May not be the best place for this discussion, but here it goes. So with some uncertainty surrounding this new CBA and a potential strike in the works, if this becomes a worst case scenerio where a strike actually happens. How does that change your perception of soccer in the US? Do you stop following the league? Does it matter? Switch to a lower division team? For me I've always had strikes leave a bad taste in my mouth. This one is different because this isn't a bunch of multi millionaires striking but I still feel it would damage my interest going forward.
I wish I could say that it doesn't bother me but my track record in sports is that if they strike and it shortens the season it will take me 2 or 3 seasons to regain full interest in the league again. It doesn't matter which side is to blame, if they don't come to an agreement I will focus on something else - most likely a combination of the Bundesliga and MLB.
Every year I get more excited for the start of the season. It would be a hit to not start on time but I would still follow the game the same.
how would it impact season tickets and would games actually be taken off the calendar, or just re-arranged?
I would imagine it depends on how many games were missed. If it was just a handful I could see them jamming them all in. If it's half a season I am betting we would get money back.
I am to set into this team now to pass on watching and paying attention. The most I could pull back already happened when the Crew kept refusing the fire RW.
The one thing to be said for Bud is that there hasn't been a baseball strike in a looooong time. It will be interesting to see what happens. With *this* sport, I fear the players think they are bigger than they really are. Not saying the owners will be or are entirely in the right--just that I think the players in MLS may have an inflated sense of their true value. We shall see. They would do better to fight for things that will grow the game--like perhaps larger rosters with a true minor league, which would mean more union members. I think the owners are willing to die on the free agency hill--or at least the single entity one.
That doesn't bother me *that* much. You all may not realize this, but it was common in Major League sports prior to the boom of the 1960s and 1970s. George Blanda (one of my favorite old players) was an executive with REA, for example. Speaking of soccer, it was also true in the Bundesliga not that long ago--in the first few Kicker league previews I got ca. 1973/1974, the occupations of the players were given (the Bundesliga was still technically "amateur" at the time). I think Gerd Mueller was a cobbler. One of the goalies for Eintracht Frankfurt (Peter Kunter) was a dentist (not that odd--Bill Lenkaitis was both the center and the team dentist for the Patriots back in the 1970s for many years). Apprentices in any profession do not make that much money. I know I was down to my last nickels many times when I was a grad student with an assistantship. Folks that intern often make nothing. Mind you, I think it's reasonable for the union to fight for a higher minimum. But soccer hasn't hit its boom years yet in this country (getting there though).
I think you make an interesting point. I want them to get paid a fair wage. But what's the average player worth if the MLS, as an employer, is out of the picture? If the MLS disappeared tomorrow, everyone in the league would be scrambling for a job. Where would they go? South America? They'd be paid less, if they get paid at all. Europe? Yeah, the EPL, Bundasliga, etc are not going to absorb every mid-level MLS player and pay them more. What's funny about soccer, in contrast to other major leagues in America, is these players are part of a global supply and demand for talent. Their value is impacted to an extent by what other leagues would pay for them. If many of these players aren't worth taking up a roster spot in the few leagues that would actually pay more than the MLS, then the League isn't being any more cruel to them than the global market would be. It is hard to fight this reality: The MLS is the best employer in the world for many of these players.
Here's an article with some details on the now expired CBA: http://www.stumptownfooty.com/2015/2/4/7982785/behind-the-curtain-the-old-mls-cba-revealed
Okay, so legitimate question here: The biggest sticking point so far in CBA negotiations seems to be free agency, and for good reason: both sides have a lot to lose. For players, free agency is a big deal because they want to be able to have some say in where they're headed, but more importantly want negotiating power as a result of multiple interested teams. This negotiating power, is exactly what the owners are afraid of - other leagues (most notably MLB) have seen player salaries skyrocket as a result of FA. I personally believe MLS (/SUM) are putting out some "misleading" numbers about the financial state of the league, but I would still be surprised if it wasn't in the red year-to-year. That is to say, I want to support the players' rights to free agency, but I honestly don't believe the league can support a huge increase in salaries (though obviously the salary cap would mitigate the effect to some extent). Assuming some type of FA is worked into the new CBA (which isn't a given, but let's pretend it is), what do you think the eventual solution could/will be?
Part of the free agency they may be talking about might relate being cut by a team and them still holding your rights. The team can keep you from playing again in the league any time soon.
Shh. You're piercing the veil of ignorance the owners are trying to throw over the public. It's the salary cap, not single entity that provides cost certainty. The owners have offered a first year cap increase in the 25-30% range though that won't affect most player's current contracts.
Here is the elephant in the room: Isn't there a concern that clubs like Columbus, Kansas, and Colorado may cultivate a player, then that player will get league-wide recognition, then get an offer to play for about the same money in a more 'exciting' market? In other words, couldn't free agency cripple a club like Columbus and really benefit a club like Chicago?
If you allow free agency, you MUST have a cap and you MUST limit the use of DP tags to the current number of 3 or less to limit the big club's from using that tag exemption to exceed the false ceiling of a salary cap.
It would be completely fair to think I'm crazy but I could actually see the concern going the other way. What has the main difference between 3DP Galaxy and 3DP Red Bull been? The middle of the roster is pretty good. Middle of the roster players in MLS don't get paid like middle of the roster players in the NFL, MLB, NBA, or NHL cost of living matters to them. What Kyle said is true salaries won't skyrocket Columbus, KC, Salt Lake City, ect have a pretty decent pitch until the league makes big league money. I could see where the league wouldn't want to see the big markets top heavy on talent because middle cost players would rather live where their pay checks go further.
You mean like, gasp, every other league in the world? Make the first time your out of contract restricted, second time unrestricted. Done.
MLS *isn't* like any other league in the world. No one seems to understand the impact of single entity. Free agency in a single entity situation, legally, is like switching cubicles or office desks at your employer. While a union might negotiate something like that, it's a far cry from a system where the office desks (i.e. teams) compete with each other. Right or wrong, I do not think MLS gives that up easily. And it would be difficult to challenge it legally, given the existence of a world market and other leagues in the US--especially one that clames to be "big league"--the new NASL.
Certainly players could leave Columbus for other cities. The reverse is also true. The better run clubs would probably be the most successful in the long run since teams would all have the same amount of league provided funds to spend on players. I'd say the Crew don't have much to fear from the Fire.
Didn't the term Taxi Squad originate when Paul Brown coached in Cleveland and he worked out a deal for players to work for a taxi company? Anyway, look: I know it sounds harsh but the bottom line is that if you're not good enough to make a decent living playing MLS soccer then you have two choices: either take a second job - like, you know, a whole hell of a lot of us had to do back in our 20's, or b) quit and get a real job in Dad's insurance agency. This same bullshit came up four years ago when the bottom of the scale was half of what it is now. Players at that level are mostly non-contributors, the equivalent of interns. It's a stuggle getting by on peanuts. Bummer for you. I'd swap places with you in a heartbeat. You chose a profession and a league that doesn't pay marginal players much money. You don't like it, you should have found another occupatON. The cold hard fact is that you're only in MLS because you can't get a spot on a team anyplace else. Go ahead, go to Europe. They've got thousands of good paying soccer jobs. Why not go get one? What's that? You're not good enough? Oh, I see. So you want MLS to, basically, pay you more than you're worth. I get it now. Makes perfect sense.