Jump to content

If new U22 rule happens


  • Please log in to reply
19 replies to this topic

#16
Efried

Efried

    Player/Manager

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,001 posts
  • Supports:Metro

 
Thanks, for some reason I find this super confusing. This link is the only updated territory map I could find (not sure if accurate): https://twitter.com/...0398080/photo/1 . If I understand correctly, then a kid from Point Pleasant, NJ has first team MLS rights owned by Philly and, while this kid could train with RB in their academy, Philly could block kid from playing for first team. Philly wouldn't need to have any contact with this kid, they just inherently own his MLS career. Is that even legal? 

more or less

#17
67% Class

67% Class

    Player/Manager

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,748 posts
  • Supports:Metro

more or less

Thanks



#18
67% Class

67% Class

    Player/Manager

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,748 posts
  • Supports:Metro

I do not understand how athletes can be traded!
Who came up with this idea?
Imagine if your boss called you in one day and
told you that you were traded to a competitor!

Assuming sarcasm, trading of players has a contractual component - player signs with a team and there contractual language regarding trading. What I think is weird is that MLS is imposing control over a kid's career, and really their ability to grow as a player, with no contract in place. 

 

Someone from around New Haven, CT is owned by NYC. They can go to anyone's academy, but NYC controls their ability to be on first team.  Someone from New London, CT can go to any MLS academy and play for any MLS first team, no strings. The kid from New London has much greater MLS career options. 

 

I guess this is an effect of the single entity structure with MLS, but seems fishy to me. 



#19
JBigjake54

JBigjake54

    Amicus Curiae

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,313 posts
  • Supports:MetroStars

Assuming sarcasm

Dont

trading of players has a contractual component 


I am well aware of that.
Imagine if every employment contract included a trade clause. Your employee could simply give your right to work to an actual competitor? Take it or leave it.
I still think that it is a crazy concept.
If you are surplus to requirements,
then work out a severance package.

We are good enough to beat the best teams, and bad enough to lose to the worst teams. 


#20
67% Class

67% Class

    Player/Manager

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,748 posts
  • Supports:Metro

Dont

I am well aware of that.
Imagine if every employment contract included a trade clause. Your employee could simply give your right to work to an actual competitor? Take it or leave it.
I still think that it is a crazy concept.
If you are surplus to requirements,
then work out a severance package.

 

Agreed there. Trading is sketchy.  

 

Trading is more an American concept, correct? In other sports/leagues/countries, its more of a three party agreement for transfer - current employer involved with new employer to get paid for remaining years on contract, player approves cancellation of contract with current club, and player agreeing to new contract with new club. The trading setup seems more like a 2 party set up - wouldn't be legal in any other profession, I don't think. 

 

That being said, the homegrown territory thing is maybe a step further - teams own players rights to players before there even is a contract - before they are even born. 

I don't think it benefits US soccer, or MLS really. Kids don't want play in MLS because they lose control of their future. 

 

I want RB to sign young promising kids from across the US, including Maryland and DC. The salary cap takes care of parity - why should a kid from DC not be able to choose metro?






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users