MLS Again Creates New Rule to Appease Owners


The transfer of Jermaine Jones to MLS is a great moment for the league. After his stellar play in the World Cup, the veteran midfielder was out of contract and needing one more shot at being a contributor in a major league. His agent and the Chicago Fire had been holding serious negotiations and the Fire appeared to be on the cusp of a real coup just in time for a playoff run.

Then the process took over, and as The Washington Post outlines, it is not the one that seemingly existed until now.

For those new to the MLS overseas player acquisition process, it may be useful to do a quick recap of how we got here. Originally, to make the process equitable for acquiring overseas talent, MLS created an allocation system whereby teams were ranked based on record last season. So if a U.S. international wanted to play in MLS, the team with the worst record last season would have the first shot at signing them. Picks could be traded, but for the most part it was a fair system.

Then the major superstars started to come home. The league was faced with a quandary – should they allow stars like Clint Dempsey to play for high-profile teams which would help the league’s brand, or should they go to a struggling team outside the limelight because they pick first in allocation? Depending on your perspective, the league either changed the rules completely or found an exception and, for certain high-caliber players, teams could negotiate directly with the players and sign them independent of the allocation process. That is why Dempsey is in Seattle and Michael Bradley is in Toronto, and neither is with a Chivas USA or San Jose.

Naturally, because Jermaine Jones is a USMNT player, Chicago should have a right to sign him directly, right? Then why will he be introduced in a New England Revolution jersey in the near future?

Here’s what the Revs’ press release said:

Jones, as a designated player of a certain threshold, was not subject to allocation ranking for dispersal to an MLS team. The Revolution and Fire expressed an interest in Jones, and had the available salary budget and a designated player slot to accommodate him. Following a blind draw between the two clubs, Jones was assigned to the Revolution.

Somehow, the league intervened between Chicago and New England and decided Jones’ fate through a “blind draw”. Never mind the fact The Washington Post claims Jones wanted to play in Chicago, the league felt it necessary to create a new mechanism to determine where a national team player plays.

This could all be casually ignored except for the history of Bob Kraft and MLS. Kraft was a founding owner and one of the biggest proponents of the single-entity system that allows ownership and the league office to tightly control financial matters, including player salaries. His team is one of two that still play in NFL stadiums with no clear plans to move. He has a large amount of influence in the front office because of his original owner status as well as the fact he briefly owned and controlled the San Jose Earthquake during a leadership transition. Sunil Gulati, president of the U.S. Soccer Federation, even serves as the president of Kraft Soccer Properties, tying him closely to the Revs owner.

It’s easy to draw a theory that Kraft finally wanted to spend money on his team’s salaries and used his influence with USSF and the league to create a new mysterious player allocation system. Is this all conspiracy theory? Perhaps, but because MLS’s player acquisition rules are so easily modified it is impossible for fans and the media to have a clear sense of how these processes occur. For example, we are not even sure how the blind draw was conducted – ballots drawn or picking a number behind your back? We may never know. We do know that MLB, NFL, and NBA have no such process for determining how teams can acquire an overseas player. Baseball does have a blind bid system, but that at least lets people know that a team was the higher bidder for a player and how much they’d pay for his rights.

The sad thing is this entire process could have been done by the book and Kraft could have fairly won the rights to sign Jones. But since MLS operates in secret and has no consistent application of its own rules when it comes to player acquisition, it is acceptable to be skeptical that this whole process occurred above board. While this should be a wake-up call regarding its own rules, I suspect sadly the league will simply ignore the outcry and pivot again when it needs to accommodate another player or influential owner.

14 thoughts on “MLS Again Creates New Rule to Appease Owners”

  1. A “blind draw”? Is this a joke? Did the losing party get a chocolate chip cookie as consolation?

    Is Jones some sort of voiceless, inanimate object whose wishes were irrelevant?

    MLS is pathetic…

  2. I assume people have read some of the things coming out of LA regarding other owners and forces in the league office that prevented LA from signing Sasha Kljestan.

    MLS is kinda what MLS is. I don’t personally care for it because I’m not interested in parity. I’d rather see the strong teams become as great as they can even if it means the bad teams are wretched and have no hope. To me, parity = mediocrity.

    It’s stuff like this that annoys me when MLS supporters bash on the Eurosnobs for not supporting American soccer enough. We’re not comparing similar products at all. Even when you get past the quality of the play, there are attributes about MLS’ structure that are very, very unappealing to me.

    The good news is that soccer consumers have choice and can choose to direct their eyeballs and money to a different soccer product.

    1. I’ll call it out. What Arena was referencing was that FC Dallas was in the allocation order ahead of Galaxy. FC Dallas did not offer a serious sum to Kljestan and also would not make a trade with Galaxy so that Kljestan could come back to the league. They let the offer die so that the Galaxy wouldn’t get their player (and told their fans that they ‘tried’ to get Kljestan). It’s pathetic that the league would allow this to happen.

    2. “The good news is that soccer consumers have choice and can choose to direct their eyeballs and money to a different soccer product.” Is there free air fare to Europe now? Must I choose to watch matches at 5:30 am on a Saturday morning? Should I not enjoy “the mediocrity” of a competitive game or league? If “We’re not comparing similar products at all” is there really a choice? Answer: No – to all of the above.

  3. Robert Hay wrote:
    “The return of Jermaine Jones to MLS is a great moment for the league”.

    I must have missed or skipped the season(s) when Jermaine Jones was playing in MLS.

  4. The league is a joke, plain & simple. That’s borne out by the TV ratings, which have hardly moved despite the World Cup players returning and being able to piggyback on the EPL on NBC

  5. In addition throughout the article the author admit to not knowing the rules of signing forein players or even signing DPs. Yet how then can he claims that MLS has changed (or disregarded) the rules in this case?

    Funny enough he (Robert Hay) provides the answer himself:
    “because MLS’s player acquisition rules are so easily modified it is impossible for fans and the media to have a clear sense of how these processes occur.”

    In other words, you don’t know. Well how about doing your job as a media and finding out before making baseless accusations and looney conspiracy theories.

  6. During halftime of the Sounders vs Timbers game on Sunday Mr. Lalas said that the two team’s names were placed in an envolope and the Don picked a name out.

    I feel bad for Jermaine he gets to play in an empty stadium on that crap artifical turf for an owner that could give two $hits about soccer. I wonder when the league will learn that Kraft is the anchor holding the league back from progressing.

  7. And that is why i wont watch MLS. Pathetic parody of an actual league.

    By the way i will be at PPL Park for the US Open Cup Final between the Union and Seattle Sounders. The only pure soccer competition in this country.

  8. I’ll admit I don’t know the MLS league agreements and rules when it comes to players being “assigned” but on the surface it appears MLS is violating an act that was ruled illegal under the Baseball reserve clause and free agency.

    Even thorough the supreme court ruled against the lawsuit Curt Flood filed, in 1975 an arbitrator stuck down the rule.

    How can MLS basically have a “reserve clause” that doesn’t allow players to sign with a team they want to player for?

    Again, the MLS have something in their rules that skirts around this.

    I’m surprised the MLS players Union hasn’t fought this.

  9. For the already suffering fans of the Chicago Fire the stunt pulled by MLS was a kick in the stomach to a group of fans who where already on the ground.

    While ownership may take a fair amount of the blame here the fan on the street can’t help but believe that one of the most powerful owners in all of American sports got his way at the expense of the Fire.

    I am not at all certain if it’s not also a message to the Fire ownership in addition for MLS. Yet while Chicago signs no one with value ( let’s face that Fire fans) MLS stocks teams in NY, LA, Tor., and the new franchises. Is there a message there?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *