But Door4 point is that the company hired the people, just when they were going to be assigned what department they were going to work, the shipping manager picked all the Mexican-Americans and the rest went to work at other departments. So if the other employees still had a job and were not discriminated in that way so MLS LLC would win a law suit because the other players would have to show they were harmed or that they lost something. It is definitely bad PR and most companies would make sure shit like that did not happen, but it may not be technically illegal.
Per http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/practices/index.cfm So, according to my reading any, absolutely any, preference for a national origin in any aspect of employment is against the law. Senior Chivas USA staff have announced this preference multiple times. This is really, really bad and against the law. Even, if it's part of their club identity and market strategy it's still not defensible because there are multiple successful soccer teams in the US that don't do that. I think if someone sues them they're screwed. I think MLS needs to clamp down on them.
If they follow through. As soon as they take a non Mexican/Mexican-American they won't be following the stated preference so there's no ground to stand on. I agree, the policy is illegal, but they actually have to put the policy in place. Honestly, I don't think they can and construct anything resembling a MLS team. This idea is DOA.
Nope, the existence of a policy is the big thing usually. All that needs to happen is that a hostile environment is created. At that point, anything bad happening to a player or even a staff member (and these always happen) can be grounds for starting a case.
Right, but the environment has to be created. Right now all that's happened is that a senior exec has said they were going to do something.
I'll wait for them trade Dan Kennedy (Their best player) for Peanuts before I make any actual judgments.
What if MLS agrees with CUSA and let's them have all the Mexican/Mexican American players? Would that be illegal? This would bring in all the CMEX fans and other Mexicans to follow CUSA. The NASL did something similar with Team America in 1983.
Well they got a good GK on loan from Chivas so they have to trade him or he will probably ride the bench, so regardless it is going to look like they got rid of an American player to play a Mexican player. BTW doesn't MLS have a rule that teams can only take players on loan if they have the right to purchase? I wonder if MLS sees a good Mexican player at Chivas can they use the option to buy even if Chivas USA does not want to buy (because Chivas MX does not really want to sell).
No, I have no problem with Chivas USA doing this as much as I have no problem with Athletic Bilbao and their Basque thing. Chivas USA is obviously a team geared to Mexican Americans,which is perfectly fine, and in order to appeal to that fan base it needs to have more Mexican American players. It's not like they're explicitly stating that it hates white people or that Mexicans are inherently better, they're just staying true to their heritage. It's no different than some teams wanting to play more homegrown players or trying to field more American players, which nobody seems to have a problem with. I honestly think the "controversy" surrounding Chivas USA partially stems from the whole USA vs Mexico rivalry or whatever...
So, if NE moved to a heavily white area of Boston, it would be perfectly fine for them to only draft white players? Ethnic-based teams are one of the ugliest aspects of European soccer. Look at the violence that surrounds the Celtic-Rangers rivalry. MLS should not allow that type of nonsense to gain any place in the league.
So if SKC says that they would like to have more Kansas City natives on their team, which they have, that would be encouraging ethnic based rivalries? If any Canadian team says they want more Canadians on their team, which they have, that would be encouraging dangerous nationalistic rivalries? If any MLS fan says they would like to see less foreigners and more Americans on their team, which many have, they're suddenly xenophobic? The answer to all those questions is no, and most people would agree with that. So why is it that when a Mexican American team that is trying to appeal to a Mexican American fanbase says that they want more Mexican Americans on their team, there is suddenly a huge outcry? There is nothing wrong with celebrating ethnicity. If somebody creates an organization where Mexicans or Africans or Asians or Irish people or (insert minority) can hang out together, what is wrong with that? However, whenever something like that happens white people get angry, call it racist, and use the ever popular argument "what if white people did it"? Newsflash. You're the majority! I'm sure there isn't any equivalent of the NAACP in Africa (maybe in South Africa), just like why there is no white support group. If you're a WASP and want to hang out with other WASPs, just look around you. If you would like white rights to be supported, than I'm sure those hundreds of white leaders would be perfectly happy to support you. The same cannot be said for any minority in the US.
It probably wouldn't have been so bad had Chivas not blatantly gone out and said that this was their plan. I mean, I don't think anyone would've batted an eye had Chivas just said, "Look, we're trying to put the best possible team together, and we feel that what we have gives us the best chance of winning. If they all happen to be of Mexican descent, then that's how it worked out. We took what we thought were the best players available at key positions. End of story." Of course, they didn't say that, and instead just kept shooting their mouth off about their plan. It's usually the biggest mouth that gets you in the most trouble. If racism is there (or, in this case, "nationalism"?), I'll be one the first people to jump in on it, and call it for what it is. What Chivas is doing is morally wrong. I don't think anyone doubts that. However, it's not like they're preventing players from going to other teams. Dan Kennedy will have a job on another team. Nick LaBrocca will have a job with another team. Any non-Mexican-heritage players on Chivas USA who get shipped out will play elsewhere. In essence, the players aren't hurting. In some ways, it's gotta be a saving grace for some players who know that a train wreck is coming, and they want to be safely out of its way when it hits. The people who are really being hurt in all of this aren't the players who are being looked over because they're not of Mexican descent. It's the people who lay down good money on tickets to have to watch this inevitable disaster who will be suffering because the ownership doesn't care about them. Those people have every right to vote with their wallets though, and real change will come when a hearty crowd of 1,100 come out to cheer on bottom of the table Chivas with a goal differential of -47. Hopefully, the Chivas USA supporters won't stand for it, and make their voices heard. I don't think it's necessary for any lawyers or the government to step in. Just let the results speak for themselves, like they did the first time, and when Chivas is swirling the bowl, that's when you'll see the change. Forcing Vergara to see his stupidity is only going to make him that much stronger. Let him hang himself with the rope he's been given.
Newsflash. There are a lot of other ethnicities beyond Mexican-American and white involved in Chivas USA. As a matter of fact, the vast majority of Latino players in Chivas are not Mexican. Should they be subject to an exclusionary policy where they are to be phased out? Should anyone?
Kansas Citian is not an ethnic, racial or religious group. Choosing people from a certain geographic region does not exclude people based on immutable traits because anyone can live in Kansas City. And Canadian and American fans saying they want fewer international players is also not the same as a team picking players based on ethnicity. People who aren't currently legal residents of the US or Canada have no legal right to play for MLS teams. On the other hand, people living here legally do have a legal right to play on those teams (if they're good enough) and it is illegal to discriminate against them based on the basis of national origin, racial group and so on. Because it is bigotry, discrimination and illegal under US law. And why would American soccer want to follow the piss-poor example of sectarian/ethnic-based clubs like Rangers and Celtic? MLS clubs should be open to every fan. Allowing Chivas to define itself as the club for people of Mexican descent sets a horrible precedent. Look, every racist hiring policy is based on some sort of justification. At the end of the day, they all pretty much come down to: we don't want "those" people working for us because they're too stupid/dirty/criminal/ugly/different etc. Nothing is wrong with having private organizations with limited membership. However, once you start hiring people to work for such an organization, you generally lose the right to discriminate based on national origin. The Augusta golf club has the right to choose its members as it sees fit. However, it does not have the right to refuse to hire female employees, or black people, or employees of Mexican origin. Do you support them having the right to refuse to hire a black woman to work in the pro shop? Anti-discrimination laws make no distinction between the majority and the minority. Refusing to hire a white guy based on his race is illegal. It's also immoral. Your comment has nothing to do with a soccer club refusing to hire based on national origin.
Whether it's neccesary or not, it might well happen if Chivas actually pursues this policy. If this really is going to be Chivas' policy, MLS needs to step in and put a stop to it. Any moves to make certain MLS clubs ethnically-based need to be squashed ruthlessly. That type of thing has been nothing but negative in the rest of the soccer world. We've been lucky in the US that we've mostly avoided that type of thing in our professional sports.
Frankly, I think it is more aimed at generating buzz and stories than any real policy approach. The rules of MLS make it difficult to actually pursue this approach. The draft and draft order makes it nearly impossible. The discovery tag process makes it nearly impossible. The fact that any players entering MLS not under discovery tag are generally allocated makes this impossible. Frankly, the only way Chivas could do this is by only allowing Mexican Americans in their academy which would bring forth the government. Even then there is a limit on HG players signed (under cap exemption). But as I said, they may have accomplished the goal already . . . here we sit talking about Chivas.
I don't deny that it's something that needs to end, but I think MLS's stance on this is, "Let's see where this is going before we force anything on Chivas." I'm sure that it'll predictably end in abject failure like it did the last time, but what do you want MLS to actually do here? Take 3 of their players and say, "Get rid of these guys and put 3 random American/Latino/Asian/African/whoever, so long as they're not Mexican on the roster!" Does Chivas get to pick which guys to cut because they're Mexican or does MLS? Do they have to be good players or bottom of the barrel guys? MLS can't really tell a team how to build its roster, so long as it's within the framework of the league rules. There's nothing in the league rules stating that you must sign a minimum number of black or white guys, or that your roster can't be entirely comprised of Mexican-Americans. Plus, setting rules now as to what race of players you can and can't sign is only going to muddy the waters in the future. Again, I'm not for what Chivas is trying to do, but it's because I think by limiting their choices of players, they're only hurting their fans. They're not really hurting any players, as players will have 18 other teams to have a shot at. Is it morally wrong? Yes, it's morally wrong, but I don't think it's anything worth getting the law involved over, and it's within the guidelines that the league has set up. So long as it's not against the league's rules, what can really be done? I mean, steroids in baseball was morally reprehensible, too, but it was never against the rules.
I'd be pretty shocked if each team's operating agreement with MLS didn't include boilerplate language requiring the team to follow all applicable laws, which would include anti-discrimination laws. Violating those laws would put the team in violation of the agreement, which would allow MLS to exercise whatever remedies it had under the agreement.
OK, so what should MLS do then? What would the limit number be of Mexican and Mexican-American players? Will this be the limit set for future deals for other teams? Does Chivas have the ability to attack other teams should they go over the limit of a certain number of nationalities? For example, if MLS sets the precedent at no more than 5 Mexican-Americans, can Chivas go after a team with more than 5 players of one heritage? If they're signing Americans of Mexican descent, they're signing Americans. It's perfectly within the rules. There's no rule stating that you can't sign a certain number of Irish-Americans, Italian-Americans, Colombian-Americans, Honduran-Americans. No such rule exists.
Furthermore, limited the number of ethnic AMERICANS would move the whole other way and put MLS in the crosshairs of US labor law. Frankly guys, the rules of MLS will take care of this provided there is no discrimination at the academy level. It isn't worth worrying about.
Theoretically, if Chivas is in violation of its operating agreement with the league, the league's remedies probably go all the way up to terminating the agreement. Now, the chances of that happening are probably slim-to-none. The most likely scenario is a conference call between Garber and Chivas (and their respective lawyers) pointing out that a policy of only drafting people of a a certain ethnic group or national origin violates the law and needs to stop. MLS can't say "no more than 5 Mexican-Americans" because such a policy would also violate anti-discrimination laws. MLS will most likely just tell Chivas to stop talking about this supposed policy and to re-think their approach, because it's legally risky to follow such a policy. It's also bad PR and will hurt their ability to attract fans. Frankly, if I was a Mexican-American soccer fan in LA, I'd be insulted by this type of pandering. Fans want their teams to win and few of them care where the winning players come from.
I said in my first post that no one would bat an eye if Chivas just went about its business the way it wants to so long as they kept their mouth shut about it. Boasting about it is what's going to get them in hot water with the league. Like I said earlier, the only remedy is for Chivas fans to vote with the wallets. The only way to get through to someone like Vergara is by hitting him where he cares the most: in his wallet. Once the crowds dry up, he'll be forced to make all the changes necessary.
There is a difference between not hiring somebody based on their ethnicity, which I agree is blatant racism, and hiring somebody based on their ethnicity, which is just showing support for that particular group. That's why affirmative action is able to legally exist, and that is also why the proponents of affirmative action are generally also proponents of anti-discrimination laws. Yes it's technically discrimination, but it's discrimination in favor of a certain group, rather than labeling any particular group, as you say it, "stupid/dirty/criminal/ugly/different". Same thing with Chivas USA. They're not targeting white people, they're simply saying "hey, we're a mexican american club, our fans are mostly mexican american, we are proud of our mexican american heritage, wouldn't it make sense to have more mexican americans on our team?". Also, I still fail to see how SKC wanting Kansas City natives on their team is any different from what Chivas USA is doing. Yes, you can choose to grow up in Kansas City if you feel like it, but how does that make preferring Kansas City people non-discriminatory? You're still preferring a certain group over others... Furthermore, I fail to see a difference between geographic differences and ethnic differences. Isn't ethnicity ultimately just what geographic area you ultimately come from? Black people are people of African descent. White people are people of European descent. Asians are obviously people of Asian descent. So what's the difference between a club forming on the basis of geographic area and a club forming based on ethnicity? Before you say "you can choose where to live", I will say yes that is true, but it is also true that you have very little control over where you grow up, and where you grow up usually determines which team you support. Besides, geographic divides are just as dangerous as ethnic divides, so does that mean the world cup should be banned because it encourages dangerous nationalistic feelings? Should MLS be banned because it pits city against city Why is it that people are far more comfortable with geographic pride than ethnic pride?
They came into the league marketing to hispanics and it failed, no reason to believe this crap will work either.
Someone asked me about Chivas USA's draft strategy. This is what I thought of. followed by No disrespect to the players, but they still dont understand the league and the purpose of the draft.