There can't be a cap without single entity unless it's collectively bargained. And considering how much trouble they've had getting little things like direct deposit done, I'm thinking that would be a collective bargaining session that wouldn't be over quickly. So the centralized contract system is necessary for there to be a cap unless the owners give up something else. Player aquisition rules are a mess, I'll grant you that. But more autonomy over a dicey investment is how much more attractive, exactly? I'm going to guess that the things you'd include in "more autonomy" (which is a phrase that's bandied about, but I have yet to see it adequately defined) would run counter to the positive effects of single-entity - i.e. the reasons they have single-entity in the first place. So we don't have any Florida Thundercats-type franchises. I'd also submit that many, if not most of the investors who thought MLS was a great idea and are no longer around are no longer around more because MLS isn't or wasn't a terrific investment, not so much because of some perceived inability to have control over their own affairs. We think Ted Leonsis was a guy who didn't get involved because of SEM. I don't know of any others off the top of my head. SEM is a convenient whipping boy.
Don't other sports leagues get along fine without a centralised contract system? Does major legaue baseball own A-Rods contract. Do they decide what they are paid. I pretty sure I am wildly misunderstanding your post. Yes they are. 1. I never said anything about 'autonomy'. Didn't I specifically say thye can have single-entuty up the wazoo? I did. This argument about autonomy is one you probably had with someone else not me. Let them share all the losses if they fell fit to do so. But sme of the structural issues put in place are unecessary. 2a. When an owner has a greater say in the decisions that affect his investment it is more likely that his investment will no longer be just monetary it will be emotional as well. How many money losing years did Mr Hunt go through in the NASL. I bet his loses in KC in absolute dollar terms are similar but in real dollars the NASL losses were much higher (losing a million dollars in 1970's dollars ius a much bigger hit than losing a million today). 2b. The people who have the resources pay a franchise fee as well as absorb MLS losses are not the the type of people who are ready to accpet losses simply because of structural deficiencies. They won't accept losses simply because the league won't allow them to be creative. They don't have to violate the cap but they can have the ooportunity to do what got them all that money in the first palce work harder than everyone else (in some cases). There is no need to violate any of the concepts like the cap or SE That is not what I was implying I brought up the owners who left because you stated My point was that the numbers of owners coming in is no sign that the environment around MLS is not unattractive to many investors. People come in for many reasons. There are lots of those in this game in this country and many of them are prioritised ahead of simple things that can be solved easily leaving time for bigger issues. Caps are not the problem. SE is a problem but is necessary. The structure needs to be changed.
And other sports leagues get along fine with playoffs and divisions. What's your point? We don't have to be like them, or we have to be like them? We have to have big markets because they do, or we don't because we should be better than them? They don't have a centralized contract system, but they're also not as fragile as MLS is. And, yes, MLS is much less fragile than it was, but I don't think it's out of the woods yet. I guess you didn't write this, then, at 10:19pm tonight: Or did you? That's fine. But MLS loses a lot more than a million, and you still haven't demonstrated how Lamar Hunt doesn't have a say in decisions that affect his investment. Is Curt Johnson not able to hire who he wants (subject to whatever budget Mr. Hunt gives him)? Is Bob Gansler not able to sign a player he wants (subject to his salary budget)? I realize it's easy shorthand to just say that single entity takes all the decision-making (and therefore the emotional investment, whatever that is - I don't think Anschutz and Hunt are in this for the money) out of it, but it doesn't. Maybe it's just me, but I haven't seen a lot of coaches and GM's quoted as saying "We'd love to improve our team, but we're just not able to, because the league signs all the players." It seems to me that it's precisely because teams can "get creative" that we have chicanery like the Jonny Walker is-he-a-weighted-lottery-no-he's-a-returning-national-team-player-who's-never-played-for-the-national-team signing/allocation/whateveritwas. The Metros lost a world-class goalkeeper. They needed another one. They got one. They had to make stuff up to make it happen. Change the rules so that they don't have to make up "official" designations for players after the fact, that's fine. But that doesn't have anything to do with single entity keeping Nick Sakewicz and Bob Bradley from having control over their franchise's destiny, or Anschutz being able to make decisions in the best interests of his investment. And my point is that the number of owners coming in seems to belie the idea that MLS is unattractive to all investors. I think soccer is unattractive to probably 95% of the potential investors as it is, regardless of the system. If MLS is so unattractive, how are they able to bring in these people? Does that mean if there was no unattractive SEM, MLS would be at 20 teams by now because there'd be 8 more millionaires knocking on the door? That's fine. But it's not happening anytime soon. The basic tenets of single entity exist to ensure the continued existence of the enterprise. The details (free agency within the league, transparent player rules, etc.) can be worked out any way you like.
How exactly would letting teams sign their own players and own their own contract within the the same parameters harm the league? Thats what I get for uathoring replies to two or three posts at one time. At any rate I think I made my point. Yes that is exactly what I am saying. That does happen all player salaries are decided by the league not by the teams or the individual GM's. The league office decides how much every player gets paid. Teams have had cap space in the past and offered players money based on that cap space only for the league to say "We have decided he is only worth this much so that is all we will offer him." And there have been times wehn teams have signed player for higher salaries than the teams ever requested. So to answer your question yes this does happen in this league. No that is the league deciding to break its own rules to like it has done many times in the past. Its not like the Metros put one over on the league. He wasn't a national team player so even if thye had proposed that the league ultimately had to approve it. Which is an irrelevant talking point because I never claimed it was unattractive to all investors. I used the word many and then I went on to say that people get in for many reasons. Just read what I quoted. Why do you keep talking about me saying single entity is the problem when I clearly stated that single entity is not the problem right now and I went out of my way to say what I thought the problems were? Why do you keep doing that. Where did I even insinuate any such thing.
You didn't really misunderstand it, you just missed a few words of it. He said that a cap can't exist without single entity unless it's collectively bargained. The NBA can have a cap be cause the players and the owners have a collective bargaining agreement.
Understood. But I am not arguing that we do away with single entity. I am arguing that there are elements of the current system that are hurting the league and can be changed. If that means negotitations then fine. But apparently MLS doesn't see these things as problems. Edit He also stated that centralise contracts are necessary for their to be a cap unless the owners give up something else. I can't agree with this. The players would not stand in the way of de-centralised contracts it would only help them since they would be able to negotiate better deals for themselves with competition. And with the constraints of a salary cap I don't see how the teams would spend any more than they do now.
I'm not 100% sure that would be possible under the current setup. Maybe it would. Maybe the investment part of it could be separate, but I'm not sure it could be. Well, you put forth a point. I'm not sure you made it. Got a for-instance? Well, if I'm reading you correctly, there were also "lost" investor/operators because of the system. Who are they? Los Angeles - Originally owned by Los Angeles Soccer Partners and Marc Rapaport. They sold out on October 23, 1998 to Anschutz. Rapaport even got a (tongue in cheek) plaque at that year's MLS Cup for being the first person ever to make money in American soccer because he sold the Galaxy for more than he paid for it. So that's one investor/operator out. Dallas - Had no investor/operator until Hunt Sports Group took over in March of 2002. No investor/operator out. Colorado - Owned by Anschutz until sold to Stan Kroenke on 9/23/03. You could count that as an investor/operator out, but I think it would be against the spirit of the definition. Kansas City - Owned by Hunt Sports Group since the beginning. No I/O out. New England - Owned by Kraft Soccer since the beginning. No I/O out. Columbus - Owned by Hunt Sports Group since the beginning. No I/O out. Chicago - Owned by Anschutz since 1998. No I/O out. Tampa Bay - Never had an I/O. Miami - Owned by Ken Horowitz. As far as I know he's still an investor. Since the details of his departure from I/O-ness are a bit sketchy, you could count him as an I/O that's out since he's no longer got the O part. DC United - Has had two or three I/O groups, depending on how you count it. The original API boys, which Kevin Payne put together; Octagon purchased API in May 1998 and Anschutz purchased the club in February 2001. But if you count Octagon as an investor out, you have to count them as an investor in as well for taking over API and running the club for three years. MetroStars - Kluge/Subotnick and Metromedia were in at the beginning until 11/21/01 when AEG purchased them. So that's another I/O out. San Jose - Originally a league-owned team until 11/18/98, when Kraft Sports took them over. SVSE became the team's "operator" 1/10/01, with an option to invest, so I don't know who the money men were on that at the beginning - whether the league was or AEG was in by then. In any case, Kraft was out as I/O of that team, but they were still in the league. Then on 3/19/02, SVSE and AEG jointly aquired I/O rights to the renamed Earthquakes (sounds like it was still AEG's money and SVSE was just running it) and that partnership only lasted until that December, when AEG took them over fully. Chivas USA - Owned by Jorge Vergara and company. Salt Lake - Owned by Dave Checketts and company. So that's: In Anschutz Hunt Kraft Kluge Rapaport API/Octagon Kroenke Horowitz Vergara Checketts SVSE (maybe) Out Rapaport Kluge API/Octagon SVSE (if they were in) Horowitz (maybe) Seems like a net gain. I don't know what Rapaport's reasons were for getting out, nor Kluge's. I don't recall anyone saying publicly why they got out, but if I missed it, I'd love to hear if it was because of SEM or not. Sorry, my bad. I thought you said single entity had a chilling effect on investment, when it seems like we still have a net positive on the investment side. I agree with you that there are some facets of the structure that need to be changed. I think we disagree on what those are, or how to go about them. Fair enough. Enjoyed the debate.
It certainly needs to be explored. /shakes fist angrily at Kent. That is something that has been relayed to me by people who asked me to be discrete. When I first heard it I thought it was BS and just sour grapes. But I keep hearing similar tales concerning different players as well as the same account concerning one player in particular (whom most wouldn't recognise anyway). The few players who I know personally who have played in this league (admitedley none of these players has been in the league since 96) seem to back up the accounts I have encountered. No I am saying there are people who don't get in in the first place because of the structure and IMHO some simple changes could make the league much more attractive to investors.
And......#11,000 Inertia is a powerful force. It won't be explored until MLS is forced to explore it. And until I see the result of the collective bargaining process, I'll remain skeptical about how much they'll be forced to re-evaluate. I'm told MLS wanted a 10-year CBA, the players wanted five, and what we'll end up with is something like 5 with an option. So unless the new CBA includes some of these reforms, don't look for them to happen for a while. Tee-hee. I know there's some testimony from the antitrust case about players being lowballed when Sunil was in charge of everything, or being told one thing and having another come to pass (Caliguiri comes to mind), but I don't think Sunil has been in charge of that stuff for a while. I'm sure there's not a player in MLS who doesn't feel he's getting hosed on his contract, and I'm sure there's not a player MLS hasn't tried to get for less than the player wanted. That's sports. And I'm saying we know of one of those people (Leonsis, depending on what you believe), while we know of several people who have bought in despite the structure and several others who have stayed in despite the structure. Does Mark Cuban not get in because of SEM or because he's not interested in soccer or because it's not a great investment? Does Paul Allen not get in because of SEM or because he's not interested in soccer or because it's not a great investment? Is Jeffrey Lurie not in because of SEM or because he's not interested in soccer or because it's not a great investment? I don't know the answers to these questions. But until one of them says "I'd love to own a soccer team, but I want more autonomy over the decisions and I don't like propping up other money-losing teams," I'll believe they don't get in because soccer hasn't proven itself to be a good investment yet. I think that's changing - I think Carson and Frisco and Bridgeview are showing that there is a way to do it. It's not going to be easy, but I believe you will be able to make a modest profit operating an MLS team in the right situation in the near future. So then you're left with finding people who are interested in soccer (because it's still not going to be as good an investment as, say, real estate, and the ego thing of owning a soccer team just ain't as big as it's going to be owning a team in another sport). And I don't think there are a lot of potential I/Os out there who fit the bill. To get back to the original premise, if DuRoss does have the financial wherewithal, I am pretty certain he's okay with SEM (else he wouldn't have been pursuing it to this point, and I would imagine he's okay with the cost certainty), and I am pretty sure he's into soccer. If they get the stadium built, and they can pull it off financially, they're in, in my mind. What's going to happen in 2104 is none of my concern. Nor should it be yours.
Re: And......#11,000 I am not familiar with the court testimony. I don't know how long ago Gulati left. However I am not talking about players getting screwed. I am talking about players and teams getting screwed. I am not talking about players feeling like they could make more. I am talking about players being offered more by teams with cap space but league officials saying this what we offered him last year so we won't offer him more now. I am talking about teams deciding to offer a player X dollars and the league deciding to pay the player X + Y dollars and in so doing ruins a teams cap situation and adversely affects their personel plans. At any rate it is what it is.
Re: And......#11,000 That's fine. I haven't heard those stories, publicly or privately. Which doesn't mean they didn't happen. I was under the impression based on some things I've heard lately that at least one team's Assistant GM was involved in contract negotiations with players recently. And I can't for the life of me see why the league would deliberately overpay a player, but if they'd sabotaged a team's building efforts by throwing their cap out of whack, that would piss me right off if I was the GM.
As annoying as the current player distribution system is, it remains a necessary evil. MLS opted for SEM because it provided the most viable economic system for the league--it would allow for the imposition of salary caps without anti-trust concerns, and (and this was a big "and") it would prevent the rise of a Cosmos-like entity, outspending the rest of the league and driving up costs beyond what the market would bear. In order for the league's approach to survive the invitable anti-trust assault, MLS had to make certain that it was consistent in how it presented and operated itself. In this connection, allowing individual clubs to sign their own players and purchase their own contracts would have been Plaintiffs' Exhibit 1 in the lawsuit filed by the players.
That all may be true but other sports leagues have caps that were negotiated with the players. So the question is did MLS do all this just to delay having a CBA as long as possible? I really can't see why. Its not like any players union (no matter how big the league becomes) will ever have the kind of power other players unions have. A unions power eminates maily from the strike leverage. Soccer is not like other sports where the talent pool is limited and playing a season with replacement players is not an option. If the players ever go on strike in MLS would have the option of simply hiring replacements who may even be better than the previous players. Lets not even discuss what FIFA would do to players who refuse to report to their teams. I have a hard time seeing what MLS's fears are here. Especially in light of the fact that the main reason MLS won its lawsuit was because the judge stated that the football player market is an international market (or something to that effect). I just don't see what the risk here is for MLS on the anti trust side. Or am I missing something?
One important angle you may be missing is that unions are not something that most employers look forward to dealing with. They are never "invited" in. MLS was set up as an SEM because the owners did not want a union. Where there is no union, an employer has the right to act unilaterally on all decisions. Once a union is involved, such decisions need to be negotiated--a significant limitation on the freedom of movement non-union employers enjoy. So did MLS do this to delay having to eventually come to terms on a CBA? I don't know. But I do know that the SEM structure has allowed them to deal from a position of strength--if it had been declared violative of anti-trust laws, the league would have been scrambling to get a CBA. As they survived that challenge, they have the luxury of being patient. As far as a players' strike--well, let's hope it does not happen. But don't overestimate the league's ability to get replacements. If, in theory, more talented players are available, MLS still has to offer them contracts. It is not likely that a talented overseas player will be willing to come to MLS on a day-to-day agreement. A-League and USL players are already under conract. If the 4/15/81 NASL strike is any indication, the best MLS will be able to do is get local men's league players who are willing to scab. You might think "well, MLS can just offer long term contracts to the replacement players, and cut the strikers." But it's not that simple. Under the law, an employer may "permanently replace" (but not fire) striking employees. What this term of art means is that, while MLS may commit to long-term contracts for replacements, they may get stuck once the striking players make an "unconditional offer to return to work." At that point, in an economic strike, the striking MLS players will be the first ones called back if a replacement player retires or gets injured. This isn't much of a risk for MLS; they'll keep the replcements for as long as they want. If, however, the strike is found to be an "unfair labor practice" strike by the National Labor Relations Board, then the striking MLSers have a right to immediate reinstatement--which means that MLS teams will be paying both the returning strikers and the scabs. Not a pretty economic sight, doubling one's payroll in one fell swoop. Anyway...MLS quite rightly feared anti-trust implications by going at this as anything less than a true, 100% SEM. Anything that smacked of "individuality" in player contracts or movement would have exposed them. And remember--triple damages come into play in anti-trust cases. Real money. As far as FIFA...well, I don't think any attempt by Blatter to blackball striking players will hold a lot of water here. The whole reason we had an NASL at all is because the USSF and the United Soccer Association blinked when the NPSL filed its anti-trust suit over FIFA's "sanctioned league" policy. FIFA did not hold sway under American law then, and wouldn't today.
Thought it was 4/15/79, Steve. In fact, I wrote a piece on it for the ECG last year. Haven't there been player strikes in other countries? Or have they just been threatened? I would be stunned if one of the unwritten "benefits" of SEM (they extoll the usual ones in all the media guides over the years) isn't the ability to do basically whatever you want and to minimize the effects of a union. It took until last year before there even was an actual union that MLS recognized, and even now there's a "negotiation" going on (and almost done, from what I understand) but the players don't really have a ton of leverage. From what I hear, the free agency thing isn't going to happen. I'd be amazed if they got much of a salary bump. MLS is no different from any employer, I don't think - they are willing to give on some things in exchange for others, not willing to budge on some issues, and I think both sides recognize who holds the cards, as well as the emptiness of a strike threat. Let's face it - an MLS strike would probably rank just slightly above the MLB umpires and the (almost) WNBA strike in the Court of Public Sympathy.
I am in total agreement with respect to the sway fifa has over the american landscape But Steve if fifa threatens to ban all the players involved in the strkie from all fifa sanctioned competitions you would be amazed at the speed at which the most affected palyers would crumble. That would be all the foreign players, all the national team players and all players who aheva ambitions to play overseas. FIFA is exceptionall Brutal when it comes to outlaw players and leagues. http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2004/9/11/sports/8873918&sec=sports http://news.google.com/news?q=Ariel+Ortega&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=nn
Yeah, Kenn, it was 1979. I just added all the scabs from that day to my GK database, too. Talk about bad short-term memory. Speaking of memories, than you so much for bringing up the umpires. Except, remember, it wasn't a "strike." They all, um, "resigned." I represented them at the subsequent arbitration, and I'll just say this: as stupid as the plan sounds, it probably would have worked had they all stuck together. Brutal in countries where they can get away with it. FIFA is not all-mighty; if memory serves, FIFA (and UEFA) lobbied hard to keep "reserve clauses" in place, and, yet, the Bosman ruling came out anyway. Moreover, I suspect FIFA would not push too hard to influence an MLS strike by threatening blacklisting. Remember--triple damages.
This would have little to do with MLS or triple damages. Those damages would not be paid by FIFA. FIFA would do it just to make an example of people that you can't just walk out on your contract. It has nothing to do with whatever country they can do it in. FIFA would simply have to say "You don't honor your contract, we will fine/ban any team that allows you to play for them." Which means your career is now in the toilet. Until we have european union type law all over the world FIFA can do it anywhere they want. FIFA doesn't have to abide by american law. This game is much bigger than the USA and FIFA has enormous power. The US can have all the laws they want about labor. I am a union man myself. But it doesn't change the dynamics of this situation. The players have very little if any leverage.
Bosman was because of the European courts. FIFA can really only be hurt by one court system - the European courts. Europe could start their own world association and eventually others would follow or their would be a split. Otherwise I don't think any one country has sway over FIFA.
I didn't mean this most recent action. There have been umpire strikes before (and NFL and NBA officials, too). The public has no sympathy for that. That's all I was saying.
I can't see why you are so sure this is the case. What makes you think FIFA, as a named defendant, would not be on the hook for damages? I'm pretty sure the U.S. courts would be able to excercise jurisdiction over FIFA, which exposes them to liability. They were a named defendant in the 1967 anti-trust suit filed by the NPSL against FIFA, the USSF, the United Soccer Association, and even the Canadian Soccer Federation. FIFA got a little nervous and, voila, we have a settlement resulting in the NASL. Oh...my bad. I figured you were referencing the most recent action, where the public had absolutely no sympathy for the umps.
And what happens when FIFA comes down hard on US soccer or CONCACAF? Or even suspends the federation? What happens when the USNT's go the way of the dodo? What will the public reaction be towards these players? Will the american public be on the athletes side? BTW I don't know what happened with the NPSL but is there any evidence FIFA forced a settlement? Like in most court case where damages are sought plaintiffs sue everyone in sight. But that doesn't mean the judge will find them at all liable.
Re: I know this a bit off subject for the direction this dialouge has taken. But, I thought I'd chime in with a new view point. I recently saw on Reading ( division 1) site that they were boasting a 15,000 attendance. Now, I agree this would be a good attendance for MLS also. But, the site seemed exceptionally pleased with the turnout. And what is the player salary amount for such a team? Where is Reading located? What is that cities population? I was curious what the average Rhochester turnout is? I've heard around 10,000. I'm not sure of what Rochester's population is, but I would imagine it would have to be able to support a MLS team. Dallas/Ft. Worth area is around 3 million and the Burn can't seem to get Rhochester's attendance numbers. Sure Rochesters smaller in the perspective of Philly ( population/landmass) but, what would that comparison be with say Ireland and Texas? Yet, Ireland seems to keep thier clubs afloat. I don't think we can expect to reach EPL status anytime soon. MLS is still in it's infant stage. We don't have 3 generations of supporters,yet. We have to face facts we're going to be a feeder league for a period of time. A lot of the world is. In the mean time our national team will improve along the way and our american players will earn thier stripes overseas, then probably fade out thier careers in the MLS. And, I'm sure plenty of MLS fans will love seeing Mathis, Beasley, Reyna, Bocanegra, McBride ect. playing in the states agian. up to late and off topic.
Re: Based on a quick Googling, Rochester averages 11,500 people per game. The population of Rochester is 220,000 (which is larger than Salt Lake City), and add another 100,000 for suburbs and surrounding towns, and you get a bit over 300,000. Though SLC has a richer demographic, the Rochester team has done very well in getting 3-5% of the population of the surrounding area to show up for the games. Thats something to be proud of. Is Rochester a 'sexy' location? No. But the fact is that they are a successful organization. The Metrostars have a pool of potential customers of nearly 12 million and on average draw only 3000 more people than the Rhino's do. Even if Rochester doesnt make MLS, who ever is running the marketting of the team should get hired by the league.