What is Preventing USSF & MLS from Participating in FIFA Solidarity/Training Compensation?

Thanks for the detailed explanation. The two are so often mentioned together, I thought they were the same thing.

I suppose, my theory remains correct. The transfer fees are relatively unaffected. The salaries, which are negotiated by the player and team, are affected. So if you are dead-set on Europe, you could always take less salary and still go...

 

As absurd as it would seem, I'm not sure it matters for professional sports unions.

Both the NBA and the NFL enforce CBA rules against high school and college graduates who are not members.

An example, is the relatively recent prohibition in the NBA against high school players being drafted.

 

But that is different, they are prohibiting a player from becoming part of the union before some point (1 year after high school).

If a high school players goes to play to Europe the NBA Union is not enforcing their rules on him, they will when/if he decides to comeback and has to be drafted.

 

Apparently the rules are different for Canadian players on Canadian MLS teams. For those who don't know he was just transferred to Bayern.

Jonathan Tannenwald‏ @thegoalkeeper 6h6 hours ago

The Whitecaps will send a training compensation check to Alphonso Davies’ youth club in Edmonton. Whitecaps brass say they’re on board with FIFA’s rules for the system. That might get some attention in the rest of MLS.

 

Do any of you ********ers pay attention? Henry and Tabla's transfers out of MLS netted their youth clubs payments.

Hell, Liam Millar who never played in MLS had his youth club in the Toronto suburbs compensated when he moved from Fulham to Liverpool.

Wake up lads, eh?

 

Canadian clubs clearly follow different rules it seems. Obviously, there were going to be some differences with the Canadian clubs, perhaps this is yet another.

 

It's only for international transfers.

MLS has more to gain from training comp than anyone, so at some point they need to put pressure in USSF.

TFC has been making voluntary payments to local clubs for nicking their players

 

I suspect falling under CSA jurisdiction and not USSF jurisdiction means that they aren't affected by the USSF's settlement in an American antitrust lawsuit with the Union.

 

Yup.

Although Canadian MLS players are part of the MLSPU, and that union has been one of the staunchest critics of these training payments.

Let's not forget that the class-action lawsuit filed by the Sockers, Texans, and Crossfire regarding this issue was actually against the MLSPU plus 3 USMNTers (Dempsey, Yedlin, Bradley)................and not the USSF, MLS HQ, or its clubs.

https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/texas/txedce/4:2016cv00464/169749/39/

 

They'd have to sue the CSA.

 

Of course, all these players were owned by MLS which is not based in Canada and is sanctioned by USSF. Davies played for Vancouver, but was sold by MLS. All the players are in the MLSPU.

 

Is like they are a different country with different rules.

Yes, but the clubs receiving the money are Canadian.

 

New: @thesoccerdon talked with me and @JeffreyCarlisle today about solidarity payments and training compensation in U.S. soccer.

"I’d like to see us be able to participate in that. It’s not because MLS doesn’t want to," Garber said. "This is a positive for the sport."

More: pic.twitter.com/07enaRdayg

— Jonathan Tannenwald (@thegoalkeeper) July 30, 2018

 

I don't want to give Garber credit for much of anything but in this case he's not wrong. MLS is a winner in the solidarity payment world. That's especially true as our best and brightest kids go to Europe. I have no faith this is going to be worked out anytime soon but I hope MLS lobbies hard when the next collective bargaining agreement is negotiated.

 

People have been screaming this with regards to this topic for years now. Its not Don Garber, MLS HQ and its clubs that have been against solidarity payments & training compensation in recent years. But no matter how many times we post about it, the perception doesn't change.

As Don points out in his comments, its the MLSPU that's against it.
Then there's the even more complex (for those of us that aren't lawyers) labor and anti-trust laws to maneuver around. So even if the MLSPU and MLS ownership came to an understanding on this topic in their next CBA, there are still those hurdles to deal with.

 

With younger and younger players going abroad some of whom never play a minute in MLS I wonder why the players union is against this any more. Only a handful of veterans get sold every year. Is it really worth fighting this for 3-4 players a year? Now the labor law stuff is more complicated but I don't see that these payments would hurt anyone so surely some legislation changes could be worked out.

 

Oh I know Garber is not to blame here. It's all the MLSPU. The question for me has been is this a something Garber is going to fight tooth and nail for at the next bargaining agreement? Just because he says nice things and agrees with the majority here on BS does not mean that he won't sign off on any agreement with the union that doesn't include this. A doesn't necessarily lead to B. Sometimes it's just empty talk.

 

MLSPU is being used as an excuse for the sorry and pathetic USSF.

The MLSPU in no way should or does dictate whether non-MLS clubs spread across this landscape receive solidarity payments and training comp.

It's a landscape issue. Our Fed presides over this issue.

PA Classics getting training comp and a future solidarity payment from BVB and Pulisic's next club has nothing at all to do with MLSPU.

 

I think there's one way to unravel this mess...............and that's by FIFA laying down the hammer. These payments are demanded by FIFA. If they rule that FIFA events such as the World Cup can't be held in the US until the matter is resolved, I think we'd see everybody get in a room to find a solution.

Garber, as we've talked about ad naseum, is forced to straddle both sides of this fence. He's the MLS commissioner, and it seems his clubs (and he personally) are in favor of these payments. His "boss" is the collective MLS ownership. Fernando Clavijo of FC Dallas has gone as far as to say the lack of these payments "is a threat to their club's model and business." So he can collectively bargain with the players to get them on board. But he's also on the Board of Directors of the USSF. The stance of the USSF seems to be that the courts have already decided the matter.

US Soccer General Counsel Lisa Levine:
https://sports.vice.com/en_us/artic...er-us-soccers-bizarre-policy-on-training-fees

"As discussed, please allow this email to confirm that by order of the United States District Court, U.S. Soccer cannot impose, implement, or enforce, in any way, those rules, statutes, or regulations adopted by FIFA relating to the payment of training and development fees. This includes training fees in connection with clubs which are members of leagues sanctioned by U.S. Soccer."

By the way, that article does a really good job explaining the USSF and the player's position. The part about Rubio versus Westside is really instructive for folks who don't understand the players' position.

The other problem for Garber is the USSFs and MLSPU's position on the matter is bolstered by the court case Fraser versus MLS 1996. That's the antitrust case that supported the single-entity structure of MLS. Does Garber really want to go down the path of unraveling parts of that decsion.....................?

 

Except read the link above with the Rubio versus Westside anectode.

The MLSPU feels that they're protecting players like Pulisic.
http://www.topdrawersoccer.com/the9...rong-side-of-the-training-compensation-fight/

“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.”

I don't necessarily agree with what Bob Foose is saying there. That's simply their view. Remember that the Texans, Crossfire, and Sockers SUED Dempsey, Yedlin, and Bradley for this money. They're not-for-profits and they sued their own alumni..............to profit from them. While we can all have empathy for their position, the courts have ruled they don't have a leg to stand on.

 

The District Court Order the Fed's attorney is talking about is the settlement between the Fed and the Plaintiffs in Fraser. That settled the Union's claims against the Fed at the trial level prior to a decision.

 

Pulisic's agent has said that if there is TC deals for young players in Europe will dry up.

 

This seems to be the stance of many in the US soccer community. This is the attitude of many in the US soccer community. That the lack of TC makes American youth prospects more attractive to European suitors.

We see it in that link above in the Rubio versus Westside kerfuffle.

 

Why not just pay teams anyway? Seems to be the Davies and Canadian MLS team route.

Like, let's say the Philadelphia Union want to sign the next PA Classics player. There's nothing stopping them from adding clauses in there to mirror solidarity payments or training compensation, right? Same if BMU come knocking on the door of PA Classics, perhaps they pay PA Classics for having trained the player.

Or, if you're a DA club, every guy you sign, you say you want a piece of future contracts.

What's the issue here?

 

Because not paying for something is cheaper than paying for it?

I dunno, I mean, I never took economics, but that seems like sound economic principle right there.

But, glibness aside, the Union can pay TC/S, but if the USSF doesn't enforce it, any other US team can poach from Union's DA and they're left holding the bag, like chumps. That is, to do the right thing would put you at an economic disadvantage.