Seattle Sounders FC player rep James Riley said the union wants the teams, not the League, to negotiate player contracts. The union also wants more guaranteed contracts and free agency after contracts expire. I’ll bolden my prediction by guessing that a CBA is not achieved until at least April, meaning that for the first time, MLS games will be missed due to a work stoppage. The fact that the differences are philosophical and not financial means this could be a long one. It’s one thing to compromise on dollars, it’s another to compromise on philosophy.
And it's another thing entirely to compromise on an established business entity, which is what the players would be asking by having clubs negotiate contracts. Free agency at the end of contracts aside, I don't think there's any way the union gets this.
Let me spell it out, keeping in mind that I'm only speculating as to the union's overall strategy on this point and am not putting forth any kind of legal opinion: Having the individual clubs negotiate contracts could weaken the claim that MLS is a single entity that can act unilaterally to reduce competition under the Sherman Act. As such, the players are toying in a very real way with cutting out the heart MLS and using the change in situation to remove the barriers to taking the league back to court. Even though the appeal of Fraser vs. Major League Soccer was not necessarily won or lost on that point, conceding this issue is something the owners simply would not allow. They couldn't allow it as it would potentially destroy the league.
It's more than a philosophical difference, it's an attempt to poison single entity before killing it off completely, with lots of turmoil in the interm. If the union would strike or force a lockout over this specific issue, they have totally lost their grip on reality.
-FS
5 comments:
F.S.,
In light of your recent posts, I thought I would ask, have you read about this Supreme Court case? It would seem at first glance that the decision will have ramifications on any future MLS CBA.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/07/sports/football/07needle.html?ref=sports
Isn't it possible that both sides in the new MLS CBA are negotiating with the thought in mind that, whatever the outcome, the entire agreement may be made moot in six or so months once the SCOTUS rules?
I should add... particularly if the SCOTUS rules against the NFL's single entity status, it would completely delegitimize the MLS business model. But if they uphold the lower court's ruling in favor of the NFL, MLS will be have an ace up its sleeve that it may not be able to play if the CBA is finalized before the court decision is unveiled. I would think that the owners have one more major reason not to be in a hurry to get a deal done, while the players are kidding themselves that they can have any real influence on the existence of a single entity MLS at this time.
I just saw that case yesterday in the comments of Beau's post.
I would say a couple things. First, even if both MLS sides do have an eye on the case, it's really impossible to know what the court's ruling will be. Judging from the article, most people suspect the ruling that the NFL can act as a single entity for merchandising, licensing and/or some limited purposes will be upheld. Of course, the NFL wants much broader recognition to end all the anti-trust lawsuits it's had to deal with over the years.
Given the current court configuration, I would be absolutely astounded if we saw a decision that was so far reaching that it threatened major portions of the MLS CBA. It's just not likely at all.
Second, even if the ruling says the NFL can't act as a single entity for X purpose, it won't really have an impact on MLS, because MLS is organized *as* a single entity. It doesn't have to get court recognition to act like one because it already is one. I will add that the appeals court in Fraser v. MLS wasn't totally sold on that, but MLS is in a much better position than the NFL in that regard.
I agree that if the outcome goes against American Needle in a big way the MLS players union will be SOL on the reopening litigation issue on the Sherman Act theory. But they've got to go forward assuming the best potential scenario for them because nobody really has any idea what the ruling will be.
And there was an espn article a while back that said the ruling would leave strikes as the only leverage of the pro sports unions, but I think we're more or less at that point with MLS as it is, which is why you see the behavior you do from the players.
-FS
A key difference between MLS and NFL for anti-trust purposes is the massive number of and free movement to international soccer leagues. This outside competition minimizes anti-competitive effects even if there is a "cabal". MLS won't guarantee contracts beyond 18 months and a Scandinavian team will? The player is free to sign in Scandinavia.
So, I don't think the movement of power out to individual teams would ultimately change the legality of the MLS structure.
Those are points and explanations, and they are good and they are wise.
Thanks F.S and L.D.
Post a Comment