So, the owners have decided to speak.
They detail their side of the dispute and make it clear that free agency in MLS isn't going to happen. I need to sit on this a little before comment further. So...have a read ad check back later...
And the players respond back.
At this point it's a battle of numbers and you might be forgiven for tuning it out. However, what is clear is that this could get messy this week.
That said, these types of things always get messy.
As far as my take on today's developments...it was a smart move by the owners to take the lock-out off the table. I think they did so with full knowledge of what the player's response would be. But, it's still a good move from a public relations stand point.
There is a lot of noise floating around about how the players "have more to lose" in a work stoppage*. That could be the truth, but I've yet to see anyone provide any evidence to back the position up. The average MLS player does make more than the average American or Canadian worker and there are a lot of examples of American and Canadian workers making temporary sacrifices for a longer gain in labour disputes. I'm not sure why MLS players should be held to a higher standard here. If they feel they can walk, they'll walk and, I'd imagine, they'll take care of those players that are most vulnerable financially (if, for no other reason, to stop them from crossing the line).
I’ll have much more on this in the morning....
*to the troll in Uniontown, calling it a "work stoppage" rather that a "strike" at this stage isn't an attempt to subtly put my bias in. It's just accurate, you pinhead. Once we know what type of work stoppage it is, we'll call it what it is).
Sunday, February 21, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Is this league not one big practical example of collusion. Just saying!
You do know that MLS is a Single Entity Limited Liability Corporation?
This is too easy:
If you admit that the owners "have taken a lockout off the table", then exactly what other kind of "work stoppage" is there other than a strike?
Spring Break? Lent?
Please tell us.
@4:01 -
Right now there isn't a work stoppage. There is just rhetoric from both sides. So, I'll stick to the correct and common usage, thanks.
And if you continue to argue the point you’ll be proving someone dense; just not the person you think you are.
Duane,
How will MLS players "take care" of those who are less well off financially? By paying them out of their own pockets? Because every unionized employee knows that strike pay is a pittance. The fact is Duane, the players are in a weaker position simply because of the global player pool and the fact that the players have signed their rights away to the league and can't play anywhere else, even with an expired contract. If they strike, and MLS brought in scabs, the quality of on field play would go down, ticket sales would suffer and the league would be severly damaged, and if tey don't bring in scabs, interest will disapear in a lot of markets, severly damaging the league.
There is no way in hell the owners are stupid enough to bring in scabs. I really see no benefit whatsoever in that. They would lose less money leaving the stadiums dark.
Post a Comment