Maybe there is a thread about this already, if so please merge. http://pitchinvasion.net/blog/2012/09/25/pitch-invasion-podcast-episode-8/ Bob Foose, the Executive Director of the MLS Players' Union talks about single entity and the player union.
I know there is still disagreement on who owns the teams, Mr. Foose seems to think that MLS at least technically and legally does own all the teams. I think most of us already knew this, but the argument could be made on what really is a team, the players? The team name (who owns the trade mark to a name) the stadium, the off field staff? etc.
Interesting interview. Thanks for posting it. And you're right for the non-believers he flat out says MLS owns all of the teams, while the investor operators own the operating rights. Hopefully the 51% nonsense has been totally debunked by now, but for those who still don't believe, give a listen. Having said that, there were some interesting pieces of information that I haven't seen before. What really jumped out at me is his comment at 25:15 that the reason the salaries released by the union are lower than the salary budget is that the league is tacking on an administrative fee. Its been well reported that in addition to wages the salary budget also includes an amortization of any transfer fee (i.e., if MLS pays a $900,000 transfer fee for a player who signs a three year deal, $300,000 of the transfer fee is included in the team's salary budget each year along with that player's salary.) But I've never seen it mentioned that a fee is also being tacked on. It wasn't clear who was getting this administrative fee -- the implication was the league -- but the fact that the league tacks these fees into the salary budget which really don't have anything to do with player wages surprised me. It would be interesting to know how much this fee is.
Good to see someone officially on the record. I don't know what there is to talk about (well, until WSW shows up and starts talking about cartels)
relevant for this thread. http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/sportingscene/2012/09/the-nfl-dictatorship.html
i would guess the administrative fee might be contract insurance. That's the most reasonable possibility I can think off.
I wonder. I'd personally guess not re legal fees, because I imagine MLS relies on their in-house lawyers for the legal side and they'd be paid fixed annual salary. Possible of course, especially if MLS wanted to artificially boost the player salary numbers by a tiny bit. IMO, it's more likely something that's clearly part of player signing / acquisition costs and easy enough to identify. Contract insurance, but can't really think of anything else.
Because MLS is the employer here I suspect it probably has something to do with the normal expenses an employer pays -- payroll taxes, employer pension contribution and health insurance -- which, taken together, could be a big number.
Just curious people always say that because MLS is a single entity league making free agency impossible. But isnt the NFL single entity and they have free agency. I realize they have things like the franchise tag that can restrict movement but it is probably better than what MLS says at the moment. Just curious this always puzzled me.
The NFL isn't single entity, AFAIK. I don't think MLS' single entity structure is a bar to free agency, either.
The NFL is not single-entity. In fact, the US Supreme Court had the distinction of ruling that, in American Needle, Inc. v National Football League
Not sure if Free agency can be done in single entity, but we will see. I mean legally it would be as if a player for the Dallas cowboys wanted to be a free agent and pit Special teams vs. the Defense vs. the offence to see who gives him the best offer. Maybe more like a player in Barcelona B becoming a free agent and getting different offers from the different Barcelona teams in the Spanish Pyramid. But I assume that some sort of agreement that is like free agency in practice but not legally free agency could be negotiated in some CBA. Now in the interview with the player union president, he did make a comment that the court did leave it open with regards single entity vs. cooperative structure or something like that, I guess I will try to listen to it again.
That's exactly right. And it's not clear MLS is either. From the Fraser Appellate Court decision: "We also find that the case for applying single entity status to MLS and its operator/investors has not been established but that in this case the jury verdict makes a remand on the section 1 claim unnecessary . . . To sum up, the present case is not Copperweld but presents a more doubtful situation; MLS and its operator/investors comprise a hybrid arrangement, somewhere between a single company (with or without wholly owned subsidiaries) and a cooperative arrangement between existing competitors." http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-1st-circuit/1441684.html
Could this happen in MLS? http://sports.yahoo.com/news/spurs-playing-without-4-regulars-001405051--nba.html Could the league punish a team if they decided to rest players for a game, say a National televised game on NBC? Is it a good idea or bad idea? I mean fans want to watch the stars, but teams may want to give players some rest.
The league punished the Galaxy with a fine in 2011 when they didn't list Beckham on the injury report but left him in LA when the team traveled to Colorado due to "back spasms". http://sports.espn.go.com/los-angeles/soccer/news/story?id=6701712
The coach's decision seems pretty reasonable. Long road trip and older players with some history of injuries. Resting them in that scenario shouldn't be something the team gets punished for.
I also think there was bitching when Beckham was injured so he could not play but was allowed to go to England for the Olympics or the queen birthday I forget. So you think Stern was right, fans do not like it so the league should be able to punish teams that do stuff like that. Specially since it would usually mean getting punished by losing the game. I wonder if fans/the league would like it if Concacaf "punished" teams if they did not play their starters? Then again 2 different things, a league and an International competition. (I believe recently Chelsea rested starters during the league before a Champions League game, it did not work out well if I remember correctly).
how long will single entity last for? Is it something that was necessary to get the league on stable footing for slow growth or is it a structure the league plans to keep long term?
It is permanent unless overruled in the courts; which is unlikely unless something changes which is also why the league doesn't make decisions regarding cap and player acquisition not consistent with the original ruling.