Am I wrong?
by denz on Feb 23, 2010 9:47 AM MST
Email
PrintI have never claimed to be right about everything, the views here are my opinions and I do make mistakes, but recently I posted a response to what I considered a hack job when someone compared the situation of Kevin Hartman and MLS to being worse than working for Wal-mart. The author was making a point about free agency and player rights, but to be fair I said that you had to look at the whole of the situation.
There was a paragraph where I said "I have over the past few weeks looked at a number of real issues with the league, but I continue to think that "Free Agency" is the least likely issue to be dealt with as long as the league continues to be the owner of player contracts. I would never try to make a case for the league being the good guy in every situation, but I would suggest that the players making over $150,000 a year stop bitching and moaning about things. I have a lot more compassion for the many players making under $40,000 a year. I have a lot more compassion for the players who have gone out and busted their butts for years just trying to make it to be a starter for a team, for many it has meant giving up things and enduring hardships, I have much less compassion for a guy at the end of his career trying to cash in a few more years to pad his bank accounts."
RSL's Nick Rimando took issue with my suggestion that players stop bitching and moaning about things. Suggesting that I am wrong on this one, and I may be, but my point is clear. I get that for some players "free agency" may be the keystone issue to the CBA, but the reality is what the players are really asking for is for the league to give up its legal status as a single entity, something it won in the Fraser v. MLS lawsuit in 2002. Now for me to think that the lawyers for the players union aren't going after this, is a stretch, and what would be the end result of something like this? For many they believe it would be the end of the league, it would thrust MLS into the same model as the old NASL where teams spend money they don't have in an attempt to compete. If you know anything of US soccer history, then you know about the NASL, if you are paying attention to the situation in Portsmouth you can see what can go wrong when spending is unchecked.
More after the jump:
Now I will say that I believe the league is close to being able to begin moving away from the single entity, I believe if the league growth and popularity continue to improve with Philly, Portland, Vancouver, and whatever other city/cities might join the league in the next couple years. I think for the league to bridge into more team control will require each team to control a larger portion of the overall revenue, while I think the league will need to keep control of that national TV contracts, and league sponsors, things like jersey sponsors and merchandise rights. Once the teams control more revenue, then they should begin to own the contracts of their players. This means instead of all the money going into the league and then they pay a bunch of bills and give a piece to the teams for their bills, that the majority of all income from teams and the league would go to the teams, while the league would get a smaller portion.
I have over the last few weeks spelled out 10 things that I would love to see done in the league by 2014, a date that represents the end of the Adidas deal, the end of the ESPN deal, and likely the end of the CBA being negotiated now. I see that date being a much more realistic date for a topic like "free agency", and while I am sure the players would love to move forward faster, as would most fans. I remember the NASL, and then I remember the decade plus of no real professional soccer in the US, I refuse to support anything that I believe could lead to that again. I believe that both MLS and the players union have to understand that change is coming, and that they should build the CBA to include steps that would move forward towards a 2014 goal of a major change in the way MLS operates. This gives players, teams, and the league time to prepare, time to plan, it sends a message to the fans that we know the best is yet to come, it sends a message to the world that we are coming and that soon MLS will be considered one of the major forces in world soccer.
I still think comparing the MLS to Wal-Mart was a very stupid thing to do and when you look at the 4 main issues believed to be at the heart of a new CBA and compare the two, I think MLS players may not have it great they have it a great deal better.
|
Topic |
MLS |
Wal-Mart |
|
Salary |
Average MLS salary in 2009 was $77,000 |
Average for an hourly worker $9.68 per hour (you would need to work 152 hours a week to earn $77,000) |
|
Guaranteed Contracts |
Some but not all |
None, not even close |
|
Quality of life issues (insurance, 401K, etc) |
Decent, but not great |
Decent, but not great |
|
Free Agency- ability to move to another organization for more money, freedom of movement with the organization |
None within the league, and outside the league only at end of contract |
You can try, but there are no guarantees that another store or department will hire you. There is total freedom to walk away at anytime |
Now I am not claiming this is a fair comparison, I think it sucks. MLS players are elite athletes with special skills and abilities far beyond an average Wal-Mart worker, but I didn't start this comparison it was someone trying to vilify the league. If you asked 1000 people if they would prefer to play professional soccer or work at Wal-Mart what do you think the answer would be?
So I may have been wrong, or a bit harsh to say that MLS players making over $150,000 a year should stop bitching and moaning about things it was meant in direct comparison to the original article that compares MLS to Wal-Mart.
I for one wish that the players union would have made the focus raising the minimum salary of every player to at least $40-45,000 and to raise the maximum salary higher to allow more high quality players to stay in MLS. I believe that as the league becomes more stable in both financial issues but also in its place in US sports that greater change will be able, but I think that change is still a few years off.
I hope that cooler heads will prevail, and I welcome any player, current or past who would like to "state their case" to simply let me know, I will be happy to post your thoughts without edit, I will remove your name if you wish. I am a fan of the sport, and if you read my blog on a regular basis you know I am no fan of "the Don" or how MLS runs the league, same goes for US Soccer, where I believe both have a much higher obligation to the sport. I do however know that MLS is a business and that like most businesses very often the workers and the owners have very different ideas about how things should be run. I think both sides have some very valid points in this dispute, but for me the concept of "free agency" is one that MLS simply isn't ready for with its current structure.
OFF MY SOAPBOX
22 comments
|
1 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I really hope the CBA talks work out. I think the player’s union seems to be demanding far too much at this time. The league is still growing and developing and while things like free agency should eventually find their place in the league, It’s just too early for that. We can’t expect the MLS to function like european leagues right now and we probably shouldn’t expect it to run exactly like european leagues ever. Look at the problems clubs like Portsmouth and Liverpool are having right now. Spending is just out of control over there.
It’s in everybody’s best interest for the MLS to survive. It’s probably a good idea to trust the business professionals that are running the league to do their jobs. The league is progressing, but it needs to do it at a healthy rate.
Trust might be a bit much
I am not sure I trust the powers at MLS much, I do think growth of the league is going well but pushing because of a couple good years might not be wise. I would love to see a solid 5, 10, and 20 year plan for the league and the union come out of these talks, that way each side has what it needs to do and what to work towards.
Fraser vs. MLS is the key
It’s hard to defend the league when they publicly claim that the situation Hartman, Van den Bergh, and Serioux all find themselves in right now doesn’t occur. However, the legal protection of single-entity strikes me as the overarching issue here for the league. If free agency is allowed, then the league basically cedes the court case that, in 2002, was crucial to them.
I have absolutely no legal background, so I have to ask this rather than suggest or demand it: What if the league was to concede on free agency only on the contingency that the players sign something legally binding that forbids any attempt to bring a new lawsuit regarding single-entity? Free agency, under MLS’s strict cap, isn’t going to push the league into an NASL-style position by itself. However, losing the protection of single-entity would certainly open Pandora’s box from MLS’s perspective. A deal like I’m talking about would give the players what they say they want, while shielding MLS from the rest of the trouble that could come with it.
The key
I believe it was best put by Soccer Law For me it just seems like the the concept of “free agency” with all the contracts being held by the league seems like it could really lead to some issues beyond Fraser vs. MLS.
Take yesterday, MLS holds a lottery for Luis Gil, but reports that Sheanon Williams is signed by RSL without a lottery (which I hear is just a trial and not an actual signing). What criteria does the league use to make their decisions? Think back a couple years when the DP rule starts up and Beckham goes to LA, of course by the new rule they already have a DP in Landon, but they draw up an exception to the rule for him, then they allow LA to pick up another DP in Carlos Ruiz and again an exception. Now Landon resigns a new contract which clearly makes him a DP but one team is allowed to have two, why?
Now imagine how the league could very easily manipulate “free agency” to stack teams with players they want there? I just really worry about the huge conflict of interest possibilities.
I would hope MLS realizes that their habit of redrawing the rules when convenient can’t just be done endlessly. To use your example, I think they stretched everyone’s tolerance of the LA double standard about as far as it could go when Beckham, Donovan, and Ruiz were all magically allowed to suit up for the Galaxy. It also didn’t hurt that LA was dreadful that year, and that Ruiz was noticeably a shadow of his former self. LA got to basically play by a different set of rules, but did so poorly with those freedoms that it became much less irritating. If they had been a winning team, I doubt it would have gone so quietly.
As for Williams and Gil, I think a lot of it has to do with how badly a player is wanted by clubs within the league, as well as the league itself. Signing Gil is a coup for MLS, because he could possibly have gone to a known club in Europe or Latin America. Losing players like that (particularly midfielders and forwards) is very bad for MLS. So, naturally, a player that’s so highly touted has a lot of clubs demanding their shot at having him in their shirt. Williams, on the other hand, is a great athlete with limited technical ability, a questionable soccer IQ, and plays outside back. Those guys are a dime a dozen in MLS. No one’s bending over backwards to sign him; if RSL wanted him that badly, he wouldn’t be on trial, for example. Williams may have climbed his way through the US youth national teams, but he’s not really a hot prospect. His Euro prospects are the same kind that every run-of-the-mill MLS player would qualify for: the lower end of the Danish and Norwegian leagues, the Swedish league, and the lower rungs in Germany. To be more succinct, Gil is a big deal; Williams is not. That’s where the lottery comes in.
There is definitely the opening for MLS taking advantage of free agency to make the “big” clubs bigger, but a) they’ve made too much of a public commitment to parity to really abuse free agency in such a way, and b) wouldn’t that be a great reason for MLS to allow free agency? If the league really had a nefarious plot to outright stack some clubs, I’d think they’d be very enthusiastic about allowing free agency, only to make it a manipulated farce. Since they’re so resistant, I’m going to guess that their worry is either a new lawsuit against single-entity or fears that the richer owners will simply loot the poorer MLS clubs and ruin the league’s dedication to parity (bringing about a potential NASL repeat).
by ChestRockwell on Feb 23, 2010 11:48 AM MST up reply actions
Denz,
I think you are too happy with too little for the league. You don’t want enough. I’m not fond of lowering expectations to decrease disappointment. Our job as fans isn’t in being apologists for the league or our teams FO and it certainly isn’t in writing the business plans. I don’t know why you take those tasks upon yourself. There is nothing wrong with a fan that wants it all, and I don’t think there is anything wrong with the MLSPU wanting it all, as long as they don’t take their ball and go home if they don’t get it all.
Thats the issue, its not the wanting, from any side… Its how each side will handle it when and if they don’t get what they wanted.
Not at all
you have read my 10 things I want from MLS in the next 4 years, I think each of them are realistic and if dealt with the league will be in a much better place, as well as the players. Most of all the sport in the US will be in a much better place.
You are correct there is nothing wrong with wanting everything, but it sounds like many of them want to take their ball and go home if they don’t get it. I try to balance reality with growth, I have a ton of passion for the players and their desires for themselves and for the sport, but I also get that this is a business and the owners have dumped hundreds of millions into this league over the last 15 years and aren’t anywhere near getting their money back yet.
I pretty much agree
Especially when it comes to focusing on raising the salary floor, not so much in making sure guys making six figures can get more and choose where they play.
That said, I am a big supporter of worker rights, but I’m also pragmatic. It doesn’t do the MLSPU any good to focus on what they want if they have no leverage that allows them to get it. The league doesn’t have to give in on free agency, at least not yet, and expecting them to do it because they realize it’s the right thing isn’t a real plan.
The reality is most MLS teams still lose money. How would a strike harm them? I really believe the best course of action from a players perspective is to get whatever incremental improvements they can, sign a two- or three-year CBA and focus on bigger gains during the next round of negotiations when MLS owners will have a much harder time swallowing the effects of a work stoppage.
re the silly Wal-Mart comment
You are absolutely correct that it’s a silly thing to say. The life of a pro athlete may be a little more involved than some of us realize … but it’s hardly punching the clock for hourly wages. And besides, it conveniently dodges this immutable truth, one that all too often gets left out of these labor debates: They are always hiring at Wal-Mart! In other words, slavery was rightfully abolished from this great land long ago. So, these guys are not in a box here. They can always go work somewhere else. Even Wal-Mart.
Exactly Denz, it’s the four year plan that gets the readers riled. The pragmatic approach to the team and league isn’t what people want to read. Sure, all things can be settled with roundtable discussion, but grabbing torches and pitchforks is a lot more fun. I’m not saying you are wrong, but you are saying things the fans don’t want to hear.
by SaltLakeKiddy on Feb 23, 2010 9:18 PM MST via mobile reply actions
But reality has to be spoken
See I am too often stuck in a bad position, I am a fan of MLS (I have owned season tickets 9 of the 15 years) and of RSL (I have missed 3 home games in 5 years and traveled to at least 2 road matches most seasons), but at the same point I understand business and the reality that comes along with that. So while I understand that every fan would love to see RSL sign Ruud and bring in Barcelona to Rio Tinto for a friendly, those things simply can’t happen from the business side. Would fans be willing to pay twice as much for their tickets in 2011 if we signed Ruud, hell no they wouldn’t so why in the world would anyone say otherwise.
I state my opinions based on the balance of my love of soccer, MLS, and RSL with the reality that MLS and RSL are businesses and just like I have to balance what I make with what I spend. So while I may not make everyone happy, god knows I have in the past upset players, RSL staff members, MLS staff members, and even a few folks at US Soccer, I try to offer up a honest look at things. No torches or pitchforks for me, I want MLS to become one of the top leagues in the world and I believe it could happen in 10-20 years (consider a 30 year old league competing at the same level of leagues over 100 year old), if all the parties involved would sit down and develop a plan that involves US Soccer, MLS, and the players.
Sorry if I am letting you down, but I don’t want to panic over things and I won’t change from offering what I think is an honest opinion on things.
You are wrong
Everybody understands that you cannot have a repeat of the NASL situation. However, your and the leagues assertion that what prevents that is the lack of free agency is just idiotic. Other sports leagues have already fixed the problem and the solution is a hard salary cap.
The salary cap is based on the premise that team owners and players share in the revenue stream of the sport. Basically in the collective bargaining agreement they come to an agreement as to what percentage the players will receive. The revenues that are split are from gate receipts and television deals. In the NBA for example, I believe the players receive 57% of the revenues (keep in mind that the NBA is a soft salary cap).
The model to follow should be the NFL, but with rookie salaries pre determined based on draft position like the NBA. Basically, the players would have the freedom to be able to shop for the best deal within the league and could not be held hostage by teams. However, all teams would still have to stay within the hard salary cap and therefore the teams would not have the ability to out spend each other.
Basically, you let capitalism play out while regulating it to level the playing field. Currently MLS owners use the NASL failure as an excuse to piss on the rights of players. It really is disturbing to me as a fan of soccer.
reality check
I respect your opinion, but there is the reality that the NBA, the NFL all have leagues that have huge amounts of income and until this year with the NBA have been making profits, overall MLS is in the opposite situation, most teams lose money and have done so for as long as they have existed.
No other soccer league in the world, or other sports league in the US is in the same boat as MLS. Not one of them has all the player contracts owned and controlled by the league. trying to compare them simply isn’t fair or right, just as comparing the league to Wal-Mart isn’t.
I favor a form of free agency, just not now. We aren’t an established sport in the US, surely not an established league, we are a small niche sport and a league that barely can get 100,000 people to watch our matches on TV. It is easy for some to look at Seattle and Toronto and think that this is the case with every team but it isn’t.
All the US leagues have a limited version of free agency and that is because the teams own the contracts and can negotiate with other teams to transfer those contracts, when a player is eligible they can seek employment from another team, but in MLS every player works for the league and is assigned to a team. Apples and Oranges, and I have said I would love to see this change over the next 4-5 years, but it is clear that it isn’t going to happen in the next couple days. I want to see a 5,10, and 20 year plan from the federation, the league and the players to grow the sport into being one of the major sports in the US and our league being one of the top 10 leagues in the world. A solid plan with goals and measurements for all sides to see what they are accomplishing and what to needs to be done, that is something that all sides should be moving towards. I haven’t heard any of the MLS owners using the NASL as an excuse, but are you suggesting that players would accept making less money if they could get free agency? What is the point of free agency for players, to try to get a better deal with a new team, how many free agents in any sport move to make less money. So if their goal is to be able to move to make more money, then the salary cap has to go up, then if they move again for more money then again that cap goes up, in the end you do end up with teams who can afford it and those who can’t. Doesn’t that sound like the NASL to you?
Players have a right to leave after the contracts, Holden just did, Movsisyan did, and others have over the years. Nobody is forcing a player to stay and play in MLS, instead the league created jobs in the US that didn’t exist 15 years ago and despite losing money they have kept those jobs and increased the pay rates players get, how exactly is that pissing on the players? How many players have financed the building of soccer stadiums? How many players have financed bringing top clubs from around the world to the US? Listen the players have some legit issues, but to say the league is pissing on them is just like saying they would be better off working at Wal-Mart.
I understand the differences
Look, I completely understand the uniqueness of MLS. I understand that it cannot be compared to proven and established leagues. You say that free agency is good and you want it one day but not now. My question is why would free agency under a hard salary cap be bad for the league? The argument you made against free agency was that team would go crazy spending. However, that is not true and not possible with a hard salary cap. I just don’t see any negative to free agency other than the league giving some power to the players to make choices. It prevents the league from holding players hostage but other than that there is not negative effect.
So again, the hard salary cap would be based on a percentage of the revenues. If the league doesn’t make much money then neither will the players. I am not saying to pay players money that the league or teams don’t have. I am just saying that the league needs to give players fair rights and maybe we would attract better talent which leads to a better product and more money.
The problem is
That unlike every other league the MLS owns all the contracts, so how does a player get “Free Agency” they work for the league and are assigned to a team. No matter how that is done by the teams and the league, it is reality, the league already struggles with dealing with trades and player lotteries. No imagine you get players going to other teams and saying do you want me to play for you? OK, how much will you pay for me? OK now convince the league to do it.
The league looks at their overall situation and they know they can get a better merchandise deal or TV deal by having the most popular teams be successful, so Seattle, LA, Philly and other big markets that are attractive to both the league and some of the better players (more endorsement deals, better TV time) get the best players. A hard salary cap, yeah right how does that work in LA? Beckham, Donovan both over 2 million a year, at one time Ruiz over a million. Rules don’t get bent in MLS, they simply only apply when they want them to. So now you sign a player to the league but loan them to a team since they wouldn’t fit under the teams cap.
Oh you can tell me the league wants parity, but did you see any coverage of LA or Seattle this year? How many times from the first match of the year did the league and their partners push Seattle as a potential Cup team? How many players that would normally have been part of an allocation lottery ended up in LA in the past? If you watched the Conference finals you heard announce teams pulling for a Beckham vs. Blanco matchup, since it would be big TV. When it ended up LA vs. RSL, they all pulled for LA, heck if you had seen the look on “the Don’s” face when RSL won on PK’s you could tell he wasn’t overjoyed by the result.
I say get to free agency, but do so when you can get away from the current single entity structure. That has to be part of the long term plan, but it isn’t going to happen now and can’t be negotiated in a couple weeks.
I still don't understand your point
You just made a bunch of arguments as to why the current system is terrible and how it is broken. But then you claim that your thesis of your argument is that the owners are right in demanding that things stay the way they are. What am I missing about your point in this argument.
Reading your arguments it is clear that you think this league needs to change because it is terribly broken as it is. I just don’t understand the argument that the MLS desperately needs change but not right now. That is just an excuse from owners who do not want to give up control. They keep the players in line by claiming that this funky single entity league is the only way it would work. I don’t buy it for a second. As you said, the league likes that single entity because they get to have control over everything including sending the best players to the biggest markets and changing the rules whenever they want to meet their own personal needs.
The system is broken so fix it. You are right that a hard salary cap would not allow LAG to have Donovan, Beckham and Ruiz. But you also said that was exactly the reason to have a single entity so that teams would not go crazy like during the NASL and spend too much. It sounds like teams are going crazy but only the ones that MLS winks at and gives approval to. What kind of unfair system is that?
All things in time
I think trying to make a major change to the structure of the league over a couple weeks is a huge mistake, I want big changes to the league over time, changes that will allow the US and soccer in the US to be on a par with the best leagues in the world. Just giving players the right to negotiate with the league about what team they are playing for isn’t going to do that, in fact it will in my opinion make things worse.
I want a progressive plan that involves US Soccer, MLS, the NASL/USL, the players union, team owners, and even some level of representation from the fans, all working together to accomplish some basic goals over the next 5, 10, and 20 years that result in the US being a force in every World Cup, our national league being one of the top 5 in the world and the sport having a much larger footprint in American culture.
I think trying to change things now is a bit over the top, we don’t have a solid league or solid place in US sports. I do think the league could recover from a strike/lockout but it would most likely put soccer back 5-10 years in the country, because the public perception is already so weak. A big part of the solution is to change the core structure of the league from a single entity to a model with teams controlling their business and the league controlling things that impact every team. I don’t think that many of the teams are ready for such a business model. With over half the teams operating with significant losses and a quarter close to making money but with huge debt, and a couple actually turning a profit, the league simply isn’t ready for the teams to have more on their plates. Not yet, but can they all be told that in 4-5 years they will be responsible for their own payroll and expenses,
It all comes down to the viability of the league and the teams, with the current TV deals, merchandise deals, and league sponsorships and there simply isn’t enough money coming in yet. To think that “freedom” is the point of the players wanting “free agency” is simply naive, it is all about money and their desire to be able to seek bigger paychecks from other teams. I don’t think that is wrong, but how do you propose it works with all the contracts owned by the league.
I might be a lot more willing to listen if there were a single person who could explain how a negotiation in or out of contract with the league would be negotiated in good faith to both sides, without it getting very “questionable”. If the players would do more than use a couple players who are highly paid and getting towards the end of their careers as examples, it might convince me to reconsider my position?
I think the clearest example that the while the current system is broke and in need of repair is Stuart Holden, there is no way he should have been making $34,000 a year. He didn’t stay around, he took his shot and left for Europe, what is to prevent any player from doing that at the end of their contract? They have freedom to leave, if they chose and if they are good enough.
Point.Game.Set.Match.
http://www.bigsoccer.com/forum/blog.php?b=7653
Bill Archer is absolutely on point with this article.
The things players and many fans want aren’t things that will make the league better. Instead, they are things that will only be possible AFTER the league is better. Does that make sense? What we want are the results, not the means.
The means to an improved league are more of the same, which is disheartening to a lot of fans that see this point in soccer as the point for exponential growth. With the economy, and everything, I think it is best to batten down the hatches and hold tight. We will get there eventually, but that day is not today.
great find
Bravo, I still think a long term plan to grow the sport and the league is the way to go but hell we can’t get these guys (both sides) to even agree when to meet.
Quit Your Bitching!
I’m trying to put together a group of about 25 people (15 of them new to the game) who will be making the trip to San Jose for opening day. Our plans for travel and accomadation and game tickets are being stunted by the uncertainty of a game even happening. I think the fans who make this game even possible are being forgotten here and that is really sad. Nick Rimando has been very outspoken on several blogs about people need to respect the players and their need to get what they deserve… Unbelieveable – You would be working at Home Depot if it wasn’t for the fans who’ve stuck by this game when 90% of the world has been ridiculing us for doing it. The league and the owners have structured and built this league at a snails pace in an effort to assure the long term growth.
Play Ball fellas – your driving away more fans than you’re bringing in!
by RSLFANINCALIFORNIA on Feb 26, 2010 2:07 PM MST reply actions
Players have their rights
Listen I think it is clear that the players have strong feelings about what they believe needs to happen for the league and the sport to grow in the US. They have chosen to organize a union and as part of a union their concerns will be for the players rights and to get the players a better deal, that is the point of a union to do the best they can for their members.
There are a good number of MLS players who could go to other leagues in South/Central America, or smaller leagues in Europe and play, a lot of them have chosen to stay in the US for their families, but a good number have done so to see the US get a real league going. I do think the league has jobbed a number of them, Twellman, Sacha, and others by refusing to let them go overseas when offers have come in. I think the league has screwed themselves by treating quality players like crap, just look at the Stuart Holden situation where he left MLS making under $40,000 a year.
I do think the issue of “free agency” may be the wrong issue at this time, but the whole point of my initial post was to point out that using a comparison to WalMart as a point of reference wasn’t valid or smart.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
