The CBA: What I want to see

This stuff is draining. As much as talking about the never-ending search for a truly great TFC centreback and Chad Barrett's salary can get dull after a while, I think we can all agree that a constant obsession over the minutia of the CBA debate is 100 times worse.

But, literally nothing else is happening right now (you know, other than the imploding of WPS, simmering hatred between the NASL and USL and the prospect of two full years without significant Canadian national team games).

Since I'm being labelled by some as a blind player-loving fan-boy incapable of understanding the the economic realities of MLS, I wanted to outline what exactly it is that I feel would be a fair deal. A couple caveats before we begin.

1) Although many people are hearing things about the negotiation, no one outside of that room truly understands exactly what is happening.

2) Since we don't know the details, we have to talk in generalities. When things do get solved, those generalities may prove to be out to lunch.

As I've clearly stated many times, I don't disagree with other's characterization of my position as "pro-player," although a better way to put it would be "pro-growth." I don't necessarily support the player's positions without question, but rather I'm interested in seeing MLS do things that can start it down a road that puts it more in line with the rest of the world. That doesn't mean that I don't appreciate some unique aspects to the game here and the need for some exceptions -- a winter schedule, for instance, would be a non-starter as would promotion and relegation or the elimination of the playoffs. It just means that I feel that there are certain aspects of the MLS business model that were necessary in the early days of the league, but that have outlived their usefulness (if the goal is to produce a league that can compete for talent worldwide).

That said:

Salary cap -

The salary cap was not controlled by the previous CBA, which has lead many on the other side of this argument to claim that it can't be talked about in this round either. That's a bit unrealistic since the salary cap governs what players will be paid and compensation is pretty key to any CBA agreement in any industry. I feel that the league is financially strong enough to allow for a moderate increase of the cap. Earlier I reported that there was an agreement to move the number to $2.6 million -- and, despite what critics of mine are suggesting elsewhere, I didn't pull that number from my ass. That would be fine for now. However, in an ideal world I would like to see the cap tied into league revenue. So, $2.6 million would be the floor of the cap, but if the league was profitable at a certain level the cap would automatically increase to reflect that. In the NHL, for instance, player's salaries represent 53 per cent of hockey-related revenue. A situation in MLS that mirrored that type of agreement would be more than fair.

Free agency -

To me MLS needs to find a way to reward player loyalty and recognize that they are not operating in a bubble. I understand the fear of truly opening up the market and agree that if that were to happen you would see an increase in salaries that might be outside of the league's ability to pay. However, if you allowed veteran players (defined by age or minutes played in MLS) that are out of contract to move to a team of their choice you would likely not bring the house down. If you are truly worried about salary inflation, then you could work in provisions that prohibited the moving player to make more money at his new team than he did at his old (or provide incentives to keep him at his old team -- the NBA operates in this way). Basically there are ways to make free agency more about a choice of where to live and work than about money.

Obviously the owners would want to keep free movement restricted. From a pure business prospective it makes perfect sense. But, it's not a reasonable position to take long-term. The players are right to fight for this and the owners would be smart to find a compromise (and the players would also be smart to understand that full free agency is a process that will be agreed upon over time, not all at once).

The Rohan Ricketts rule -

Cut players should be able to negotiate with any other MLS team. Period. Maybe you can work in some salary restraints, but it's not likely necessary. This is a no brainer and pretty much everyone agrees that it's a bit silly for a team to need to give up something to get a player that another team has released.

Guaranteed contracts -

Although I appreciate the player's position on this, it's not an area that I am overly concerned about. That said, it would seem fair to negotiate some sort of protection for players -- especially foreign players who have uprooted their life -- from being cut loose in the middle of a season. Again, this is not something that the owners need to do. They are clearly within their rights to keep things as they are. But, staying firm on this point is to be blind to the realities of the rest of the world.

Term length -

The league wants a long agreement. The players something shorter. I think that it's unrealistic that both sides are going to come out of this satisfied and that if, as many like to point out, the economic situation in the greater world is one reason why this is not a time to be progressive, then it seems reasonable to me to sign a two or three year contract. If the economy is better then...

Other factors -

Although you don't hear much talk about issues like academies, the draft, a reserve league and travel restrictions, I would, ideally, like to see some movement on these fronts as well.

A greater focus on academies could actually help the owners control costs. If you are developing players you maybe don't have to bid against the rest of the world to bring in the Generation adidas quality prospects. Also, you can sell kids to Europe, opening up an entirely undeveloped revenue stream for the owners.

Allowing teams to use whatever travel arrangements that they see fit would be one (very) small way to allow more successful off-field teams to do things to make themselves more competitive. Rewarding success is a good thing.

And we need to get a workable reserve league up and running again.

Many people reading this might feel compelled to say things like "you're good at spending other people's money," and they would be right (although they would likely be missing the counterpoint that they are "good at negotiating other people's working conditions"). Obviously the business of MLS can operate in any way that it sees fit and it's not my, or any other fan's, business. However, what's good for MLS the business is not necessarily good for the development of the sport. And, that's my only concern.

There appears to be a fear among many long-term fans of MLS that any liberalization of the league will result in it going away. Since they were around in 2001 and in 1985 they are frightened of a MLS that isn't strictly controlled by the central office. A watered down, niche league is better than a folded league or folded teams. I simply don't share that fear. MLS would be fine with some moderate changes now and it needs to start moving towards a fully open system down the line. If it isn't moving in that direction then we can conclude that the owners are in this business for one reason and one reason only -- as an investment. The idea that MLS, as constructed, can grow the sport any further than it already has is spurious.

At least that's how I see it.