Look this is really simple and it isn't much different from the way employment works in just about any other line of work. It doesn't matter if you are MLS or IBM, you cannot grant preference to certain foreign nationals when it comes to hiring in the US. You just can't do it. If your company sets aside a specific set of positions that can only be occupied by soccer players from Caribbean islands or software engineers from Ireland, that will run afoul of US labor law. It amazes me that people fail to understand this. Think about this logically. Would it be ok for a US company to say we will hire non citizen Costa Ricans but not Mexicans?
They don't complain that US players are considered domestic in Canada; they complain that Canadian players are considered foreign in the US.
No, it doesn't. That is a requirement for the H1-B visa. Most (if not all) foreign MLS players are on an O1-A visa, which has no such restriction. This is a tricky issue. There are obviously exceptions to the law for participation in international competition (without some exception the US National Team (in soccer and other sports) would be breaking the law by only "hiring" citizens and not permanent residents), but I'm not sure what specific law covers that, or how it would relate to a hypothetical CONCACAF rule.
It would make sense to me if my business was a US based retailer of Costa Rican coffee or a US based travel agency that specializes in Costa Rican trips. Again I'm not arguing the content of these laws of which I'm no expert on anyways. I get the slippery slope argument and the setting of dangerous precedents. It's just unfortunate because in many scenarios having a specific nationality preference makes practical sense that can benefit the product and the business and the consumer.
And if you can make the case that a specific nationality or ethnicity (or religion, or other protected class) is core to doing the job then its acceptable under U.S. labor law. Entertainment also has a waiver (for example, its legal to only consider Latinos when the script calls for a Latino character). I just don't see MLS winning an argument if they try to make that claim about CONCACAF players.
The US national team isn't discriminating based on citizenship versus green card status, it's discriminating based on bona ride occupational requirements. If FIFA requires national team players to be citizens of their chosen country, the national team has to follow its rules to play in tournaments. An analogous situation I've seen is in international legal practices. Some countries in Latin America only allow citizens, not residents, to practice law. If an American law firm wanted to hire a lawyer to work in both its Miami office and in a country with such a rule (say, Colombia), the bona fide occupational requirements of the job would eliminate anyone who didn't have Colombian citizenship. But that wouldn't violate American discrimination laws.
To take this a bit further, the USSF has designated MLS as the US top soccer division for FIFA's purposes. I'm not sure of the exact relationship between MLS and the Canadian FA but if they have also designated MLS as Canada's first division league, would MLS be able to eliminate the distinction between US and Canadian players for roster purposes? If FIFA requirements qualify as bona fide occupational requirements, then it would seem so.
No, I don't think MLS could stretch it that far. If FIFA required MLS to treat Canadians like Americans for roster rules, then MLS would have to treat all foreigners the same-it couldn't give Canadians preferential treatment over Costa Ricans. MLS is perfectly free to scrap the foreign player limitation and allow teams to hire players as they see fit, but it can't give preferential treatment to some nationalities over others.
And it does apply. MLS is acutely aware of this. I remember discussing roster rules with Ivan Gazidis at MLS Cup in Dallas after Toronto was announced. The inability of the the league to treat Canadians as "domestic" players for the U.S. club was a major complication. But it was one the league was just going to have to deal with.
This is correct with regards to the 16 U.S. based teams. As long as they are willing to go renegade against FIFA - or they somehow manage to convince USSF and CSA to drop their roster limits that they require for sanctioning. If MLS really does become a top 5 league, it's entirely possible to envision the latter - where USSF gambles that the Americans in MLS will be getting developed in sufficient numbers at a higher level due to the overall size of the league and the level of play.
Like almost every league in the whole world, never for quality. Luke Rodgers and a few others have been denied due to criminal activity.
Never, because the United States doesn't issue work permits. Most European countries don't, either. England does, but the United States is not England (despite what some on BigSoccer would like you to believe). I thought they were generally on P1s, not 01-As? Or am I misremembering?
Just wondering, but what, exactly, are the USSF requirements? I see a requirement in the professional league guidelines that leagues must comply with USSF guidelines as set from time to time...but I don't see where they've actually set any. The only player guidelines set in the USSF policy manual are for pro clubs playing in the Open Cup, and those are much stricter than either the MLS or USL-Pro guidelines (no more than 5 players in the 18 other than U.S. citizens/permanent residents). Just wondering if there is a published minimum somewhere, or if it's just a case of talking to the USSF when the league wants to make changes.
i have never seen any either ... i've seen lots of financial and other sorts of requirements for d1 and d2 (during the whole schism in the lower levels these past few years). but i've never seen in the published or reported sanctioning requirements actual domestic/foreign player requirements/limits. now i am not saying that ussf (and the cfa) don't have some say and that there isn't a dialog behind the scenes but these sorts of roster restrictions seem to be a league (with input/negotiation from the governing bodies) purview.
I think you misunderstood me. There are USSF guidelines that make it perfectly clear that this is in the USSF's purview and the leagues can't do whatever they want. They're just vague. Per IMS, one of the requirements for professional league sanctioning is: The league shall impose limitations on each team, set from time to time by the Federation, regarding the number of non-domestic (as defined by the Federation) players that may be listed on the roster. My question is, has the Fed formally set out what its minimum limitations and definition of "domestic" are, or do they just approve league policies on a case by case basis?
Either way it wouldn't change anything. Why would any of the US MLS teams want players that weren't good enough for the three Canadian teams? It's not like there are a bunch of good canadian players out there that are missing out on MLS contracts because of this. They're lucky we let them in.
and my point is as written that isn't any kind of actual restriction, .... without the actual limits and definitions it is just saying, hey league set some rules about this stuff ... the setting of those rules (since not clearly defined by ussf/cfa) are left to the league to set (with some dialog with the federations i'd think). there is nothing in those written guidelines from ussf that wouldn't allow mls to institute an epl like "must have at minimum 8 domestic (trained x years between ages y and z in the us/canada" rule ... it would be up to the league with some input from the ussf and cfa ... but let's be real here ... whatever mls wanted (within reason) they would get, it isn't like the ussf isn't going to sanction mls. same (or even moreso) goes for the cfa (i mean right now the "requirement" is 3 canadians on canadian mls teams ... that is pretty low essentially showing that the cfa has jack all to really say about the regulation and mls threw them a bone and not much else).
A requirement like that would violate US anti-discrimination laws, so MLS couldn't do it even if USSF allowed it.
But there are visas which allow a person to work and those which don't. When I was in grad school some of my housemates were on student visas. They were allowed to work as TAs teaching undergrads and I think did some off the books tutoring. They weren't allowed to get a job at McDonalds. I remember Ricardo Iribarren missing the 1997 season because he was denied entry. His crime was using his work visa to enter the US after the 96 season for an American vacation.
I'm still not sure why a FIFA rule that requires MLS to treat US and Canadian players similarly since MLS is both countries top league would run afoul of the discrimination laws. At least any more than your example of the Colombian lawyer. Nobody seems to dispute that FIFA's rules on eligibility to play for the USMNT are valid. If Giuseppi Rossi decided he wanted to play for the US, FIFA would be upset but would the USSF be able to keep him off the team? It seems to me a no-brainer that the USSF could pass on Rossi based on his ineligibility per FIFA rules.
Because such a rule would explicitly require MLS to discriminate against one class of people who are allowed to work in the US versus another based on national origin. It would be like a FIFA rule requiring MLS teams to only hire white players. FIFA rules can't allow MLS to ignore US laws. If FIFA passed such a rule, MLS would have to go rogue or get Congress to change a law. The Columbian lawyer situation is different. If a company has a legitimate need for a Columbian-licensed lawyer to work in its Miami office, then it can impose an emplyment requirement that has the secondary effect of discriminating based on citizenship status. But meeting FIFA rules is not a bona fide occupational requirement for being hired to a club soccer team. FIFA gets way with passing such rules because they're not a US-based organization. And rules preventing someone from playing for the USMNT if they have a cap for another national team are fine. That's not discrimination based on national origin or citizenshep status. It's like not being eligible to play in the NCAA after you've gone pro in your sport.
Another piece to the development puzzle is minimum salary. Here I see the USSF and MLS at odds. MLS the business wants the cheapest, highest quality player it can get. In most cases that means Central/South Americans who are already plying their trade and are choosing where to play. The American player otoh has a choice not only on where to play, but also what. Professional athletes only have what, 10-15 years to maximize their earnings? How can a kid do that when MLS will pay you $35,000 to get you started? The best American players know that and they go overseas.