US players could possibly go on strike for WCQ

[CanadianSoccerFan]

They're talking about using replacement players for the game against Trinidad.

http://www.signonsandiego.com/sports/soccer/20041214-9999-1s14soccer.html

[sstackho]

Very interesting. But what are the issues they are fighting over??

[beachesl]

I would assume that the issue is amount of payment for playing. And, if it's not resolved, it looks like Trinidad gets lucky again.

----------------------------------------------------------------

U.S. could play World Cup qualifier with 'replacement players'

By Mark Zeigler

UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER

December 14, 2004

Hockey is not the only sport with labor issues.

Soccer is facing them as well, so much that the U.S. federation is threatening to take the unprecedented step of using "replacement players" for its men's World Cup qualifying match on Feb. 9.

The contract between women's national-team players and U.S. Soccer expires at the end of this month, and negotiations reportedly have turned so contentious that there appears little chance of reaching an agreement before January. But it is the less-publicized men's labor problems that could have the most immediate impact, with the prospect of sending a squad of little-known players to Trinidad and Tobago for the February qualifier becoming more real by the day.

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.

The U.S. National Soccer Team Players Association – which theoretically includes any male player who has ever donned a U.S. jersey – recently refused to attend a two-week December training camp at The Home Depot Center in Carson. The federation responded by scrapping plans for a pair of qualifying tuneups in January against South Korea and Sweden just days before the games were to be formally announced.

Instead, a federation spokesman confirmed, South Korea and Sweden will play each other on Jan. 22 in Carson. As the Union-Tribune reported last week, Sweden will complete its two-game West Coast tour against Mexico on Jan. 26 at Petco Park because Qualcomm Stadium is not available.

"We have enough of a level of uncertainty with regards to labor issues," federation spokesman Jim Moorhouse said, "that we didn't feel comfortable scheduling anything in January."

Moorhouse would not comment on the Feb. 9 match at Trinidad, the first of 10 qualifiers that determine the CONCACAF region's berths at the 2006 World Cup. But in a Dec. 8 letter to the players association obtained by the Union-Tribune, the federation's chief negotiator writes:

"If no collective bargaining is reached by Feb. 1, 2005, the USSF will pursue other options for the Feb. 9 World Cup qualifier. The USSF is entitled to use replacement players or other teams as it may elect. Such action is not unlawful and is precisely the kind of action that Congress has reserved to employers to allow them to press their position in the collective bargaining process, just as the Players Association has the right to strike (a right which the USSF believes they have already exercised)."

Sending a replacement team to Trinidad would be a bold move indeed, considering that reaching the World Cup can be worth millions – even tens of millions – of dollars to a national soccer federation.

Mark Levinstein, the Washington-based attorney who represents the men's players association, declined comment. U.S. national coach Bruce Arena is out of the country and could not be reached.

It is not the first time U.S. Soccer has had labor problems with its men's players. In 1993 the federation nearly sent a replacement team to the Copa America tournament in Uruguay, and in October 1996 it did just that for an international friendly in Peru two weeks before World Cup qualifying began. The regulars ultimately decided to play in qualifying, and an agreement was reached the following year.

[beachesl]

Yep, it's about the amount of pay for appearing in matches......

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

U.S. Soccer Federation threatening not to use regular players in World Cup qualifier

By RONALD BLUM, AP Sports Writer

December 15, 2004

NEW YORK (AP) -- The U.S. Soccer Federation is threatening to drop all experienced players from the roster for its next World Cup qualifier unless the union agrees to a new labor contract by Feb. 1.

The USSF's deal with the U.S. National Team Players Association expired in December 2002, and federation lawyer Russ Sauer sent the union a letter Dec. 8 threatening the move.

If the USSF follows through and escalates the dispute, which centers on payments to players, it would severely damage the U.S. team's chances to win at Trinidad and Tobago on Feb. 9 and possibly to qualify for the 2006 World Cup.

'`We've notified the team that we need to have a deal in place, or other options can be pursued for participation in that game,'' USSF spokesman Jim Moorhouse said Wednesday.

The union said it represents all players who have appeared for the national team or been invited to a training camp. Without them, the USSF would be forced to use a squad of mostly young players, all without experience on the national team.

The USSF's decision was first reported Tuesday by The San Diego Union-Tribune.

The United States, which has played in four straight World Cups, is in the six-nation final round of qualifying from the North and Central American and Caribbean region. The top three teams advance to the 32-nation field in Germany, and the fourth-place team goes to a playoff against an Asian nation for another berth.

``The current soccer federation approach is part of their long-standing view that the players should not be represented,'' said Mark Levinstein, the union's head. ``The players have been playing for almost two years without a contract and without any reasonable offer for a new contract.''

Under the expired deals, 25 players earned $200,543 each at the 2002 World Cup, where the Americans advanced to the quarterfinals in their best finish since 1930. If the Americans had won the tournament, players would have earned $499,022 apiece.

For World Cup qualifiers, players receive a minimum of $2,000 per game and up to $6,000, the payment specified for wins over Mexico, Costa Rica and Jamaica. Payments for exhibition games range from $2,000 to $5,150, depending on the opponent and the result.

Players filed unfair labor practice charges with the Baltimore office of the National Labor Relations Board, accusing the USSF of illegal regressive bargaining, a charge Moorhouse denied.

The federation claims the players initiated a strike when they decided last month to skip a training camp scheduled for Dec. 13-20. The union claims players were not formally notified of the camp, and that the USSF is threatening a lockout.

Because of the dispute, the federation did not finalize exhibition games Jan. 22 against South Korea in Los Angeles and Jan. 30 against Sweden at a site that never was determined.

While the USSF needs the exposure of the World Cup to generate a large part of its revenue, U.S.-based players need the World Cup to advance their careers and attract interest from European clubs, which pay far more.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It would be interesting to find out how much Canadian players get for playing for the MNT.

[Desigol]

As Homer Simpson said, "If You don't like your Job, You don't go on Strike! You just do it Half-Assed! That's the American Way!"

[sstackho]

I hear CONCACAF is thinking of kicking the U.S. out of the hex and inviting Canada in their place.

[Alex]

quote:Originally posted by sstackho

I hear CONCACAF is thinking of kicking the U.S. out of the hex and inviting Canada in their place.

Dont toy with me. I cant handle it

[DJT]

Originally posted by Paddy - 12/17/2004 : 21:50:36</u>

Another potential opportunity lost by not making the hex:

http://soccernet.espn.go.com/feature?id=319590&cc=5901

Originally posted by Free kick - 12/17/2004 : 22:11:58</u>

I was not aware that they have a CBA amongst the players and the USSF. Another thing that caught my attention is the $30 million surplus that the USSF has in its coffers. Unless things change dramatically, its always going to be hard for canada to compete against a side like the US if the deck is always stacked against Canada.

But, moreso than the money, the biggest difference has got to be the fact that one side has domestic based players who don't have to travel long distances and who are usually in mid season form when most qualifying games are played.

Another interesting/humourous quote from the article:

".......The likelihood would be fielding a team of foreign-based Americans playing in lower European divisions combined with select players from the A-League. "

wait a minute!! thats Canada!!!

[SABuffalo786]

Right now, I'll take this as posturing and Sabre rattling.

Last time we were in a situation, as mentioned, was the 93 Copa America. While the USSF was talking tough, they folded quickly. I think the USSF will drive a harder bargain this time around, but I doubt either side will let it come down to throwing away Hexagonal points. No one wins, then.

I'm pissed that this situation has resulted in the cancelation of our friendly games against Sweden and South Korea, though. If we don't come out of Port Au Spain with three points, those games could've been the difference.

[Soju]

Speaking hypothetically, if this sort of thing happened involving the Canadian players who would you guys side with?

[beachesl]

USSF says players' new offer is inadequate

By RONALD BLUM, AP Sports Writer

December 23, 2004

NEW YORK (AP) -- Players on the U.S. soccer team made a new proposal that the U.S. Soccer Federation called inadequate, and it remains uncertain whether untested players will be used instead of the regulars for a World Cup qualifier in February.

Players made a new proposal Monday, union head Mark Levinstein said, but it wasn't to the liking of the USSF, soccer's governing body in the United States.

USSF spokesman Jim Moorhouse said Thursday that his organization calculated the union plan at a 108 percent increase, saying players on the national team earned $10.4 million from 1999-2002 and are asking for $22 million. Moorhouse said management's latest proposal would earn players $14.4 million.

``After two years of negotiations, the players' association is basically holding out for double what the players were paid in the previous cycle,'' he said.

Levinstein said that while the USSF states it is offering a 38 percent rise, it really is 19 percent or less because management won't apply any increase to games played in 2003 and 2004. He also said management's figures were based on the Americans advancing to the World Cup semifinals.

The USSF says that if a new contract is not agreed to be Feb. 1, it will use players who are not members of the union for the Americans' opener in the final round of World Cup qualifying, at Trinidad and Tobago on Feb. 9. The union says it represents all players who have appeared in a game with the national team or been invited to a national team training camp.

[beachesl]

Players Association Director Mark Levinstein explains the complexities of the lockout

Sean Wheelock / FOXSports.com

http://msn.foxsports.com/story/3270754

On a current run of 29 straight matches without a loss versus CONCACAF opposition as they head into the Final Round of CONCACAF World Cup Qualification, it appeared that virtually nothing could stop the United States from reaching a 5th straight World Cup.

That is until the recent turmoil in negotiations between the United States Soccer Federation and the U.S. Soccer Players Association suddenly left everything in doubt.

I spoke to Mark Levinstein, the U.S. National Soccer National Team Players Association's Acting Executive Director and Outside General Council, to understand the player's perspective on this looming crisis.

Sean Wheelock: What exactly are the players seeking from the U.S. Soccer Federation?

Mark Levinstein: The basic concept is that before there was a Players Association, the Federation paid these guys whatever they felt they could get away with. Which often was zero or $200 a game. Before the Players Association came along, if you were on the roster and didn't play, you got paid zero. The players were treated completely unfairly because they couldn't speak as a group.

The threat was always 'take it or you won't get to play for the National Team, and we'll find someone else'. The same threat that they are making now. The Federation has made tens of millions of dollars off of the players, and they now have $30 million in the bank. The players are simply looking for a deal that pays them about 14% of the revenue that the Men's National Team generates.

SW: What is included in revenue?

ML: The Federation has absolutely refused to have any deal based on how much they make. All that the players get under the agreements with the federation is a certain amount for playing, a certain amount for tying, and a certain amount for winning games. Unlike any other sport, their compensation is totally conditioned on performance on the field. Right now we get less than 7% of the sponsorship and ticket sales.

Under the Federation's current revenue numbers, the deal we've proposed through 2006 would pay the players a little less than 14% of the revenue. If revenues continue to grow, the deal that we've proposed for 2007 and 2010 would probably get us back down to 10% or less of their revenue. But we'd just like to make a deal and move forward.

SW: Is percentage of total revenue the barrier in getting a new agreement in place between the players and the Federation?

ML: We're willing to agree to get it in win, loss, tie. Based on what the players are presently paid by the Federation, if it were a 34 game season, they would be making around $100,000 per year. Our European based players who come to the National Team lose more money in appearance fees and win bonuses (from their clubs) in the games they miss, than they get paid by the Federation to play for the National Team.

It's just a matter of principle that if the Federation is making $8 to $10 million a year profit on the Men's National Team, and they're paying the players a total of about $1 million year, there needs to be some reasonable increases.

SW: Are you optimistic that an agreement can be reached before the United States is scheduled to play the Final round of CONCACAF World Cup Qualification on February 9th?

ML: I'm always optimistic that two sides can reach a deal when there's so much room for middle ground. The Federation makes $10 million profit a year on the men's national team and pays an absurdly small percentage of that to the players. They can pay us what we're asking for, and still have millions of dollars profit left over. There's absolutely no reason why we can't get a deal done before that first qualifier.

SW: Is the situation now that you're waiting to hear back from the U.S. Soccer Federation, or are they waiting for you to make another offer?

ML: We're waiting for them. They've told us that their February 2004 offer cut in half is their last and final offer, and we have to take it, or else they will lock the players out. Despite that, we've made several counter-offers since then and most recently made another offer on Monday (December 20), and are waiting for another response. We don't know if they're going to say that they still won't negotiate in good faith, or if they are finally going to decide to give us a reasonable offer.

SW: So this possibly would be a lockout by the Federation rather than a strike by the players?

ML: There is absolutely no basis to say that we are threatening to strike: the camps, the games, or the World Cup qualifier. They wrote to us out-of-the-blue in December, and told us they were canceling the January games, and that they were going to lock us out of the January camp unless we agreed by December 28th to all the terms of their February 2004 offer.

SW: If there is a lockout for this February 8th qualifier, would the match be canceled and the U.S. forfeit, or would replacement players be used?

ML: There is a concern that if no one plays the game, it might upset FIFA a bit. We're assuming that they will field some sort of team if they decide to lock us out. But you'd really have to ask them what their plans are.

SW: Does a player have to have been capped to be a member of the U.S. National Soccer Team Players Association?

ML: Under the labor laws, our constitution and by-laws; under our agreement with the Federation, every player who has been in a senior national team training camp, or has played for the national team, or has been on the roster for a national team game is part of the current U.S. National Soccer Team Players Association.

SW: Could U.S. Youth Internationals be brought in to play in the case of a lockout?

ML: They've discussed bringing in the U-20's or the U-17 players. There are some members of the U-20 team who are part of the Players Association because they've played in (senior) National Team games or training camps.

SW: Is another option that the Federation may attempt to use replacement players who have never before been in the U.S. system?

ML: The Federation people have told our players that they will use A-League players, MISL players, all sorts of folks. In 1996**, a statement was made by a top Federation official that, 'We've invited 85 players, and if they say no, we'll invite 500 more until we field a team.' That was a silly statement then, and it would be a silly statement now. But I don't know who it is they would ask to play.

(**Wheelock's Note: Replacement players were used for the United States in a 4-1 loss away to Peru, October 16, 1996).

SW: Is there a fear that one or more of your players could break ranks and appear for the U.S. squad without an agreement in place, or do you have 100% solidarity?

ML: First of all, if it's a lock-out, they can't because the Federation is the one saying they can't play. You can't lock out some of the players. We have 100% solidarity as far as I know. Our players are all behind us. Everyone agrees that their current offer is absurd. Everyone also knows that it's up to the Federation because they're the ones locking us out. We're just waiting for them to give us a reasonable first offer so that we can start having a negotiation.

SW: Is there a drop-dead date for this February 9th qualifier?

ML: They've told us that if we haven't accepted their last take-it-or-leave-it offer by February 1st, they will use replacement players.

SW: Is there anything that you can do right now to further advance negotiations and end the threat of a lockout apart from agreeing to the Federation's current offer?

ML: We've made the last three concession proposals. We've made one more (on December 20th) to show that we are the ones negotiating, and not the Federation. We're waiting to hear back. They've said that if we don't agree to their absurd February 2004 offer cut in half, and it was absurd before they cut it in half, they are going to lock us out. I don't know if that's true; it's not rational. But it doesn't mean it's not what they're going to do.

In a future column, I will seek an interview with a representative of the U.S. Soccer Federation to gain their views and opinions pertaining to this situation.

[Cheeta]

Guess this story (if it carrys on into WCQ) will get really interesting as the USA's 1st home date begins to loom. If the players can keep their nerve and continue to ape the party line this could get pretty intense. Inside and outside of the soccer circles down south. Not the sort of publicity one wants for MLS. And lets face it, MLS is soccer in english speaking NA.

Hope the lads got the balls for it. I'm sure the Euro based ones do. The MLSers? Maybe not.

[beachesl]

U.S. Soccer Federation rejects pushing back deadline, asks players to agree to binding arbitration

By RONALD BLUM, AP Sports Writer

January 5, 2005

NEW YORK (AP) -- Coach Bruce Arena's proposal to push back the deadline in the U.S. Soccer Federation's labor dispute was disavowed by management, which asked the union Wednesday to accept binding arbitration for a new contract.

The USSF is threatening to use untested players on Feb. 9 at Trinidad and Tobago in the opener of the final round of World Cup qualifying unless a collective bargaining agreement is reached by Feb. 1.

After the union initiated a conversation, Arena sent a Dec. 26 e-mail to union head Mark Levinstein. Arena said the sides should agree to have a January training camp, let the regular players appear in the game and work toward reaching an agreement by March 1.

Told that players were prepared to accept Arena's plan, management lawyer Russ Sauer said the federation would not agree to it.

``Bruce is not part of the negotiating team,'' USSF spokesman Jim Moorhouse said.

Arena declined comment, saying only the description of the proposal was ``not completely accurate.''

Players, who were given until 3 p.m. EST Monday to accept arbitration, are likely to reject the proposal, in which the USSF specified rules that each side must ``strictly adhere to.'' Levinstein declined comment, saying he first had to consult with the players, who are in both the United States and with European clubs.

The USSF proposal calls for a four-year contract only and would allow an arbitrator from the American Arbitration Association to select either side's proposal, with no compromise allowed.

Players and management could propose non-economic changes from the deal that expired in December 2002, but none that changes ``the economic relationship between the parties.'' The economic changes would be ``limited to the dollar amounts and dates only'' of the payment schedule, not to changing the structure itself.

``We believe that our offer is a strong one that's good for the players (and) the sport of soccer in the U.S. long-term,'' USSF president Bob Contiguglia said in a statement.

[beachesl]

The U.S. Soccer Federation's Jim Moorehouse discusses the other side of the USA lockout

http://msn.foxsports.com/story/3299026

Sean Wheelock / FOXSports.com

Two weeks ago in this column, I interviewed Mark Levinstein, the Acting Executive Director and Outside General Council for the U.S. National Soccer Team Players Association, about the current labor dispute that threatens to disrupt America's bid for a fifth consecutive appearance in the World Cup.

The other party in this highly contentious and polarizing issue is of course the United States Soccer Federation. I spoke to their Director of Communications, Jim Moorhouse.

Sean Wheelock: What is the current status of the negotiations between the United States Soccer Federation and the U.S. National Soccer Team Players Association?

Jim Moorhouse: As of January 5, U.S. Soccer has proposed binding arbitration to resolve the current labor dispute with the Players Association. Should the Players Association accept the arbitration offer by a January 10th deadline, then we would immediately call the U.S. National Team into training camp in preparation for the team's opening game in Trinidad (February 9). If the offer of arbitration is rejected, then plans would remain in place for a selection of alternate players to participate in that game, should a collective bargaining agreement not be reached by February 1.

SW: How will the proposed arbitration process work?

JM: It calls for each party to submit one final proposal. Following those submissions, the arbitrator would then select a single proposal in its entirety.

SW: If both sides agree to the arbitration, would the ruling be absolutely final and put into place?

JM: Yes. Once both sides agree to the arbitration, an arbitrator would select how we're going to move forward with the collective bargaining agreement.

SW: Is proposing arbitration a concession by the Federation?

JM: We feel that the surest path to resolving the labor dispute would be arbitration. Assuming that the Players Association believes its bargaining stance, we can't really conceive of any reason why they would not wholeheartedly embrace this proposal of arbitration. We are confident that our offer is a strong one that's good for the players and good for the sport long-term. It's good for all of our millions of members who benefit from our programs.

SW: How does the Federation's proposal differ fundamentally from that of the Players Association?

JM: We have offered a very fair proposal that we think responsibly supports the development of the sport. And it also offers the Players Association $14.4 million. That's a 38% increase over the $10.4 million that they were paid from 1999 through 2002.

SW: Is that figure of $14.4 million guaranteed during this World Cup cycle?

JM: That $14.4 million is based on the same results of the 1999 to 2002 window. If you had the same types of results in the 2003 to 2006 window, then we would pay them $14.4 million. But keep in mind that we are deeply committed to paying for performance. We think that is a win-win for the players and the sport.

SW: What happens if the U.S. National Team were to exceed the results of 1999 to 2002 in this new time period?

JM: The figure would definitely be higher. The point here is that the Players Association's current offer based on the 1999 to 2002 results, would pay out $21.8 million. That's a 108% increase.

SW: What is your response to the Players Association's claim that the Federation has a current surplus of $30 million?

JM: It's worth noting that we are a national governing body for the sport of soccer. We're not a professional sports league. We're not a professional sports team. We are a not-for-profit 501c3 company, and all of the money that we accrue goes directly back into the game. Four years ago, U.S. Soccer was really 18 months away from bankruptcy. We had a $4 million deficit. After four years of hard work to build revenues, and through some extensive cost-cutting in every area of the organization, except player development, we're strong enough now to support our seven Board mandated initiatives that we had in place to build the sport of soccer: player, facility, coaching, referee, event, and staff development, and to enhance the quality of environment for our National Teams, which includes things such as flying charters. At the core of our ability to fund the growth of the sport is this $30 million reserve that we've earned over the last four years.

SW: How was the $30 million accrued?

JM: By trimming operating cost by $8 million, which includes a staff reduction from 112 to 69. In the Summer of 2001, we had the first fee increase in 17 years at U.S. Soccer from 50 cents to $1. That helped build an $8 million surplus to pay for basic services. The proceeds from International games staged in the U.S. have contributed $4 million to that surplus. And there was a Board mandated requirement to accrue $9 million for emergency funding. It's important to note that the Men's National Team's contribution in terms of revenue is less than $1.1 million across the four years of 1999 to 2002, after expenditures.

SW: The Players Association has used the term lock-out to describe the current situation, while the Federation has called it a strike. Is this just a matter of semantics?

JM: On December 13th, when they refused to participate in a camp which they were notified of, then they are on strike.

SW: If for whatever reason, this situation has not been resolved by the time of the United States' first match of the Final Round of World Cup Qualification on February 9th, is there the possibility of a forfeit?

JM: We will field a team for all of our scheduled qualifying games, because that is something that we have to do. Otherwise we put not only this World Cup but the next World Cup in jeopardy.

SW: If the Players Association accepts arbitration by the January 10th deadline, is this labor dispute over?

JM: If they agree, this is a resolution.

[Blue and White Army]

For f***s sake, these guys should be willing to play for their country for free.

W*nkers.

[SABuffalo786]

That's a nice thought, BAWA, but these guys fly half way round the world and risk injury and a place at their club team to play. The USSF is sitting on a 30 million dollar surplus. I think they deserve a little more than what they get now.

But all I really want is a quick resolution. I'll be mighty pissed if the players don't accept this binding arbitration. It'd be the best case scenario (as of now) for everyone.

[sstackho]

Does anyone know what/if Canadian hockey players get paid when they play for their country? World Cup vs World Championship?

[Grizzly]

The players earn a living playing professionally and should play for their country for honour. They should receive some compensation for revenue lost by callups and significant insurance coverage in case of injury and that should be sufficient. Anyone good enough for the US national team is making a good living professionally, it is not like this is Belize where the players have 2nd jobs. The soccer federation is a non-profit company not a multinational sports corporation. The profits of national team games should be put into youth soccer throughout the country, programs which already benefitted all of the players who are playing playing professionally. These players are a disgrace to their country, better to play a less gifted group that wants to represent their country than the soccer equivalent to mercenaries.

[Bangoutoforder]

As an extremely hard core US fan, I'm absolutely disgusted by the whole thing. Sure, they fly across the ocean to suit up. But what about the fans that criss-cross the country and then pay ridiculous amounts to watch our bozos schlepp a momumental draw against Costa Rica or Jamaica?

The USSF and the players can all jump in a lake for making the fans sweat it out.

As Tom Hagen would say after Frankie Five Angels testified in a senate hearing, "This committee owes an apology."

[Cheeta]

Oh boy. You guys are just trying to get me wound up.

Promise a good long rant when I've got enough time. A good long rant.

[Bangoutoforder]

quote:Originally posted by Cheeta

Oh boy. You guys are just trying to get me wound up.

Promise a good long rant when I've got enough time. A good long rant.

Bring it, dude. I want to see the rant. Do it.

[SamIAm]

quote:Originally posted by Grizzly

The players earn a living playing professionally and should play for their country for honour. They should receive some compensation for revenue lost by callups and significant insurance coverage in case of injury and that should be sufficient. Anyone good enough for the US national team is making a good living professionally, it is not like this is Belize where the players have 2nd jobs. The soccer federation is a non-profit company not a multinational sports corporation. The profits of national team games should be put into youth soccer throughout the country, programs which already benefitted all of the players who are playing playing professionally. These players are a disgrace to their country, better to play a less gifted group that wants to represent their country than the soccer equivalent to mercenaries.

Oh Please. If the CSA was sitting on a 30 million dollar surplus and the Canadian National Team could make it to a World Cup you could bet they'd be asking for more too, not just for first class seating on a plane trip. It is professional sports. Every federation goes through this from time to time(atleast those with money) and had the players and the federation had their sh!t together this would have been done in 2003. We're at a place right now were the USSF could give the players a little more and not be hindered in their development of soccer across the country. Yes, you should play for the national team for honor and I'm sure players want to seeing as how they accepted Bruce's idea of holding the cutoff date to March 1, and in a perfect world they would play for free, but that is just not a reality.

[Grizzly]

I never said the Canadian players wouldn't do the same thing. Maybe they would maybe they wouldn't, we are not in the situation of having an excess 30 million so we don't know. If they did the CSA would be right in refusing their demands just like the USSF is. National team players should be recompensed for their difficulties but playing for you country should basically be non-profit just like the national soccer federations should also be non-profit. Professional sports is league play not national team play. If some companies are making too much money off the World Cup and such then the players should demand this money go to fund the development of soccer not to their own pocket. There may be some question as to why the USSF hasn't already used the 30 million to fund youth programs but it sure as hell shouldn't be used to buy the players another Mercedes.

[analyst]

This is normal labour negotiations. It even happened, although to a much less degree, with the Canadian womens team and the womens WC.

All the rhetoric aside, both sides know this is normal. The USSTF has offered more, and it claims it can't afford to offer even more, while the Players want more than is being offered. Both sides are using pressure tactics, and they'll settle when the pessure on both sides is really strong.

The US is a free market economy, and the MLS is not a great financial league therefore US players in the MLS don't make much money. If the US does well at the WC, then the USSTF, the players and the MLS will benefit. The USSTF will get cash from FIFA and it will get tens of millions more from sponsors, TShirt, cap, and tracksuit sales etc. The players association will have explained the business side to the players, so their proposal has them accepting less if the team does not do well, and lots more if they make it to the final.

They will settle and this tempest in a teapot will be forgotten until the 4 years from now.