The 2010 Major League Soccer season may still kick off as planned, without a delay in the start of the season, but the process to get to that point is going to be a messy one after labor talks went public on Friday, leading to an ugly back-and-forth that might just be the beginning of a lengthy battle.
It started with the players union going public on Friday and breaking a public silence that had stood since negotiations for a new Collective Bargaining Agreement began. MLS officials, after initially insisting they would not "negotiate through the media", responded to the union's accusations with their own defense on Saturday. The union responded on Sunday by calling into question the validity of the league's defense.
So where exactly do we stand? Who do we believe? If anything is clear from the weekend's back-and-forth, it is that there is no clear-cut villain in this. The players union painted MLS as the bad guy with its stories of mistreated players and unfair rules, and it was a narrative that was easy to buy into because it touched a chord with fans who weren't likely to side with a faceless collection of owners and league officials in the first place. That said, you can't help but wonder how accurate the portrayal is given the league's clear insistence that it has already offered up a good number of concessions.
The truth lies somewhere in the middle. Now the question is whether the two sides can find their ways closer to that middle in order to avoid a truly messy situation. The answer is yes, but only when the sides accept that changes need to be made.
MLS has already made the first major shift in strategy in this labor situation by publicly stating that it is prepared to go into the 2010 season operating under the old CBA (a clear change in policy after the league made it clear to the union in early negotiations that it had no intention of operating under the old CBA). As writer Kyle McCarthy laid out so perfectly on Monday, this maneuver puts pressure on the player's union to either accept a deal or strike.
Is the union as strong and determined to fight this fight as it will need to be? MLS clearly doesn't believe so, which would explain the willingness to operate under a CBA the league itself was demanding be scrapped less than two months ago.
Does this all mean the players don't have gripes? It is pretty clear they do, even as MLS officials do their best to explain away every argument the players have. No, the $60 million magic number offered up by MLS president Mark Abbott as the increase the league was ready to offer players never did sound completely genuine (and joins David Beckham's initial "MLS salary" of $250 million as inflated numbers used for effect.).
Players union chief Bob Foose shot down the $60 million figure, pointing out that it included, among other things, salary figures for teams that haven't even begun playing yet. He also pointed to percentage changes in the new deal that would see a decline in the growth of player salaries from 5.9 percent a year to 4.8 percent a year.
On the surface, that figure doesn't seem so damning. After all, there aren't many employees who wouldn't be happy with a 4.8 salary increase per year. While this is true, it ignores the fact that the face and business of MLS player acquisition is changing. Rapid MLS expansion is forcing MLS to use new methods to stock and strengthen the player pool. Chief among these changes are the designated player rule, increases in the number of international players and an increase in the money used to land young talent.
Why is this a major concern for the rank and file of the players union? It's simple. Not only would the new CBA shrink the growth of player salaries (if the union's numbers can be believed), but with more and more of that money going toward Designated Players, high-priced foreign talent as well as high-priced rookie talent, the players who will be squeezed in the equation are veteran MLS players.
Consider this off-season, which saw the largest-ever Generation adidas rookie class. MLS devoted a record amount of salary to landing this year's crop of top draft talent, which on its face is a promising sign, but when that comes in the same off-season where some of the best players to ever play in MLS are being squeezed out of jobs, you can understand why the union feels so strongly about wanting a stronger CBA in place to help protect them.
Does this mean MLS shouldn't spend money to attract top young talent to MLS? No, but it does offer evidence that perhaps some changes need to be made so that top veterans are paid what they deserve. That brings us to free agency, which MLS has made into The Untouchable Option. I have yet to hear a truly clear explanation for why intra-league free agency is a non-starter for MLS. I like to consider myself a pretty sharp guy, yet still couldn't understand the evils of MLS free agency despite multiple explanations from Abbott on Saturday.
Let's think about this for a second. How exactly would free agency within MLS hurt the league as long as the league has a salary cap? It really can't, not from the standpoint where skyrocketing salaries would be a concern. As long as there is a salary cap, a maximum limit on non-DP contracts, and as long as the league's player personnel department still signs off on deals, how could free agency hurt MLS?
It could have to do with MLS wanting to maintain control of player valuations, which could come under fire if teams were able to bid on free agent players. Suddenly a veteran highly-coveted by one team could potentially earn much more than his previous team, or the league, believes he is worth. This goes against the single-entity ethos the league is built on, and allowing it would ultimately give more control and freedom to teams and take away control from the league itself (No, I don't see the problem with this either).
Could it be that there are certain teams that are simply opposed to this because it would force them to compete against other teams for the right to keep their own players? Let's consider if a certain team or two had a history of paying lower salaries, and wanted no part of having to compete with other MLS teams for its own players, could those teams have enough pull with the league to keep free agency off the table? That's entirely possible if those teams had influential ownership.
Would having some competition within MLS for top players be such a bad thing? Considering how many quality players are leaving MLS for questionable alternatives abroad (or in Steve Ralston's case, an alternative in a lower division), how could free agency really hurt the league as a whole? As far as I can tell, at worst, it would force ALL teams to start getting serious about paying top talent, and just might help keep some of the talent that is leaving year after year.
If you listen to MLS officials, free agency isn't even that necessary because, according to them, the current system isn't nearly as restrictive as it is being portrayed. While it may be true that the current systems in place do eventually lead to players being able to move around and away from teams that don't want them, the arduous process currently in place winds up
badly hindering players who wind up seeing their options dwindle while they let the current process play out. This is why quality veteran players like Kevin Hartman and Dave Van Den Bergh remain unemployed just a month before the season, and why a player as respected and as decorated as Steve Ralston ultimately gave up on MLS rather than wait around for others to decide his fate.
Veterans like those deserve better, which is ultimately what is driving the players union. It isn't about the money, because the increases being discussed are marginal, but rather about the options that players, particularly the veteran players on whose backs the league was built on, can have as the league changes and grows. One veteran player said it best when he told me, "If players like Kevin Hartman and Steve Ralston, two of the best players to ever play in the league, are treated this way, what is going to stop the league from treating any of us the same way."
A new CBA could help keep that from happening, which is why the players appear more determined than ever to fight. If the league is serious about offering up new proposals that address these concerns, then a deal can and will get done, but if we see a player's strike next month, it would be pretty clear evidence that the offers being made by MLS aren't nearly strong enough.
Regardless of who is ultimately most to blame, if a strike winds up happening, both the players and the league will wind up wearing the label of villain.
Let me make this easy for you Ives…… Businesses, corporations, and rich team owners lie. They lie even when they don’t have to lie. They lie all the time, even when it won’t gain them a single thing. So, yea, I believe the players union and, frankly, I’d rather have no league at all than to have one more season of this single-season nonsense.
Those two players and if you add dempsey all play for the same team. The league can not be held responsible for one team. All the other teams let their players go but the revolution does not for whatever reason. Plus twellman himself even said it the league was ok with selling him, it was steve nichol that said no.
Maybe unions trying to save coal-miners from 18 hour shifts and black lung at age 18 were good. These days, unions mirror corporate executives with mandates to jack up stock prices at the expense of sustainability. They try to wring as much as they can out of the employer(s) without a thought as to whether the goose laying the golden eggs might survive the fight. God forbid they lose the fat pension even if the company is on the verge of bankruptcy — cut management salaries instead!!!!! In the world of sports, much of the steroid debacle in baseball was the fault fo the union (read: superagents) defending the status quo.
That said, there really do appear to be some concessions the league ought to make in the interest of maintaining good relations with their current and future talent pool, among them being to allow players who are cut to sign easily with new teams. It’s understood that too much player mobility completely screws up a team’s continuity, and you don’t want the NBA morass of weird trades for “expiring contracts”, etc., but with a hard cap, you could see a more natural distribution of talent. I think, with the World Cup this summer, MLS is at an important inflection point, and they should be trying to come up with ways to invest in their player pool, not drive them to Denmark.
But its not the Wizard’s fault. Those are the League rules.
Even with a salary cap, you could have situations like what Mike below mentions, mainly the marquee clubs having more funds to push the limits of a salary cap than other smaller clubs in the market. No, it’s not quite the same as what goes on in the EPL and Coca Cola Championship League, but for a fledgling league like MLS, even a scaled down version of that could be fatal.
The thing is that you can move, its called being traded. Most players though want to stay with their said team, and thats when the problem arises. If chris rolfe wanted to play at toronto, you don’t think a trade would have been made, or look at clint mathis, wanted to stay in MLS but he wanted to play in LA a trade was made. The league is right most guys either want more money or they want to go, case in point van den bergh wanted to go to dallas, a trade was made. Thats how you move with out free agency.
I think that full blown Free agency in the league is a bad thing, now and maybe for a long time. I do like someones suggestion earlier of that waiving a person means they don’t have the rights, etc. However I think that a viable solution to give a bit of free agency would work. I think that if a player has X # of years maybe like 10 in the league (or 8 yrs taking a senior roster spot)band when he is out of contract after that then he would be able to be a free agent. Something like this sounds fair to the players, they will have options maybe when they are hitting their best years. I guess this would be kinda an unrestrcted/restricted free agency system in a way but not a flat out full free agency system.
lol wut? Franky wears Tinfoil hats…
The NFL has a soft cap, you can pay a penalty for going over it.
Sports are different. Unrestricted free markets are not a good thing in professional sports. They destroy competitive balance and they negatively affect fan loyalty for teams and players who swap uniforms too easily. Which is why almost everyone understands some balance needs to be struck. That said, when we see what’s happening to Hartman and VDB, we can smell that something stinks in the current regime within MLS. It lacks needed balance — some limited rights to negotiate within MLS.
But the club did try to resign them, both of them but at lower salaries, and in Hartmans case shorter term but neither of them accepted those deals. Now the teams are trying to find a place for them but no one wants them, I still don’t see how this is the leagues fault for teams not wanting to overpay for older players.
A lot of the teams may have operating losses, but the team owners are also part owners in MLS. They get a cut every time a new team comes in and pays the league $40 million. Like a pyramid scheme, early investors have probably made healthy profits on their iintial investments.
i can see the owners’ side. the owners want to make a profit. the players want to earn the market value for their skills. the two shouldn’t be mutually exclusive. when i say ‘clueless’ i’m talking about people who are unquestioningly anti-union, because it’s ‘unAmerican’ or something. those people should try moving to a country with no unions and see how much they get paid for their work…
I find that I’m especially disapointed with the league and their double talk. If it’s true that that they would include the salaries of the new teams to be added as their proposed $60 mil increase makes me put less stock in whatever they say. Does that mean if they play with the same CBA for next season, with no increase, then all the players for Philly would be playing for free? I wanted to give the league the benefit of the doubt yesterday, that they couldn’t possibly try that kind of word play, but if it’s true, then I don’t know that I can fully trust other things they say. Although that doesn’t mean that I’ll believe everything that the players claim is the unvarnished truth, but I’m not sure they’ve let me down as much so far.
I’m pretty sure that MLS does not have a retirement system — no pension plan that might be tied to salary or otherwise.
VDB and Hartman – fine. I don’t know why people are buying Ralston in this list. He was offered what he described as a “reasonable offer” given that he will miss a large chunk of the season in rehab, and is not exactly a young guy, but decided he’d rather go home to St Louis. Not the same thing.
Not to mention the multi-million dollar salaries that auto CEOs got for running their companies into the ground. If our top execs wages were in line with the Japanese, the pensions and health care plans for the employees wouldn’t hit the bottom line in the way they appear to do. Even better yet, we could do what other countries do and just have national health plans, so the unions wouldn’t be fighting with mgmt over their health plans. Don’t blame unions for trying to get what workers get in other countries as a matter of course.
I think everyone is making a huge assumption that players will necessarily exercise free agency rights to maximize salary, rather than to play on trendy/talented/major city teams. I think you could easily see LA Galaxy/Seattle/Chicago/Houston dynasties at the expense of San Jose, KC, RSL and others.
MLS is not at a point where a Detroit Lions or Tampa Bay Bucs franchise can survive.
You forgot to mention that he’s also a Nazi, he hates white people, and he is not a U.S. citizen.
The NFL has a hard salary cap, and I don’t see anyone arguing the NFL doesn’t have “real” free agency
Precisely.
What this boils down to is the owners not trusting each other. Sure the salary cap would remain in place, but as long as free agency doesn’t exist teams with an interest in doing so can keep the price of veteran players artificially low. This makes it more affordable for them to keep quality– generally homegrown– talent on their books while splashing out higher figures for foreign talent. The more tightfisted owners are afraid that free agency will allow other teams to outbid them on players already within the league and leave them with less margin for signing expensive outside players. They don’t trust the other owners to continue playing by the cost containment scheme they’ve set up if the framework for it goes away. My guess is this effects Kraft, HSG, and Kroenke most, given that that takes care of four teams, two in each conference, that’s a significant chunk of the league.
I think you’re missing how free agency works. If a player’s contract is up, he can go abroad no problem, and the team/league won’t get compensated. The free agency thing only works within the league. They can’t stop a player not under contract from leaving the league, they can only control where they’ll let the player go if he re-signs.
Not following your logic Manny. How is it not real free agency? Teams with more money available can give more to a free agent. If a player is out of contract who used to play for team A, and team A has only has $60 under the cap, while team B has $100, with free agency the player could just sign for team B, and make more money. Without free agency, the player is still owned by team A, and can’t negotiate for himself. I don’t see why teams need to have unlimited funds in order for it to be free agency.
Yeah, there were no unions under Bush or Reagan, they just magically appeared after Obama was elected.
Why should the players have to subsidize owners that “aren’t rolling in the dough”? Survival of the fittest…if MLS can’t stand on it’s own then it shouldn’t be in business. Same with the individual teams.
Can he just stay on until an agreement is reached? or does he have to return at the specified date regardless of a strike or risk violation of his new contract?
Does this apply though? MLS was set up as a single entity league, with all contracts owned by the league, while the NFL is not set up like that, and it seems to me that they tried to jump on the single entity bandwagon after the fact.
Yep, this is the players best chance to get the changes they need. The owners have more to lose. Much more.
Yeah, I mean the US auto companies were making all those great cars in the 80s and 90s that nobody wanted to buy. I’m sure that had nothing to do with their failures.
You do realize there is a hard salary cap, right?
That’s a good reason to side with the owners, cause they never do anything through the press.
Ives, question for you regarding Ralston. He came out after his “release” from the Revs and made all the right comments (he was offered a good figure, but just chose not to take it, etc). Was he just being the classy guy he is and not blaming the Revs, or … well, what exactly happened here?
I’m also a Red Bulls season ticket holder and Im OK if the players need to strike. I don’t mind having to wait a couple of weeks to fix this situation. March 20 maybe a bit too cold to open the new arena anyway.
Well said, Paul
the players, the owners, the journalists: there BS everybody and everything
Better stick to a stable sport like Baseball, Basketball, Football, etc.
Dear Owners,
Please don’t overcompensate for the mistakes made by the old NASL.
Dear Players,
Stop Whining to the media!
Dear Wizards,
I hate you for low-balling Hartman.
On a side note: Good article explaining the basics of both sides. May be a good FSC article if you can lay it out with Players on one side and League on the other and state the issues going down, explaining both sides’ views on each part.
If neither concede and there’s a walkout – Wonder if it damages the league so much that you see an influx of players into the NASL, the owner owned league that seems to function like a typical European league.
I know if I were on the board of NASL, I’d be keeping two eyes on this one…
Maybe they come as loaned players?
Or we could have a “The Replacements” setting where the league drafts want-away High School and College players, old coaches, and ex-cons to form a super league of entertainment more akin to American Football : /
Its not free agency really if there is a hard cap. A team can’t offer a player a higher salary at the expense of their cap.
What killed the NASL was players being “bought” and given “ridicules” contracts with no “salary cap.”
They are two different scenarios. I for one would be sad to see a Hartman or VDB not play in this league when they are more than capable. Either way I don’t see the problem when the league is the one that makes up the figures it wishes to pay a player anyway.
I find myself leaning towards the players on this one. If the decision to avoid free-agency within MLS is due to owners who don’t want to spend enough money to be competitive, I’m not sure why the league needs those owners. Worst case scenario, I’d rather the league contract a little bit in the short term than piss off the players who make the league worth watching. Would a slightly smaller league (say we ditch four teams that don’t want to pay competitive salaries within the salary cap) be such a bad thing in the short term? I can’t help but think that expansion is going a bit too quickly when we have so many franchises within the league that are either unwilling or unable to compete, even with the modest salary cap that we now have.
I can’t believe we’re contemplating a work stoppage, after spending so much time last year reveling in the good vibes at Qwest Field. Ugh.
the fact that they wont allow free agency bugs the crap out of me!
The important number is not 5.9% or 4.8% percent player pay increases going forward. The league is squeezing into stadia that seat no more than 25k fans and gets ratings on TV that rival the LPGA.
Where’s the pot of gold to pay higher player salaries, and meantime spend some real dollars on a genuine marketing effort.
and all this in an overall economic environment guarenteed to make players and fans feel like their stuck in the parking lot forever.
players may deserve more where’s the money to come from?
So, you go to work for a company.
You are doing your job and showing up. They decide to fire you because of financial mismanagement on their part or they bring a new boss over you.
You can not use your skills to find other employment in the same industry because they say you can’t. Technically they own you.
You may not like Unions, but there is a reason we have them. This is one of those situations.
I agree, there are instances where they are destructive. I lived through a strike when I was at AA back in the mid-90s. The Flight Attendants did not know why they were striking and the disagreements were being led by lawyers in Washington.
In this case, I think MLS owners are being unreasonable. I think the Supreme Court angle is probably the correct reason for their non-negotiable stance. Technically, players would be negotiating with teams individual teams.
I don’t disagree with your points, but do you really think the owners ( outside of Seattle and maybe LA ) are rolling in the dough?
Their investments have paid off in terms of franchise valuation, don’t get me wrong, but if the league folds all that paper gain is gone.
Not easy questions/answers to the negotiations, you probably shouldn’t use the word “clueless” if you disagree with those of us that see the owners side too.
I’m still waiting for the MLSPA to respond to the concessions point of MLS’ letter on Saturday. The MLSPA responded to the money thing but never even acknowledged that part. This comes on the heels of them repeatedly stating that MLS has stonewalled them and made no concessions. MLS doesn’t need to detail to the public what their plans are, they aren’t negotiating with us. The MLSPA needs to address the issue though because they created the idea that MLS was just trying to screw them.
Regardless of who is right or wrong in the current labor negotiations, the biggest problem the owners in MLS face, in my opinion, is one of perception. Several high-profile players, perhaps most notably Shalrie Joseph, and Taylor Twellman, have been held back in their efforts to advance their carrers by making moves overseas because of the arcane requirements placed on player movement by the single-entity system currently in place. I am very interested to see how the league will deal with the transfer offers that are almost certain to be made for Landon Donovan’s services during the summer. As more and more players develop their skills in MLS and are then hindered by the league when they attempt to make a move overseas, young, talented American propects will begin to shun the league and move directly overseas from their university or youth teams. This process has, in my opinion, already begun with several of the most talented members of our U-17 national team who have contracts with prominent foreign clubs and are currently training with them overseas. If this process does, in fact, become established, MLS will certainly find itself relegated to a permanent second-class staus as they become increasingly unable to attract top talent. The owners have invested huge sums to develop the current league and all American soccer fans owe them a debt of gratitude, I believe. However, they must begin to show more flexibilty and far-sightedness in their player personnel relationships. An excellent place to start might be to allow a player to keep the ten percent bonus of any transfer fees paid to his club (or, in this case, MLS)for him. Players around the world are routinely permitted to keep this bonus, in the US, MLS keeps those funds. Free agency has come to every sport in America, usually over the strong objects of the owners of the clubs of the sport in question. MLS must try to be the exception. The owners and players can come together and make some mutually beneficial accomodation, or they can damage the league and its’ image in a protracted and acrimonius confrontation.
Obama is president, dude. Its all about socialism now. Which is why unions are back in fashion.
Ok, ______________________. Without the league (big chiefs) having no players to exploit, there is no league. You “wanna” make money, you have got to risk (rabbits are getting bigger nowadays). But “I” get it Garbs and co. , we live for today and tomorrow is never promised–cha-ching.
Ives, you are missing the point about free agency. We could argue all day as to its effects or whether it’s right or wrong. But the main point is that the players don’t have it now, so if they want it, it has to be bargained for. And since it would be such a huge concession for the owners, I really can’t see it happening now b/c the players have nothing comparable to give up. The only thing they can do is threaten to strike…against a league that has yet to be profitable. To be honest this whole episode reminds me of when the WNBA players threatened to strike.
if they take those lowball offers how does this affect a players retirement do they get less? might be another issue here.