Originally Posted by
jloome
This is incorrect, Kaz. Completely. The court ruling on whether MLS violated anti-trust was that it doesn't; but that's only because they have mobility of trade in OTHER leagues. A contract signed with this league is the binding force that controls movement, not the structure of the league itself; if no contract is in place, it would revert to jurisdictional control under state/provincial labor legislation, which in turn would be governed by federal trade legislation and NAFTA.
The league could be deemed legally single-entity and still negotiate contracts that allow players to pick the team that bids highest, without that contract being negotiated by the team.
Here's a more common example: a large company, such as Safeway, has multiple barganining units in multiple countries. While contracts from one may INFLUENCE another, they are not binding on the other local, even though it's the same company. Each local (or TEAM in the case of free agency) negotiates its own deals.
This happens in both union and non union shops. Contracts involving Sun Media staff in eastern Canada had absolutely no impact -- regardless of being helped by a central bargainer who worked for the sun -- on those in Western Canada (when there even were contracts, which was rare).
In this case, it's even less centralized because the current MLS bargainer has to work with the "locals" which are independently owned through investment in a league share structure. The league owners don't JUST get shares in MLS; they also get private shares that designate them as owning and being in charge of their franchise.
In effect, all the league would have to do to allow for free agency is to have the bidding done by sealed tender. At that point, the bids themself cannot be seen to be influencing a "one upmanship" and the owners can't collude (except by directly breaking the law) to keep bids down. Example: A player at 29 gets free agency for Toronto. Last season, he earned `180,000 but was a leading left fullback (total made up example, not referring to Morrow). At the end of a deal, he announces with six months remaining that he'll be exercising free agency. Teams enter sealed bids for service with the league, the player and his rep go over them and choose a team with which to negotiate non-salary points. If a contract can't be reached, the team loses the right to enter a second bid in a second tender round.
This achieves several things: a) players can get their best value within MLS; if no one within MLS makes an appropriate bid, they can either go to another league, or decide to take the best lower bid, or ask an arbitrator to rule on the best bid, ala baseball. b) Players can 't use the salary offer to escalate bids, because they're not open to each team. c) The most contentious part of individual deals being negotiated is taken off the table, leaving secondary considerations such as bonuses, release clauses, trade clauses to be negotiated, significantly improving labor relations across the board.
I'm actually not in favor of free agency being age related, particularly in a league where half the guys are 24 by the time they start playing pro. But three years of continuous service to one club is a pretty good benchmark. If they wanted to build both fan and player-club loyatly, they might even make it four. THey'd also have to allow for cost-of-living clauses such bumps for extreme differences between cities, and no-trade clauses.
But being a legal single entity does not, in any way, prevent them involving local considerations in contract structure, because the relative contracts are the PLAYER deals, not the overarching CBA that sets the guidelines. The CBA is the set of guides they're supposed to follow; player contracts are the power that decides who goes where.
Reply With Quote
