MLS Half-Assed Attempt at Change Part II (Is it bright over the Hill?)

By: David | April 3rd, 2007

Ah, the morning has arrived and that means it’s time to delve into Part II of my little analysis of the MLS. There has been quite some response (D over at DCenters has provided a great response) to my initial post both pointing out the positives and negatives about the commissioner’s initiatives; one thing stands, the changes that are being made have not addressed the all of the issues.

If you have not read Part I please do so before reading this post.

Thus we must continue our analysis. Yesterday, I talked mainly about the player category of the “Game First” initiatives and that there has not been a lot done to help bolster talent and players in America. The large majority of the money being spent has been put towards bringing in international players and hiring more scouts. Towards the end of my argument I touched upon the lack of influence and existence of an MLS Player’s Union, however, I was wrong (and later corrected myself in the comments) about this. D, over at DCenters, brings up a good point about the Collective bargaining that has occurred:

First, there is a player’s union, which has a Collective Bargaining Agreement in place. Steve Goff has a pretty good breakdown on what it says for the 2007 season. So essentially the players have negotiated what they feel is fair until 2010. Now, this deal can be amended (and indeed probably will be since there’s a playoff bonus, and if there are fewer playoff teams then the union probably can demand that the playoff bonus be either increased or distributed as if eight teams made the playoffs instead of six.) The point is, while I agree that MLS salaries for home-grown talent, especially developmental contracts, are disgustingly low, it is what the union has negotiated for. That’s how collective bargaining works. As Goff points out, this current deal is an improvement, despite some of the low rates.

As with any sort of discussion, it is great to look at both sides so as to asses the possibilities for improvement. If you have been reading my posts you will have seen have seen my continual criticism of certain actions and progress of the MLS. That does not mean that I cannot find any positives.

The fact is there are a lot of things that the MLS is doing that can be looked as having a positive impact. For one, as Bob points in the comments, there has been a restructuring of the Playoff system. One of the main complaints a lot of people have been having is with the ludicrous playoff system that has plagued the MLS. Unlike most international leagues, the MLS had installed a program that is quite similar to other American professional sports. As a result, we have seen teams that do not belong in the playoffs get in due to the broad requirements.

Commissioner Garber has made an effort to address this with a change in the playoff format so as to reduce the number of teams and “increase intensity.”

Playoffs: At the end of the regular season, the top two teams in each conference earn playoff spots along with four “wild cards” which have highest point-totals in the standings, regardless of conference. This will add competition and intensity to the playoff race. If one conference is stronger than the other in a given year, more of its teams can qualify for the playoffs.

This is a small step in the right direction as it reduces the number of teams (EDIT: Jeff Bull has pointed out my mistake, there are 8 teams in the playoffs and as such there is still a lot of confusion) I still have a problem with this, but at least the problem has been addressed. Furthermore, the effort to create a SuperLiga is something that can viewed as being a progressive move, as the MLS teams are given a chance to compete with international talent and more attention is drawn to the league. The “strategic relationships” are a great opportunity to foster connections with foreign leagues so as to increase international exposure.

Other positives are the initiatives to hire full time officials and the establishment of the MLS Working Group on Officiating, so as to bring legitimacy to the refs. As well as an effort to streamline the “game presentation” and the deal with ESPN.

However, a large majority of these initiatives should have been done years ago. The fact that we are dealing with these now, only shows the lack of direction in the management of the MLS. Progress has been made, but that can only take us so far and the fact that we are spending so much on international players harkens back to the days of the Cosmos. I know I have been pessimistic, yet this is an issue that must be addressed so as to ensure the stability and existence of the league we love.

There is hope. Just look towards the US and Mexican National teams as they constantly draw huge crowds, bucking the notion that soccer is weak in America. Look at the TV ratings of the World Cup and the ratings of the match between Chivas and Club America. And what about when FC Barcelona came to the LA Coliseum and over 94,000 packed the stands. The Los Angeles Times took notice, ESPN took notice and for the first since the creation of the MLS, soccer was “big.”

We are at a crossroad where the MLS has the potential to be big and it is up to us as the fans to help foster this. It is through discussion and participation that we can make the MLS succeed.

I know I have been preaching on my soapbox for a bit now, but I am not alone.

————–

A third part might be created looking at the impact media has had upon the MLS and sports in America.