USSF threatens "replacement players" for Feb. qualifier

It's over for now , but this was still a great thread.Thanks to all.

 

They weren't kidding when they said "lockout"

 

Today will be a a national holiday in my book.

 

Lock the thread -


Hopefully a BS server thread never occurs. So that our progeny (?) in future centuries can view this thread and realize that many people in the early 21st had way too much time on their hands.....


Lock the thread.

 

Thank God.
Now I can enjoy BigSoccer again, without every thread turning hostile over this crap...

 

Feh.... ask them about the hedonic hedge.

 

Did anyone count the number of times 'amateur' is used here? How that this apply to the US Men's National team? Not one player is an 'amateur'.

 

There's a little more to the act than the above. Full text can be found at
http://www.whitewaterslalom.org/rules/asa-1978.html

The Act was passed in 1978, when it was more or less assumed in this country that all international sport was amateurs, and that all sports were "Olympics first, everything else second." It's been interpreted differently since then, as the US sporting landscape has changed.

I can only make a start here. I'm not a lawyer (my background is in government), so my knowledge of the law is mediocre, but this is what my own crude brain has gethered:

1. National Governing Bodies (NGBs) are sanctioend by the USOC for any sport that plays in the Olympics, regardless of whether they are 'primarily' Olympic sports or not.

2. The ASA/USOC require a NGB to have a board of directors, which must represent all the interests of the game: grass roots, elite participants, youth, women, handicapped, etc.

3. They also allow anyone who is eligible to be a board member to arbitrate claims in front of the USOC. What specifically can be arbitrated, the Act is kind of vague on., but apparently it's quite expansive (see use of phrase 'any controversy' in quoted passage below) It's clear that some other body contesting the recognition of an NGB can do it, but other than that. . . (Anyone who knows case history might be able to provide more here). But the players definitely have standing.

3a. It has been reported that using replacements has been deemed a violation of the ASA. I'm not sure what part of the legislation would imply that, but whatever.

 

Friday evening: attend soccer clinic with son.
Friday night: read the great news, watch FFF
Sat: coach youth game in a.m, play game in p.m.
Sun: watch lots of games

Life is good again!!!!

I even read the Sweden-Korea game report without throwing up.

 

Can we close this thread for mercy's sake?

 

Okay, fine, but let me just say thanks for the moral support and fun it provided. Without the posters on this board, viewing the entire dispute through the prism of the LAT, I would have thought it ranked below women's college basketball, high school wrestling, and level with jai-alai. And I would have felt alone in my frustration and anxiety. Even those of you with whom I disagreed sharply, thanks for participating. Maybe I'll see you at a game at HDC or on a pitch somewhere near Pasadena. (Anyone near Pasadena heading to Lucky Baldwin's on Feb. 9 for the T&T match??)

This has been your anti-LAT rant for the day.

 

I didn't post too many times in this thread because a) the posts were flying on here so fast it was to keep up with the pace of the discussion; it was like a chat room almost; b) I was so disheartened by the prospect of a replacement team that I just didn't want to think about it; c) I went from the elation of the draw and thinking about trips and picturing upcoming games to this crap.

It's too bad that I didn't post more. This could have gotten to 2000 posts!

Time for some last rites...

 

Good Loney article in Cybersoccernews here:

"Fear The Future".

The two principal points:

1.) If we thought the players striking before a WCQ against T&T was stressful, wait until they strike before the actual WC '06! Talk about upping the stakes.

2.) The PA already drawing lines, during the PA-USSF labor squabble, for the MLS labor negotiations in a couple of years makes no sense since MLS is losing money, might be barely in the black by then (if lucky), and, as a consequence, would collapse the league if a prolonged labor strike/lockout occurred.

Do you agree or disagree with the article?

 

Read your history, Dan.

Labor issues aren't "coming" in MLS. They've been there since day one. IIRC, the players didn't even know that there would be no 'market' within MLS for their services once their contracts were up.

They fought the league and sued nearly straight out of the gate. They lost, but none of their concerns were addressed beyond the pension (I believe).

Of course they're going to continue fighting. And I'm willing to bet they fight MLS harder than they've fought the USSF. Just a guess that "revenue sharing" won't be an abstract or indirect point of contention either.

See you all right here again after qualifying. Nothing has been resolved.

 

Somewhat related to Loney's article and I haven't seen it posted. J Hutcherson offered his comments on a quote from Garber contained within Labor Feud set Aside, for now-- an NYT article by Jack Bell from 1/25/05.

From the standpoint of the players, MLSPU vs. MLSHQ and USNTPA vs. USSF issues are quite intertwined.

 

Serie Zed:
"Of course they're going to continue fighting. And I'm willing to bet they fight MLS harder than they've fought the USSF. Just a guess that "revenue sharing" won't be an abstract or indirect point of contention either."

* What they'll get is 'revenue loss sharing'. If the barely-financially-viable league collapses, they'll be unemployed. IIRC, the earlier labour suits were settled based on the fact that the players who were arguing the MLS was a monopoly were laughed out of court when the judge heard how many professional soccer leagues there were to play in. They sue again and there will be one less league... and the average MLS player will find it pretty hard to get in a foriegn team.

Greywacke:
"From the standpoint of the players, MLSPU vs. MLSHQ and USNTPA vs. USSF issues are quite intertwined."

* J may question the ethics of the USSF and MLS sharing board members, but that is a fairly common practice in the big business/big non-profit world.
* If any group really wants to gauge the legality of USSF transfering funds to MLS 'for the good of the sport', then they should try the case. The repeated harping on the point in the media with no action to back it up is pouting. Or an attempt at distraction from the real issue(s), whatever they may be.
* The issues are as intertwined as the boards of MLS and USSF, and the players of MLS and the USMNT. In most walks of life a union will have more than one shop, and the machinist's at the Road Car Company and the Ocean Services Company will both belong to the Machinist of the Road and Ocean National Union (MORON U). MORON U negotiates different contracts with different employers for the groups it represents. If the USMNT players want to gain some cred with me (The Average Fan), they can disband the USMNTPA and join the MLS Union, pulling in all the other soccer unions in America (US Women's?, U-?, A league?), and providing them all a bargaining position where we could actually believe that some of the decisons that the union made were for the good of the sport, instead for the good of the top .001% of the male atheletes who play the sport. Right now the USMNTPA can include no "we're doing this for the good of anyone but ourselves" plank in thier bargaining platform. That one fact has made me suspicious of them and has resulted in me leaning toward the management position in this dispute.

All that said, I'm just glad were going to play some soccer.

 

Dammit, I was not going to post on these topics anymore. Dammit.