# MLS DAs able to receive solidarity payments.



## RedDevilDad (Apr 18, 2019)

http://www.espn.com/soccer/major-league-soccer/story/3829402/mls-clubs-to-receive-solidarity-payments-after-league-agrees-to-follow-fifa-rule?platform=amp&__twitter_impression=true

Pro: Sell a player fund scores more. Rewards youth development. 
Con: Another hand in the deal means increased player cost.


----------



## espola (Apr 19, 2019)

RedDevilDad said:


> http://www.espn.com/soccer/major-league-soccer/story/3829402/mls-clubs-to-receive-solidarity-payments-after-league-agrees-to-follow-fifa-rule?platform=amp&__twitter_impression=true
> 
> Pro: Sell a player fund scores more. Rewards youth development.
> Con: Another hand in the deal means increased player cost.


What about non-MLS DA clubs?  Will Surf sue MLS to get their cut of the pie?


----------



## Kante (Apr 19, 2019)

non-mls clubs can also pursue solidarity/training payments frompro clubs outside the US, but this actually isn't a change.

the change would be that now that MLS is supporting payments, presumably USSF will drop their public - and, more importantly, behind the scenes - opposition to non-mls clubs seeking payments.

one of the articles about this move said that MLS announcing at this time indicates that it's likely that the crossfire case for payments re: yedlin that's pending with FIFA's DRC committee will be resolved in favor of crossfire receiving payments. The previously announced due for the decision - late April this year - synchs with this.

re: non-mls clubs receiving payments from mls clubs for players is still unresolved. eg, when ER who moved form Albion to SD Surf and likely is heading to LAFC and then goes pro, there's nothing in place that says that LAFC (or other MLS club) has to pay Albion or SD Surf anything.

FIFA says that intra-country stuff like this is a matter for that country's federation rule making body.

A handful of the articles quoted the MLS VP  that the MLS considering proposals for this.


----------



## younothat (Apr 19, 2019)

Well this is not what it appears and actually restricts player movement
https://mlsplayers.org/news/statement-on-mls-announcement-regarding-training-compensation-and-solidarity-payments





 \
If MLS doesn't have to compete for the services of players, then wages wont go up and domestic players will be struck with low wages and fewer options.  

This is *not good* for players or everyone and every entity outside MLS, only benefits the MLS owners.   Not good  for development.  This is scam if you ask me


----------



## RedDevilDad (Apr 19, 2019)

younothat said:


> Well this is not what it appears and actually restricts player movement
> https://mlsplayers.org/news/statement-on-mls-announcement-regarding-training-compensation-and-solidarity-payments
> 
> If MLS doesn't have to compete for the services of players, then wages wont go up and domestic players will be struck with low wages and fewer options.
> ...


Good point.  I don't know enough about it but one thing that stands out to me is that it brings MLS in line with what happens around the world.  Even the MLSPA acknowledges that.  Not using the logic of "if everyone else is doing it, it must be right," as much as the rest of the world can develop talent and fully-fund countless academies while US has what 30-50 fully funded academies? 
I also don't think the implications will be seen for a bit but it's a slow day today for me so this made the top of my curiosity list. lol.


----------



## JCM (Apr 19, 2019)

What about the family that paid their yearly fee at Surf or wherever and didn't get free training.  How is that club entitled to compensation?  They were compensated by the family already.  Should the club get more because the kid is a unicorn?  What about Evan Rotundo at Surf?  He started off at Albion and is getting a trial this summer in France or rumor has it will follow his coach to LAFC.  Does Albion deserve anything?  Does Surf?  Or is it the truth that this is a naturally gifted player who has developed himself and would be a stud no matter where he played?


----------



## RedDevilDad (Apr 19, 2019)

JCM said:


> What about the family that paid their yearly fee at Surf or wherever and didn't get free training.  How is that club entitled to compensation?  They were compensated by the family already.  Should the club get more because the kid is a unicorn?  What about Evan Rotundo at Surf?  He started off at Albion and is getting a trial this summer in France or rumor has it will follow his coach to LAFC.  Does Albion deserve anything?  Does Surf?  Or is it the truth that this is a naturally gifted player who has developed himself and would be a stud no matter where he played?


Yeah, my hope is that this pressures non-MLS DAs to fully-fund.  I'm with you... If I paid $ for my kid to play, you already got your compensation.  Next. lol


----------



## espola (Apr 19, 2019)

RedDevilDad said:


> Yeah, my hope is that this pressures non-MLS DAs to fully-fund.  I'm with you... If I paid $ for my kid to play, you already got your compensation.  Next. lol


Where would they get the money?


----------



## RedDevilDad (Apr 19, 2019)

espola said:


> Where would they get the money?


Selling my little Messi to Man United, of course.


----------



## espola (Apr 19, 2019)

RedDevilDad said:


> Selling my little Messi to Man United, of course.


But before then?


----------



## RedDevilDad (Apr 19, 2019)

espola said:


> But before then?


Jokes aside... I agree. The system isn't conducive to fully-funding and even if it was the odds of any, let alone every, DOC saying, we'll take a hit and trust that eventually we'll sell a kid for millions... slim to nil. On the other hand, these massive conglomerate clubs with 682 chapters... surely there are enough kids to spread the fun around, allowing the pay to play to be removed at the top of the pyramid.  Then, in a perfect world, the top of the pyramid pays for the rest... Reganomics for soccer? lol


----------



## focomoso (Apr 19, 2019)

espola said:


> But before then?


From the fee they charge the parents.


----------



## jpeter (Apr 19, 2019)

JCM said:


> What about the family that paid their yearly fee at Surf or wherever and didn't get free training.  How is that club entitled to compensation?  They were compensated by the family already.  Should the club get more because the kid is a unicorn?  What about Evan Rotundo at Surf?  He started off at Albion and is getting a trial this summer in France or rumor has it will follow his coach to LAFC.  Does Albion deserve anything?  Does Surf?  Or is it the truth that this is a naturally gifted player who has developed himself and would be a stud no matter where he played?


MLS takes all the compensation and those clubs get nothing if a player is on MLS academy under this new stance.

This is anti-competitive the reason MLS is loosing young talent is because the league doesn't pay or  have a good way to develop young players so they leave to eupore or elsewhere to play &  develop in more competitive leagues with pro/rel for better wages.

MLS academies are tired of loosing their best young players without compensation so this is attempt to restrict their movement.  What they should be doing instead is having better competition in the league and offering/signing players before 18 to contacts that pay reasonable.


----------



## SBFDad (Apr 19, 2019)

LA Times article - https://www.latimes.com/sports/soccer/la-sp-mls-compensation-academy-players-20190418-story.html

One excerpt...

“MLS will begin distributing notice of the new policy to every MLS academy player and his parents or guardians. The players and their parent/guardians will be required to sign a paper acknowledging that if they sign a contract to play professionally for a non-MLS club out the U.S. or Canada, the player’s club academy will have the right to claim training compensation from that team.”

Curious if this will accelerate the exit plans for some MLS academy kids getting looks from MX and European clubs (for those with EU passports).


----------



## LASTMAN14 (Apr 19, 2019)

RedDevilDad said:


> Selling my little Messi to Man United, of course.


And you should.


----------



## galaxydad (Apr 19, 2019)

If we open up the chance for solidarity payments for all clubs then they will be more likely to sign outstanding players that cannot pay their own way in the club system. This will help one big complaint about the pay to play system and incentivize some clubs to train to develop more than the win now attitude that is pervasive. Also, families of very talented players that can afford to pay would have the option to pay their way and make their player more attractive to clubs as there would be a cost savings involved for the purchase of those players that funded their own way.


----------



## LASTMAN14 (Apr 19, 2019)

espola said:


> But before then?


Please stop.


----------



## Kante (Apr 19, 2019)

just finished the morning coffee so apologies about the longer post...

on players being put at a disadvantage/MLS club now being more able to restrict player movement, not sure that that is accurate.

looks like training/solidarity gives mls clubs another opportunity to guilt players to sign (eg, SBFdad's excerpt) but other articles about this item point out that there's no real new teeth that compel players to do anything different than what they're doing now.

For more info on this, see Miki Turner/Paul Tenorio's detailed article in the Athletic. https://theathletic.com/933096/2019/04/18/breaking-down-mlss-new-solidarity-payments-policy-and-how-it-will-impact-academy-players/

(for the record, if training/solidarity did actually lower player negotiating power/restrict player movement, as the son of a good union household whose father went on strike for better pay multiple times, would have a problem with that)

on this benefitting MLS ownership, am 100% sure it does, and they're greedy %$%& who cynically plead poverty but are now sharing out $200m per new MLS club fees. But that isn't, by itself, a reason to argue against payments.

the player CBA is coming up for changes in 2020 and doing things like lifting the salary cap will do far, far more to help players then spending limited time/energy arguing about training/solidarity.

get that US players on the margin looking to give it a try in Europe may get hit by this since they'll now have to compete without a subsidy relative to similar players from other countries, but 5% of a relatively small transfer fee (remember, marginal players...) seems like a nominal incentive for a pro club to buy a US player vs a non-US player.

Alex Mendez, for example, he's going to go to Europe regardless because of his talent, not because he was 5% less expensive than the other guy.

completely get the gut level feeling that "we've paid our money, and no way clubs should get any more comp from our kid..." but, the $ to comp clubs for training/solidarity are built into the system. US players - and their families - likely now don't see any additional comp due to the lack of training/solidarity payments.

(Now, could see a situation where opportunistic agents - who are vocal on twitter and maybe even discussion boards - of these nominal US players might get a meaningful payday but that's a whole different discussion.)

Without training/solidarity comp, the business model for 99% non-mls clubs in the US has been/will be/has to be pay to play. only reason mls clubs can fully fund is they have the resources to run academy programs as a loss leader.

Yes, having pay to play and training/solidarity payments at the same time is double-dipping, And given the ambivalent/sometimes dysfunctional relationship many clubs have at some point with many families, that's a tough one.

The upside of training/solidarity is that it creates a bigger opportunity for smart clubs to focus/invest more on development and to ID under-utilized assets (eg, younger players and/or players in under-recruited/hard to recruit areas like the Central Valley ). Also, with more revenue, it could lead to a greater professionalization of club operations which, in theory, could get rid of some of the club/family dysfunction.

However, not sure how many "smart" clubs there are.

On the downside, solidarity/training payments could drive many clubs to overcommit to scouting/recruiting - rather than more development. Non-star players could then be seen - even more so than now - primarily as a means to support/spotlight the one or two star players.

A reasonable bet is that there's the initial gold rush where scouting investments are significantly increased in the hopes of finding the hidden nuggets of talent, and then, as things settle down, clubs begin committing more to development.

Thought galaxydad's point that solidarity/training could ideally lead to a combo of higher quality star players and better very good players for an overall better environment was well-said. hopefully that will be the case.

coffee's running low and have to get back to it...


----------



## jpeter (Apr 19, 2019)

https://ussoccerplayers.com/2019/04/mls-makes-announcements.html/amp

'This is a business decision that limits the ability of American players to opt out of the MLS system. MLS is justifying this based on their investment in academies, but their restrictive system doesn't make this a like-for-like comparison. MLS unilaterally implementing a FIFA mandate in a press release doesn't bring an end to the training compensation and solidarity issue either. It's a step they've chosen to take, but other entities in the sport and beyond also get a say.

One of those is the MLS Players Association, who released a statement. "Today's announcement by MLS regarding training compensation and solidarity payments is a step backward for the development of soccer in the United States and Canada. It is an effort by the league to inhibit player choice, does nothing to address the development of youth soccer, and makes plain MLS' selective application of international rules to suit its own agenda."


----------



## timbuck (Apr 19, 2019)

Very interesting times in soccer in the US (again).
MLS wants it's cake, wants to eat it, wants to barf it all over non-mls clubs and then wants non-mls clubs to clean it up with a smile on their face.

1.  This is only for players that sign to play outside of the US.  (I think.  What about mexico? Canada?  Toronto has an MLS team)?
2. What if a kid trains with the LA Galaxy academy but winds up playing for Orlando's senior team?  Nothing?
3.  Will European clubs really pass on a solid american player because they have to pay a fee to a US MLS club?  Will they take it out of the players salary?  Isn't this fee pretty much the same for wherever you sign a player from?  Are european clubs really signing more American kids lately because they get a small discount by not having to pay training compensation?
4.  What if a kid plays with a MLS academy for a few years, but when they are 17, they join a non-MLS academy, play in SCDSL or play AYSO rec for a year?  Then they sign with Wolfsburg?  Does the MLS academy still get to claim payment? 
5.  What if a kid plays with the LA Galaxy Academy.  Doesn't get a sniff to play in Europe.  Plays college at Stanford and really improves.  And after he gets his degree, he signs on with Arsenal?  Who gets paid then?


----------



## MWN (Apr 19, 2019)

Unlike the rest of the world ... the MLS is a single entity that employs the players.   You all have to think of it from that perspective.  The MLS is like "Sears" with each MLS club representing another "Sears" (corporate store).  The players work for corporate and get assigned to one club (store) or another.  

The so-called-clubs are nothing more that MLS teams that a particular MLS (LLC) member is allowed to operated.  The players belong to the MLS and the MLS benefits ... otherwise the MLS would have folded long ago.  Now, solidarity and training fees are an important first step to raising the economic incentive for the MLS and its clubs (aka MLS owned properties) to invest in players and sell those players to the "real" leagues abroad.  This is good for US Soccer.  Its a chink in the armor and a good first step.

The players have it wrong.  The players think this is a zero sum game.  Its not.   We want US Soccer to step up to the plate and agree to manage solidarity and training fees, so far it hasn't because of the previous regime and the players.  If the MLS is willing to buck the system then we may be looking at a slippery slope where the non-MLS club can also get a piece of the training and solidarity pie down the road.

The next important step won't be the pay-to-play clubs, but the 2nd and 3rd divisions.  Once solidarity and training fees hit this group the real fireworks start and we will see a geniune market for young players, with real incentive to invest in these players.

It really is a good step in the right direction.  The players are idiots for objecting to this.  If the players were smart they would negotiate away some of the restrictions that are currently in place that allow the MLS to screw up the transfer timing (remember, the MLS' season is different than the rest of the world).


----------



## Kante (Apr 30, 2019)

http://www.espn.com/soccer/major-league-soccer/story/3839481/fifa-rules-against-solidarity-payments-over-yedlins-tottenham-transfer

So Fifa rejected Crossfire's claim re: Yedlin, and now - unless USSF changes its stance on enforcing RSTP - it looks like there will be a double standard whereby MLS clubs will receive training and solidarity payments while non-MLS clubs will not. 

Lovely...


----------



## jpeter (May 1, 2019)

Kante said:


> http://www.espn.com/soccer/major-league-soccer/story/3839481/fifa-rules-against-solidarity-payments-over-yedlins-tottenham-transfer
> 
> So Fifa rejected Crossfire's claim re: Yedlin, and now - unless USSF changes its stance on enforcing RSTP - it looks like there is now a double standard whereby MLS clubs will receive training and solidarity payments while non-MLS clubs will not.
> 
> Lovely...


Yup when MLS decided  all of sudden to support solidarity payments you knew this was a business decisions and USSF & SUM was in on the scam and everyone else including youth clubs where going to get screwed over. 

 Status Quo from USSF, they are in bed with MLS, SUM, Garber has a conflict of interest and so does several others.


----------



## Not_that_Serious (May 1, 2019)

yeah posted in the general section. obvious double standard. now crossfire has to pony up $10k just to hear WHY they came up to the decision. Ten large just to splain it. Crazy.


----------

