Navigation

It seems that the issue of "Player's Rights" is at the center of the impasse between the MLS owners and the Players Union. In particular, the right right to free movement when a contract expires or the club fails to pick up an option, or even waives a player. Neither side seems ready to compromise on this issue, leaving some uncertainty around the 2010 MLS season.

Nobody wins in the event of a work stoppage, so it is beneficial for both sides to reach an agreement. My proposal is probably not earth-shattering, or even something that hasn't been considered in pieces already. But it is reasonable and requires some concessions from both sides.

This analysis is simplified and I am surely not privy to any of the real discussions, nor am I experienced in labor law. This is simply from the perspective of a fan who wants both sides to find a middle ground.

The owners have said that they need to keep clubs from competing against each other for players in a free market in order to avoid the excesses past professional leagues and to continue the steady growth of the league. The players feel that they should be able to be free to sign with any club when they are out of contract, without the new club being forced to compensate the former club.

I propose the following solution:

1. Waived players. Players waived by their current clubs are made available, at their current contract, to all MLS teams through a waiver draft taking place no more than 7 calendar days after the player is waived. Players chosen through this draft must remain on the claiming club's roster through the next MLS Cup. Any players not chosen through the draft become immediate free agents, inside and outside MLS.

Additionally, team rosters will increase by 2 senior domestic players on July 15 each season and may be filled by any club having the salary budget to do so. Playoff rosters will be limited to 23 players specified before the playoffs begin.

This, I believe, is not too different from the current situation. It seems to favor the players, but the owners will have a hard time justifying keeping a player under the control of a club that does not want him. Adding the 2 additional roster spots creates positions for players waived during the season and should placate that player concern to some degree.

2. Option declined by club. If a club declines to pick up an option year on a contract, the club will have an exclusive 14-day window in which to renegotiate with the player. If, after the 14-day period, no agreement has been reached on a new contract, the player may become an unrestricted free agent if the average yearly guaranteed salary of the proposed new contract does not equal 85% or greater of the guaranteed money of the declined option year. So, if a club declines the option on a player due to make $100,000 in an option year, then fails to offer a contract averaging at least $85,000 per year, the player then becomes a free agent if he is not willing to accept the new offer within the 14-day window.

If the club does offer a sufficient contract, as described above, and the player does not accept, the player becomes a restricted free agent within MLS. Any club signing such a player will be required to pay the former club a fee (allocation money) equaling 10% of the guaranteed salary of the option year. The former club will have the option to match any offer averaging 95% or greater of the guaranteed money of the declined option year.

This proposal splits the power a little more evenly, but still weighs toward the players on the money side. The owners get to keep the escape valve of the club option years, but are limited with how much they can control a player without losing his rights. This requires a healthy compromise from both sides and is reasonable.

3. Player contract expires. If a player allows his contract to expire, he may become an unrestricted free agent in MLS providing he has 5 years of MLS service, or is at least 29 years of age on the date the contract expires.

Any player whose contract expires and who does not meet the requirements to become an unrestricted free agent, as outlined above, will become a restricted free agent under certain conditions. The club must present, before the contract expires, a contract averaging yearly at least 85% of the guaranteed money of the final year of the expiring contract. The restrictions placed on the free agency of the player will be determined by the average yearly guaranteed value of the club's proposed new contract in comparison to the final year of the expiring contract, as described below.

• 85%-99% Any MLS team wishing to sign the player must compensate the former club with allocation money totaling 10% of the average yearly guaranteed money of the former club's proposed contract. If the final year of the expiring contract, or the first year of the proposed contract, guaranteed at least $100,000, the new team must also compensate the former club with a 4th round draft choice. If the club is not compensated for the player's rights, they continue to hold those MLS rights for 1 calendar year.
• 100%-114% Any MLS team wishing to sign the player must compensate the former club with allocation money totaling 20% of the average yearly guaranteed money of the former club's proposed contract. If the final year of the expiring contract, or the first year of the proposed contract, guaranteed at least $100,000, the new team must also compensate the former club with a 3rd round draft choice. If the club is not compensated for the player's rights, they continue to hold those MLS rights for 2 calendar years.
• 115% or more Any MLS team wishing to sign the player must compensate the former club with allocation money totaling 30% of the average yearly guaranteed money of the former club's proposed contract. If the final year of the expiring contract, or the first year of the proposed contract, guaranteed at least $100,000, the new team must also compensate the former club with a 2nd round draft choice. If the club is not compensated for the player's rights, they continue to hold those MLS rights for 3 calendar years.

This, too, splits the power of both parties. Players can move freely if they reach certain marks of service or age, or if the previous club does not offer a "reasonable" contract. Clubs that cannot reach agreement with expiring players, can retain some rights to compensation if they make "reasonable" offers, with more "reasonable" offers earning more compensation. The players benefit from the compensation being dictated and non-negotiable, limiting the former club's ability to hold a player hostage.

The players will not be getting their complete rights of free movement, as they define them, but they will be getting considerable concessions from the owners and well-defined framework with which to work. They also gain increased leverage in contract negotiations.

The owners get some protection, in addition to their salary cap/budget, against inflating player payroll, while taking away the players' claim of being powerless to control their market value.

In the end, both sides can claim victories while showing their willingness to compromise for the good of the game. The fans will be the real winners when this is over and they can enjoy their favorite team without worrying about the shadow of a work stoppage.

What do you think? Is this reasonable for both sides? Where are the holes?