PDA

View Full Version : salary gripes


Pages : [1] 2

Parrothead FC
30 May 2007, 03:00 AM
http://www.kansascity.com/sports/wizards/story/126438.html

Some MLS players just scraping by
Those on developmental level have same duties as veterans, yet salary is thousands less.
By PETE GRATHOFF
The Kansas City Star

Wizards midfielder Jack Jewsbury hardly lived the life of a professional athlete in his first season.

He took home $380 every two weeks after taxes. To make ends meet, he paid the bills with a little help from his parents and shared an apartment near Oak Park Mall with two teammates.

That was when Jewsbury was one of several developmental players on each Major League Soccer team. They have the same responsibilities and duties as senior roster members, but their salary is thousands less than the $30,000 league minimum and about 500 times lower than what the LA Galaxy’s David Beckham will make this season, $6.5 million.

Now Jewsbury is with the senior squad, making $50,000 a year, and MLS points to him as a success story of the developmental system. The league views the developmental program as a chance for players to enter the league out of college and challenge for a spot on the senior roster — much like a minor-league baseball player working his way up to the majors.

The MLS Players Union points to Jewsbury as well. From its perspective, it’s ludicrous that a professional player should need financial help...

Other pro sports have minimum salaries for inexperienced players. Minor-league baseball players make thousands less than their big-league counterparts, but most live in smaller towns where rent is cheaper. If they get a shot with the major-league club, they receive a prorated portion of the $380,000 league minimum.

The MLS minimum is $30,000 for players on the senior roster, but developmental players do not receive more money for game appearances with the team. Bob Foose, the union’s executive director, estimated it would cost the league $1.5 million to raise supplemental salaries up to the league minimum...

“It’s certainly not what was intended when that system was put into place,” Foose said. “This was supposed to be local practice players in essence, and the league has taken it and used it to create a system where it’s being ridiculously low-paid labor. Those developmental players have the same obligations as every other player on the team, but they’re paid an embarrassingly low salary.”

Despite their low salaries, Wizards developmental players receive assistance from the team. Midfielder Michael Kraus makes $12,900 a year, but the Wizards helped him find an apartment at a reduced rate, one that he shares with a teammate...

I think this article makes some good points, and one of the striking ones for me is the implication about what might be different if developmental salaries (or even entrance-level full squad salaries) were raised. some have argued that it would require reducing the number of developmental spots. how I'd articulate a rebuttal after reading this article would be to say that while it might arguably reduce one or two developmental spots (still a very questionable claim), it really couldn't reduce them by a significant number because developmental players are so often used as full squad members or reserves while still under developmental contracts. unless the roster limit number was reduced, teams would certainly make every effort to fill it. what a salary raise might require instead is an end to the DP dreams of many teams, as that [obviously available] money would simply have to be redistributed among the team's developmental players. the more far-sighted teams would not see this development as a disadvantage.

texgator
30 May 2007, 07:55 AM
I think this article makes some good points, and one of the striking ones for me is the implication about what might be different if developmental salaries (or even entrance-level full squad salaries) were raised. some have argued that it would require reducing the number of developmental spots. how I'd articulate a rebuttal after reading this article would be to say that while it might arguably reduce one or two developmental spots (still a very questionable claim), it really couldn't reduce them by a significant number because developmental players are so often used as full squad members or reserves while still under developmental contracts. unless the roster limit number was reduced, teams would certainly make every effort to fill it. what a salary raise might require instead is an end to the DP dreams of many teams, as that [obviously available] money would simply have to be redistributed among the team's developmental players. the more far-sighted teams would not see this development as a disadvantage.

I think what you see with the DP usage is some teams willing to extend their roster expense a bit in a bid to both improve their team's competitiveness and to draw some fans. However, not all teams are willing to do that, as we see with most teams NOT employing a DP. The developmental slots predate the DP by many seasons. It's quite easy to see where we would be without DP's, all you have to do is look at last season and the 4-5 seasons before that. Was money redistributed to players on the lower end of the pay scale? No. Were teams banking tons of cash instead of giving it out in forms of salary? No. I think we all would love salaries in the league to increase, across the board. I would also love the company I work for to increase salaries across the board. I would love for all of us to live in some happy fantasyland where lollipops grow on trees and Ferraris are parked, unlocked on every street corner for us all to share freely. Unfortunately I live in the real world, where profits and losses are measured and considered before such decisions are made.

Parrothead FC
30 May 2007, 08:10 AM
okay, but that hardly addresses the point, which is that there's reason to believe that developmental slots would not decrease if the minimum developmental (or regular) salary was increased. and in light of the fact that so many teams use developmental players as full squad players, there's reason to believe that such a pay raise ought to be considered in the interest of [relatively] equal pay for [relatively] equal work.

by the way, I'm pulling a scipio and acknowledging that I have been posting in both this thread and the wal-mart thread while inebriated. a freakin' staff party on a wednesday... only in Japan.

texgator
30 May 2007, 08:47 AM
okay, but that hardly addresses the point, which is that there's reason to believe that developmental slots would not decrease if the minimum developmental (or regular) salary was increased.I believe it does address that. Here's what we know, before DP's the league added roster slots, but only developmental ones at low salaries, while at the same time they were struggling to make profits in 11 of 12 clubs. Clearly adding roster expense was not going to happen, therefore an increase in the minimum would mean a decrease in roster slots. I think it's pretty disingenious for the Union to come back, after the league added roster spots, and then complain that it isn't good enough.

and in light of the fact that so many teams use developmental players as full squad players, there's reason to believe that such a pay raise ought to be considered in the interest of [relatively] equal pay for [relatively] equal work.So experience counts for nothing in terms of value? That's a lovely proposition, but it's not reality.

Parrothead FC
30 May 2007, 08:54 AM
Clearly adding roster expense was not going to happen, therefore an increase in the minimum would mean a decrease in roster slots. I think it's pretty disingenious for the Union to come back, after the league added roster spots, and then complain that it isn't good enough.

I just don't believe than an increase in the minimum would decrease roster spots. not unless the league lowered the maximum number of spots. the money is there (despite most teams being in the red, these teams would spring for a DP were an appropriate one available) but there's of course no interest in spending it on an increase in the minimum. you can certainly argue that that shouldn't be a priority, but I don't think you an argue that it's an impossibility. having a DP slot or an EJ or a Reyna or an Adu or whoever on your roster is a clear indication to the contrary.

So experience counts for nothing in terms of value? That's a lovely proposition, but it's not reality.

sure, it counts. pay your dev players 30K and your "experienced" playerd 60K. just don't pay your dev 12K, especially not when you actually NEED them and are demonstrating that by relying on them to fill your starting XI or your bench. have some standards.

texgator
30 May 2007, 09:55 AM
sure, it counts. pay your dev players 30K and your "experienced" playerd 60K. just don't pay your dev 12K, especially not when you actually NEED them and are demonstrating that by relying on them to fill your starting XI or your bench. have some standards.
28k x 8 x 13 = $2.9 million in increased salary expense for the league. Good luck with all that.

Parrothead FC
30 May 2007, 10:24 AM
28k x 8 x 13 = $2.9 million in increased salary expense for the league. Good luck with all that.

or in other terms, how many DPs' guaranteed salaries?

texgator
30 May 2007, 10:35 AM
or in other terms, how many DPs' guaranteed salaries?

The DP salaries, above the $400k number is optional based on management's discretion. Doing what you would suggest is adding $3 million to the league's roster expense with any option to lower. Do you see the difference? If RBNY wants to throw money at their roster, they now have a way to do so, if Columbus wishes to keep their roster expense down, they also do. There is nothing wrong with this, in my mind.

SeventhRowScreamer
30 May 2007, 01:37 PM
Every time... round and round they go... Socialist vs. Capitalist. I'm going to call a winner so you guys can quit spinning your wheels.
And the winner is... Tex!

chapulincolorado
30 May 2007, 03:58 PM
Every time... round and round they go... Socialist vs. Capitalist. I'm going to call a winner so you guys can quit spinning your wheels.
And the winner is... Tex!

Taca-tacan!

Los Anarquistas!


http://www.tecnimar.com/ciclo/11/img/09.jpg

SeventhRowScreamer
30 May 2007, 04:24 PM
Taca-tacan!

Los Anarquistas!


http://www.tecnimar.com/ciclo/11/img/09.jpg
Tex is like Chavez?

texgator
30 May 2007, 04:32 PM
Every time... round and round they go... Socialist vs. Capitalist. I'm going to call a winner so you guys can quit spinning your wheels.
And the winner is... Tex!
Crap.....I wanted to win, but I'm not sure I wanted to win with the 7th Row vote.

texgator
30 May 2007, 04:32 PM
Tex is like Chavez?
We should nationalize MLS....throw out all the foreigners.

chapulincolorado
30 May 2007, 04:46 PM
Tex is like Chavez?

Julio Cesar Chavez?


http://i2.sell.com/4/160/307435/23/209/1537859-m.jpg



...sure...why not...:D

SeventhRowScreamer
30 May 2007, 05:27 PM
Julio Cesar Chavez?


http://i2.sell.com/4/160/307435/23/209/1537859-m.jpg



...sure...why not...:D
Hugo or JCC I guess.

texgator
30 May 2007, 11:17 PM
http://www.bigsoccer.com/forum/showpost.php?p=11693469&postcount=58

Great post from another thread that was inspired by the same article. So, the sum total of players making $12,000 that are being "abused" by the league.....is.....drumroll......one. There are a whopping 8 guys making just under $18k that get regular minutes. Everyone else is over $30k. So we are talking about a whole 9 players leaguewide. Wow.....let's get the pitchforks and torches ready and head to NYC!!!!

Parrothead FC
31 May 2007, 01:16 AM
http://www.bigsoccer.com/forum/showpost.php?p=11693469&postcount=58

Great post from another thread that was inspired by the same article. So, the sum total of players making $12,000 that are being "abused" by the league.....is.....drumroll......one. There are a whopping 8 guys making just under $18k that get regular minutes. Everyone else is over $30k. So we are talking about a whole 9 players leaguewide. Wow.....let's get the pitchforks and torches ready and head to NYC!!!!

in other words, the problem is so incredibly easy to fix that there's absolutely no reason not to! great news, this. it will hardly cost anything, and they can even afford to pay a 45 year old goalkeeper a few million dollars per season! everybody will be happy.

texgator
31 May 2007, 07:17 AM
in other words, the problem is so incredibly easy to fix that there's absolutely no reason not to! great news, this. it will hardly cost anything, and they can even afford to pay a 45 year old goalkeeper a few million dollars per season! everybody will be happy.
No, in other words the Union guy quoted in the article is making a mountain out of a molehill with his talk of dev players being abused by the league.

Parrothead FC
31 May 2007, 07:33 AM
No, in other words the Union guy quoted in the article is making a mountain out of a molehill with his talk of dev players being abused by the league.

on the contrary, I'd say it's the anti salary-boost people making mountains out of molehills. there's no excuse not to fix this, because even the union guy's cost estimation is apparently vastly overstated. we now know that it would be very easy for the league to put this to bed, and that there's no financial reason not to do it.

texgator
31 May 2007, 08:05 AM
on the contrary, I'd say it's the anti salary-boost people making mountains out of molehills. there's no excuse not to fix this, because even the union guy's cost estimation is apparently vastly overstated. we now know that it would be very easy for the league to put this to bed, and that there's no financial reason not to do it.
So you have no moral objection to a player making $12,900 as long as they don't play regularly?