So, MLS Players and Owners, Can You Act Like Grownups, Or Are We Heading for a Strike?

By: Laurie | December 13th, 2009

labor I think negotiations for the new CBA (Collective Bargaining Agreement) for the MLS Players Union so far can be summed up like this:

Union: We want better contracts.
Owners: No.
Union: Please?
Owners: No.
Union: Pretty please?
Owners: No.
Union: Fine. We’ll go get our big brother FIFPro.
Owners: Fine. Do it.
Union: Okay. We will.
Owners: Fine. Go ahead.
Union: Okay. We will.
Owners: Fine.
Union: Hey, FIFpro!
Owners: Crap.
FIFPro: You’re greedy and stingy and not in compliance with FIFA rules.
Owners: How dare you say we’re not in compliance?
FIFPro: You’re not.
Owners: Are so.
FIFPro: Are not.
Owners: Are so.
FIFPro: Are not.
Owners: Are so. Ask Daddy FIFA.
FIFA: Don’t make me come down there.

(Tell me I’m not the only person to think of five-year-olds on a playground whenever I read about a labor vs. management dispute.)

The current CBA expires on January 31 and owners and players are working hard to resolve issues. If by “working hard” we mean “trying to make sure the other side doesn’t get what they want.” Both sides are saying a strike is not imminent, yet, even as they’re also saying the two sides are far apart on a whole bunch of issues.

Interestingly, the biggest issues, or at least the ones getting the most press, do not seem to be about salaries. (This is interesting because the minimum salary in MLS is $20,100, and the average salary is less than $100,000 per player per year. Players in other leagues make that in one game.)

Instead, the players seem to be more interested in things like more post-contract freedom of movement in the league, and in guaranteed contracts — i.e., in making the teams responsible for the players’ salaries even when the player is cut from the team. (This is the way it’s done in other leagues.) Currently, MLS is responsible for a player’s full contract amount only if the player is on the roster after July 1 in a season that runs March-November. And in some cases, not even then.

The Players Union is not happy about this, particularly since it would appear to be in direct violation of FIFA’s Article 16. (Warning: the first thing you see when you click on the link will be a player’s butt. Don’t ask me. I have no idea. I’m guessing it’s a FIFA thing.):

16 Restriction on terminating a contract during the season
A contract cannot be unilaterally terminated during the course of a season.

Article 17 discusses things like the compensation teams should be paying players if the contract termination provision is violated.

The MLS ownership group is adamantly claiming that terminating players mid-season does not violate FIFA’s rules. (UPDATE: This is actually correct due to FIFA’s Article 3, which allows CBAs to supersede 16 and 17. This is discussed further in the comments.)

The Players Union is not happy that MLS is not following FIFAs rules/guidelines, and has brought in FIFpro, the representative organization for the rest of the world’s pro players, to help make their case. FIFpro has stated publicly that MLS is not in compliance with FIFA rules in this and other areas.

MLS Commish Don Garber and the ownership group were not happy about FIFpro involvement and stated with equal vehemence that MLS is so in compliance. Or maybe it was that they’re not in compliance, but so what? And then things devolved into something like this:

Union: You’re going to cost the US the chance to host World Cup in 2018 because you’re not following the rules!
Owners: No, you’re going to cost US the World Cup ’cause you’re such babies!
Union: You!
Owners: You!
Union: You!
Owners: YOUYOUYOUYOUYOUYOUYOUYOUYOU!!!!!!!

strike FIFA is not big on getting involved in intra-league squabbles over things like CBAs and has said that they’re not particularly interested in getting involved in this one. And the Players Union has allowed MLS to operate this way for the first 14 years of their existence, which does make it more difficult to claim they’re out of compliance now. Although MLS would seem to be compliant with the letter of the rules while completely violating their spirit.

Not something to be proud of, MLS.

And so the “bargaining” continues.

In defense of MLS, it’s important to keep in mind here that the league has stayed alive for its fourteen years through a strict tight-purse-strings, slow-growth policy. (For more on why they’ve done this, check out this post on the reasons for the collapse of the previous league, the NASL.) But things have been looking up for MLS recently with the Designated Player Rule (aka the Beckham Rule) and the inclusion of expansion teams in soccer-crazy cities like Toronto and Seattle, which have sold out every game. The success of hard-working expansion franchises may show that yes, soccer could be a success in the US, if only some of the lazier and/or less-committed longterm owners would get off their butts and work at it.

Or it could be a fluke of the markets chosen. There’s really no way to tell at this time.

The Players Union is hoping to take advantage of the positive developments to push management to make things better for the rank-and-file players. The owners see the growth as tenuous and don’t want to make too many concessions which might threaten what they’ve accomplished.

Worst case scenario for both sides, not to mention the fan? A strike, obviously, which would cost the league a lot of the momentum they’ve built up in the past few years.

Let’s hope they can become big boys before that happens.

Some Related Stories:

Category: MLS, World Football

« Wayne Rooney welcomed to the Hall of Shame | Home | The Best Way to Overcome Own Goal Trauma »

The Offside RSS Feeds

Laurie

Agree and disagree, Bill. Obviously FIFpro has no LEGAL leverage. But where they could help the player's union is in the court of public opinion (where CBAs can be won or lost) by drawing attention to how US players are treated relative to other players in the rest of the world. I know I wouldn't have gone to the FIFA site to try to figure out things like Articles 16 and 17 if not for FIFpro pointing me in that direction.

Whether you're management or labor, a lot of CBA success requires having the public behind you, and that's what the players seemed to be going for. Getting FIFpro involved was not a legal strategy; it was much more a PR move.

I'm hoping MLS will be able to get the union to sidestep the guaranteed salary issue (which really doesn't benefit the league as a whole) while perhaps giving in on some sort of limited free agency to keep talented players in the league. Because limited free agency under a salary cap?

Team 1: We'll pay him...$35,000!
Team 2: Oh, yeah? Well, we'll pay him...$35,100! And throw in a bus pass to the stadium!

And your statement about none of the players being worth more is a bit harsh, no? Wasn't one of the points of having a pro league in the US to create better players for the USMNT? We should not be losing promising players to freaking DENMARK! Shouldn't MLS be able to pay a Robbie Findley or a Stuart Holden or a Sacha Kljestan (or some of our more promising USMNT players who are riding the bench in Europe) something similar to what they'd make abroad to facilitate that? Or would you really rather see a league composed of players from other continents who are here only until they can catch the attention of European scouts?

I don't know about you, but the old restriction on foreign players felt too tight. Allowing more would feel too loose. What's in place now is the Mama Bear restrictions: it feels just right. And paying players enough that they don't have to take second and third jobs feels right too.
Bill Archer

Well, of course the first thing to understand is that nobody - and I mean nobody - cares what FIFPro says. They have no authority, no power.

And of course FIFA knows how MLS operates and has known it from Day One in 1996. Nothing has changed. The important thing to understand is that while USSF is responsible to FIFA, MLS is responsible to USSF, NOT FIFA. If USSF is satisfied that there's a way you can interpret the rules in order to clim compliance, they so inform FIFA. End of story.

In short, the entire "MLS violates FIFA regulations" tale, while interesting for the sake of discussion, certainly, is an absolute non-starter in terms of leverage for the Union at the bargaining table. Simply doesn't matter.

What the players really want is the ability to, at some point in their careers, make MLS teams bid against each other for their services. They want the ludicrous two year rights after a contract expires deal to go away, a not unreasonable request.

Beyond that, of course the cap is going up. In fact, one suspects that it would already be higher except that the owners held back so that they can give it over in the negotiations rather than giving it up for nothing.

But a cap budget of $2.8mm or $3mm or even $3.5mm isn't going make any of them actually WORTH more money. Soccer is a worldwide market, and most of these players are simply can not get more money, or even ANY money, anyplace else. Which of course is why they're here.

So at the end of the day the players want MLS to pay them more than they're worth and then maintain the rules that restrict the number of foreign players each team can have, thereby creating an artificial demand for their services and inflating their price.

It's a dangerous game. I hope tey have looked down the road to the natural conclusion.
Matt Johnston

Here is what I have been hearing: The Player's Union isn't necessarily looking for a big increase in the salary cap (this is a concession as far as I am concerned), but they are looking for a substantial increase in the minimum salary to what could be termed a living wage.

Let's assume that the salary cap for 2010 is $2.5 million. Let's also assume that your team has two designated players and further assume that under league rules $425,000 of that DP salary counts against the salary cap. That leaves $1,650,000 for the remaining 22 players of an MLS roster, which would average $75,000 per player. Now, of course, some salaries, such as Generate Addidas contracts don't count against the limit at all. Some players are worth more, much more, and some worth less. But there is no reason why MLS clubs can't play even a developmental player $40,000 a year--the man is a professional athlete after all--while he is not entitled to a six figure a week salary, he is entitled to make enough to not have to live in his parent's or teammate's basement. Last year, when a developmental player is making $17,000 a year as a college graduate, he could make more working for $10 an hour as a temp office worker. ($20,000 a year for 50 weeks a year).

The NFL has a big salary cap and a salary floor as well, something like 82% of the roster cap is the minimum team salary, which players also having a minimum salary. In teh NFL, a minimum veteran salary is $810,000 (with only a portion counting against the cap in certain circumstnnces).

The minimum salary for an NFL rookie in 2009 was $310,000, which on a salary cap of $128 million is 0.2% of the salary cap. So by comparison, a minimum MLS development salary of $17,000 on a cap of $2.3 million is 0.7% of the salary cap, which is a pretty small fraction. My proposal of a $40,000 salary on a cap of $2.5 million would come to 1.6% of salary cap. Now that is a big jump, I know, but $40,000 is just about 1/8th of a NFL rookie minimum.

If MLS wants to capture some young talent in America and keep them here to develop the MLS game and yes, make some money on transfer fees, then MLS needs to pay a better minimum salary.
Laurie

That would help explain it, Chapka, thanks. (What, you expect me to read all these long legal documents? I'm just the plucky comic relief.) :-D

So in other words, the union is apparently now saying that as of January 31, they are no longer going to let their CBA be the reason MLS is allowed to not follow the rules FIFA would like its members to follow.

I think above I said: "...a way to be compliant with the letter of the rules while completely violating their spirit. Not something to be proud of, MLS."

Still holds.

I do think it's interesting that guaranteed contracts is one of the main rules the union seems to be focusing on, since it directly affects money under the salary cap in a big way and would make the team less likely to pay big salaries to players they're not 100% sure will work out because they'll be responsible for the full salary.

If I were the union, I'd be willing to jettison this (or to settle for MLS being required to guarantee ALL salaries on July 2, or require only limited compensation) and use the rest as a bargaining chip to get at least limited free agency, which would be beneficial for the league in the long run by allowing it to keep more of its players in the league. But that's just me.

I'm dying to see how this ends up.
Chapka

If you want to know how MLS can be in compliance despite the language of Rule 16, read Rule 3 of the same document. It reads--and I'm paraphrasing here.

3a. You actually have to follow rules 2-8, 10, 11, 18, and 19.

3b. You really should think about the other rules, but if you have a collective bargaining agreement or funny labor laws in your country, then you can pretty much ignore them.
DM

Hahaha! I lol'd while I learn'd. Excellent post, Laurie.
CarlosT

IANALBMWIBSIALL (I am not a lawyer, but my wife is but she's not a labor lawyer), and we were chatting about this a little bit. My sense was that the Players' Union's past silence about MLS' alleged non-compliance wouldn't be a defense for the Owners against having to be compliant now and she confirmed that that is generally the case, but there are also a lot of factors that could go into something like that and since this isn't her area of expertise, she can't say for sure one way or the other.

I think it'll come down to who has more influence with FIFA and I'd have to go with the owners on that score. What I hope is they realize a lot of the things the players are asking for will be good for the league in the long run, and if the owners get their way completely, the league will struggle to avoid stagnation.
Laurie

“Hmmmm,” there’s no way to tell. The MLS ownership group never makes any figures public because they don’t have to. The only numbers available to the public come from the MLS Players Union, which voted unanimously to make all salaries public starting in 2007. Best guess for the salary cap in 2007 was about $2.1m. Best guess in 2009 is $2.3m. Salary figures for the last three years are here: http://www.mlsplayers.org/sala...

Adam, 75% of my sympathy is actually with the players. But if they were to get everything they’re asking for, the chances of a NASL-style collapse would increase substantially. I’m hoping they know how to pick their issues.

I’m also hoping that the MLS ownership group realizes that it’s the end of an era, and that now they’ll be expected to deliver the goods in a Seattlesque, Torontoesque way to come up with the revenues necessary to treat the players decently. “We’re not a succer country” doesn’t cut it any more. They should no longer be able to use that as an excuse for poor performance.

I think it was a brilliant move to go to FIFpro and to allow FIFpro to point out the ways that MLS in not in compliance with FIFA statutes. MLS is worried that it’s a brilliant move too, as evidenced by how angry it made the ownership group. Where I think the Players Union acted childishly was in implying that MLS was risking its World Cup bid by not being FIFA-compliant. I seriously doubt that Sepp & Co will take that into consideration. Or they wouldn't have if MLSPU hadn't brought it up, in which case, thanks a lot, MLSPU.
Adam

Yeah, childish players, wanting to make enough to pay rent AND buy food.
Hmmmm

Is there any public data about how far players' salaries have come? It seems that the cap has already come up a fair amount in the past few years. Not bad for the players during a global recession.
Theo

you're not the only person to think of five year-old on a playground whenever you read about a labour vs. management dispute.