SCOTUS won't hear it AP reporting SCOTUS passed on the chance to hear the Fraser vs. MLS case. I assume this means it is truly over?!?!
SCOTUS won't hear it http://msn.espn.go.com/soccer/news/2002/1007/1442335.html I think this means one stage --costly, unproductive litigation-- is over. The NFLPA that helped promote the lawsuit also funded the ill-fated arbitration cases of earlier this year as well. Perhaps the players may realize this organization has provided some stupendously unhelpfull assistance the past seven years. Now, what is the next boneheaded tactic they will try? I would recommend MLS players start organizing their own independent players association.
There's nowhere to go from here. The players have lost, finally and irrevocably. The only thing that could change the result now is legislation. That's not going to happen here.
Finally, it's over. Hopefully money that would have been spent here can go to players in the form of an increased salary cap. Sachin
More likely that money will go to lawyers fighting the next NFLPA-driven lawsuit, or perhaps an-NFLPA organizing drive.
I don't think so. The NFLPA's main interest was not so much the organization of the players, but the defeat of single entity. Unless they can find another legal argument on that (and I kind of doubt they "saved" any), I think this one is dead. Of course, the story isn't over for MLS players, but probably for the NFLPA's involvement.
MLS has won the lawsuit As a licensed attorney, I can assure you that the case is over. The U.S. Supreme Court has complete discretion over its docket. If they decline to review a case, the decision of the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals becomes final.
Are you saying you don't think the NFLPA would assist in any effort to organize a players union? If one were formed, it would be independent of, and not affiliated with the NFLPA?
Well, why would they care? If you want to make the case for the benevolent view (that the NFLPA really cares about all athletes' rights) or the sinister one (that the NFLPA wants to disrupt MLS through union actions), I can understand why you think they'd be involved. But frankly, I don't think the NFLPA has any interest in MLS whatsoever except as a vehicle to defeat single entity.
I hope that's correct, if only for the fact that the NFLPA has provided resoundingly horrible advice, including this antitrust lawsuit. I think the next step-- a union organizing drive -- is inevitable, but I'd rather the players do that with minimal guidance and support from the NFLPA.
The NFLPA has traditionally aligned itself with various pro soccer players' unions...the NASLPA, for instance, and I believe the MISLPA as well. Why Ed Garvey cares is beyond me; I don't think he has nefarious motives but, at the same time, the track record of soccer players' unions in the U.S. has not been all that great.
He does not have nefarious motives, he has the motives of NFL Players who, last time I checked, are much wealthier and play in a far healthier league than MLS.
thank god. i would like to see the leauge do something for the players with regard to where they can play or some sort of cost of living adjustment depending on what city (ie. ny area vs. kansas city)... but then again, the better players somehow end up where they want anyway..... you know - the dispersal allocation lottery draft system.
If this is true, or at least if it's true enough, there's probably no need for a collective bargaining agreement. There is "free agency" between MLS and international leagues already, and if the good players have adequate bargaining power in picking the team they play for, then what other big issues would the union fight for? Maybe a pension, which is where NFLPA could help? Better working conditions? Like what? Hmmm. Come to think of it, even though the logical next step seems to be a player's union, what do they need one for?
``It's time for the players to move on to the next step: to come together and form a union,'' said Jeffrey Kessler, an attorney for the soccer players. ``We expect that, eventually, the players will get their fair shake.'' http://sports.yahoo.com/mls/news/ap/20021007/ap-mls-supremecourt.html
I think that the NFLPA was against the single entity and wanted to fight it in every league where it appeared where they could find a patsy to be their claimant. Now we will have MLSPA? If that's what they want to spend their money on, it's still a lot better than being represented by somebody else with an axe to grind. Basically, before it was the NFL players sucking money from MLS to fight a battle. I don't think MLSPA will be very strong. Can you imagine what a strike could do to an already precarious league?
The article seems to suggest there's a contingency plan in place, which suggests to me an NFLPA-sponsored union drive. Too bad. Based on previous history, that suggests the NFLPA union will pursue some reckless all-or-nothing strategy like a strike over free agency that would be disastrous for the players it purports to represent.
If they unionize, they will need to affiliate with some bigger union, because I can't imagine they could fund a decent union with dues taken out of MLS paychecks. Hopefully they move away from the NFLPA, because those jokers have done nothing worthwhile for the MLS players.
There is no question they will form a union, and they should. There are working conditions that they should get input on. - having properly certified trainers, and proper medical equipment at all functions. - input on league minimum salaries - appearance fees for non-game promotions - control over their images in MLS publications and ads - a fixed set of rules on player movement - group insurance against career-ending injury/loss of salary - travel/per diem conditions - of course, salary cap as a function of league revenue. See, they need this immediately because MLS has not raised salary cap significantly in 7 years. They now get revenue from every single stadium they are in, except NY. According to Bergen record, their bid for a stadium is VERY well on the road to reality. They get a cut at Invesco, Arrowhead, RFK, will in Chicago, and rent is low enough in Dallas that they probably don't lose much if any in Dallas on that end. With LA and Columbus generating revenue, I think they'd like to see team cap raised 300,000 over 3 years. That would allow most teams to stay intact for three years, and give a 22 man roster some flexibility. Expect the MLS Players Union to approach the organized fan groups to enlist their support for their issues.