News: MLS owners approve fall-spring calendar and season format changes: Sources

As long as a player is eligible to sign a homegrown player contract they can do so at any point of a collegiate journey. Mark McKenzie played one semester at Wake Forest before signing a HGP contract with Philadelphia.

As far as MLS Next Pro goes, players can play there and then sign with a MLS team. Unless that player's HGP rights are claimed by another MLS team. For college age players, I don't believe there are any restrictions.

 

They can sign for any Next Pro team, but can't use it as a loophole to skip the draft. Max Arfsten left college and played one season for Earthquakes II, but the Quakes weren't allowed to sign him, because he hadn't gone through the draft. So Columbus was able to draft him for the next season. The Quakes had an opportunity to pick him before Columbus, but I think they were betting on him dropping to the second round.

 

Not sure how a draft gets them more money. It's basically a restraint on trade, once a player is drafted there is only one option where they can go. Seems pretty basic that more options gives you a better opportunity to maximize your value. But again maybe there is something I am missing.

 

Yeah, what you’re missing is that draftees are not union members yet. So all those things you cite as to why draftees would be better off being free to negotiate with any team, are bad for current union members. Draftees being able to maximize their value means less “value” for everyone else.

 

No player is required to join the union to be covered by the CBA.

 

But once they sign a contract they can become Union Members and are represented by the Union. I see your point that there could be concern among veterans that the money might shift to younger players, but if I were in the union, and I am a rep in mine, I would still be philosophically against the draft because the idea should be to get everyone's wages up. Open up everyone's opportunities, and if the clubs were taking from peter to pay paul focus on that. (and hope that that strategy doesn't work on the field) rather than agreeing to restrictions on your soon to be members.

And in reality in MLS I am not sure it's a big deal either way. I think your case makes more sense in the NFL, NBA but even their the Unions have bargained to reduce the size of the draft.

 

Wouldn’t that be impossible in a salary cap league?

 

But they are not agreeing to these restrictions. They are already in place. The question is: would they fight to have them removed at the expense of something else they are fighting for? Something that would benefit the current Union members (vs soon to be members)?

 

Guessing they wouldn't use much leverage to try and get rid of it. But nor would they oppose getting rid of it, and my guess would be fine with the league dumping it.

Restricting one persons ability to maximize their income does not automatically mean those funds would go to another. Not every team spends as much as they could on players already. My guess is the unions position would be that they want all of the players to have maximum opportunities to maximize their income, and choose where they live and play. I'm pretty sure they would be opposed to any restriction on that for any class of player thus would need to be collectively bargained.

As I said above they obviously aren't going to blow up MLS over the superdraft and doubt they'd want to use any leverage or energy to get it removed, but they wouldn't fight to keep it which is where this discussion started.

 

Let me know if I'm missing something here.

A lot of current players may not have had soccer careers if it wasn't for the draft. If college players can sign anywhere then a lot of them wouldn't be signed at all.

No League outside of North America would sign a 22, or even 20 year old, or even 18 year-old amateur. They'd laugh if you suggested it.

How many college players would be signed by MLS teams if it weren't for the draft? 6? 12? They'd rather fill their rosters with academy players.

The Second and Third Round draft picks types could go to USL but they can do that anyway. The problem is that they'll be making $26k instead of $88k.

 

If the MLS teams find the draftees worth signing now, why would they refrain from signing them in the absence of a draft?

 

If they ever change college soccer the way that's been suggested, it could help produce players for MLS teams by loaning academy players after they get past high school age but not quite ready for MLS Next Pro.

 

It's easier and some GMs are lazy.

 

Just quoting this because you brought up the CBA. The union’s consideration of the calendar switch coincides with when they and MLS would normally begin initial conversations about the next CBA. Maybe a bit earlier than normal, but the current agreement expires at the end of 2027, which will be halfway through the new 2027-28 season. My assumption, then, is that there really needs to be a new CBA in place well before the current one expires; before that 27-28 season kicks off in summer ‘27.

Agreeing to the calendar switch is one thing, and maybe sounds fairly simple. But it throws a wrench into many parts of the current CBA, which dates from 2020. So maybe they figure out how to do this now in a way that allows for the calendar change, but it really has to be done as part of the negotiations over a new CBA. Which, of course, will include the draft (though that doesn’t seem like a very weighty issue, to me), free agency processes (a much bigger issue), the continuing role of GAM and TAM, players getting a bigger piece of the pie in all sorts of areas (media revenue, bonus money, appearance money, minimum salary level, guaranteed spend amounts per club), moving to all charter flights. Perhaps the role of discovery lists. And so on.

Recall, too, Garber’s (and some club FO) statements about the league considering more foundational changes to league structures occurring in/after 2027. That means, as part of the next CBA. Very few details on that have become public, but I recall reading some comments by senior FO staff about finding a balance between the Miamis of the league (who want to spend big) and those who want to compete in other ways (like via youth development), all the while developing a system that allows MLS to put an ever-improving product on the pitch, year after year.

 

I believe one of the bigger issues for the players will be bonus money as it was a big issue with the Club World Cup. After that it's mostly just how far they move the needle on everything else. Free agency has moved twice already after being nonexistent. TAM & GAM have also moved and I wouldn't be surprised if one just disappears all together as that moved with the last CBA. How big the budget gets will be an owner issue since that's a conflict between owners. After that it's most likely just professional standard stuff and not much game changing.
.
If the league wanted to get rid of the DP rule and go with a ceiling/floor salary cap, then you might have a long negotiation but I would imagine the owners wouldn't go that drastic. The easiest way to increase spending without increasing spending is DP players no longer count against the cap as it's totally on the team. They could just copy the EPL's Squad Cost Ratio on a smaller scale for designated players. Also just get rid of transfer fees counting against the CAP and you could grow a lot without drastic changes to league parity shifting to much between teams.

 

Those last 2 points you gave you don't even need to negotiate in the CBA. That's something owners can do on their own just like they have with other changes done recently.

Excluding transfer fees from the cap will go a long way to bringing in better talent. Also the suggestion of excluding DPs from the cap. That opens up at least $2M+ in the salary budget for the entire roster.

 

On your first point, I just want to note that the current CBA allows ownership/the league to do all sorts of stuff about roster make-up, etc. There's wording in the CBA that gerants owners/the league that authority. The next CBA could say something different. I'm not saying it will or should, that the owners would agree to that type of change or that players would push for it. Only that decision-making processes could change in the next agreement regarding a whole host of issues that ownership/the league has sole control over now.

 

Bonuses is easy. Players should get 50% of prize money after expenses.

 

Why? You say it’s easy but it isn’t. Anyone following this thread could come up with 5 spicy issues within a minute.

 

I’m curious if you’re aware how complex the sections (plural) regarding bonuses are in the existing CBA. There are bonuses for dressing for a match (I think, though I’m drinking coffee, with a cat on my lap at the moment and am not going to look it up), playing, starting, for whether your team wins or not. Then, of course, for taking part in and winning numerous types of competitions. Then there are bonuses that go to teams, where the clubs get to decide how to divvy them up. There’s also wording in the CBA about these being minimum amounts, which MLS can increase if it wants.

When the Crew won MLS Cup in ‘23, I went through the process of figuring out how much bonus cash Mo Farsi (a supplemental player on a low salary who ended up becoming a starter) made that season. Near as I could tell, he close to doubled his income that year due to the numerous bonuses he earned.

I have no idea how bonuses will be handled in the next CBA. But I’m sure it won’t be simple.

 

I am aware of it and it's not that complex.

But for unscheduled, unexpected revenue, like the 2025 CWC, I was suggesting splitting the prize money 50/50 like in the Leagues Cup, minus costs like flights, training facilities etc.

How you divide that 50% between starters, subs and roster members is up to the PA.

 

Back when the Sounders won the Champions League, it was mentioned that the Sounders couldn't share the award with the players because, per the CBA at the time, bonuses count against the salary cap and the Sounders had not accounted for winning the CCL in their salary cap and giving the players a cut of the award would have put them way over the salary cap.

 

Really? Hadn't heard that one. What bullshit. If true, talk about a perfect example of something the union will address in a new CBA.