The MLS Players Union wants FIFA to rule on Major League Soccer contracts, and address what they see as a failure to comply with international rules. They've enlisted the help of the powerful players organization FIFPro in an attempt to force the governing body's hand. They appear to have the high ground on the matter, and I've yet to find anyone (save for the league itself) who believes that MLS contracts meet FIFA standards or adhere to the spirit of the rules as they exist.


I'm wondering, though, if we've really thought through a potential rebuking of MLS by FIFA?


FIFA, before FIFPro's strongly worded announcement that they would ask for a review of MLS contract policies, asserted that they would not get involved in the American labor agreement process. It was a blow to the players' leverage, of course, and unless the bosses in Zurich reverse themselves, effectively ends any chance the Union has of forcing MLS to make changes to the standard contract. The players may continue to push for guaranteed deals, but I can't see MLS relenting on that point without external pressure; perhaps it would serve the players better to move on to other concerns.


But what if FIFA had ruled that MLS contracts violated their policies? What would it take for the league to seriously considered alterations? And if they were forced to guarantee all contracts for the duration of the season, how would that affect their ability to do business?


Wild speculation has me wondering if that last question is at the heart of FIFA "hands off" decision; if Garber and Co. informed Blatter and Co. that guaranteeing contracts would seriously damage MLS on a level that might eventually lead to failure, than FIFA's decision was a pragmatic one. Despite the struggle of soccer to "break through" in the United States, the country remains a golden goose for football's governing body; another failed attempt (worse case scenario, but bear with me) at a professional league here would make it almost impossible for the World Cup to return. No World Cup means no 80,000+ stadiums packed with fans, it means no massive TV contract domestically, it means no leveraging of an already burgeoning American soccer fan base into the money producing machine everyone knows it can be.


The "right" thing for FIFA to do is to declare MLS in violation of the rules if in fact they are (leaving that to sharper legal minds). The "right" thing is for the players to get all of the rights their brethren receive around the world, no matter the handicap it might create for the game here. Unfortunately, the "right" thing might not be the "best" thing when it comes to the business of soccer in the United States; for all of the progress made, MLS is still always few poor seasons away from going under, and the heavier financial burden of guaranteed contracts could bring the abyss ever closer.


If teams are forced to pay players for the entire season no matter their roster status, how many are likely to hold on to players for no other reason than they can't justify the dead money? Roster rules don't allow for teams to add players and not drop others at the same time; if Player A is no long a fit, hasn't cut it, or suddenly become ineffective before July 1st (the current contract termination deadline), MLS teams would be forced to eat his salary if they chose to replace him. Needless to say that salary cap rules would need revamping as well, because clubs that did choose to drop players while adding others would still have the departed player's salary on their books. Would that count against the cap, or would dropped players who were guaranteed pay for the season be exempted?


Fixable problems, sure, but problems nonetheless. The cheapest of teams might find it in their best interest financially to hold on to ineffective players rather than add salary in the middle of the season. With overall quality of play an issue as it is, the way clubs handle a potential addition to their salary burden might only exasperate the problem.


This is a pragmatic view of the situation. By most evidence, MLS is in violation of FIFA guidelines, and the players are right to question their contracts. In a perfect world, one in which MLS is healthy to the point of supreme comfort, I'd back the players all the way. But while my heart is telling me the situation is unfair, at least by the letter of the law, my head tells me the league isn't ready for the change they want.

Taking stock of the MLS CBA negotiations is difficult, if only because it's almost impossible to determine if what is being said by each side is purely rhetoric or if it's an actual peek at bargaining table mindsets. If it's all rhetoric, then we can have hope as a fan base, knowing that both groups will likely back down from their current stances and find common ground by January 31st. If it's not rhetoric, if both Major League Soccer and the MLS Players Union want to stick to their hard lines, it might be a painful next two months.


The players, for their part, have made statements outlining their desire for concessions on the following points, going so far as to involve the international players group FIFPro on point one:

1. Guaranteed contracts
2. Free agency
3. Quality of life items


Management has pushed back hard on the first two, though it appears that they're amedable to working with the players on point three. Of course, quality of life items, meaning larger per diems, allowing charter flights, moving cost reimbursement, etc., aren't going to make headlines, nor decide the ultimate tenor of the new agreement. It's those first two issues, and the accompanying matter of FIFA compliance, that will have each side at the others throats.


For a more detailed look at the FIFA regulations and how they apply to MLS contracts, and possible ways by which the league can get around the compliance question, read Kyle McCarthy's piece at Goal.com. McCarthy delves into the minutiae of the FIFA regs, but sums up by pointing out that none of it matters as long as world football's governing body maintains its stance that it will not intervene.


Unfortunately, the bluster will surely continue, clouding over the matter and giving many MLS fans ulcers until the thing is worked out. With just over two months to go until the current CBA expires, it doesn't appear that the league and the players have made any real progress; when the players, prematurely in my mind, make noise about a strike, and management refuses to address a very real and very legitimate concern about their contracts, feathers are bound to be ruffled.


It's during negotiations like these, between two groups of people with intelligence and the supposed best interest of the game at heart, that we see adults act the most like children. The stubbornness we're seeing now, and the rhetoric flying back and forth, serves to not only create hard feelings at the negotiating table, thereby slowing down the process, it also saps any confidence the fan base has in the deal getting done.


I know that I don't feel very good about the chances of an agreement being reached by the expiration date, and while that doesn't necessarily mean that the 2010 season will be cancelled or delayed, it will certainly damage the leagues standing among soccer fans in the United States.

The international footballers union, FIFPro (Fédération Internationale Des Associations de Footballeurs Professionels) will lobby FIFA on behalf of MLS players, who maintain that the league's contract structure violates the rules of soccer's governing body.


This issue is at the heart of the current CBA negotiations, as the players have consistently voiced their displeasure in recent months with Major League Soccer's non-guaranteed contracts, ability to terminate contracts, and lack of free-agency. FIFPro's action now puts the league on notice that sweeping the problem under the rug will not be possible; despite vociferously maintaining that their contracts are FIFA-compliant, MLS now faces a public firestorm.


During Don Garber's State of the League conference call on the Monday prior to the MLS Cup Final, questions regarding the FIFA-compliance of MLS contracts were raised; Garber addressed them directly, claiming that "the players are wrong" in their belief that the league was skirting FIFA rules.


See my post on Garber's State of the League comments and the CBA for details on the FIFA rules in question.


FIFPro's weight is considerable, and the CBA negotiations now take on a new tenor with their approaching of FIFA. While there seemed to be some contentious feelings between MLS and the MLS Players Union, and some players had even raised the possibility of a strike, no overt signs had appeared that the process was not following the standard labor-negotiation path. If FIFA does choose to get involved, or decides to threaten MLS with revocation of their first division status, Don Garber & Co. will find themselves in a difficult position. No longer will the CBA situation be an internal problem, free of outside interference; worse yet, possible changes to the league's standard contracts might facilitate wholesale changes in the way they do business.


What response MLS has to this news will be extremely interesting; fighting FIFA, if the governing body chooses to come down on the league would probably not be a good idea.


*UPDATE* Sports Illustrated's Grant Wahl has more on this story, with FIFA responding that they will not interfere in the negotiations between the MLS Players Union and the league, calling it a "domestic matter". As Wahl states, it's a serious blow to the players, who cannot rely on pressure from FIFA to force the league's hand regarding several key issues.