I wasn't going to bother with the Columbus Dispatch, but this is too much

It's kind of sad, really. A dying, crumbling edifice with one good man to its name, smells something like an enemy at its gate and trots out its most able combatant. Problem is, the combatant is a tottering 60-year-old way past his prime, a fresh-faced teenager who knows nothing of the world, let alone combat, or a green recruit without any of the requisite battle experience to succeed.

So it is with the Columbus Dispatch. If Shawn Mitchell is Hector, then columnists Michael Arace and Bob Hunter are no Ajax and Achilles in this mess.

You know, if you're going to make the case for the players, that's fine. Really, it is. I think in this labor dispute you'd probably be wrong, but if you're going to carry the water for a bunch of guys who can't carry it themselves (as they've proven time and time again) then at least do it well.

I'll admit to being a little hacked off right now. Did they do any research at all? Or did they just throw something together on deadline because OSU football players weren't shooting themselves up with steroids this week or the Columbus Blue Jackets weren't whining about a tax payer bailout?

Anyway, let's start with Bob Hunter's piece from a couple weeks back. And yes, I'm line-by-lining (most of) this:

When Columbus first went after its Major League Soccer franchise, it seemed like a colossal waste of time. Lots of pro leagues had come and gone in the 1980s and '90s, including the three major soccer leagues, and it struck me that even if the local team were wildly successful, MLS might not last five years.

Which makes you a freaking visionary.

I was wrong. Because of the single-entity concept, MLS was able to keep salaries down and control costs. Because of committed, deep-pocketed owners such as the Hunts, MLS was able stay the course, achieve its goal of smaller, soccer-specific stadiums and grow.

And now I'll bet you want to undo all of that, huh?

But it has been 15 years now, MLS is no longer the little tyke it once was and it's time to act like a grown-up.

Free agency isn't the same thing as temporary permit, Bob. Nor is it the inevitable end of history, you Marxist twat.

That doesn't mean throwing around money like the owner of a Major League Baseball franchise; it means loosening things a bit and giving players some rights.

Back to the non-existent player rights thing again, huh? Maybe you should ask Kevin Hartman about that.

With MLS having made hugely successful expansion forays into Seattle and Toronto, with Vancouver and Portland and maybe even Montreal on the way, the woe-is-us, survival argument no longer holds water.

Actually, Bob, no one is making that argument. It's more about what's best for the league going forward. Garber:

We've got to make decisions that will ensure the long-term financial success of the MLS, and I'm sure we will not make any decisions to prove a point.

Mark Abbott:

The players have an opposite view, but our view is that [free agency is] not something that is good for the continued growth and development of the league.

Since "the league won't survive with free agency" is a favorite strawman of those who want more spending on players, I read back through my stuff to see if I'd ever said made that claim. The closest thing I came up with was that MLS was created with the express purpose of avoiding an NASL-type implosion, but I couldn't find anywhere where I said that free agency would lead to such a thing at the present moment. Free agency does open up a whole other box of issues related to single entity, in addition to being of questionable benefit to the level of play, so while it wouldn't bring down the league, it would introduce a lot of structural questions and financial uncertainty that MLS wants to avoid. That is what I read in Garber's and Abbott's statements. Maybe the distinction is too subtle for Bob Hunter, but I think he's being lazy and dishonest when he regurgitates an obvious straw man argument. Anyway, back to Hunter's piece:

This is a league on the move and the players should be given the chance to share in the coming prosperity.

The are given a chance. It's called a paycheck. And in case you didn't notice, attendance was still down across the board even with Seattle in the fold. The prosperity is coming, but it took a year off.

That doesn't mean giving the players the right to free agency; most of us may never live to see that happen in a league founded on principles of strict economy. If those are their demands, rich owners with extensive interests such as the Hunts and Krafts could easily kiss pro soccer goodbye.

Um, ok. So what is your point exactly?

The players want teams to have more autonomy in player acquisition

Although there are aspects to this that would be a good idea (like introducing controls to prevent a player like Pat Noonan from getting screwed over even when another team wants his rights), it's not going to happen the way the players want things structured.

Most players have contracts that aren't guaranteed . . .

The league has offered movement on this issue.

Clubs hold one-way club options

Ditto.

If a player is released or his contract expires, his former team keeps the rights to him

You're getting warmer.

But it seems that MLS could easily give in on the last three and move past this.

Right, progress is being made on *at least* two and . . .

It isn't happening, though.

Um, what?

But it looks like a strike is coming at some point . . .

. . . .

A better course would be to accept an important update to its original goal:

Sometimes you have to adapt to survive.

Despite making the claim that a strike would hurt the league, have you provided any evidence that MLS would be killed off, other than you think soccer leagues are inherently unstable and a waste of time? No, you did not. This is why you fail.

Or, more concisely, MLS does not in fact face the choice of free-agency or death. If it did, players would be switching teams today.

Now let's take a quick look at Michael Arace's cracked out piece from today, the one that put me over the edge:

By and large, Major League Soccer players do without mansions, entourages and Bugatti Veyrons. Their median salary is $88,000.

I guess they have to do with Cadillacs and Mitchell's Steakhouse, huh?

Many young American players in MLS make $33,000 or less. And their job security is zero.

Probably similar to your job, I'd guess.

For 15 years, the forward-thinking people who founded MLS have used this system of relatively cheap labor to grow their game.

Even though those "forward-thinking people" have been proven right, I bet you're going to turn around and say they're wrong now, aren't you?

Reportedly, the league is approaching overall profitability. Recent expansion efforts have proved wildly successful, and there is more to come. The league has a growing list of television deals: ESPN, Univision, Fox Soccer Channel, Direct Kick.

I'm not sure Direct Kick qualifies as a "deal". I think it's just supported by subscription to get the games out there as opposed to generating any real revenue from advertisers. As for ESPN, yeesh.

Your father's MLS is gone, but your great-grandfather's bosses remain.

Ding! Those forward-thinking people are now nothing more than robber barons, forcing the players to slave away at 14-hour a day jobs, six days a week, with an average salary that approaches six figures, while the league as a whole inches ever closer to turning a profit for the first time in almost two decades. Oh, the humanity!

Let us hope the mediator - George C. Cohen, director of the Federal Mediation and Conciliation service and a labor negotiator of vast experience - can nudge the two sides together. If he can't, a strike is inevitable.

Get your terms right, Michael, it's "work stoppage forced by the owners." No one strikes anymore, I mean, that's just like, the rules of feminism.

Management's claim is that any form of free agency will destroy the league - or at least kill smaller-market teams such as the Crew.

Again, where are you getting this? Where did an MLS executive take this tack, in public, in these negotiations? I keep the comments open for a reason, you're welcome to stop by and send me a link. In fact, please do.

And there are ways for promoting parity (luxury tax, anyone?).

Right, because forcing owners to spend even more money on a league which is apparently not profitable is a great idea. Nevermind that it hasn't worked all that great in MLB or the NBA. Did the fifth graders who were smarter than you give you that one?

Would Paul Allen buy a team for Seattle with the thought that MLS finances would implode a year later?

He probably expected that there would be some kind of cost controls, huh? Arace is arguing against himself at this point, I should just put the keyboard down.

"Since management is refusing to show their financial statements, one must take a logical look at this," Crew player Brian Carroll said. "Whether they're making money or losing money, one thing is for sure, they're definitely growing."

Yes, they are. They're growing like an investment bank on the backs of their players.

Growing and giving more jobs to more American players who make more money, no? And since you made that investment bank comment, surely this is about the money, right?

The union isn't asking for a bigger cut of the pie. It wants a system that is more just. Here's hoping Mr. Cohen can work something out, because, if he doesn't, the players will strike, and they will be morally correct to do so.

Oh. Um, good luck with that moral strike, let me know how it works out.

-FS