CBA Thread IV: I Must Break You

i am not trying to prove anything. i am simply stating that the current MLS model has an unusual amount of MLS HQ control over some pretty fundamental decisions of individual club operation, like who each club can sign and to what kind of contract. sure, does MLS HQ take what the club want's "under advisement" in some cases? yes. but there are plenty of other cases where the MLS HQ ignores the wishes of the club on fundamental personnel decisions. my personal preference as a fan, and if i were an I/O or a player, is to have a system in which the MLS HQ is more hands off and acts as simply a "contract clearinghouse" so to speak. but given the posted legal opinion i can see why doing any such thing would threaten the S-E model as a whole and thus many (if not all) the MLS LLC and its investors are resistant to the idea.

better conditions for players/employees gives the league/employer a better chance to attract better talent. i think that is true in every business. not a guarantee that you will get the better talent in all cases but makes it easier and more likely you can do so more often. that isn't some sort of outlandish claim. and the bigger point is that individual clubs are not free to make the decision to offer certain things to attract better players (no trade clause, guaranteed contract, etc) as they see fit. maybe that is by league design. whether a person likes their team to operate under such conditions is for each person to decide for themselves.

more upset than when their team loses to a Honduran side year after year in the CCL? more upset then when they see a player that their club would have liked to sign (and that the fan would liked to have seen on their club) not sign a contract with the league because the MLS HQ was not willing to offer the kind of contract that the club leadership was willing to offer? i would think what upsets a fan most is up to each fan. and a league that allows teams to sign a player to a guaranteed contract does not mean that every team must sign every player to such a contract. perhaps a team is smart enough to save such a thing as an incentive for players they really believe are worth the risk? and as an aside i have not seen many people who are suggesting that contracts be guaranteed for the "life" of the contract as you insinuated but rather that contracts be guaranteed on a year by year basis should the player be on the roster on opening day.

this i absolutely agree with. some of the I/O (not all mind you) don't give a flying ******** what the product on the field is like. they are only interested in putting a product on the field that costs them the least amount of money and effort while still making them a profit. and the very centrally controlled MLS S-E is the perfect cover for such I/O. i also think that there are currently I/O that are the exact opposite of this and are/will increasingly become annoyed with their lack of freedom in certain essential club operational decisions. just check out some of the hubub surrounding the Vancouver Whitecaps as an example and those guys aren't even in the league yet.

 

jesus h christ

google has it it's own money?


******** this strike mumbo jumbo... how can i transfer all my funds to google money?

 

only if google buys out ebay so that my newly converted to google-scrip is good to buy useless crap on said ebay. and craigslist too. and maybe amazon.com. hell just the whole internet ...

 

I'll PM you my account number and take care of it for you for a small fee.

 

As you spelled out in your post earlier, MLS has to be very careful about their single entity defense. Since courts have already put it on shaky grounds, and American Needle v. NFL progressing now, we'll see this issue come up again I'm sure.

I doubt MLS cares much about those issues you hi-lighted. They'll want to bargain with them, but they'd be willing to negotiate within their system. The players want to negotiate towards solutions that involve more club autonomy though, and that's the true sticking point here.

I might be alone in this, but I think MLS is making a serious mistake in not engaging the players more on creating a collectively bargained league structure that protects the owners investment and gives the players more freedom. While the owners have the leverage now, that will only change as the league grows.

The league's single entity defense already rests on shaky ground, and will get even more so if the league progresses with the rule changes they have. I don't think they want a situation in 5-10 years where the players say ******** it, we're taking it to the courts.

 

just want to point out that when triplet types "fair warning now, this is a long reply" my insomnia is solved.

 

A big thing that makes it not too likely the players would try to challenge single entity again, besides the big logistical barrier of decertifying, is that the jury's finding of fact rejecting the players' definition of their relevant market still stands. This finding is the the reason that the appellate court didn't bother trying to make a definitive ruling on MLS's single entity defense--it didn't matter because the players' relevant market is broader than MLS. This was a finding of fact by a jury and can't be appealed. Unless their relevant market radically changes, the players can't really go back to court on this.

This is why I think an attack on single entity would come from some other interested party that does business, or wants to do business, with MLS, LLC. Broadcasting, licensing, or sponsorships would be where this could originate. But anybody challenging single entity could point to autonomous activities by MLS franchises, including, hypothetically, bidding for free agents, as evidence.

 

The suspense is killing me right now

 

Thank you sir. I would much rather trust you over someone from another country.

And I for one do not trust that Mr. Beck Ham fellow. He somehow managed to turn his contract from $250 million to $32 million to $250 million.

I seem to think that someone needs to explain the math to him.

However, I would much prefer to mail you the cash in an envelope. I don't trust having the bills stuffed into telephone wires. Seems a touch shady if you ask me. Not that you have, mind you.

Were you named after President Wilson? He was a fine man. But he always came across as a little sickly if you ask me. I never understood what the ladies saw in him.


BFF,
BirdsonFire

 

And to me MLS (Abbott is a recent chat with a reporter) is a bit two-faced on that relevant market (for players) topic:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/soccerinsider/2010/02/mls_responds_to_players_commen.html

so, if it was set up as such (to counteract the international market and not really participate in it via sales/purchases of players -- except in rare cases), isn't MLS itself stating that they are indeed their own relevant market for players (at least kinda)?

 

No, because the buying and selling of players only applies to players under contract. It doesn't alter the scope of the market. When that player is out of contract he still has all those other leagues to sign with. The not selling aspect is more akin to a no-compete clause that some employees work with. If they would like to work for another team while under contract then the holders of the contract need compensation. It doesn't change the market at all though.

 

Can you give me an example of this?

The suggestion that MLS makes arbitrary personnel decisions because they want to preserve their legal position seems a bit specious to me.

You flip back and forth between "I understand that this is, by design, a single entity league" and "why don't the teams demand more autonomy?"

The owners bought into the MLS concept, plunking down substantial chuncks of change based on their view of the business model.

Yet way too many people act like these guys woke up one morning, decided they really dug soccer, wanted to buy a team and, alas, MLS was the only league around.

So they went ahead and bought in, but hate the rules, have the structure, resent league interference an can't wait for it to change.

This makes sense to you?

Examples, please.

Ridiculous.

Of course they care about the quality of the product on the field. They understand, much better than you do apparently, that the caliber of the product is key to growth.

I have no idea what "hubbubb" you're referring to, but those guys did not just write a check for $35 million to become shareholders in a company they don't like.

To suggest otherwise is ludicrous.

 

I thought the NFL had a salary cap with pretty significant penalties for exceeding it including fines, losing players, and losing draft picks. I know there's the issue of 2010 being "uncapped," but wouldn't the league have to be "capped" before it could be "uncapped?"

 

I completely understand this. And I realize that the players were unable to define the relevant market to only MLS.

my point was that the league does at times behave as if it were its own relevant market.

MLS doesn't regularly participate in the international market for players (and when it does, most of those comings and goings are on frees -- not really a competitive market transaction as such). yes, there are examples of MLS buying and selling players to foreign clubs, but for the most part, as Abbott states, "Our system was designed to counteract the international market."

by counteracting that international market, MLS has been able to control costs, and not spend excessively, or much of anything, on player acquisition and they have been able to keep salary costs down by being a limited participant in that international market. (of course, with the DP, MLS is also now pursuing more -- or at least more high-profile or higher-salaried -- employees from the international marketplace, but the league is still rarely buying or selling to truly "participate" in that international market for players.)

now, I'm not saying that these conditions would indeed help the players to be able to define MLS as its own relevant market (and I doubt the league would want to decertify to challenge this again in the courts) -- but to me, the way MLS does operate, and even some of their own words about how their business "system was designed" does tend to say that MLS, in some ways, is its own relevant market.

I'm not a lawyer, I just thought it was an interesting point, and a bit of two-faced talk by Abbott to say "we function in an international market" but at the same time say "Our system was designed to counteract the international market."

yes, the players are able to also function and seek employment within that international market, but are the restrictions, designs and intended operations of MLS such that they do in some (perhaps legally binding) way define themselves as a league that is its own relevant market? again, I don't know. I just thought it was interesting.

 

You make 15 other posts in excruciating detail so people are so boggled by double-speak that they don't remember your first mistake?

 

The league lets this happen time and time again, but sometimes they overrule the teams. The overruling seems to be way more rare than the league letting the teams make the decision.

 

Please tell me today is the day we get drunks with Stan and Larry at the bowling alley.

 

I would plow Andie McDowell like a wheat field

 

Not quoting the idiot, but MLS pays Chat Barrett $200,000 to play soccer. How that is screwing the players, I'll never understand.

 

I'm not a lawyer either (though I did extremely well in the Business Law courses I took in college) but I don't think there is any legal weight to his comment. I think his comment has more to do with not relying on the buying and selling of players as a way to recruit talent or as source of revenue. The internal restrictions don't create a new market they just define how MLS, as a business, behaves in the overall market.

Let's look at it this way. You have a teacher that signs a 4 year contract with an affiliation of state colleges in Pennsylvania. The teacher takes this job after exploring their options and, all things considered, it was their best option. Now as part of the contract, they can't take another job at another college, while under contract, without their current college being compensated. And while they got hired at West Chester, there is nothing stopping them from being moved to Shippensburg or Bloomsburg or any other state school in the affiliation. Now after their second year there, the University of Penn comes along and wants the teacher to come work for them. However, the affiliation she signed her contract with doesn't usually let teachers go and doesn't go out and bring in other teachers that are under contract.

You would have a hard time saying that the affiliation of colleges is their own relevant market. They do compete on the national market for teachers, but their business plan limits how the hire and act within that market. The way they act is based on how they run their business and how they keep costs in check while retaining the best talent that they can. It doesn't limit the teachers in any way since they are free to sign anywhere before or after their contract.