USMNT striking?

Jim Umber · 01-13-2005, 03:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deuce

OHHHHHHHHHHHHHH! SWEAR WORDS!!!!!😠

Yup. I know that feeling. 😲 😠

Deuce · 01-13-2005, 03:12 PM

Something is definitely not right!
That article keeps appearing and vanishing!

what is goin' on!??!

Jim Umber · 01-13-2005, 03:21 PM

Well, at least I saw it that time, before it disappears again. I got my fingers crossed.🙄

Czar Jake · 01-13-2005, 03:26 PM

People on BS are saying they have personally talked with people and there is no deal close to being made. They said the players that will arrive will be replacement players that they are trying to get from MLS teams. They are asking MLS players to "cross the picket line" which doesn't make sense if it's a lockout.

In classic American style, money disputes wreck everything. Go Italy.

SoccerPrime · 01-14-2005, 05:28 AM

Still no word whats really going on, but for the record this isn't a NHL style lockout. In the NHL dispute, the owners of the teams (aka The NHL) decided that since the Players Association refused to sign their new version of the CBA (collective bargaining agreement) that the NHL would "lockout" the players until they signed.
In our soccer situation, the reversed has happened. The USSF is completely happy to continue along the same quasi-CBA that the USSF and the USMNT Players Assoc. already had been using. It's the Players who refuse to play.
Make sense? (as much as it can, in this incredibly stupid situation)

SoccerPrime · 01-14-2005, 05:43 AM

*Gulp*
http://blog.matchnight.com/blogindex.cfm?action=home&commentID=3073

Deuce · 01-19-2005, 08:15 AM

I got this from US Soccer this morning in response to my letter to them at the begining of the month!

Quote:

U.S. SOCCER LABOR NEWS

Soccer Fan,

Links:

As you know, the United States Soccer Federation, the not-for-profit national governing body for the sport in the U.S., is working diligently to resolve a labor dispute with the U.S. Men's National Team Players Association. After nearly two years at the bargaining table with virtually no substantive movement by the union, U.S. Soccer recently proposed not one, but two, methods to end this dispute in time for the Feb. 9 opener in the final qualifying round of the FIFA World Cup competition. The Players Association rejected both solutions (see a detailed chronology of the negotiations).

SOLUTIONS

The first was an offer of binding arbitration in which both sides would submit complete proposals, one of which would have been selected and implemented by an independent third party. We were so confident in our proposal that we essentially were willing to "bet it all" in support of our position. The union was unwilling to do this, rejecting the arbitration concept and suggesting mediation.

U.S. Soccer then agreed to mediation with a no-strike/no-lockout provision for the duration of World Cup qualifying in 2005. The union then added conditions to the mediation process on two different occasions, essentially rejecting their own proposal.

Had any of U.S. Soccer's proposed solutions been accepted by the Players Association, it would have immediately put the U.S. Men's National Team players back on the field.

BACKGROUND

At the heart of this dispute is player compensation. We appreciate the tremendous progress the U.S. Men's National Team has made in recent years and believe wholeheartedly that U.S. Soccer's strong infrastructure and player development initiatives have helped to pave the way for this growth. The value we place in the U.S. Men's National Team and their performance can be seen clearly in the simple fact that they are already one of the best-compensated national teams in the world. Furthermore, the compensation levels provided to the players have increased dramatically over the past 15 years, coinciding directly with the growth of U.S. Soccer's financial stability.

For the current four-year World Cup cycle, U.S. Soccer has proposed increasing the players' pay by 38 percent, yet the union continues to demand that we more than double their pay, providing a 108 percent raise. In hard dollars, this means that U.S. Soccer, which paid the players $10.4 million during the 1999-2002 quadrennium, has offered to increase their pay to $14.4 million in this quadrennium. Yet the Players Association is asking for $21.8 million (see a detailed side-by-side summary of each proposal).

PROGRAM CUTS

If U.S. Soccer were to meet the union's salary demands, the Federation would have to cut approximately $7.4 million of our player and facility development initiatives. These cuts would drastically affect the current and future youth national team programs that have helped guide so many of our best players from young teenagers to international stardom. Also at risk is the funding that U.S. Soccer has been able to provide for multi-purpose projects similar to our National Training Center at The Home Depot Center and the 20-field, office and stadium facility in Frisco, Texas, that will serve as the home for U.S. Youth Soccer and FC Dallas.

Clearly, we cannot sacrifice the future of soccer development in this country to the exorbitant compensation demands of the Players Association.

In fact, the current differences over pay are exactly what we hoped to avoid in 1998 when U.S. Soccer agreed to a collective bargaining agreement provision enabling the players association to pursue its own commercial sponsorships to allow them to generate additional income. It has been six years and to the best of our knowledge the U.S. Men's National Team Players Association has not secured any significant deals for their members. By contrast, the U.S. Women's National Team Players Association, which has a similar provision, has generated a significant amount of activity.

It is important to remember that U.S. Soccer is a National Governing Body for the sport of soccer, not a professional sports league or team. We are a non-profit, 501(c)(3) company. Every dollar we receive is invested directly back into the game primarily through U.S. Soccer player and facility development initiatives. Our mission demands that we invest in growing the game of soccer for the long term. Our current offer to the players not only compensates them fairly and generously, but also preserves the financial stability necessary for soccer to continue to grow in this country.

Ultimately, the union's decision to rebuff every solution we've offered has left U.S. Soccer with no choice but to begin making plans to field a team of alternate players for the USA's World Cup qualifying match in Trinidad & Tobago on February 9.

We hope that this information, and the information you will find linked from this message, helps give you a better understanding of the true facts behind these labor negotiations.

Thank you for your support.

U.S. Soccer

This email was sent by:
U.S. Soccer
1801 S. Prairie Ave.
Chicago, IL 60616
United States

You are receiving this message in response to a message you sent U.S. Soccer regarding its current Collective Bargaining Agreement talks with the U.S. Men's National Team Players Association. If you would no longer like to receive these updates, please go here and submit a removal request or write to webmaster [at] ussoccer.org and ask to be removed. http://cl.exct.net/open.aspx?fec813717367027d-fdf615717065067472177871

Jim Umber · 01-19-2005, 09:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deuce

The first was an offer of binding arbitration in which both sides would submit complete proposals, one of which would have been selected and implemented by an independent third party.

Note that they insisted that it be all one proposal, or all the other, no compromising possible.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deuce

U.S. Soccer then agreed to mediation with a no-strike/no-lockout provision for the duration of World Cup qualifying in 2005.

Depending on how they actually worded this, it could well be a sticking point.

I still don't think that USSF is completely innocent in these procedings. I beleive they have been guilty of stubornness, pigheadedness, and worste of all, stupidity in trying to manipulate the players to get only exactly what they want while pretending to compromise.

On the other hand, it certainly looks as if the players association is being just as stubborn, just as pigheaded, and just as stupid as the USSF. Someone needs to explain to them that the USSF can't bankrupt themselves to pay the players.

So I would simply say to BOTH sides, it is time to COMPROMISE! You can't just have it your own way! You're hurting SOCCER in this country, just when it seems it might be making some headway. You're holding it back.

Czar Jake · 01-19-2005, 11:10 AM

I got that email too Deuce. I am sick of hearing one side or the other arguing their position through third channels. The bottom line is this: The Fed and the Players are fighting over money, and the fans are getting the shaft.

Jose Luis Luviano · 01-19-2005, 09:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Czar Jake

In classic American style, money disputes wreck everything. Go Italy.

Every national federation of every country larger than the Faroe Islands has had a money dispute with its players at some time.

Heck, I learned half of the Spanish I know by listening to Blow By Blow accounts on Spanish language sports talk shows of various Central American federations P***ing contests with their players.

But the USSF is unique in that a lot of its management's power base comes from people who despise pro soccer. Some people want to go back to the Bake Sale Pre Rothenburg days.

Even Mexico, with its, um, interesting national federation politics manages to get things right with their players.

But if USSF management offers the players anything more than a crust of bread and a box in the middle of the motorway to sleep in during training sessions; they'll be booted out of office by some disgruntled anti-pro soccer parents.