I'm just glad they aren't waiting until the last minute. Hopefully negotiatiations go "smoothly" and we don't hear any talk of work stoppage. I don't think MLS could survive that.
The differences in financial circumstances of the league between when the original CBA was negotiated and now are pretty staggering. Off top of my head: 1) Have gone from 1 SSS to like 10 in the next year or two. 2) the league was paying for TV coverage now makes at least some millions a year from its broadcasters 3) Most teams are making 1-5 million a year from advertisers on their uniforms. 4) New franchises are paying $35m to get into the league. 5) I'm pretty sure there are more new sponsers (And the league is retaining them pretty well) 6) I think the big Addidas deal came after the CBA. This is just off the top of my head, I'm sure there is much more. Logically, you'd think that this would translate into some gains by the players since the owners have so much more to lose now in a work stoppage. Before it was like "sign this CBA or we end the league." Hopefully all sides are sensible and they move forward into a bright future together.
When a privately held concern, such as MLS, agrees to share financial information, Gould said, “usually it arises out of a situation where the union is saying, ‘Back it up.’” Second place is a set of steak knives, eh? Doesn't look good for a substantial salary cap increase.
I would imagine players would realize some gains. Management would have to be insane not to admit that their circumstances have changed radically for the better since 2003. Usually (and a labor lawyer can correct me on this if I'm wrong), labor strives for improved working conditions (and all that entails - though it can take may forms) and management likes the certainty of labor peace and some cost certainties over that period.
Well, if the Union isn't satisfied with the terms the league is offering, I hope they could at least come to a conclusion where both sides agree to extend the current CBA for one more season in order to negotiate a new, longer term agreement under better economic conditions. Having a work stoppage now would be deadly for the league.
Bong bong bong bong bong Now hear this! Battle Stations! Battle Stations! All MLS officials on deck Set Material Condition Zebra throughout MLS balance sheets Jettison Garber travel receipts and rogaine prescriptions at once Commence attendance figure tanking Now Dive! Dive! Ah-woooooo-ga Ah-woooooo-ga Maneuvering, Conn, commence turn count masking. Report to bridge when the enemy thinks we are the USL
Has anyone ever seen anyone involved with the league ever mention a work stoppage? I think people need to chill on that fear because I don't ever recall it being mentioned except by posters here.
what, no second assist? I thought this was MLS. Negotiations are boring (yet a vital part of business, I suppose), but I really think this whole thing should be settled quickly if possible with a Don Garber vs. Eddie Pope arm-wrestling match (either at half-time of the MLS ASG or MLS Cup 2009). Of interest, the current CBA runs 1 month past the end of this year: ---- The current MLS collective-bargaining agreement — the first one ever negotiated — expires Jan. 31. ----
It doesn't have to be mentioned. It's happened with the other four major American sports leagues in some capacity in the past 15 years or so. I bet they didn't want to stop play or hurt their brands, but the players and owners felt they had to in order to get what they wanted. No saying that it's to be expected, but it's always a possibility because sports business is still business. I can imagine that MLS and the players are moving forward with their negotiations with part of the intent being to learn from the other leagues' mistakes.
Well...it's always going to be there in the subtext, given the relationship between labor and management in any endeavor, sporting or otherwise. But monster was asking if anyone had ever specifically raised the possibility, even as an aside. Even the WNBA players raised the possibility publicly (Sonja Henning said in 2002, "We discussed the idea of getting comfortable with a strike.") You know it's in the quiver. Everybody knows it's in the quiver. But monster was asking specifically if anyone outside of here had actually said it, because that goes to whether it's slightly higher on the panic-o-meter scale than it would be normally. Because people here are going to lose their freaking minds anyway. Everyone involved has to know what's at stake here. This sport and this league have made great strides in shutting people up over the last several years. While labor and management always (in the absence of a no-strike, no-lockout agreement, as I understand it, correct me if I'm wrong) have strike and lockout in their arsenals just by the very nature of the relationship, I would not yet put the possibility even in the "remote" category. But that's just me.
Exactly, kenn. I bring it up because there is an article that gives us absolutely no context of where things are in regards to the tenor of negotiations and people are bringing up a work stoppage. I know it's possible. I know it has happened in every other major sport. I know it's something none of us want to see happen. What I don't know is if it's just a figure of the imagination of the persistently pessimistic soccer fan.
You rarely go broke taking the over in that circumstance. Let's wait and see. We all know it's there. Some people will always think that means they should shout IT'S THERE! when there's no evidence to support it.
Well, since they've only just begun discussions, if the 'Strike" card was already being discussed publically I think we'd have HUGE problems.
Also, from the MLSPU, some things people may have forgotten since 2003: Prior to that CBA, management basically did what it wanted. The players didn't even have direct deposit. They came up with some basic benefits and, in return, got five seasons of labor peace and some cost certainties. Things are different now because there are fewer basic things (it seems like) to give the players this time around. They'll have to do at least some substantial things (though many of the things in a CBA, if you've ever read them, are far from sexy), it seems to me. But it's very rare that both sides in a negotiation get everything they want. The MLSPU will have to prioritize the things it wants and hope to get some or most of them and both sides will have to be prepared to compromise. The players aren't going to get huge raises and whatever other working condition improvements they desire just for asking - they'll have to be prepared to give something up and management will have to do the same. Free agency within the league? I don't know where that would rank on the union's wish list. A layman might say "Well, an increase in the cap and the minimum and benefits and, if nothing else, more jobs - which means more dues." And those things might be on top of their list. I don't know.
Not specifically MLS, but back during the National team compensation negotiations, there were a couple of people associated with the players posting on here about things like "combat pay" for going into places like Guatemala, which were not well received when we were having Americans actually killed every week by roadside bombs.
My guess is that MLS will give in on what the cap figure is and maybe add that to the CBA while giving the players their choice of incremental gains in some combination of minimum salaries and roster spots.
I do know for a fact that the union was (12 mths ago - priorities change) very upset about the restrictive rules MLS has in place with regards to player movement. Discovery claims on players trying out, teams still owning a players rights if he goes overseas and wanting to come back only to be owned by the old team or some lottery system, even though they are under no contracts, etc. I would wager that some concessions might come in the loosening of a few of these issues. Then again, the world was a different place 12-18 mths ago. Things change. MLS might just dangle more cash to keep the restrictions. Especially since they have loosened acadamy rules. SHould be interesting to see this unfold. Then again, let's hope we can get reports with real news instead of guess work.
I doubt they're going to negotiate in the press. If the players want those player movement things altered, that's fine. What do you think they're willing to give up? They probably can't get those AND a bump in the cap AND a bump in the minimum wage and whatever else they have in mind. I agree that some of the training wheel things should be coming off about now. Discovery claims and lotteries and those things were necessary at start-up. I'm not sure they are as necessary now.
I think the only way that we get reports is if everything is going pear-shaped... the successful negotiations are the ones no one hears about until they are finalized... when you hear about them it is because someone doesn't like the way things are going...
I have no idea what they will do. But I think a lot of the legacy stuff from MLSInfancy was designed to so level the playing field, it kept some people in decision-making positions long after the free market would have had them exposed as complete imbeciles. But besides the competitive balance thing, MLS didn't ever want to get into a situation where two teams were bidding for the same player because that drives the price up. A lot of the training wheel things (discovery claims, weighted lotteries, all that stuff) are designed to identify a single (team) bidder (though the league was the one doing the contract anyway).