As you would expect, Major League Soccer responded to recent comments from players about the state of MLS labor negotiations, as well as a report of a vote in favor of a strike. And as you would expect, the players union responded to that response.
Here is MLS president Mark Abbott, speaking to SBI:
"The meetings this week were productive and we have scheduled a number of additional meetings.
"The players comments do not accurately reflect the proposals that we have made to address the players concerns or the productive nature of the discussions beteween MLS and the union."
Here is the response from Players Union chief Bob Foose via a written release:
“Recent comments from players simply reflect the fact that the players are unified and, per the results of our strike vote, will not begin the new season if a new agreement with the league is not reached. This is not a change in position by the Union and should not be read to reflect in any way upon what has, or has not, occurred this week in the meetings with the mediator and the league.”
——————-
What does it mean? It would seem as though there has been some benefit drawn from the mediated negotiations this week, but that didn't stop the players union from conveniently leaking word of the union's willingness to strike. Clearly a calculated move, just not sure whether it needed to come now.
you do realise the economy isn’t exactly in the best of shape right now…
” No, because if MLS gives in, it is over. The only way MLS exists is single entity ”
Bullpuckey
Chauvinist,
You need to read some facts about the issues because you are way off base.
eloping…good points…except not watching foreign leagues, really? not even champions league?
john godfrey, please, please elaborate. sounds like you’re the guy who thinks bringing over the late 30’s former stars is also the path forward? or should we pay whatever it takes to get B or C level players?
The American players have a college education and many would probably find jobs that pay more than MLS.
And by the way…
“They’re determined to make sure they get as much of the pie as they can though, even if they’re not doing anything to justify it.”
This sentence applies to both the players AND the owners. Which is my whole point: These are two groups, each seeking to maximize its own stake, driven by its own self-interest.
And that’s perfectly fine. There’s nothing wrong with that. But to portray one side as having some sort of special moral case — when it is simply engaging in precisely the same behavior as the other side — is just goofy. These are two groups negotiating over contract terms. That’s all. Neither has some moral leg up on the other.
Ives? is there some way we could call up the Mafia and have them help us..? they deal with unions all the time…
“The freedom to change employers or move about the country is pretty well-recognized. Just not in MLS. ”
Um, there’s nothing stopping an MLS employee — player or otherwise — from “changing employers” or “moving about the country.”
Your self-righteousness isn’t becoming. It’s actually kind of pathetic. Like, no offense and stuff.
So the only way MLS can survive is to have a structure different than every other league in the world? Hmmm, perhaps these guys are in the wrong business.
NFL and NBA are not moving towards single entity. Neither are any other major US leagues.
I understand that. Doesn’t make it any less disconcerting.
I was thinking the same thing fischy. Hopefully everyone comes to a realization that this is no longer a little game of cat and mouse.
I tend to think that this move also shows the Union is keeping things respectful and not trying to be obnoxious. I guess you could argue that it also shows a soft side and maybe the Union isn’t as cut-throat as they need to be. But I’m always in favor of respect.
The wicked capitalists are still out there. They’ve traded in the top-hats and gold fobs for Italian shoes and seven-figure wristwatches. As for the child labor — that mostly occurs in other countries…with a wink and nod from the wicked capitalists. Dangerous working conditions? Those are endemic across the globe — even here still.
Sure, the stakes aren’t as desperate in this situation — but we’re talking about playboys with enough cash to burn to invest millions in their sports team toys. They’re determined to make sure they get as much of the pie as they can though, even if they’re not doing anything to justify it. The freedom to change employers or move about the country is pretty well-recognized. Just not in MLS. That should change. MLS payers don’t make a fortune, but they’re not seeking more money. They’re seeking a little income security while they’re in this career.
If i were to be keeping a tally on here, i’d give Alexandria +34. And Silly Commenting Folk -489.
“technically MLS is the club” – great analogy for the system in place
Calculated, sure. Better now than later, because it does put the stakes in stark focus. Makes clear it’s time to get down to business, rather than having this get in the way as the deadline approaches.
Apologies for the ridiculously long response. I just got sucked in and it was spewing from my keyboard.
I think that you’re only covering the top surface of this very intricate debate. As a soccer nation, we need to remember how young we are and how much competition there is from other sports elsewhere in this country. If by “growing up” you mean throw more money into the pit, then I think we’d find the league in serious trouble in several years. This league is young. Extremely young. We need to build a model for longevity, incremental growth and it needs to continue to attract the attention of youth in this country. All things considered, I think they’ve done a pretty darn good job when we look at what MLS is up against (NFL, MLB, NBA, NHL).
I think in the current scheme, the issue is more on contract freedom/free agency for players. Having the choice to be more in charge of essentially their own profession. If this was more about money, I think we’d have all returned our season tickets by now.
I’ll use a slightly exaggerated, but moderately relevant example… the EPL. It was only about 2 decades ago that the “Premier League” began, as it used to just be the First Division. The First Division struggled for a good bit during the 70s and 80s. And this league has been around since the early century. Not to mention its the birthplace of football. So in the early 90s they start arranging more lucrative TV contracts and endorsements and are able to stockpile more cash into the league. Awesome. It grows over the next decade. Becomes massive (as we know). It’s a well-oiled machine. Well, now we observe the past 5 years or so. Owners and clubs keep spending (for too many reasons to name and with no money to actually spend) and now we have several clubs facing financial catastrophe.
I can keep going on, but what I’m getting at is…. this is a delicate balance. It’s not about who makes more money or owners paying more. And it will be a long time until it is. But when it does get there, it will because of TV rights, endorsements, etc. Right now is about a league stability and fitting player rights into that equation.
Thank you for mentioning 1895. The MLS owners are trying to take us back to the days of corporate monopolies like Standard Oil who sought to control all the previously competing firms under a single Trust (single entity). Thank goodness Teddy Roosevelt and the trust busters came along. A single entity is designed to prevent competition, exploit workers, and exploit consumers. I am always amazed by all the big business supporters who claim they favor a capitalist system, but seem to think capitalism should not include competition. MLS should be busted.
That’s why the players are threatening to strike — to force ownership to consider alternatives.
Or should they blindly do what the rich people tell them to do? You know, like Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh?
You should aim higher — for yourself and for soccer in America.
That might be your conversation with Clint Mathis in a year whether there is a strike or not.
. . . evidently several here like exercise.
I just want to thank you, Ives, for not blindly latching on to the players’ side in all this, as so many of your fellow professional writers have done. You’re playing it fair and square, and that’s all anyone can ask.
Many journalists have this kneejerk instinct that makes them embrace any and every “workers cause,” as if it’s still 1895 and everything is some noble fight against child labor or dangerous factory conditions or wicked capitalists with Monopoly-guy top hats.
That’s not what this situation is, and I applaud you for giving reality the respect it deserves.
So if Lebron James blows out his ACL, he won’t get paid? Is that what you think is going to happen to the NBA? Yeah, I doubt it.
There is currently litigation going on with the NFL regarding single entity. American apperal v. NFL.
There is a legal reason MLS is against “Free Agency” as the playes want it because it will likely open them up to antitrust litigation.
As we speak, the NFL and NBA are moving toward the MLS single entity stance. Do the players really think they are going to get what they want? No, because if MLS gives in, it is over. The only way MLS exists is single entity and the other american sports know this and are moving to single entity standards.
Does anyone know what the union infrastructure is like, i.e., does each team have one or two designated union reps? If it’s something like that, who are the reps for each team?
Also if the players are all in preseason and training, I suppose that means it isn’t actually players but rather union officials who are doing the negotiations?
“Hey, how ya doin… i’ll take…wait a minute, arent you Clint Mathis? yea it is you…whats up!… i’ll take 20 of regular and a pack of camels” THIS HAS BEEN A FUTURE CONVERSATION WITH CLINT MATHIS 1 YEAR AFTER STRIKE.
If your statment had any merit the fact that you are an African American could have been left our, really it should have been because slaves have no rights. If any team doesn’t want to sell you you aren’t going anywhere, if MANU didn’t want to sell Ronaldo they would have kept him, see Ribery and Bayern Munich, Sergio Aquero, David Villa, the list goes on and on, but yet of course everyone wants MLS to be like European leagues but not really, what people want is for MLS to sell our best players because its in the interest of the player not the league, they want the league to align itself with a model that has serious flaws and would limit MLS’s long term growth. And you have to negotiate with MLS, techinically MLS is the club,, so what’s the diffrence?
“Wait, so I don’t HAVE to be your slave, it is just if I want to, right? Yeah that sounds good then. Sign me up. Oh, you’ll pay me, too? Sweet.”
It is hardly slavery; they have every right to sign or not sign that contract. If they don’t like the terms then they are free to find an alternative.
No its not, he is the Commissioner of the league, the two are not mutually exclusive. Do you want a commisioner making less than a million dollars a season? I mean honestly without a league we don’t know stuart holden, or clint dempsey. Should he make more then those guys yes he should he has more responsibiility as he is responsible for the entire league and the investments of billionaires, the players are only responsible for themselves.
Which policies are the ones that “drive players like Clint, Stuart, Jozy, and Ricardo to go overseas”? Clint, Jozy, and Stuart went to the two top leagues in the world and Rico going to the Bundesliga wasn’t exactly a step down from MLS. Besides, supposedly MLS worked pretty dang hard to keep Holden in Houston, but in the end MLS can’t compete with the allure of playing in the big leagues of Europe.
I love MLS and watch it exclusively (meaning aside from the occasional Yanks Abroad game, I don’t bother with foreign leagues) but I’d be a fool to think that any US NAT is going to want to hang around MLS when he could be going up against the world’s best week in week out. Even Landon is finally “seeing the bright lights” of Europe calling to him, and I thought that guy would never leave MLS.
For the long-term success of soccer in America, I hope that this strike absolutely does not happen. Whatever forward movement the league has made will more than likely be stunted for years to come. I don’t foresee the league collapsing like the NASL, because the league has not touted itself that way nor spent money that way, but it will certainly struggle from this and that will directly translate to US player development.
If you’re getting paid, you’re not a slave.
Also, they are free to leave MLS & get real jobs.
I’m sympathetic to the players but, from a PR standpoint,they are handling this poorly. Let’s be frank too:
60% of these guys would be unable to play professionally elsewhere due to their mediocre skills.
I mean, where would Nick Garcia play? Mike Magee? ALLAN GORDON???
Really now
Ives,
Does this offer Donovan any possibility for extending his Everton loan?
Personally, I side with the players 100% and they should strike if their demands aren’t met. Right now, MLS are the slave-masters and the players are their slaves(as it comes to transfers). It’s a big time plantation mindset there. Why? Because unless MLS wants to sell you, you aren’t going anywhere. Want a MLS player? Wait for a free transfer or you have to negotiate with MLS, not the club. It’s ridiculous and completely against what happens in the rest of the world when it comes to soccer.
(I’m African-American and I’m not making this a racial issue. I feel that the situation is akin to American slavery, except the players are getting paid).
I have midfield tickets to both the Turkey match and the Czech Republic match. I LOVE US soccer. But I hate the stunted-growth approach that MLS adheres to. By maintaining policies that 1) prevent good players from coming here and 2) drive players like Clint, Stuart, Jozy and Ricardo to go overseas, I think MLS needs to hit the Reset button.
For the long-term success of soccer in America, I hope this strike serves that purpose.
or the classic ‘SUPPORT THE PLAYERS’
either way, none of us have any clue whats really going on so choosing sides is an exercise in futility
If there is strike, and games are canceled, ticket holders will get their money back, right, BlacknBlueKC? If not, tell me how that works.
And if that happens, Kraft and others will be an interesting predicament, don’t you think? Do they let this grow up or do they bunker down and maintain its infancy?
As for the salaries I referenced, well, ask Donnie G. If he’s only making $2 million, that’s still an interesting number when compared with, say, Stuart H. or Kasey K. or even Freddy L.
Don’t you think?
Lots of he said, she said going on. I think what I take from all of this is that neither party wants a strike/lockout and hopefully are on the path to resolution.
i swear i’ll be so ticked if they strike i just got my season pass(not tickets cause RBNY switched it up) and have been counting down the days till i get to cheer for my bulls in our new home
Yes. Will you supply the money?
Just because the Union has authorized a strike, doesn’t mean a strike will be called; it just means that the membership has authorized the union to have it available as an option should talks break off.
I doubt there will actually be a strike. You can’t fault the player for being unified and for playing the cards that they hold. You can’t really fault the management side either, as long as both sides are willing to compromise some.
Also, I like reading the comments here because it gives me an overall impression of what others are thinking. You can expect a range of opinions and occassionally the degenerating “bandwagon” phenomenon.
Well said Alexandria.
sources? For anything you said?
I’m just as frustrated about the labor talks as the next guy, and I want to see a middle ground found and a deal done, but there’s no need for “out of the ass” comments like these. Players want rights, owners are conservatively predicting their bottom line, and both are important for this league moving forward. No one wants to see the NASL, or Pompey’s situation, happen for MLS. No need for paranoid conspiracy theories.
Don Garber hasn’t gotten his raise yet, you can’t just tout figures as facts without backing them up, just because it as said that he wanted a raise doesn’t mean he got it, and of course the speculation was that raise was contingent on the CBA getting done, so I would think that he has just as much to lose in this as the poor poor players. Who all make more money then they would at the other job they are going to need if a strike happens. Secondly, I am a single mom, I have my degree and I only make 30k if a single man can’t make it off 30k then he’s an idiot.
Ives you may want to close these posts to comments–they seem to degenerate pretty profoundly into “players sux!” “fatcat owners!”
Just my two cents.
I love it. The greedy/miserly franchises in New England, KC and elsewhere are going to be forced to give money back to their fans as games get canceled. Owners will be forced to decide if they want to continue to be a minor league or if now is the time to grow up.
Don Garber makes $3 million a year. His secretary almost certainly makes six figures. Isn’t it time the players got paid like adults too?
Hopefully this was a statement, not a promise.
The league isn’t strong enough for a striker and 50-75% of these players would never play again if MLS folded.
Nobody is making money.
A decent compromise which offered free agency after being cut, not being offered contract, not being offered a contract of equal value or more from your last one and/or free agency after a set number of years sounds fair.
The latter applies to MLB/NFL/NBA/NHL. That’s how this is going to end. MLS will grant limited free agency after four or five years or a certain age.
Second!
Well, that’s something I guess. Still, it’s a bit disconcerting to see that the players have agreed to strike.
At least they’re both willing to keep talking.