CBA Updates & Discussion

Good insight from SA above. The salient point is not about money but movement.

"While Abbott, without providing specifics, claimed the league had made concessions on the three major sticking points of guaranteed contracts; unilateral options; and freedom of movement for players, waived, terminated or out of contract; he adamantly reiterated the league’s anti-free agency stance. He did not address the fact that a salary cap restricts salary costs, so it’s not feasible that MLS could spend itself into bankruptcy by wild-eyed bidding for players."

What Klein, Wynalda and others have said (since the latest breakdown) is that the movement is not there.

Players compete and so should team management. Socializing the risk of poor or even bad management across the league by preventing a player escaping from poorly run organization to another team in the same in organization is the issue. That is not going be solved by the end of March and the players would be demonstrating no courage if they play 2010 under the old agreement.

 

Have you ever heard the saying, "not seeing the Forest through the trees"?

I'm certain you have, because you just missed the Forrest entirely. The point, which you clearly missed was that the single entity structure was a good thing THEN. It was needed because the entire league was owned by basically two men. The only way the league was going to attract more investors was with stability, growth and more specifically SSS construction.

Bingo, all done. Now, the single entity is nothing more than a safety net for Billionaires who are afraid to lose a few pennies or have to deal with an energized, unionized players association. The MLS does not have the anti trust amendment that MLB has, it neither has revenue sharing or a hard salary cap like the NFL, so it's means to circumvent anti monopoly and anti trust laws was "single entity".

Single entity is a dinosaur that was once a necessity, it is no longer needed precisely because of all the things you pointed out, but failed to realize were the point of the posting. The league does not need training wheels anymore, every team is now controlled by a Billionaire, most teams have or are in the process of building a SSS. The league has absolutely no realistic use for the single entity any longer except for the fact that the greedy owners want to maintain what is in effect a legalized form of a monopolistic business.

A hard salary cap would solve any issue the league could possibly come up with as a reason to keep the single entity. Revenue sharing would also go along way to keep the the skittish Billionaire owners like Wolff happy. But every possible excuse to keep the single entity has been answered. there is simply no need for it anymore and it will destroy the league. The players union is right and the greedy douche bag owners are wrong.

Athletics68 meet Forrest, Forrest meet Athletics68.

 

Which is the way it should be IMO. That's how baseball has been so stable while the NBA, NHL and NFL have not, particularly in the realm of teams moving. Maybe I'm more worried about team relocations than you are, but history has shown that without the exemptions from trust laws team owners do whatever the hell they want when it comes to moving teams. If there's an exemption the leagues have a much bigger say in blocking any potential moves. Which is why the 3 big leagues other than MLB have a rampant history of team moves while MLB has 1 move the league approved of in over 40 years.

 

One of these things is not like the other two. Can you tell me what it is?

 

They're not binding anyone. Ralston was out of contract and he left. Hartman is out of contract and he could leave too. He just doesn't want to renegotiate and thus take a pay cut despite the fact that no team thinks he's worth the $ we wants. It's like Ronnie O'Brien all over again. KC isn't holding Hartman hostage by retaining his rights and not entertaining offers for him. They'd probably take the offer of $15. It's that he won't sign with MLS for what the league is willing to pay him, same as happened to VanDenBergh, Terry Cooke and Ronnie O'Brien. Quakes stated flat out if another team wanted him for the contract he was asking for, he could go to them for nothing.

Don't be naive to the players' rhetoric. Hartman signed a contract, he played it out, he's free to do whatever he wants, including re-sign, move, retire. He hasn't moved because no other team wants to pay his wage bill, not that KC is denying offers for his rights because they're holding out for a "payday" on him. Hartman was free to do what Cannon did, which is realize what the market will bear for keeper's salaries and negotiate down.

The ability to move inside the league outside of their contract translates into essentially nothing for old players and for young players in their prime, most will still go to Europe and perhaps a few of the higher end players entering a bidding war, potentially. Which will redistribute the money available from some players to others when you have a cap. I doubt the owners care too much about redistributing the salaries so the rich get richer and poor get poorer, but the players that aren't about to retire from playing soccer (like most of the union reps) ought to 'cause the pool of potential players is huge!

Inasmuch as the equivalent number of players coming back to "proves" their isn't.

You talk as if they're slaves. They signed a contract and no held a gun to their heads to make them do it. Those that have competed their contract can leave as it is now. You've fallen easily for rhetoric like an inexperienced ref falling for a dive. If they walk out, it's a big gamble on whether they could kill the league conceivably because soccer still isn't as established in this country as they think it is.... or at least they'll harm it. And they'll gain nothing except fewer jobs for members.

 

Yeah, MLB and MLS are monopolies and the NFL prospers because of smart ownership and league management.

 

Shall I book you a cabin on the Failboat?

The correct answer is: MLB & NFL are popular, MLS (and soccer in general in the US) is not.

Goodsport will see you off to the left where you can pick up your complimentary rubber dick

 

Fixed your post.

 

Here's your single entity for ya:

Translation:

Gee if we don't screw the players they will all leave the league and play in Europe and only the team who owned the contract will benefit. We want the league to get money for selling Stuart Holden and Ricardo Clark, not that we are going to share any of it with the other 15 teams, we just want the cash in our pockets.

The single entity is not about stability. It's about greed and unfair, monopolistic tactics and if you can't understand that then the rumors must be true, you really must be on the MLS/Quakes payroll

 

How can you say that helping the league not lose players and the league limiting team movement aren't about stability? I suppose you'd prefer a player exodus and teams moving around willy nilly?

 

Child's Play, you keep parroting that MLS as a single entity is a monopoly. But nothing could be farther from the truth. MLS is one one soccer league in the world among many. You couldn't even call the MLS a part of an oligopoly. That is the point that the league is making. The MLS may have tight control of itself, but it is not even a 100% domestic monopoly, it has no control over USL or NASL. In terms of power in the soccer market the MLS is a relative backwater.

Also, in terms of labor issues, the correct term for the phenomenon that you are mistakenly believing in is not monopoly, but a monopsony. A Monopoly is a market with a single seller, but the league is not a labor supplier but a labor buyer. A monopsony is a market with a single buyer. If we pretend that the numerous other professional soccer leagues in the world don't exist, then you would call the MLS a Monopsony buyer of the players' labor. Likewise, you would also call the player union a form of monopoly seller of their work. Perhaps monopoly has a negative connotation to it, and therefore makes for a good word to throw in when you are castigating the league, but it doesn't validate your arguments, especially when it is used spuriously.

You also keep implying that the fact that many clubs have billionaire owners has any factor on the fine points of the CBA negotiations. We've all been taught not to shed any tears for billionaires. If their businesses were to have to take on losses to pay higher wages to the noble workers, it wouldn't turn mr. moneybags into paupers. Is that relevant to the matters at hand? No. The owners obviously are looking out for their own interests, just like the players. However, the make up of the ownership doesn't alter the interests of them. They are investors, their stake in MLS is an investment. If the owners were not billionaires, but rather publicly traded companies, or millionaires, or your pension fund, it wouldn't make a difference.

The single entity system still protects owners from potential losses, which encourages greater investment in the league, at least until the time at which the unprofitable club becomes the exception rather than the rule. Some MLS clubs may have finally started to turn a profit, but would that still be the case if they were the ones payer their player's wages? The single entity system reduces the risks to owners, allows the owners to try to build the clubs capital without spiralling into debt, which not only encourages investment but increases the value of the clubs themselves and protects their credit ratings.

Now if you got rid of the single entity system what exactly would happen? That is hard to say, but it could destabilize what has become a fairly stable growth. It might get rid of some of the crappier treatment of players, but that can be remedied without destroying the single entity system. Which would be as simple as the MLS giving into a few of the players' current demands.

On the other hand, some people are arguing that the players ought to be happy that they have their jobs at all with the state of the economy and think that players should happily expect a pay cut in these trying times, as if it were some necessary self-sacrifice as part of a war effort or something like that. The real question isn't about the health of the economy, but the health of the industry, because that is what is determining the demand for the players' specialized labor. If the soccer business is booming, or if the supply of soccer talent were to dry up, there may be more of a pie for the players to get a bigger slice from.

Another note of caution in regards to how you view these labor disputes. The temptation is to act as if the union's positions are a true representation of the players' aggregate interest but this isn't necessarily true. The union is an organization with some mechanism for decision making. In most cases, unions have some sort of representative agents (union leaders) with some control over matters and majority voting. Better than most arrangements, maybe, but there are problems. A majority voting system means that there can be decisions made by the union that can be disastrous for some members so long as it has some slight benefit to just over half the participating members. I say participating members because unions often struggle to maintain high levels of participation in their decision making. Even if everyone is voting there are often vast disparity of knowledge on the implication of a vote between ordinary union members and union representatives and the odd motivated general member. Members can often succumb to group think or just voting as they are told.
A good example of the distorted incentives of unionized labor is found in the post-Keynesian Insider-Outsider model of "sticky" wages. It is the reason why you always hear, "thousands of workers lost their jobs today as company x cuts costs", but you almost never hear, "thousands of workers took pay cuts today as company x cuts costs". If company x needs to cut its costs on labor because sales are down, it can either ask its workers to take a pay cut and share the burden of the hard times, or it can lay-off part of its workforce. However, unions rarely agree to wage cuts to protect its members from lay offs. I won't get into why in this thread but feel free to look up these things on your own. Anyway, the laid off workers, no longer employees are also no longer union members. They have become outsiders to the labor negotiation. Then when times are good, and the union is in a better position to make demands on company x, the insiders worry only about their own interest, they demand higher wages, which reduces the amount of labor that x is willing to buy so the outsiders remain outsiders. As the cycle repeats, wages increase while the ranks of outsiders grow and the ranks of insiders either stagnates or even shrinks.
While this example may be hard to apply to MLS, particularly since there is high labor mobility in soccer and there haven't been cases of straight up lay-offs in MLS. However, when the developmental rosters went away, was that not a form of lay-offs? You may notice that while the players have a laundry list of demands, they don't include the expansion of rosters nor the establishment of reserve teams or anything that would benefit players that are not yet in the union, including the seniors in college or teenage prodigies that will be drafted next year only to find there is little space for developing talent in the MLS.

Basically...
MLS != Monopoly
Marxist style normative sentiments in favor of workers and against capitalists are not valid arguments
Billionaires aren't just exploitative devils
Unions are no angels
I hope that, regardless of whoever gets the sweeter deal, the season begins as scheduled. Although, what is of overriding importance is that the future of the league is secure. In 15 years time, the fact that the 2010 season started without a hitch, would be precious little comfort to us if that season turned out to be the beginning of the end.

p.s. I must apologize for turning a long post into an even longer lesson in economics.

 

KMJvet I bow to your specific knowledge of contracts that contradicts specific comments by MLS boss Abbott about MLS binding as well as specific comments from Eric W and Chris klein on FoxSports Phone where they discussed the Ralston fiasco.

Please do not confuse board postings with something as serious as slavery.

Thank Goodsport for the link above: My take is similar to this from the link above: "MLS will no doubt win this one. But any victory can only be illusory. For if MLS believes that merely tweaking the status quo will solve its basic problem -- the necessity for it to compete in the capitalistic free-for-all that is the global soccer market -- then it’s hopelessly lost in cloud cuckoo land."

If I have read players pronouncemnts on the subject correctly, the players want the freedom to move. This will eventually drive salaries up, otherwise why move? The owners do not want that movement for obvious reasons. It might be about more money to the players who make very little, but for all the players long term, the strike if it happens will be about the way you make more money (movement)

 

How would it do that in a league with a salary cap? It'll just create a situation where some players make more at the expense of others. We have that anyway based on perceived ability. I think the desire to pick your team and not be in any way "allocated" is reasonable in the long run and in that sense players don't want single entity. I suspect neither do most of the franchise owners, nor the fans. Problem is, IMO, it's too big a risk right now to change, particularly precipitated in this way. They're better off to ride the wave of expansion and improving stadium situations and most of all, stability compared other leagues, that they have, get a few more teams in the black, academies in place to generate players without the college system so the draft can be eliminated and then look to retool the business model.

 

One of the reasons I have taken in interest in the MLS again is BMac. Here is a guy who was 4th round pick who went down to the bright lights to make his mark. He proved his talent to the coach and was soon in the starting XI. The league standard for him was about $12k/year. While healthy in the first half of the season he started on the line with LD and the golden boy, in fact right next to the golden one. Pretty heady stuff!

The salary difference however could not have been more dramatic. The MLS ownership changed the rule (see golden boy example above) when it fitted their business model. Not to say BMac should have made anywhere near what the other two did, but $12k/yr? Now fast forward to where once again BMac earned his way into the starting XI. When asked if he would sign for more money, he declined and mentioned Europe. Read: freedom to move. Remember how he languished on FY bench while the Quake season disappeared? Making $12k, plus tips I am sure made the bench very soft.

How would you like to be in that situation? Now take the Thomas case. The guys learns his trade in fact excels at it. Somebody comes along and says he is mine and gives Thomas zip, nada, nothing for the privilege. His options are to leave home, go to a foreign country and ply his trade where he might know the language or work for the MLS. Guess what, he left home. pretty sad indictment of the current MLS.

My bet is the players lose in this capitalist showdown as labor usually (and should) will do. That does not mean it is usually right.

I would like to see the 2 sides agree that once the contract is fulfilled or terminated, the MLS has zero, zip, nada rights over the player. In addition, if the player is not signed within 12 months of the first time a player is eligible to be drafted, the MLS has zero, zip, nada right on the player. There is no immediate cost to the MLS and the player gains the freedom to seek his best opportunity.

Now that is free to move and the finances will improve as the leagues finances improve. Based on what the players have been saying, it's not the money. They get that.

 

You're kidding right? By your reasoning, MLB is not a monopoly either because there are other leagues in Japan, Venezuela, Dominican republic. I guess it doesn't matter to you than none of these other worldwide soccer leagues compete in the US. I guess it also doesn't matter to you that the USL, NASL don't compete in the same cities as the MLS. Your understanding of the leagues structure and how it is in fact a monopoly leaves a lot to be desired.

The MLS is a single seller, but even by your own twisted logic above, players could migrate to any of those other soccer leagues so the MLS cannot therefore be a single buyer. Each subsequent argument you make, contradicts the previous ones. Your ingenious folly amazes me, but never the less you are still 100% wrong.

Do you honestly believe this nonsense or are you just talking to hear yourself speak?

Your analysis is so simplistic as to be nothing more than regurgitated pablum from league headquarters itself.

And yet your "lesson" in Economicc was a complete failure. Friedmanism died in case you haven't stuck your head out into the real world lately.

 

Thanks Goodsport. I can't believe I'm going to say this, but I think I just agreed with Paul Gardner.

 

I'm telling you the MLS as it is structured does not care about losing players to other leagues, in fact they probably like it because it puts money into their coffers. I think it's fair to say the there would be less player movement if individual teams had the right to negotiate with and contract their own players. We might still have Holden, Clark, Cooper, Goodson etc.

I have no problem with teams moving if it makes them viable. I do have a problem with the league office being the sole controlling entity of that movement. MLB, as you pointed out is far more stable in the movement front and that is primarily because it is up to a democratic vote of the owners whether another owner can move or bot, the league does not control that issue. Which is why you will most likely not see the A's in San Jose. It will take 3/4 of the MLB owners to approve such a move and that is very unlikely.

The single entity does none of the things you claim anymore. It may have done all of them at one time but that ended several years ago. now it is just a legal means of monopoly.

Edit: FYI

Just as a side note, not directly related to the MLS and CBA but relevant never the less. We all know of Frank Mc Court, owner of the MLB LA Dodgers. Well because of the messy divorce he and his wife are going through, his entire life practically, is on display through court documents.

Interesting to note that this major league sports owner made over 108 million Dollars in personal income over the last 5 years. on that income he paid exactly $0 in taxes. Imagine that, the poor man had to live on a mere $108 Million.

As both a percentage of income and a total amount, I, who am a humble business owner, paid vastly more in income taxes than this major league franchise owner. And needless to say I can barely spell $108 million let alone ever claim it as my income.

I only post this as an example of the general "kind" of people who own sports franchises and leagues. These are the people you want to support over the players who for the most part make less money than is necessary to raise a middle class family.

I have no sympathy for the MLS ownership, leadership or your vapid arguments in support of their system.

 

Very good article, one can only hope the league ownership takes a read and does the right thing. Sometime "winning" actually ends up causing a loss. Penney wise, pound foolish comes to mind.

 

repped!!

 

MLS ... as a 'domestic' league sucks!!

 

An insightful letter appearing at the end of the Soccer America Article:

So, in my best Norma Rae impersonation I say, ....... "UNION !!!!!"

 

By my reasoning? Where exactly in my reasoning did I say that the global market for soccer was in any way comparable with any other sport? MLB, although not in a pure monopsony market, is close to one due to the fact that it is far superior in terms of wages and competitive level than other baseball leagues. MLS on the other hand is a minnow in the global soccer market.

No it really does not. Most American soccer players would love to play in Europe if the opportunity arose. All soccer leagues are playing the same game, so there is nothing stopping any soccer player from playing abroad. There is no god given right to earn your pay in the place of your choosing.

That is correct, this also does not matter.

you'll have to back-up that sort of assertion. You haven't refuted anything yet.

That is correct, by my "twisted" logic, the MLS is neither a Monopoly nor a Monopsony, specifically because there are many other soccer leagues, some domestic, many foreign. The point of that explanation was to correct the use of the word, "monopoly", I did not argue that the MLS is a Monopsony, there is no contradiction in my argument. Again you have not refuted any point I've made with a valid argument.

If you have a valid reason why this is untrue, please provide a valid argument.

So only complex arguments are valid? If there is some vitally important dynamic that I'm missing, then please enlighten us. Calling an argument invalid is meaningless, you need to make some sort of counterpoint if you want to convince anyone of anything. And no I do not get my arguments from MLS headquarters, not that the source of an argument invalidates it. I am actually unfamiliar with the leagues reasoning for their reluctance to give way on some of these issues. Personally, I think the players should get most of what they want in one way or another. I just don't want to take the training wheels off the league yet

How was my explanation of the Insider-Outsider model a complete failure? Once again you seem to think that you have invalidated an argument by simply declaring it invalid. Milton Friedman is indeed dead, but unfortunately, much of his Monetarism lives on in spite of all that's happened. The Insider-Outsider model comes from the post-Keynesian school of macroeconomics. A monetarist (Friedman's school) would try to refute Keynesian ideas like the Insider-Outsider model. I've never been a monetarist or a neo-classical economist. I've been in opposition to the neo-classical dominance of monetary and fiscal policy making. I don't want to assume too much but your above statement seems to betray quite an ignorance of much of macroeconomic theory. Obviously the recent financial crisis and ensuing recession have shown that there was something amiss with the financial regulations and economic policies we had (and still have for the most part), but the failure of one model doesn't validate the alternatives, it only creates space for competing models. If anything, this crisis brought Keynesianism back into the limelight. If you are arguing that economics as a whole is bogus, I'd like you to remember that economics is a social science. It is the study of a certain aspect of human existence. It is not a set of beliefs that can be wrong or right. Within the field of economics, macroeconomics in particular, there are many competing theories and very little agreement. It would be a mistake to refer to the recent crisis and say that the economists got it wrong. Some got it wrong, some got it right. If you'd like to make an argument for one economic model or another, even if it is one of your own making, go ahead, but in shouting down my argument you haven't presented any alternative argument. I'd very much like to hear a rational argument for why the magnitude of the nominal net assets of the labor buyers should some bearing on the outcome of the CBA.

I'd be cautious of this. Allowing free agency and shorting initial contracts to two years both sound fine, free agency should be the first thing MLS offers. But I don't think that they should double the salary cap right away. For one, players don't play better just because they are being paid more. The only way that a doubled cap would make the league "blossom overnight" is if the extra cap space went to incoming foreign players and a few top MLS players to keep them at their clubs. Most players would not benefit in the long run. We've already discussed how many of MLS's current players would face much greater competition for their jobs from yanks abroad and foreign players if the cap went through the roof. I think the players would prefer to demand that the annual growth of salaries increases. I think if anything is going to be done with the cap it needs to be done in conjunction with boosting minimum contracts. That would keep more of the benefits in the MLS player pool, so the union would actually support it. I like the idea of our favorite quakes being replaced with better players as our players retire or move on gradually, really don't want any league action that leads to immediate wholesale roster changes.