I would agree that absent of legal issues, the wisdom of the practice is more vital that the fairness of it. Again, I would disagree that it is a blatantly unsound strategy. The Dev roster is designed for a particular purpose, and most teams do a fairly good job of utilizing it. The few players that have decided to pass on MLS in order to avoid the dev contract have not hurt the league in any measurable way.....if it all. Meanwhile, 65 young men are currently employed as professional soccer players whom would not if it weren't for the existence of these roster spots at these salary ranges.
What other major soccer/football nation requires a player to take a second job so as to play his sport? That's the real question.
Most of Africa. What other soccer nation gives out $100,000 worth of college education to thousands of young soccer players every year?
It wasn't really that long ago that baseball players had offseason jobs. I remember as a kid hearing about how Richie Hebner worked as a gravedigger in the offseason.
That's under dispute, particularly when you try and figure out what qualifies as "working" for a professional soccer player.
I'm sure a lot of minor league baseball, hockey and basketball players still do. And if the NCAA would allow it, so would most college athletes. Oh well, I guess all those organizations are guilty of slave labor, too.
It's certainly a fair business practice. The question is whether it's the correct one. I think maybe the league should bump the minimum up to $20k just to shut people up about this. But maybe it believes a mere bump to $20k won't stop it. It seems to me if the league wants to spend more on player salaries, the best place to spend it would be on the guys with the greatest likelihood of making a difference on the field. Developmental players are the polar opposite of that group.
I don't believe that anyone is suggesting that developmental contracts are bad business practice per se. The question is whether or not the system would function more effectively with a (modest) pay increase. I won't pretend to know how many players have passed on the league due to concerns over DEV roster pay. Needham is clearly an example and I recall that a few other draftees opted out this season, in one case after participating in pre-season. This is a relatively new phenomenon and as such I don't believe we should assume that the numbers of players making this decision will remain static. Particularly if the Union and respected, veteran players are advising rookies to pass on the DEV contracts during pre-season. I think it's reasonable to believe that what is an emerging problem at this time will become more acute if these trends continue. Of course, MLS is capable of paying the DEV roster players an extra $300,000 - $700,000 a year. What is unclear is how much of an effect this would have on retention and quality of play and whether or not that would make the expense worth it to the league. It's important that this decision be made with an eye towards the next few years and not the last few. If the trend of players turning down these contracts increases (likely, given that $10,750 is going to look less attractive every year and as opportunities over seas continue to expand), then the equation changes. It's an interesting question and one that bears monitoring in my opinion.
A lot of those hours that get them above 40 per week also come with additional compensation. Public appearances, running training sessions, etc. I don't know of many companies that compensate their employees for travel time.
Right, and even if they did, does anyone know of an $8/hour job that comes with the benefits they get? Better medical than most jobs, they get paid for apperances and coaching clinics, stipends for travel, and many teams are subsidizing their housing.
Not to mention the impossible to value benefit of being able to go up to any hot chick in a bar and tell her you are a professional athlete. Or...the value of playing a child's game for a living rather than, you know, working. Of all the social injustices in this world, this one ranks just above the complaints of the guy that gets to fan the sand off the Supermodel's ass during swimsuit photoshoots.
I interviewed some developmental players a couple months back and this was essentially their feedback. The biggest problem for them is the number of games played. For guys who are struggling to get off the bench, it's a real challenge for them to maintain game sharpness when they're lucky to play two games in a month. Often they'll go three or four weeks without playing another reserve match. Another problem was that it was impossible for the reserve teams to maintain any kind of consistency or coherence, especially for teams decimated by injury. Not only would the reserve teams struggle to field an eleven-man side (they often featured "guest players"), but first-team players recovering from injury would often slide in and out of those same line-ups. This makes it hard on the developmental players to really cohere as a unit. The first is an easy fix. Add more games. The second though is more challenging since it would likely require an expansion of the current roster, something that MLS isn't prepared to handle monetarily at this time.
And let's not forget that MLS Developmental players that get significant minutes (like Dasan Robinson a year back) also get their contract updated at season's end. It's not like MLS is trying to totally screw these guys over. And quite frankly, most of them don't mind doing it. Yeah, it can suck, especially if you live in big cities like Chicago where real estate prices are high, but they wouldn't have it any other way. They're living their dream.
damn right! I make a little above 8 right now, and I'm hoping for my review to get me a raise that includes benefits. Just graduated college too. If I could only have the job complaints they have, I might not give a shite about the problems I have now. A pro athlete in Europe and North America is the last person I'd expect job complaints from. A pro in South America or Africa I might let slide.
No it doesn't really. They turn down MLS but not pro soccer. Ever heard of a guy going entry level marketing instead of USL?
Comparison's of a career in professional sports and those in more typical industries have some real problems. Here are some things people tend to neglect. 1. At the very best, your career will be over in about a decade. After that you're cast into the job market with out of date skills in competition against a bunch of college grads ten years your junior. 2. You can suffer a career ending injury at any time, they really aren't all that uncommon. 3. Your chances of advancement are slim. I believe the figure quoted in the article is under %10 of DEV players being retained. 4. In MLS, most of these players are aspiring to be good journeymen, If they end up earning $80-90k for a few years at the peak of their career they will have been more successful than %95 of their peers. There are great things about being a pro soccer player in the U.S., but there are difficulties and risks people seem to be ignoring.
The post I was responding to was about players turning down MLS, in case you missed it, that's the concern.
C'mon gator, obviously some are turning it down, you've got evidence right in front of you. "a lot" is your own addition, I won't take responsibility for it. I will however refer you to my previous post regarding a dynamic market and possible trends.
I don't think anyone is ignoring the difficulties or risks. First, lets be clear several players supplement their income being coaches for clubs and/or do camps and/or other things to pay the bills. So while they do make $8 per hour, they have the luxury of supplementing their income as well. Second, being an MLS player (developmental or not) gives them extra cred on their resume for those same coaching positions and/or college gigs and/or whatever. So yeah, there is a downside to being a developmental player. Obviously. But there are upsides as well. My understanding is that both sides (MLS and Union) agreed to create the developmental player tag and agreed to the pay etc. If that is true, then see you in 2010 or whenever the CBA expires. MLS can and should IMHO work on increasing the pay, but 75,000 is too high IMHO. (What happened to that article about four or five things MLS was going to do ...increase salary cap, development players, etc?) Beckham has = much more revenue for the league and when the CBA is renegotiated my guess is that MLS will renegotiate developmental players salaries because they are losing good players to the USL. Ultimately they want to keep the players as well as it improves the product. But when Beckham leaves, revenue will dry up some. MLS doesn't need to get carried away the DP's, expansion, and/or increased salary caps/salaries yet. Slow growth is a good thing. Let's not overextend ourselves because we signed a couple of big name players and everything is rolling well right now.
And again, who is forcing these players, against their will, to sign these contracts?? If the deal is so horrible they are free to pass. Most are college graduates and can therefore make more money in just about any entry level job. The risks they take are their own. They don't need you or I fighting their battles for them. They are grown men making decisions with all the pertinent information available to them. Hell, they even have professional career guiders (agents) helping them make decisions. Do you have that upon graduation of college? I didn't.
Ah, Understood. In that case I'd disagree more strenuously. The poster declared that the young players on DEV contracts "wouldn't have it any other way" That's positively silly when you have players like Needham and Guy turning down those very contacts. The "casts some doubt" was perhaps overly polite, it's a flat out refutation.