By now, you know the deal. We're doing our best to make all of the background behind the Collective Bargaining Agreement negotiations between the Players and the League super fun and super exciting! If you haven't already, please go back and read Part I: The Basics, and Part II: The Demands! You'll be glad you did possibly!
I don't even want to know how you think we're doing, because it would probably just depress us!
Today's topic: All of the legal and compliance concerns involved in the CBA mess (and there's a lot of it...sheesh!). Between anti-trust lawsuits and FIFA rules, there's enough stuff here to make your head spin right off!
Right to it then, with the legal aspects of the stand-off; while the decision referenced happened years ago, it still exerts influence (obviously!) over this round of CBA negotiations.
Fraser v. Major League Soccer
We're not lawyers around here, but what we do know is this case has something to do with the League's single-entity system. It seems that some players had a bit of a problem with the way the League operated (artificial wage restriction or some nunce; what is this, Russia?), and filed a lawsuit with their argument relying on the Sherman and Clayton Acts. The final resulting decision (after three courts heard the case! Think of the man hours!), which came from the First Circuit Court of Appeals, backed up the owners and cemented single-entity as a legal means of operation.
There's a lot of text in that document if you choose to read it, but I suggest you keep the Goody's Headache Powder on hand, because you might find yourself needing it before too long!
Rather than bore you with any of the details of Fraser v. Major League Soccer, just remember that the structure of the League has been declared legal by a US court; though the players don't like it, MLS is doing nothing outside the bounds of antitrust law. We know that the League doesn't operate like others around the world, and we know that fact rubs some people the wrong way. But because of the risky nature of investing in professional soccer in the United States, single-entity was seen by the League's founders and original investors as the best way to control costs and ensure long-term viability. Wowza! Sounds like some thought went into that thing!
Still, just because the League was given a free pass on single-entity by the courts doesn't mean that it's necessarily right that they restrict the players as they do. MLS players are people, too, dammit!
For a perspective on why single-entity is um...interesting, let's bring back our favorite fake rotund coach:
The whole thing was designed to avoid the anti-trust litigation that had plagued the NBA and NFL, in addition to providing some sort of centralized control and discussion over salaries to avoid an NASL-esque implosion. It's an arrangement that had been contemplated and talked about by many in the sports business word, but nobody had done it on the scale that MLS did.
Sorry to keep leaning on the big guy, but he's got a lot of stuff on this whole CBA nonsense! Hell, I'm almost tempted to tell you to go over there and learn instead of staying here and putting up with my inanity!
But that would just be insane!
So, according to FS, MLS was likely specifically designed to survive exactly the type of thing they faced with Fraser v. Major League Soccer. Funny how that worked out, huh?
Hi, I thought I'd talk to you in italics for a second, and in my whispery, all-knowing smart-guy voice because this part doesn't directly relate to the current CBA, but might have larger reaching ramifications for Major League Soccer. The National Football League is currently involved in its own antitrust litigation, one that has gone all the way to the Supreme Court. For background, read this piece on American Needle v. NFL. If the NFL is ruled to be 32 separate concerns rather than a single-entity, MLS might be facing another antitrust lawsuit in the future.
Back to our focus, a lawsuit involving MLS. Hooray!
Fraser v. Major League Soccer served not only to validate the League's single entity model, it also set the stage for the first, and soon to expire, CBA in MLS history. As Kyle McCarthy summed up recently:
The First Circuit held the fate of MLS' single-entity structure in its hands after the plaintiffs in Fraser v. Major League Soccer appealed a District Court ruling out of Boston that upheld it. The challenge failed again in the higher court, ensuring MLS could keep its single-entity and dictate the terms in the resulting CBA negotiations. The players are now furious with the cost and movement controls included in the pact, but the management-friendly deal played an important part in the league's growth during the decade by limiting overhead. MLS' willingness to back off some of the more restrictive provisions of that deal in the new CBA agreement will dictate how the next decade begins.
Four plus years later, and the players are clearly frustrated with the restrictions imposed by the League and solidified by the court ruling and the expiring CBA. Stupid old judges stole their mojo! Because they already lost the legal battle, their next course of action, and their strategy for this round of negotiations, involves pointing to FIFA laws and saying "YOU'RE DOING IT WRONG!".
__
Onward ho we go, to the compliance section (we're almost done! THANK JEEBUS!).
FIFA Compliance
FIFA has rules, or maybe their guidelines (who can tell with that cockamamie outfit?), for how leagues operating under their auspices are supposed to do things. They've even got all of them online in handy-dandy .PDF form (or not, depends on how you feel about .PDF); the ones of most interest to the Players in this little the-future-of-the-League-and-how-it-works-hangs-in-the-balance tête-à-tête are called the "Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players" (WARNING! WARNING! PAPA DELTA FOXTROT, er, PDF ALERT!).
The Players, and their international advocates FIFPro say that Major League Soccer violates the regulations on these points:
- Guaranteed Contracts
- Early termination of contracts
- Options in the League's favor
- Transfer to any club within the League without consent
Since I know you didn't read the relevant regulations (because really, why would you?) let's focus on a few of the articles believed to be in play here.
First is Article 13, which states:
A contract between a professional and a club may only be terminated upon expiry of the term of the contract or by mutual agreement.
Next, Article 16, which says something similar but, uh, not:
A contract cannot be unilaterally terminated during the course of a season.
Seems all nice a clear, like a a sunny day in Montana, right? Wrong! It's more like a Level 4 smog warning (I don't even know if smog warnings have levels, but whatever!) in LA! As a matter of fact, if we look deeper into the FIFA regs, which is quite possible the most mind-numbing activity anyone has every undertaken ever, we see this little nugget in Article 1:
Each association shall include in its regulations appropriate means to protect contractual stability, paying due respect to mandatory national law and collective bargaining agreements.
Wait, so does that mean that Articles 13 and 16 don't apply at all because they're superseded by "paying due respect to mandatory national law and collective bargaining agreements"?
Hmmm...
Don't look at me! You'll get no judgments here, I'm going to let you decide there skippy!
As for the the points FIFPro (whose actual pull as a player on the international soccer scene somewhat questionable) brings up, they were all conveniently addressed in a nice little piece by Soccer America's Ridge Mahoney. Check it out if you feel so inclined, it's almost an easy read considering the subject matter! Oy, my head!
Needless to say, there appears to be a bit (or a a veritable mountain) of gray area here! The Players say "GOTCHA!" the League says "OH NO YOU DON'T!"
Meanwhile, back at the Hall of Justice, I mean FIFA headquarters in Zurich, the powers that be in the world's governing body of the sport are taking a hands off approach. That's right, despite the Players protestations that MLS is breaking FIFA regulations by the bucket-load, Sepp Blatter and his boys are refusing to get involved.
The League, while not talking on any meaningful level throughout, have responded to the FIFPro release with this ruler-across-the-knuckles statement from MLS President and designated mouthpiece Mark Abbott:
"Any discussion about a lockout, players' strike or other work stoppage is premature and frankly counterproductive to our ongoing mutual commitment to reach an agreement."
Well then! Mark certainly sounds a lot like the Commish (The Soccer Don in the heezy!), who said something eerily similar way back in November. Maybe they're the same guy!
__
So, let me recap: The League has been through the legal wringer on the single-entity issue and come out smelling like roses (for the owners; I'm sure some of you will say it smells more like doody). The Players say the League is in violation of FIFA regulations, but FIFA is refusing to intervene. Without any possible sanctions, be they from government due to legal aspect, or from soccer's governing body due to compliance concerns, the Players are left with what amounts to a fight for rights and nothing more. Maybe. Damn gray area.
So really, in the end, it comes down to that: Do the players deserve the things they want, and do they deserve them right now?
What, you think I'm going to give you the answer? Pssh! I wouldn't even if I knew! Why the hell do you think we went through all of this nonsense? Three parts of word after word and exclamation point after exclamation point and you want me to think for you? No dice there bucko!
Now I send you on your merry way, satisified that I've done the best job I can to catch you up on the CBA negotiations in Major League Soccer. This series is by no means complete, and probably missed a few major points along the bumpy road. But I'm tired and my exclamation mark key is hanging by a thread (yes, I'm also having trouble typing the number "1"), so I'm out of here.
Toodles!
