what if there is a strike?
i have been a little bit in denial about this whole strike thing… deep down, i truly believed an agreement may happen, and who knows, maybe it still will, but it sure doesn’t look good does it?
seriously, what the hell are we going to do if there is a strike?
in all this negotiation, there are two things that nobody really knows.
- will there be a strike
- how long would it last
since we really don’t know let’s speculate, just for fun. or not fun, as it were.
let’s first talk about the validity of a strike.
should the players do it? well, for the most part, most people i have talked to on the matter support the players. how can you not? there are a few very serious points that make it a no brainer for me. the two points that i specifically support, like many of you, is getting rid of the mandated contracts upon release, and raising the salary cap so some players don’t have to get a part time job just to make ends meet.
however, there are very influencial people, like joe roth, who come out and talk about strikes, and lay down some very good points. Josh Mayers article on joe and the potential strike, and some more specific quotes from Don Ruiz
clearly, it is pretty easy to find some convincing words from the players and also the owners.
this is a young league still in the process of trying to find itself. it is still in its infant stage of trying to grow the sport and popularity in the US. i think everyone agrees on that matter, and nobody thinks we can get there tomorrow, but for now there are two conflicting, and equally compelling arguments.
Players – “um, hey rich guys, some of us work part time and we have very little guarantees in our contracts. also, do you realize our careers are very short. so while it is very awesome we have the potential to play soccer for our career, that career can be quite short. so a few minor guarantees, as well as being able to pay for a $700 apartment would be nice. thanks”
Owners – “ok, cool, all good points, but you know what? we aren’t making money either. in fact, we are all losing money. well other than those damn canucks from toronto and those freak shows in seattle. ALL OF US ARE LOSING MONEY. we are all in this together, so let’s take a baby step towards being a real legitimate league, what you are asking for is a massive giant leap.”
like i said above, i side with the players, but i don’t think it is clear to us (or me at least) what the real sticking points are with free agency. free agency can mean so many different things. MLS does not want to go the way of the NASL, and if they feel that any agreements they make in this labor dispute are a giant step towards bad policy that could eventually make the league suffer, well the i don’t blame them for dragging their feet, and in a way, am thankful for that. you can’t really suggest here that the owners of MLS teams, and MLS as a whole, are really are fleecing the players, fans etc. they aren’t. and the bottom line is proof enough of that.
so, who am i to say if a strike is valid? and really, when it comes down to it, i don’t really care if it is the players or the owners that are in the right. if they strike, it sucks for us the fans, regardless of who has the better case.
now…… what does it mean to us, the fan, if it happens?
to put it bluntly, soccer and it’s fanbase will take a major f’ing step backwards. major. if you are a 100 year old league, a major step backwards is survivable, but will it be for a 16 year old league that struggles with attendance already?
like most of you, i just love soccer. i love soccer so much, that i can’t watch enough. i watch fox soccer report every night. i head off to fox sports grill most tuesdays and wednesdays for lunch just to watch at least a half of whatever match is going on that day. i get up at 4 most saturdays to watch the epl game on. i take my 4 year old daughter away to the pub mid day saturday for some 1×1 time, but while the game is on. in the long run, this strike will not affect me (if we still have a league, that is). as pissed as i will be about not being able to go to games, i will still go back to watch the rest of the season. i will buy season tickets next year.
but the problem is, you and i are in the minority.
ticket sales will suffer b/c of a strike and there can’t be much debate in that. of all the people that are fans, and show up to the games, how many may you lose? that is hard to know, but i do know i am going to guess that most fans are less passionate than you and i, and the strike could be devastating to the average fan.
i don’t know if MLS can survive any type of long term strike this year. but here are some reasons why not….
- attendance won’t be better after a strike.
for those struggling markets, what the hell could this strike accomplish that could possibly increase attendance?nothing.
- current tv commitments are decent, but, if a strike happens, they might not be there in the future.
espn has thrown their hat in the ring this year, including 7 nationally televised matches for the sounders, and if they don’t get to televise, will they pony up again next year? i can’t see why they would. let’s not underestimate the value of these national broadcasts. the sounders had 3-4 national broadcasts last year (that i can remember), and after each one, my nascar lovin conservative uncle in arizona would call me to comment about something to do with each match. he didn’t always love the game (i think he saw a few of the nil nil draws), but he still watched. and you know what? this year, i know he will watch. he is not at all the person you would expect to watch soccer, but he did b/c it was on, and that is part of getting an audience. we can’t lose this momentum.
when i lived in england for a few years i got into cricket BIG TIME. most people in the U.S. don’t understand cricket, like me at the time, but when you watch any sport, you start to get the nuances of the game and realize why so many people love the sport. hell, my dad was the biggest f’ing curling fan over the winter olympics. he was throwing down terms like “oh they have the hammer this round” and “they just split the house”. my point is, exposure is good. very good. all of us love soccer after learning the nuances and if we ever want it to be a massively understood game in the U.S. we need people to watch. hell, even bill simmons was addicted after the 2006 world cup and wrote that very famous articleon espn.com about how he was picking an epl team to watch. while it could be argued that his first mistake was picking tottenham, the reality is, he really didn’t follow up on this article with anything of much, b/c he didn’t watch anymore. watching the sport is key, and if MLS pisses off espn with this strike, will they cover games in the future? i hope so, but i would understand if not. they have been slow to the game so far, and it is only in the last 4 years where it seems like they are making an effort.
the epl is as big as it is b/c of tv revenue. if the MLS removes this (or severely hurts it), it could be this alone that kills the league
- season ticket holders will shrink.
we (season ticket holders) are a finicky bunch. not to put words in your mouth, but we (humans) don’t like change. with two kids at home, i already have a really hard time convincing my wife that she should stay home for most of the 17 games with both kids while i go out for beers, soccer, beers and some beers. yes, i make it up with taking the girls while she has her greys anatomy girls nights, but, if there is a strike, and we have to make up games, how the hell am i going to cram in more dates into a shorter period of time? and, even worse, as laurie, over at the offides points out, well there is no guarantee that we would even get our match. we all bought our tickets with the risk that they could be cancelled, and we could be SOL. i do doubt it would come to this, but it is a real possibility.
my last, but certainly not least important point on all this mess is a sad thought….
if the players strike for any length of time, could we lose the world cup bid? is it going too far to say that? unfortunately, i think not. FIFA has solid bids to consider for the 2018 and 2022 world cup, and they are looking for reasons to NOT give it to a country. they gave it to the US in 94 in part b/c they believed it would be a help launch the MLS league, and they were right. how ironic would it be if they didn’t give it to the US 16 years later b/c the players went on strike.
it isn’t hard to imagine the commitee saying “if you can’t keep your own leauge running, why should we give you the most important tournament in the world?”
hard to argue with that.
i have said enough already, and much of what i have to say is based upon the limited information at hand. the reality is likely some form of this, and let us hope, all this strike talk is more posturing than anything else.
i laid out some pretty worst case scenarios, but are they really that hard to imagine? i hope i am wrong. very wrong.
