I would like to see free agency for players with expiring deals. I'm fine with the absurdity surrounding incoming players, but at the very least guys who play out their deal should be allowed to have other MLS teams bid for their services.
They may not be calling for a higher salary cap, but that is exactly what free agency would provide. Since the salary cap isn't part of the CBA, that is a way of pushing for the salary cap to go up without directly saying it. I know the league has to survive financially through the recession, but it has to become more desirable for young soccer players. Improving rights and salary cap does just that.
I'm sure the league would rather up the salary cap than open the floodgates to free agency. By asking for free agency--in other words, something they won't get--the union then seems accommodating when agreeing to a salary cap hike, and the owners seem to be giving them (and the fans) a treat.
There is another factor... When the judge in the antitrust suit said that MLS was, indeed a single entity (completely disagreeing with the player's claim that the league was set up this way as a sham to control salaries), his rationale was that the league ACTED like a single entity... "it is what it is"... The less that the league acts like a single entity, the more likely they will lose next time... while I know that there are many on these boards who would cheer an antitrust decision against MLS, it would kill the league (yes, that is just my opinion). The league will be looking at every concession partially through the lens of whether it will provide a rationale from them to be one day told that they are not a single entity... I don't think that free agency, by itself, will get the league structure in trouble, but it would be one thing that would be brought up as indicating that teams are independent entities.
If the league were to keep a hard cap while introducing free agency, you'd see in MLS what has happened in the NFL, another league with a hard cap with free agency: a squeezing out of the middle class of players as teams drive up the prices of the top class of players and spend more of their salary cap space on those players, while leaving less for the rest of their rosters. I could see owners' going along with it as long as the cap stayed in place. After all, I think they're far less concerned about how the $2.3 million (or whatever the number is) is divvied up than they are about only spending that $2.3 million. As for guaranteed contracts leaguewide, I don't see any chance in hell that the owners will go for that.
The salary cap is really not part of the initial CBA... I suppose it could be (and I agree, this is likely to be part of the concessions that I/Os agree to)...
The problem is that the MLSPU has organized itself as a union (just as all the other North American players' unions have) and are thus barred from suing the league by law. The MLSPA was not organized in such a manner and thus could sue MLS.
I still believe the league is making plenty of money. However, the profits go to other entities - such as SUM or perhaps MLS HQ (which gets the $$ from major sponsorships, such as A&T). So I always disregard any article that says just a few teams are making money. I can understand how the players would really want guaranteed money. But I've always thought that opening free agency would be quite a boon for the players.
It would be a boon to the top players. But for the middle tier of players who have some experience and make a bit more than the low level players, but can't command top level salaries, it would not be that great since they make a bit more than the lower level players, but are just slightly less replaceable than the lower level players. In other words, if a team is looking to sign a free agent away from another team by giving him a nice raise and they gotta stay under the cap, they're not going to feel too terrible about cutting a player making $100-120k and replacing him with one making $30-50k.
Free agency? I thought that if a player did not like what he was being paid he could apply his services at another league. Does not bringing in Free agency mean the end of Single entity?
The entire single entity defense -- and that's really what it is, an antitrust defense under the Sherman Act -- could change dramatically in the American Needle v. NFL case which is going to be heard by the Supreme Court. The NFL has already successfully used the single entity defense at the 7th Circuit, which held (as I understand it) that even the NFL can, in some circumstances, be a single entity. Link: http://abovethelaw.com/2009/06/sports_and_the_law_scotus_gran.php If that ruling holds up at the Supreme Court, I'd suspect MLS can loosen up quite a bit without jeopardizing its single entity status, assuming, that is, it wants to. Besides, teams have a significantly greater say over their rosters these days anyway. They scout independent of the league, they seem to negotiate with designated players directly and they seem to have the last word in transfer decisions. None of that sounds like a monolithic "single entity" to me.
By "guaranteed contracts" they don't mean the kind of cut-proof multi-year deals that aren't even the order of the day in the NFL. They mean that if you make the cut, you get your contracted salary for that year. Right now, an MLS team can cut you a good chunk of the way through the season and stop paying you immediately. There's a contract guarantee deadline, but even there MLS teams can designate two players at non-guaranteed past the deadline. I could see there being some gains made for the players there.
OK, that's a different kettle of fish. I can see the owners' moving towards that point, even if they don't completely acquiesce -- perhaps moving the guaranteed date earlier and removing the exceptions.
I agree. Personally, I think if it is done right limited free agency would be good for the league too. Right now, if a player doesn't like the organization he's with after four years and he has some ability, his only real options are to accept the status quo or leave for another league. If another team is willing to allocate another $75k of its cap space to keep that player in MLS, why is it so awful? I can see where it would change the allocation of payroll dollars to more mid level veterans, again not necessarily a bad thing IMO, but I'm not sure the cost is dramatically greater. (A lot would depend on how the team that lost the player was compensated.)
The NBA handles this with max salaries, just like mls currently has. A player can choose any team that he wants to go to, but no team can offer more than a "max deal". The maximum amount a player can be payed is based on how many years he has been in the league. This will make mls like other leagues with caps. It will be up to front offices to crunch the numbers and build the best team possible. Teams like the Patriots, Eagles, and Titans stay towards the top of the nfl by not over paying superstars and finding high value guys that contribute without busting the cap. Mid-level players aren't hurting in the NFL. I wouldn't worry about anti-trust cases. They haven't affected other leagues with free agency.
One alternative would be to severely limit the players eligible for free agency. X years in the league, or Y years old (X and Y being high enough numbers to limit the free agents.) One approach I like is for the combination of years in the league plus age being over 34...so a 28 year old with 7 years of service is a free agent. (Or 35 years or 33 years or whatever.) Also, in lieu of guaranteed contracts like the NBA or MLB, maybe a decent severance like real life contracts, or significant signing bonuses like the NFL. My point is, these issues aren't all or nothing. This made me smile.
The NFL guys will never let it happen, though, because it's their opinion that Plan B free agency led to the real thing.
I know -- I'm not sure I believe it (as it was legally complicated), but I think they believe it. You touch on another point that is almost as interesting as the negotiations themselves -- the subplot of how the ownership group may be evolving. How much power does Kraft and Company have now? We'll get a glimpse soon IMO. Still, I think there are ways to do limited free agency -- Dave's idea of a formula is a good one -- but whether they want to do it is another matter.
Free agency would be an interesting addition, I wonder how that might effect the mid tiers who try there hand abroad in hopes of landing a bigger contract. Maybe having more options at home keeps a few more players...or maybe they still go and test those waters. Who knows.
Krafts are possibly put the team for sale, because they aren't going with go the guaranteed contracts. I can bet money on it.
Guaranteed contracts is a bad, bad idea. It could wreck this league. Look what it did to the NBA. Maybe guarantee the lowest earning guys, thus minimizing the risk to teams and the risk of starvation to players, but all the players is a terrible idea.
The only leverage the players have is that the more teams with SSS, the more teams that need to have the MLS dates fill up the stadiums to help cover the debt service (or I guess they can just have Ozzfest or Jimmy Buffett for more dates). A strike would be a disaster as I am pretty sure they can't play in a FIFA-sanctioned league anywhere else. I'd like to see the minimum bumped, maybe you can move up the guaranteed date a bit, a few other fringe or edge issues but I don't see real substantive change. Free agency won't happen. If the NFL succeeds on its single-entity argument at the Supreme Court, its game, set and match for the MLSPU on that issue ever being overturned.
Is it known when these Supreme Court hearings/dates/decisions are ? Can anyone please explain to me, if free agency would affect the draft and trades - or is it just for players who reach the end of their contract and basically are free where they want to go and the previous team, holds no rights anymore which the new team needs to trade for ?