MLS Labor Dispute

“What’s most disappointing to me is, this isn’t a negotiation for a bunch of players wanting 8 million a year instead of 7 million a year. The main points revolve around us being given the same rights under FIFA as the rest of the players around the world. As an MLS player you have to sign away your FIFA rights before you are allowed to sign your contract. We would like a moderate rise in the salary cap, but the major points for the players are: guaranteed contracts, free agency, and the right to negotiate with other MLS teams. These are some of the basic rights the players in all the other leagues around the world have that we have to sign away. With the huge strides MLS has made since the last CBA this seems very reasonable.”

- Kasey Keller, goalkeeper - Seattle Sounders FC (excerpted from his website)



“Those who believe that we're ready now to start thinking about increasing spending don't believe that it's something that will pay off in the short term. There's a view that perhaps it will pay off in the long term, and there's no guarantee that will happen whatsoever. My role is to ensure that we make good decisions. And this is important: At no point does any owner believe we should make any decisions about spending more money while we're in collective bargaining. It makes absolutely no sense to have anybody think we would be willing to do that.”

- Don Garber, MLS Commissioner (excerpted from a 11/19/2009 interview with Sport’s Illustrated’s Grant Wahl)




Presumed demands of labor:

Guaranteed contracts, true free agency, increase of minimum salary



Presumed demands of management:

5 year CBA, and ?





It seems the true question here is whether or not MLS wants to truly professionalize soccer in America.

Having a high number of players making between $12,900 and $34,000 isn’t true professionalism.

There must be some compromise that can be struck between MLS management and labor that will still ensure a reasonable amount of cost certainty for the league ownership, while affording MLS a chance to experience growth as a legitimate professional sports league.

There is a lot at stake. Large investments in club facilities have been made. The stadiums in Frisco, TX, Sandy, UT, Columbus, OH, Carson, CA and Bridgeview, IL would lie empty, generating not nearly the revenue that they would without the performances of their principal tenants - clubs from MLS. Ownership would have to book a lot of concerts and tractor pulls to make up the difference.

If management is bluffing with a lockout, then it’s a poor bluff as everyone involved has so much at stake. Conversely, labor must be willing to make some concessions.

I don’t think that MLS can survive a lockout or a player’s strike of any length. If MLS were to collapse over this labor dispute, I imagine the players would pursue opportunities in the USL, NASL, and options abroad.

Without full financial transparency, I don’t see how it’s possible for any meaningful agreement to be struck between the two sides. With financial transparency, perhaps the sides could agree to a floating salary cap based on revenues from the season before.

The demands for guaranteed contracts and true free agency seem like reasonable ones from the union. A minimum developmental salary of $30,000/year is reasonable. In return for these things, the union would concede to keeping the single-entity structure in place at least for the course of the 5 year CBA.

If a floating salary cap can be agreed upon, the owners must agree to have their books reviewed by an independent auditor at the conclusion of every season to assess the robustness of the league’s ability to pay salary while maintaining a reasonable profit margin for the different clubs. Of course if management is truly insincere, it wouldn’t matter how many independent auditors went over the MLS ledgers. There is always a way to cry poverty and say there isn’t enough money.

What happened to all the transfer money for Altidore, Dempsey, et. al?

If the franchise purchase price is $40 million, then doesn’t the expansion of Philadelphia, Portland, and Vancouver amount to $120 million in the league’s coffers?

What happened to the money? What has that money been earmarked for?

Too many questions and not enough answers in this debate, and not enough publicly disclosed information on the positions of the sides.

A child with a lemonade stand understands revenue in, product out. The problem is that MLS is not a child’s lemonade stand. It’s been 14 seasons now with the current single-entity system. Perhaps it’s time for things to become a little more flexible. Businesses succeed and fail all the time. Perhaps it’s time for the clubs of MLS to stand on their own. There would have to be revenue sharing and corporate sponsorship, but I think it could be done. Better football, more supporters, dollars in the pockets of everyone involved.