What's the latest in negotiations between MLS and Players Union?

i was just thinking about this a couple days ago.

we had their announcement and then there hasn't been a trace of them since. I would think they would make a website soon, as i know the nfl players and even the us soccer players have pretty nice websites.

 

In the SBJ this week, there was a short article indicating there should be a handshake agreement by the end of the year. It'll take longer to write out an agreement because none currently exists.

 

Between the Union and MLS. Essentially, there should be an agreement on a CBA at least in name if not on paper before the end of the year.

 

A CBA is a Collective Bargaining Agreement, if I'm not mistaken. An agreement on a CBA, then, comes from the Department of Redundancy Department.

 

Maybe, but that is what it is, an agreement between the MLSPU and MLS on a collective bargaining agreement (which is the written agreement).

It's a handshake agreement on the major aspects of a written agreement. Some of those were said to include such novel employee benefits as a health plan, 401(k), and direct deposit.

 

Favorable developments in this area would be a major step forward for MLS, both in substance (more money and benefits for the players, more stability for the owners), and in appearances. What a nice contrast to the trainwreck the NHL seems destined for.

 

Oh that trainwreck will come. It happens to all pro sports. You have to remember that we're still in the honeymoon period, in which both players and management are concerned with the well-being of the sport, first and foremost. In the more established leagues, the players and owners are only concerned in the size of their respective bank accounts. Even if it leads to the eventual destruction of their sport

 

[sarcasm on] Wow! Woo-hoo!! [sarcasm off]

El Chapulin Colorado

 

I wouldn't call it a honeymoon period, I'd call it survival mode. In the long run, everyone is in it for the money, even if they love the sport.

The NHL has no salary cap, thus the effect of competition on the teams is drive the inefficient markets toward unprofitability. Hopefully MLS, like the NBA, can avoid such a fate by inhibiting internal competition.

As for health plans, 401ks, etc., that's probably why the salary cap didn't go up. You can't get something for nothing.

As fans (ie customers), we should be on the side of management as we want to see the highest quality product for the lowest (ticket) cost.

 

I disagree that being pro-management is the only way to achieve "highest quality product for the lowest (ticket) cost" - if you don't give the players enough reason (i.e. money) to stick around, they'll take the "highest quality" some place else and then what are you getting for your low ticket cost? It's a balancing act - the fans can't put themselves entirely in either side's corner...

 

Who says spending less money on players is in management's interest? What I meant was given a league roster we want the players compensated as little as possible, thus we are in management's corner. Obviously you have to offer enough to get the players you want, it's just that any excess compensation beyond what it takes to get them to sign gets added to fan costs in the long run. Since excess compensation is what unions want, they are opposed to the interests of customers.

 

Greddy, the fact that soccer is a world game makes me question your assertion. The economics and checks and balances between management and players are just completely different in MLS from the other American leagues. That'll be true even if the MLS TV contract and gate revenue make the league one of the great leagues in the world (looking 30 years down the line.)

 

Soccer America's MLS Confiential says the MLS Players Union is preparing to release a list of some players' salries.
One example: Adin Brown made over $140,000 less than Tony Meola, while Brown was one of the top keepers in the league.

 

And I'm sure he'll be the only young, up and coming player in professional sports to make significantly less than an established, marketable player.

I'm rooting for the union, but they better not act like a lot of the things happening to them is new.

 

Meola is used as a marketing tool by the league and has been in the league longer, has a championship and an MVP trophy so I am not sure how much Brown should be expecting.

Now the Kamler situation is what I would like addressed. If a team drops you why should they retain your rights?

 

Bull****

I don't want to see turd in a bag just because its cheap.

I want (steadily improving) quality damnit.

 

Nonesense.

Unioins want whats best for their members and to protect them expoitation. Which is what happened and sparked the formation of unions in the first place.

Take your conservative/anti union idealogy somewhere else and keep it away from our game.

 

He seems to believe that what a player is worth or is payed has some direct relationship on ticket prices.

Owners charge as much as they can get away with Period.

 

Well, for all his mis-guided and ill-informed, and just plain wrong views on what unions are for and what they want, this sentence is true, IMHO. Owners always raise prices to make up for higher player salaries. This has absolutely nothing to do with any union, it is greed (or pride) on management's part. They want a certain player (for whatever reason) and they outbid their buddy who owns the other team for him. This is not good for all the players, it hurts the lower paid, which isn't good for the union either. But anyway, the ticket prices will always go up - from management's perspective it is because they are giving you a better product, you should pay more. And it is somewhat fair to let a guy get a return on his investment, to a point. The excess of the salary is where I disagree with the right-wing argument. Unions do not want excess salary, they want fair compensation. If an owner is charging $50 a ticket, they want him to share some with the players. I think if the owner decides he wants a $500k player so bad he offers him $750k to get him away from his buddy who owns Columbus - then he should eat the $250k, not charge me an extra $2 for my ticket. The other alternative for the owners is to lower some other salaries so they can afford the big $$ players (this becomes very true with a salary cap). THIS is where unions are needed, to keep the other guys from getting hurt by say Kevin Payne paying Freddy Adu so much so he cuts Nellie's and Benny's salaries because he says he has to to stay under the cap.
Management types don't believe that profit and salary are related when they have more profit, when the profit goes down, then they magically are tied together and workers should take cuts.
Yes, I realize there is no profit in MLS, or most sports teams if you belive their accountants, so instead of profit use the word budget. These guys set so much aside as money for their toy/team so the concept is the same.

 

The reason companies raise prices is because they view their ideal price point as whatever the market will bear.

Any excuse will do for them to raise prices, whether it be higher salaries for players or higher salaries for bathroom cleaners.

But those are all excuses, the reason they are raising prices is to increase revenue. If they can't increase revenue by increasing prices, then they will hold prices steady or drop them.

Price has nothing to do with cost in a capitalist system, except in situations where price is regulated.

 

No they don't, they want to leave the owner with just enough to allow them to keep their jobs and nothing more. While they are necessary, unions are just as corrupt and greedy as management.

 

How hopelessly naive.

Team owners will, like other business owners, charge as much for their product as they can get to maximize their profit, absolutely as much as the market will bear (as near as they can determine) and not one penny less, regardless of how much they pay the players.

Of course, the owners making the public think differently, that they would keep ticket prices down if it weren't for those greedy players (a plain lie,and one that dred has apparently bought hook, line and sinker), does serve to raise the level of what the market will bear, since so many fans will choose to pay more for the players, but not for the owners (which is as it should be--nobody goes to games to watch owners own).