MLS Labor War of Words Begins

The elephant in the room is stirring, perhaps even stomping around a bit. Denial is no longer an option -- MLS labor discord is real, and the players filed the opening salvo this week with a claim that league owners are preparing to lock them out when the current collective bargaining agreement expires at the end of this month.

A source close to the players confirmed to FanHouse on Wednesday that the MLS Players Union has no intention to strike but that they consider the lockout threat to be real. It goes without saying that the loss of some or all of the season could potentially be devastating, especially in a World Cup year. As the 2009 season concluded, both sides remained aloof and mostly vague when asked questions about the CBA, as if a timely resolution was an inevitability and speculating otherwise would be a waste of time. The silence was almost deafening. Now with a little more than three weeks to go, that veneer has been shattered.

"Despite months of negotiations, the two sides have little progress on a new deal," said a statement released on the MLS players' behalf by FIFPro, the global organization of pro players associations and unions. "The league is now threatening to lock the players out on Feb. 1."

The MLS season is scheduled to kick off on March 25.

The FIFPro release then went on to detail the issues that are of particular importance to the players. The aforementioned source told FanHouse that issues of free agency and contract guarantees were as important to the athletes as securing salary increases. FIFPro argued that MLS's single entity system, which was challenged unsuccessfully in federal court in 2000, "differs substantially from other leagues around the world and violates FIFA regulations in several respects."

It argued that MLS "operates as a cartel" and complained that nearly 80% of player contracts are non-guaranteed, that one-year options may be exercised only by the league, that players can be traded or transferred within MLS without their consent and that, perhaps most importantly, players do not have the freedom to sign with another MLS club once their contract with their current team expires or is terminated.

Seattle Sounders goalie Kasey Keller said MLS "can't truly compete internationally, either for players or fans, with a system that is so radically different than other leagues around the world." In the same release, Landon Donovan warned that a lockout "would do real damange to the development of the game in the United States and to our efforts to prepare for South Africa. ... All we are asking for are the same rights enjoyed by other players around the world, not just in the biggest leagues, but in leagues of all sizes."

In a response sent to The Washington Post, MLS President Mark Abbot made it clear that the two sides aren't speaking the same language. He said the FIFPro release "contains many inaccuracies, including the false assertion that MLS is not compliant with the FIFA regulations" and said that mentioning a lockout "is premature and frankly counterproductive to our ongoing mutual commitment to reach an agreement."

He said "MLS owners created a structure that has provided stability and growth during the last 15 years while creating opportunity for the sport. We will continue to negotiate in good faith with the players regarding a new CBA."

Abbot's assertion that MLS isn't violating FIFA statutes gained some traction on Wednesday, when the governing body told the Associated Press that it has no intention to intervene at this point. "FIFA understands that this domestic issue is being resolved in accordance with U.S. labor laws and does not involve the U.S. Soccer Federation. FIFA will not interfere in the process. We have been assured that FIFA's regulations have been and will be respected."

If MLS does indeed have both FIFA and the courts on its side, and if the players are unwilling to entertain the possibility of a strike, it appears that management has the leverage. Since MLS was launched in 1995, the players have almost always demonstrated their understanding of the big picture (except for that lawsuit 10 years ago). They deserve enormous credit for that, and with some clubs floundering and a World Cup this summer, now is the wrong time to lose that focus.

At the same time, with a more diverse ownership group, more franchises on the way, new stadiums and the money-spinning events organized by MLS's Soccer United Marketing arm boosting the bottom line, MLS can afford to give a little. Salaries need to be higher, especially toward the bottom end of the league where there still are players making just $34,000 a year.

The Designated Player, if a club chooses to employ one, should not count for $400,000 against the cap (nearly 20% at the moment), if at all. That will free up money for other players and lead to some of the competition and differentiation between clubs the players demand. Let the individual owners make that decision. The source told FanHouse that the players want more transparency regarding salary cap rules and adherence. Give them that. They are not disputing the need for a cap. Spending a bit more money on salaries also will increase the quality of play, which should in turn, hopefully, drive more revenue. Trade liberalized movement within the league for a hold on guaranteed contracts, which are too onerous in a salary cap system. Everyone benefits a little.

MLS clubs have far more autonomy than they used to, and eventually, the millionaires running the league are going to want even more. It's inevitable. The players just have to wait a bit longer, and MLS needs to reward them for their patience. This shouldn't take a lockout to figure out. It shouldn't even take three weeks.