Basically, TC and Solidarity payments are included in the transfer negotiations, they are just paid to MLS.
What I'm trying to get at is, what is made explicit? What does the contract actually say if the Galaxy sells player X to Barcelona? A) Barcelona will send a check for $1M to the Galaxy in exchange for the rights to player X (expecting that TC and Solidarity will be paid by them). B) Barcelona will send a check for $1M to the Galaxy in exchange for the rights to player X, indicating that $100k (say) goes to solidarity payments and $50k to training compensation and it's the Galaxy's responsibility to make those payments to the appropriate parties. C) something else. "Included in" and "accounted for" are loose enough terms that they could mean several different things. And "negotiations" are different than contracts. I'm just trying to figure out how specific the contracts are and how do the different payments move through the system. I have heard separately that foreign teams have asked the USSF, who do they send TC to, which suggests that it's not part of the contract with MLS, but I don't know, and that's why I'm pushing on this.
TC are a different beast from SP. The amounts are fixed, depending on the status of clubs/leagues. So they're only linked to a transfer in the sense it has to be the players first pro contract he signs, in international transfers before he's 23. US clubs are put in the same bracket as top of the bill academies like Feyenoord, Ajax, Barcelona. That's a problem for an American kid as then the amount can get astronomical.
In the Telegraph story, it's not clear why parents sign YD10 forms instead of YD7s. If they have a free choice why wouldn't all parents sign YD7? Is there more to it apart from ignorance of their options?
Maybe you find the answer in here: https://www.leathesprior.co.uk/news/parents-of-young-footballers-on-the-rise-what-you-need-to-know
Also, a team may struggle to get its offense "on track." Not "untracked," which would strike me as a Very Bad Thing. If I'm on a train, I would much prefer it to be "on track."
If PSV Eindhoven buys Chris Gloster they've to pay a huge sum to Red Bull, a couple hundred thousand in TC it is said in Eindhoven. Well, that's not something the players union can use as proof TC prevents kids from getting a contract.
He also already moved to Europe. He bypassed MLS entirely and signed with Hannover when he turned 18. The Player's Union is strictly talking in terms of MLS players.
Players coming into MLS from other countries, yes. But any American kid who is a member is already on a pro contract and isn't going to be subject to TC.
Where is the money going to Red Bull coming from? Unless it comes from selling leprechaun gold, it's coming from PSV, so it's money they COULD spend on players but don't. It's a really simple concept. I'm flabbergasted you don't get it. Maybe this will help. https://www.dictionary.com/browse/fungible
Yedlin isn't worth more to Tottenham regardless of how his transfer fee is split. So that side of the argument is pointless. If the argument is that MLS would be unwilling to sell Yedlin if they only get 95% of the fee, rather than 100%, that doesn't track either. They sell Yedlin because they get a good return on him and he'd leave for free at his first chance otherwise. There's no leprechaun money involved, Yedlin is worth more in the EPL than MLS so extra money has appeared.
Training compensation and solidarity payments are taken from the fee paid by the acquiring team. Tottenham pays the same whether Crossfire gets paid or not. The dispute is between Crossfire and MLS/Seattle over whether Crossfire's share of the fee will be forwarded to them. From Tottenham's point of view it doesn't matter who gets what, Yedlin is worth X to them.
This is just the incidence of a tax. The extent to which each side pays depends on their willingness to move on. In most transactions I expect you are right, it won't make it difference. But if 5% never made a difference in the world, everyone would just raise their prices by 5%.
Yes, but because EPL wages and fees are so much higher than in MLS, the small % paid to prior clubs is irrelevant. Apart from wanting the personal challenge of better competition, players want the higher wages paid in Europe. MLS wants to get EPL journeymen transfer fees for above average MLS players. The idea that the SP and TC are obstacles to player movement is a myth, at least for movement to higher paying leagues.
First, TC and Solidarity are two things we need to separate. Here is where I the fees affecting movement. For solidarity generally I agree with you, it does not affect too much when you consider who pays fees for MLS players. The impact is more, IMO, on what MLS wants to clear. It's possible the league might ask for more and not budge. This isn't impossible to overcome, but the fee comes out of someone's end just like a sales tax. Training comp is a completely different animal and the MLS PU illustrated this clearly. These fees are pretty significant for an American player. A young American player signing his first deal might be offered $50k by a European team but have to pay 6-7 figures on top of that in TC. Compare that to a player of similar quality and salary from that team's academy and the value for money signing the American player disappears. MLS might offer this player $40k and an option heavy long term deal. Once TC makes the American more expensive, that deal goes away leaving the worse MLS deal on the table. Without TC, that player has the option of taking the Euro offer or squeezing better terms from MLS.
What leverage has the PU on international transfers? IOW what have they for clout in which the party with the obligation is outside the country
Here's the latest chart on TC costs: The 1st 4 years are at 1/2 rate and the final 8 are at the full rate. If an American signs with a top Euro club, the signing club pays the 90k Euros (about $101k now). You could just nudge into the $1m plus range, but it would be rare for a top American to sign that late in his career. The numbers drop considerably when you go down the leagues, but I can't remember what Cat. say Norway or Denmark or Croatia might be. Those are the leagues that this becomes more of an issue with.
The MLSPA has some leverage on inbound transfers to MLS since they will become members of the union. It's a bargaining issue between the union and league. But MLS operates under USSF sanctioning which requires FIFA rules compliance so the league is limited in what they can negotiate. Thus the various court cases.
The effect of TC is to generally limit offers to better US players. Nobody hesitated to make Pulisic an offer because of his promise. Someone like Sabbi is less promising but still is playing in Denmark after declining MLS offers.
I ment in outgoing transfers, as the buying club has the obligation to pay the TC and is under the rules of the FIFA/UEFA/Euro FA.
Yedlin was a member of the union. Obviously he was happy to go to Tottenham. The union's position is that the SP and TC are illegal under US law and the whole transfer fee should go to the selling party, MLS in this case, minus any assigned to the player. You might see references to a US court case called Fraser. Robin Fraser was a very good player in the early days of MLS. He was the union's lead plaintiff in a suit challenging the single entity organization of MLS on anti-trust grounds. The union lost that case but got an agreement from MLS and USSF not to collect fees for the transfer of players out of contract (similar to the Bosman ruling). The union has tried to extend the Fraser ruling to players who weren't ever under professional contracts. So far their attempts have been unsuccessful.