By RYAN TOLMICH
With the current Collective Bargaining Agreement set to expire at the end of the month, MLS and the MLS Players Union met Tuesday in what was expected to be the first of a two-day session.
After a series of proposal and counterproposals, negotiations were cut short.
Following a meeting attended by several players as well as MLS commissioner Don Garber, the league and union remained “far apart” on issues, chief of which is the topic of free agency.
LA Galaxy defender Todd Dunivant, who was in attendance, said that the league’s latest proposal maintained the status quo regarding free agency, prompting the two sides to call off the second day of negotiations.
“We told them we’d be open to talking about exactly what free agency means, and what makes the most sense for players and the league, which is what we want ultimately,” Dunivant told ESPNFC.com. “But their proposal had nothing to do with free agency, not a mention.
“At that point we didn’t really have anything more to talk about,” he added. “We’re very far apart.”
Bob Foose, executive director of the MLS Players Union, echoed Dunivant’s sentiments regarding Thursday’s negotiations.
“We remain very far apart on important issues,” Foose told the Washington Post. “We will continue at it but it’s difficult to see a path to an agreement at this point.
“We fundamentally disagree with them over how the guys who have built this league should be treated. It’s definitely disappointing.”
Despite the threat of a work stoppage, fellow meeting attendee and D.C. United centerback Bobby Boswell insisted that the players will remain unified.
“We thought we would be closer on some key issues than we are,” Boswell told the Washington Post. “They weren’t willing to move on a couple of our key issues, free agency being one of them. It was just a little disappointing. It could be a tactic.
“We are unified. The guys who built this league and make it what it is, we want to be treated properly. The proposals they had, we don’t feel like that is being achieved.”
—
What do you make of Thursday’s negotiations? How do you expect CBA negotiations to play out? Think we’ll soon see free agency?
Share your thoughts below.
The thing I don’t get, after reading several articles and comments on this and other strands, is why free agency is such a big deal. Can’t there merely be agreements made to increase earning minimums, policy which hold ownership groups to reinvest minimum amounts into salaries, and ways to force owners to more evenly distribute wealth?
Some good points have been made about how the league is young and therefore can’t be held to the same standards as some of the more established leagues, but if we want a stronger league both from an entertainment standpoint and fiscal stability, then wouldn’t it be wise to raise salary caps and DP spots. I really just don’t understand why the players are so dead-set on free agency. For Christ’s sake, Jozy just signed a contract worth three times what he was making in the EPL and he hasn’t been in top form in well over a year. Sure, he has scored 12 goals in international play, but I think he has 3 in club since joining Sunderland.
Please explain how things are so bad for players now. A work stoppage would ruin the league, if not permanently, then for many years at least. Why are players so firm on this?
It’s not just Bosman but the Kolpak ruling also, though these types of transfers are generally still called Bosmans. Kolpak was a handball player who wanted to move between clubs in the EU after his contract expired and his club demanded a fee because he wasn’t an EU citizen. Due to his case, no sportsperson of any nationality can have their registration retained or a fee demanded for them if they’re out of contract and wish to move to another EU country.
For simplicity’s sake, everybody has unrestricted free agency pretty much everywhere, though in some cases the rules for domestic Bosmans are different to international ones. However, I can see this one ending in either an antitrust suit or in the CAS.
“Free Agency does not exist in England, Germany, France, Italy, or any other top league. Free Agency is a uniquely American approach to sport…”
Huh?
I guess that whole Bosman Ruling was just a figment of my imagination.
Someone on this site needs to write a brief article about what free agency actually is. The number of people on this thread who have claimed no other soccer leagues have free agency is ridiculous. MLS is the only soccer league that does NOT have free agency.
If anything, MLS players would probably be content with a weaker form of free agency than the Bosman system, like restricted free agency in other American sports.
Also, from an economics point of view, there is no reason that salaries would go up in MLS as long as there is a salary cap. Teams still need a full roster, so there would be a hard budget constraint on any bidding wars.
The way I see it, if the MLS wants to become a top league in the world, they should mimic the top leagues in the world. Free Agency does not exist in England, Germany, France, Italy, or any other top league. Free Agency is a uniquely American approach to sport and, although it is beneficial to players, all it really does is inflate salaries and pass the buck onto the fans.
Look at baseball, it is a multiple hundred dollar event for families to attend a single game. And why is that? Because single players are making 30 million a season and in order for clubs to afford that price tag, ticket prices are outrageous. MLS is built as a family-friendly event, where families can enjoy an outing for a reasonable price and if the league is no longer affordable for the fans, then there will be much larger issues for everyone involved.
Obviously, dissenters to this line of thinking can say that these same problems exist with the top clubs in the top leagues, and while that is true we must recognize that the MLS is not the EPL, and never will grow to that level if “growth” is rushed. As much as it pains me to say it, we need club finances to continue to grow and the players need to push for a CBA that requires ownership to reinvest in clubs. Rather than paying ‘free agents’ way more than they are worth on the international market, clubs should be investing more into their scouting networks, training facilities, player acquisition, academy systems, and all of the other things that make the level of soccer better.
I hate to sound so ‘close minded’ about the free agency thing, but I really don’t see how the league is in a position to even discuss the idea of free agency. If players want a work stoppage because they are so greedy, then it will be the players who will ruin the growth of professional soccer in this country. Increase league minimum salaries, increase player benefits, they players should be paid well and be well taken care of, but if they push for free agency too hard, they will guarantee that there won’t be much of a professional league in the US. They will give the NASL exactly what they have been waiting for.
I truly love this league. I love the game, as I assume all of you do. I would hate to see the greed of professional athletes ruin this league like they have many other American leagues. MLB – between the mid-90s work stoppage and the steroid scandals, the NFL overtook the title “America’s Pastime.” The NHL and the work stoppage a few years ago ruined everything they had built with regards to TV rights… the MLS is just now getting to a position where TV revenue is really helping the league (a work stoppage over this would ruin that). I believe the owners have to distribute wealth better and I believe the players deserve more, but Free Agency is not the way to go.
“Free Agency does not exist in England, Germany, France, Italy, or any other top league. Free Agency is a uniquely American approach to sport…”
Huh?
I guess that whole Bosman Ruling was just a figment of my imagination.
Clearly the free agency being discussed by Bradley and the players union is the ‘American’ brand of free agency… MLB, NFL, etc. The same thing that drove current salaries so high that it is no longer affordable for the average Joe to be a season ticket holder in those sports. If you want the MLS to follow in the steps of the MLB where only corporations and the rich can afford to regularly attend in person contests, then be my guest.
However, since you are trying to use The Bosman Ruling to prove a counter point, you should really understand what that ruling did. The court rulings (3 of them) merely banned restrictions on foreign EU players within national leagues and allowed players in the EU to move to another club at the end of a contract without a transfer fee being paid. This now exists globally that players out-of-contract can move where they choose. In the MLS, the MLS owns the contract and the contract is paid by the club (in most cases).
Just so I’m understanding your point here… your claim is that the Bosman Ruling is akin to the unrestricted free agency in most American sports? The free agency that was developed in baseball to combat the reserve clause?
The Bosman ruling introduced widespread “free transfers,” which is in effect free agency. Clubs could no longer prevent players from leaving at the end of their contracts, within EU states. It also allowed, naturally, removed limits on the number of EU nationals within a team.
It should be said that this important case was not about money but player freedom. It is an inevitable improvement and a civil liberty. It has effected the business of the game with player salaries and transfer fees, and probably altered the psychology of players such that, in general, they always seek the best clubs for themselves – through filthy rich agents – rather than stay loyal to their first employers. But before Bosman those employers would very often take advantage of their powerless employees.
Players moving on a free transfer, therefore, can go where they want and their club gets nothing in return. That is free agency. Which ironically is how MLS manages to afford getting the best international players, who have exercised their freedom and chosen to come here.
So let me understand what you’re trying to get across here. You want the players who work for a company and are members of a union to bargain for the company to reinvest so that union employee’s can make more money in the future after they stop playing. You really don’t understand a union at all. Free agency in every sport was had the same premise before it happened. The league would never survive or the competitive balance would be disturbed. But that isn’t true and MLS and the players can follow a system that is working perfectly in the NFL. Since the NFL got free agency they have never started losing revenue and players salaries have steadily increased.
No I don’t want the players union to bargain for their employers. I want players to bargain for strengthening the league. Argue for increased minimums, argue for better benefits, argue for better facilities, hold ownership and the league accountable for reinvesting profits raised in the clubs. Even threatening a work stoppage is ridiculous. It would ruin the league completely and unfortunately the MLS would never bounce back. And, please don’t forget, the MLS is NOT the NFL. The NFL is a 30 team league that generates so much more revenue you can’t even compare. What is clear is not my lack of understanding when it comes to unions, it is your lack of understanding basic economics.
Your conclusions do not follow from your premise. You say that free agency would lead to skyrocketing salaries and thus to high ticket prices. But you also say it would lead to the collapse of the whole league. Both can’t be right — if the league is strong enough that owners will raise ticket prices to cover costs, it can’t also be fragile enough that free agency will lead to its collapse. More generally, free agency, or at least free player movement, need not lead to skyrocketing costs, as long as a salary cap is in place. That’s precisely why other player unions fight so hard against salary caps. You have yet to explain why a salary cap (with some flexibiluity for DPs) can’t control player salaries just as effectively as the ridiculous system that is now in place.
I think the problem with free agency in the MLS would be that it would definitely inflate salaries. The MLS would end up paying EPL wages to players that clearly aren’t EPL caliber. No disrespect to players in the league, but those who are worth the money get DP salaries and make wages in line with their skill and ability (if not much more… i.e. Altidore and his 6mil – he couldn’t get more than 2 elsewhere). I agree that the player minimums should be increased, but you make really good points about how free agency ruined baseball. I would hate to see that happen to American soccer.
Free agency did not ruin baseball. The lack of a salary cap did. DP salaries are so high because they are not contained within a salary cap. There is no reason to think that salaries would go up very much with free agency if there is a salary cap. Furthermore, clubs would be prevented from spending beyond their means with a salary cap.
Of course free agency ruined baseball. Not for players, but for fans. That is the precise time where you begin to see corporations move into the game and start to push out the average fan. Saying that no salary cap ruined a sport means is a complete ad hoc fallacy. No salary cap meant that teams in small markets would struggle to compete with big market teams. (read Money Ball).
There needs to be a free market if we want to see the game grow. I would hate to see MLS go the route of MLB… this league is still in its infancy and it needs to be fostered, not smothered out. This is a very important time in the league and there is great opportunity for the MLS if they capitalize on the momentum building behind the game.
silly things MLS would lose with free agency:
– Allocation order
– Reentry drafts (both of them)
– League veto power over DP deals (ie Edu)
Control MLS would still have:
– Salary cap
– Limited # DPs
– Limited international roster spots
I really don’t see how the league is better off without free agency. A possible concern is that less sexy markets will have trouble competing for players. But I think that risk is not severe.
Agree completely. The sky won’t fall.
How can there be free agency when the actual teams don’t pay the players? And how could MLS itself oversee free agency without playing favorites? All the players will want New York or LA, and none would go to Salt Lake or Columbus, etc. This sounds like Pandora’s box. Maybe MLS has “outgrown” the conservative framework of its infancy, but this leads to a much bigger and more complicated debate. To implement free agency, MLS would have to do a total 180 on business philosophy by eliminating the “single entity” and empowering the teams into true franchises. And if the smaller market teams can’t pull their own weight (which they currently can’t), then they will go under, the league contracts, and possibly MLS starts down the slow vortex of the toilet bowl ala the old NASL.
Bottom line is the profit is not yet enough to do this. We all want the same thing, but it will take time. MLS is growing, but until there are greater profits from TV, sold-out stadia, etc, MLS simply cannot afford to go “all-in,” without risking everything that has been built over the last 20 yrs.
Spot on, it is a point that everyone keeps overlooking.
Thanks, jb!
Yes, we all want to see MLS thrive, but as much progress as the league has made in such a short amount of time, it would not take much to derail everything.
Maybe it eventually boils down to players earning free agency after a certain number of seasons in MLS.
But the teams do, in effect, negotiate the salaries and select the players they want. Theoretically MLS could reject a deal, but they don’t have a long history of publicly doing so for the players who make up the bulk of its teams.
Well you could add in revenue sharing like they do in the NFL and you could have both. Just enforce a hard cap with three DP players being excluded and teams responsible for the total contract of the DP. Each team would be in control of who they signed and how it fits their budget. You can base the cap on a percentage of the revenue the league brings in to get your cap number.
+1 Dead right on the assessment of the league, strategy, and the importance of profitability. This is exactly the dilemma.
The term “free agency” is the hardest part to understand about all of this (and I make no claim to understanding exactly what this would mean myself). What does it mean in the context of a capped, single-entity structure? Can it even happen?
Ultimately, I don’t suspect there is any way to integrate American sports-style free agency into the current MLS single-entity structure/strategy. Not just yet, anyway. I also don’t see why it is necessary.
To suggest the players are “underpaid” just doesn’t make sense…. they can go play anywhere…. that’s the beauty of soccer compared to other American sports. It’s a global game with a global market. Nobody here is an indentured servant.
It’s really quite absurd if you think about it…. this has to be the only country where top-tier soccer playesr sit and complain that they are “underpaid”…. most everywhere else, players who are capable of earning professional wages simply go to where they can be paid those salaries. Basic economics, right?
I don’t think it’s necessarily all about money. One of the main issues is that players cannot choose which club to join within MLS. That’s like telling someone who wants to be a teacher in the US that they can get a job, but will randomly be allocated to some city within the United States (or Canada!).
Players have preferences over clubs and cities and they shouldn’t have to threaten to leave the country in order to get a move to where they want to go.
The league has a lot more to loose with a work stopage. They have spent so much over the years trying to market their idea of a football league and its finally gaining some steam with some big time investors joining the group soon. A strike would be a substancial and terribly timed set back
For The players, a strike would be bad but a month or two off isnt as bad as the owners loss. Plus there are many other leagues across the world and in the USA & Canada that could step in.
As a fan, I am glad that we have players 1. Worth watching and supporting every weekend and 2. Strong enough to stand up to these owners.
Don’t get me wrong; very appreciative for their investments, and they deserve some years in the black, but the way the league treats the players and fans just comes off as disrespectful. I believe, and hope, that there is a way to build a league both profitable and respectable.
Why then would no other top football/soccer league in the world have Free Agency? If you can name one instance where the free agent system exists and/or promotes the quality of play you deem worth watching and supporting every weekend, please let me know.
Bosman Ruling.
Name one other league in the world where player “allocation” is even a concept. MLS claims it needs the single entity to protect itself from ruin, yet it takes giant risks by expanding into untested markets. I can understand qualms about complete free agency, but the current system is a bewildering joke.
Free agency exists in literally every other soccer league in the world. It doesn’t mean you can leave you club whenever you want. It means that you can sign with whoever you want once your contract is up.
I’m siding with the players on free agency and allowing them the chance to control their destiny within the league. Easy way to keep costs under control is a hard cap similar to the NFL. There’s more parity in that league than any other major sport or league I can think of and they’re certainly not hurting the on-field product in that system. My fear with opening up the cap entirely is you start to look like baseball or the top leagues in Europe, you start each season with 2-4 realistic contenders all from the biggest markets and it rarely changes. That doesn’t appeal to me as a supporter of a team from a small market.
I think that is the best solution. With perhaps an exception for homegrown players to encourage youth development and investment.
The fact that the NFL has 30 of it’s teams in the top 50 of the highest teams in the world proves it works both ways. And for the record teams 31 & 32 come in at 51 & 52. Not to shabby.
Abolish the cap and implement fee agency. What’s the worst that could happen? A couple of teams fold? Oh Well, that’s a good way to get rid of the riff raff.
It’s also a good way to get rid of the league (see the old NASL).
Even with free agency and a higher salary cap, MLS is miles more stable than the NASL was when the 1981 recession hit and it had one superclub (Cosmos), a couple of barely head above water clubs and a bunch of teams already drowning with unstable ownership and a history of multiple moves, folds, rebirths even when doing “well”.
It was basically Galaxy, a couple of teams where RSL or Dallas or Colorado currently reside and a whole bunch of Chivas USA at the end.
Yeah…I don’t see how people can’t see that a folding league is a sign of instability. A constituent member of your league folding IS NOT a good thing.
I don’t think there is a good argument against free agency. If anyone has one feel free to post it here.
Only argument is that MLS may not be able to survive teams having a bunch of bad contracts from bidding wars. But with a salary cap, better foreign scouting, and the infusion of youth development, it’s really not a good argument any more. Back in the day it made sense when MLS wasn’t making any money, and mediocore players could’ve been bid up too high, and teams didn’t know wtf they were doing yet. But a player really should have a choice now with where the league’s at. Something with set contract limits and nba style bird rights would make sense for MLS at this point, and still give players the option of ditching their team at a slight loss.
The problem with free agency is the limited pool of quality American players and limited international roster slots that artificially inflate their value.
Open up the rosters and free agency isn’t such a big deal. Teams could then go down to South America and buy a pile of quality players.
If we’re going to pay more might as well get better players.
Not an argument against it, but there are unintended consequences that some players wouldn’t like. With full free agency, you have no need to meet an average players price because they are many available to replace him. The bottom half and maybe the bottom three quarters of the talent pool lose a lot of job security. Whether that’s good or not for the standard of pay is another discussion, but the union could wind up undercutting many of its members for the benefit of a few. (By the way, in baseball, salary arbitration is what keeps salary high for average players, not free agency.)
Ugh… this dog and pony show bargaining from both sides will go on for months still. Sad part is there is basically nothing that can be done…. the story has played out over many years and many sports, and it’s always the same.. both sides will posture right up to the deadline, while doing the “actual” negotiating through backchannels. As long as they don’t compromise the season, thats the best we can hope for as fans.
After 20 years of staunchly supporting MLS, I’m ready to give it up.
The last straw for me was Don Garber’s response regarding the Lampard situation. There was no backbone. MLS proved itself inferior to CFG.
Add that to the sour taste Klinsmann has left in me for US Soccer, Yankee Stadium, MCFC Jr. Uniforms, Mike Petke’s Firing, Red Bull wasting the opportunity of a lifetime to be a club with a connection to its fans, Donovan’s retirement, Gerrard coming to MLS after saying Lampard was too good for it, and this new development? If MLS goes away, well, there’s lots of football to watch from around the world.
I fully support the players. It’s absolutely sickening that a guy is earning $6.5m a year compared to guys making $40k a year. The disparity must go immediately. There’s just too much negative all around to accept this any more.
You’re letting yourself get too invested in the collective bargaining agreement negotiations. There’s going to be plenty of crap thrown around by both sides, accusations, claims, all sorts of stuff trying to get what they want. Have you never paid attention to any other league that has a collective bargaining agreement? This happens every single time. it will all work out in the end though, and the soccer we love will still go on. Just get used to it and try not to read the propaganda until the agreement is hammered out.
Your posting, so it looks a bit like you actually do care. This is all part of the soap opera.
I like it. It may suck for a bit, but bad press sometimes is good press, no?
I want MLS to continue rising and succeeding but there need to be some concessions on their end. Free agency just seems like a no-brainer to me. Not sure why MLS is so insistent on not conceding that much.
It’s all about cost control. They don’t want to let their grip go just yet. While I do understand where the players are coming from I can see where the owners are coming from. The league is growing getting stronger but there has to be more compromise instead of absolutes. They aren’t one of the big 4 yet.
Cost control? Or do you mean that it would make some teams and owners actually have to care about performance instead of just having their team as investment holdings?
You’re missing an important detail. Salary cap costs are borne by the league, not individual owners. Bidding wars could cause top-heavy rosters, eating up the budget for depth players. It’s a complex issue, for sure.
Yeah, top-heavy rosters would be terrible. Good thing Seattle, LA, and TFC don’t have those. Actually, that’s not fair–any team with a DP has a top-heavy roster. The Union have started a $60k CB alongside a $600k CB since Curtin took over. Allowing free agency without altering the salary cap would not significantly impact roster management. It’s already a mess, and it will continue to be a mess as long as there are DPs and a painfully low salary cap.
Honestly, who are these teams you are talking about?
It has nothing to do with cost control. Its a single entity system. Presumably they can come up with some system where the player is free to try to choose their team and the MLS will still be the only wage payer.
That kid from UCLA who won the MAC trophy was essentially a free agent who refused to enter the draft.
What the MLS is not ready for is for a free market system where teams have to bid against each other and every other league in the world. The league almost went bankrupt just 10 years ago. Lets not get back into contraction.
Why is MLS is supposed to pay a lot more for the same players?. Higher salaries should equal higher quality players. Throwing money at Conor Lade isn’t going to make him Messi. Any salary concessions to the players should include more international slots to increase competition for roster slots. Then MLS can toss these ungrateful bums to D3 where they belong while improving the quality of the league.
Thant isn’t really how it works though. And nobody is going to throw $22mil at Connor Lade (Messi Money) even if there was free agency. The way MLS is currently set up there is competition for guys who make $80-250k and a whole separate category for DPs making the big $. Those guys are the quality players who don’t break the bank but make up the backbone of competitive teams. To fit under the cap you then have filler with a bunch of semi-serviceable journeymen and some young development players who you really don’t want to ever see the pitch if you can help it. These guys make small potatoes (not that $80-250k is much in the world soccer market either). Free agency would drive up competition and salaries for both groups because when contracts expire players would have more options and teams would incentiveize them to move. That really isn’t done AT ALL the way MLS is currently set up. Guys don’t let their contracts expire and try to sign with other teams. Those who are out of contract or waived don’t get picked up very easily and if they do it is almost always for about the same salary, often lower than what they were just getting. Personally I don’t think that will change much BUT if teams have more to spend then these salaries will have room for competition and the guy making $100k today will be suddenly making $200k with his next team for the same quality of play.
The owners like to pay them less and have systematically created a system where then can do that. Free agency breaks that centralized system. All of that said, I think MLS players deserve free agency.
If the players deserve free agency then the owners deserve an open roster w/o international slots. Paying vastly more for the same players does not increase the quality of the MLS and only hurts the league. For MLS to grow it must improve it’s product.
The average MLS Joe makes 91k a year with full bennies to play pro soccer in the US. Cry me a f’n river. How much do you think Marcelo Balboa’s check was to play in the APSL?
Those of you that think MLS is some sort of fait accompli are serious misguided and do not understand the history of the sport in this country. This is not a mature league. Until it is, all talk of power to players is a day dream.
Where do we begin… Let’s start here
1. The current system is a contrivance to keep wages artificially low. It also restricts the mobility of players from going to a “franchisee” who would pay the players more but the system that is anti-mobility and capitalist also punishes the team that would pay the player more because they would be forced to give up an arm and a leg to acquire said player.
Do you get that part?
And the limited international roster slots artificially increase the value of Americans.. Get it? This is a two way street. The players are bargaining with the owners to get the best deal they can for THEMSELVES. Not for our viewing enjoyment or the growth of the sport in this country.
Really, I have no time for these ingrates. They can hit the bricks if they don’t like the deal. Most of them would be working at Best Buy had it not been for Uncle Phil underwriting the league for many years. Unsurprisingly, they had no problem cashing his checks when the league was losing millions.
But they aren’t asking for more money, they are asking for more freedom. Let me give you an example of why the lack of free agency is BS. Amobi Okugo’s contract expired at the end of this season. The Union didn’t want to pay him $280k a year, so they offered him the bare minimum necessary to keep his rights ($225k) and then traded his rights to Orlando City (who did sign him at $280k) for somewhere between $100k-200k (the reports weren’t publicized, so it’s a rumored number).
Now, the Union didn’t want the player for what he expected to be paid, and that’s fine. But why in the world should the Union get a dime out of this deal?
This is the kind of unfair situation that a non-free agency league produces. It’s bad for the players and the teams, and I’m surprised that the league is fighting it. I expect that they’re just trying to set up the negotiations to make this concession but not others that they might have to make if they went along with free agency from step 1 of the process.
Although I think your comments are alittle over aggressive, I do agree with a fundamental point you are making… there is a market value for players, and it has pretty much been set. I’m sure there are some players that choose to make less money in MLS rather than play elsewhere, but for the majority of the players, their current paycheck is the best offer they have on the table. That is what the market values them. It isn’t crazy to ask for a raise when when the company you work for makes more money from your work, but if that company is still trying to become profitable, it isn’t a straightforward decision.
Also, I hate the idea of free agency just from a fan perspective. It turns players into mercenaries. From a player career standpoint, I understand, but anyone that was around when the NFL allowed free-agency will remember how suddenly you wouldn’t know half of the guys on your team from year to year.
I really have no idea what “artifically low” means in the context of professional soccer. If these guys are worth more, why not wander down south to Mexico (or any of the dozens of leagues globally that pay market wages) and get what they believe themselves to be worth? Seems very basic, no?
If these guys played American football, I might be more understanding of this argument, but the idea that MLS has a monopoly position on soccer wages is existential-level absurd.