Dempsey, Bradley, WC 2014, the new TV deals, and the new CBA...I'm not a believer in coincidences

I hope this next version of MLS is without Chivas USA as well. MLS is stepping its game up.

 

To my understanding, the wonders of Single Entity ensure that none of this is a coincidence. If I'm right and they are all concurrently in the know about this, then the ownership circle is clearly angling towards some very big things at the next CBA. I'm starting to sound like a broken record on this, but the Camilo thing also probably weighs in pretty heavily on these guys.

 

I am absolutely thrilled with what has happened but at the same time I am scared to death we could be looking at an elongated strike/lockout next year.

The players took it on the chin in 2009/2010 during negotiations and with the money being thrown around now, I can't see them doing that again.

 

MLSPU has nothing to gain from a strike, and MLS has nothing to gain from a lock-out.

The next CBA will be agreed to (even after some tense moments/items) and all parties involved will wisely continue to move the game and league forward.

 

This was said before nearly every single American team sports CBA negotiations the past 20 years.

With out knowing what the league is offering or the players are asking for, it is impossible to make the statement you did.

 

Except for those things called "leverage" and "bargaining positioning" that could potentially make a difference of tens of millions of dollars on each side. So, both sides have plenty to gain, especially if the players are expecting to make huge gains from the last CBA, which is to be expected.

 

The next CBA will continue just like the last one. Incremental gains in rights for lower salaried players, an increase in the freedom of movement (free agency), and expanding upon the benefits for all players. As much as people think that the Union is going to be screaming for more money, I'm pretty sure they just want contractual stability. The CBA provides that they will be paid on time, get benefits, and have a recourse if they have a grievance. I can guarantee you that the players damn well know that this magical money that people think is out there in Europe isn't there for 75% of the Union's membership. We like to think that Europe pays through the nose but they mostly don't except for the top leagues and how many of those are bringing in mid-level MLS players?

I also don't think that the union took it on the chin like you say they did. They got an increase in the number of guaranteed contracts (24 years old+ and 3 years service automatically gets a guaranteed contract as opposed to before when it was just something you negotiated), an increased minimum salary, limiting of unilateral options, increased bonuses, and increased benefits (according to the MLSPU release: [t]he agreement includes a package of benefits that include increases in 401(k) contributions by the league, termination pay, appearance fees, per diem when traveling, and relocation expense reimbursement, as well as an increase in time off for players.) Those are pretty solid rights and I would expect you to see them better those sorts of things than yell for more money. If they look for massive increases in salary that will 1) squeeze out a number of their current members and 2) likely lead to a rule change elsewhere that increases foreign players so domestic players will get squeezed out. You can't (as far as I know) negotiate things like foreign quotas into a CBA so the union likely knows that they will marginalize their current members if they push for huge pay increases.

 

It's likely more true though for the (relative to all of those older/bigger leagues that encountered labor difficulties) younger MLS in which there is still not much of a pie to argue over (just yet).

 

I would guess the league will wrap up new long-term tv contracts in the fall but the CBA won't be signed until the winter.

(Although if they can get away with doing so, the league may not share the details of the new tv contracts until after the CBA is signed.)

What is helping the most with the tv re-negotiations is MLS's expansion, specifically with NYCFC and Orlando set to begin play in 2015.

 

The TV deal will be completed long before negotiations start and that will be by design. Both sides will want to know the exact amount.

TV negotiations could be done as early as the summer time.

 

What happens if Chivas moves to somewhere within LA would you be saying the same thing? If I am a Galaxy fan I would love to see CUSA move.

 

This makes no sense.

The TV contract will be one of the cornerstones of the CBA since it is one of the few items that they will know the exact numbers on, where as other revenue numbers will be estimations.

There is no possible way for the TV deal to be complete and for the owners to hide the numbers from the Players Union. To even suggest such an absurdity is asking for a strike.

 

let us just hope that all this "MLS stepping" up talk is not at the expense of MLS's most important asset: its fans and supporters. Lets not price them out of the park please.

 

Anything is possible.

I thought MLS could and has argued that those are SUM monies, and not really on the table for the MLS/MLSPU collective bargaining.

It certainly could be asking for a strike. But that still doesn't mean that MLS could not attempt to (again) hind some/much of those "MLS tv dollars" in a generic SUM umbrella since all tv deals are packaged (and likely will be again) with non-league content like USSoccer broadcast match rights.

 

I'd like to see a minimum salary of $75k too, as long as that means the crop of players earning is better than the crop we have earning minimum now.

 

True. But I am sorry, the fans don't really get a seat at the collective bargaining table.

 

i know. i just dont want EPL stadia. stadiums over there are dead.

 

It might not be known which portion of the SUM deals are exactly relevant/available to MLS -- perhaps dependent on future ratings and ad revenue for MLS content and USSoccer content separately yet within the same SUM deal(s) with broadcast partner(s).

And only the national broadcast deals will be done. Some of the local tv deals for many MLS teams will still be tbd and likely to change across the life of the next CBA. And there are likely to be some international tv deals to be later agreed to as well. So in some real ways, "MLS tv monies" will have to be estimated -- even after the new national deals are signed.

 

The PU will know the exact amount of the TV contract that is MLS related vs US Soccer related. Lets please not pretend the Union is stupid here.

Even the most uneducated player would realize that is a farce to try and hide it under SUM much less the cadre of highly qualified lawyers Pope is assembling.

 

Agreed. That is the exact reason the national deal will not be hidden or estimated.

The league and the union will have enough problems trying to negotiate the estimated revenues, they most certainly are not going to hide, or lie about a relatively well defined revenue like the recently signed national tv deal.

 

The specific breakdown may be unknown, especially if it is based on future audience size and ad revenue for each separate entity that SUM is likely to bundle together.

This is not to say that the tv monies will be completely unknown or couldn't be ball-parked, but I do seem to recall MLS in the last CBA process making the claim that SUM monies are not (in full, or even in large part) available for bargaining with the MLSPU.

I do not know if either side's stance on that claim will alter during this next Collective Bargaining.