12/2/04: Around the Bend

Great service, but I gotta razz you on MSLPU

 

The Wheelock interview with the two union negotiators (or whatever their label is) is very informative and insightful.

Congrats to the players for their ability, patience and resourcefulness in getting to the collective bargaining table, and actually winning some noteworthy gains, and putting themselves in place for winning larger gains down the road. Well done.

MLS: onwards and upwards HO....

 

Yes I am happy that the players are being reasonable so far EXCEPT for.

I will absolutely not as a fan tolerate the players attempting to get rid of a cap.

NO NO NO NO NO ... not in a million years. Bob Foose and Co can go Fcuk themselves. Thats exactly how every other dam league on the planet has gotten themselves in trouble.

You can get rid of SEM or raise the cap but you cant get rid of both and I will stand by the league as fan to protect its future.

That being said I hope they can work out a fair deal for the salary cap to increase though. Over time I would like to see it increase fairly, relative to revenues.

If these guys even try to stick to the league and its owners with ridicules attempts to do away with a cap after all they have done to keep the league around and build stadiums and take losses up the wazoo, they go stick and I will work in whatever way I can with the league as a fan to bring down the players union at any hint of them pulling any BS.

 

Interesting point in the Wheelock article where it sounded like the Union lawyer inferred that many MLS teams don't even max out the 1.7 cap. That seems hard to believe. But you never know. I dont think the guy wants to do away with the salary cap. He wants to do away with the single entity. Big difference.

 

"SW: What is the position of the MLSPU on the salary cap?

BF: We aren't comfortable with the salary cap and we'd love to not have one. It's not really correct to call it a salary cap, it's a single entity system deciding all salaries. So, what is called a salary cap is really a salary budget put in place by the league for each of the teams. They can be exceeded, and there are many teams that don't get up to those dollar numbers. Given the single entity system in place, there isn't much we could do in a collective bargaining agreement to benefit the players on this front. Even if we were to raise the cap, what they call the cap, significantly, it doesn't mean those dollars get spent on the players. In other sports, competitive pressure drives teams to spend up to the cap. We don't have those pressures here, because we only have a couple of people in one office making all of the decisions on salaries."

The union is going to have a very hard time getting rid of the salary cap. But maybe they can move into something like the NFL and NBA have--the amount of money available for player salariies is a percentage of all league rvenues and it moves up and down accordingly. That seems like the fair way to go.

 

I think what the union guys are saying is that the cap is a function of SEM and they aren't happy with SEM. I can't believe they would fight very hard to rid MLS of any and all salary caps.

 

I sure as hell would also oppose getting rid of the salary cap....If by the time our league is absolutely stable and we are making some profit, a player is not happy with his pay, he sure as hell can pick among the Euro club who can afford him...By that time, a few of the Yanks Abroad ought to be making their way back home, so that the influx of players in and out would not differ as much as it has in the past, and to a lesser degree the present.....

 

One of the virtues of the SEM system, if they do keep it, is that it offers some opportunities for a quasi-'permanent solution' to the labor disputes that have arisen in the last 30 years or so. Players and owners could become true partners in the venture (without the conflict of interest involved if the players of a franchise became large stakeholders in that franchise).

My strategy would be, once the league is profitable enough that these investments are good value earners, simply offer the players the opportunity to purchase shares in the league at below-market prices (joint stock-options, if you will). It will tend to harmonise the interests of the players and the league ownership, which will tend to be perpetually in opposition if they are not all investors.

Otherwise, things like tying the cap to revenues is all fine and good, but it won't stop labor and ownership bicker over what consitutes 'league revenues.' The NBA has and will continue to have this problem. The NHL probably will, too, if they can ever even get that far.

 

I wonder if one solution might be to give the players an equity position in the SEM. The equity would be dependent solely on length of service, so lower salaried players get a stake like the stars. Then, if the league prospers and the SEM is ended, they get a cash out at some future date.

There would be tax issues, but we can work through those I think.

Garber, give me a call.

 

I like that idea. I doubt the owners would be too enamored of it, however, since that would mean they'd have to show the players (or their representatives) how the finances of the league really work. Either the league is a money pit, in which case it would be hard to convince the players to become investors, or the league is making decent money, in which case they've provided the union with ammunition to ask for more concessions. In most sports leagues that I've read about, any suggestion of voluntarily giving players any say in how things are run is either laughed or scowled at.

 

That's true, and who knows exactly what is going on there.

Itis just that I am into the whole "Ownership Society" ideal, so I would extend it to sports. In such case, maybe, out atheletes would become a little more responsible.

 

The question I want answered is: Overall, what are the immediate benefits of this cba for the owners?

The way I see it, the owners are getting a royal screw job on this deal, and I have no idea why the ever agreed to it in the first place. What are the players going to do? Strike? Yeah, right.

The owners just agreed to further losses with nothing in return.

The quotes from the MLSPU head's illustrates why I abhor most unions. They don't have a leg to stand on, yet get an absolute sweethart cba deal, but are still comlaining that they didn't get everything.

Frankly, the players and the MLSPU should be bending over kissing the rings of the owners, thanking them that they have a league to play in here in the US where most of them can make a pretty good living.

Once the league is profitable, then yes, let them talk about sharing revenues and profits. In all other leagues, the cba is based on sharing revenues so that everyone makes money and are thus happy. Owners get their cut, players get their cut.

In MLS, the players get their cut, the owners get to lose millions upon millions of dollars. (What, $350 million+ so far?) Meanwhile, Josh Wolff gets to make $400k to be hurt. Yeah, that seems fair.

Sorry, but I was taught the point of business was to make money, not to be a welfare state for soccer players in the US.

 

From a financial standpoint, though, I think you'd look at it differently: for the owners, those "losses" are really just an investment. The players are just wage earners. Granted, it's an investment that many people think is crazy, but for whatever reason, the owners have decided that it's worth it to invest more money. They've come to that decision freely and none of them would swap places with a wage earning player. Fairness, I think, isn't really the issue.

 

[rant]
As far as a salary cap goes, the cap apologists should read the article again. The MLSPU does NOT want a cap.

IMO having a cap allows teams to be competitive. Look a the EPL with Chel$ki spending millions and competing for a title. Thank god MLS doesn't have pro/rel or a lot of these players that don't want a cap would be getting paid a lot less playing in the USL or not even playing soccer at all!

Oh, you players don't want a cap but you want a minimum salary?! WTF is that?! Pick one, do you want to be paid what you're worth or not? If you are only worth $20,000 a year to the league, too bad so sad, maybe you should work harder in practice.

There should be a reasonable minimum (which there is now) and a reasonable cap (which there is now). Should they go up as time goes by? Yes. Nuff said.

**For any players that might read this (highly doubtful): If you EVER go on strike I promise you that I will NEVER follow MLS again! I'm tired of professional athletes complaining about their lot in life. GET OVER YOURSELVES!**

I agree that the MLSPU gained many deserved benefits for the players but I will not budge on a cap.

I hate long posts but damn, certain issues involving professional athletes tick me off!

[/rant]

 

I wonder if the owners that have been around since Day 1: Hunt, Kraft, Anshutz actually believe they will end up making money on their MLS investment.

The owners that come in later and haven't had to incur the start up costs, I'm sure can see the light at the end of the tunnel.

But you've got to figure AEG has bankrolled close to a quarter billion in losses. Do they honestly believe they will ever make that money back. (Plus the opportunity cost of having that money in a better return investment, plus the cost of inflation over the years, etc.)

Or... is MLS just one big write off to charge down other profits to avoid taxation?

 

They get to avoid arbitration the National Labor Relations Board.

US labor law allows forced arbitration if one side or the other is 'not bargaining in good faith.' So if the owners had made an offer that was exactly the same as what's been going on and stuck to it, the players could have taken them to arbitration, and the owners decided the concessions were worth avoiding that risk.

 

True, but you could implement ideas to curb that, like that players only get voting share once they're retired.

 

United Acquires Rights to Gomez Steven Goff-Washington Post

 

True true- but I'm not sure that the return on their investment is just money. Besides, they're free to make "bad" investments if they choose-- it's not "unfair" that they've invested more money in the quixotic hope of distant profits while the players are asking for more money now.