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

Har har.

If Dallas, or PA Classics, or Socker FC, or any US club, is going to cry that they don't get TC/S, then they should simply re-structure their contracts to include that in there. There's nothing stopping them from saying, for example "Hey gunnerfan7, we're going to give you a scholarship to play for our club. In return, we want 5% of your wages until 23,".

Boom. "Problem" (because there is a benefit where players are signed on the cheap in Europe) solved.

 

There are a couple of MLS teams that provide "scholarship funds" for club teams that send a player to their academy and have that academy player sign a homegrown contract.

Part of the problem with the US system is that most of these youth clubs have no senior team for players to progress to. They have to leave the club. This isn't like Toni Kroos playing for Griefswalder in the sixth division or Bastian Schweinsteiger playing for TSV 1860 Rosenheim in the fourth division or Pulisic playing for Brackley Town in the sixth division. These are all semi-pro/amateur, but the players still had somewhere to go. Where does Pulisic go after PA Classics, he has to leave. There is not even an amateur team for him to play for.

Some of the Candian Teams have had similar set-ups. Owen Hargreaves played for Clagary Foothills as a youth player, they also have a senior team. Tabla played briefly for Panellinios Montreal FC who have an amateur team. Doneil Henry was a youth player for a team that has an adult team in a pro/am league.

I do think the teams that offered scholarships/financial assistance are appropriate in asking for a part of the training compensation.

American players unions are designed to help the average player, not the stars. It's what prevents Lebron from making 100+ mil a year, but gives retired players pensions, healthcare, education money, minimum salaries, etc.

 

This is a problem, why?

I'm a 10-year-old who can't afford 20K a year to play on a top travel team. They give me a scholarship. As a stipulation of that scholarship, if I get paid as a pro player, I pay 5% of my salary for 3 years or until 23, whenever I turn pro. Or something like that.

I look at it like all the tech bootcamps here in the Bay Area. They don't charge me for the instruction. But then, when I get hired, they take a pretty hefty chunk out of my salary, for 2-3 years, something like that.

 

The issue most have is that a good portion of these youth clubs are pay to play for profit entities. Also, many of their players go on to play at the collegiate level as well. There are a lot of sticking points. Not to mention that we are talking about minors here, and signing contracts.

Let's say your son plays for one of these clubs and signs a contract stating that a portion of his pro salary (should he make it to that level) will be paid to the club. Your son goes on to play in College, and is then selected in the MLS Super Draft by LAFC. His first pro deal is a league minimum contract for say $70K. Let's say he now owes his youth club $1400 (2%) pre tax out of his first year salary. LAFC declines his option in the off season and your son signs with a USL team for $55K, of which $1100 goes to his youth club.........

That's a not so insignificant amount of money for the regular players/employees.

It sure sounds good in theory, but there's no way anyone with half a brain would sign a contract for their kid with those terms.

 

...Except that's sorta exactly what happens when they actually start playing professionally, right?

When guys bounce around, each of their clubs takes a cut. That's exactly the kind of system that is in place right now, kids just don't sign a contract about it, the clubs work out how much of the kid's salary gets kicked back.

 

Except that it's not...............the TC and S payments usually come out of the transfer fee............which players usually get a cut of as well.

https://resources.fifa.com/mm/document/affederation/administration/46400_762.pdf

Most people focus on the well paid star players when talking of TC and S payments. Many forget that those players are the minority. I find it very difficult to believe that the average professional footballer would willingly forfeit part of his salary to his youth club(s).

 

Literally semantics.

Player X gets transferred for 10 dollars. He is also paid 5 dollars a year. TC/S payments mean that the purchasing club says "Hey, we'll give the player 2 dollars (a cut), we'll give the club 7 dollars, and we'll give the team that developed him 1 dollar. Also, we'll give the developing club 50 cents, a fraction of the salary, so that X really takes home $4.50 a year in wages.

What's incorrect about that scenario, and how does that conflict with how TC/S payments are made, or how different it would be if MLS clubs made those kinds of payments manually as opposed to as a result of FIFA ordinances...???

 

It has zero to with FIFA ordinances and everything to do with US Labor and Anti Trust Laws. There's a chance that these types of payments could be found to violate these laws, which could put professional teams in the US at risk for legal action.

https://sbisoccer.com/2015/09/training-compensation-conundrum

 

And how would a contract signed by a 10-year-old be legally enforceable?

 

Latest rumor:

- MLS says yes
- MLSPU says yes
- USSF may be relenting
- CSA says yes
- foreign club says no
Tottenham pushing back on solidarity payment claim for DeAndre Yedlin

 

Nah. There is nothing legally to prevent them. Anti-trust? Well, USSF is acting as a trust in denying the payments. If you can outlaw a thing, you can make it legal.

As soon as MLS wants to collect and pay these payments, USSF will find legal justification to do so. The link you provide talks about TC/S being ruled against in Europe, but we know it is still in use everywhere but the USA. It talks about rulings like Fraser, but Fraser and Bosman were only talking about players out of contract. TC/S are for players under contract.

All this legal talk is smoke and mirrors because MLS didn't want to pay for players. If MLS players sold in Canada can be in the TC/S system, there is nothing but the USSF preventing US Youth Clubs from being compensated.

 

MLS has indicated that it wants to participate in solidarity payments. As of two days ago Garber formalized that.

 

Where does it say that the Union changed their position (that they will enforce their settlement with the Fed in the Fraser case and bring a new antitrust lawsuit)?

 

It was in a news story about Garber's change of heart. I'll try and find the source.

Edited:

While representatives for the MLSPA did originally threaten to file a suit to prevent solidarity payments and training compensation—the union argued that enforcing the payments could deter teams from signing Americans because it would cost too much money—there is no indication that the union will now sue Crossfire or other youth development academies for pursuing such payments.

https://theathletic.com/613009/2018...uld-drastically-change-u-s-youth-development/

 

Logical............

Christian Pulisic's youth club unlikely to pursue solidarity payment after Chelsea transfer
http://www.espn.com/soccer/soccer-t...sue-solidarity-payment-after-chelsea-transfer

Klein said his reluctance is also influenced by the fact that PA Classics is a pay-to-play club, and has already been compensated in terms of developing its players.

"If we were a club that wasn't pay-to-play, it would be a whole different ball game," he said. "Our kids pay to play, so that's how we make our money. Now, we scholarship a lot of kids, but that's where the difference is for me a little bit. If we were one of those European clubs where everyone is free, or an MLS club where everyone is free, and signed him as a pro ... we're not even a pro club."

 

Which is why this statement from MLS Players’ Union is not useful. I'm sure those paying off student debts for education find this offensive. I haven't come to a conclusion on the whole issue yet, but do not think careless characterizations such as the following help.

“We have said consistently that training compensation and solidarity payments are bad for players, and would treat players differently than employees in any other industry, including sports,” Foose said. “For example, it’s absurd to think that a business school could demand a fee from a company that hired one of its students. Yet, that’s the kind of payments the youth clubs seek".

 

I have to admit that it has been hard to figure out the MLSPA in this. What they say makes no sense. Hanging out with my kids, I realized sometimes you say illogical things when you are trying to avoid saying the real reason.

Every new young domestic player is competition for every MLSPA member. If MLS can get then for cheap, as the systems they set up to bring in new players are designed to do, that puts a downward pressure on wages. Since the mechanisms MLS had put in place to hinder the free movement of young players has led to them going to other countries, that has helped MLSPA members by reducing competition. So, anything that might slow that movement down, like TC, makes MLS have more leverage to sign these players for less money and cut a higher paid veteran. It also reduces the bargaining power of the MLSPA.

Strangely, the salary cap and DP rules (hinder the purchase of players) and draft and club friendly HG contracts (limit rookie contracts) work in the favor of MLSPA and especially the older domestic players in the union.

Now that is a logical, if selfish and short sighted, reason to oppose TC.

Opposition to Solidarity must really only be because you couldn't take one without the other probably.

 

Must have never heard of tech bootcamps.

 

Yeah, I think only pro club academies in the future will really be asking for solidarity payments. Makes sense.

 

In Dallas no player as good as Pulisic would have payed a penny. Players that good have gotten scholarships for years and years. It may be tricky to find a way to pay for years that clubs gave a free ride and not for when they didn't. There is also the thought others have brought up that if pay to play club got a windfall they might not charge or charge less. Could some investment bankers start looking into this and partnering with clubs for the sole purpose of creating great players to get their investments back? Would be totally American way. Set up as good as possible, free for players and some rich guy becomes more rich. On the plus side they'd have an extreme reason to look at everything and not rely on GOB system. In a way MLS is already doing this they just aren't getting richer off their players.