http://soccernet.espn.go.com/columns...oot=us&cc=5901 So says this article. I've heard many times how low these guys wages are but, man it is a bit shocking. Not very major league when minor leaguers are making more dough.
So there's nothing illegal going on? Good. Controversy over. Phew....I was scared that MLS was engaged in an unfair business practice there for a second.
I read that article earlier today. If anyone's curious why so many MLS teams have such a lack of depth, or undependable benches, look no further. IMO, the absolute minimum any MLS player, developing or veteran, should make is $75,000 a year. Or at least that should be the goal in the next 5 years. And before anyone tries to put that "oh, MLS teams don't have enough money for that" stunt, remember the fact that between Angel, Reyna, Beckham, and Blanco (that's just four players), they have $37 MILLION in guaranteed contract money between them. Two of those four have been injured more than they've been on the field since joining an MLS team. We don't even know Denilson's contract number yet, but that's probably another million at least right there. So yeah, make it happen before the depth falls out completely
This has been discussed to death. The MLS system is not much different than what baseball players endure in the lower minor leagues or what hockey players have to put up with playing junior hockey in Canada. And how much do amateur gridiron foorball players make while in college, playing before crowds of up to 100k? But isn't it strange that there's still people competing for these low-paying jobs in every sport?
But that's AMATEUR sports. The developmental players in MLS are playing IN MLS GAMES, not college or minor-league teams. Unless if the arguement's made that MLS is minor league, which we know isn't the case because minor league teams are usually incapable of signing a player for over a million bucks a year...
I've said it before and I'll say it again - as long as the players keep signing for the low developmental wages, MLS has no incentive to raise them. When they can't sign most of their desired players coming out of college, things will change. Till then, MLS will deal with losing the likes of Greg Dalby, Jay Needham and Ryan Guy content in the knowlege there is a long line of players dying to take the low wages in their place. It will take some Norma Rae-esque player at the combine, and some agents with the stones to take on the league, to organize the top seniors not to sign and then for all the seniors to stick together (and that will be the tough part), for changes to come. If all the seniors at the combine refuse to sign - AND STICK WITH IT - then changes might happen. But, I just don't see the seniors being willing to risk alienating the league over this nor do I see them trusting that the OTHER seniors won't break so I don't see it happening.
The reserve rosters in MLS are designed to be what the minor league systems in other pro sports are for. Here's the deal, you can pay them a $50k salary, but then we'll have to cut 5 roster spots per team. You think the MLSPA makes that deal?
Exactly, it's simple Labor Supply and Demand. For every MLS prospect that turns up his hand at a Dev deal there are two dozen waiting behind him for the chance to live out a dream and delay getting a real job for a few years.
I really don't see what the big deal is. First of all, the MLSPA agreed to this, so they don't have much room for complaining. Secondly, we're talking about DEVELOPMENT players, ie, fringe players who are expected to contribute much while under a dev contract. The only thing I would change is that these players get a hefty bonus for actually appearing in MLS A squad games. So that if they are good enough, they will get their money. Lee
The biggest problem with MLS development isn't the salaries but the reserve league itself. It sucks. Period. That said, it'd be nice if some of these kids got a minimal raise, say, if they were making $25k or so in guaranteed salary instead of sub $20k. Still, it is what it is.
Good post. I think MLS will only tolerate losing players like the ones you mentioned for so long until they said "we need to do something to assure that losing a starter doesn't assure losing the match", especially when MLS teams are playing international competition more often, and are increasing their desire to beat them for street cred, tournament money, and qualfications. Also, I can't see the developmental players standing up like that until towards end of the current MLSPA contract when they could negotiate for higher wages and use a strike threat (god forbid) as an incentive
What sucks? The play? The structure? The idea? How would you change it so that is no longer "sucked"? Lee
I've recommended an "escalator" clause, where the Dev player's salary automatically goes to Sr Roster minimum after X number of minutes played with the first team in official competition. At that time, he would have to be graduated to the SR Roster, which would probably mean another player gets dropped down, or cut.
Yes, something along those lines. A guarantee that if a player contributes, he is fairly compensated like a real player. I wouldn't want MLS teams using dev players as a way to keep costs down by having them play a bunch of minutes without getting a fair share. lee
Yes, this, IMO, is the only issue of fairness regarding the Dev roster. And, as another poster pointed out in a different thread, it currently only pertains to about 4 players, leaguewide, that are making less than the Sr Roster Minimum and who are getting regular first team minutes. One of whom, Dominic Oduro, just had his contract redone so he comes off that list. It's really more rare than people think. The vast majority of guys making less than $20k a year just aren't contributing.
You're from Berkeley. Hope you're a student, because in the real world, nothing will change until the next CBA. It is in the best interests of both the employer and the employee to work up a contract and stick to it until it expires. Neither side will or should voluntarily change things until then. Predictability is a virtue. BTW, since this topic comes up every few months and gets people riled up about an apparent "injustice", what are the union dues for those developmental players?
Most starters in The Championship make more money than most young reserve players in the Prem. Is the Prem "not very major league" too?
I'm not surprised that there are differing viewpoints on this, I am surprised by how dismissive some people are of the question itself. Dr. D, if you follow professional sports you know that contracts are re-negotiated constantly. It's established practice and often in the best interests of both employer and employee. I'm amazed you can accuse this poster of naive adherence to some abstract concept of fairness while blithely ignoring reality yourself. Finally, it seems to me that fans of this league agree that they would like to see the best soccer possible. If we're losing higher quality players/better prospects over wage issues it seems like it would warrant a bit of cost-benefit analysis. Whether losing the likes of Needham and others outweighs the extra $10,000-15,000 it would take to get them into the league is not easy to determine, and in the end it's dynamic. However, if MLS prospects are being openly told by both the Union and by individual players, team leaders judging from the quotes from Jay in this article , that they should turn down developmental contracts... it just seems clear to me that all is not well. Debating the solution is valid, dismissing the concern myopic.
The problem is not the fact that developmental players are making so little money. The real problem is that developmental salaries are not prorated. It's not a good thing when a developmental player gets called up to the first team, but continues to make $8 an hour while sitting on the bench or maybe even playing in a real MLS game. There should be an automatic and instant raise when a guy gets promoted, even if it's only for a game or two.
Just because there's a newspaper article doesn't make it an unfair business practice. Remind me who it was, exactly, that forced these players, against their will, to sign these contracts??
In the end, the question of whether or not it's a fair business practice takes a back seat to the question of whether or not it's a sound business practice. The article in question raises valid concerns that it is not.