So the response, from the few leaks related to the owners, to free agency, seems to be that they don't want it so that they can have cost certainty. Seems to me, and everyone I have read, that it has nothing to do with cost certainty, since a salary cap, which no one is contesting, gives you cost certainty.
WRT cost certainty: Teams are spending crazy money on DPs, who are outside of that "cost certainty" system, the salary cap. So, as it is when I fight with my wife, when one party of an argument makes claims that make no logical sense, there is usually something deeper driving the argument.
The question is: what is the deeper issue the owners are protecting themselves from by opposing free agency?
Is it the single entity system? In that case, do they want it for protection from an antitrust lawsuit? Who is going to sue them? The players can't, since they have a CBA and a union who just said they accept the single entity structure. Are they worried about a legal challenge from NASL? Thats the thing I have been leaning towards, but on what grounds can NASL sue MLS for antitrust?
Could it be that the lack of free agency helps prop up the poorer and more poorly run teams? Like cheapo NE getting Jermaine Jones? He likely wouldn't have gone anywhere near NE if he had other teams bidding for him. In that case, how can the majority of owners who are willing to invest in their teams want that to continue?
On the surface, it is such a minor concession by owners to the players to give free agency, that their willingness to sustain a strike to prevent it makes no logical sense. Like my wife, and there is no winning with her, so we may be in for a long fight.
