Sadly, soccer in America is now officially a big time sport.
Sadly?
The lunacy that affects other team sports in North America appears to have infected soccer.
There is a collective bargaining dispute between the US Soccer Federation (USSF) and its players. The USSF is threatening to use replacement players for the Feb. 9 World Cup qualifier away to Trinidad and Tobago.
The men have not had a labor contract with U.S. Soccer, responsible for fielding the country's national teams, since January 2003 and have been operating under terms of the old one. The situation, however, appears to have reached a boiling point, reports the San-Diego Union-Tribune.
I'm not familiar with how other federations deal with their national teams but this seems absurd to me that there even IS a collective bargaining agreement in this situation.
For those not familiar with soccer, here's a primer. Most players are employed by individual clubs. Manchester United, Real Madrid, AC Milan. Players sign contracts with a club for x years or perhaps a trial of y months. That's their job. The club is their contractual employer.
National team players are more like independent contractors. Players are not permanently employed by the federation, nor are they paid a salary. They only get a stipend each time they play for the national team or are called into a training camp.
A club manager can only choose from the few dozen players that are contractually employed by his club. A national team boss can effectively choose from anyone with his country's nationality.
It's one thing for the players to want a higher stipend when they are called into national team camp but a collective bargaining agreement in this situation seems like a total non sequitir. It's like demanding a collective bargaining agreement of someone to mow their lawn once or shovel their sidewalk. It just doesn't seem like a normal situation for a collective bargaining agreement to apply.
The US starts the final round of qualifying with two away games; the other is in Mexico City. Mexico has only failed to win two home qualifiers in history (a 2001 loss to Costa Rica and a 1997 draw with the US). The US really needs at least a draw against a relatively weak T&T.
Being on the national team is a perk, an honor. Even 'sentimentalism' aside, being on the national team isn't the main job of any player. They all have club teams that pay their regular salaries, health benefits, etc. No one is going to be unemployed if they don't play for the national team.
Other national teams have gone on strike or threatened to do so in order to get a higher remuneration or because of bad treatment by the press. A collective bargaining agreement just seems inapplicable in this circumstance.
Any player who goes on strike for this qualifier should never be chosen to play for the national team again. In such disputes, I usually support the players, if by default. But this is different. Management isn't demanding to be saved from themselves, like in nearly all other sporting labor disputes. If they want more money, they can go on strike for friendlies (exhibitions); that way, they can make a statement without risking the progress of the national team program... of which they are a part.
As I've mentioned, it's not the traditional labor dispute. There are no contractual obligations between individuals and the federation. Players can refuse to play at any time, if they want. The national team coach can call or not call whoever he wants. Players can't easily shop around for another national team to play for. (Some can, depending on family circumstance, but it's not quite as easy as quitting McDonald's and going to Burger King)
Anyone who thinks themself bigger than the team can just refuse to play international soccer permanently, like that idiot Roy Keane from Ireland.
Ultimately, the players shouldn't go on strike for a World Cup qualifier because it's not in their interest. Professional soccer's popularity in the US has exploded in the last ten years. Its popularity in America has probably grown more in the last decade than any other team sport. But it's no where near popular enough to risk a labor dispute of this nature.
Even Major League Baseball (where the concept of a collective bargaining agreement really does apply) took years to regain its previous popularity after a labor dispute ruined the 1994 season. And professional soccer is no where near as popular as Major League Baseball was in 1994 or is now. Soccer is going in the right direction; a labor dispute would slow this momentum and possibly ruin it.
In the US, fans of professional soccer are split. Some follow only domestic Major League Soccer and don't care much about soccer abroad except for the progress of American players at foreign clubs. Others are contemptuous of MLS' quality and insist on only following European or Latin American club soccer. Others like myself manage to enjoy any good soccer, without being snobbish or insular. But one thing that unites all soccer fans in America is the national team. 15 years ago, the national team would play big home matches before a few thousand fans. Now, those same big matches can draw 60,000 people or more.
The players should have no interest in killing the goose that's laying golden eggs.
No comments:
Post a Comment