CBA 2015 Thread

If last negotiations were anything to go by then free agency is still a ways off. The easier goal is increasing the salary cap, increasing minimum player salaries and some of the other small issue, like having more players ride first class or receive assistance in moving and all.

I do agree this is huge for the league much like the last CBA was. A growing league cannot suffer such a huge set back, especially when we seem to be on the cusp with television money finally coming in and the expansions coming in. I think MLS will bend on many things, but I still don't see them breaking on free agency.

 

Nice to see a player's perspective. There is more that goes into making being an MLS player a first-class, aspirational experience than just the bottom line number on your check. It's time to start making good on that stuff.

 

I hope they find a good middle ground.... A strike would be a horrible way to celebrate the 20th MLS season.
Players have legitimate gripes but hopefully there is a reasonable way to avoid a strike.

 

It's important to note that the players believe that free agency is a one-fix solution. When teams have to compete for players, teams won't hold all of the power. They will need to start to care about the interests of the players, who will sign with the teams that offer guaranteed contracts and fewer option years. The bar will be raised for the teams to meet naturally. There's no need to haggle over small issues when the big one will take care of all of them. Everyone gets what they want and need. The market that once devoured players now appears to be their liberator.


I think free agency is inevitable in MLS. The problem is, the MLS single entity structure is not compatible with free agency. Don Garber has said that the league was founded on the principle that teams would not financially compete for players. I don't see MLS budging on that in this CBA. But eventually if they don't budge on it something will happen. Maybe in 10 years NASL as a league would be an option for the top domestic players.

 

I wonder if a higher than intended new minimum salary along with a few other perks will suffice for the short term as opposed to free agency... Free agency is inevitable, maybe overdue

 

This is what I think - as well as having a higher salary cap, and better moving expenses, this will compensate players better. They would still be tied to their team - which I don't know for some players may be untenable.

 

I think, at least I hope, all parties realize this. If MLS doesn't have free agency in 20 years it could only be because MLS collapsed and no longer exists.

 

If both sides acknowledge the issue, would they be crazy enough to accept a set date in the future as opposed to now.. If Free agency doesnt happen now its because owners give a crap ton of money in other areas..

 

I've heard some argue that free agency would mean a huge increase in salaries with clubs bidding up and overpaying players. I don't think this is true. In fact, I'd know its not. You don't see this in other leagues outside the top leagues in the world. Leagues that are comparable to MLS as far as talent pool goes don't experience this. Also, the market for soccer players is the least volatile compared to other sports in this country. The main reason for this is that there is a bigger supply of players then there is demand. Take baseball for instance. Why does a left handed pitcher with a career 4.20 ERA get a $8 mil a year contract? Or why does some bullpen scrub get $5 mil a year? The answer is for any given free agency year there may only be a handful or less of those players available. So, you have a small number of teams competing for an even smaller number of players and wages rise.

With soccer there is a large number of teams competing for an even larger number of players. There's a quasi global marketplace for players. I say quasi of the various work permit issues in different countries, but wages for players in other countries have some effect on global soccer wages. You wouldn't see wages for MLS players all of a sudden become out of line with how similarly talented players are paid around the world.

 

I don't see how limited "free agency" hurts MLS. Players should be able to negotiate with multiple teams once their contract ends.

 

Well, in Reddit they linked to this:

Just over 1 month 'til opening day & little/no CBA progress: I'm hearing buzz that MLS rank-and-file have been told to prepare for a strike.

— Charles Boehm (@cboehm) February 4, 2015

What does it mean? I dunno. I think it's just another "look how resolute and united we are" leak from the union. 30 days might as well be a hundred years in CBA negotiation time. It's a little early to "prepare for a strike". Also, it always seems that no progress is being made, right up to the moment they announce an agreement.

------RM

 

Who knows if they're even meeting? They should have tried to resolve this last year, or at least in the offseason.

 

If they weren't meeting, we'd know it, believe me. The union reps wouldn't be keeping that a secret. They are reportedly meeting at least once a week. I'd expect the frequency to increase as the kickoff date arrives.

------RM

 

Not only is inevitable, it will, at some point, be legally required.

I know there is a "union busting" bend (and the insidious and horrifying "right to work...for less" concept) in this country at the moment, but even the most reactionary of employment-based thinkers do not envision an employee linked to the employer after the contract has concluded. We dumped that concept in the early 20th Century with the busting of the "Company towns" by T. Roosevelt and Taft.

The lack of player movement is the real downside to single entity.
For all its good in creating stability within the league and relative parity between the teams, the lack of player freedom of movement within the league is still a vestige of a time (that should be) long past.

Of course, within a company there can been restrictions of movement. An employee wants to move from department A to B. The employee may have to received permission from the manager of department A. While there may be "rivalries" between certain departments or even divisions of a company, there is not actual competition. That is division A does not want to "beat" division B, thus weakening division B and, by extension, weakening the company as a whole.

Here is where the single entity fiction breaks down.
While all of the teams have a vested interest in the success of the league, the individual teams and "owner/operators" are (or should be) in strict competition with one another to achieve that success.

So, the league has a quandary.
Is there "real" competition between the teams and that necessarily includes competition for players, which necessitates free agency (freedom of an unattached player to move to the team of his choice)?
0r
Is this really a single entity and the "franchises" are not in competition with each other in any real sense? That is, it is an exhibition and not a real competition.
Is MLS a real sport with real competition or is it more akin to professional wrestling, where there is the mere illusion of competition and the good "of the company" comes first? (yes, that is a bit of hyperbole, I admit).

The league is at the point now that they have to answer this question and, frankly, they are not going to like the answer, whatever it is.


All of this is to say nothing of the legacy of Bosman and the development of free agency/player movement internationally.

These are interesting times, indeed.

 

In the short term, you are correct.
One of the great things about soccer is the expansive talent pool. There are "bargains" out there in the world. With professional leagues in over 100 countries and more registered national teams than there are nations in the UN, the talent pool is gigantic.
Also, with the relative small amounts of money available to MLS owners (because of the budget, small tv contract, etc.), there will not be the geometric rise in salaries, as has happened in other sports as a result of free agency.

In the long run, however, free agency (and I am in favor of it) could lead to an imbalance, whereby salaries outpace revenues and could lead to ruin of the league.
While the talent pool is large, the league is relatively small and the amounts of money available are without a doubt finite.

This is why the negotiations are so important.

If the league and the MLSPA are careful and neither side is too greedy, there can be balance and there can be free agency without an upsetting of the wage scale and instability.

Eventually, if this issue is not resolved, a player is going to sue to become a free agent (see Kurt Flood) and he will win. When that happens the "flood"-gates will open and the salaries could easily spin out of control.

There would be a greater disparity between the "super" have's (DP), the have's (experienced players who could be free agents) and the have not's (younger players and players not eligible). The have not's will be stuck at miserablly small salaries, while the median salary will rise.

 

I don't think allowing players to negotiate with teams after a contract is finished diminishes single entity or the league. Because of the salary budget teams are severely restricted at what they can do, limiting the danger.

 

Correct, and that was what I meant by saying that this negotiations for this collective bargaining agreement are so important.

If the players push for unfettered free agency, then single entity must necessarily go away.
If the league allows free agency, but keeps the salary budget scheme as it is (increasing the amount, perhaps, but not fundamentally changing the concept), then the salary budget will necessarily mitigate the salaries.

 

Sure, but the owners need to explain to the players where the money went.

 

1. Single entity at its current form may not pass another legal challenge, the last one the judge had doubts about MLS really being single entity, and now the franchises do even more business separate from MLS HQ that a defense of single entity would be much harder IMO.

2. So if MLS grants free agency, I see very little reason to even keep single entity, I know that for marketing purposes it helps, and maybe it will protect MLS better than the NFL who is suffering a few legal setbacks on league wide agreements. So perhaps that would be the reason to keep single ownership even with free agency.

3. If MLS does go free agency, would that mean MLS no longer would have a budget, but would now set up salary caps and distribute share revenues to the franchises to cover player salary, meaning MLS would no longer hold player contracts, the contracts would pass from an HQ cost center to the individual franchise cost centers.