ESPN Network:
ESPN.com
ESPN Deportes
Fantasy Games
|
|
|
| Friday, September 14, 2001 24:14 EST |
Time to free things up
By Jeff Bradley
[ESPN The Magazine]
As the President of the United States, George W. Bush, says, "If you don't stand for something, then you don't stand for something ... err, if you don't stand for anything ... err, something ... if you don't stand for something, you don't stand for anything."
Well, I stand for something, and here's what I stand for:
"Free Agency in MLS."
I'm not talking about ripping up Single-Entity and creating an open market, because I know the guys with the millions to lose aren't going for that one. But, I do believe if you draw up a plan that allows for MLS veterans (minimum, four years of league service) to seek the club of their choice, everyone in the league would benefit.
Let's roll out the bullet-points, fellas.
Free agency would mean the most to the guys who make between $24k and $50k. For players in that financial category, finding a team that's willing to pay an extra $5k or $7k for your services means a lot. Or, maybe after four years, you suddenly have a chance to play in your hometown and sponge off your parents.
Free agency would give teams another way to improve and fans a chance to play GM. Rather than wondering what is the difference between a major allocation and a minor allocation (do those terms still exist?) or if you've still got a discovery option (you know what that means, sure you do), a tidy list of "free agents available" would be in the newspaper every day (maybe I'm dreaming there) for your perusal.
Free agency would create more animosity in MLS. You see it in all other sports, when Player A leaves Team B for the greener (literally) pastures of Team C, the fans of Team B always have it in for Player A. Now, if A is traded to C, B fans can hold no grudge. And don't we all want more grudges?
Free agency would add volatility to the quiet offseason. All the stuff you see in the baseball offseason, owners and GMs wining and dining players, recruiting them. Couldn't we use a little of that? Let's be honest, the MLS winter is flat out boring.
Free agency has no downside in the realm of single-entity. Really. The league still owns the contracts and controls the costs. As long as the league's structure remains intact, there will be no real salary escalation.
Free agency would enable the league to limit "shenanigans." Instead of wondering what team is owed league favors this year, we could be wondering why they didn't go after a certain player who was on the market.
(Therefore) Free agency would create more accountability. Nothing worse than coaches and GMs in MLS blaming the league for their demise.
(Therefore) Free agency would make me less sympathetic to all the coaches who get fired each year. Right now, I wonder why anyone would want to coach in this league, where you have less than 100% control, but are held 100% responsible.
Free agency is the right thing to do. Now, I know the court ruled that MLS is not an "illegal monopoly," but all that means is it's a "legal monopoly." You may not have it in your heart to feel sorry for baseball players who whine that they have no say in where they play for their first six seasons or where they're traded after that, but a lot of MLS guys are living check to check. Giving the guys who've played four years in the league the chance to play out their contract and move to a better situation is a small favor to throw them. And it might just be fun.
Can it happen? Not until there's a Collective Bargaining Agreement. And there won't be a CBA until the players vote to form a union. Here's hoping the league was sincere when, at the conclusion of the court case, the commissioner said he'd be willing to sit down and discuss issues with the players. When this league was formed, there was a lot of rhetoric about the players being "partners" in the single-entity. It's time to get back on that track.
|
|
|
|
|
|
