Again, wrong facts. The proposed increase was 38% from the 1999 contract. And with retroactivity taken OFF the table, that's really only 16% because two years don't count. So each year is an 8% increase. From 1999. Don't be fooled by the USSF's numbers.
And to go along with that, it's not like the players are demanding ALL the money generated and forget investing in the growth of soccer in America. I think USSF can give the players what they deserve and continue their investment in soccer in America. It's not an either/or proposition. And if they're screwing the very players they are using to build soccer in America, what good is that?
For free. That's nice. What does he do for income? Is there a possibility that he might be broad minded enough to recognize that taking these cases for free raises the profile of his firm so that he can get other contracts? Seems the players could use the same logic with the USSF. It may be cynical of me to question his motives, but my guess is there is some value in it for him even if he isn't directly compensated in this matter. Friesland - What lurking said. These guys aren't laborers who toil long hours for little pay. Some toil short hours for little pay, but if they're good things improve. I don't know anyone who's blown a knee in a meeting. I do know several who have done it in soccer games that they pay league fees to be in. And, they all come back. Why is it that there's such an insistence on pretending the lives these guys live is anything like the lives of the people who actually need union support? If the players only get 7% of the net where does the other 93% go? If it goes in Dr. Bob's pocket then that's a scandal and he should be fired. If it goes to supporting USSF mission then that's a good thing. As much as we portray the USSF as a bunch of screw ups we need to remember where soccer was in 1990. If you say that was a long time ago you're showing how young you are, and how old I am.
I agree with you...no one does anything for free anymore. All I meant was that while he makes a lot of money billing time to clients that actually bring in revenue, he also uses that valuable time to help these guys out. Also, unless you dig deep, you'll hardly ever see mention of his law firm. And no, if you look at the clientelle list for Williams & Connolly, I think you'll see the Players Association ranks very low as far as raising the firm's profile. But enough about the lawyers, really. They are just hired to do their job. I honestly don't think this will go as far as to have to strike the qualifier itself. Will I'm not a fan of the Federation, I really don't think either side is dumb enough to let that happen. And one final note on the numbers. I've also read that a single game against Mexico brings in enough revenue to pay ALL of the players what they get for an entire year. One game. And as someone else also brought up, they are not asking for 100% of the Feds profits. Not even close. I think it might actually only be around 16% or so.
Maybe those players that are unhappy should just retire from international play. Thus opening the door for others willing to take part in representing the USA, being content with the money paid to them, and getting on with qualification. The players knowing that if they aren't getting time on the pitch for their club in Europe and knowing that they need senior international caps in order to maintain their work permit would return to international play immediately. Again, why can't anyone possibly answer this question? Why didn't the players stop playing friendlies two years ago rather than wait until a crucial point like this? It appears that they are just as greedy as the USSF.
OK TeamUSA, here is an answer to your question: Because two years ago, they didn't think it would come to this. Two years ago, they thought, ok, this process is taking a little while, but that's what the retroactivity clause is for. They expected the USSF to be reasonable and to bargain in good faith and keep the proposals going back and forth. Then suddenly, early last year, that all stopped and the USSF decided it wasn't going to budge anymore. They said they wouldn't negotiate further until they met with the players (which is actually illegal, by the way). Nevertheless, the players met with them...because they wanted to keep this thing rolling. After the meeting, the USSF took away retroactivity, just because they didn't like what the players said and they went for the scare tactics. You can't just strike the first moment you're unhappy. That takes away all bargaining power. It also makes negotiations turn sour as they have now. Take a look and CBAs and how they work. There is a process. Striking, obviously, is a last resort. These guys WANT to play. They don't want to strike. But they are left with no other options. IMPORTANT NOTE: The players are not currently striking. They are being threatened by the USSF to be shut out of camp unless they agree to their terms. Give these guys a little credit. The only ones who actually care about qualifying are the Players. The Fed could care less. So don't worry...I'm sure our boys will pull through.
You prove my point. Soccer players and local bankers sitting on the board of a local not for profit have nothing in common. It is a useless analogy.
Because they believed the USSF's promise to negotiate in good faith. What a bunch of suckers. All they are getting now is the threat of a lockout.
MLS players get paid according to the revenues they bring to the league. USMNT players should be paid accordingly at the very least. As I recall, MLS spends about 29% of its gross revenues on salaries and the USMNT players are asking for far less than that. I am not sure what you mean by "risk". The National team exposure does for Beckham what a Superbowl does for a Brett Favre or a Joe Montana. It may be. It would be cheaper to send all the kids to the Czech Republic or Croatia for a year. That way the'd come back playing like typical Euros. Even if you were right - and you may or may not be - you can't put numbers here. Your criteria are entirely subjective. The rate of increase is irrelevant. What's important is the total share of the pie, aka revenues earned.
Gotta disagree with this statement. While the players are not technically striking, that is just what they did when the PA used a technicality to keep the players from attending the December camp. The players are the only ones who care about qualifying???? This statement is so ludicrous I am laughing out loud. What is pissing off all of us is that they are both willing to take these risks which might bite us all in the arse when it comes to WCQ. They are both to blame.
I'll give the players credit, they have done a hell of a job. But if people think the USSF doesn't care about qualifying then they are misguided. They care just as much as the players, because both groups benefit. Fool me once shame on you(USSF), fool me twice shame on me(players). If they thought that the USSF would negotiate in good faith after the previous time as has been mentioned then they truly are wacked. But I think the players did this on purpose. When the first year rolled around and there still wasn't an agreement they should have raised hell. They didn't. Has there been a specific monetary number the players are looking for and what the USSF has offered? This is why I have issues with both the players and the USSF, but moreso with the players. Maybe we need to look at it from a long term strategy. Let the USSF continue to make money and put it away for the future. Then all of the chat about having soccer specific stadiums could possibly happen. No more issues about fighting against baseball games, American football games, the lines on the pitch, no more blackouts for the first round of qualifying, and all matches televised live. Plus continue to develop the younger players as they have been doing. As a former board member of my homeowners association we take a long term approach. We aren't out there spending money even though we have it on hand.
First lets start with the last. National team exposure doesnt benefit Landon Donovan the same way it does Beckham? If anything, wouldnt you say it benefits Beckham more, since he has a far more lucrative club career, and would be high profile regardless? As for the MLS and USMNT, MLS players are not worth the 29% of gross revenues they are getting paid. If they were, the league would be turning a profit. Furthermore, name 1 FA that functions under this dynamic. Actually, how many national sports bodies in the US use this same rationale in paying their athletes ?(genuiine question) It is not subjective, its difficult to quantify.That doesnt mean it doesnt exist, or is made up, just that we dont know how much of a difference it made. No, and thats my whole point. Your working under the assumption that that pie should be divided equitably under all parties. Thats the problem here, I dont think it should be divided in that manner. I think by and large, the exposure, service toward the soccer community and general life experiences are benefits the players get go beyond a dollars and cents issue. Changing the national team wage picture will inherently shift the focus of the national team from simply being onto, it as a major source of income. Think about the potential consequences of a system where making the national team is garunteed to be a large finacial windfall, and failing to make it is potentially financial hardship. Are you comfortable with all the dynamics that will create? Furthermore, is it unreasonable for us to ask within the national team that the soccer players be socially concious? Are they exploited labor here, or is the current situation currently also to their benefit? This is not your typical owner/player contract squabble here. Its a much more complicated issue, one in which I dont see a party that is being exploited at the present time.
The players played for two YEARS in good faith with no contract and only "struck" when the USSF came back to them during negotiations and said, "fvck you. For talking back to your betters, any deal we agree to will NOT cover those past two years when you gave us the benefit of the doubt." That's exploitative under any reasonable understading of the word.
First: here's a link to ESPN's interview with PA general counsel, some additional information for the fodder: http://msn.foxsports.com/story/3270754 If someone knows how to make that a 'hot link', please have it. Lurking, I appreciate your persistence and the rational approach with which you bring your points. I disagree with many of them, but that happens. The MLS players not being worth the 29% is an interesting statement. While the fact that MLS isn't turning a profit certainly makes that self-evident - what the USMNT is asking for is 14% of revenues for what IS a profitable "enterprise"; i.e. the revenues associated with USMNT games. Your question about National Sports bodies paying their representatives a 'cut of the pie' so to speak is an interesting one. I know that golfers back in 1999 wanted to get paid more than the $5,000 they were paid to participate in the Ryder Cup. I do believe they were eventually paid more but not sure. Huge difference however, in a one-time event where injury and training and loss of revenue are not an issue. What do the NBA players get for going to the Olympics? All that said, however, none of those examples really parallel what the US Soccer team does. The amount of competitions is really very different. I was struck by Levinstein's comment that some of the European players actually lose money by playing for the USMNT. While your sentiments about exposure, life experiences, etc. is nice, it doesn't work here in my book. These players can have relatively short 'work lives', it doesn't make any sense for them to put themselves at risk without getting 'reasonable compensation'. They are not asking for a bulk of the dollars, nor a percentage that appears out of line with other sports organizations in the US. In fact, Levinstein is saying that they will reduce the percentage as the revenues go up, or even that they are willing to forgo the percentages if the payments are appropriate (I know we can't believe everything either side says...) While this may be a bit more dicey than typical, if I was a player and I was losing money by playing for the National federation and the National federation was making money hand over fist on my playing, I would feel a bit exploited. Further, when the Federation is using some of that excess to defry expenses for a for-profit enterprise that the Federation reps are a part of, I would also feel that the Federation thought I was stupid. The interesting part here to me, is that the players haven't said that they won't play in the WCQ. The USSF has said they MUST take the contract offer or they players won't be allowed to play. This is a lockout, not a strike.
Thanks to goussoccer for the link. It is a very interesting article in that Wheelock doesn't really question the tactics that the PA used in December. If I didn't know any better I would just blame the USSF for a lockout. Just want to understand the math here. Levinstein says that they are paid about 1M from 8-10M of profit. That comes to about 10 or 12% of the profit. They want 14% of the revenue so they are a long ways off. I believe the PA realizes they are not going to get the numbers they want. They have already made 2 or 3 counter offers to the USSF take it or leave offer. They should be able to hammer out a deal when the USSF calms down after the loss of the December camp. While I look forward to the USSF interview, the person I would really like to hear from is the Bruce.
No - its not. The players are using a loophole to not attend camp. What would you like the Federation to do - wait for the day before the game to see if the players show up? You have to put together a team - if the players don't show up you have to get another team in camp. Also - most of these players need to realize that they wouldn't be sh!t without MLS. So the money the USSF is spending on SSS is benefitting them. Where the hell would Brian McBride be? Playing in the A-League? Selling insurance? Shall we go back to the '94 team where we need to scour the globe to find a player whose father was based in Germany and had a kid? And lets include the cost of developmental programs as part of the players compensation. Where would DmB, Landon, or Convey be without Bradenton or the U-X teams? I think both sides are equally to blame and no one really knows sh!t about what the true situation is - all you can do is take biased sound bites from each side. This is a bad game of bluff going on right now. The players refuse to show up to camp - the Fed threatens to use replacement players. I also encourage everyone to review the Business Plans of the USSF going back to 2000. The USSF has continually held salary increases, cut staff, and trimmed adminstrative budget while increasing investment in developmental programs, coach training, and referee training.
I would like to blame us for watching these games and financially supporting the USSF in turning a "profit". So this time the PA wants 14%, what is the guarantee that the revenues are going to go up? None of course. If the revenue drops, will they take a paycut? Probably not. What is the problem with compensation based on performance?? How many other "major" sports in this country have a World Cup competetion to qualify for and/or attend? MLB World Series? NFL World Champion? NHL World Champion? NBA World Champion? All those teams are nothing more than North American Champions other than the Basketball players in Olympics. I can't blame the USSF for having extra cash stashed around for any contingency. Its better to have money in the bank, than none. I do blame the USSF for not making their financial statement transparent to the fans. I hope that the federation comes back with a strong statement and again, more transparency. This organisation makes less money in yearly revenues than David Beckham. But they have more responsibilities and if they are overly cautious with their money because of that, I say more power to them!
Hey, if you have a link to these docs, that would much appreciated. I would like to know more about the financials of USSF before blaming them. Currently, I blame us.
http://www.ussoccer.com/services/content.sps?iType=230&icustompageid=11401 I think the interesting thing the PA is not talking about is that the $30M has already been earmarked for use. Most of it being invested in player development. It is not like the USSF is sitting on this pile of cash
There is some blame to be shared, I am sure. One of the players' points in particular bugs me, though. If one the players' complaints truly is that they "lose" money in playing for the national team, then those players for whom this is a problem should retire from international football. Or is it the case that Beckham and the rest of Real Madrid are paid equivalent wages for their national teams? I cannot imagine that is the case for the players in leagues where the salaries are significantly high. These top players make insane wages. And maybe it is just me, and I am missing something, but what is wrong with a surplus?
"We are recommending reducing the reserve amount to accomodate our capital plan with any surplus funds being used to replenish the Operating Reserve to its current level" Source of Funds: Investments - $13.3M Current Op reserve - $9.5M Foundation Grant - $5.5M USOC Investments - $2.6M Foundation NTC - $3.0M Use of Funds: Base Level PD - FY '05 Budget - $1.0M Player Development - $13.5M Facility Developement - $10.0M Coaching Development - $0.2M Referee Development - $0.225M Event Development - $0.75M Staff Development - $0.6M National Training Center - $3.6M Operating Reserve - $4.0M
Its an east target for the players assoc to latch onto and make it look like the USSF is just hoarding funds. Thats why both sides sound bites are trash. I am hard pressed to buy the fact that the players lose money playing for their national teams - or rather I am hard pressed to buy this is an America hardship only. you mean to tell me some of the South American or Central American national teams are paying more than top flight European clubs? No way in hell. I actually see this as more of a global issue in sports in America. Think of all the teeth the Olympic basketball team had to pull to get a team for the Olympics - not quite the Dream Team anymore. Then you have Carmelo Anthony saying he threw his medal into a lake somewhere. I think the sense of national pride is getting towards an all-time low in American sports. We really need another "Miracle on Ice" or something to make things right. Everything in sports has become so damn money-centric it is sad.