So apparently, according to Don Garber.... MLS doesn't have solidarity payments b/c the PLAYERS don't want them. Apparently he and MLS want them. This confuses me. I thought this was all from MLS and its owners...... So I have questions: 1. Do USA soccer players truly not want solidarity payments in the USA? If so, why? 2. How many USA players (what %) are against solidarity payments and how united are they in their reasoning? 3. Is there a difference between US-eligible players playing in the USA and foreign players based in the USA i.e. solidarity payments and is this difference relevant to the topic? 4. what can be done to change the minds of those that do not want solidarity payments in the USA?
As I understand it the Players Union is concerned about the effect on both their ability to transfer overseas and their contract amounts if American youth clubs start getting solidarity payments. It will increase their transfer fees and/or cut down on how much of that fee and their salaries are. Essentially American players are cheaper right now because of the lack of solidarity payments which makes them more attractive to overseas buyers. There are also apparently some legal concerns about solidarity payments but I don't claim to understand those.
It’s not just MLSPro, it is also FIFPro. With how easy it is to move across borders in Europe, I’d imagine the impacts are a lot worse there.. Imagine being a young German. You’ve come up through the academy of a 2.Bundesliga club, but aren’t good enough to get offered a pro contract. Your agent finds you a Scandanavian club willing to sign you, but the first thing they get is a €50k bill slfrom your academy team and your contract falls through. Yay!
The reason behind not wanting solidarity payments is easy. Let's look at it in terms that apply to something some of us actually might do once in our life. If you were selling a car and wanted to get 10k for it, you would sell it for 10k. Let's say that you owed 10% to the person you bought the car from. If you sold it for 10k then you'd only get 9k. So you are going to sell it for around 11k so you can get the 10k you want. Same thing applies here. If a team or MLS wants 5 million for a player and need to pay 10% to other parties they are going to ask over 5.5 million. So the cost of the player is increased because the fee is going to multiple parties and that can effect their career. You wouldn't be happy if a possible new job with better pay fell through because some company you used to work for demanded a cut. You'd be even more pissed off if it was a company you were an intern for (which is essentially what playing for a pay to play club is). That is more training compensation, but the same principle applies. How many USL teams are going to spend 30k to 40k to take a flyer on a recent college graduate that they were planning on offering 15k to 20k for the year? Clubs will sign out of contract players that are outside of the training compensation range because it is far cheaper. So the very best will be signed by MLS while the rest will fall to the way side. Of course those 3rd and 4th round gems we like? They are done because you aren't spending that money on a player that most likely will never pan out.
yes you have explained why MLS CLUBS wouldnt want solidarity payments in your first section....I get that. But not why PLAYERS wouldnt want solidarity payments...the fee wouldnt change it just would mean lower level clubs would actually get something instead of the MLS team only. I think what is really going on is that MLS clubs wanted no solidarity so they could keep all of any transfer fee for themselves and somehow convinced MLS players that that would also be in their best interests as well. as far as i can tell the MLSPU is the softest in all of pro sports. I think what has happened now that EU is raiding MLS acadamies MLS is realizing it wanted the wrong thing....and wants to somehow pin it on the players...or??? IDK It makes sense that mls clubs wouldnt want to take a cut out of their transfer money....but why players would care i still dont get. take alphonso davies....if bayern pays 12 million to MLS....davies gets none of that and why should he care if MLS gets to keep it all or if some of it goes to all of the clubs that developed him (other than that he might be compassionate and have a heart for his old clubs)???? now....it might impact his salary with bayern ...but i dont think it has to or that it even does (whether there are solidarity payments or not).....to me it is 2 separate issues.... can anyone prove that including solidarity payments actually means players get less???? EDIT: or is it that MLS clubs refuse to give any of the transfer fees to solidarity payments and instead take the money out of player wages? instead of using some of the transfer fee is it that MLS insists on keeping the same amount of money that they would get without SP and using player wages to offset those SP's???? if that is true 1 it seems wrong 2 i can see why players wouldnt accept it.
MLSPU’s opposition is unrelated to any actions by MLS. This is coming from FIFPro, who are opposed to basically all transfer fees, training compensation, and solidarity payments, etc as they feel it places an unnecessary burden upon the players’ ability to control their careers and movement within. That’s in addition the previously mentioned belief that solidarity payments and training compensation result in a reduction in player wages by applying a “tax” on all transfer fees that would otherwise be included in a team’s overall player budget.
So MLSPU is just an arm of FIFpro??! Are you sure? also...lets say vancouver gets 12 mil for selling davies to bayern....how would davies' bank account differ if vancouver spends the money on solidarity or not? that 12 million isnt changing no matter what vancouver does with it...so why is it davies (or mls players') business?
Yes.. MLSPU is a member of FIFPro Because, in FIFPro’s opinion, Vancouver would have been fine with $11.4 million instead.
There's also US law to consider. Vancouver had no problem paying training compensation Davies' former club in Edmonton citing FIFA rules.
what im still fuzzy on is this: the money that a team gets from a sale of a player is theirs to do what they want with, no? if vancouver gets 12 mil from selling a player that whole 12 mil goes to them....so they can use it however they want right? under current rules...players do not get any of the money in a transfer fee, right? i dont get how the opinions of players matter here....in regards to money that isnt theirs.
No. If their federation requires them to pay training compensation and/or solidarity payments, they have 30 days to distribute the money. once they pay any solidarity payments, sure. That isn’t what FIFPro and MLSPA are complaining about. It is their opinion that solidarity payments drive up the cost of transfer fees and, therefore, reduce the amount of money available that a team has available to pay player salaries.
I don't think players in any league get a cut from the selling club. They may get a signing on bonus from the buying club.
Why do I get the feeling that this is being driven by player agents, who do get a cut of the transfer fee? Here's an older article that speaks about this issue: http://www.topdrawersoccer.com/the9...rong-side-of-the-training-compensation-fight/ As you'll read the lawsuit is against the MLSPU and not MLS, SUM or MLS Teams.