There are no multiple teams in FIFA's view. There's just one, MLS. Otherwise Real Madrid and Real Madrid B are also breaking this FIFA guideline. Not to mention that this entity can't exist without the player's acceptance of it. in the form fo the Collective Bargaining Agreement.
This. The ironic thing about this thread is that Gomez is lucky his MLS rights are held by SKC and not Montreal.
I don't know of any FIFA rule that would be violated by MLS. Here are the actual FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players: http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/affederation/administration/01/06/30/78/statusinhalt_en_122007.pdf The Mexican "Gentleman's Agreement" violates article 18 of these regs because Mexican teams do not allow players, even after their contract is over, to move between teams without the payment of a transfer fee. Mexican teams have even interfered with international transfer certificates where a player tried to get around the "gentleman's agreement" by leaving the country. This reduces Mexican players' market values, because they can't just walk to another team that wants to pay them more. In MLS, this is not an issue--because there is no other team in MLS that can pay them more; the player's salary is negotiated directly with the league. If their team wants to pay them less, but MLS is willing to pay them more, they can get that salary from another MLS team (through the re-entry draft). No. Here's the thing; if MLS was actually just nineteen rich owners who signed a paper making it look like they were a single entity, they wouldn't get to act as they do. MLS works the way it does because it is structured as a single entity in many fundamental ways, beyond simple revenue-sharing. Maybe Chelsea would like to have MLS-style player retention--but not at the cost of having all transfers approved by the league, sharing transfer fees with the rest of the league, and having to deal with allocation order, salary caps, and the rest of the MLS model, which is part of the single-entity system as well.
MLS is in compliance with FIFA regs because Sunil Gulati supports Blatter. Period. Comparing MLS to Real Madrid A & B is apples and oranges. Real Madrid A & B don't play against each other to be named national champion.
I do not think they do. just by wiki so I could be wrong. "20 teams of 2010–11 Segunda División (Barcelona B and Villarreal B are excluded for being reserve teams):" "18 teams of 2010–11 Tercera División. Teams that qualified are the champions of each of the 18 groups (or at least the ones with the highest number of points within their group since reserve teams are excluded):" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011–12_Copa_del_Rey
My bad, looks like they did up until 1990 but not since then. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_Madrid_Castilla
Yes I think UEFA is getting tougher on multiproperty of teams (the rule to not allowed B teams in Copa de el rey was probably not by UEFA) but I remember reading about RedBull teams in Austria and some other country that they may not be allowed to play in the Europa/Champions leagues at the same time or something. I guess this brings another Topic, Multi-pwnersship/one single team leagues in Concacaf. Now Concacaf is no UEFA by a long shot, but it they became a legit organization (yes hard to type that with a straight face) they could adopt UEFA style regulations (not going to happen) that could bring issues for MLS LLS, Televisa and TVAzteca. Also I wonder how we could think about Chivas USA vs Chivas Guad in a CCL game. Vergara is part owner of MLS LLC, part owner of the ChivasUSA franchise and owner of Chivas Guadalajara. I wonder how UEFA would deal with that situation. Not that we need to worry about that in Concacaf At least Vergara no longer owns Saprissa (as far as I know).
Well MLS only has HSG with two teams (Dallas and Columbus) and AEG with one and a half (LA and half of Houston). Find a buyer for the rest of Houston, make Lamar's kids split the ownership into two companies, each one controlled by one of the kids, and MLS has no multi-ownership.
But really aren't most of those things -- allocation order, sharing of fees, collective marketing of merchandising rights, salary caps -- also staples of the NFL? And the NFL has never prevailed that it is a single entity. In fact, it will be interesting to see what American Needle Supreme Court decision may mean. The Huffington Post synopsis: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/24/american-needle-supreme-c_n_587277.html I think MLS "single entity" is a legal fiction, and it's going to be increasingly difficult to argue that the collective decisions it makes for which there may be "sensible justification" are any different than any other league that has not been deemed to be a single entity by the courts-- save the fact that MLS holds and negotiates the contracts. And however flowery the league's rationale for that may be in the press, I think it's increasingly clear the primary reason it does that to restrict free agency. FIFA has gone along, but here too if you are going to be technical -- and the league's single entity structure (and defense) is grounded in a series of technical constructions that put form over substance IMO -- every MLS team is, in fact, owned by MLS. They've sold the operating rights, not the legal entity that is the "team." So how can FIFA interpret the league doesn't have multiple ownership of teams? Unless, of course, you think we are watching a series of intrasquad scrimmages every weekend. I'd be very surprised if there aren't changes over the next decade or so. MLS will probably start to include the salary cap as part of collective bargaining and they'll probably have to bargain over a less restrictive system for players out of contract then the re-entry draft. If FIFA drops the hammer on multiple ownership of clubs -- and my reading is that isn't currently a rule, but like the limit on the number of first division teams it's a guideline (from the FIFA Congress?) that someone like Platini might well support and expand -- they could have to ditch the single entity structure for MLS, LLC altogether. The single entity structure is an evolving area of the law and touches on issues that are evolving within FIFA. There will be changes, IMO.
You're naive if you think anything different, IMO. That's what MLS is. These players all work for the same employer.
I agree with you. However, the argument was made by another that MLS is not in violation of FIFA player relations rules because FIFA considers MLS one big club owning 19 teams. So the discussion of AEG and HSG is not relevent to this discussion.
I understand your point. Your not technically wrong. But clearly the single-entity employer has created a sufficiently competitive environment that the 19 various teams compete vigorously on the field. That doesn't happen in intra-squad scrimmages.
I realize MLS makes the argument that it is essentially "one club" that cedes certain operational authority to third party investor operators, but I can't see how the single entity structure doesn't violate article 18bis of the FIFA Statutes on third party influence. Here's what it says in 18bis(1): "No club shall enter into a contract which enables any other party to that contract or any third party to acquire the ability to influence in employment and transfer-related matters its independence, its policies or the performance of its teams." Now, if MLS is "one club" for purposes of the statutes, doesn't an agreement with the investor operator -- a separate corporate entity not owned by the league -- constitute a contract where a third party has the "ability to influence in employment and transfer-related matters its independence, its policies or the performance of its teams"? And before someone says MLS has authority over transfers and employment contracts, note the statute doesn't say "control", it says merely "influence." It would certainly appear that the I/Os and the coaches they hire do influence the players on the team's roster, which players are sold and how those players are used.
I agree with you. Hence my continued assertion that MLS is in compliance with FIFA Regs only because Sunil Gulati supports Sepp Blatter.
Except that these 19 ownership groups (actually, isn't it like 23 or so?) are all owners of MLS. They aren't third party entities if they own the "club" in question (MLS). At least that is how I read it.
You're probably right -- at least I can't come up with a better reading that's color-able for MLS to conform to the provision. (It would be interesting to press the matter of whether a "club" can cede aspects of its operation, including aspects of signing a player and transfer policy, to a minority shareholder under a contract, but I don't know enough of how FIFA has interpreted the provision to comment further and it's moving beyond this thread in any event.) If you accept that the minority shareholders aren't "third parties", however, it becomes very tough to than argue that MLS, and by extension these investors, doesn't own multiple teams IMO. Indeed, MLS itself has always claimed to own multiple teams. Note the language from the Court of Appeals decision in Fraser, which, in turn, quotes the league's position on how it's organized: "MLS owns all of the teams that play in the league (a total of 12 prior to the start of 2002), as well as all intellectual property rights, tickets, supplied equipment, and broadcast rights . . . MLS has also relinquished some control over team operations to certain investors. MLS contracts with these investors to operate nine of the league's teams (the league runs the other three). These investors are referred to as operator/investors and are the co-defendants in this action. Each operator/investor has the “exclusive right and obligation to provide Management Services for a Team within its Home Territory” and is given some leeway in running the team and reaping the potential benefits therefrom." http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-1st-circuit/1441684.html Now, my understanding is that the prohibition against owning multiple teams isn't, at this point, codified in the FIFA statutes. I believe it's essentially a guideline. But it's hard to escape the conclusion that MLS is a single entity that owns multiple teams. FIFA has allowed it, but (to me) it clearly restricts a player's ability to move between teams in the league when he is out of contract. Now, you can argue that gentleman's agreement or no gentleman's agreement, when one owner controls several teams in any league (as is the case in Mexico, and perhaps elsewhere) a player's freedom of movement is likewise restricted because fewer teams can freely compete for his services. That's important to remember, because although it may be an extreme example I'm not sure MLS is unique in having one owner with interests in several teams. Still, I think the trend is clearly in favor of more regulation and limits over such arrangements because multiple ownership also raises questions about the integrity of a competition. UEFA, in fact, prohibits an individual or entity from having ownership or influence over more than one club entered in either the Champions League or Europa League. (See Article 3.01(c) of the regulations for either tournament). http://www.uefa.com/MultimediaFiles.../Regulations/01/48/42/49/1484249_DOWNLOAD.pdf FIFA doesn't seem to be as picky -- yet -- but I suspect new leadership may be more rigorous. Which brings me back to the beginning. I think the league's structure will be increasingly difficult to defend, both for purposes of U.S. anti-trust law and for FIFA competitions. It may take a decade, but I think it will have to change eventually.
Couldn't one argue that FIFA's preference for one Division 1 league per country is itself a form of "gentleman's agreement" or restriction of trade?
Who is going to bring anti-trust suit againdt MLS? The players? They nearly killed the league last time and I don't think we are so secure as to fight off another. I suppose if our TV contract is as huge as imagined but...no guarantee that'll happen and right now there is too small a pie to fight over. As for fending off FIFA, I think that would be much easier. As much as it drives people like Bill Archer crazy, C'CAF has its uses via its corruption. Mexico and the US control the purse strings (if not the entire confederation these days...we'll see). Interesting thought puzzle either way triplet.
It is an interesting theoretically discussion. The players, having already lost the challenge after three courts, would be hard pressed to bring a second suit unless they could prove some fundamental structural change in MLS. SO as long as MLS continues to make decisions consistent with the court and jury's findings in regard to the Clayton and Sherman act, it is unlikely players would get pass a summary judgement. Quite frankly, the only way the players can exercise any power for change would be through the CBA process because the courts are not on their side. The owners will protect the free agency rules to the death because to completely give in would put their entire single entity model at risk. As for FIFA, the likelihood of anything more binding than a guideline on this issue is slim due to the variance in both antitrust and labor law across all their members. FIFA is not going to issue an edict which would ruin the financial structure of a league that has been codified by the nations court system.
We all need to remember that this area of the law continues to evolve. As to the Doctor's point, I can see USSF's certification of a single first division could be problematic if an when that status is deemed to be worth something, particularly given that (unlike most of its counterparts operating under FIFA jurisdiction) MLS is a closed league. If an owner can't get a team in MLS and can't form a rival league that could be sanctioned at the same level, I'm not sure the fact that USSF was merely following the FIFA statues would absolve it from possible anti-trust liability. True, most national governing bodies are immune from anti-trust liability under the Amateur Sports Act, but remember the ChampionsWorld decision out of the Northern District of Illinois held: "USSF is not entitled to an exemption from the antitrust laws regarding professional soccer, except to the extent necessary for USSF to oversee Olympic and related events. USSF has no clear mandate from Congress to govern the whole of professional soccer in the U.S." http://docs.justia.com/cases/federa...dce/1:2006cv05724/202932/184/0.pdf?1279918973 At least for now, USSF doesn't have a get out of jail free card with respect to anti-trust issues when it regulates pro soccer. As for MLS, I think most fans mistakenly assume that the Court of Appeals agreed with the District Court finding in Fraser that MLS was indeed a single entity shielded from Section 1 of the Sherman Act. Again, that's not true. Here's the court's ruling: "While MLS defends the district court's single entity ruling, players say that this view is form over substance and the substance is simply a conspiracy among de facto team owners to fix player salaries, which they claim to be a per se violation of the antitrust laws. We disagree completely with this latter characterization. We also find that the case for applying single entity status to MLS and its operator/investors has not been established but that in this case the jury verdict makes a remand on the section 1 claim unnecessary . . . In all events, we conclude that the single entity problem need not be answered definitively in this case." http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-1st-circuit/1441684.html What we have here is . . . an open question. Which means court rulings on "single entity" claims are probably of particular interest at MLS HQ. No doubt last year's American Needle decision sent a chill up the collective single entity spine of MLS. Justice Stevens battered the NFL on it's assertion that because they had formed NFL Properties the NFL owners were, as dryly noted in the syllabus "incapable of conspiring within §1’s meaning because the NFL and its teams are, in antitrust law jargon, a single entity with respect to the conduct challenged." Here's a shot over the bow: "Unlike typical decisions by corporate shareholders . . . each team’s decision reflects not only an interest in NFLP’s profits but also an interest in the team’s individual profits. The 32 teams capture individual economic benefits separate and apart from NFLP profits as a result of the decisions they make for the NFLP. NFLP’s decisions thus affect each team’s profits from licensing its own intellectual property. “Although the business interests of” the teams “will often coincide with those of the” NFLP “as an entity in itself, that commonality of interest exists in every cartel.” (citations omitted) http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-661.pdf Try this for fun -- substitute "MLS" for "NFLP" and "I/O" for "team" and read the section again. Ahem. So, since 2010, both MLS and USSF have reasons to look at some recent court decisions and squirm a bit IMO. Now, to FIFA itself and its confederations. I submit there's a simple reason UEFA prohibits multiple ownership of teams in its tournaments -- it provides the appearance of a conflict that calls into question the integrity of the competition. Perhaps it isn't such a big deal when MLS teams with common I/O ownership meet in the final, or Mexican clubs meet in the playoffs, but with UEFA already concerned about match fixing it doesn't want to add more fuel to the fire, and even if it's benign it simply looks bad to have teams owned by the same entity competing against one another. UEFA has a carrot to go with the stick. It's not a coincidence IMO that the prohibition against multiple team ownership appears in the rules for the Champions League itself. Enforcement couldn't be easier for UEFA: If a club wants the big money, it plays by the rules. Of course, Concacaf lacks such a lucrative lever, assuming it would be so inclined to use it. (Ironically, MLS' new found enthusiasm for development of the CCL may well some day help give Concacaf such a weapon). But were such a restriction to be included in, say, an expanded, far more lucrative Club World Cup, I wonder how long MLS would insist on maintaining league "ownership" of all of the league's teams? Hmmm. I'd say about as long as it takes to say "AEG." Now, I'm not saying all of this will definitely come to pass, but I do think the sands are shifting and we shouldn't assume the present structure won't move about and adapt some.
You have a few leaps there which may not prove to be pertinent. First, the part of the discussion on the court ruling decision you quote is specifically a player perspective not the actual decision. Secondly, one of the jury findings related to MLS was because it was initially formed as a single entity it was indeed exempt from provisions of the Sherman act. The NFL tried to retroactively make that case. Because that fact was specifically stated in the decision, it would be used as a de facto litmus test in the future which the MLS obviously still passes. All that said, your point that the law continues to evolve is correct and of course the situation may change. However, based on some of the findings of the court, several key aspects of MLS structure would have to change for a suit to gain a foothold against MLS unless we have a complete reversal of precedence. Interestingly enough, I wonder if drastic changes to the salary structure to put more responsibility on the owners would fall in that category . . . hmmm . . maybe that is why DP spots are limited. As for USSF exemption from anti-trust. I think that would be a tricky one in reality. There is no restriction on anyone else starting a top division soccer league in the US now that rivals MLS. The only thing in question would be sanctioning; which is de facto FIFA sanctioning. It would be interesting - is the lack of sanctioning of a private body feeding to a worldwide body be enough to warrant an anti-trust suit? I don't know. Seems USSF could easily argue that none of the Clayton nor Sherman acts would apply since their is a reasonable opportunity for additional leagues to create and market their product and certification alone does not prohibit competition.
I view the bridge as shorter than you do, but I'll call a truece on the blow - by - blow debate because I don't want to obscure the larger point that even if the court concluded that MLS was not, as a matter of law, a single entity the consequences may still be minimal. As you know, the single entity defense is just that, a defence. There are many restraints of trade that are nonetheless deemed reasonable and acceptable under judicial analysis, and Stevens suggests a bevy of them specific to a sports league in American Needle. Indeed, I would suggest the language I quoted really supports the proposition that despite any error the district court may have made in applying the defense it really didn't matter because the players were still going to lose on the merits of the underlying case. MLS keeps the structure nonetheless, I submit, because like an annual flu shot there's really very little downside to it. From the owner's perspective, the most onerous aspects of single entity structure have already had the hard edges removed. The "single - entity" MLS Rothenberg championed really did envision the league operating all of the teams aligned with a common balance sheet where all the profits were pooled and divided. Unfortunately, they couldn't sell it to early investors who demanded more control and autonomy, the "investor-operator" was born before MLS even kicked off, and the I/Os have steadily moved more of he financial benefits (and burdens, to be fair) from the league to the I/O entities ever since. Today, there's very little about the league's single entity structure that cramps an I/Os style in any material way that the NFL does not (to pick but one example). Sure, they have certain spending and player allocation limits and revenue sharing obligations, but that's standard operating procedure for U.S. professional sports these days. If keeping the player contracts in the hands of the league strengthens their hand with the players should they march into court again, why not keep it? But what if there was a cost? Here's where the interplay with FIFA/CONCACAF and USSF I think may someday get interesting. Even so, I need to make a whopper of an assumption: There has to be something economically worth fighting about. Let's think for a minute, what is the single most valuable asset FIFA/UEFA bestows on a federation which, in turn, it can give to the first division league it sanctions? Those Champions League slots would be pretty high on the list, I think. (Yes, the World Cup may be the big prize, but that's a one off and expensive to acquire, whereas the CL spots are the gift that keeps giving). And, likewise, until the CCL and/or the CWC really carries economic significance for MLS, FIFA and CONCACAF can pass all the pronouncements they want to about league size, multiple ownership of teams, spring/fall seasons, technology and good grooming, and I doubt MLS will lose too much sleep over it. But when the day comes that the multiple team ownership or some other restriction from a governing body potentially bars MLS teams from a lucrative tournament, I think you'll see MLS assess it's structure with a far more critical eye. Oh to be a fly on the boardroom wall on that day: "We stand to lose $15 million here each year if we can't participate in this tournament. Now, explain to me again what this single entity defense really does for us?" Just as MLS gave up on the pure single entity league during its early days, it would chuck it completely (with little consequence, I think) if there was an big economic cost to keep it. Ah, now, even if we take the big leap of faith and assume some lucrative tournament (CCL, CWC or something else) evolves, why would FIFA or CONCACAF be restrictive about an issue like multiple ownership? The current "pick up your cash at the door" leadership probably wouldn't, but again, UEFA has adopted it for the reasons I've stated in the previous post. Indeed, the more valuable the tournament, the more likely the organizer is to be picky about it's reputation. Which is why I think some of the goofy pronouncements out of various organizational bodies are worth noting. Some day there may actually be a cost to non-conformity.