Not_that_Serious
GOLD
Typos + autocorrect for the win. Spurs basically acknowledged they owed crossfire money in a letter sent to them. They now backtracked a bit
Solidarity and Training Payments and the Pay To Play Scapegoat
- Thread starter MWN
- Start date
Your anger at the MLS and USSF is misplaced. These are not the villains in this story, although the Federation isn't a hero either. The villains are the players ... in particular the MLS Players union. The players have sued, threatened to sue, objected and kicked and screamed on this issue.
The MLS Players have taken the position/believe that allowing solidarity and training fees to be paid will reduce their ultimate wages. They believe that its a zero sum game. A finite amount of money is available to the players and they want it all ... every penny ... f' the clubs, f' the kids behind them, f' them all and hope nobody calls their hypocritical BS on them.
What they don't get is that they (the players) are not a commodity, but a potentially valuable assets that clubs "could" invest in if there was an ROI. This investment could mean the skill set increases, many more opportunities are presented, such that Latin America and European clubs where "soccer" is the number 1 sport and starters get paid millions are willing to buy and sell their asses for millions. The better trained, the more valuable.
Right now, there just isn't a sufficient ROI in the American game because the players have actively stripped the Clubs/Academies of solidarity and training compensation.
This Christmas all the players and their agents and union get "coal."
Not_that_Serious
GOLD
I disagree, they are all to blame. MLS/Us Soccer has a created this environment. In podcasts and article you can find they talk about this and MLS basically has convinced them, somewhat forcefully, that no soladarity is in there best interest - basically if they don’t agree, they won’t get any increases in pay from transfers. The union has almost zero leverage in negotiations. Recently Max and Herc (with Seb Salazar) go over Liga MX and much of how they operate parallels MLS - in fact it seems as though they work together to create an environment where labor is abused. In MLS Most is above board but in a Liga MX they have the “gentleman’s agreement”. Herc dives into it, as he has played in both leagues and gives specific examples. This also involves the national teams and compensation. They said they would do an mls version of what they did on MC, but impossible to talk Liga MX and national teams were without being up Garber and SUM
Not_that_Serious
GOLD
I’d add if the players had a choice you wouldn’t see many mid 20yr old domestic players retiring - being squeezed out by foreign players they pay less. Some would argue those guys are better and their fault they get squeezed out, but most big leagues around the world have rules about domestic players for a reason. The domestic product and dev system needs to improve - but MLS really doesn’t see a need for it to when they can import cheap labor
Not_that_Serious
GOLD
my understanding is the buying club pays it. players arent loosing anything. mls is getting the money and trying to keep it. if you see the court docs,Spurs originally agreed they owed Crossfire the money (letter in response to letter sent to them by Crossfire attorney in London)...then backtracked. im sure mls called contacted them to do so. European clubs will pay and mention obligation to pay according to FIFA...problem is MLS and players not seeing big picture.
I know that the clubs write the check. But in the end, doesn't the club figure the cost in when it negotiates the player's salary, and isn't that cost ultimately passed through to the player? I have to believe that the club has a top figure that it is willing to pay to the player, but part of that number gets siphoned off for the solidarity payment.
Not_that_Serious
GOLD
The problem is the MLS single entity structure. Clubs have to inflate prices on players to cover what goes to MLS. This is really the bigger problem when trying to move players. A few articles breakdown what players get due to solidarity payments, virtually nothing. Players shoot themselves in the foot to get a couple more pennies. Its actually a sad state players have to fight for all the pennies they can. Most people wont give up a dollar in the hand now to ATTEMPT to get five back in the future. SOme players dont think theyll be around to benefit. They arent willing to give up anything for future players at this point. Players in other sports have gone through the fight, hopefully MLS players will do so in the near future. Wasn't long ago USMNT players got almost nothing to play games - some players were actually paid ZERO. Took players like Eric Wynalda to tell them pay everyone the same or theyll go home - US Soccer caved.
Not_that_Serious
GOLD
Side note, El Tri players going through same thing. Problem is Liga MX/MX Fed is basically a cartel. Liga MX parallels US Soccer/MLS in everything and are tied via SUM. MLS just tends to do everything legally, except some shady dealings via SUM. Players in MX have been shut out of the national team like they use to do with American Players - like Vermes. Good podcast from Max & Herc that talk about this - they suppose to do one on MLS/US Soccer. Players are very handcuffed on this continent.
Kante
PREMIER
I understand that MLS intercepted and then held the solidarity payment from Tottenham re: Yedlin. However, don't understand how the single entity structure plays into and/or drives this?
And you're saying that Mexican youth clubs also don't receive solidarity payments?
Not arguing the points at all, just curious and asking for more info/clarification.
Not_that_Serious
GOLD
another topic on here discussing the same thing. this article talks a bit about the structure:
https://medium.com/@isaac_krasny/unpacking-the-major-league-soccer-business-model-827f4b784bcd
Clubs have to kick money to MLS, they have to cover that cost somehow. They do so in part with help of MLS by controlling labor costs. They also have to jack up asking prices on transfers. Many deals dont get done because they price the player out. If players/parents had more choices, MLS would lose cheap labor. Clubs being compensated can offer options and MLS wont control the top tier of kids -the labor. You can see the market has changed due to parents understanding MLS isnt always the best option. In the past MLS would sign players almost ready to contribute at Senior Level. Now they are forced to risk and sign kids at 14-15 years of age because the older elite teens are going over seas. Most kids dont make it. So MLS/CLubs now have to invest more money then they did before. They dont like that. MLS relied on other clubs developing kids (also parents money) and then coming in and signing them. The single entity structure is the root of the decision making - that and greed.
younothat
PREMIER
Ben Fast @bwfast
USA soccer has a "pay-to-play/rich sport" problem. Why? There's no point in building/investing in free-to-play academies and scouting networks. America should have thousands of them. #ProRelforUSA
USA soccer has a massive “pay-to-play” or “rich sport” problem. Thousands upon thousands of eager and talented young soccer players are priced out of, cannot find, or are never scouted for high-quality playing and training opportunities.
But get this:
Pay-to-play itself does not need to be touched. It is NOT a bogeyman that needs to be destroyed.
“Wait, What?!”
There is an important distinction to remember in the effort to solve this problem:
It’s not about destroying the “pay-to-play” system itself, it’s about INCENTIVIZING the creation of a separate, free-to-play pipeline that is normally seen in other soccer nations around the world.
“Paying for soccer” has to exist at some level of any nation’s soccer ecosystem. Resources, infrastructure, and services cost money. Markets do not function on charity alone. The key difference is WHO is paying for the soccer opportunities.
In normal soccer nations around the world (98% of the free world), TWO youth player opportunity pipelines exist:
1) A free-to-play training and scouting pipeline established by professional soccer clubs striving for competition achievements and financial profit.
2) A pay-to-play pipeline where participants exchange money for organized soccer activity.
What on the surface looks like a “pay-to-play” or “rich sport” root problem is really just a symptom of one single bad governing policy: a closed USA soccer market.
In an open USA soccer market (read: promotion/relegation and an open division 1), America’s thousands of soccer clubs would have incentive to build and invest in free-to-play academies and scouting networks. This chance of a return on investment could come from the financial reward of winning promotion to a higher division (increases in merchandise sales, TV deal shares, attendance etc.), or the sale of “homegrown”, senior-level players to other clubs for financial profit (spend fifty-thousand dollars on a player “X’s” development from age 11-17, then sell him on at age 18 to another club for a fee of ten million dollars).
Imagine if 500 open system USA soccer clubs fielded academies with a rough average of 60 player slots each. This would result in 30,000 free-to-play, high-level player development opportunities (not to mention many job opportunities for coaches, scouts, and administrators). USA has an estimated 9,000 soccer clubs through the youth and pro levels under the current closed system, so the above projection is ultra conservative. There is potential for hundreds of thousands of club player and staff opportunities.
The pay-to-play soccer pipeline would simply fill the remaining vacuum in the ecosystem. There will still be a massive swath of players seeking a soccer recreational experience or a fallback competitive outlet just below the pro academy cut line. Americans have a huge appetite for youth sports entertainment and plenty of disposable income. Pay-to-play soccer is not going anywhere. It is very healthy for American soccer in this scenario.
American soccer has been forced to rely solely on its pay-to-play pipeline for the development of professional and national team players.
The lack of a free-to-play academy and scouting pipeline means that a multitude of players are never discovered or properly developed. Players in good economic or geographic situations have a leg up on the rest. Open systems serve just consequences for both success and failure. Closed systems simply cannot filter talent as efficiently as open systems. Basing promotion and relegation on the arbitrary decisions of coaches and scouts carries far greater potential for human error than the normal procedure of letting matches on the field serve as main driver of promotion and relegation.
The fact that USA – despite a crippling closed market policy – is able to salvage some success at the senior level is a testimony to its raw soccer potential. In a 2006 global soccer census, FIFA estimated that USA soccer had over 24 MILLION soccer players. That’s one soccer player for every 14 people you meet in its population of 325+ million. Even if that player estimate is off by multiple millions, it is still a number that matches the general population totals of many great soccer nations. Leave pay-to-play alone and give soccer clubs the opportunity to build the free-to-play opportunities that American soccer desperately needs.
https://ben-fast.com/2018/05/27/what-causes-usa-soccers-pay-to-play-problem/
USA soccer has a "pay-to-play/rich sport" problem. Why? There's no point in building/investing in free-to-play academies and scouting networks. America should have thousands of them. #ProRelforUSA
USA soccer has a massive “pay-to-play” or “rich sport” problem. Thousands upon thousands of eager and talented young soccer players are priced out of, cannot find, or are never scouted for high-quality playing and training opportunities.
But get this:
Pay-to-play itself does not need to be touched. It is NOT a bogeyman that needs to be destroyed.
“Wait, What?!”
There is an important distinction to remember in the effort to solve this problem:
It’s not about destroying the “pay-to-play” system itself, it’s about INCENTIVIZING the creation of a separate, free-to-play pipeline that is normally seen in other soccer nations around the world.
“Paying for soccer” has to exist at some level of any nation’s soccer ecosystem. Resources, infrastructure, and services cost money. Markets do not function on charity alone. The key difference is WHO is paying for the soccer opportunities.
In normal soccer nations around the world (98% of the free world), TWO youth player opportunity pipelines exist:
1) A free-to-play training and scouting pipeline established by professional soccer clubs striving for competition achievements and financial profit.
2) A pay-to-play pipeline where participants exchange money for organized soccer activity.
What on the surface looks like a “pay-to-play” or “rich sport” root problem is really just a symptom of one single bad governing policy: a closed USA soccer market.
In an open USA soccer market (read: promotion/relegation and an open division 1), America’s thousands of soccer clubs would have incentive to build and invest in free-to-play academies and scouting networks. This chance of a return on investment could come from the financial reward of winning promotion to a higher division (increases in merchandise sales, TV deal shares, attendance etc.), or the sale of “homegrown”, senior-level players to other clubs for financial profit (spend fifty-thousand dollars on a player “X’s” development from age 11-17, then sell him on at age 18 to another club for a fee of ten million dollars).
Imagine if 500 open system USA soccer clubs fielded academies with a rough average of 60 player slots each. This would result in 30,000 free-to-play, high-level player development opportunities (not to mention many job opportunities for coaches, scouts, and administrators). USA has an estimated 9,000 soccer clubs through the youth and pro levels under the current closed system, so the above projection is ultra conservative. There is potential for hundreds of thousands of club player and staff opportunities.
The pay-to-play soccer pipeline would simply fill the remaining vacuum in the ecosystem. There will still be a massive swath of players seeking a soccer recreational experience or a fallback competitive outlet just below the pro academy cut line. Americans have a huge appetite for youth sports entertainment and plenty of disposable income. Pay-to-play soccer is not going anywhere. It is very healthy for American soccer in this scenario.
American soccer has been forced to rely solely on its pay-to-play pipeline for the development of professional and national team players.
The lack of a free-to-play academy and scouting pipeline means that a multitude of players are never discovered or properly developed. Players in good economic or geographic situations have a leg up on the rest. Open systems serve just consequences for both success and failure. Closed systems simply cannot filter talent as efficiently as open systems. Basing promotion and relegation on the arbitrary decisions of coaches and scouts carries far greater potential for human error than the normal procedure of letting matches on the field serve as main driver of promotion and relegation.
The fact that USA – despite a crippling closed market policy – is able to salvage some success at the senior level is a testimony to its raw soccer potential. In a 2006 global soccer census, FIFA estimated that USA soccer had over 24 MILLION soccer players. That’s one soccer player for every 14 people you meet in its population of 325+ million. Even if that player estimate is off by multiple millions, it is still a number that matches the general population totals of many great soccer nations. Leave pay-to-play alone and give soccer clubs the opportunity to build the free-to-play opportunities that American soccer desperately needs.
https://ben-fast.com/2018/05/27/what-causes-usa-soccers-pay-to-play-problem/
Wow, this Ben fellow has no idea what he is writing about. He appears to be so biased in favor of Pro/Rel that he tries to attach the concept of Pro/Rel to pay-to-play and not once mentions the Elephant in the room. I feel a little dumber after reading that.
Crap! EOL is not on this thread. Oh, well.
I had never heard of this Ben Fast fellow until today, I perused a number of his articles and its clear that his agenda/bias against the MLS closed system and desire to establish Pro/Rel is blinding his ability to think objectively. I watched 1/2 of one of his videos and he is just a kid that doesn't have an understanding of the economics and legalities of how it works.
younothat
PREMIER
John Pranjić @ThatCroatianGuy
The $$$ that average soccer parents invest in American soccer year after year is a far greater % of their total net worth compared to the billionaire MLS investors. No one wants to talk about that, though. We're just supposed to be thankful we have a professional league.
I support #ProRelforUSA and Solidarity Payments
Ben Fast @bwfast is a interesting fellow and has a different prospective as does John Pranjić @ThatCroatianGuy who I tend to agree with more than not. These people are trying to do something by getting there messages out, you can debate them all you want on twitter or try to add to the conversation. Step up and provide solutions rather them calling them bias or uneducated.
The $$$ that average soccer parents invest in American soccer year after year is a far greater % of their total net worth compared to the billionaire MLS investors. No one wants to talk about that, though. We're just supposed to be thankful we have a professional league.
I support #ProRelforUSA and Solidarity Payments
Ben Fast @bwfast is a interesting fellow and has a different prospective as does John Pranjić @ThatCroatianGuy who I tend to agree with more than not. These people are trying to do something by getting there messages out, you can debate them all you want on twitter or try to add to the conversation. Step up and provide solutions rather them calling them bias or uneducated.
outside!
DA
Since those with "educated opinions" are running things so well, the rest of us should just be quiet.