For all of the words spent trying to explain the MLS collective bargaining battle, be it the issue of free agency, how the players lack "basic rights", or why a prudent financial approach is either good or bad for the league, the entirety of the matter boils down to one question for me:


When is the right time for MLS to evolve past single entity?


Even if that's not really what's at stake.


Of course, you can't ask that question without establishing whether or not MLS owners (investors) even want to move past single entity; as has been rightly pointed out around the blogosphere, the league's structure gives its backers cost certainty in a business and sport that is notoriously risk heavy.


For the sake of simplicity, and so we can focus on the larger issue, let's put aside the wants and desires of the owners for now. It's a major part of any practical discussion of moving away from single-entity, but it has little to do with assessing when the right time might be for it to happen.


So when is/would be the right time? Is it now, heading into the fifteenth year of play, with brand new stadiums popping up, new clubs coming on board, and what seems like a high water mark in committed, passionate support?


Is it years down the road, when MLS will presumably have an even larger fan base, more dedicated venues, and a wider continental audience?


There is no easy answer. Depending on the landmark you choose to use as guide, MLS is either ready to "take the training wheels off" or needs to stay the course for now. If you believe that several successful clubs drawing packed houses for every home match is a turning point, you likely see the time as right for a shift. If you choose instead to view profitability of individual clubs as an key indicator, you might feel the league needs to remain locked down.


Which played-out adage do we ascribe to? "Slow and steady wins the race"? Or "You have to spend money to make money"? Conservative or progressive? Buy into the belief that MLS is on an upswing and needs a freer operations to take advantage, or look at the economic climate and relatively small revenue streams and preach caution? Rail at the powers that be for being stuffy bean counters, or praise them for having the foresight to create an American soccer league that has lasted fifteen years?


I'm amazed at those that are steadfast in their stances, on either side, and give the impression that the answers are simple or obvious. They sure don't seem to be to me.


At this point in the maturity of MLS, I have made only a few, very basic, conclusions when considering the way the league is run now and how it should be run in the future.


1. Single-entity just doesn't feel right.

When the league can sign a player itself and then "assign" that player to any team in the league (whether it happens that often anymore or not), it's a serious hindrance to individuality. We know it's there, it just takes some of the sting out of it when it's even possible for the league to move players around as they see fit.


2. Anything that threatens the viability of the league should be avoided.

Is free agency one of those things? I don't really know. Is single entity the only thing keeping the league from going under after years of losses? I doubt it, especially with SUM in the picture, but it's possible.


3. Unless by de-stabilizing the league financially, greater growth is actually possible.

And here's the problem; I get the sense that this may be the case, and that allowing MLS clubs to do their own thing might actually push the league forward. The problem is that the weakest clubs will always be on the verge of collapse, and investors who might be attracted to a league with lower risk (as it is now) would otherwise stay away.


4. Nothing is certain.

This is my biggest issue, and the one that overrides any briefly held opinion I might have. Risks are necessary, but knowing which ones to take, and when to take them, is often a matter of faith rather than reason. Smarter people than I are certain that MLS needs single entity and the borderline restraint of trade aspects it maintains to continue a growth pattern. Others, equally as smart, argue the opposite, saying the MLS should leverage it's success in certain markets to bring the league more in line with the rest of the world, something that will help it compete more globally for players and attention from fans here who view the league as a joke.


Again, let me be clear that these are my personal conclusions. I often find myself envying those who are more convinced of theirs, wondering why I can't just throw myself in with one side or the other.


I'm curious where the usually-thoughtful MFUSA readership falls, and would love to hear your opinions on if, and when, single entity should meet its demise.


If anyone can explain why a revenue sharing scheme and salary cap rules can't serve the same basic purpose as single entity, at least from a club viability standpoint, please step forward with that as well.