We’re deep in the hypothetical now. So first, let me say that really the league can do whatever they want, and will keep up business as usual until there’s a legal challenge. At that point, given this would be under rule of reason analysis, we’re just weighing legal factors. So we’re just speculating here …

Now, what is the subject of arbitration in your example? What are you asking the arbitrators to decide?

lets Assume that MLS and its waiver system plays out like I said in my original posting which i believe it does. After the player has cleared waivers he only has the right to negotiate with MLS not teams. In fact, the player never negotiates with the teams directly no matter what.

Players are sometimes chopped off rosters due to bloated salaries relative to there percived value. The coaching staff and team executives make this decsion which is an econominc and personnel one.

Then the player(s) filter through the waiver system.

What if at this point the players could be eligible for third party arbitration that is only triggered with the consent of a designated team executive for every team and the player?

If the player wins arbitration the contract is still garunteed by MLS. You could even have an arbitration fund that is managed by each team allowing more descretion by team executives in triggering Arbitration.

To your last point, I think it ties in nicely to what I think is the league’s position. That the league is not financially viable yet.

This conversation feels oddly reminiscent of a political debate. What I’m asking for is a bit of transparency because I think MLS probably has some pretty rationale positions. You just can’t expect people to keep taking your word for it. The generic statements will only work for so long.

Thanks for the thoughtful and insightful post.

In response to your question: “What evidence does MLS have that supports their position that single entity treatment is the key to long-term success?”, I posit the following response:

The upward spiraling wage bills of NASL teams and a lack of a profitable national TV contract with that league. Single entity in MLS controls the former, facilitating costs controls until the latter is achieved.

As to the wage bill and MLS, I would tend to think that a salary cap would keep wage bills from spiraling upward. But as you indicate, opening the door to free agency puts cracks in the foundation of a single entity structure. It’s difficult to imagine “free” agency where all contracts are signed with MLS, and not individual teams.

Furthermore, MLS still does not have the kind of TV contract which shows it is here to stay. MLS TV contracts are “profitable” in that the league no longer pays for its games to air, but otherwise the revenue from TV is miniscule. Until MLS is negotiating for TV rights at a much higher gross number I am inclined to believe MLS’ claims of poverty.