The Sweeper: Players, MLS Break the Silence on CBA Talks
Big Story
Reacting to player comments on on-going collective bargaining agreement talks made on Friday (part of a clumsy player PR ploy, according to Jason Davis), Major League Soccer president Mark Abbott has spoken out on the league’s position on a new CBA. While he defended the league’s offer to players, mentioning a proposed increase in league salary spending to $60 million over the next five years, he also spoke about the major sticking point in negotiations: free agency under MLS’ single-entity structure. Steve Goff quotes Abbott:
“That is something the league is not prepared to do,” [Abbott] said of free agency within MLS. “What is important to understand is that our league is in a different situation than the other professional sports leagues in North America. When it comes to players, we function in an international market and other leagues are not subject to our salary budget and do have greater resources. It is that dynamic that makes us different from other sports leagues in the U.S., and that’s why we don’t believe free agency works for us. The players have an opposite view, but our view is that it’s not something that is good for the continued growth and development of the league. Our system was designed to counteract the international market.”
Both Goff and Kenn Tomasch question how allowing players released from their club to move freely between MLS teams will destabilize the league and raise costs for owners. Goff asks, “What is the harm in a player declaring his intent to remain in MLS but wanting to play for a different club?” Meanwhile, Tomasch also wonders, “If you don’t want a player, why shouldn’t he be free to seek employment elsewhere (like any other worker in any other field in America)?”
Whatever the league’s rationale behind rejecting free agency for players (feel free to sort through Abbott’s remarks on Soccer by Ives for more on the subject), it’s apparently enough to force a work stoppage. MLS has already stated it’s more than happy to start the season without a new CBA, putting the onus to strike on the players. Several bloggers, including Fake Sigi, have already argued the league will have the upper hand in any work stoppage, so it remains to be seen how far players will be willing to go to challenge the arguably illogical notion that some form of free agency will kill MLS’ single-entity structure, rob it of all its players, and bankrupt the league.
Quick Hits
- Kenn Tomasch with an excellent article detailing the last professional soccer strike in America, the NASL in 1979. It didn’t last long, didn’t involve everyone, and was generally a big, fat mess: “For less than a week in 1979, the NASL played a confusing game of ‘What’s My Lineup? with some players walking out, some walking on, and many walking around wondering exactly what was happening.” How much there is to learn from this “strike” for this time around remains to be seen…
- Meanwhile, at the other end of the spectrum, Jaime Jackson continues his excellent coverage of Portsmouth’s winding-up woes for the Guardian, today revealing some sticky details about Pompey’s enormous wage bill: “Once tax and NI payments are added to the basic £1.8m players receive each month, and other staff wages are taken into account, the club are still shelling out far more in wages than their Premier league TV money and matchday income combined. The chief executive, Peter Storrie, accounts for more than £100,000 a month and earns £1.4m a year.”
- Depending on your point of view, the remarks of a spokesman for the Manchester United Supporters Trust quoted in the Independent this morning will either be heartening or maddening: “This is surely no coincidence. United have scored an incredible 19 goals, and the fantastic atmosphere created by all supporters, but especially those wearing the colours of green and gold, has undoubtedly been transmitting to the players on the pitch.”
Email This Post
Hmm…I’m not sure I characterized it as clumsy. More than anything, I was just trying to draw my readers’ attention to the coordinated nature of it.
well, I guess ‘obvious’ would have been more apt.
I would love to see the context of that quote from MUST, and it’s curious the name of the spokesperson isn’t given. Could be wrong, but it sounds more like it might be a journalist taking some words out of context and making mischief….wouldn’t be the first time with the media coverage of MUST.
I think at some point supporters have to take a stand in this, I believe the players are totally justified in what they’re asking for.
Three Words: Restricted Free Agency.
The fact both sides are speaking publicly about negotiations makes me think, sadly, that a lockout/strike is inevitable.
Obviously, the two sides think the other is bluffing and only a quasi free agency compromise can lead to a new CBA.
I’m excited to see Jimmy Conrad play at FC Scandinavia this spring at least. Anybody got any good stream links for the Iceland League?
Jason – I also have a great screenshot of a tweet from you in December about how I shouldn’t be worried about the CBA talks. I’m so glad I had no reason to be concerned.
Elliot-
Not sure what you’re getting at – are you calling me out for holding an opinion in December that I don’t still profess? If so, wouldn’t you think me stupid not to take new information/developments into account?
I don’t know what the players will do, and I’m willing to be that neither does a large portion of their ranks. I’m nervous there could be a work stoppage, but I’m certainly not going to feel bad about a 3 month old tweet being held over my head.
“I think at some point supporters have to take a stand in this….”
And do what, exactly?
I have yet to see a decent protest from supporters. It seems to me like you’re unlikely to boycott games unless they bow to your will, and I doubt very seriously they’re going to consult you in the business of running their league.
MLS set up as a single entity for a reason. Supposedly that reason was control – to control costs and basically every other aspect of running the league. At some point, there’s an economic argument that suggests that running the league as a single entity is a better bet for the league’s long term success than running MLS as a traditional JV. I’m still waiting to hear why the league thinks that will always be the case.
Fans taking a stand on free agency doesn’t make much sense given that most people don’t understand the underlying economics of the league’s long term strategy. I’m not saying that the league’s rationale for controlling costs makes sense or doesn’t. I’m just saying that very few people know what the math and the assumptions look like. I imagine that a significant amount of work went into the single entity calculation.
If the league’s math does make sense, people arguing for free agency would in fact be arguing for the league’s downfall. Holding off on free agency, however, doesn’t mean that the league can’t improve player terms. Before people decide to go out and picket, they better know that they’re picketing for the right issues and that they understand the implications of what they’re asking for.
I think it already is clear to the league that fans just want the game to go on. I want the players to get better terms, but I’m not yet ready to vote for free agency because there just isn’t enough information out there (at least that I’ve seen) to suggest that free agency is the better long term bet for the league. The only thing that I’d imagine has been thoroughly studied in the MLS context is why the league should go with single entity. It would be highly irresponsible if the league didn’t do this research prior to making the decision. Whether the reasoning has been revisited, who knows. I’m not sure that people have studied what the long term impact of free agency would be in MLS. It seems like the discussion on free agency is being driven by short term discussions on what is good for the player’s pockets, which is certainly a worthwhile topic, but it can’t be considered in isolation from whether the long term decision is good for the league.
“there’s an economic argument that suggests that running the league as a single entity is a better bet for the league’s long term success than running MLS as a traditional JV. I’m still waiting to hear why the league thinks that will always be the case.’
Because it works for them. They’re not inclined to change it if it works for them. Unless they are given a compelling reason to do so.
I guess the argument that free agency inevitably leads to higher wages (it pretty much does) is mitigated by a hard salary cap, but MLS might be saying “We know we won’t be able to stop ourselves, because instead of responsible spending, we’ll just keep voting to raise the cap,” which is just death by a thousand cuts.
MLS can absolutely do better by its players without bankrupting itself. But to spend the kind of coin it would take before people would see a marked increase in the level of play WOULD, I think, bankrupt the league. Because you’d be talking about many orders of magnitude on the spending scale.
I’m sure they think it works better for them. But do you think that will always be the case? I get how that was the calculated decision to grow the league, but at some point MAYBE that won’t be the case. I’d love to hear the detailed argument for why at this stage single entity still works versus a detailed rebuttal of why single entity has passed its sell-by date. I’d attend that debate.
I think that slow, graduated growth with a check on costs is the right strategy to grow a soccer league in the U.S. But your last point is spot on. MLS can do better by its players without bankrupting itself.