Another USSF v USSPA Labor Impasse thread

[GIO17]

jmeissen0. I see your a Fire Supporter. Are you in Chicago or in one of the suburbs? If you are close to Chicago and you know where the US Soccer House is, do you think you can round up a couple of Fire supporters and show the USSF what we as a whole are thinking?

[jmeissen0]

there was a thread on this in the fire forum... and no, i don't live withing 100 miles of chicago

[Father Ted]

jmeissen0. I see your a Fire Supporter. Are you in Chicago or in one of the suburbs? If you are close to Chicago and you know where the US Soccer House is, do you think you can round up a couple of Fire supporters and show the USSF what we as a whole are thinking?

Nah, have both sides come to a neutral venue - NY. They can both afford it. Bring them to Nathan Hales have the trash it out over a few beers, man to man. I'll even pick up the tab!

[SamsArmySam]

I admire the idea, but I'm not so sure a fan-mediator, ANY fan-mediator, could get the job done. The problem with mediation is that it has no teeth. Even with a professional mediator running the show, it's easy to agree you'll listen and keep an open mind and then at the end of the process say, "No thanks. We'll go back to our totally partisan point of view now."

A better solution might be binding arbitration.

First step: The two sides agree in principle that an agreement is in the best interest of both US Soccer and the players. Why? Because it is. They don't have to agree to specifics at this point. Just agree that both would most likely be better off with an agreement than they are today.

Second step: Both sides agree to a binding arbitration structure. The "binding" part brings the teeth. They essentially sign away their right to say "No, thanks" when the arbitrator(s) come back with the deal. They have to live with it.

Third step: Each side picks one professional arbitrator. These two are likely to be biased, so...

Fourth step: The two arbitrators agree on a third impartial professional arbitrator.

Fifth step: The three arbitrators go into a room, periodically come out wih furrowed brows and ask for more documents from either side, hack through the accounting and positions of the two sides, and then come up with their best win-win solution.

Sixth step: Both sides lick their wounds, "blame it on the arbitrators" when a handful of their minor terms weren't met, and then move on.

Biggest challenge with this set-up is getting the two sides to tell their current attorneys that their services are no longer needed. Most attorneys don't like to hear that.

[SamsArmySam]

Anybody know the email addresses of the two top dogs for USSF and USNSTPA?

People in negotiations are blind sometime, and they may not have thought of the binding arbitration option. I know their lawyers won't be suggesting it.

[Grah]

How is the agreement binding the players don't have to belong to the USMNTPA to play on the national team do they?

[Knave]

I'm up for some threatening.
I've got a baseball bat for just this sort of occasion.
A better solution might be binding arbitration.

Yeah! Binding arbitration. That's the ticket.

We'll tie up both sides and kick'em until they come to agreement.

[Grah]

USSF gives 14% of
Ticket sales + game TV money - Cost of event hotel etc to the Players Assoc.

The Player assoc then divides the money up among ALL its members.

In Return All players hand over 14% of personal Sponorship money generated by being on the National list.

Ie if Donavan gets more money from Nike because he appeared in the world cup, he has to give a percentage to the USSF for picking him and enabling him to get that 86% increase in personal revenue.

[goussoccer]

While some are talking about sending notes to the USSF and letting them know how we feel, and others are wondering how they get their authority, I am thinking, how are they appointed or elected? If there are elections, what is the process and who is allowed to vote?

From the website, they talk about how the executive directors are all volunteers, but not how they are picked. I also didn't see any bylaws posted on the website. As a non-profit, I know that stuff would have to be public information, does the same apply for a 'not for profit'?

If we want to influence them, we need to know how they are appointed, etc.

I found it EXTREMELY scary in the SI article that some numnuts on the executive board doesn't see not qualifying for the WC as a huge deal.

[Knave]

I found it EXTREMELY scary in the SI article that some numnuts on the executive board doesn't see not qualifying for the WC as a huge deal.


USSF officials may be convinced that failing to qualify for the 2006 World Cup wouldn't be a deathblow to soccer in the United States. As such the USSF is considering this as an option instead of caving into contract demands by the players. Members of the player pool have been told that at least one high-ranking USSF official is convinced of such a theory.

http://soccernet.espn.go.com/feature?id=320086&cc=5739
How much do you want to bet that the guy who said that comes from the youth soccer ranks? I suspect he'd like to see the MNT fail to qualify not to doom US soccer, but to decrease the relative influence of the MNT and professional soccer interests at USSF in favor of increased representation for youth soccer.

[burning247]

I know all the threads right now are about the USSF-USA Player crisis but I was curious about something and I think it's something to take your minds off of the lockout for a second.

I think the US will qualify easily but theoretically if we ended up in a playoff against an Asian opponent and that opponent ended up being North Korea, how would that work?

[russ]

I don't care -I just want you to post again so I can see your avatar. :)

[russ]

Seriously,I think a two-game neutral site playoff might occur.

[burning247]

I don't care -I just want you to post again so I can see your avatar. :)

yea I wish I could have seen some chics like that when I was in England this summer...

Seriously,I think a two-game neutral site playoff might occur.

This was my thinking too

[sidefootsitter]

Seriously,I think a two-game neutral site playoff might occur.

I am pretty sure that North Korea will be required by FIFA to provide the US with all the security that is needed. If a FIFA observer is needed, one will probably be available.

BTW, I don't know what problems may take place. Historically, only few countries ever refused to go to an away game: Spain (when it was under Franco) to the USSR and the Soviets to Chile in 1973 and the last one was basically a fake since the Chileans played the first leg in Moscow already to a 0:0 draw. Otherwise, aside of little sportsmanship, games came through with no problems.

[Crewmudgeon]

Seriously,I think a two-game neutral site playoff might occur.

Why would North Korea agree to this?

Don't forget that Iran is also in the final round of Asian qualifying. That could be just as interesting. Where would you rather play, Pyongyang or Tehran?

[russ]

I was thinking more of travel costs than security.

I would have no problem with a US-Iran home-and-home.

[burning247]

Why would North Korea agree to this?

Don't forget that Iran is also in the final round of Asian qualifying. That could be just as interesting. Where would you rather play, Pyongyang or Tehran?


I was talking about how I can't imagine North Korea letting any American's into their country. You can go visit Iran, but you can't visit North Korea.

[Magpie Maniac]

On the flip side, at least a Pyongyang or Tehran WCQ would get a bit more domestic media attention. (?) Maybe for all the wrong reasons, but attention nonetheless.

[UncleSam527]

It's been a while since we've seen any online petitions (for anything)...not that they do much good, though.