CBA Updates & Discussion

I think that the rights a club has to a player should lapse with their contract. However, if you simply get rid of the rights holding, there are certain outcomes that are undesirable, like good players refusing to resign with crappy teams and then moving to a better team. If a player were trying to trick the system, they'd do whatever they can to get on the best team possible, and then after being on a team where the other good players compliment your abilities. Then you get very highly rated if you perform well, and can justify even higher wage demands in future negotiations, or who knows, maybe even earn that nice fat european paycheck.

I don't like how the current system treats players, but I don't want them to mess with rights without finding some way to prevent the abuses.

 

Re: [SQR] New CBA Updates

So is a bunch of guys who wouldn't have a job in soccer in any other country in the world deluding themselves into thinking they're going to have a lot of public support for this kind of stunt in this economy.

Or do they not notice the half to 1/4 empty stadiums they play in?

 

I'm not sure you totally understand the "business" of professional sports. There is a difference between operating losses and accumulated net worth. Most professional franchises claim to have operating losses, though even that is debatable in all arenas other than the MLS, though virtually no franchise is worth less today than it was yesterday. Sports franchises appreciate in value every day and most by an amount far exceeding their "operating" losses. So your business model just doesn't hold water here. A franchise can lose money every year for decades and still make a profit when they sell to a new owner. Besides that, most franchises are net tax write offs for the other business that the billionaires own. Believe it or not sometimes a business that sustains "operating losses" can be highly beneficial to a billionaires portfolio.

Speak for yourself. I think I understand both sides well enough to not have any sympathy what so ever for ownership and on the other hand have a huge amount of sympathy for the players. The sustainability of the league is not dependent on the single entity system. If anything the single entity is hurting the league. There is nothing worse than a dictatorship, not even an oligarchy, so end the single entity now before it's a cancer to big to kill.

Salary cap....problem solved.

One or two owners are not going to destabilize the league. the owners are the ones who want the damn single entity because that is the best way for them to control ever aspect of the league, players and income. It's a monopoly built on corporate socialism.

Never going to happen so not worth waiting for. There will also never be a system of relegation billionaires don't like being demoted.

Incidentally, the NFL is NOT a single entity. The players are basically calling for the end of the single entity. Anyone who thinks that the MLS will eventually resemble it's European league counterparts is nuts. American sports owners will never accept relegation and will never operate without a salary cap/luxury tax. end of story.

 

On this point, I have to strongly agree with Mr. CP.

 

Abbott also indicated that the league has offered to increase the amount of money given to players by $60 million, despite the ongoing recession.
The league has offered to increase the amount of money given to players by $60 million? Divided by how many players?

 

I think it depends on how many players are in the league or how or if they are getting the money... Is it 60 mil divided among players or teams?

 

I wasn't saying that there should be relegation, I said that if a club implodes and falls out of the league, someone needs to be there to take their place. In Europe this is simply covered by the promotion-relegation system but for the MLS it would just be the league adding a club from the USL that most merits it on the rare occurrence of a club becoming insolvent.

CP, don't think that I don't factor equity appreciation or capital gains into my calculations. But losses are usually covered by debt financing. The accumulation of debts reduces the value of the business that has those liabilities. If on the other hand the owners choose to use equity financing by selling some share of the club to new investors then your share of the value of the club at some future sale would be reduced. It would be foolish to assume that a soccer club's value always appreciates. The club needs its support base to expand and intensify, which is not something as simple as some manufacturer increasing output and distribution.

You could probably buy Portsmouth FC right now for $1 if you wanted. However, I suspect that you would not want to become responsible for all that debt.

 

$60000000/(24*16) = $60000000/384
= $156,250.00 per player

And I think the actual figure for number of players ought to also exclude Generation Adidas players. Although it would almost certainly not be distributed evenly, 156k per player is not chump change. Is there some basis to the leagues claim? If this were real this would radically transform the league. Most players in MLS would be out of the job as soon as their clubs could throw that cash around to bring in better outside talent.

 

Exactly. I doubt players would complain if they were getting that much money. If a guy is making $40k, he is all of a sudden making $200k, but I don't believe it. Abbot is another yes man and says what he is told to say. I spoke to him in 1995 before the start of the league....he was full of crap then and full of crap now.....I really would like to know though where this 60 million is going?

 

Well, consider it from the perspective of a player whose abilities only merit the wages currently available in the league. For these players, when the league offers $60 million in wage expansion, these players might rightly see the "offer" as a threat against their jobs. Its almost like saying, "we'll replace you with expensive foreign players, and we won't give it a second thought." The wage expansion might benefit these players for a year or so (or less), but I think if a club had the money to choose between Conveys and Wondos on the one hand, and a whole fleet of younger, fitter Huckerby's and Freddy Monteros, I doubt the club would waste much time in making a wholesale clear-out of their rosters with only the limits on foreign players and the availability of yanks-abroad to hold them back.

 

With what they are paying Convey who IMHO has been a non factor so far, they could sign 2-3 younger and better players who will contribute a lot more on the pitch than he has. You figure even if you sign a few average or middle of the road tough players who may not come in with much accolades but who might give their all, would do a lot better than one ineffective overpard midfielder...

 

How much convey has sucked for us isn't the issue. You could replace him well with cheaper players, but why would they bother finding a better convey for 80k when they can get a better Huckerby for 600k?

$60,000,000/18 = $3,333,333
If the quakes had $3.3 million extra to put towards player wages, you could bet good money that any player they could find a more expensive and talented replacement for would be shipped out in no time.

 

I myself use to want the stars but I no longer think the superstars or stars will always be the answer. I mean we all want to see the stars but in the MLS anyway, with the salary cap the way it is, it makes more sense to have tough hard working players as opposed to one star. IMO, one star does nothing in this league as opposed to 2-3 hard working types. Huckerby was a wasted signing. You can argue his fate was cut short by injury but thats another story. Whether he was injured or not, he did nothing to pull the Quakes out of the cellar. He played a total of 28 games in parts of two mseasons and is now retired. If this were Europe, the press would have a feild day about Hucks signing.....

 

you seem to be assuming one or several of the following things:
1. Good players are all lazy
2. The work rate in the MLS is superior to other-higher paid leagues
3. There is some trade off between talent and work rate
4. that the names that I am using as examples among quakes are the only players that my argument would apply to, so since we didn't need them anyway. Who cares?

Wayne Rooney is a star player, Wayne Rooney is hard working. So is Landon Donovan, to draw an MLS example.
I challenge you to name one player on our roster who could not be replaced with a more talented and effective player (if not as hard working) with an offer of 500-600k a year in salary? I can think of only think of two: Joe Cannon, and an Alvarez with 2 left feet.

If the league gave each team an extra $3.3 million to play with in the salary cap, the fans sentiments for their players would give way pretty quick to demands for upgrades.

High output of effort is a important part of what makes a player effective on the field, but it is only one part. When I was on a semi-pro team in Switzerland (me being one of the uncompensated players), I was consistently the most athletic player on the squad. I was a faster runner and had higher endurance than all of them and, with the exception of one of the central defenders, I was the most aggressive and hard working players on the team. However, I never had the skill to be anything more than a sub for them, and since they didn't trust me in my regular left-back position I was only ever played as a left winger. Hard work might win over some fans, but without the skill to compliment it won't win any silverware.

 

Oh of course stars will always add something more but Wayne Rooney is not alone at Man United. I'm sure if he were the only player on the team, he will shine but their other players around him have also helped too. You can argue that a great player like Rooney is double teamed and that makes the players around him better but they aren't working with the MLS rules and restrictions. When they got rid of Beckham, Sir Alex didin't miss a beat as he went out and bought more players. Just like Massimo Moratti at Inter hasn't really missed much since selling Ibra or Maxwell. Yes those players add to the club but we can not compare those leagues to the MLS. Its like talking about apples and oranges. If anything I compare the MLS to a Serie B or C (2nd or 3rd tier) in Italy. There you have hard working players not superstars but players who work well together. I haven't really seen a foreign superstar win anything in the MLS since its inception. You had Marco El Diablo Etcheverry winning with DC United but those were the earlier days of the league and he was not a world renowned player other than his 10 minute performance at WC 1994. Niether did Lothar Mattheus, Roberto Donadoni or as of yet David Beckham. Schellotto outside of Argerntina was pretty much an unknown also playing 10 times for his national team without ever scoring a goal.......He however, if the type of player the Quakes need or rather come right in and help off the bat...You had Real Salt Lake winning the MLS Cup over a star studded LA Gals and therefore, its not that you always win with the stars. Not even in Europe you always win with the stars. I mean usually, sooner or later if you have a star studded team and they all start to jell, you will win but thats not always the case.

As far as the extra 3 million is concerned, if this will actually be applied to each club and if the salary cap rules and restrictions will change, then I foresee things getting better and maybe you can buy (to a point) whomever you want or rather 2-3 players making $400k each. Up until now however, it has not been that way.

 

Falvo, I really think you are missing the point. The point is, that if the salary cap were greatly increased, much of that increase would not go to existing MLS players. Some of it would go to guys that are on the verge of Europe, like Robbie Rogers, to keep them at their clubs, but otherwise the extra money would allow MLS to draw more talent from abroad, lots more, and that would inevitably displace many players who have an interest in the CBA negotiations. The gradual increasing of the cap tends to benefit current players, with the less talented only gradually being culled from the herd. If the cap more than double all at once, I could definitely see most MLS teams clearing out 40- 50% of their rosters within two years, unless they choose to go the David Beckham route, and buy just one or two "stars" (stars relative to their teamates), which is what you are describing. I am saying that if a team like the quakes got a $3.3 million increase in the cap, the starting line-up would include very few players that would pull in less than 300k. Maybe, just maybe, a lot of players would be able to step it up and fend off the extra competition. I doubt many players that are currently earning less than 100k would.

Its simple economics, when the price at which buyers are willing to pay for a good goes up, the more suppliers are willing to provide that good. In this case the buyer is MLS, the good is soccer playing, and the sellers are the players. The higher the profits the higher the competition. And if you really believe that the MLS is somewhere between Serie B and Serie C, then there are a lot of players in more competitive leagues who could be enticed out to the MLS if the MLS suddenly started paying more for their services.

I hope that doesn't happen, because it would basically undercut the development of our younger prospects, who would either have to be able to be good enough immediately to play on a more competitive MLS team or in Europe, or they'd have to go to USL or NASL or whatever. I'm not saying that this would be good for us, I'm saying that if you are Elliot, Ribiero, Leitch, Q, Wondo, etc. when MLS offers that much more money, they are basically offering to put you out of a job, at least in the MLS. That is unless your club is dumb enough to just bring in one or two star players that split the 3.3 million between their wages. I agree with you that signing a few star players that individually earn less than the rest of the team combined is not a cost effective route to success, but the only reason teams do that now is because that is their only way of spending on the squad beyond the salary cap. When the salary cap goes up as a whole, teams are less wasteful and distribute the spending more.

 

Well it depends. When I did some work at Fiorentina (renamed florentia viola) from 01-03, they were in the C2 or 4th tier. The level with 33k screaming fans was better than any MLS game I've ever seen. ......You had World Cup veteran Angelo Di Livio making 80k Euro but was living for free along the Arno river. Forget about the level though but this is why Francisco Lima went back to play for Taranto. He was making more or the same in the 3rd tier but he was also paying probably 3-4 times more in rent...in his case, of course he didn't want to be here anymore....

 

Well, the Viola, despite their fall into C2, still had a support base that shamed some Serie A teams. Calcio isn't what it used to be either. To date this season, only 4 teams have average attendance figures of more than 30k, seven teams are averaging less than 20k per match. The Viola are only drawing an average of 25.4k. I don't have the statistics for Serie B, but I doubt that any team is filling 30 thousand seats. If lower division clubs were cut off from the money they get from Serie A renvenues, as many serie A teams are trying to do (Like an Italian premier league), I think a lot of MLS sides could be comparable to some lesser teams in Serie B, and would probably have much greater resources than any Serie C team that lacks a patrono. Of course, if the MLS is going to compete with any teams most directly for talent, I think Mexican teams and other Latin American teams are more relevant.

 

Actually, I stand corrected. I'd say MLS is more on a par with the lower 1/2 of the Serie A or rather relegation dwellers and all of the B and possibly the higher teams in C1 or which is now lega pro. You had had both Genoa and Napoli playing in the C only 3/4 years ago and now they are in the A fighting for a spot in Europe. The advantage the MLS teams have is they have no relegation /prmotion and potentially players (for whatever reasons) have more of an oportunity to stay with the same club longer.

 

The key question here that no one has asked, and the league hasn't volunteered the answer to, is...

Is that $60 million raise payable immediately in one year or was it a 60 million Dollar raise over a 5 or ten year period?

Trust me on this, the league is offering up only half truths. I have no doubt that they offered a substantial pay raise, perhaps even as much as 60 million Dollars.

I also have no doubt that that same raise is to take place cumulatively over 5 years or more. Making that seemingly huge pay raise nothing but a public relations move. The actual amount the players would see is probably a miniscule amount the first year and slightly higher amounts in the following years. I'm certain this "raise" would cover the term of the new CBA and amount to something more like 3 million the first year and 10 million the last year in a 6 year CBA.

If you trust "management" when they come out with these kinds of PR proposals then you deserve to get screwed.

 

1/2 truths from the MLS offices? You are giving them too much credit.....

 

Yes, I probably am giving them too much credit, but I want to remain at least somewhat fair to them. My real point is that anyone who believes anything the league tells them during these negotiations is either naive or just plain stupid.

Now the league is stating that they want to play the season even under an expired CBA, something they adamantly rejected a few months ago. They are doing everything they can to put the players and the players union in the worst light possible.

This entire fiasco is one that can be laid completely at the feet of the league. The players are not asking for anything that is not fair and reasonable, it's the billionaire owners who are trying to protect their absolute monopoly at the expense of the players.

If there is a strike or lockout it will suck big time and may damage the league beyond repair, but it will be the fault of the greedy owners. they must bear the blame and the shame. the players IMO have done nothing different than any sane fair minded person would have done for their own family.

This could all be solved today if the owners weren't such greedy douche bags.

 

I have always been very skeptical of trusting the league especially after the first match on April 6th, 1996........after the LAndy to LA debacle, I don't believe a word any of them say!