Richard Snowden's Opinion article on CBA

[GIO17]

It's a very good piece. I like his opinions about US Soccer as a whole.

Soccer365's website

http://www.soccer365.com/_365_Features/page_121_88560.shtml

[TeamUSA]

That piece sucked my testicles and gave me a hummer. It was so poor and for the most part it was taken from the other thread here on bigsoccer. Congrats to highjacking the posters on bigsoccer Richard "Skull" Snowden. Maybe he should donate his earnings from that piece to the people that wrote it for him.

He left out things which contradict his piece. Namely when states that unlike other major sports with multimillionaire players this sport has poor ones. Well also unlike the other major sports there aren't mulitmillionaire owners. Ahh whatever, not worth anymore of my time.

He's entitled to his opinion as am I, which is why I think his article is utter garbage.

[lplaksina]

Pretty freakin close to the truth. In my humble opinion he's in the know.

[Pbourgeacq]

That piece sucked my testicles and gave me a hummer.
So you liked it, then? That sounds like a ringing endorsement, if I've ever heard one.

[superdave]

I hate this piece because I disagree with it.
Fixed.

Team...the Fed's surplus is, in fact, in the multi-millions.

[Pbourgeacq]

Team...the Fed's surplus is, in fact, in the multi-millions.
That doesn't mean the players should get it.

[Northside Rovers]

I am totally with him. As you might have guessed by my sig.

[superdave]

That doesn't mean the players should get it.
The players aren't asking for $30M.

But thanks for playing.

[Pbourgeacq]

The players aren't asking for $30M.

But thanks for playing.
Yeah, I got that, thanks.
My point is that just because the Federation has more than enough money to pay what the players are asking for does not mean they SHOULD pay what the players are asking for. There also has to be a good reason, and so far I haven't really heard one.

[spot]

Yeah, I got that, thanks.
My point is that just because the Federation has more than enough money to pay what the players are asking for does not mean they SHOULD pay what the players are asking for. There also has to be a good reason, and so far I haven't really heard one.

A bullet point of theories goes something like...

* The players are the ones who made all the money
* The USSF will use the money for non-appropriate purposes
* Playing for the USMNT is a burden on underpaid soccer players, they really need the money.
* It's not the money, it's the principle, the USSF has in its treachery not been bargaining in good faith, therefor the players should get what they want
* What's the big deal we like the players the USSF should give them what they want.

[texgator]

So the players want more then a 38% increase....I'd have to say that sounds like a bit much. Okay, so the fed has a $30 million surplus.....what does that have to do with wanting a 40% increase? And to say that the surplus exists "in large part" due to the players' hard work is not entirely accurate. According to the USSF, net revenues from USMNT matches only acounts for a little over $1 mil. In what way does 3.3% represent a "large part"? The surplus exists due to many factors, but that doesn't mean the USSF should go crazy spending it. As is typical in these cases, neither side is completely in the right. Does anyone think the USSF wouldn't have given the players a decent increase had it been reasonable?

[ugaaccountant]

So the players want more then a 38% increase....I'd have to say that sounds like a bit much. Okay, so the fed has a $30 million surplus.....what does that have to do with wanting a 40% increase? And to say that the surplus exists "in large part" due to the players' hard work is not entirely accurate. According to the USSF, net revenues from USMNT matches only acounts for a little over $1 mil. In what way does 3.3% represent a "large part"? The surplus exists due to many factors, but that doesn't mean the USSF should go crazy spending it. As is typical in these cases, neither side is completely in the right. Does anyone think the USSF wouldn't have given the players a decent increase had it been reasonable?

The 38% increase is not a currently offered figure, they withdrew that offer.

As an accountant i'm 100% sure that the numbers they are throwing out there are wrong in one of two ways.
1. If they can only make 1 million in net profit on the USMNT then the USSF is a terrible management company who negotiates terrible contracts and poorly prices tickets/merchandise/etc.

2. They may be allocating strange "costs" to these USMNT matches. The number of fans at a typical game at the ticket prices charged less players salary/travel would lead to a healthy profit. They must be including other items of expense that are not properly attributed to the soccer match.

The USMNT also brings in tons of non "match" revenue that the players deserve a piece of. Have they considered adding directly related revenue such as FIFA prize money, TV contracts, parking and concessions. What about indirect things such as jersey sales, the number of paying kids who play USSF soccer as a result of watching USMNT games.

This is the same logic that MLB uses to say that every team loses money except maybe the Yankees. I'm not buying it.

My answer without having any actual numbers, the USMNT seems to have about twice as many fans as they did when they signed the old contract so they probably bring in twice the revenue and do in fact deserve the raise they are asking for.

[tab5g]

Reading this opinion piece makes me more optimistic than before.

“***The two sides meet again in early October to discuss lack of progress in negotiations. Later in the month, USSF claims players are threatening to strike and reneges on existing offer, including entire retroactivity clause.

***In November, players inform USSF they'll give the next training camp a miss and file unfair labor practice complaint with National Labor Relations Board. USSF takes this as clear sign of players' intent to strike.

***In early December, USSF tells players it will field a team of "scab" replacements for the opening World Cup qualifier at Trinidad and Tobago on Feb. 9 if they don't come to heel. Players later make new counteroffers, which USSF dismiss out of hand.” -

These points laid out like this give me hope that the USSF will eventually (and I think soon, as in before Feb. 1) negotiate in what the USMNTPA thinks is good faith.

In December, the USSF had the opportunity to call a camp knowing that the players won’t be there. But they can’t call a camp, or didn’t really try to call a camp of replacement players as far as we know, instead USSF threaten to use replacement players for the match at T&T saying the players were on strike, when it appears they just chose not to attend a camp.

I am optimistic this will get resolved soon, since the USSF couldn’t call a replacement player camp in December, and it doesn’t look like they’ll be able to call one in January (as seriously, where are they going to get players who will play for the USSF given the current situation?).

My feeling is that the USSF knows that they must go with the regulars for Feb 9 and all other Hex matches, but it is a shame they’re being hardline (non)negotiators now because some potential late-Jan friendlies were lost. They’re holding the very strict position, but I’m guessing the USSF, the players, and each side's lawyers know that the USSF will have to start negotiating in better faith if they want to participate in the Hex, much less in Germany ’06. I guess the real question is how big of an “if” is that?

I say everyone involved in US Soccer wants to be in Germany ’06, and I don’t see a team other than the regulars going to T&T, and if the US forfeits by not sending a squad, will there be additional penalties (that the USSF knows about and I doubt is willing to accept) beyond getting zero points in each match of the Hex that the US doesn’t show up for.

[Pbourgeacq]

A bullet point of theories goes something like...

* The players are the ones who made all the money
* The USSF will use the money for non-appropriate purposes
* Playing for the USMNT is a burden on underpaid soccer players, they really need the money.
* It's not the money, it's the principle, the USSF has in its treachery not been bargaining in good faith, therefor the players should get what they want
* What's the big deal we like the players the USSF should give them what they want.

The operative word being "theories". Maybe this list was made tongue-in-cheek, but here's my take on the points:

* The players are the ones who made all the money -- Actually, no, they aren't. From what I understand, what they made is closer to $1M. (Hey, maybe they made more than that. I'm just repeating what I've read. At any rate, I think we all know they didn't make anywhere near "all" the money.)

* The USSF will use the money for non-appropriate purposes -- Like funding player development programs and soccer-specific stadium programs? Those seem very appropriate to me.

* Playing for the USMNT is a burden on underpaid soccer players, they really need the money. -- Even the least paid players (i.e., MLS players) who play a significant role on the national team make a decent living. It may not be as good as national team players for France and England, but they do alright.

* It's not the money, it's the principle, the USSF has in its treachery not been bargaining in good faith, therefor the players should get what they want -- If true, this just means that the USSF should be otherwise sanctioned, not that the players should get everything they ask for.

* What's the big deal we like the players the USSF should give them what they want. -- And I'm always very nice to everyone I meet. I'll go see if the boss will give me more money because of it. :-)


Anyway, I realize these weren't necessarily your points. I just thought I'd address them anyway because some people out there probably do think that way.

[spot]

The 38% increase is not a currently offered figure, they withdrew that offer.

As an accountant i'm 100% sure that the numbers they are throwing out there are wrong in one of two ways.
1. If they can only make 1 million in net profit on the USMNT then the USSF is a terrible management company who negotiates terrible contracts and poorly prices tickets/merchandise/etc.

2. They may be allocating strange "costs" to these USMNT matches. The number of fans at a typical game at the ticket prices charged less players salary/travel would lead to a healthy profit. They must be including other items of expense that are not properly attributed to the soccer match.

The USMNT also brings in tons of non "match" revenue that the players deserve a piece of. Have they considered adding directly related revenue such as FIFA prize money, TV contracts, parking and concessions. What about indirect things such as jersey sales, the number of paying kids who play USSF soccer as a result of watching USMNT games.

This is the same logic that MLB uses to say that every team loses money except maybe the Yankees. I'm not buying it.

My answer without having any actual numbers, the USMNT seems to have about twice as many fans as they did when they signed the old contract so they probably bring in twice the revenue and do in fact deserve the raise they are asking for.

Pretty poor accounting.

Here's a 3rd answer... The USMNT has a few big money producing activities a) playing Mexico b) qualifying c) making it to elimination rounds of the WC.

Everything else is questionable. If it weren't we would... Be able to pick a media outlet other than bigsoccer and know what's happening,... we'd be able to see the nats live on ABC as opposed to tape delayed on ESPN or on Telemundo, or not at all.... We'd be able to buy a t-shirt in a sporting goods store.... games wouldn't be time buys.

I'd say interest in the USMNT has been flat since the WC. We rely on Mexico to fill the coffers.

[Roehl Sybing]

I'm just flat out surprised. I didn't even know that s365 still covered US soccer anymore.

[WHOLMAN2]

The players didn't earn all of the money. The federation negotiates sponsorships with the likes of Nike and Philips to generate revenue.

The federation is a non-profit organization, and should disburse their surplus properly. Although the players didn't earn all of the money, they did earn some of it, so the federation should give a minimum of 10% to the players.

Give the players one dollar out of every ten surplus dollars. Anything less is just wrong.

[GIO17]

I'm just flat out surprised. I didn't even know that s365 still covered US soccer anymore.

I go to their website everyday and there is always a section for the USA, MLS & USL

[Roehl Sybing]

I go to their website everyday and there is always a section for the USA, MLS & USL
*sigh* Note to self: must use understatement less often than I do now.

[superdave]

The players didn't earn all of the money. The federation negotiates sponsorships with the likes of Nike and Philips to generate revenue.

Right, but what is Phillips getting for that sponsorship? It's related directly to the players, not Soccer House. There aren't any fans yelling "Cut that meat" as the suits report to work in Chicago.