The official CBA thread

[Waggy]

There's a huge difference between revenue and profit. I'd easily believe the MLS as an entity lost $100 million as cash flow (players, new stadiums etc), but they gained far more then that in assets (future TV deals, stadiums, players, merch sales, future ticket sales etc). MLS financially is in one of the best positions of any soccer league in the world thanks to the salary cap. But the model is based on being a 3rd tier league, and now the league is knocking on the door of the top tier. Nothing wrong with keeping the cap but players should ALL be paid a more than livable wage (that means WAY more than a 50k minimum salary, minimum should prob be around 200k), and 5-6 DP's outside of that structure. Can every team afford it? No. But how many teams could afford 3 DP's when they put that rule in. The rules should lead growth not follow it.

[buddies]

Not saying they need to make a huge jump in one contract but if they want to compete with the top leagues in the world within the next 10 years and this contract is 3 or 4 years long, enough with the lipstick on a pig incremental increases. Either state your intent honestly and say we want to compete with the top leagues in the world and don't just talk the talk, walk the walk too!!

http://www.theguardian.com/football/...lub-david-conn

If you are just pulling the chain of the fans lets put things in perspective. If we were to go out and buy the entire Peterborough United squad from the English Championship ...

http://www.theguardian.com/news/data...-the-wage-bill

it would cost us 6.2 Million Pounds ... about $10M ... and how impressed would the TFC fan base be with that? They wouldn't. As a group they'd be pissed if that was the level we were shooting for but that's the going rate. If the salary cap is any less than $10M (which IMO it will be) the league has to cut the crap and stop misleading it's fan base.

http://sport.stv.tv/football/clubs/h...season-201011/

More than likely next year's salary cap is going to fall somewhere comparable to a Scottish Premiership Team. Once we see the new number I wonder which underwhelming team we could afford ... more than likely something comparable to Inverness Caley Thistle or my own personal favourite ... St Mirren.

[ensco]

^Great find on that Guardian story laying out wages in the Championship. I mean, they have the opposite problem, they pay too much, but, I mean, wow....

Makes you feel like a chump for watching MLS at all.

I see Getafe play Valencia at 3pm tomorrow....

[Initial B]

The real question is - could a Championship team defeat an MLS team at least 50% of the time? If not, then Championship players are overpaid. We need to stop looking east at Europe for players and start looking south.

[Waggy]

The real question is - could a Championship team defeat an MLS team at least 50% of the time? If not, then Championship players are overpaid. We need to stop looking east at Europe for players and start looking south.

In pro sports salaries are a reflection of overall league revenues, not an individuals skill level. If the Championship brings in the kind of revenue that they can pay players that much then that's what they should be paid. Just every manager should be fired for making terrible decisions.

[Yohan]

http://www.si.com/planet-futbol/2014...er-free-agency

long, but must read

[Ajax TFC]

Honestly, just let the players have free agency. So long as the cap is there, it won't make a whole lot of difference. If a player's team only wants to give them the minimum offer in order to keep their MLS rights, and another team is willing to pay them say 200k, then why not let them move to the team that's willing to use the cap space on them? In the end all the teams still have to be cap compliant

[KGH]

I'm OK with the idea of letting them have FA after 2 contracts. It's pretty close to how the NHL has their RFA & FA.

I was doing some thinking and I think a salary cap of $4.7M with a minimum salary of $75k would be a good next step. To come to the $4.7M I broke a team down as follows:

1) 4 DPs @ $400k = $1,600,000
3) 2 @ $300k = $600,000
4) 6 @ $250k = $1,500,000
5) 5 @ $125k = $625,000
6) 5 @ $75k = $375,000
7) 8 non cap players (GA's, HG) minimum compensation of $75k but $15k each year of contract must be put into education fund to cover future education costs should they flame out. Logic here is a HG player is likely giving up a scholarship to pursue the dream.

Lastly, 4 DPs:
1) Young DP - Under 24
2) Domestic DP (Must be a national team member in US or CAN)
3) 2 other DPs

[Pookie]

Honestly, just let the players have free agency. So long as the cap is there, it won't make a whole lot of difference. If a player's team only wants to give them the minimum offer in order to keep their MLS rights, and another team is willing to pay them say 200k, then why not let them move to the team that's willing to use the cap space on them? In the end all the teams still have to be cap compliant

Here's where my head hurts.

How do you have free agency, ie teams competing for the services of a player and bidding up salaries in a "free market" when the legal contract and salary is the responsibility of the league?

Player x could move from Columbus to LA. Their contract and salary are still signed with and paid by MLS.

Is the league really going to be bidding against itself?

[ag futbol]

Here's where my head hurts.

How do you have free agency, ie teams competing for the services of a player and bidding up salaries in a "free market" when the legal contract and salary is the responsibility of the league?

Player x could move from Columbus to LA. Their contract and salary are still signed with and paid by MLS.

Is the league really going to be bidding against itself?

It already does. They would argue it's like two divisions of the same company wanting the same employee, but really it's about preserving single entity and restricting bargaining rights.

[Pookie]

It already does. They would argue it's like two divisions of the same company wanting the same employee, but really it's about preserving single entity and restricting bargaining rights.

How does it bid against itself now?

[ag futbol]

How does it bid against itself now?

You see it with incoming DP players, they try to force everyone to bid internally and only have one club competing but it spills over.

Watch with Torres this winter. Bet you it won't look like a single entity.

[Pookie]

You see it with incoming DP players, they try to force everyone to bid internally and only have one club competing but it spills over.

Watch with Torres this winter. Bet you it won't look like a single entity.

But teams can make discovery claims on players and DPs prior to coming to the league for the express purpose of avoiding bidding wars.

Further, the bulk of players aren't DPs so what we are talking about is whether a guy like Lovitiz would be able to get a raise from another team if he reached a certain age. The fact that the cheque comes from MLS means it is highly unlikely.

[ag futbol]

But teams can make discovery claims on players and DPs prior to coming to the league for the express purpose of avoiding bidding wars.

Further, the bulk of players aren't DPs so what we are talking about is whether a guy like Lovitiz would be able to get a raise from another team if he reached a certain age. The fact that the cheque comes from MLS means it is highly unlikely.

Technicalities and subterfuge.

Bradley came to MLS, teams lined up bids; they publicly bitched about how much money TFC offered after the fact. Same has happened with others. When push comes to shove their separate nature bubbles to the surface.

Teams are privately bidding for players rights via trades. Player agents also discuss with the clubs privately the likelyhood they would sign and for how much. Nobody is going to trade SKC for Collin's rights unless they have an indication they can sign him and how much that costs. That is, in another round about way, clubs competing.

[Pookie]

Technicalities and subterfuge.

Bradley came to MLS, teams lined up bids; they publicly bitched about how much money TFC offered after the fact. Same has happened with others. When push comes to shove their separate nature bubbles to the surface.

Teams are privately bidding for players rights via trades. Player agents also discuss with the clubs privately the likelyhood they would sign and for how much. Nobody is going to trade SKC for Collin's rights unless they have an indication they can sign him and how much that costs. That is, in another round about way, clubs competing.

Mostly you are taking about DPs that are already "free agents" so to speak in that they are not under contract to MLS.

There are over 300 players, including Collin that are signed with MLS. When he moves, so do his terms. There is no bidding for his service, other than a trade offer. His cheque still comes from MLS regardless of the contract or colour of his kit.

[Beach_Red]

Mostly you are taking about DPs that are already "free agents" so to speak in that they are not under contract to MLS.

There are over 300 players, including Collin that are signed with MLS. When he moves, so do his terms. There is no bidding for his service, other than a trade offer. His cheque still comes from MLS regardless of the contract or colour of his kit.

Sure, but it's not really so cut and dried. MLS is still a work in progress, still trying to find the right formula. All these rules are subject to change at any time.

[ag futbol]

Mostly you are taking about DPs that are already "free agents" so to speak in that they are not under contract to MLS.

There are over 300 players, including Collin that are signed with MLS. When he moves, so do his terms. There is no bidding for his service, other than a trade offer. His cheque still comes from MLS regardless of the contract or colour of his kit.

Again, the cheque is a technicality. If every NHL or NBA player received their cheque from the NBA does that say anything about what different teams do to acquire the player and what they are willing to pay? It does not.

I'll stand by my original statement, there is bidding. It is not done in public, but it exists. What MLS has done, but having bird rights on out of contract players is increased the cost of other clubs to acquire the same player in the market. So if TFC want to go out and acquire Collin, they have to pay whatever his salary demands are and they have to pay SKC for the right to sign him. This keeps at least a portion of the money in house, but the issue is his bird right fee doesn't exist if that player wants to sign in any other league, so you see players leave who would otherwise stay because of the increased cost of keeping someone in the league.

Do you actually think a MLS GM would trade for someone's rights and otherwise not give any consideration to what that player wants to sign after the fact? It is not plainly obvious that both the player agents and the GMs have a lot of incentives to work the back-channels as a means of price discovery? Come on, this is business 101 here.

[Pookie]

So if TFC want to go out and acquire Collin, they have to pay whatever his salary demands are and they have to pay SKC for the right to sign him.

But they don't. Right now, TFC would pay nothing for Collin.

50% of revenue goes into a league pool. The league pool is used to pay salaries, like Collin's. Collins contract is assigned as a budget charge to whichever team holds his rights.

If the budget charge exceeds the budget assigned... by MLS... to the team they simply float some allocation money their way for "reasons deemed acceptable by the competition committee" if desired.

Think of it as a fantasy pool of sorts with some kind of value assigned to the team. If Collin or his agents desire a raise, they don't lobby a team. They lobby the league. Now, they might ask a team to speak to the league but Sales/Business 101 tells you that the person that signs the cheque is the Economic Buyer. The power to accept or deny contracts rests solely with the league. (See Melberg as an example).

Do you actually think a MLS GM would trade for someone's rights and otherwise not give any consideration to what that player wants to sign after the fact?

What the player wants is irrelevant. The player is under contract to MLS not the team. If they have an existing contract those are the terms. They either report to the team they are assigned to or they don't get paid by the league. If they are on an expiring contract it doesn't matter as long as the team makes a "bonafide offer" they retain their rights. If not, the player goes to the draft process. They can't get out from under the league.

Free agency can only come via the end of single entity which would likely also mean the end of revenue sharing. Teams would actually pay wages for players. Contracts would be held with teams not the league. Only then could bidding benefit the players.

The current system has successfully kept costs down by design. It would continue to keep costs down if free agency were introduced and single entity still reigned. But it can't. In fact, the legal case for free agency requires proof that single entity isn't necessary and isn't in play. MLS will do all it can to protect its current structure and avoid free agency.

[ag futbol]

But they don't. Right now, TFC would pay nothing for Collin.

50% of revenue goes into a league pool. The league pool is used to pay salaries, like Collin's. Collins contract is assigned as a budget charge to whichever team holds his rights.

If the budget charge exceeds the budget assigned... by MLS... to the team they simply float some allocation money their way for "reasons deemed acceptable by the competition committee" if desired.

Think of it as a fantasy pool of sorts with some kind of value assigned to the team. If Collin or his agents desire a raise, they don't lobby a team. They lobby the league. Now, they might ask a team to speak to the league but Sales/Business 101 tells you that the person that signs the cheque is the Economic Buyer. The power to accept or deny contracts rests solely with the league. (See Melberg as an example).

To use a Kevin Payne phase when it comes to allocation money and other league stuff: is is all fungible. Whether these teams are trading gold, trinkets, or baseball cards they have value behind them. Collin's ability to lobby the league for a raise depends on the team's perception of value, not head office. Head office is not going to offer Colin a $100K raise if the club isn't onside with it.

Again, your being snowed by layers in the process. You're looking at the league going to the player and negotiating the contract and the name on the cheque. That's not what drives the process. The process is driven by clubs who need players to win and players who want to get paid the most money possible. The central bureaucracy of the league is meant to slow that down and it does, but it doesn't completely eliminate the ability to bargain.

What the player wants is irrelevant. The player is under contract to MLS not the team. If they have an existing contract those are the terms. They either report to the team they are assigned to or they don't get paid by the league. If they are on an expiring contract it doesn't matter as long as the team makes a "bonafide offer" they retain their rights. If not, the player goes to the draft process. They can't get out from under the league.

Free agency can only come via the end of single entity which would likely also mean the end of revenue sharing. Teams would actually pay wages for players. Contracts would be held with teams not the league. Only then could bidding benefit the players.

The current system has successfully kept costs down by design. It would continue to keep costs down if free agency were introduced and single entity still reigned. But it can't. In fact, the legal case for free agency requires proof that single entity isn't necessary and isn't in play. MLS will do all it can to protect its current structure and avoid free agency.

Disagree. Guys have renegotiated terms under existing contracts, Henry and Osorio being two of those on TFC.

I am not arguing that the players explicitly have all the rights they would under free agency. What I'm saying is competition for players already exists, it's just hidden behind walls because MLS badly wants to control costs. In the end, it's self-regulation where the participants have an incentive to cheat. There are about a billion examples of how well that works, see NCAA athletics for one example.

[ensco]

I wonder if the players will are willing to "die on the hill" of getting "the single entity" system undone here.

With all the new deep-pocket owners, the TV contract ... feels like now or never to me. But they'd have to be willing to sit for a year to get it, I think.

[Pookie]

To use a Kevin Payne phase when it comes to allocation money and other league stuff: is is all fungible. Whether these teams are trading gold, trinkets, or baseball cards they have value behind them. Collin's ability to lobby the league for a raise depends on the team's perception of value, not head office. Head office is not going to offer Colin a $100K raise if the club isn't onside with it.

agfutbol, I love reading your opinion on many things.

Don't get caught up in the optics though. The CBA very clearly spells out that the union waived its right to bargain over elements of player movement.

Disagree. Guys have renegotiated terms under existing contracts, Henry and Osorio being two of those on TFC.

Have they? Because dating back to 2006, the CBA has guaranteed a minimum raise of 5% per year for players like Henry. For example:

Section 18.13 Annual Base Salary Increase: Each SPA covering more than one (1) Season
(including years in which MLS has an option to extend the SPA), and which provides the Player
with a Base Salary of less than $60,000, shall provide for annual increases in base salary of not
less than five percent (5%) per annum.


Maybe Henry was simply exercising his rights under the CBA. Again though, all approvals and negotiation would ultimately end with the league.

I am not arguing that the players explicitly have all the rights they would under free agency. What I'm saying is competition for players already exists, it's just hidden behind walls because MLS badly wants to control costs. In the end, it's self-regulation where the participants have an incentive to cheat. There are about a billion examples of how well that works, see NCAA athletics for one example.

I don't see how competition for players exist when the league has mandated the legal right to move players wherever they see fit.

Dating back to 2006, the CBA is very clear that the player's legal rights reside with the league:

Section 8.2 Except as otherwise limited hereunder, a Player shall perform his duties and
responsibilities at such place or places and at such times as may be designated by MLS. A
Player’s services may be assigned to the central MLS player pool or to any Team (or Reserve
Team or Development Squad) in the League….MLS will notify the Player as to the Team to which he shall initially be assigned




I would agree that teams compete for discovery signings. And increasingly exhibit competitive behaviours in terms of trades and drafting. As it stands now though, free agency within a single entity system with clauses like the above, would mean little to nothing for players. All the power, the legal definitive power, would reside with the league.

[Ajax TFC]

I think right now players who are out of contract are essentially RFAs. Lets say a player is making 100k on their old contract, but pulled a Wondo and suddenly feels that they are worth 300k, but their team doesn't want to use that much of their cap on them. Since MLS is far from the only league in the world, said player can simply leave go find a team in another league to play for if their MLS team doesn't pay them what they're worth. So the MLS team has three options. Either pay them what they want; offer them a 5% increase in salary in order to maintain their MLS rights; or trade their rights to a different MLS team that will offer them what they want. The team will trade the player's rights away because it's useless to them to own the rights to a player who's not going to play for you for what you're willing to offer them.

I don't think UFA would really do a whole lot to inflate salaries since with the cap so low, no team is going to offer anyone much more than their worth anyway. And the way I see it, it's the cap that ensures financial stability, not restricted free agency. The league isn't going to care whether player A makes 100k and player B makes 300k or they both make 200k. All they'll really care about is that they're paying 400k to those two players on that team.

[Areathrasher]

agfutbol, I love reading your opinion on many things.

Don't get caught up in the optics though. The CBA very clearly spells out that the union waived its right to bargain over elements of player movement.



Have they? Because dating back to 2006, the CBA has guaranteed a minimum raise of 5% per year for players like Henry. For example:

Section 18.13 Annual Base Salary Increase: Each SPA covering more than one (1) Season
(including years in which MLS has an option to extend the SPA), and which provides the Player
with a Base Salary of less than $60,000, shall provide for annual increases in base salary of not
less than five percent (5%) per annum.
.

Osorios salary jumped from the 40k to 140k range.

[Pookie]

I think right now players who are out of contract are essentially RFAs. Lets say a player is making 100k on their old contract, but pulled a Wondo and suddenly feels that they are worth 300k, but their team doesn't want to use that much of their cap on them. Since MLS is far from the only league in the world, said player can simply leave go find a team in another league to play for if their MLS team doesn't pay them what they're worth. So the MLS team has three options. Either pay them what they want; offer them a 5% increase in salary in order to maintain their MLS rights; or trade their rights to a different MLS team that will offer them what they want. The team will trade the player's rights away because it's useless to them to own the rights to a player who's not going to play for you for what you're willing to offer them.

I don't think UFA would really do a whole lot to inflate salaries since with the cap so low, no team is going to offer anyone much more than their worth anyway. And the way I see it, it's the cap that ensures financial stability, not restricted free agency. The league isn't going to care whether player A makes 100k and player B makes 300k or they both make 200k. All they'll really care about is that they're paying 400k to those two players on that team.

It's complicated but you aren't far off the mark. Except let me fix it up to describe what actually happens and the subtle difference is what we are all stuck on.

Lets say a player is making 100k on their old contract, but pulled a Wondo and suddenly feels that they are worth 300k, but their team doesn't want to use that much of their cap on them.

Possible. But MLS flexes the "cap" for teams all the time with allocation money. They did it for Dero, as a non-DP and for O'Dea and others. DeRo is actually a good example to illustrate your point. Let's revisit that.

Since MLS is far from the only league in the world, said player can simply leave go find a team in another league to play for if their MLS team doesn't pay them what they're worth.

MLS teams don't pay. MLS does. When DeRo was in a debate with TFC over his contract, MLS actually came out and said he was on the right type of contract for a player of his skill. It wasn't up to TFC what they would pay DeRo. It was up to MLS. When he was traded to NY, his contract went with him.

Was their conversation behind the scenes about finding a number that makes him happy? Probably. Would a team be involved in that? Probably. Would MLS ultimately have the call to make? Absolutely.

Another example is Melberg. TFC and the agent agreed to a number that they brought to the league. MLS felt that the deal wasn't in the league's interest so they nixed it. Ultimate decision rests with the league.

So the MLS team has three options. Either pay them what they want; offer them a 5% increase in salary in order to maintain their MLS rights; or trade their rights to a different MLS team that will offer them what they want. The team will trade the player's rights away because it's useless to them to own the rights to a player who's not going to play for you for what you're willing to offer them.

The 3rd option is the sticking point. Teams don't pay salaries, MLS's revenue shared pool of funds does.

If MLS sets a limit on the number of contracts they will have, they ultimately decide if they can pay a player more out of this central pool. If MLS has $60M for salaries, that's all they have. If players are routinely asking for more and holding out, it will drive costs beyond what MLS can pay. Not the teams. Teams don't pay salaries.

That's why replacing DPs who are injured is so problematic. TFC could afford to go out and get one (beyond the max that the league pays). But it doesn't work that way. MLS pays the amount up to the max. Teams cover the difference. MLS can't be paying $350k for replacement players league wide. It would blow their budget. It simply can't afford to replace DPs.

It isn't a world of absolutes and as pointed out by a few year, it is a moving target. But we can't oversimply a very complicated structure that is different than most sports leagues we are familiar with. Free agency may be the goal for players but it will mean relatively little unless single entity goes away. Legal and financial power rests with the league.

[Richard]

Bush league non sense, top 20 league my ass.

[ag futbol]

Pookie, certainly respect your opinion as well. Little debate around here is always healthy

[ensco]

Lampard being held by Man City through May is possibly interesting data about ownerships' view of the likelihood of a lockout/strike.

[Richard]

Not really, its more like Lampard unexpectedly became useful for Man City.

Got to love Man City though, have your farm club pay the wages to get around financial fair play rules.

[Areathrasher]

Not really, its more like Lampard unexpectedly became useful for Man City.

Got to love Man City though, have your farm club pay the wages to get around financial fair play rules.

He doesnt have an NYCFC contract and has been a city player the whole time.

However it is has emerged that Lampard has never been on loan at City from NYC but instead signed a deal that extended beyond New Year’s Eve. The champions had to have the existing terms amended to have a break clause removed and were granted permission to do so by the Premier League on Thursday.

As no player can be registered to two clubs at the same time Lampard is officially on City’s books. He may possibly have a signed a pre-contract agreement or agreed terms with City Football Group, the parent company of both clubs.

http://www.theguardian.com/football/...P=share_btn_tw

[Richard]

He doesnt have an NYCFC contract and has been a city player the whole time.

Makes this all the more hilarious.