Read on Twitter
Some people have asked whether pleading their case directly to the fans (as the players have done themselves in prior CBA negotiations) is an indication that MLS doesn't have much leverage. The answer is yes and no. Let me explain 1/ https://twitter.com/JeffreyCarlisle/status/1352269341069197314
We don't know for sure the strength of MLS' legal case for invoking a force majeure clause since the CBA hasn't been publicly released by either side and this is a novel situation (negotiating a force majeure in the middle of an ongoing crisis). 2/
We can assume that MLS thinks it has at least a decent legal argument in favor of force majeure and the players think the argument is contestable. Being open about wanting to negotiate helps MLS establish its good faith. It's probably a push on the legal leverage 3/
If MLS can legally invoke the force majeure and can establish they invoked it and negotiated in good faith, then they could terminate the CBA and lockout the players. That would be the nuclear option for labor (and public) relations, which they probably want to avoid. 4/
The players probably know that MLS doesn't really want to go the lockout route, so they probably figure their best bet is to call MLS' bluff and decline to negotiate a different deal than what was reached in June. 5/
In that sense, since the players want the status quo and MLS wants change (which requires overcoming legal hurdles), the players have more leverage here than in June when there was no deal in place. 6/
On the other hand, calling someone's bluff is always dangerous. MLS will be losing money on an operating basis if fans can't be in the stands in most places until mid-summer (or mid-fall in places like CA). A several month-long lockout saves MLS money in the short-term. 7/
The risk for MLS is not that it loses money from not operating (they likely save money). The risk is they alienate fans and sponsors, lose momentum in new cities and risk losing interest from expansion cities. 8/
Hence the PR campaign. Rather than indicating they won't exercise the nuclear (lockout) option, it may be designed to smooth the way for them to do that, which saves them a bunch of money by delaying the season (and paying players) until they can fill stadiums again. 9/
This is what distinguishes MLS' leverage from the players' leverage. The players have legal and practical leverage, but if MLS can overcome concern about the nuclear option, MLS will save $ in the short-term and the players will lose $ they probably cannot afford to lose. 10/10
A few additional points, to keep them in the same thread.
1. Negotiations over a new TV deal is a reason for MLS to not want a lockout, but my guess is the deal already is extended some to makeup for games lost last season. There's likely enough time to makeup ground there
1. Negotiations over a new TV deal is a reason for MLS to not want a lockout, but my guess is the deal already is extended some to makeup for games lost last season. There's likely enough time to makeup ground there
2. It's unclear whether FIFA would allow players to sign in Europe or elsewhere in the event of a lockout w/n the transfer window, but my guess is the majority of the union's voting members would have trouble finding a team (at least on equivalent wages), which hurts leverage
3. While the players have always been suspicious about whether the owners are providing them with accurate financial data in these negotiations, the continuing uncertainty over vaccines and covid restrictions means that everyone is basically operating in a vacuum.
