Two issues, somewhat related, that I felt like expounding upon a bit today. The business of MLS is almost as important as the play on the field , and interests a lot of us (though I don't blame you if you don't care).
CBA Negotiations Opened "Recently" According to Garber
According to a Sports Business Journal report that I cannot link to because that site is subscription only (thanks to Jamie Trecker on Twitter for the heads up), MLS commissioner Don Garber has said that management has only recently opened negotiations with the players union on the new collective bargaining agreement.
The current CBA expires at the end of January 2010.
While the logical part of me understands that "make them sweat" is a solid negotiating tactic on the part of the league, especially in the current economic environment, I can't help be be a little disappointed. MLS has enough of a struggle ahead of it without any labor issues cropping up and ruining whatever momentum there may be. I had hoped "good faith" would trump "good business" in this situation, and that both sides would come to the table anxious to work out a deal that benefits everyone.
I tend to lean towards the players in this situation, generally because the numbers at the low end of the pay-scale are so ridiculous, and maybe that's coloring my reaction. The owners, as business men, absolutely have the right to pursue whatever course of action they believe will end with them getting a favorable agreement; but soccer in the US is not strong enough to handle a pure get-the-best-deal-you-can negotiation. That doesn't mean that the league should roll over, just that they must recognize that this CBA isn't just about business. It's also about projecting an image of MLS and proving to the fans that things are moving in the right direction (meaning salaries are going up, because we relate salaries to quality whether that's true or not).
Let's hope, despite the "late" start, that things go smoothly and that MLS works out a deal beneficial to the players yet capable of sustaining the league as a business.
The DP Rule Under the Microscope
Avoiding the Drop has a nice review of the Designated Player rule, one that has me wondering about the last line of the text as it is written in the MLS rulebook:
The Designated Player Rule allows the League to sign players (under the League’s single entity system) whose salary will fall outside of the team salary budget and whose cost above the salary budget charge will be the financial responsibility of the club for which they play. A Designated Player’s salary budget charge will be capped at $415,000 per annum in 2009, but his actual compensation is higher. Each team initially received one Designated Player slot, and clubs are allowed to trade Designated Player slots. However, no team can have more than two Designated Players. The Designated Player Rule is a three-year initiative that will conclude after the 2009 MLS season when its future will be reviewed.
Perhaps I'm alone, but I don't think I knew the rule would come up for review after this season. That may be due, in part (or in total), to the CBA expiring; reviewing the rule makes sense if you're not yet sure what the salary pool for non-DP players will be.
So is there any chance they'll repeal it? Doubtful. It would be awfully sticky to back out of those DP deals that already exists, and grandfathering them would only penalize teams that don't currently have DPs. Whether they actually would sign one is immaterial; the inability to do so wouldn't be fair, and we know that MLS is all about what's fair and creates parity.
I wouldn't care if they did repeal the rule and grandfather in the six contracts that exist, but I'm not MLS.
The only legitimate way to change the DP rule without creating a mess (again, it's doubtful they will) is to institute the "soft cap" for which some have lobbied. With the soft cap set at a predertermined salary pool contribution, and then augmented by an additional amount the clubs could spend out of their own pockets, nothing would need to change. The DP rule would go away, teams would have more freedom to sign players, and everyone would be happy.
Or at least I would.
