Galarcep gives a clue to the motives of the union
2010-02-24 09:22:00
When most people complain about MLS salaries being less than minimum wage, they're complaining about the developmental roster. However, it's long been my contention that the union won't go to bat for these players because it is more concerned with making sure there's big(ger) money for those on the senior roster, and more yet for those with the most seniority. Two days ago Ives Galarcep provided a clue that the veteran players not only aren't interested in fighting for raising developmental player salary, but actually feel their income is threatened by the relatively small amount of money spent on those spots: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
Go to the homepage, browse the archive by month, topic, league, international and college competition, or explore relevant keywords: