Consider this off-season, which saw the largest-ever Generation adidas rookie class. MLS devoted a record amount of salary to landing this year's crop of top draft talent, which on its face is a promising sign, but when that comes in the same off-season where some of the best players to ever play in MLS [Ed. - A reference to Kevin Hartman and Dave van den Bergh] are being squeezed out of jobs, you can understand why the union feels so strongly about wanting a stronger CBA in place to help protect them.
Does this mean MLS shouldn't spend money to attract top young talent to MLS? No, but it does offer evidence that perhaps some changes need to be made so that top veterans are paid what they deserve.
Ives then goes into a long discussion about how free agency would help drive up the salaries of those veteran players (much like Sirk and Kuenle discussed a couple days ago] while presumably, leaving less of the MLS pie for younger players, Generation adidas, and developmental spots:
As far as I can tell, at worst, it would force ALL teams to start getting serious about paying top talent, and just might help keep some of the talent that is leaving year after year.
Galarcep concludes:
Veterans like those deserve better, which is ultimately what is driving the players union. It isn't about the money [Ed. Bullshit], because the increases being discussed are marginal, but rather about the options that players, particularly the veteran players on whose backs the league was built on, can have as the league changes and grows. One veteran player said it best when he told me, "If players like Kevin Hartman and Steve Ralston, two of the best players to ever play in the league, are treated this way, what is going to stop the league from treating any of us the same way."
In a nutshell, this is the problem I have with the union. Here it is, in black and white from Galarcep, who appears in this instance to have spoken to some players, the admission that the union strategy is all about protecting those who have made the most money. Given the amount of discussion about Luis Gil getting to a team in the West, it sure sounds like there's some sour grapes among the veterans out there who don't have a whole lot of leverage - even though, again, they've been making bank for a few years now.
The point is, the union's stance in all this is hardly egalitarian. It's also probably why the union's not talking about Nelson Akwari's story. Why it's not talking about Eric Brunner. Why it's not even talking about Stuart Holden. And the fact that the union is posturing that it will go to the wall, that it will try to cripple the league, for something that will benefit the guys already making $150,000 a year, is where I think they've totally lost the plot.
So let me ask this - when the union's strategy is based solely on protecting the domestic veterans, how is it going to convince developmental players and younger guys to honor a strike? Guys who would have their golden chance to make it if a whole bunch of roster spots opened up? The union can tell these guys that it's fighting for when they're old, established players, but how reassuring is that to the guy making $20,000 and barely holding onto a developmental slot, or a guy in the last year of a Generation adidas deal, when the person playing in front of them wants free agency so he can keep his spot in the team and make even more money doing it? And why should the veterans take money away from Generation adidas, which is almost the only way young players can make a decent amount of bank when they enter MLS?
It will be very interesting to see if the union can maintain solidarity with its strategy. And maybe it offers an opening to the league. If MLS can explain the overall impact of free agency a little better to the rank and file:
"Frankly, the league's explanation on free agency has been kind of confusing to all of us," said one player representative, who asked not to be identified. "With the salary cap, it's not as if they can pay everyone $200,000."
then maybe it could cut out the heart of this labor unrest and settle things down.
-FS
4 comments:
Great point, Figi.
If it's about scraping up another 40k for the players in the top end, this strike is going to see scabs all over. I for one don't give a crap about 200k players more than 50k players. To me, they're all the same.
DPs are pretty cool to watch, but there's very little difference player to player in most occasions. If this bargaining doesn't help those lower end players, the PU will lose all of its support.
Let me say this - I probably should have stated this in the original post - the union's going to argue that if you raise the salary for the top end, a rising tide will lift all boats. Perhaps that will be persuasive, and perhaps that will turn out to be true. But judging by Ives' post, I think the union is aware of the finite financial resources that are available to the owners, and that makes it much harder to make that argument with a straight face. Doesn't mean they can't try.
-FS
I don't have a crystal ball, but at some point management will slide its "last, best and final" offer across the table. The union will put it to a vote. Depending on what MLSPU's constitution provides, the contract vote could be the same as a strike vote (e.g., 2/3 of total membership voting against the contract = strike authorization). I haven't seen, and I'd be interested to know, what vote is required for a strike. Regardless, each MLSPU member will think about his own self interest in casting the vote.
Both management and the union will be counting votes, and tailoring their rhetoric accordingly. If the lower paid guys make up enough votes to defeat a strike, you bet management will be explaining their position to them.
What's to keep developmental players from crossing a line? If MLB can be any example, I think teams will keep prospects out of this mess. That and the threat of Dema Kovalenko breaking a knee when the strike ends. But the fringe guys and imports who are here for a year or two might cross. I hope we don't get there, even if there is a strike.
And a "rising tide" disproportionately assists those with a larger share already.
This thinking scares me.
Post a Comment