by Zach Bigalke

Created on: March 12, 2008   Last Updated: October 31, 2008

In the wake of two recent DC United trades, I believe it is time to look at the precedent being set. With MLS losing its youth & talent to Europe at a rapid rate and high-priced "name" players being brought in, these test cases will determine the rights of MLS players.

In 1995, the European Court of Justice ruled on the rights of players to move to another club of their choosing once their contracts expire. The Bosman Rule, so named for the player who brought suit, set a precedent which allows players to become free agents if a club fails to sign them before contract expiration.

American sports fans can take heart with the concept of free agency. They can also understand trading protocol. When MLS allows its clubs to effectively take away the right of free movement from its players, it weakens its appeal to potential talent. With its talent - including potential draft picks - spurning the league in droves to test the market overseas, any weakening of players' rights will only accelerate the demise. If the league is forced to depend on paying top dollar to over-30 "galacticos", it will quickly perish. Don Garber & the MLS hierarchy must not allow MLS clubs to trade free agents.

I understand that the Bosman rule has no effect on American sports leagues. There is no jurisdiction for a European Court of Justice decision on U.S. soil. That said, there is little incentive for most players to remain in MLS...

The "Beckham Rule" allows teams to blow money on aging superstars, big names to fill the seats. But the backbone of the league is its young, homegrown talent and lesser-known stars from Central & South America. These players are being disenfranchised when, after their contract has terminated with a club, they can still be used as trade bait.

A single-entity model is laudable for a nascent sports league. Pure free agency won't work under this system, certainly. Yet that should not give teams free reign to unilaterally move players cross-country... without a contract in place. If players cannot be free agents, they nonetheless still deserve the right of input into their future employment - ESPECIALLY if a club allows their contract to expire!

MLS must make sure it has players UNDER CONTRACT before allowing teams to trade them. I cannot be moved between campus kitchens if I am not employed by the university... MLS players deserve this same right...

This isn't, however, a matter of where the law CURRENTLY stands. This is an ethical issue of whether an employer has the right to go beyond the boundaries of a contract. Where is the incentive for clubs to responsibly resign their players if they are allowed to simply trade the rights of those players away who are not under contract?

I understand the single-entity model under which MLS operates. This is no different than any other corporation with multiple headquarters. Yet one glaring distinction between MLS and other corporations is that, once an employee's contract is up at a hotel or a brokerage firm or any other corporation, their rights are their own. Under current MLS practices, these players are still bargaining chips... even WITHOUT any binding contract permitting such facts...

While there is no legal requirement to implement free agency, there is nonetheless the need to respect the rights of those players who are not under contract. Players are human beings, also, and deserve the same rights as upper management. MLS may not legally have to deal with the problem, but it is a problem. The league should NOT allow its clubs to trade players not under contract...

Learn more about this author, Zach Bigalke.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.