Join NowAfter further review....
Free agency (with purchase of agency of equal or greater value - other restrictions apply)
Posted 16 Mar 2010 at 05:27 PM by Dan Loney
Updated 16 Mar 2010 at 08:12 PM by Dan Loney (Mild inelegancy)
Updated 16 Mar 2010 at 08:12 PM by Dan Loney (Mild inelegancy)
From Buzz Carrick, a brief explanation of why the owners are so nuts about free agency:
Similarly, via DuNord, this Soccerlaw blog post:
I think Carrick and Chelney are paraphrasing what management is saying, not that they genuinely believes "any" form of free agency would kill the single entity concept like antimatter.
The owners are overreacting. Sadly, that's their privilege. But if the owners seriously believe single entity is at stake, they should cut down on the sugar.
Somewhere out there - I forgot to write it down - either a blogger or a forum post made the amazing point that while the league office owns the player contracts, they don't own the contracts for coaches, general managers, and such. Alexi Lalas used to remind angry Quakes and Red Bulls fans that he worked for AEG, not that he worked for MLS. If players compete against each other, then coaches and general managers do as well. Anyone who's seen how Chivas USA and the Galaxy treat each other would have a lot of trouble believing that they were part of one big happy company.
There are also plenty of examples in American corporate life where a single company owns entities which compete against each other in some form. And of course, by "plenty," I can only think of a few. Record companies and General Motors are dead; and MLS probably would rather not publicly compare themselves to McDonald's or tobacco companies.
(I wonder how many people out there so offended by Toyota's actions on the Prius malfunctions will go out and buy a Lexus instead. But that's a different topic.)
There's also a common sense test that the owners' position doesn't pass. The biggest is, the league is going to fold if Kansas City doesn't get a second round pick from Dallas for Kevin Hartman's rights? That's insulting people who know better.
Unfortunately, again, if that's what the league actually believes - free agency being uncontrollable when let in, like vampires or Communism - then, well, they're the ones who have bet hundreds of millions of dollars on it.
Is there a solution? They might ask for something like Carrick suggests, like an internal auction. Or a post-waiver waiver draft. It literally doesn't matter what it's called or how it works, because the number of players involved and the amount of money at stake is so piddly that it's incomprehensible that either side would risk a labor stoppage over it...absent the greater issues that the league seems to be obsessed with.
If the players union would say that they're not trying to overthrow single entity...and there's nothing that says that the rights the players are fighting for are incompatible with the single entity concept...then that would seemingly remove the biggest stumbling block to labor peace.
But if the owners really think that as soon as the new CBA is signed, the players are going to turn around and revisit the Fraser case...then the players are going to have to wait until they have more leverage, simple as that.
There's been a lot of reaction to Grahame Jones' article on Tim Leiweke's stance on the strike - mostly, it should disabuse the notion that there are any significant "blocs" of disagreement among the owners - but to me, it just showed why neither side can be helped by public relations.
You quit the Sol after 10 months, Tim. For another thing, MLS might be nothing but a loss-leader for SUM - but it's one that's paying off. The increased interest in the World Cup in this country coincides almost perfectly with the growth of the US national team, and the US national team's strength has grown alongside MLS.
For yet another, the Galaxy as a loss-leader got AEG, among other things, the Home Depot Center, a boatload of big-money friendlies, and the Beckham Experiment (which, while a disaster for the Galaxy, was a blessing for AEG). Same with Red Bull. No one makes multi-million dollar real estate deals out of "passion." Carson is not East Jerusalem, and the HDC is not the Temple Mount.
I think Leiweke has a great point when he says the owners resent the Mutually Assured Destruction talk from the players, but pretending it's not a business is as unrealistic as
anything the players have said.
Maybe both sides really are crazy.
Quote:
By allowing any level of free agency, MLS would be admitting they are not single entity. It would break the business model. Outside of maybe the LA Galaxy and Seattle, most of the league doesn’t yet make money. Loss of single entity would probably mean the end of MLS.
MLS already won this legal battle against the MLSPA (being supported by the NFLPA), I doubt they will give in now. The best players might see is some sort of internal MLS auction for out of contract rights or some such. Some method that allows some movement, but keeps the contract and ownership of players with the league office.
But anything that smacks of free agency and open movement is a non-starter.
MLS already won this legal battle against the MLSPA (being supported by the NFLPA), I doubt they will give in now. The best players might see is some sort of internal MLS auction for out of contract rights or some such. Some method that allows some movement, but keeps the contract and ownership of players with the league office.
But anything that smacks of free agency and open movement is a non-starter.
Quote:
MLS negotiators have drawn a line in the sand on the most important collective bargaining issue, free agency. Even in the face of a threatened work stoppage, MLS President Mark Abbott stated that free agency “is something the league is not prepared to do.” He added, “If the players choose to strike . . . [it] will be because [they] continue to insist on changes in our system that we simply can’t make.”
Some commentators have criticized MLS’s resistance to allowing a player to freely negotiate his contract with the team of his choosing. They have argued that free agency (perhaps even in restricted form) will not harm MLS economically, particularly in light of the league’s hard salary cap. This argument misses MLS’s primary concern. Free agency — in any form — is antithetical to MLS’s ’single entity’ structure under which the league, not the teams, owns and negotiates all player contracts.
Some commentators have criticized MLS’s resistance to allowing a player to freely negotiate his contract with the team of his choosing. They have argued that free agency (perhaps even in restricted form) will not harm MLS economically, particularly in light of the league’s hard salary cap. This argument misses MLS’s primary concern. Free agency — in any form — is antithetical to MLS’s ’single entity’ structure under which the league, not the teams, owns and negotiates all player contracts.
The owners are overreacting. Sadly, that's their privilege. But if the owners seriously believe single entity is at stake, they should cut down on the sugar.
Somewhere out there - I forgot to write it down - either a blogger or a forum post made the amazing point that while the league office owns the player contracts, they don't own the contracts for coaches, general managers, and such. Alexi Lalas used to remind angry Quakes and Red Bulls fans that he worked for AEG, not that he worked for MLS. If players compete against each other, then coaches and general managers do as well. Anyone who's seen how Chivas USA and the Galaxy treat each other would have a lot of trouble believing that they were part of one big happy company.
There are also plenty of examples in American corporate life where a single company owns entities which compete against each other in some form. And of course, by "plenty," I can only think of a few. Record companies and General Motors are dead; and MLS probably would rather not publicly compare themselves to McDonald's or tobacco companies.
(I wonder how many people out there so offended by Toyota's actions on the Prius malfunctions will go out and buy a Lexus instead. But that's a different topic.)
There's also a common sense test that the owners' position doesn't pass. The biggest is, the league is going to fold if Kansas City doesn't get a second round pick from Dallas for Kevin Hartman's rights? That's insulting people who know better.
Unfortunately, again, if that's what the league actually believes - free agency being uncontrollable when let in, like vampires or Communism - then, well, they're the ones who have bet hundreds of millions of dollars on it.
Is there a solution? They might ask for something like Carrick suggests, like an internal auction. Or a post-waiver waiver draft. It literally doesn't matter what it's called or how it works, because the number of players involved and the amount of money at stake is so piddly that it's incomprehensible that either side would risk a labor stoppage over it...absent the greater issues that the league seems to be obsessed with.
If the players union would say that they're not trying to overthrow single entity...and there's nothing that says that the rights the players are fighting for are incompatible with the single entity concept...then that would seemingly remove the biggest stumbling block to labor peace.
But if the owners really think that as soon as the new CBA is signed, the players are going to turn around and revisit the Fraser case...then the players are going to have to wait until they have more leverage, simple as that.
There's been a lot of reaction to Grahame Jones' article on Tim Leiweke's stance on the strike - mostly, it should disabuse the notion that there are any significant "blocs" of disagreement among the owners - but to me, it just showed why neither side can be helped by public relations.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tim
"We do this out of passion. If this were a business, we would have quit this 10 years ago."
For yet another, the Galaxy as a loss-leader got AEG, among other things, the Home Depot Center, a boatload of big-money friendlies, and the Beckham Experiment (which, while a disaster for the Galaxy, was a blessing for AEG). Same with Red Bull. No one makes multi-million dollar real estate deals out of "passion." Carson is not East Jerusalem, and the HDC is not the Temple Mount.
I think Leiweke has a great point when he says the owners resent the Mutually Assured Destruction talk from the players, but pretending it's not a business is as unrealistic as
anything the players have said.
Maybe both sides really are crazy.
Post a Comment
Total Comments 48
Comments
-
I just wanted a pepsi. I'm not crazy, you're the one who's crazy.Posted 16 Mar 2010 at 05:32 PM by westcoast ape 
-
There has been some good speculation on the GoalSeattle.com message board that free-agency could set a precedent for another legal challenge to the single-entity structure. If MLS grants free-agency, it starts to make single-entity look less like one large company and more like what it truly is -- a scheme to skirt anti-trust laws. So the speculation goes that MLS needs to maintain the fundamentals of how a true single-entity business operates in order to maintain legal standing. Any chips in the armor could be dangerous.
Posted 16 Mar 2010 at 05:39 PM by bright
-
I will amplify on bright's post. My employer makes everyone take anti-trust training. If a corporate lawyer told me that feeding Haitians might attract the attention of the DOJ antitrust division, then they'd have to starve. Triple damages over the entire period an entity is deemed to have held an illegal monopoly are possible. Legal costs would easily dwarf a team's $2.4 million salary cap.
Plus, as has been pointed out several times, what the players have now in terms of freedom of movement is the same as most exempt (salaried) workers in the USA have who work for a big corporation. If the "Michael Jackson" division of AEG has to lay off somebody, they don't automatically get to transfer to another division.
Finally, can we objectively say MLS is less fair to the players than the "rest of the world" considering how many teams worldwide don't regularly pay their players - including 5% of the Premiership.Posted 16 Mar 2010 at 06:06 PM by DoctorD
-
I don't buy the notion that the single-entity system is some house of cards that will topple once teams have more freedom. They already have much more freedom than they had when the lawsuit was filed in 1997.
And how could it account for a prospective bidding war over, say, Guillermo Barros Schelotto and not, say, Bobby Boswell?
Should be plenty of creative solutions available. The one that sent Kevin Hartman to Dallas is already quite creative.Posted 16 Mar 2010 at 06:10 PM by Beau Dure
-
Hey WestCoast Ape...nice Suicidal Tendencies ref.
Dan I think you've really outdone yourself here. Very good writing.Posted 16 Mar 2010 at 06:46 PM by Spry
-
The only point that I have heard that makes sense in the last few months regarding the owners is anti-trust. Otherwise, I cannot understand why the owners won't budge.
If a team does not want a player, that player should have a right to find another team to play for.
Using the Michael Jackson Division example, if you are laid off from MJD should they be able to say you can't work for any other AEG division? Legally, yes, but in MLS? Isn't that part of the CBA argument?Posted 16 Mar 2010 at 07:00 PM by F.C. Lurker
-
Will some form of simple free agency "topple the house of cards" of single entity? Perhaps not. But the test for whether a group of businesses does in fact "act as a single entity" is not altogether clear. It is based on many factors. The fewer factors there are to support the idea that the league does in deed "act as a single entity," the more likely it is that a court doesn't agree. That's why the owners are determined to keep as many factors in place as possible.
Make no mistake, the business model -- or more likely, the likelihood that a federal court accepts or doesn't accept the business model that MLS claims to operate under -- really is at stake.
MLS has a strong team of antitrust lawyers advising them on where the law stands in this regard. Their claim here is not simple PR.Posted 16 Mar 2010 at 07:04 PM by Max Zorin
-
The MLS system is currently set up so that there is never more than one bargainer at the table with any player. See Jason Kuhnle at MatchfitUSA. There is never a bidding war for an out of contract player because a team still holds his rights. There will never be a bidding war for a DP, because that player still has to sign his contract with MLS. MLS will stay dark for a season before it gives that system up.
Likewise, the singular goal of the players is to break single entity, and with it, this system. To them it is collusion, except they've never had enough power to trick the league owners into prohibiting it like the baseball players did. This year, next year, ten years, the union and its lawyers will be working to destroy single entity because until they do that the only real leverage they have in a labor dispute is a strike. And as multiple people have shown, it's really not a whole lot of leverage.
I've covered the legalities of how free agency threatens single entity, and the economic justifications for no free agency enough on my blog to not care to rehash it here. But what I will say is that the owners have the players over a barrel, and while they'll pay the players more money when they feel their budgets account for it and the players are worth it, they're not going to lift the lid one tiny bit on free agency. At least, I'd be surprised if they did.
-FSPosted 16 Mar 2010 at 07:17 PM by fakesigi
-
Very good article. It seemed like when FIFA announced that they would, as expected, ignore all the ways that MLS violates FIFA rules in league structure, the players officially had no leverage. I would still like to see guaranteed contracts though. Isn't that the most important thing?
This worst case scenario for what MLS would look like without single ownership makes it sound like the Irish league.Posted 16 Mar 2010 at 07:21 PM by TiltoKolapsas
-
This reminds me of the time I was attempting to cross a street in NYC and a cabbie waived me on. He nearly ran over me the moment I stepped off the curb.Quote:Originally Posted by Dan LoneyIf the players union would say that they're not trying to overthrow single entity...and there's nothing that says that the rights the players are fighting for are incompatible with the single entity concept...then that would seemingly remove the biggest stumbling block to labor peace.
Garber & Co. have a right to be suspicious. They've already been sued once and they spent a good portion of a year paying legal fees to defend a lawsuit that was financed by the NFL Players' Association.
I don't blame them for not stepping off the curb, no matter how many times Cabbie Donovan and his passenger Brian Urlacher wave them on.Posted 16 Mar 2010 at 07:22 PM by Pablo Chicago
|
Post a Comment
|
Total Trackbacks 0
