This could suck for US soccer

[Easy Mac]

hxxp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A32417-2004Dec28.html

By Steven Goff
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, December 29, 2004; Page D01

The U.S. Soccer Federation has postponed indefinitely the start of training camp for the U.S. men's national team because of a contract dispute with its players, an impasse that could jeopardize American hopes of reaching the 2006 World Cup in Germany.

The U.S. team was scheduled to open camp Monday at Home Depot Center in Carson, Calif., to prepare for its opening match in the final round of World Cup qualifying, Feb. 9 at Trinidad and Tobago.


However, USSF officials said a deal needed to be reached by yesterday to ensure that camp would open on time. Nothing will be scheduled until a collective bargaining agreement with the U.S. National Soccer Team Players Association is reached, USSF spokesman Jim Moorhouse said.

"We're eager to resolve the issue," Moorhouse said from Chicago. "But we're looking for some kind of evidence that the union is looking to reach an agreement that's good for the players, the federation and the long-term future of the sport."

The previous agreement expired two years ago, but the players have been participating in USSF events under the terms of the earlier deal.

U.S. players earn their living by playing for professional teams around the world, some with contracts exceeding $1 million per year with European clubs. They receive money from the USSF when they report to national team training camps, appear in international matches and win games against high-ranked opponents and in prestigious events, such as the World Cup.

U.S. players received a combined $10.4 million from the federation between 1999 and 2002, Moorhouse said. Each player on the 2002 World Cup squad earned nearly $250,000 after the Americans reached the quarterfinals in South Korea.

Under the USSF's new proposal, the players would receive a 38 percent increase if the team made similar accomplishments, Moorhouse said. USSF officials claim the players are asking for a 108 percent increase, a figure union chief Mark Levinstein said "is not correct. We are asking for more than 38 percent. We've had no increases for six years."

Noting the latest union proposal rejected by the USSF, Levinstein said: "The federation again made it clear they don't want to negotiate with the players. They haven't negotiated in good faith in two years and they're giving us a take-it-or-leave-it offer that's half of the last offer. They're going to play games with the entire sport and our chances of qualifying for the World Cup."

The USSF has given the union a Feb. 1 deadline to finalize a deal, or else the federation would begin assembling replacement players for the World Cup qualifiers. Few, if any, players with national team experience would likely accept an invitation, but some in MLS and the U.S. minor league system might consent.

The United States is among six nations vying for three automatic berths in the next Cup; the national team is scheduled to play 10 qualifiers between February and October, starting with the game at Trinidad and followed by a trip to arch rival Mexico. Reaching the World Cup means millions of dollars to the USSF and its players, and invaluable international exposure for American soccer in general.

A preliminary training camp scheduled for Dec. 13-20 in California was also canceled.

The month-long January camp, comprising MLS players, was also to include exhibitions against South Korea and Sweden in Southern California -- games considered crucial tuneups before the qualifiers. But the USSF decided not to finalize plans for those games because of the uncertainty of the negotiations.

U.S. Coach Bruce Arena said late yesterday from his home in Fairfax that he had yet to be told the status of the January training camp. He said he didn't want to offer any general comments on the situation because "I'm not part of it." But when asked about the dispute's potential impact on American soccer's World Cup aspirations, he said, "What do you think?"

The United States has participated in every World Cup since 1990.

Mexico, the United States and Costa Rica are heavily favored to earn the region's three World Cup berths in 2006. A fourth country will advance to a two-game playoff against an Asian team. Trinidad and Tobago, Guatemala and Panama -- none of whom has qualified for a World Cup -- will also participate in the final round.

Well, this could definitely suck for the US. We can't really afford to give away 3 points. I'd think we could at least draw at T&T, so thats a 2 point swing right there. They need to figure this thing out fast or they risk losing any chance at soccer popularity here.

[cougarfreak]

Somehow this doesn't surprise me with U.S. professional sports players. Playing for your country is an honor. These people are professional paid players from other clubs. They already have other jobs. I'd start looking for replacements.

[ISiddiqui]

What sons of bitches . I think a 38% increase is fair. And it is a chance to play for your country. Bastards.

[Cards4ever]

Bad decision on the players part.

[ISiddiqui]

Yep, it hurts them more in the long run. If the US fails to qualify because of this any good will from the last World Cup will be gone and soccer gets more marginalized.

[duckman]

Pretty selfish to me.

[SirFozzie]

wow, I disagreee.. the USSF is making a ton of money off these guys, and it's NOT 38% as the USSF tries to claim.. it's half that (because the players have been without a contract for TWO years, and this will not apply back to those games).. AND the #'s that the USSF uses to tout their incentives are if the US makes the World Cup Semifinals.

Basically, the USSF is trying to shine on everybody.. and sad to say, looks like they are succeeding from the response here.

[GoldenEagle]

I am hoping I get a call from Bruce.

[Cards4ever]

How much is a ton? Also, haven't they done alot to help these guys earn money by running the MLS? The MLS has also helped make these make decent money playing soccer by running a league at a loss. MLS and US Soccer are very connected are they not?

[SirFozzie]

From a earlier article on soccernet about this

According to USSPA figures, U.S. national team players only received 7 percent of the revenue generated by the national team while the USSF currently boasts a $30 million surplus.

[SirFozzie]

Another quote from the same story:

As one example, the federation generated more than $1 million in revenue from the national team's scoreless draw against Mexico on May 8, 2003. This figure was more than the federation paid out to players for the entire year of 2003 (as a group, the players received a total of $45,000 for the Mexico game). That year, the U.S. national team played in 16 matches and the USSF generated $8.7 million in revenue from the men's national team.

[SirFozzie]

Originally Posted by Cards4ever

How much is a ton? Also, haven't they done alot to help these guys earn money by running the MLS? The MLS has also helped make these make decent money playing soccer by running a league at a loss. MLS and US Soccer are very connected are they not?

Hey, I thought I had answered your question previously, but nope, US Soccer and MLS are not connected in such a way

[Desnudo]

I don't really care who's to blame. I just hope they sort it out and quickly. This type of thing isn't what US soccer needs.

[cougarfreak]

I wonder what the wages are of other countries national team players.

[Mr. Wednesday]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

From a earlier article on soccernet about this

According to USSPA figures, U.S. national team players only received 7 percent of the revenue generated by the national team while the USSF currently boasts a $30 million surplus.

The $30 million surplus has been earmarked for spending, so it's essentially off-limits; the important point in my mind is that the fed's revenues are high enough to have generated that surplus, and the revenues related to the national team have grown by leaps and bounds over the last decade while the team's compensation has not risen accordingly.

[Mr. Wednesday]

Originally Posted by cougarfreak

I wonder what the wages are of other countries national team players.

Denmark's the only other country where the entire bargaining agreement (including appearance fees and product licensing) is public. The U.S. had pretty much the most favorable World Cup bonus structure of any country, but we don't know what the appearance fees look like for other countries -- in fact, even a representative of the PA who has posted on BigSoccer has professed not to know.

[Mr. Wednesday]

Originally Posted by Cards4ever

Bad decision on the players part.

I don't know about that... they decided to take a stand now because they think they hold the cards; the vast majority of the USSF income streams come either directly or indirectly from the national team, and those would be threatened by a failure to qualify. So far, the USSF is not acting like they're under any pressure, we'll see what happens in the next month.

[Mr. Wednesday]

As for where I stand... I'm not sure if I'm in favor of the players' proposal, but I place most of the blame for the current impasse on the USSF, which has not shown any interest in actually negotiating despite the fact that their initial offer should have been a starting point for reaching a compromise and their current offer is punitive.

[Ragone]

does that surplus # include revenue from the womens world cup team? just outta curiousity

[Sharpieman]

Originally Posted by Desnudo

I don't really care who's to blame. I just hope they sort it out and quickly. This type of thing isn't what US soccer needs.

Damn right.

[SirFozzie]

Won't get sorted out quickly. As I said earlier, the players have been withouta contract for two whole years, and the USSF hasn't actually been great at negotiating (when the players offered a counter proposal, the USSF actually WORSENED their offer (taking away the retroactive two years) as a punitive measure.

[Tekneek]

With the USSF making so much revenue, why are the coaching classes still rather steep? They should be close to free with that kind of cash in the accounts...

I also wonder what the national players get on the better sides? What are the Brazilian, Italian, and English players getting, for instance? Surely our players do not deserve to be paid more than squads who regularly perform at a higher level...

[Mr. Wednesday]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

I also wonder what the national players get on the better sides?

You speak for many.

What are the Brazilian, Italian, and English players getting, for instance? Surely our players do not deserve to be paid more than squads who regularly perform at a higher level...

I'm not sure I agree with this, at least as far as the Brazilians go... there's no question that they usually perform at a higher level, but do they produce as much revenue for their federation as the U.S. team? It seems more likely that Italy and England would be good comparisons.

[Mr. Wednesday]

Originally Posted by Ragone

does that surplus # include revenue from the womens world cup team? just outta curiousity

I'm sure it includes both, but I believe the men are a more consistent source of revenue than the women. I don't believe the women generally draw as well for friendlies or qualifiers.

[Desnudo]

Originally Posted by Mr. Wednesday

You speak for many.

I'm not sure I agree with this, at least as far as the Brazilians go... there's no question that they usually perform at a higher level, but do they produce as much revenue for their federation as the U.S. team? It seems more likely that Italy and England would be good comparisons.

I think the main difference is that Italy, England or Brazil players are usually extremely highly paid players who play more out of duty or for glory than any monetary benefit. For the US, some players are making serious money overseas, but anyone playing in the MLS isn't making nearly as much as players in Europe, or even Brazil or Argentina.

Additionally, soccer is part of the national fabric of those countries and I'm sure the federations ensure that their players are happy. And actually I'd bet Brazil, or any of those countries produces far more revenue than the US team. Think of the championships, the much higher attendance and merchandising revenue, etc.. Anyway, the fans would be in an uproar if this happened in a soccer friendly country. The US is really a unique situation.

[Ragone]

Originally Posted by Mr. Wednesday

I'm sure it includes both, but I believe the men are a more consistent source of revenue than the women. I don't believe the women generally draw as well for friendlies or qualifiers.

not true.. womens world cup team SOLDOUT arrowhead stadium in kc when they exhibitioned china here.. i know the men don't sellout.. unless a euro club offers them a contract! :P

[Mr. Wednesday]

The men sell out high-profile qualifiers all the time. They also sell out friendlies against Mexico. Absent an in-depth analysis of the gate of the respective teams, I stand by my assertion that the men are a more consistent source of revenue (and I meant attendance revenue... I'd allow that the women might have brought in more sponsorship revenue since the individual players are more well-known).

[moriarty]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

Another quote from the same story:

As one example, the federation generated more than $1 million in revenue from the national team's scoreless draw against Mexico on May 8, 2003. This figure was more than the federation paid out to players for the entire year of 2003 (as a group, the players received a total of $45,000 for the Mexico game). That year, the U.S. national team played in 16 matches and the USSF generated $8.7 million in revenue from the men's national team.

Revenue figures don't mean anything. If they made 8 million in revenues but had to spend 8 million to pay for training, stadiums, marketing, etc.... then there's no money to increase player payouts.

The surplus (and by surplus I assume they mean profits) is the key. What are they doing with this money? If they are using it to fund additional growth of the sport, then I have no problem with it. If they're using it to make some chairman rich, I have an issue.

This is one of those situations where you hope cool heads prevail and everyone realizes it's a lose-lose situation if we don't qualify and field the best team for the WC.

[SirFozzie]

About 15 million of that $30 million surplus went to fund overruns at the Home Depot Center and the new stadium for FC Dallas (please note, there had been funding in place for overruns in both stadiums, the USSF says its funding the growth because of some youth fields at both new stadiums.

the USSF is not-for-profit.