The MLS Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) negotiations are coming down to the wire and appear to be reaching an impasse. Many of my New Year predictions will prove false, but I’m afraid the first one, which predicted a 3-4 week work stoppage, is beginning to look accurate. No one wants this and outsiders don’t have the specific information to fully understand how or why the situation has gotten to this point.
The differences seem to center around the less tangible issue of ” player rights ” rather than pure cash. The owners have invested considerable sums into the league and they continue to do so. Players see that the tide is beginning to turn with some teams generating positive cash flow and now want to be included in the reward.
While players and owners are beginning to provide general positioning statements, specifics are still hard to find. The tight lips surrounding the CBA talks with the MLS Players Union has effectively limited public speculation and discussion to conjecture and generalities on the issues that are separating the players and management.
I don’t know first hand what MLS Commissioner Don Garber and MLS Players’ Union Executive Director Bob Foose are debating, but from the outside, there still seems to be quite a gap between the two sides despite the inclusion of a federal mediator. Today’s column delves into some of the specific issues of the negotiations and, while somewhat speculative, is based on issues that are relevant to the current CBA. To each issue I offer a proposed solution.
There are reportedly three main issues that the players are seeking concessions on: free agency, guaranteed contracts and receiving 10% of international transfer fees. These aren’t the only issues of course and the owners and players are discussing them individually and in context with them as a group. Following are eleven issues that are likely among the most contentious. The chart below lists the issues, how each one is addressed in the recently expired CBA and my proposal for how to handle each issue in a new CBA.
Issue | Current | My Proposed New |
1. Unilateral options and semi-guaranteed vs. multi-year and guaranteed contracts | Standard contracts are one year plus three one year League options. No minimum # of guaranteed contracts. | Same for length of contracts and options. Create a minimum of four guaranteed contracts per team growing to six over the course eof the CBA. |
2. International transfer fees. Players want 10%. | MLS receives 2/3 of transfer fees and teams receive 1/3. | Same |
3. Standard salary escalator | 5% increase each year of contract (for most players) | 7% increase for 2nd and 3rd years; 10% for fourth year |
4. Standard length of contracts | Four years | Four years for 1st contract; 3 years for 2nd |
5. Length of CBA | Five years | Five years |
6. Free agency | None | Restricted – Allowed after 7 years in MLS. Draft pick compensation. |
7. Team autonomy to negotiate contracts | No | Same |
8. Roster spots | 18-20 senior; 4 developmental | 18-20 senior; 4 developmental in 2010 & add two per year up to 12 |
9. Minimum salary | $34,000 for senior roster & $20,100 for developmental | $37,400 in 2010, escalating to $40,000 for senior roster & $22,100 in 2010, escalating to $23,500 in final year of CBA for developmental players |
10. Team salary cap | $2,300,000 | $2,530,000 in 2010, escalating to $2,700,000 in final year of CBA |
11. Waived player rights | Former team retains rights to match new offer for 48 hours | Same |
1. Unilateral options vs. multi-year contracts and semi-guaranteed vs. guaranteed contracts.
These are both very important issues to both parties. The players obviously want more security and the owners want to maintain the flexibility that goes with semi-guaranteed contracts (contracts that allow teams to waive a player prior to July 1st without having to pay out any more money) and unilateral options (team options to extend contract on an annual basis for a minimal percentage increase in salary). In-demand players (mainly national team players and high first round draft picks) have been able to leverage guaranteed contracts of one or more years.
I propose that MLS retains the unilateral options, but gives a little on guaranteed contracts by following the WPS model, which provides a minimum number of guaranteed contracts on all teams. The exact minimum number of guaranteed contracts per team could grow over the life of the CBA. Perhaps start at four and increase to six by the end. MLS may be philosophically opposed, but the practical impact would be minimal as most teams have at least three to four already. The risk is that a player underperforms and a team is stuck with a contract until the end of the term. My proposal would not mandate any of the guaranteed contracts be multi-year, so “mistakes” could be released at the end of each season unless the team voluntarily chose to sign multi-year deals.
2. International transfer fee split.
MLS and the MLS team retain 100% of the international transfer fee with the League keeping 2/3 and the teams keeping 1/3. In the rest of the world the player or his representative receives 10%. MLS suggests to the agents that they work out the 10% directly with the new team while they’re working out the player’s new salary. The player does receive a huge bump in salary and has the opportunity to negotiate the 10% from the new team, so it’s not as if the player is worse off. As Buzz Carrick notes in this fine piece for the Dallas based blog 3rd Degree, players from Latin America often have the money go directly to their agents and never see the transfer money, so this won’t be an important issue for them. It also won’t be an important issue for the 90% of the players who have little realistic chance of an international transfer. While this is an important issue to the agents and a few of the high end players, my proposal would have the players acquiescing on this issue in exchange for cracking the door on free agency.
3. Standard salary escalator.
Most MLS contracts in the League’s first ten years had unilateral options that increased salary 3% if exercised by MLS. The last CBA increased the escalator to 5% in recent years. My proposal is to increase the escalator to 7% for the contract’s second and third year and 10% for the fourth year. In practice, a rookie making $38,000 would make $40,660 in his second year, $43,506 in his third year and $47,858 in his fourth year.
4. Standard length of contracts.
Most MLS contracts are four years with a League option after each of the first three seasons. Players would prefer shorter contracts that would allow them freedom sooner. My proposal calls for second contracts to be a year shorter to reward veterans with a little more flexibility and give them an opportunity for a better contract a year earlier. This change shouldn’t result in an increased European flight as most players would be 28 to 30 when the second contract expires.
5. Length of CBA.
The last MLS CBA was for five years. MLS would certainly like this one to be as long or longer to maintain stability and allow long term planning which is important to securing further expansion. MLS is hardly rolling in money now, but there are finally several teams that are proving profitable. If the next rounds of expansion in Philadelphia, Vancouver and Portland prove equally successful and Red Bull Arena turns New York around, the players may soon have some real leverage as a critical mass of teams will be financially incentivized to avoid a strike. As it currently stands, most teams would be better off economically in the short term if the players went on strike – kind of like NHL owners in 2004-05. A shorter CBA would allow players a chance to revisit all of the issues they compromise on this time when they have a little more leverage in a few years.
While the owners may be looking for seven years, the players would be wise to cut a deal for five or even four years.
6. Free agency. On the surface, as long as the League has a salary cap, it doesn’t seem like free agency can have a negative economic impact on the owners. Sure, teams would lose players within the League, but there’s a finite amount of money in a cap system, so those teams would then get other players to replace their losses. So what’s the risk to owners if free agency is installed? There are several:
- Free agency would lead to increased compensation for current “middle to upper class” MLS players who really don’t have good European options (i.e., American veterans). So instead of spending money on retaining or attracting the best talent, the League would be spending money retaining players who really don’t have better options.
- There is also the potential of a competitive imbalance caused by players willing to sacrifice money for location. Potentially, Los Angeles for example, could have an unfair advantage, because so many players are from southern California and many others desire to live there.
- Free agency also has the potential to squeeze out the League’s middle class players. Bidding would result in higher salaries for the best players leaving less money for the rest. The result would be a preponderance of salaries on the high and low extremes without as many players in the middle. Many “middle class” players would be forced into retirement leaving the League with a bit of a talent – or at least experience – drain.
- Opening the door to even limited free agency may be anathema to the owners who have a legal ruling in federal court upholding the current system to back them up. After all, the players sued MLS over free agency in the Fraser case and lost. The ruling provided MLS with cost certainty, which has proven very helpful in attracting new investors.
The flip side is that limited free agency could potentially resolve the impasse without having much significant impact to the League’s economics or competitive platform. A compromise found in other sports is to provide a form of restricted free agency that allows player movement, but limits it to players of a certain experience level and compensates teams that lose a player.
My proposal calls for free agency after seven years in MLS and compensation from the signing team to the team losing the player in the form of a SuperDraft pick. For example, if a player finished his second MLS contract (a four year and a three year contract), he could sign with any team in the League. The higher his new salary, the better the compensation pick the new team would provide the former team. Perhaps compensation of a first round pick for a player who signs for more than $200,000, a 2nd round pick if the contract is for more than $100,000 and a 3rd round pick for a player who signs for less than $100,000.
This compromise would permit a certain amount of player freedom and would open the door to increased free agency the next time the CBA is negotiated. Both sides would feel they sacrificed, but hopefully both sides will see the benefits as well.
7. Team autonomy to negotiate contracts. The players feel this would improve their ability to negotiate better contracts and ease transfers to foreign clubs. They are right, but it would also undermine the League’s single entity justification, which has allowed MLS to sustain itself and attract new investors. This issue is a non-starter for owners, who would rather close down shop than give on this point. I am probably biased, but i adamantly agree with the owners on this point.
8. Roster spots. More jobs! There are two ways to create more jobs for the players: expand the number of teams and expand the team rosters. Developmental rosters constricted two years ago when the MLS reserve league disbanded. The reserve league rarely served its intended purpose of developing players as their games lacked quality and often included tired players who had played in first team games the day prior. The overall roster never grew beyond 28 and injuries, suspensions and national team call ups meant reserve teams were often short of players. Current rosters are 22-24 players. I propose that two developmental slots be added each year until there are a total of 32 players per team.
A 32 player roster would allow enough players for quality reserve team games, which could be brought back in a couple years. The additional developmental roster spots could be filled by MLS team academy players who would be promoted based on merit. This would provide a strong connection between the team’s academy program and the first team. It would generate enough success stories to attract more youth talent to the MLS team academies and would fuel the quality and quantity of these MLS controlled youth programs.
9. Minimum salary and 10. Team salary cap. The impasse in these negotiations does not seem to be caused by money. The major differences involve player rights. Given that, I don’t believe MLS will stand in the way of reasonable increases to the minimum salary levels for senior and developmental players or to the team salary caps if the players acquiesce on many of the player rights issues. I propose a 10% increase in each the first year, increasing to 17% by the end of the CBA. This would lead to a $40,000 minimum senior roster salary, a $23,500 developmental roster salary and a $2.7 million team salary cap. I would also propose that any developmental roster player who sees first team action gets paid at the rate of a minimum salaried senior roster player.
11. Waived player rights. The union and players, including Freddie Ljungberg, have mischaracterized this policy in an attempt to show that MLS unfairly restrains players from actively seeking employment. But the truth is, this policy does NOT prevent players from being resigned in MLS. As the recent waiver deals of Kevin Hartman and Adrian Serioux showed, the current MLS policy of teams retaining the rights to waived players does not prevent waived players from finding new teams. It merely gives their former teams a chance for 48 hours to match the new salary offer. If the former team doesn’t match in 48 hours, the player is free to join another team at that salary WITHOUT any compensation going to the former team. I propose that this policy be maintained, but if MLS chooses to trade this for a union give elsewhere, it wouldn’t be a huge give on the League’s behalf.
So there you have it. Proposed solutions to eleven issues. Taken individually, I imagine folks on the two sides can find fault with many of my proposals, but I’d like to think that taken collectively, these eleven points represent a fair compromise that would allow the union to show its membership that they have made some real gains both financially and on player rights. At the same time, I believe MLS would come away retaining the foundation of its business model, while allowing the players to share in some of the revenue growth the League has enjoyed via improved broadcast rights fees, sponsorship, team expansion and stadium development since the last CBA went into effect. And if both sides are a little upset with the compromises, that probably means it’s a good deal.
Whaddya think? Too generous to the owners? To the players? Too impractical? Too simplistic? Am I missing any key issues? The devil’s in the details of course, but could this serve as the framework for a solution?
Your waived player example of Hartman is a bad one. Because KC had offered him a contract, he wasn’t waived and couldn’t negotiate with another team.
Now it is true that he got moved. But the mechanics are a little different than you imply.
-FS
Is there a difference between a waived player and an out of contract player?
Yep, out of contract players can’t negotiate with other teams. See the comment I just left.
What was the difference between that and the McBride deal where the Fire had to pay Toronto for his rights even though he was originally a Columbus player?
I believe (and someone can correct me if I am wrong) that because McBride was transferred, when he came back it was as though he were coming to the league afresh. It’s not like Chris Rolfe or Pat Noonan who left because their contract was up, were offered a contract, and chose not to sign. When McBride left Columbus, he was under contract, was sold, and I’m assuming that means the slate got wiped clean on his return.
Of course Toronto was at the top of the allocation order, and that ended up being something of a fiasco.
-FS
Wow, an article on the CBA that actually provides solutions and some fresh thinking. Nice work, Peter! I’ve thought since the beginning of this dispute that some form of limited, restricted free agency would be a possible compromise solution.
Peter,
I’m confused on the area of waived players rights. What is the difference between a waived player and a player who is out of contract. I’m thinking back to last year when the Fire got some draft picks or allocation money for Pickens. When his contract expired, he tried to do something in England (without any luck.) If I remember correctly, he no longer had a contract with the MLS when he left, but when he returned the Fire still technically owned him. Is there a difference between a waived player and an out of contract player? What was the difference between that and the McBride deal where the Fire had to pay Toronto for his rights even though he was originally a Columbus player? In you proposal, would there be any difference on how these transaction would be handled?
Well thought out, Peter.
I don’t agree with everything (seven years for free agency? That’s harsh. Not many guys are going to get to that point – which is, naturally, the goal of management. Only about 14% of the 380 players currently listed on MLS’ website have more than 7 years of service), but in the vacuum created by no one really talking intelligently about the issue, this is welcome.
I will play Devil’s Advocate on this when it comes to the “everyone wants to go to Los Angeles” card: (a) there are still only going to be 20something roster spots on the Galaxy and a finite amount of money for them to spend, ( b) there are currently and will be even more attractive destinations in the league where a player can play in a good situation for a good organization in a good atmosphere in front of people who know the game and ( c) that’s exactly what they said about baseball free agency. The Yankees and Dodgers were going to get every free agent.
Well, they didn’t. And they won’t. It simply can’t happen that way because of the math involved.
I CAN see your point (and it’s one I hadn’t thought of) that free agency could result in an increased share of MLS’ total player cost outlay going to fair-to-middling players who were able to leverage a good year or something (happens in all sports). The same would probably happen with any magical salary cap increase that fans are always clamoring for. Well, you can pay Tyson Wahl more, but that’s not going to make him a better player.
Something you didn’t touch on, but which others have, involves the “if we give them free agency, it will open us up to a legal challenge of single entity” notion.
My response to that would be:
1 – That didn’t work out so well last time
2 – If you want to spend that time and money and effort mounting yet another offensive against single-entity, knock yourself out, but almost none of the players in the league today would see a benefit from it when all was finally said and done.
3 – To what end?
If you’ve paid attention, you know that the #1 reason what we refer to in shorthand as “single entity” is to do what? Retard the escalation of player costs. The other ways MLS do business that have to do with league-wide marketing and sponsorship deals, etc. are nice and they can get economies of scale and all that, but, really, it’s about keeping player costs from escalating out of control.
And you CANNOT unilaterally impose a salary cap (or “salary budget,” as MLS refers to it, which I don’t believe is in the CBA per se) without single-entity unless it’s collectively bargained. But IF it’s collectively bargained, fine. Owners want cost certainty, players want freedom of movement.
That’s where the NFL was in 1992. The NFLPA was bound and determined to get free agency. They got it. But the owners got cost certainty. And the players found the unintended consequences (for one, the squeezing of the middle class) to be a detriment. Now there is no NFL salary cap and they’re threatening to never agree to it again.
I would contend that if you collectively bargain a salary cap, you not only achieve cost certainty (you can tie it to revenues if you like, which entails opening books, which I don’t think they want to do), but you eliminate (in my mind, anyway) the motivation to mount a challenge to single-entity in the courts.
Okay, end of digression.
It appears from the players’ rhetoric that they’re prepared to strike. Okay, they’re entitled to that, that’s the way the labor vs. management process works. But in the last few days, I’ve become more convinced that what Joe Roth said is true: “I wouldn’t want to try to wait out a billionaire.”
I don’t think this is going to end well for the players. Regardless of how I feel about their cause – and I do support the notion that if you’re released or out of contract, you should be truly free – their union simply isn’t as strong as the MLBPA or other unions RIGHT NOW. Getting a better deal this time should be their goal, not necessarily getting the absolute best deal that includes everything they want. This CBA will expire in the blink of an eye, too.
Thanks all.
FS and Padre Joe,
There are two categories of out of contract players, those that were offered contracts to stay (Matt Pickens) and those that were not. If a player rejects a contract offer and leaves the League, the original team retains his rights. If the team does not offer the player a contract, then that team does NOT retain his rights.
Regarding transfered player rights, if a team receives an allocation AND uses at least part of it or chooses to keep it, then the team loses the player rights. That is what happened with Brian McBride. The Crew received an allocation and Toronto was at the top of the allocation list.
When Ante Raazov went to Spain, the Fire received a small allocation. When he wanted to return after a season, we hadn’t used our allocation yet and we were allowed to return the allocation to the League in order to retain Ante’s rights.
Do you think these proposals would be enough to get either side to agree?
Wouldn’t the minimum guaranteed number of contracts on each team go to the players for whom July 1 isn’t life or death? Wouldn’t more players demand those, leaving those who really sweat out contract guarantee date in the same position they’re in now?
And if you’re considering cutting a player before July 1, but you re-think it because you have to pay the guy anyway…how is that helping? I mean, he’s a guy you’re considering releasing. How good can he be? How good can it be for the league to keep the guy around?
Obviously, any employee wants income certainty and any owner wants cost certainty. And a union wants as many jobs as it can get for its members, while management wants a contract of a certain length. But I’m not sure the guaranteed contract thing is necessarily what’s best for the game. I understand it, completely. But it’s been a terrible, terrible thing in baseball and basketball.
Perhaps any contract UNDER a certain level of compensation is automatically guaranteed. Hey, you may not be getting much, but at least you know you’re going to get it all.
Also, just continuing to increase the number of developmental players smacks of coolie labor to me. I know they’re jobs, but they’re (largely) crap jobs.
bkfiv, i would love to think so….but in reality no. i put this together in a vacuum without knowledge of how far either side’s willing to go. There’s a small chance that it could serve as a framework of a deal or perhaps there’s an idea or two that could be used. Truth is, the two sides have been discussing this for months and are in a certain place with significant history behind whatever place that is. Unlikely they would forget all that history and take a look at a fresh approach that gives little consideration for the progress that has already been made.
Any agreement is a series of tradeoffs. There are certain issues that the owners absolutely won’t give in on and apparently the union feels the same way about one or more as well. As KT says above, five years will go by very fast and unless the union is willing to subsidize the tens of millions of annual losses, I would recommend that they negotiate small victories where they can in this deal and move on, so the league is in better shape next time. The better MLS is doing next time, the more leverage the players will have.
I’m on the owners side on this one! The players are starting to sound like cry babies, they are acting as if the league is making huge amounts of money. I don’t think they should be demanding anything until every team in the league has respectable attendance figures and the league gets respectable TV ratings, until then I say lock them all out!
If they players don’t like the way this league is set up they should just go join another league after their contract is over. Single entity structure is brilliant, you see clubs all over the world begging for money and going bankrupt just because they spend so much on players salaries, see what happens when you don’t have these safety features built into your league? These team and leagues were built 100s of years ago when thing were different, they didn’t have players demanding huge salaries, and agents demanding % but now times are different so the business model needs to be adjusted accordingly. The only people making money in those leagues are the players and their agents, it’s so sad that the team itself can’t make money.
This is America people, we have great American businessmen with great business knowledge and common sense to know that at this moment the league cannot budge on these demands. A wise man once said “Rome wasn’t built in a day” Just my 2 cents!!
The most well-reasoned piece to date on the issues and the only one to offer viable solutions. While I don’t agree with some of the proposed solutions, the only people that can offer more insight are sitting on either side of the mediator. Thanks Pete!
“This is America people, we have great American businessmen with great business knowledge”
LOL – are you joking? We are just starting the Greatest Depression – what are you talking about!
Great businessmen like Bernie Maddoff? Hank Paulson? Geitner? Bernacke? American businessmen are CRIMINALS!
lol, true but I was not thinking about the financial or real estate business when I wrote it. There will always be a few bad apples, if Americans weren’t so good at business this country wouldn’t be the richest in the world. There wouldn’t be Starbucks, McDonald’s or Walmarts all around the world.
I was thinking about the US Sports Industry who for the most part been very good when compared to the rest of the world. You never hear about players not getting paid by teams, I can’t remember the last time I heard of a major sports team had to file for bankruptcy here in the US. I remember the Arena Football League went down a few years ago but their league was not set up like MLS is. I know the NBA is currently struggling with player’s contracts after years of high salaries but they seem to be working on eliminating those over priced contracts.
The way I see it, team owners in other parts of the world are so easily influenced by their fans demands to win every tittle, there’s nothing wrong with winning but when you try to win at the expense of the club things can get out of control very quickly. You don’t start running without learning how to walk first, MLS is just learning how to walk.
I’m not worried if the players, yeah sure I will miss watching my team but there’s some good things that will come out of it.
A – Landon Donovan can go back to Everton
B- We can concentrate on the World Cup, I don’t watch MLS while the WC is on. Do you?
C- We can cut the owners some slack and they won’t have to dump any money into the league this year.
Things that will suck if the League doesn’t play this year
A- We won’t be seeing much of Redbull Arena
B- We will miss out on Philly
While I stand with the owners on this issue I think that the players make the pathetic 12K a year need to be bumped up, they are the only ones really getting screwed in all of this.
$12k/year? Where did that come from? Minimum is now $20,100 and that’s for developmental players. Regular rostered players minimum salary is almost triple $12k.
peter(commenter)
First I would ask if there is no longer a distinction between developmental and senior developmental players.
According to the old CBA, Section 10.3 …
Without a Reserve League in place, developmental players receive $1,275/mo, senior developmental players receive $1,675/mo.
The next question is for how many months does a player get paid. In the old CBA the season is designated at being 10 months.
$20,100 is the number you get for the senior developmental number for 12 months. $16,750 for 10 months.
From expired CBA:
“Section 15.3 Except as otherwise provided in this CBA or otherwise agreed at any time in
writing between the Player and MLS, the Player shall be entitled to receive from MLS (promptly
upon receipt by MLS of such consideration) ten percent (10%) of any consideration received by
MLS for any loan or transfer of the Player’s services to a team or league outside of MLS.”
The players did have rights under the old CBA to %10 of the transfer fee but it is my understanding the MLS made them give up the fee to transfer on almost all occasions. Kenny Cooper’s father spoke out about this issue after his son’s transfer.
I enjoyed the insight into some of these issues from someone who, while not privy to the actual negotiations, has insight into the practical workers of player contracts.
One area that I think Peter has not addressed sufficiently is the case where a team will decline the option year, then low-ball the player. Either the player gives in, or goes to another league with the original team still holding his MLS rights for a period of time. I’ve outlined some proposed solutions to this that establishes a minimum level of compensation required in any proposed new contract for the original team to maintain rights and levels of compensation due to the team for those rights based on how “reasonable” the contract offer was.
If you’re interested, you can read about it here:
I thought based on the current CBA, section 15.3, the players are already supposed to get 10% of any international transfer fee
Your “solutions” are non-starters for the most part. It speaks VERY little to what the Players Union are asking for and keeps autonomy of the MLS/Owners.
This post is written and viewed like an owner, not a Union member. The majority of the fans and supporter groups are with the players on this. The players have given the MLS Ownership Group complete control for 14 years and it is time to even things out more.
The Owners need to come to the middle way more than you propose – and they will or their investments will fail.
Marco, I take your point about the relative success of American sports leagues in terms of finances, but they are not all purity and light. We don’t have to go any further back than 2009 to see an example of what you say has never happened. The Minnesota Thunder went bankrupt, failed to pay their players for the last month of the season (still have not been paid, will never be paid), failed to pay promised bonuses, and folded. Maybe a USL-1 team doesn’t qualify as a major sports team, but nonetheless, the scenario you described has happened here. That said, I think your larger point is on the money, so to speak.
> The majority of the fans and supporter groups are with the players on this.
Tim…really, what are you basing this on?
> The players have given the MLS Ownership Group complete control for 14 years and it is time to even things out more.
Complete control? They’ve been operating under a mutually agreed CBA, haven’t they?
To answer Tom D’s questions:
Supporter Groups and Fan Groups have already been meeting and emailing to plan and implement Rallies and Picket Lines in favor of the Players if a strike happens. The meetings I have been to have had 30 and 40 plus folks each time (not the same faces). I also base it off of comments left on Blog sites, Forums, etc. It is currently running (I’ve been keeping tabs to see if Rallies will work) about 80% for the players and 20% for Owners in the CBA dispute. I will say that much of that sentiment is stemming from happenings in the rest of the Nation because of Wall Street and greedy profits (that is an observation not a support of such beliefs).
Yes, we are working under a Collective Bargaining Agreement, but the Players Union gave the majority of the power in business dealings and player contract dealings to MLS and the Owners because it was obvious that the model presented and being used was the right one to continue league growth. The agrument now is; Is it time to change that? The answer is being fought out at the negotiating table now. It will spill into the streets and media (even more) if a strike happens. Someone mentioned above “How do you wait out a billionaire?” You risk your livelihood against his investments. Money is the catalist in business and the Owners stand to lose more than the Players in this strife. There is plenty of room still in these negotiations and even with a strike the talks will continue until a fair agreement is reached While well thought out, I believe the ideas Peter put forward were discussed as far back as November in these CBA talks.
>>The Minnesota Thunder went bankrupt, failed to pay their players for the last month of the season (still have not been paid, will never be paid), failed to pay promised bonuses, and folded. Maybe a USL-1 team doesn’t qualify as a major sports team, but nonetheless, the scenario you described has happened here.
flopski, everybody knows that the Bozo that was running the USL was just collecting franchise fees, he would let anybody buy into the league if they showed him the money. MLS is picky about its owners, not anybody can show the Don wads of money and expect to buy into the League, MLS has way more financially stable owners. Not only does MLS have higher franchise fees that would weed out many of the would be owners but it also requires them to have a higher net worth.
Yes, it always come down to money, sports are a business, same rules apply to all businesses. Control your expenses.
Many sports team in the old day did start out as amateur recreational teams, that were not interested in money, but like many hobbies they have turned into a businesses.
The players are just sugar coating it by saying the want “basic rights”, these same “Basic rights” will lead to higher inflated player contracts, higher contracts that MLS is in no position to be paying right now.
The only things that I think the league should invest more money on are its facilities, referees (God know we have some awful ones), academies, a reserve division and on these poor developmental players working for low wages. Everything else should stay the same until the league is more well established.
I am in the communications business and this sound like the same mess the communications unions ask for. The big communications companies have reacted to the union by hiring more outside contractors to do the work and announcing mass layoffs of its union employees. Did the union gain anything? The unions may have thought they gained something when they signed the new contracts but in the end the big corporate communications giants got the last laugh. The Union actually lost jobs for its members.
Tim, which teams fan groups have been meeting and planning rallies and picket lines?
Basing an analysis of general opinion from blogs and forums by default isn’t going to be representative of the broader fanbase.
You wouldn’t chat me in a picket line, I would be in the stands cheering me team of replacement players. Yeah they may suck but after a few beers everything starts looking good =) Bring on the replacements!!!
Peter – i sent you a note once before and i’ll state it once again…you have something alot of players/coaches/critics/management don’t have — and that is a “soccer brain”…
All well said…and if egos don’t get in the way (good luck on that one…) perhaps they could read through your options and come out with a solution…
I understand the players “stand” yet i criticize their movement of it now – with poor attendance except a few – and really low television ratings, i scratch my head and them…the MLS is not in the position to meet all of their demands…there is no doubt a “movement” for soccer in this country right now – yet i’d have to be honest and say it’s all about the USMNT and the Euro leagues – not the MLS…not yet anyway…and that is my message to the players — “not yet”…
hayward von max, I agree! Not yet players. Good things come to those who wait.
Marco, perhaps you misunderstood. I was basically agreeing with you. And used the example of the Thunder to make the point that if you are not careful, even American sports franchises can get into irresolvable financial trouble. Meaning MLS owners have a point in insisting on a fiscally conservative approach to player salaries and league finances generally. Players probably do merit seem additional freedoms (some of the restrictions seem unnecessarily harsh), and the minimum pay levels are a bit serf-like, but in general, I tend to agree that the players need to keep their focus on the bigger picture of success for the whole league – without that, all other issues are moot.
I have seen similar union craziness as you describe in my line of work – at a time of massive budget deficits, when all faculty had pay freezes, and when there were cuts all across the university, our clerical union went on strike saying they needed pay raises to make everything fair. Were they joking? Where did they think the money was going to come from? I am philosophically very much pro union, but sometimes I wonder what they are thinking. An MLS players strike would be nuts. Talk about cutting off your nose despite your face!
I’ll believe that fans can mount a serious pro-player demonstration of any size when I see it.
As far as “evening it out more,” there’s no such thing. That’s silly.
Hi Peter,
Nice post, congratulations sire.When will the Turkish language? With love from Turkey, respects.
See you later.
Worth considering proposals. Hoping that things will turn out to those who are concerned.