Monday 19 Aug 2019

Love the goal. Great shot. Love the streak continuing. But really, this pass! My word!

 

The next CBA for MLS is being negotiated as we speak at the same time as the footprint of the league expands. Some argue expansion dilutes the product on the field but looking at what recent expansion teams have brought to the league I just don't see it. LAFC and Atlanta look like they are raising the quality of play not diluting it.
.
Atlanta has found gold in the draft with Julian Gressel and Miles Robinson. Playing along side a higher quality of talent like Josef & Pity Martinez MLS veteran players have seemed to raise their level of play. Darlington Nagbe might be having his best season so far even as the team had transitioned from a coaching change after winning the MLS Cup.
.
LAFC meanwhile using much of the same formula as Atlanta with the signing of quality young South American talent and spending big on Mexican national team layer Carlos Vela is having a record breaking season. Yet they still found a player in the expansion draft in Latif Blessing who made and contributed to the starting eleven so well they have already given him a new contract. Mark-Anthony Kaye won a championship with Louisville City and was transferred to LAFC in their first season. He's since become a regular in the line-up and made the MLS all-star team this year.
.
So many of the mechanisms are working when it comes to building a winning expansion team which has put pressure on existing teams in MLS. The signing of DP's like Zlatan and Rooney which still have benefits for a franchise aren't the norm anymore as teams also pursue younger DP caliber players that can win now and still might be sold to a higher quality league later.
.
Although I never think MLS will change their time of season or finishing with playoffs, I do believe how teams acquirer talent and the way parity is maintained will. With the next CBA coming, I believe we've already seen the big items players will push for. Better traveling arrangements, higher wages across the roster and lowering the age and years in the league for free agency.
.
To me the simple solution for travel would be mandatory charter flights when a team crosses two time zones. Also when a team has less than four days rest for their next game of more than 200 miles and it takes more than four hours in travel to get home from the current game. So if Philadelphia is playing Washington Saturday and Miami on Wednesday a train and a charter fight. If it was D.C.and NYCFC two train rides. If it was LAFC and Miami two charters.
.
Rumour has it that the players are looking to lower free agency by three years in service and age which would be 25 years old and five years of service. The second rumor is the wage for the lowest players on the roster earning 100K at the end of this next CBA if it goes another five years like the last two.
.
Surprisingly expansion helps by probably creating a more imbalanced schedule and the possibility of shorter travel time as distance between teams shrinks with every new team. Also if they keep the current playoff system when they expand to 32 teams, only 44% of the teams will be rewarded.

 

I really like the idea of forced charter flights for teams with long routes/travel days. I think that could be a happy medium in negotiations. I also think $100k is the least a professional athlete should be paid in a league trying to be perceived as a top tier one.

As for the salary increases, I still am for maintaining the TAM and GAM in order to not rapidly increase every player's salary. We are in a growth stage where revenues are going to rise greatly(hopefully) if all goes to plan and I just don't think it would be wise to take the training wheels off prior to a massive TV/internet/branding deal.

 

I repped your great post, but this part had me thinking, child, please.

 

There is an "if "in there and last time they did say 14 teams took expansion in mind. That being said, yea MLS is going to MLS.

 

Mandatory charter flights are a MUST in my view. And I actually think the players would leave some money on the table in order to get that. I would also love to see individual teams be allowed to operate their own aircraft. Customized for player travel like the NBA.

 

Agree 100%.
And all teams are ready to fly, since they all have a captain.

 

Just curious, is there any decent discussion anywhere on bigsoccer about the "Iron Front" / supporters group controversy that seems to be ongoing ?

Timbers came out with this:

https://www.timbers.com/post/2019/0...ont-symbol-politics-stadiums-and-human-rights

Which I thought seemed pretty reasonable but apparently not according to all the responses to it on twitter. Just curious if there has been any discussion somewhere around here that I can read through?

 

What are those Twitter responses?

 

Yeah. So grain of salt obviously.

 

Define discussion? The MLS Fan Code of Conduct related to political speech was bandied about in the August 3 news thread following a blow up in Atlanta in which Resurgence members were forcibly removed and unfairly penalized. It has also been discussed on the Quakes board (mostly by me) and, briefly, on a couple other boards. Apart from this long-winded statement from Timbers Army, not a lot has been said since.

I'm opposed to the political speech ban from MLS. It is ridiculously vague. On its face, it would not withstand judicial scrutiny if implemented by the government. My opposition is content-neutral, unlike the Timbers' Army's unworkable standard seemingly favoring allowing speech they like and shrugging at disallowing the rest. How convenient. The correct liberal position is: I-don't-like-what-you-say-but-I'll-defend-your-right-to-say-it.

I'm also opposed to the arbitrary enforcement of the policy, as implemented by MLS. The policy, as stated, does not allow for fan misconduct classes at $250 per pop for first offenses for allegedly political banners. It also does not allow for demanding apologies, period. Yet, reportedly, that is what Atlanta fans were subjected to -- being made to apologize for Wrong Think and made to attend re-education camp. MLS' enforcement of its policy in Atlanta was, if reports are to be believed, plainly arbitrary and capricious.

Discuss among yourselves.

 

I agree with your position that it would not withstand judicial scrutiny if implemented by the government.

But in this context I think I agree with MLS. MLS and the Timbers are not the government. They're private organizations bringing people together to experience the exhilaration of sporting competitions, which can fan some heated emotions - and they do so with alcohol reducing some peoples inhibitions - and the teams carry some responsibility (& liability?) for offering a safe environment. Reducing the risk of violent behavior that might result from controversial political expression in order to protect fans is reasonable in my opinion and so limiting political expression in this context seems reasonable.

But it's just my opinion...

 

Agreed. Keep soccer about soccer. The banners and signs can be carried to the stadium and left for safe keeping by the staff (for supporters groups) until after the game. We are politicizing everything. The least we deserve is a moment to forget all that crap.

 

Soccer, and sport in general, has always been politicized.

 

I have seen you post this multiple times, and I say, so what? You state this when people post an opinion of not wanting to see or listen to political things while at a sporting event. Your comment has no barring on that nor does it change what many desire. It doesn't matter 2 flying flips what you say has "always been politicized." Things change, times change, things evolve. Just because you say something has always been is not an argument against someone who does not want it to remain that way. It is also often the group that claims they embrace change and what change that throw out this sports have "always been politicized" claim.

If some desire that to change that is perfectly fine and how things have been in the past is not an argument against that desire.

 

sports -- culture -- politics

They have always been related and will forever be. People that say "don´t involve politics into sports" will really have bad time in their lifes, because you can't separe them

 

Because largely what the people who say "I don't want politics in my sport" or "why make sports political" really mean is that "I don't want those politics in my sport". They generally have never objected to the anthem being played, military appreciation nights, and other such politicization of sport. Its fine to be against politics in sport and really mean "against politics", its another to be against "politics that I disagree with" or "politics I don't want to think about" while being fine with the politics that are already there. If you're really against politics in sport you should be speaking out against all politics, not just the ones that are trending right now.

 

For me, being compelled to clap for the "LA Galaxy Hero of the Match", who is always a policeman or active/former military and never, ever, say, a teacher, doctor, fireman, social worker etc, is a lot more politically controversial than saying "Do something [about gun violence]!" or being anti-fascist. But of course, that's the point.

I ask people again: what kind of society sings a song about war, punctuates it with explosions (fireworks) then asks you to clap for its police and military before a sporting event? And calls that politically neutral? (I'm also guessing most people don't know the mostly forgotten third verse to the Star-Spangled Banner, which rhymes "slave" with "brave"). Folks should read about Franco's Real Madrid and Hitler's Berlin Games to understand how the US uses sport to reinforce nationalist values.

 

You are putting words in my mouth as usual. I said none of those things and you are making assumptions.
I say the same exact thing to you. I see a lot of people wanting left theme politics allowed but nothing else. A LOT. Now they have gained the majority of the general public they are trying to silence anyone and everyone they disagree with, which is exactly what they fought against.

 

Speaking of putting words in people’s mouth, where did I say that YOU said these things?

And I never suggested otherwise. But saying “these politics are fine and those aren’t” is still different than claiming “there are no/should be no politics in sport” without acknowledging that politics are already there.

 

Why quote them if you aren't trying to attribute them to me? It is changing the discussion at hand. Again I never said these are fine and those aren't. Not once. Didn't even insinuate that. You are moving the goal posts.
Its a common tactic to minimize someone disagreeing with you.

 

Is being against racism left themed politics to you? To me, it’s an assertion of agreed upon American values.

Is being against fascism left themed politics? Or is it an assertion of agreed upon values?

If you’re right and I’m wrong, we are in a crisis.

 

Welcome to Bullshit Generalizations 101.

Everyone I know who want the Iron Front asshats to go away also wants to stupid song at the start of the games to go away. It's also funny that you claim the people who want the Iron Front BS to go away are the ones who blindly support all the anthem crap when the Portland fans are the ones who are so into it that they occasionally sing it themselves without an official anthem singer.

Strawmen aside, the league has every legal right to do what they're trying to do right now and should be supported in the endeavor by every thinking human.

 

Funny how everybody bitching about what I’m claiming isn’t actually reading what I’m claiming or assuming I’m claiming they are saying it as opposed to the general statement with qualifiers. Apparently even using quotes as the common punctuation they are is a problem: I’d continue the conversation but it appears to be pointless.