# MLS Academies - Training Compensation



## bigkick (May 2, 2019)

MLS academies may start asking families to sign an agreement which allows for training compensation (from overseas clubs) if a player gets an offer to move.  Thoughts?  Comments?


----------



## Kante (May 2, 2019)

My understanding is that the doc is an acknowledgement that MLS clubs will ask overseas clubs from training comp in the event of a move by the player, not a binding agreement w/ the families that puts contractual obligations on the player/player's family. 

Is this understanding accurate?

Could see how the MLS academies would frame the doc to the families as a binding agreement though. Hopefully, MLPSA will educate families about the distinction.


----------



## bigkick (May 2, 2019)

MLPSA may not have enough time to educate as some clubs are giving families very limited time to sign


----------



## jpeter (May 2, 2019)

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.

The minor agreements are not binding according to the law types like #mwn so not sure what that means really other than now it will be harder & more expensive for clubs looking for players aboard or Mexico.   

This is a anti competitive & development for players which is too bad but the MLS people are are about making $ and return on investment so this unfortunately is there way of a restricting movement for their own benefit.


----------



## texanincali (May 2, 2019)

A lot of chatter about this acknowledgment.  On the surface it is nothing more than that, an acknowledgment, but there are definitely some additional parts being crammed down players/parents throats.  

First, not sure why anyone has to sign this acknowledgment, as it is nothing more than MLS finally playing by FIFA rules.  Players/parents really have nothing to do with training comp/solidarity payments as it is a simple formula, clearly spelled out by FIFA.

The two additional items that state - "Player must notify the MLS club if they receive a communication from a non-MLS club" and "If player receives an offer from a non-MLS club, they must notify the MLS club immediately, and MLS will have 14 calendar days to offer an employment agreement" - are what seems to be bothering people the most.

This is typical MLS laziness and basically states - because we are not very good at scouting, we want the opportunity to match an offer made from a club that is good at scouting.  The punishment for not notifying MLS clubs of communication of an offer is immediate dismissal from the club.  To be fair, nothing says the player has to take the MLS offer, but again, why does this need to be acknowledged?

In the end, I think most parents will sign this, but I don't think it lasts very long after attorneys/MLSPA get their hands on it.  I find it ridiculous that any player be under the obligation to tell their MLS club that someone else may be interested in their services.


----------



## Dargle (May 2, 2019)

Part of the reason for the acknowledgment is to attempt to head off a potential lawsuit (e.g., a tortious interference claim) from a DA player who claims he can't get an overseas deal because the foreign team is unwilling to pay the TC fee.  It's not a waiver, per se, but it could help in court by putting the player and his family on notice so they could go elsewhere if they really thought it mattered.  The requirements to notify and give an opportunity to offer an employment agreement don't really mean anything.  I highly doubt the DA would sue the kid for breach (anymore than they would for leaving mid-season), so it is an attempt to get them to give the club a chance to match an offer before they leave.  Sometimes, just writing it down is all you need to get 80-90% of the kids/parents to comply, which is basically the same as a binding agreement.


----------



## RedDevilDad (May 2, 2019)

Non MLS DAs likely have this in their contract.  Ours does.


----------



## StrikerOC (May 6, 2019)

RedDevilDad said:


> Non MLS DAs likely have this in their contract.  Ours does.


They have the same clause for offers from other clubs?


----------



## Kante (Jun 13, 2019)

https://www.espn.com/soccer/major-league-soccer/story/3875322/fifa-panel-releases-detailed-ruling-in-yedlin-case


----------



## Ralph (Jun 13, 2019)

MLS should play by fifa rules when it comes to player compensation


----------



## jpeter (Jun 13, 2019)

Kante said:


> https://www.espn.com/soccer/major-league-soccer/story/3875322/fifa-panel-releases-detailed-ruling-in-yedlin-case


So DRC ruled that "Crossfire was entitled to the solidarity payment"

However, the DRC ultimately rejected Crossfire's claim against Tottenham on the grounds that Spurs had already paid the full amount of the transfer fee -- reported to be $4 million -- to MLS"

MLS / Sum appears to be a racket thats anti- competitive.    Maybe somebody needs to take them to court so they stop taking all the $$$ there not entitled to and clubs get the compensation there righfuly due.


----------



## younothat (Jun 14, 2019)

jpeter said:


> So DRC ruled that "Crossfire was entitled to the solidarity payment"
> 
> However, the DRC ultimately rejected Crossfire's claim against Tottenham on the grounds that Spurs had already paid the full amount of the transfer fee -- reported to be $4 million -- to MLS"
> 
> MLS / Sum appears to be a racket thats anti- competitive.    Maybe somebody needs to take them to court so they stop taking all the $$$ there not entitled to and clubs get the compensation there righfuly due.


Some more background info for yahoo article: https://sports.yahoo.com/fifa-rejects-yedlin-youth-club-training-compensation-234757883--mls.html

Tottenham refused to pay and provided the FIFA panel an email the U.S. Soccer Federation sent to MLS representatives stating ''US Soccer cannot impose, implement or enforce, in any way, those rules, statutes or regulations adopted by FIFA relating to the payment of training and development fees.''

Tottenham said Crossfire's claim should be rejected because it paid the entire transfer fee to MLS, because Crossfire's pay-to-play business model meant the club was not entitled to a development payment and because it failed to prove it was entitled to any payment,

The panel rejected Tottenham's business model argument but said Spurs were not liable in this case because of what the USSF said. Crossfire could appeal the decision to the Court of Arbitration for Sport or attempt to seek money from MLS in another forum.

''FIFA will honor these claims in the future but for this one said it was a one-off,'' said Lance Reich, a lawyer for Crossfire.

So USSF is in on the scam it appears and they seem to pick and choose what FIFA mandates to enforce like the sanctioning which they were taking to court  recently.

I'm calling BS that USSF maintained a neutral position.  First it was "fears that RSTP violates child labor laws or would result in litigation on anti-trust grounds by various stakeholders" now they have reserved themselves and said RSTP is ok but just for MLS.  BS pure and simple.  Now it comes out them also concluded with MLS and told Tottenham to give all the RSTP to that organization.  Anti-trust lawsuit waiting to happen I suppose.

From the ESPN article:

"The USSF contends that at a meeting of stakeholders in 2015, opposing viewpoints among youth clubs, professional leagues, and players' unions left it caught in the middle.

"Since that time, U.S. Soccer has maintained a position of neutrality on the issue of training compensation and solidarity payments and, accordingly, will not be a party to enforcement of those regulations," the USSF spokesperson told ESPN FC back in April."

"Lance Reich, Crossfire's attorney in the case called it "a great day for American youth soccer."

"The claims are viable. The arguments against pay-to-play clubs are gone in the eyes of FIFA," Reich told ESPN FC. "Crossfire has prevailed. It's just that the source of the funds isn't going to be Tottenham."


----------



## R2564952 (Jun 14, 2019)

The reason for this is Brian Kleiban, his brother was making deals with international scouts and Brian would tell his brother who’s who. They split the $$$$... and thats why he got fired


----------



## jpeter (Jun 14, 2019)

R2564952 said:


> The reason for this is Brian Kleiban, his brother was making deals with international scouts and Brian would tell his brother who’s who. They split the $$$$... and thats why he got fired


MLS academic got tired of seeing there investments in da walk away for "free" to eupore and other  places  so they magical changed their stance with the help of USSF on RSTP just recently.

This case dates back 5 yrs and the k brothers had a couple of ex Galaxy academy players who went to Germany clubs for "free"  this year.  Speculation is BK went away for this but there where other reasons as well including the new boss(es) bringing in their own people and getting a new academy director.


----------



## Kante (Jun 14, 2019)

jpeter said:


> MLS academic got tired of seeing there investments in da walk away for "free" to eupore and other  places  so they magical changed their stance with the help of USSF on RSTP just recently.
> 
> This case dates back 5 yrs and the k brothers had a couple of ex Galaxy academy players who went to Germany clubs for "free"  this year.


So, the inference is that the K brothers split something akin to a "finder's fee" for Llanez and Mendez that the international clubs were willing to pay in lieu of a transfer fee/solidarity fee?


----------



## jpeter (Jun 14, 2019)

Kante said:


> So, the inference is that the K brothers split something akin to a "finder's fee" for Llanez and Mendez that the international clubs were willing to pay in lieu of a transfer fee/solidarity fee?


Not sure about the finders fees but the agent or representative of these players the older brother did/does get a cut like all agents normally do.

What I heard was the new Galaxy GM was really upset about the way thing where handled, especially since they made these players offers which where comparable financially to the ones they took overseas.  Turning your nose up and not negotiating with a club that has been training you for a number of years was a hard pill for them to shallow that's for sure.


----------



## R2564952 (Jun 14, 2019)

From a negotiation standpoint, Where do you go when MLS offers 50k/year?  Universities shell out more than 50k on a full scholarship.
It’s an insult to be on a u20 World Cup roster and be offered 50k/year


----------



## Kante (Jun 14, 2019)

jpeter said:


> Turning your nose up and not negotiating with a club that has been training you for a number of years was a hard pill for them to shallow that's for sure.


This is the item that raises a question. Intuitively, doesn't make sense for the players to make this choice. Switching costs of going over to Europe vs staying close to home would seem to be too big, assuming other things are equal. Maybe allowing that after a period of years it might have been time for a change, or that potential development/advancement opportunities in Europe were greater (this is plausible)


----------



## espola (Jun 14, 2019)

If and when (if ever?) USSF agrees to split training compensation with players' clubs of record, expect lawsuits from parents asking for at least a portion of club fees paid over the years, and those with better-preserved documents a cut of the more-or-less compulsory tournament and "team camp" fees.


----------



## R2564952 (Jun 14, 2019)

I’m starting to think MLS coaches are blind to talent when it’s right in front of their noses. MLS still believes players have to go looking in Europe for opportunities when there are many more avenues compared to years past


----------



## jpeter (Jun 14, 2019)

R2564952 said:


> From a negotiation standpoint, Where do you go when MLS offers 50k/year?  Universities shell out more than 50k on a full scholarship.
> It’s an insult to be on a u20 World Cup roster and be offered 50k/year


Yup part of problem is the wage scale, but the other part is limiting competition and that's was MLS, USSF, and ussda has done with there closed system and practices.  

Those Euporean clubs aren't paying new academy recruits that much either, 100k living in eupore playing on the u23 or second teams is not  that much different financially vs MLS top recuits get from the get go on homegrown deals.   MLS needs to figure out how to increase the wage scale for all players and not just give the $7+ million dollars away annually to many of the  aging Euporean players that come over to sell tickets.


----------



## espola (Jun 14, 2019)

R2564952 said:


> I’m starting to think MLS coaches are blind to talent when it’s right in front of their noses. MLS still believes players have to go looking in Europe for opportunities when there are many more avenues compared to years past


My son was invited to participate in the USL-West combine after his college playing days ran out.  From my biased viewpoint he did pretty well, but most of the players invited back for the second day had been brought in from Latin America just for the combine.


----------



## whatithink (Jun 14, 2019)

espola said:


> If and when (if ever?) USSF agrees to split training compensation with players' clubs of record, expect lawsuits from parents asking for at least a portion of club fees paid over the years, and those with better-preserved documents a cut of the more-or-less compulsory tournament and "team camp" fees.


I can certainly see this happening and TBH wouldn't blame them. They have paid, likely, tens of thousands of dollars to the club and associated costs like team fees, hotel fees, gas etc. They have probably invested untold hours and probably paid private trainers and paid for camps etc.

So for a club to say, "we developed him/her, give me $", despite them already having been paid ... like its all on them! Yeah, right.


----------



## 3leches (Jun 14, 2019)

I think the firing of BK had less to do with Uly & Mendez and more new management, imho. Galaxy never really promoted Mendez until he started to get call ups with US Soccer. BK's team has been to the play-offs many of times but never quite finished 1st, LAFC has taken over the LA region in terms of recruitment. There was definitely a good ole boy network going on between BK and his crew and I think DTK found a way to let him go.
Galaxy will not change until it cleans house (get rid of existing coaches) and bring in a new staff.


----------



## SBFDad (Jun 14, 2019)

3leches said:


> I think the firing of BK had less to do with Uly & Mendez and more new management, imho. Galaxy never really promoted Mendez until he started to get call ups with US Soccer. BK's team has been to the play-offs many of times but never quite finished 1st, LAFC has taken over the LA region in terms of recruitment. There was definitely a good ole boy network going on between BK and his crew and I think BTK found a way to let him go.
> Galaxy will not change until it cleans house (get rid of existing coaches) and bring in a new staff.


Tend to agree here. The Uly/Alex thing gave LAG the excuse to fire BK mid-contract/mid-season, but guessing there were other factors as well. Rumors that the housecleaning, or at least the planning for it, has begun. Guessing a few coaches stay on, depending on how they're viewed by new leadership, but things will change at LAG Academy...new blood, new eyes on players, more resources, more demands for excellence on and off the field. DTK has been very clear about that. Movement has been in the right direction so far, albeit slow out the gate. No one has come in with guns blazing. It feels thought-out and methodical.


----------

