Today marks the 20th anniversary of the Bosman ruling by the European Court of Justice. The decision is commonly regarded as one of the most momentous in the business of sport, but there have been over the years many misconceptions surrounding the consequences and repercussions of the ruling.

Jean-Marc Bosman was a journeyman midfield player who in 1990 came to the end of his contract with RFC Liège in the Belgian First Division. But RFC Liège unilaterally retained Bosman’s playing rights and refused to sell him to USL Dunkerque, claiming the fee offered by the French club was too low. What’s more, Liège reduced Bosman’s wages and marginalized him from the squad.

Bosman decided to take his fight to the European Union, and five years later the Court of Justice ruled in his favor. Under the ruling, the right for players to move freely to another club within the European Union at the conclusion of a contract was affirmed. Any such move could take place without hindrance, which meant no transfer fee could be sought by the player’s previous club. At the same time, the court also struck down any restrictions on the number of players from the European Union member states that a club could sign or field. Prior to the additional ruling, soccer authorities imposed limits on such signings, and even the Champions League carried restrictions.

SEE MORE: Bosman anniversary finds namesake penniless amid increased freedoms.

UEFA was complicit in imposing such restrictions and in supporting RFC Liège through the court fight. That meant that governing body for soccer in Europe were tainted when it came to plotting a new course.

FIFA recognized that although the rulings applied only to the European Union, the impact would be felt around the world. FIFA marched into the breach and negotiated a new set of transfer and contract regulations with the EU that were eventually applied globally.

It is a commonly held belief that the contract ruling sparked an era of mega-wealthy clubs and resulted in a salary explosion benefitting players. While the “Bosman-ruling” offered players and agents greater leverage, the escalation of rights fees paid by broadcasters and the willingness by sponsors to pay ever more money to be associated with the game has had a far greater impact.

Rather, the ruling was just one more significant legal signpost that over many years has reshaped the relationship of player and club, one that’s gone from little more than serf-master to something more akin to that found in the regular workforce.

And the legal journey is far from over. FIFPro, the worldwide representative organization for 65,000 professional soccer players, is targeting the present system and is following the Bosman gameplan. A legal challenge has been filed in the form of a competition law complaint with the Directorate General Competition of the European Commission in Brussels. Like the Bosman case, a ruling is unlikely to come anytime soon, but past history would indicate that when it does the verdict will be tilted in favor of the players rather than soccer authorities.

But in North America, and in particular when it comes to Major League Soccer, the management-labor relationship is very different. MLS operates as an island of relative tranquillity when it comes to managing salary levels and player movement. The key to Major League Soccer’s ability to play by a different set of rules is the league’s single-entity structure.

It is fair to say that MLS operates on principles more akin to those of a Stalinesque-type planned economy, and it offers owners the sort of control and power that would not be possible anywhere else in the free world. A salary cap, designated players, and allocation money are all convoluted tools by which MLS controls and manages salary levels within the league. Recently the acronym TAM was added to the owners arsenal.

How convoluted are those rules? Here is the explanation from MLS.com of how Targeted Allocation Money (TAM) works.

Similar to general Allocation Money, these funds may be used to sign new or re-sign existing players. Unlike general Allocation Money, however, Targeted Allocation Money can only be used for players earning more than the maximum salary budget charge, which in 2015 is $436,250.

Teams may also use Targeted Allocation Money to convert a Designated Player to a non-Designated Player by buying down his salary budget charge to below the maximum salary budget charge.

When using Targeted Allocation Money to free up a Designated Player slot, a club must simultaneously sign a new Designated Player at an investment equal to or greater than the player he is replacing.

For example, if a team wants to bring in another talented player who will carry more than the maximum salary budget charge, it has two options should it choose to utilize Targeted Allocation Money.

First, a team could use the funds to buy down that player’s charge to below the maximum and keep the Designated Players it currently has.

Or, a club could use the funds to buy down the salary budget charge of one of its existing Designated Players to below the maximum, provided the club then signs a Designated Player at an investment equal to or greater than the player being bought down.

Targeted Allocation Money may also be traded.

Only in America, you say? Who could possibly have guessed that MLS is run by a group of lawyers? But I digress.

The collective bargaining agreement concluded earlier this year that runs until the end of the 2019 season included the TAM initiative, and it also opened the door ever so slightly to free agency. Ironically, the worldwide market for soccer players – encouraged by the impact of the Bosman ruling – has helped insulate and buttress MLS from granting players freedom of movement at the end of their contracts.

MLS’s answer to demands for free agency prior to this contract has been one of pointing to the vast number of leagues around the globe and suggesting that any out-of-contract player is free to peddle their skills to the highest bidder – just not in MLS. Coincidentally, or otherwise, the first player move taking advantage of the new found freedom took place the day before the 20th anniversary of Jean-Marc Bosman’s victory.

https:\/\/www.youtube.com/watch?v=VkgOCXrIZqo

On Monday, Justin Mapp became the first player to take advantage of the new rule and signed for Sporting Kansas City after spending the next last four years with the Montreal Impact. He’s played 303 MLS games since being drafted in 2002.

That tenure highlights the restrictions limiting the first group of MLS free agents. To qualify as MLS free agents, players must be 28 years of age and older with eight years of MLS service, out of contract, or have not had their option exercised. Even then the player’s previous club may have a right of first refusal on the player’s services.

There is always a chance that a decade or so from now Justin Mapp’s move will be looked upon as a pivotal moment in the evolution of MLS, but it is doubtful. Any significant extension of MLS free agency will not come easy and will most likely require a withdrawal of services by the players. Or there again, perhaps the FIFPro action may turn out to be a game-changer that impacts the game around the world, even MLS.