_________________________________________
6:30 p.m. CT UPDATE: We have a report of an agreement. Tunstall's compatriot, Simon Evans (@sgevans) is reporting that there is an agreement in place. Carlisle confirmed.
Goff has a link to an article with a lot of details on the agreement in principle.
Ives is reporting that a number of MLS clubs voted against the agreement. He also asks a good question.
_________________________________________
5:45 p.m. CT UPDATE: According to Brooke Tunstall (@YesThatBrooke) there is a player vote happening. He said despite his best efforts, he cannot ascertain whether it is a vote on a deal or a vote to play this weekend without an agreement, or some other vote.
But consistent reporting from Brooke, Goff and Carlisle have made it appear that things are moving in the direction of a deal rather than broken talks. Goff even went so far as to tweet he expects a deal to close late today or Thursday, with the caveat that it was a hunch of his.
As I stated below in my analysis, this is consistent with what I expected, although developments on the free agency issue have been surprising. The latest appeared to be a 28 years old/8 years of service offer with a 10% cap on salary raise. Again, considering it is a form of free agency, I am surprised the owners are offering it as it erodes the SE structure. The 10% is something that I imagine is very unpalatable to the players.
_________________________________________
12:30 p.m. CT UPDATE: Steven Goff (@SoccerInsider) recently tweeted: "Reliable sources describes state of talks as 'desperation but still talking." Jeff Carlisle (@Jeffery Carlisle) reported that there has been "some movement" on both the free agency offer. Again, those two have been the most involved in getting the "raw" out.
Neither change my opinion of the information below, although clearly, time is running short and there remains work to be done. It does appear that both sides are tightening up leaks and information, which is also usually a sign that it is getting down to the nitty gritty.
For what it is worth, ESPN is regularly updating the situation on SportsCenter as well.
_________________________________________
Labor negotiations. They have a life and flow of their own. But it appears this round of MLS negotiations have started to take shape and I think we can make some reasonable predictions.
Granted,
the situation is incredibly fluid – probably more fluid than I have ever seen
in 20 years of following the league. And a lot of the information used in this
piece is based on reporting that usually does not name sources, so bring your
salt shaker. But again, I think we have enough tea leaves to read, even though
we may be the drunken monkeys with the Ouija board, that we can discuss a
general landscape.
First,
the issues. Free agency, length of the CBA itself and the salary cap increase
seem to be the biggest topics of discussion. The parties seem far enough apart
that there is real work to be done, but there does appear to be enough
definition to the points of view that they have a fair chance at negotiating a
middle ground. The fact that numerous sources have stated that the sides
negotiated until 6 am ET Wednesday supports this assertion.
Free Agency
Something
that has been an issue from the beginning from the players’ perspective has
been the Single Entity nature of the league, and the fact that all contracts
are with the league rather than individual teams. The bubble of protection that
this provided to players by not having to worry about a team folding has long
been outweighed by the restrictive nature it has on movement between clubs and the
effect it has on salary negotiations.
Without
going into the details as to why this is an integral part of the league
structure – a structure that every MLS owner bought into as a major selling
point of their multi-million dollar investment – which is a whole different
discussion, just know that this Single Entity structure is something that is as
much a part of what the owners purchased as that it is a soccer league. To
really understand the nature of these negotiations, you have to let that sink
in. The league structure is as important to the owners as is the fact that the
league plays soccer. That might be a moderate over-statement, but I don’t think
by much. And I definitely can say this – the vast majority of owners would not
have bought into MLS had it not been for the SE structure. Simply look at the
explosion of ownership that happened after the original players’ lawsuit
(Frazer v. MLS) was finally resolved.
So
you have a very real problem. The SE structure was implemented specifically to
disallow free agency(*). And there are legal reasons for ownership not agreeing
to it as the original Frazer ruling was not a 100% endorsement that MLS was a
true single entity, and the league has done things to erode even that status.
Adding any significant Free Agency would possibly be the straw that broke the
camel’s back, opening the league up to another players’ lawsuit that would have
a much better chance of succeeding.
The
good news, for those wanting games this weekend, is both sides seem to have
given enough on this point that a middle ground is at least possible. Word from
the Washington Post and ESPN is that the owners have offered a severely
restricted form of free agency, and by a variety of actions, the players have
shown that they know true free agency is not possible at this point. Or, at
least they are willing to acknowledge that what it would take to force free
agency on the league would be too costly to all parties.
Is
a strike over this still possible? Absolutely. If the owners stay on their current
offer on free agency – which is so extreme that I am struggling to think of any
player that might qualify for it – then that might be a piece of a puzzle that
adds up to a strike for the players. But considering the legal risks the owners
are taking by making the offer, I don’t see them taking that step without
following through.
Length of the CBA
I
will admit that I was surprised to read that the current offer from the owners
is an eight year deal. For a variety of reasons, this seems a unique time to
offer something different than the five year deals that the players and owners
have entered into the last two times. With all of the new money coming into the
league, including the massive upgrade in television money and handful of
expansion teams paying the largest fees ever seen for an MLS club, it seems
like both sides would want to at most do another five years so that the new
financial landscape could be understood and not be stuck with it for too long
if it is unfair to either side.
Is
a strike over this issue alone possible? I think it unlikely. If they negotiate
the other issues, I think it unlikely that the owners will stick to their guns
on this lone issue. If they don’t negotiate the other issues, that is its own
problem.
Salary Cap Increase
This,
to me, is the most practical and most important issue on the table. While I am
not necessarily a fan of paying a player making $100,000 a year $200,000 a year
just because you have the money, part of the reason MLS player salaries are
where they are have to do with the lower divisions not offering competitive
contracts for middle and entry level players, which is not the players’ fault.
(**)
With
the new income coming to the league, there ought to be a more modest salary cap
increase, and it sounds like they just are not there yet. Because this is what
will affect the majority of the players the most, this is where the rubber
meets the road – this is the issue that will lead to a strike, if anything
will.
Again,
Free Agency is a concept that might apply to some players at certain times. For
the international players (both foreign players and US players good enough to
warrant money outside MLS), they already have free agency – play out their
contract. For the entry level players, the idea is remote and doesn’t directly
affect them. So those willing to vote for a strike on Free Agency alone is not
nearly as large as those who would be willing to strike because the salary cap
increase is not large enough in respect to the cash influx that will happen
over the next 4-8 years.
But
it is also a question of negotiating numbers. I would be very surprised to see
this become a large enough issue that the players strike over it, mostly
because the league is in position to give what the players could accept.
Bottom Line
This
is still labor negotiations – high stakes poker if there ever was such a thing.
A lockout or a strike – both are possible. But with the issues defined as they
are, it appears to me that a middle ground can be found on all three of the
major issues, and with so much at stake this weekend, that middle ground is
likely to be found.
So
keep watching Jeff Carlisle (@Jeffery Carlisle) and Steven Goff
(@SoccerInsider) as your main sources of raw intel, remember to breathe every
once in a while, and let’s see how things play out, but that is how this
Student of the Game sees things now.
___________________________________________________________
(*)
This was done, in part, because soccer players have a natural free agency
because soccer is a global market. It was mostly done, though, because of the
way the original North American Soccer League spent itself into non-existence.
The perception was that no one was going to invest millions of dollars into a
new sports league, for a new sport that as of 1993 not proven anything by way
of longevity or interest. This “Super Salary Cap” idea was a way to ensure that
something like that could not happen again. The question is at what point is
that safety net no longer necessary?
Others
have done a great job of detailing the legal ramifications of the league not
being considered a Single Entity, so I would encourage you to look for them.
The short version, though, is it would open the league to a lawsuit from the
players the likes of which that forced free agency in the NFL, MLB, etc. It’s a
big deal, especially if you look at how free agency has pushed up salaries for
those leagues.
(**)
The real problem the players face is that for the average US player, their
value outside the US is not large enough to pressure MLS to pay more. That is
simple economics. The nice thing, though, is as the US soccer population
improves, it is simply a matter of time before that dynamic will change. We
already see players go to play in Norway, etc., for more than they would get in
the US – even for fringe US national team players. And at that point, MLS will
have no choice but to pay to keep the US players they have worked so hard to
develop.
No comments:
Post a Comment