Freddie and owner Joe Roth, right, aren't smiling much right now.
After yesterday’s rousing discussion about AEG head Tim Leiweke, it was quite surprising to find that those comments were tame to what was said to the media in the past 24 hours about the MLS and the prospects of a strike.
While player reps from the union are set to gather and discuss options, the rhetoric has hit a new high — or low — with snotty barbs from Seattle Sounders owner Joe Roth and another shot from Leiweke.
This sounds a little familiar.
We’ll let Roth start the proceedings:
“I don’t think there will be a national outcry like with the NFL if somehow we wouldn’t be out there for a year – which would be terrible. Everyone would lose their jobs. We would all lose our franchises. And that would be that.”
Now, let’s hop in the WABAC Machine to 2004:
“We profoundly regret the suffering this has caused our fans, our business partners and the thousands of people who depend on our industry for their livelihoods. If you want to know how I feel, I’ll summarize it in one word — terrible.”
That was NHL commissioner Gary Bettman the day before the league locked out the players and the league lost an entire season. While the league is back and the Olympics tournament was awesome, it’s nowhere near where it was.
Now, let’s hear Leiweke’s lastest salvo:
“Even if it means that we go a year without soccer, so be it. We went a long time without soccer in this country and we”re not going to give up our belief in a system that works. We are unanimous within the owners. We will wait as long as it takes. We will never, ever agree to change the system.”
As I said yesterday, this isn’t going to end well. The players are digging in, and the owners have started the blame game already. But MLS just has to look at the long road Major League Baseball took to return to some semblance of normalcy after the 1994 strike (and that took a roided-up McGwire and Sosa to do it) and the lack of traction the NHL still has after the 2004 lockout.
I have said on this site before that a strike might not be the worst thing in a couple of cases. I think it would be good to Landon Donovan. I think it would be good to the Philadelphia Union to get their stadium done.
But if the animosity is this deep, this could be a lot longer strike than originally thought. And that could kill the league. If there is a strike, they MUST get back on the field before the World Cup ends. If the Cup ends and there isn’t a domestic league, I’d give odds that it’s gone forever.
To close, we’ll let Freddie Ljungberg, one of the guys who actually makes a lot of money, make his point oh-so-well:
“Imagine you work at Burger King and you get sacked. Now, you want to get another job at McDonald’s, but you’re not allowed to unless McDonald’s compensates Burger King. It seems absurd. … We don’t know if the first game is going to be played on March 25 or not. If it isn’t, it will be a very sad day for players and fans in this country.”
It would indeed, Freddie.
I will gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today.
The owners seem to have all the cards here. If Leiweke is right, and they are really losing money every game – the league won’t care how many games are lost to the strike. (PS – the NBA owners are thinking the same thing and watching this closely).
How much would the TV ratings or ticket sales in MLS fall off if the league replaced all the players with new ones? Fans would notice Freddy and Lando are gone, but all those working stiffs making 420k per year? Here’s a *new* working stiff making $17k per year!
I wish the players could all (okay not ALL of them) double or triple their salaries – but I’m not sure the league could support that and I am very sure the league is not going to let that happen. Free agency seems a reasonable thing for players to want, but the league holds all the cards. It’s like trying to patch up a romantic relationship with someone who is happy to try seeing other people – they have the hand.
I agree, if MLS is *not* up and running a week after the WC ends – the league is done for good.
I don’t think the league holds all the cards. They have a number of new owners that are paying significant sums to be a part of the league. The only reason they would put this money in is that they see the market as a growth market and that the asset will appreciate in value. They don’t plan on making money right off the bat, but you have Toronto, Philly, and Seattle just online and Vancouver and Portland coming soon. These people stand to lose a significant amount of money if there is nothing to support their investment. Conceivably, the other owners would stand to lose as well because if there are no games then the expansion clubs (Seattle and Portland) would probably stop payment. The league has some skin the game…much more than the players. They can always go someplace else or get a job that isn’t playing soccer. They don’t have the debt the clubs do.
I’m with TFA on this one. This may be one of the few situations in American sports where the players truly do have some leverage over the owners. The “best” players can play overseas if they truly want to make good money (and, sorry, if you’re too small-minded to go overseas or to MEX to play, that’s YOUR problem), while the lesser players (many of whom are college grads) can work real jobs (granted, our economic situation right now is not ideal) and make MORE money should they find a job. Is that a crapshoot for some, or even many, of them? Yes. But how many owners right now are ready to start dealing with $0 income starting next week? (exaggeration, but you get the idea – whose really worse off?)
Freddie Ljungberg: coming soon to a Sunday rec league near you (if you live in an affluent Seattle suburb).
whatever, Ben. I’m in negotiations with Freddy’s people for him to join my rec team in Denver if there’s a strike. We start up in April so the timing is perfect for him, and given we’re a red-kitted team playing at a facility owned by the controlling partner of Arsenal, negotiations are looking good