Comments on: Poll: Will MLS Players Cost the US World Cup Bid?

By: unionfan

unionfan — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 05:01:55 +0000

Not go down the path of NASL?? I think you are missing the point here. Players ultimately would like to have free agency. However, right now they just want guaranteed contracts which would prevent guys getting waived in the middle of the year. these guys don’t collect another paycheck and in cities like your san jose, they are tied into expensive long term leases. With a hard salary cap that MLS oversees for each team, how would free agency be a bad thing???

By: sjquakes

sjquakes — Fri, 27 Nov 2009 20:09:12 +0000

Sorry union, we are not going to go down the path of ruin and spectacular debt-induced suicide that was the NASL. I agree with commissioner Garber. Professional soccer won’t be able to survive the changes the union wants. They should just agree to some small gradual salary increases.

By: Lars

Lars — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 20:03:37 +0000

Garber’s creating an issue out of a non-issue. This will have zero impact on what happens with the World Cup bid.

By: nick

nick — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 19:06:58 +0000

usa will host 2018 and i see Australia winning 2022 not usa is England trouble

By: PDX Timbers

PDX Timbers — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 03:44:59 +0000

I vote for Kartik to have a bake sale, so that he can create the magical pile of money needed to pay for all of this so that MLS doesn’t become another NASL. The league is 5-10 years away from being able to pay players on the scale he wants. He wants the chicken BEFORE the egg. You need to support the teams and see more growth/revenue before you can talk about top-flite salaries.

As for the “new” NASL, with two teams leaving soon for MLS, and most of the other teams failing or in failing markets, I’ll give 5-1 odds this league even gets off the ground for one season.

By: man99utd

man99utd — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 22:05:46 +0000

$100,000 – $500,000 tend to makee a bloke want to hang about with one team. Maybe MLS players move about so much in order to get a better deal.

By: Ralph Macchio

Ralph Macchio — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 21:59:27 +0000

You’re an idiot.

By: Bob

Bob — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 21:52:55 +0000

like yesterday, kartik is clearly showing that he is in collusion with the union.

kartik claims to want the sport to succeed but his continued over the top rhetoric against mls, and the ussf is doing nothing but hurting the game.

these players and their tactics could kill the world cup prospects for 2018 or 2022 and also destroy a league who success over 14 years is unparalleled. big money sponsors, tv rights deals, new stadiums, stable clubs, high quality soccer and a fan culture has all been created nationally by mls. we’ve done this by supporting one another, and by keeping costs in line.

i know people want to support the play7ers, but the league is not old enough, or strong enough yet thanks to eurosnobs and columns like this to pay top dollar. the cost structure occurs for a reason. the league is stable unlike kartik’s usl which contributes nothing to the american soccer landscape other than a circus and teams that fold constantly.

in fact a collapse of usl would be good, because after the nasl is rejected by the ussf, the mls can set up a reserve league under the new cba to expand rosters and allow guys to play. the development league and youth setup can be handled by the ussf.

the issue of free agency is silly. mls has trades so if you want to move from one mls team to another you can work to arrange a trade. also, if you want to leave the league when your contract is up, mls allows you to do so. look at yura m. who went from mls cup to randers now since he is done with his contract.

mls structure is fair and in fact allows players more freedom of movement than europe. more players play for more teams through the years in mls than in europe.

By: Jammer

Jammer — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 21:44:52 +0000

I thought it was the MLSPA’s position that the negotiations would affect the world cup bid, and Garber was disagreeing?

By: wahleyed

wahleyed — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 21:00:00 +0000

I’m with Doug on this. I don’t see that Garber was saying that all. the MLSPU (who’s side I lean towards, BTW) brought up the idea that the MLS was endangering the WC bid. Garber was expressing his disappointment in their using that alarmist tactic.

However, truth is that MLS owners are the only parties that gain immediately from a US hosted world cup — but that’s not to say that the MLS players oppose it.

Maybe KK just needs a more accurate provocative question to fill up a poll.