I Listened to Don Garber So You Don’t Have To
It’s cliché but true to suggest that you
shouldn’t assume malice when incompetence is more likely. But sometimes you
hear something so wrong-headed that you’d prefer it to be disingenuous. I
finally got around to listening to DonGarber’s appearance on the Men In Blazers Podcast and if these are his honest arguments in opposition to #ProRelForUSA, than soccer in this country has bigger issues than I
would like to admit.
Let’s start with his first statement, which
amounts to a denial of personal responsibility.
Don Garber: I don't think [promotion and
relegation is] inevitable and I don't think it's got anything to do with me,
Roger.
We know it’s not inevitable, that’s why some of
us spend our time and energy fighting for it. Please don’t insult our
intelligence: it might not be your decision entirely, but in addition to your
position with MLS you serve on the board of USSF, the governing body of the
sport in the US. As a member of the board of the organization that determines
leagues’ divisional sanctioning, whether closed leagues are given divisional
sanctions certainly has something to do with you. And you clearly have
some influence over the game generally. If you oppose pro/rel, fine, happy to
disagree with you. But let’s not start off by pretending you don’t share some
of the blame for us not having it.
DG: It's got to do with whether or not you can
continue to have owners and municipalities and sponsors and broadcasters invest
in a league without knowing ultimately what teams are going to be in that league.
There’s a logical fallacy called a special
pleading. It relies on asserting
that there is something unique about a situation without substantiating why
that situation is unique. It’s endemic to criticisms of pro/rel in the United
States. In virtually every other country, owners, sponsors, broadcasters, and
municipalities invest in leagues without knowing who will be in the league the
next year. Why is the United States different? In addition, pro/rel provides
more guidance for new investors. Teams start at the bottom, and garner
investment as they prove themselves, rather than requiring huge start-up costs
in unproven markets. To use the most pressing example, Austin, we don’t really
know if MLS will succeed there. We have some limited data points about teams
(the Aztex, UT-Austin) and market research. In a pro/rel universe, a low-level
team can demonstrate it merits top-flight investment, rather than investors
just risking it upfront. And don’t
even get me started on the dishonesty embedded in that mention of
municipalities.
DG: So in today's world the L.A. galaxy would be
relegated down to the USL. Their designated players would they be sold would
they go to Louisville or would they go to Cincinnati? And we have contract with
those players they're members of a union. We have salary caps that are contingent
upon our agreement with the union.
Look, anytime you hear someone putatively
advocating on behalf of a group they are ordinarily adverse to, your bullshit
detector should be going off. Don Garber doesn’t speak for the players’ union.
The players’ union doesn’t want Don Garber speaking for them. The players can
voice their own concerns, and not for nothing, but to the extent we have any
data on this, players have usually
supported pro/rel.
This also assumes that the salary cap MLS has
put in place is a good thing. I’m not going to get into that much here, but Mr.
Garber needs to show his work. Teams in danger of relegation everywhere in the
world structure their contracts to reflect that reality. Why are US clubs
different? Why are we supposed to be protecting the owners at the expense of
players?
I’ll also note that earlier in this podcast,
Garber derided Columbus’s attendance for being the worst in the league. But
it’s a tragedy if some players wind up in Cincinnati? What is he talking about?
DG: It's not about Don Garber and a handful of
owners deciding that there's no promotion relegation.
That’s true. It would be easier if you folks got
behind it, but you’re not the ultimate decision-makers. We’re supposed to have
an independent federation that holds leagues accountable, MLS attempts to
influence the federation that notwithstanding.
DG: It requires a total change of Major League
Soccer as it exists today. Which has done a reasonably good job and I think
you'd acknowledge of building a viable professional league that millions and
millions of fans can get excited about.
You’re right. It does require a total change in
MLS. It would be a change for the better. And sure, MLS has done “a reasonably
good job.” Time for it to do better. An MLS team is still yet to win the
CONCACAF Champions League, lagging behind LigaMX. While MLS is important, it is
not preordained to be the the top-flight league in the US, nor is the whole of
soccer in the United States.
DG: And by the way 3000 employees. 680 players.
Five years ago this would be unthinkable.
So? Times change. MLS employees are only
threatened to the extent that MLS can’t adopt to a pro/rel world. To say
nothing of the fact that currently, lower-division teams operate on shoestring
budgets, because they can’t move up, which limits the opportunities for them to
drive interest in their clubs. What about the employment opportunities lost in
the lower divisions? Players are certainly not threatened by a system likely to
increase professionalism in soccer.
Look, I get that Don Garber represents the MLS,
and is going to try to defend what he perceives as the interests of the MLS.
That doesn’t make his arguments persuasive and it certainly doesn’t mean that
his arguments carry any moral weight. Don Garber also serves on the USSF board,
and even though his position as a professional council representative means he
does, and should, represent MLS’s interests at the board level, board service
generally comes with a responsibility to the greater mission of the
organization, the promotion and health of soccer in the United States.
DG: So I understand there is a group of people
who think it would be fun but this is about ensuring that soccer professionally
could live for generations and the benefit is what? The final game would be
exciting?
Ooh, a strawman! I was waiting for one of these. Yes, many of us think it would
be fun. We also think it would be better for the game and would be the thing
that would actually ensure that professional soccer would live for generations.
What you appear to be concerned with is not the long-term viability of
professional soccer in the US, but the continued control of professional soccer
by the current MLS ownership contingent. I don’t care about that at all. And the
last time I checked, sports were supposed to be fun.
Global soccer history shows that closed leagues
are the leagues that fail, while open leagues tend to be sustainable and live
for generations. Looking around the US Soccer landscape, MLS alone has lost
multiple teams, had another move, and is about to see one of its most iconic
clubs leave for another city. Meanwhile, it’s replaced those clubs largely with
teams that proved themselves in lower-division leagues (Sounders, Timbers,
Impact, Minnesota United) or by considering clubs in cities that have proven
records of supporting lower-division teams (Sacramento, Cincinnati, Detroit).
This doesn’t even address the many lower-division teams that have folded. Once
again, Garber is relying on the argument that MLS is the whole of US club
soccer, and even if we accept that dubious premise, his argument isn’t even
right.
DG: Do they actually think that our teams are
not trying hard? If they don't think that they're going to make MLS Cup?
No.I think the players are trying their hardest,
but I’m not actually sure why, beyond professional pride. What incentive is
there to win an end-of-season match between Colorado Rapids and DC United? Why
shouldn’t players in those matches be more concerned with simply avoiding
injury? This is without even addressing the evidence we have of tanking in
other sports, since we have no reason to think it doesn’t or won’t happen in
MLS if it remains a closed league.
DG: Do they think in the January or the
summer window all of a sudden we're going to take apart our salary cap and a
team that is in the bubble of the playoffs is all going to sudden spend 10
million dollars be exciting it's just not possible.
What are you babbling about now? Teams will
build for a long-term future. The same way they do in virtually every other
soccer league in the world. By the way, is this suggesting that teams in closed
leagues don’t give up around the trade deadline? I’m pretty sure they do that
in every closed league.
DG: But no it is not at all about my personal
point of view Roger it's not just about our own point of view. It's about a
structure.
This is true but meaningless. Of course it’s
about a structure. We think there is a better structure that ought to be
implemented.
-Jake
Steinberg is the chairperson of San Francisco City FC's members' board. His
work on soccer has also appeared on The Economist's Game Theory blog. He
sporadically tweets, mostly about SF City but occasionally about basketball,
law, and his dog under the handle @SFJoachim.
