Lets see if this is enough to get US Soccer to fix the rule ======================== http://www.espnfc.com/united-states...edlin-and-mlspu-sued-by-us-youth-teams-report
The lawyer representing the clubs claims they need to name the players personally in order to sue MLSPU--how could that be true with regards to Yedlin, who isn't a member of the MLSPU?
I haven't read the full suit, but I believe the gist is they're suing over unpaid fees which they should have received as part of Yedlin's sale, which the MLS has refused to pay - so it's more about the past than the current day. I'm not totally familiar with the laws, but it's about FIFA's "solidarity compensation" rule - basically, if your team had a player between ages of 12-23, then you are awarded 5% of all future transfer fees for that player. So the transfer fee that Sunderland paid to the Sounders for Yedlin - 5% of that is supposed to go to his youth club. It's sort of a reward system, I guess - produce good young players, you'll get a portion of the sales later on. The problem is that the USSF has decided that this rule doesn't apply to US domestic teams, and the MLS is quite happy to agree with that stance. So youth clubs in the US get screwed. I dunno - they probably think it's "socialist" or something. It seems like this whole debate has been ongoing for quite a while - the same three players were named in official complaints made to FIFA in September. I wonder if this will ever become a big enough issue for FIFA to actually threaten action. If they so chose, they could penalize the US for its failure to comply with FIFA regulations. I don't know if FIFA could make any legal claim against the USSF, but certainly, they could punish the US within the organization.
FIFA could punish the USSF for non-compliance, but I see that as highly unlikely. They've never pushed back (hard, at least, and publicly) against MLS or USSF for the weird rules used in the early years of the league, nor for expanding beyond the FIFA-mandated maximum of 20 teams, nor for any other reason I can recall. It seems that US courts will decide whether solidarity payments are going to be allowed, required or denied.
I don't think it has anything to do with politics. Here was part of their complicated answer last year when this came up in the Yedlin transfer. “In addition, U.S. Soccer concluded, with the advice of outside counsel, that enforcing the RSTP with respect to the training compensation and solidarity payment mechanisms could be found to violate the antitrust laws of the United States given their potential impact on the mobility of players,” U.S. Soccer’s response continues. “Given recent European court decisions regarding player mobility—and in light of the growth of the sport of soccer in the United States, including the emergence since 2007 of the Development Academy, whose clubs often directly fund the training of elite players—that analysis is currently being brought up-to-date. But, U.S. Soccer has chosen not to enforce those aspects of the RSTP system that are of questionable legal validity in this country and which might expose U.S. Soccer to increased legal risk.” Also, the federation claims that the FIFA regulations could come under fire in Europe in the near future as well. “Over the past several years, several intermediate courts in Europe have determined that some methods of training compensation and solidarity payment mechanisms are unlawful and violate the [European Union] Treaty,” the response reads. “In other words, the decisions by the intermediate European courts are consistent with the conclusion U.S. Soccer reached regarding the potential for antitrust risk. This issue is likely to make its way back to the ECJ in the near future; as a result, the viability of the RSTP may be subject to significant scrutiny in Europe over the next several years.”
US Soccer also claims this, which starts to sound a bit like an excuse as to why they can't share some funds “While not intending to speak for MLS, it is our understanding that MLS agreed to transfer the players referred to in return for a specific transfer fee based, in part, on U.S. Soccer’s long-stated policy not to enforce the RSTP solidarity mechanism,” the federation’s response reads. “As we understand it, if U.S. Soccer enforced the solidarity mechanism MLS would have demanded higher transfer fees, as this fee was agreed upon with the understanding that no portion of it would in turn be ‘passed on’ by MLS. Of course, there is no way of knowing whether any of the transferee clubs would have paid a higher transfer fee for any of these players and, if they would not, whether the transfer of these players would have occurred.”
I'm a little confused as to why training compensation payments should be made to non-profit organizations. I pay for my son to play travel. The fees are set by the club to cover the costs for training all of the kids in the program. If the training and development costs are already covered by those paying in to the club, then what is the extra money for? Shouldn't it be refunded to the parents? Or perhaps the clubs should lower their fees for playing due to this compensation? (Yeah right)
The notion that MLS would ask for a lower transfer fee because they don't have to make solidarity payments seems pretty silly. They're going to try to get as much money as they can. What's interesting to me is that the MLSPU is against it. I get the argument. MLS has a pool of revenue and it's split between MLS and the MLSPU. They don't want another party at the negotiation trying to pull some of the money out. It's just funny to me that they're so strongly against it.
But aren't the vast majority of these U.S. domestic teams registers as "non-profit" entities? Wouldn't they have to change their business structure if they were to receive these payments?
Non-profits can generate revenue. The restrictions are on what they can do with it. Colleges are an interesting case though. Again, they can raise revenue. But this looks a lot like selling players and my guess is that the NCAA would rather just avoid the whole subject.
I understand that re revenue. But hypothetically you could be talking big money if a player hits it big. It's enough $$ that these club teams are willing to sue to have a chunk of it. I guess what I'm looking at is what would these clubs do with the $$$ should they be successful in this lawsuit. Surely it would result in lower fees for pay to play right?
That would be up to each individual club to decide for themselves and their own business model. Some clubs might be in competition with other clubs for the best players and if they can offer a lower entry cost to their club because they received solidarity payments, that might give them a leg up to keep the ball rolling to getting more solidarity payments in the future.
That's exactly what a lot of these youth clubs want to do and what a lot of people here are advocating. For all the disagreements we have here over the current state of US soccer, there's hardly anyone here defending pay-to-play and MLS / USSF denying the training / solidarity compensation.
Ah, that does clarify things. The USSF is saying that if USSF acted to force MLS to provide solidarity compensation, then they would acting as a monopoly over soccer in the USA and thus violating antitrust laws. Kind of seems like an excuse, really. Practically speaking, the USSF enforces all sorts of FIFA regs on the MLS, which the MLS dutifully complies with. I don't know much about how the youth clubs and academies are run. I do know that in the US, we generally pay fees or tuition. Is that the same in Europe?
I think that is commonly what is hoped for. If they win, then youth clubs are incentivized to try to find talent and develop it. Kids will be scouted more aggressively, more scholarships will be awarded, and possibly more of an emphasis in developing vs winning.
I thought the crux of the prior ruling (that there was no antitrust violation in the way MLS operated) was the players were part of a worldwide market? So why does the marketplace rules not apply in the US?
Has anyone checked on @jond? He has been banging the drum on this and I have to agree with him and the lawsuit. It is something that is done all over the world and how a lot of clubs in South America and Africa fund themselves. If we expect to end the pay to play concept then we should be paying these academies for developing players that eventually become part of the MLS academy. It is a better life for all of US soccer.
The NFL was getting 300 mill in revenue and claimed to a non-profit up until last year when media pressure got to hot, so don't be fooled by the non-profit tag. @wrmbnr The point is the fees should be lower for you, if the club got compensated. Maybe even have a few scholarship programs for talented kids from broke families and stuff.
I dropped some info in the USSF DA thread in the YNT forum where we had been discussing this issue. Here's Bob Foose's response. "This is simply a shakedown for money," Foose said in an interview on Saturday. "What this amounts to, regardless of how it's being couched by the clubs, is the clubs are just seeking a piece of pay from former players," Foose said. "For high profile players who are lucky enough to get abroad it just means they are going to make less. And for most of our players in the U.S. this is going to mean they are not going to have opportunities to go [overseas] because clubs won't sign them because the cost of signing them will go up substantially. So they just won't bother. That's going to have a horrible effect on our players." https://sports.vice.com/en_us/artic...edown-for-money/?utm_source=vicesportstwitter I have no idea what universe this Foose idiot lives in but that is such an asinine response it's not worth spending much time on. We have a) more young players going abroad to top leagues than ever before and it's only ramping up and b) Euro clubs have been more than willing to pay solidarity fees and are actually surprised when the fees are returned or pocketed by MLS(as Yedlin's was). MLS labor is already cheap, it has no effect on dissuading Euro clubs from buying players here, never mind that Europe already factors those fees into everyone else they buy globally. And no, it doesn't mean the players make less, it means players would be payed less because the MLSPU caters to MLS who threatened to take these fees out of the MLS salary pool the league covers, which goes back to the structure of the league. But even that doesn't make much sense from the MLSPU point of view as the league cap/budget MLS covers doesn't factor in transfer fee revenue. How much money Sea gets from the league to cover player salaries under the cap/budget has nothing to do with Yedlin's transfer fee, nor does Clint's transfer fees have anything to do with NE's cap/budget, never mind any future Pulisic transfer fees has F all to do with MLS. And his argument that a 5% solidarity fee causes the price of buying players to "go up substantially" suggests he failed basic math. Yedlin's transfer fee was 3M USD. The solidarity fee to Crossfire off that would have been 150K. That's a drop in the bucket to Spurs. Substantially more my ass. But considering how poorly the last CBA negotiations went for the MLSPU and now this, Foose needs to get dropped like a bad habit.
With you bro. That is some grade A bullshit Foose is peddling. Every other country in the world functions like this but some how USA is exempt?? That makes no ********ing sense. The MLSPU did what a lot of unions did and said ******** the new guys or future union members, we need this CBA agreement. Now he is trying to make an excuse for it. Just agree to compensate the academies going forward. Chelsea would not have balked at an extra 5 percent for Miazga or whoever MLS sells next.
I generally don't agree with the vast majority of your posts, but I wholeheartedly agree with this and really don't understand why the powers that be are still getting in the way. When the league was first starting and having financial issues, okay, fine, I get it. But when you're paying Bradley $6.5M, Jozy $4.8M, Gilberto over $1M, Nelson Valdez $1.5M... you can't pass on $150k to Crossfire? Really?