding process between two clubs working inside the cap. That is what this is about... Older players trying to get more money, and are willing to strike and cost younger players wages.
The reality is this. 50+ players were in the Re-entry draft 11 were actually drafted. 8 in the second Round, meaning the clubs wanted to re-negotiate the contract, because they didn't want to pay that rate. Only 7 of 20 teams actually picked up players in this way.
11 players were though worthy... and a few were traded before the draft.
Free Agency is nothing more then a word used by players that think they can get more money if they threaten to walk and talk to another team, where currently the owners can say.. re-entry draft you go... good luck finding someone else that wants to pay that from their cap.
So for me I don't see it as a strike worth issue.
They are also, frequently discarded by the courts or reduced to very short lengths of time. More or less they've come to the conclusion restriction on the free movement of labor is bad. You can keep a senior person on the sidelines for a short period of time, provided they have a bulletproof case. Jr. people it would more or less be tossed. The exception is a business owner being paid by a buyer to takeover his interests, those tend to stand up for longer.
But you've more or less hit the nail on the head: there's simply no appetite in the courts to prevent people from moving freely.
Would most people really laugh at that person though? Is my field that completely different from others? I work as a social worker for a major mental health agency with chapters across Ontario and the rest of the country and it is actually pretty common to switch to a different office. Heck, I've seen it happen this year, with colleagues taking p positions closer to home.
I think the problem with your analogy is you're suggesting that the LA office should take someone just because they ask for it ... this isn't the case in real life, and it isn't the case in soccer (the LA team would have to actually want to sign you at the end of your contract). So, how it'd work at my agency is that an opening comes up say in Peterborough. You let your manager know you are interested in moving (and really even this isn't 'required' but it is courtesy) and you apply for this position. If the interview goes well and they offer you a contract, you work out a transition period with your existing team and then move to the new office. If the other office went with someone else to fill the position, you stay with your team or leave the company if you want to find another job in that city. Is the scenario I presented that strange? I thought it was pretty commonplace. (and note: I am not even suggesting players should be able to leave before the end of their contract.. only suggesting they should have a choice after their contract ends)
Last edited by flamehawk; 01-27-2015 at 12:07 AM.
But this happens in MLS.. a position is open in LA you are in Toronto, you can ask to move.. and you can be told no... or you can be told yes.
Because MLS players are all contract based, at the end of your contract you can get a renewal either in your current location or if one is open else where you can try for that one. If I work as a contract worker it isn't that much different.
And as for your profession, I know having worked for one of the largest companies in Canada trying to move departments or to a different location was difficult. The company doesn't pay moving expenses and your current manager would have to sign off for it. Which I'm sure is the same in your line of work. Players ask to move and often times get to... sometimes they don't.
This is the thing... Striking because you have basically the same rights as every other employee working for a large corporation is not really valid. Get the wages up, get the contracts to a good level, allow players to have a future. Maybe look at tweaking the current system.. but you don't strike because you want special treatment.
I mean if the Owners said look we aren't willing to put free agency on the table, but we will limit options to one year, make contracts guaranteed under x conditions and only semi guaranteed under x condition, and we will double the cap over the next 5 years, and raise minimum and maximum wages accordingly, and we will create a new Domestic DP slot under $1.5 million to help retain talent.
(I doubt that is what is being offered) If that were what is offered, you take it and run.
They players however are saying it doesn't matter what is offered, no free agency they will strike.
What you or I enjoy with our employers or would accept, while fun to debate, is not the bottom line here. The conversion starts and ends at what it takes to attract people who can play soccer we'd pay to watch. Looking around at other leagues it's pretty obvious doing all the things MLS is trying to do is vastly sub-standard. Unless the goal is to continue to have a mix of millionaires and semi-pros on the same team.
Nobody has even addressed the semi-guaranteed contracts / multiple one year option racket, which is likely illegal and would be thrown out in court. Camilo walking away and forcing a deal basically confirms as much.
This SI article by a sport & entertainment lawyer on the MLS CBA frames the surrounding legal issues very well:
http://www.si.com/planet-futbol/2015...entity-lawsuit
The players can get free agency and abolish the single entity structure if they want to sacrifice the season, that article pretty much sums up how its possible.
Whether the players are up for it I don't know.
All I know is that the players in MLS are used to living on a budget, MLS players have a lot less to loose than some NBA/NHL/NFL/MLB player who may owe millions in mortgage payments or some other forms of debt etc.
I think the league will bend but not all the way, they know a sacrifice of the season could set the league and players back a lot as a result of a strike.
One thing that article raises that I hadn't wrapped my head around is the potential of a season or multiple seasons without a new CBA - status quo ante on everything, wages, cap, DPs.
Yes, but he can not move from one MLS club to another once his contract is up. THAT is the issue.
WE DID IT!
No, the issue is they want Columbus to pay them what their worth or find another MLS club that will.
I hope a strike occurs and better yet, I hope the league falls apart because of it.
This is not 1996 anymore. North Americans are more sophisticated now and have an appetite for good soccer. MLS going belly up would not set the sport back at all. People know how profitable the sport can be over here and another professional entity or league will come take its place with a much better product.
That would leave the owners open to a plethora of lawsuits from the players. I do not see the owners doing that.
Last edited by Macksam; 01-27-2015 at 09:55 PM.
Union dude speaks
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/sport...st.html#page=1
our usl-pro team will still run if the mlspu strikes right? ill need something to fill the void if they do
^ that's a good point, USL-P, NASL unaffected by CBA; in some areas, stand to benefit some from cancellation of MLS games.
Like you say, likely TFC II get a few home games in before the TFC home opener. Should know soon - USL-P schedule drops this weekend I think.
Last edited by Detroit_TFC; 01-31-2015 at 09:24 AM.
do they stream the games?
Nope May 23rd is TFCII's Home Opener...
It is actually a shame.. I'd love to see them play Rochester in Rochester.
The DP rule may make it worthwhile for the union to take another run at the single entity on antitrust grounds.
The original proponent of this theory?
Bez.
http://www.soccerwire.com/news/pro/m...entity-status/
https://litigation-essentials.lexisn...df73e1539eb4b2
Last edited by ensco; 02-02-2015 at 09:32 AM.
“What the world needs is more geniuses with humility; there are so few of us left.”
Leads me to wondering if certain parties in the league would prefer free agency. (not necessarily Bez)
Not sure if this has been posted yet. This is something I've wondered about for years. Training compensation/solidarity payments is something MLS/USSF/CSA has avoided but that might change due to an effort by a Jamaican club. Author of this article suggests it should be addressed in the CBA.
https://sports.vice.com/article/the-...-talking-about
The issue with this of course is you have to disband the Union, and no CBA exists at that point, and you basically play under previous rules... or you strike until it is over.
If you strike until it is over.. you will basically loose this season. That means nearly every DP in the league is going to want out of their contract. Orlando, and NYFC will have a tough time in that situation.
So the question becomes do you want to play under the current rules. loose the current CBA the Union, and hope for long term gain without killing the league, which they may not win. Do you Strike/walkout until an Anti-trust lawsuit is over which basically is meaningless as that will all but kill the league. Or at least totally devalue the league and place it back to 2001-2. Or do they give up the idea of Free agency at this point and either make it clear that in 5 years it is non-negotiable (or get a CBA they are happy with and then disband the Union next year under a new CBA and file the Lawsuit then. (Which has it's own set of issues optically)
^I think this is exactly what will happen.
I see that as a very credible threat that the league should take seriously.
Most players aren't giving up that much by sitting out a year, they don't make enough for it to matter.
The NHL and MLB have given up a full year before, and they didn't have a quarter of their members making 60K or less.
“What the world needs is more geniuses with humility; there are so few of us left.”
If they ever went on strike for a year TFC would most likely lose me as a SSH. I used to watch hockey alot more until they had their full season strike years ago. Now I catch a game here and there on TV. I would probably still watch the team on TV when they come back but in the year off I may find other things to do on a Saturday afternoon rather than go to BMO. Guess we will see what happens. I think a season long strike will really hurt the league since it is not necessarily too high on the popularity meter in terms of sporting events in most places already. Hopefully it doesn't happen and we get to start the season BAU.
Would a majority of the current owners in MLS let it go a full year out? I have my doubts. Also, one would hope the owners would realise that one way shape or form free agency is going to arrive but being stupid never stopped somebody from owning a football team.
I also have serious doubts about most of the MLS guys being able to make equal coin in their field coaching. Does anybody think Hagglund is going to make that much coaching? That and the real power brokers in the union are all making between 100 and 300K. They are not going to be able to make that much elsewhere and a striker will hurt them.
The other aspect people are forgetting is these guys only have a limited time when they can play at this level, a level they have been working towards since they were kids. I don't think its that easy to give up a season when you only have so many to play.
Would the players strike? Probably. Would they give up a whole season? Doubtful.
Forget coaching, lot of these guys will walk away from the game and find another line of work. They have nothing to lose.
Interesting too in that Bez's team spending on a couple of players really brings the salary disparity to the forefront. $7M for a player while others are making $60k? C'mon that's just dumb business and the message is heard across the league.
As if that will go very well.....the transferable skills for a lot of these guys are not what they have been working on. Mind you, most of them have parents who will have had enough money to support them through the whole soccer industrial complex, so maybe a few weeks working at the family business?
This would be the worst conceivable time for a work stoppage in the history of MLS. The anticipation among supporters around the league is at an all time high with a record number of recognized internationals joining the league this year. Add to that the excitement surrounding the inaugural seasons of NYC and Orlando with their star studded rosters, and you have the makings of a suicidal move for the future growth of the league.
I think the players union has significant leverage and fan support this time around.
NHL players make a lot more, had more compelling arguments along these lines, and nevertheless stayed out all year once, and nearly did it again two years ago.
“What the world needs is more geniuses with humility; there are so few of us left.”
I'm talking about how much of a window they have to play, not how much they can make. That and the ability of a guy making over a million to have something set aside is a bit bigger then a guy making 40K.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote