This is only my opinion - having listened to Allocation Disorder, getting some information from reports from Twitter, etc - the more I hear, the more it has becoming increasingly clear that the invocation of force majeure is one of opportunity not of necessity. (1) The offer from the owners only saves about $500,000 per team, per year when it comes to salary and (2) the insistence of extending 2 years to 2027 effectively shuts out the players from being able to negotiate off of any post World Cup bumps. It just seems shady to me. To me, if the league really need FM, their offer would have looked at bigger, immediate cuts to spending.
Latent hostility toward some owners and a certain slimy commissioner... I am certainly guilty as charged on that account. I'll never forget booing for a solid 5 minutes from the upper deck when he tried to tout how well he has led MLS at the conclusion of certain soccer game this season. That said from a business, and protect the future of the league standpoint.... I've looked extensively at the numbers I can find and my conclusion has always been the players have no leverage and need to make major concessions here. If I can find fault at all with the owners here - it is on their insistence to push those concessions all the way till after the world cup. For many, if not most players in the league, that is the rest of their careers. Overall though, I think I'm on the owners side of this one. And, I really hate saying that... EDIT - And I would add - I would feel a lot better if the MLSPA also had released an announcement about the extension indicating that there was progress being made.
Spoken like a guy who bought a Marge Schott jersey to wear to Reds games when Barry Larkin was at his peak.
Hearing from multiple sources that the players will vote on a proposal tonight. #MLSPA #MLS #MLSCBA— Jeff Carlisle (@JeffreyCarlisle) February 6, 2021 Getting some more details on vote. MLSPA Executive Board and Bargaining Committee currently in process of voting. If approved, then it goes to full membership.— Jeff Carlisle (@JeffreyCarlisle) February 6, 2021 I'm told that in the proposal, #MLSPA got better free agency terms for 2026 and 2027, 10% growth in salaries across the board in 2027. Improved minimum salaries as well. Will be interesting to see what the find print says. #MLSCBA #MLS— Jeff Carlisle (@JeffreyCarlisle) February 6, 2021 Can also confirm @JeremyFilosa report that two-year extension is still in the proposal.— Jeff Carlisle (@JeffreyCarlisle) February 6, 2021 Second-hand sources say the CBA will be extended through 2027 (not 2026, as the players offered) and the players will receive a greater share of future TV money. Other details unclear. Seems a deal is near, but these negotiations are always delicate.— Steven Goff (@SoccerInsider) February 5, 2021
In terms of revenue sharing of TV deal, anything over $100m over previous deal, players will get 12.5% in 2023 and 2024. They will get 25% from 2025-27. And that $100m carve out was always part of that clause even back during the February deal. #MLS #MLSPA #MLSCBA— Jeff Carlisle (@JeffreyCarlisle) February 6, 2021
A source confirms Jeremy's reporting to me. CBA is tentatively approved.Vote has passed the bargaining committee and exec board. Now on to the full plaer pool for approval. https://t.co/6IbFYoZISV— Sam Stejskal (@samstejskal) February 6, 2021
Good news. Owners got what they wanted: no new labor negotiations around World Cup time. Players got, it looks like, a bigger share of TV revenue down the road. Perhaps a raise in min salaries. Play on.
Well whaddya know. It was just two sides negotiating. I'd feel better of I thought there was any chance that the supporters groups - like Morgan "Buy A Shirt" - who issued those imbecilic, childish We stand with the players screeds now feel as stupid as they look. But not much chance of that. This was nothing more than two parties working on a deal. No oppression involved.
This topic makes for some strange bedfellows. First, we really have no idea what's in this deal. When we do, if anyone's dumb enough to compare it to what was agreed to a year ago, well yeah, it'll look worse for the players. No shit. Why wouldn't it be less generous? Am I the only one whose employer implemented a hiring freeze, left open positions vacant, didn't give out raises last year (and probably won't this year), and has put in place absurd oversight measures that make it hard to spend any cash? And I'm one of the lucky ones; I still have my job. Come on, people, in case you've not noticed, a pandemic has smothered the global economy. Whatever was imagine or agreed to pre-Covid (oh, like my retirement plans based on assumptions about continued salary growth) needs to be rethought. In some cases, tossed out entirely. Compare this to the old, pre-'20 CBA, but not the last, unratified one. I'm pro player, but the players are, in general, doing okay in MLS. Salary growth has been strong, far outpacing what schmucks like us can expect in our jobs. The days are long gone when league minimum got you a rental with five teammates. And as fans, we want it both ways, right? I mean, Austin picks up Aaron Schoenfeld and we laugh, because he's just another USL-quality player pulling in an MLS paycheck. The league's full of these stiffs, amirite? So on the one hand, we mock the league's still sizable pool of marginal talent, yet claim to care about the common man, the average player in these negotiations. In truth, I think most of us want those average Joes to be plying their trade in a lower league (you know, where they belong), and that the league had the financial clout to attract better talent. Anyway, the players will do fine by this. Why on earth the owners would invoice a force majeure clause again in a year (if it even remains a part of the new CBA) is beyond my understanding, but hey, if some of you think that's in our future, who am I to stand in the way of your depressed fantasies. What this most certainly will do for players is create more jobs. It'll free up the league move ahead with that reserve league, which represents no small investment. And by the way, the adjusted CBA that was in effect last year has already had some noticeable, positive changes for the players. Here I'm thinking of the loosened up free agency rules (which appear to be looser yet in this new agreement). Last year, you only had to be 24 with five seasons of service in the league. I think previously it had been 28. It's not a small thing. When the details come out (assuming there's good reporting in this, and that may be an optimistic assumption), I'll be looking at details like charter flights, rules governing TAM-like structures, that kind of thing. Sounds like the players got some increases in basic salary. More TV money. It's said that in a divorce proceeding, a good outcome is when both sides walk away disappointed. I guess I'm hoping for that outcome here, too. This is a miserable time; thousands dying everyday from a pandemic, ten million fewer working than was the case a year ago. The idea that one side should get an agreement that avoids pain - under these national and global conditions - is just stupid.
It doesn't look like that at all. Let's be clear: their main goal was not to take a pay cut. All they were negotiating was how much of a pay raise they were going to get. Meanwhile, the owners were negotiating how much money they were going to lose. Under the circumstances -ie a business losing money hand over fist and struggling with a worldwide pandemic- this was a pretty good deal.
I'd be interested in the Force Majeure language, but I think there is a non-zero chance they invoke in again in the next 24 months. If it is related to government regulations on attendance only; the chance goes down. But if it is related to revenues then does a less than expected TV deal give the owners a chance? Does an economic depression that lowers sponsorship or season ticket sales? What is the economic threshold that needs to be hit before this occurs? Players allowing the language in the first place was their huge give in the Summer. Now they have lost 3 years of negotiations since March with little in return. And the language will probably never be removed from the CBA going forward.
I will note that, unlike the Tribe, the Reds did bring home a Series title during her tenure (and, being a Phils Phan, I'm a neutral here).
1980 Phils World Series title team: Carlton, Boone, Rose, Trillo, Schmidt, Bowa, McBride, Maddox, Luzinski. Best bench: Lonnie Smith, Keith Moreland. SPs: Ruthven, Christensen, Bystrom. RPs: Tug McGraw, Sparky Lyle. Two thirds of the earth is covered by water. The other third is covered by Gary Maddox.
At what cost though? The argument could be made that the 1990 Reds were as much a product of what came before her and others in the front office acting to mitigate her destructive tendencies. Her dismantling of a scouting and farm system that was once considered one of the best in baseball is a big reason why the Reds are where they are today and is one of the differences between the Reds and the Cardinals, despite being similarly-sized markets.
It's been 20 years.... Any team that can't rebuild in 20 years has an issue that goes deeper than a former owner. Now while I don't like them (2011 being one reason), you have to respect the Cards. But they've always taken the farm system seriously. Not many other teams have. Also, I'll note that the Cincy metro area is 30th in the US while the St Louis metro area is 20th. There's about 600,000-800,000 difference. That's significant. A closer comparison is Pittsburgh, the 27th largest metro area. They've been equally unsuccessful in the past 30 years.
"Ninety percent (of my salary) I'll spend on good times, women and Irish Whiskey. The other ten percent I'll probably waste."--Tug McGraw
I would point out that Cincinnati has quite a few sizable media market within a few hours drive from which the Reds draw, or at least use to draw, a significant amount of fan support. Not only did they have on of the top farm systems, but they also had one of the largest radio networks in MLB. Marge Schott took over an organization that was every bit on the level with the St. Louis Cardinals and cut their scouting, farm system, media budget, and even gameday promotions to the bone, turning the Reds into a Pittsburgh Pirates-level organization. Unfortunately, between Marge Schott's (and Carl Lindner after her) severe budget cuts, the 1994 baseball strike, and decades of poor performance, the Reds have lost a their grip on a lot of those neighboring markets they used to claim as their own. Places where the Reds used to dominate have since drifted to the Indians, Cubs, Cardinals, and Braves. Sadly, I don’t think they're ever going to get those back. Marge Schott may not be entirely to blame for the Reds' decades long slide to the bottom, but she sure did give them the big push down the hill.
Cleaning the basement and came across these gems. Miss the after game player interaction in tent. Was my kids' favorite part - truly fostered their love of the game. Wish in one of these CBAs they would readdress it. It really helped grow the game. It made MLS different. Need players out in community more and not just doing charity work (that's great too).
Agreed on all counts. One of the recent CBAs that was released to the public mentioned that players *could* do post-game appearances, they just had to be paid. It's two STM events all season. We get the preseason one and the summer event. It used to be three, but that changed about the time HSG sold the team. The casino night was immensely popular. The last time they had three events was the rebranding event. There was talk about having events at COSI throughout the season. I noticed that last year's preseason event only featured a handful of players on the stage. I wonder if the plan was to have several events, but only have 4-5 players per event. I can't believe it'd be hard for Dee and Dr. Pete to find a sponsor for post-game autographs. Part of the issue is that the player makeup changed from "people just happy to play in their own country" to "big-name Euro stars." Not coincidentally, the players started to be less accessible when the DP rule came into effect. I remember briefly meeting Ben Sippola at one of the Gameworks events when they had that whole week of events leading up to the home opener. The guy was absolutely elated to be able to get paid to have a Crew jersey with his last name on the back. I'm sure he realized he had a snowball's chance in hell of making an impact, but we're a long way from that caliber of player. Let's see what happens next year. It seems like there's at least a little opportunity for autographs and photos. Not that I ever would, but I definitely recognize what an autographed jersey or ball can do for a young fan.