This whole situation sucks. But I would ask the following questions: (1) Should the national federation really be in bed with the top league in the country to that extent? They give money for MLS stadiums, but do they give money for USL stadiums. Was the USSF really set up to be another source of money for a for-profit league like MLS? (2) Does Bruce Arena really think that the European-based players are going to shaft the MLS-based players and show up for a WCQ game? Isn't it the stated dream of most of the Euros to play their last few years in the US? (3) Do both sides realize the consequences of missing WC 2006 because of this labor dispute? This type of fiasco would result in splitting/alienating most of the US soccer suporters and could screw up things for years, if not decades. I get really nervous when I hear about "final offers" and stuff like that. If this thing doesn't get resolved in the next 2 months I predict that there will be some pretty awful consequences.
That's not true. Well, not always. Cherundolo got his lucrative club contract without being showcased on the international stage. Same with JOB. Etc. My read of the article is that each side is asking for way too much. I would think an arbitrator could get them to come to a realistic solution.
That's an excellent question. First, today's players are being asked to sacrifice money so that MLSers in 2010 can make more money, and that's a tough sell. Second, guys like Friedel and Cherundolo are being asked to sacrifice for those 6-years-hence MLSers, and that's an even tougher sell. I see the USSF's point of view, that this is a crucial moment in MLS history, and they see a chance to take advantage of USMNT successes to set the league onto a permanent, profitable road. But geez, are they are overreaching!!!
There current work permits depended at least partly, if not totally, on their inclusion on the national team.
The point I was rebutting is that if they hadn't had significant national team time, they wouldn't have gotten international attention. Their history makes clear that that wasn't the case, at least for them.
Weren't all of these guys involved in U.S. Soccer and its youth programs long before becoming well-regarded (and well-paid) players at the international club level? Friedel was on the '92 Olympic team and the '94 World Cup team. Keller, I believe, was a U-20 and on the '90 World Cup team and '96 Olympic team. I know Howard was in Project-40, the U-20s and the U-23/Olympic program... coming out of high school, not going to college, playing in the D3 Pro League for the North Jersey Imperials probably wasn't going to do enough for him to eventually become a starter in the English Premier League if those programs weren't around to help him develop and become good enough to earn a senior roster spot in MLS and prove himself there before moving on. Those guys' participation in U.S. Soccer's programs largely dates back to programs that are heavy on costs with minimal revenues for the Federation in its budgeting.
Funny, though, how the Players' Association is claiming everybody who has even just been called into camp. I haven't studied the numbers, but I'll bet there are far more MLS-based players who have been called into camp than there are Euros like Friedel and Cherundolo. They seem to want their cake and eat it too.
I can't put the blame on USSF. I mean playing for your country during WCQ and hopefully during WC is one of the highest honors one could get in this sport. When these players are in national camps or games or traveling to get to a national camp or a match, are they paying their own way? Are they paying for transport, food and lodging? Not to mention medical costs, insurance, security, marketing and other administratives? I am guessing USSF pays for the above just like most other FA's. Is the USSF taking all the profits and paying dividends to "shareholders"? Does anyone remember how much the MLS players paid to ESPN to broadcast WC2002? I think the USSF and/or MLS paid more than $10 million to sponsor the broadcast because there wasn't enough interest from the other advertisers. Could it be that the USSF is just swelling its coffers for the same eventuality in 2006??
Nice article by Sean Wheelock, http://msn.foxsports.com/story/3270754, in an interview with the Players Assoc. rep. My impression has always been that the USSF take advantage of the honor of wearing your country's shirt and has only really paid out for the World Cup. (Sure, $4K to play a soccer game is great, but what about the week in camp, the possibility of a career ending injury, and, especially for foreign players, lost wages). But I have to say that reading the specific requests mentioned in the article makes me wonder why the hell USSF can't at least make progress on negotiations - it seems to be a pretty reasonable request (14% of revenue generated by Sr. Men's team goes to players). And reducing their offer AND threatening a lockout hardly has the look of good faith bargaining. USSF has a lot more to lose here than the players.
Everyone realizes the job of the US Soccer Fed is to grow soccer in this country - not to host USMNT events right? How much money you think the USSF makes on the U-17 women's team? How about even the U-17 mens team? Hell, last I heard the USWNT team was a money loser. If the USSF gets 2,000 people to come out for a U-17 game (excluding FA games) then they are lucky. That certainly doesn't cover the cost of stadium rental, travel, or training. And what about the investment in players that don't even make a U-X team? Should the USSF stop investing in grass roots soccer programs? What about development of coaches/refs? They certainly aren't getting a transfer fee for these guys. How many of us bitch about the quality of US refs and wonder why they can't be better?
It's not like the USSF only gets revenue from national team matches. Sponsorship monies come in, fees from appearances by foreign national teams playing exhibitions, and don't forget dues from youth players nationwide. How much is enough for USSF from money generated by the players? 86% seems like a pretty nice take to me.
but the players aren't asking for 14% of the money generated by them - they are asking for 14% of the total revenues generated by the USSF
If you're saying that Nats don't get paid by their clubs for the ~week they're in camp, I'm pretty sure you're wrong about that. Clubs have been trying to get compensated by the FAs, and part of their pitch is that they say they're paying the players, while those players risk injuries.
wrong, read the article "The players are simply looking for a deal that pays them about 14% of the revenue that the Men's National Team generates."
Yeah, I don't mean to imply thayr'e not getting paid, but I believe there's a base salary at work and an incentive system for when you play and/or win. I could be wrong though.
OK, but how often do Nats miss non-MLS club matches? Very rarely. The big matches are on open international dates, and for friendlies and the Gold Cup, Bruce rarely if ever calls in overseas players who are regulars. He'd call in Eddie Lewis when he was in the Fulham reserves, sure, but not, say, John O'Brien. So with Bruce as coach, this is totally a non-issue.
And exactly how old is MLS??? More established sports started small. Pele himself didn't make millions of any currency a year until he played in NASL. And we all know what happened to NASL when they thought that throwing money at already big named players was the way to establish the league. If they had been more prudent in their approach, perhaps most of the teams would now have had dedicated stadia.
Yes, but later in the same article he says, "Under the Federation's current revenue numbers, the deal we've proposed through 2006 would pay the players a little less than 14% of the revenue. If revenues continue to grow, the deal that we've proposed for 2007 and 2010 would probably get us back down to 10% or less of their revenue. But we'd just like to make a deal and move forward." So, if the players want to get paid about 14% of the revenue that the MNT generates, but then it would be just below the overall revenue, then....MNT generates most of the revenue for USSF and so both of you guys would be correct.
Pull that thread, and another one falls through. the salary cap of the galaxy did not go up when they opened the toolbox. It took a couple of years, and in the near future the addition of Colorado, Chicago, Frisco, Harrison, and RSL will all jack the league revenue. But until the MLSPU secures a higher salary cap, then they don't see any cash benefit. The rumor is the league is going to raise the cap, but I've seen no confirmation from the league. So yes, there is a relationship, but it's not direct nor automatic. And if you don't play in MLS, like a lot of the starters, you don't care anyway.
Why don't they just base the pay on what the market bears? Pay them whatever they normally get with their teams, or something close to that? So, if they capped Freddy Adu he would get $350K/19 or about $18K per game, with maybe 50% of that for a friendly, 75% for qualifiers, 100% for World Cup matches, and add 10% if they actually get into the game (or something like that). Paying them all the same doesn't make sense to me anyway, except maybe to put a floor of 2-3K or so on it for the lower paid guys.
I don't have time to find it tonight, have to finish wrapping presents, but the players and MLS did come to a new agreement this fall, which expands rosters and raises the minimum salary.
What's funny about Dodd is that he was one of the main instigators of the MLSPA lawsuit against the league. If you find his testimony, its comical the things he said on the stand. Then for him to break the national team picket line makes no sense. I always thought Dodd was a bit of a prick anyway. He was one of the least receptive players amoung fans that I have ever met and I met him when he was playing in the freaking APSL when he'd be lucky to have anyone know who he was.
If the USSF did this, do you have any idea what that would do to other federations? Can you imagine the English FA having to pay Beckham his market rate? What happens if a player like Adu makes $5 or 6 million a year at some point and the Fed decides to not call him up because of the cost? Actually, I think there's a movement in the G-14 clubs to have national teams pay the salaries of their players when they are away. A deal like this by the USSF would seriously hamper international football as we know it now.