MLS is fighting CONCACAF over the rules. MLS interpreted it to be one thing and told the clubs that. Now? Not so much
Race for CCL Spot 2019
- Thread starter adam
- Start date
MLS is fighting CONCACAF over the rules. MLS interpreted it to be one thing and told the clubs that. Now? Not so much
But the rules literally say that we're in. If MLS doesn't let us in because they misread something I will punch a wall.
US Soccer submitted their language. CONCACAF published it. MLS interpreted it.
CONCACAF announced the qualifiers based on the language.
MLS is being ridiculous.
We're in. Fuck the tenants of 420 Fifth Avenue 7th Floor (MLS Executives).
You have to read the Crooks tweet. Essentially, it says none of this matters if a Canadian team wins. Then we go back to Supporters Shield standings.
I would love to get a CCL spot, but my dark side is just rooting the clusterfuck.
I’m going to be debt downer here. But if you read the rules, it has to mean over 2 seasons.
How could a Canadian club occupy more than one spot in one season? Whomever wrote it, wrote in a contingency in the event a Canadian team won the MLS Cup twice. Then 2 clubs, regardless of conference, would qualify in their stead, based on regular season points. This was written to be used after both 2017 & 2018 is complete.
How could a Canadian club occupy more than one spot in one season? Whomever wrote it, wrote in a contingency in the event a Canadian team won the MLS Cup twice. Then 2 clubs, regardless of conference, would qualify in their stead, based on regular season points. This was written to be used after both 2017 & 2018 is complete.
Repeating what I said earlier...
Interpreting in our favor: "the club(s) with the next greatest number of regular season standings points, regardless of Conference, will fill the remaining available berth(s)."
Regular season standing points. NOT regular seasons standing points. So, it's a single season. Since a Canadian team earned the 2017 MLS Cup then the club with the next greatest number of regular season standings points gets the berth, which is us.
If there's another repeat winner in 2018, it's the club with the next greatest number of regular season standings points in 2018.
So this is how I understand it. 4 spots in total, two for MLS Cup champs (2018 and 2019) and two for LH Open Cup champs (2018 and 2019). Easy. Two things that could make this confusing:
1. A Canadian team wins MLS Cup (Toronto this year). The paragraph at the bottom says that if this happens, then US team with highest point total gets it in the year that the Canadian team wins MLS Cup. Toronto wins, highest US club in the points table = NYCFC.
2. A US team wins multiple of those four trophies (Open Cups and/or MLS Cups, for example, SKC wins MLS Cup next year after winning the Open Cup this year). SKC cannot take up 2 slots, leaving an open slot. This is the scenario where you would have to take the aggregate points over 2 years to do it, because you need some fair system that takes into account a team winning 2 trophies over two years.
Why is that so hard to understand. Somebody at MLS isn’t so good at reading. Amateur hour.
1. A Canadian team wins MLS Cup (Toronto this year). The paragraph at the bottom says that if this happens, then US team with highest point total gets it in the year that the Canadian team wins MLS Cup. Toronto wins, highest US club in the points table = NYCFC.
2. A US team wins multiple of those four trophies (Open Cups and/or MLS Cups, for example, SKC wins MLS Cup next year after winning the Open Cup this year). SKC cannot take up 2 slots, leaving an open slot. This is the scenario where you would have to take the aggregate points over 2 years to do it, because you need some fair system that takes into account a team winning 2 trophies over two years.
Why is that so hard to understand. Somebody at MLS isn’t so good at reading. Amateur hour.
Last edited:
Hey, I hope you’re right. And in any event, if there’s ambiguity; you ask the person who wrote the rule what they meant. And in this case it’s CONCACAF. Seems they want us in, so they meant 1 season. Case closed.
Also; whose party is this? If CONCACAF is throwing the party, they choose who they get to invite? Correct? They didn’t say we want 4 US teams; USSF send us your best! No, CONCACAF said they want very specific types of champions and they are determining the rules. It’s not MLS’ place to get involved. They just look stupid now because they communicated something else for the last 4 months based on a misunderstanding.
Why would MLS even fight this? We have to be a bigger TV draw than any other potential qualifier. CONCACAF is helping MLS out here. All they have to do is stop fighting it.
Eta - pretty much what Adam says.
Eta - pretty much what Adam says.
This sort of makes sense. It's the only reason you would have separate sections for the contingency of (1) an MLS club taking 2 slots and (2) a Canadian club "qualifying" for one or more. Except they are not even fully separate.
This is such shit drafting. Not only could I legitimately argue any position, but I'd tell a client I could not predict as to how a judge/arbitrator would rule with even 55-60% certainty. Just to cover a few of the worst points:
- You have in order (1) a para on 2018 qualifying that was based on 2016 results, which says nothing about contingencies, (2) a para on 2019 qualifying based on both 2017 and 2018 results, which includes a provision for what happens if one MLS team gets 2 spots, but is silent as to what happens if a Canadian team takes any, followed by (3) a para on seeding, and then (4) a "Note" on what happens if an MLS team takes 2 spots OR a Canadian team wins one of the qualifying spots. Why the hell isn't (4) a part of (2)? Why put (3) in between (2) and (4)? That's such crap drafting. Plus part of (4) is redundant to part of (2), and arguably inconsistent with it because you now have 2 competing provisions on what happens if an MLS club earns 2 spots for 2019.
- In Part (2) it says "In the event that the same MLS club meets more than one of the above qualification criteria, the MLS club with the highest aggregate point over the 2017 and 2018 MLS regular season would also qualify." That seems to mean aggregate over both seasons combined. But why is "season" singular?
- In the seeding para, as
adam noted, it uses "aggregate" to refer to the total points in one season ("the 2016 aggregate regular season points total"), which calls into doubt the reading that aggregate must imply 2 seasons in Part (2). But why use "aggregate" to refer to a single season total ever? When
Ulrich suggested that as a joke, it was clearly ridiculous and amusing. - Then (4) says "then the Club(s) with the next greatest number of regular season standings points, regardless of the Conference, will fill the remaining available berth(s)." And this applies both to one MLS club winning 2 spots or the Canadian contingency ("Should one or more Clubs hold multiple slots or if Canadian Clubs occupy one
or more places"). It also seems to suggest it is based on a single season. Except even that's not clear at all. The fact that it doesn't say aggregate would normally be indicative of one season, except they use "aggregate" indiscriminately so its absence means nothing. The fact that it says "regular season standings points" and not "regular seasons [plural] standings points" would also suggest one season, except that they don't use the plural form of "season" even when saying "highest aggregate point over the 2017 and 2018 MLS regular season" in Part (2) because they can't draft for shit. It also doesn't say which" regular season standings points are to be referenced. 2017? 2018? Both?
Did I say this is shit drafting? Bottom line to me is, this is a power issue and a negotiation. The text and legalities don't really require anything.
Last edited:
I was focusing on how was it multiple spots. TFC still just took one of the 2019 qualifying slots. Things are confused enough as it is.
I'm gonna need some English.This sort of makes sense. It's the only reason you would have separate sections for the contingency of (1) an MLS club taking 2 slots and (2) a Canadian club "qualifying" for one or more. Except they are not even fully separate.
This is such shit drafting. Not only could I legitimately argue any position, but I'd tell a client I could not predict as to how a judge/arbitrator would rule with even 55-60% certainty. Just to cover a few of the worst points:
I think para (4) was written to cover both (1) and (2), which is why it was added as a "Note" at the end. But the idiots forgot they already had a provision covering half of (4) built into (2). Also, because they wrote this after the 2016 season was over, they should not have written (1) as if it hadn't happened yet. And they didn't need to cover contingencies for (1) in the end Note when they already knew what happened. Just say that the 2018 field is Dallas (US Open Cup and SS), Sounders (MLS Cup), Red Bulls (Eastern Conf points champ), and Colorado (next highest points in because Dallas won 2x).
- You have in order (1) a para on 2018 qualifying that was based on 2016 results, which says nothing about contingencies, (2) a para on 2019 qualifying based on both 2017 and 2018 results, which includes a provision for what happens if one MLS team gets 2 spots, but is silent as to what happens if a Canadian team takes any, followed by (3) a para on seeding, and then (4) a "Note" on what happens if an MLS team takes 2 spots OR a Canadian team wins one of the qualifying spots. Why the hell isn't (4) a part of (2)? Why put (3) in between (2) and (4)? That's such crap drafting. Plus part of (4) is redundant to part of (2), and arguably inconsistent with it because you now have 2 competing provisions on what happens if an MLS club earns 2 spots for 2019.
- In Part (2) it says "In the event that the same MLS club meets more than one of the above qualification criteria, the MLS club with the highest aggregate point over the 2017 and 2018 MLS regular season would also qualify." That seems to mean aggregate over both seasons combined. But why is "season" singular?
- In the seeding para, as
- Then (4) says "then the Club(s) with the next greatest number of regular season standings points, regardless of the Conference, will fill the remaining available berth(s)." And this applies both to one MLS club winning 2 spots or the Canadian contingency ("Should one or more Clubs hold multiple slots or if Canadian Clubs occupy one
or more places"). It also seems to suggest it is based on a single season. Except even that's not clear at all. The fact that it doesn't say aggregate would normally be indicative of one season, except they use "aggregate" indiscriminately so its absence means nothing. The fact that it says "regular season standings points" and not "regular seasons [plural] standings points" would also suggest one season, except that they don't use the plural form of "season" even when saying "highest aggregate point over the 2017 and 2018 MLS regular season" in Part (2) because they can't draft for shit. It also doesn't say which" regular season standings points are to be referenced. 2017? 2018? Both?
Did I say this is shit drafting? Bottom line to me is, this is a power issue and a negotiation. The text and legalities don't really require anything.
tldr -- It's a bloody mess.
If you want to follow what I wrote it's probably necessary that you keep a copy of the rules in front of you.
But your thesis is it’s a power struggle. However, there is no arbitrator or judge. And this was not a contract. CONCACAF wrote these rules (quite poorly as you pointed out) unilaterally. It’s their tournament to dispense invitations as they see fit. I don’t see how MLS has any say in how these rules are interpreted.
Do we know that? First of all, doesn't the USSF determine how US clubs qualify for CCL? Shouldn't they be part of the talks? I thought CONCACAF decides how many spots the US gets and then USSF doles them out, in consultation with MLS. I checked the CCL rules for years prior to 2018 and they are silent as to how teams qualify. They put this entire section in as an addendum to cover the CCL season shift. I bet CCL got the language from USSF/MLS, and from the other federations and leagues (there's a section for each country). Not sure how that tilts the equities.
Who said I was joking?This sort of makes sense. It's the only reason you would have separate sections for the contingency of (1) an MLS club taking 2 slots and (2) a Canadian club "qualifying" for one or more. Except they are not even fully separate.
This is such shit drafting. Not only could I legitimately argue any position, but I'd tell a client I could not predict as to how a judge/arbitrator would rule with even 55-60% certainty. Just to cover a few of the worst points:
I think para (4) was written to cover both (1) and (2), which is why it was added as a "Note" at the end. But the idiots forgot they already had a provision covering half of (4) built into (2). Also, because they wrote this after the 2016 season was over, they should not have written (1) as if it hadn't happened yet. And they didn't need to cover contingencies for (1) in the end Note when they already knew what happened. Just say that the 2018 field is Dallas (US Open Cup and SS), Sounders (MLS Cup), Red Bulls (Eastern Conf points champ), and Colorado (next highest points in because Dallas won 2x).
- You have in order (1) a para on 2018 qualifying that was based on 2016 results, which says nothing about contingencies, (2) a para on 2019 qualifying based on both 2017 and 2018 results, which includes a provision for what happens if one MLS team gets 2 spots, but is silent as to what happens if a Canadian team takes any, followed by (3) a para on seeding, and then (4) a "Note" on what happens if an MLS team takes 2 spots OR a Canadian team wins one of the qualifying spots. Why the hell isn't (4) a part of (2)? Why put (3) in between (2) and (4)? That's such crap drafting. Plus part of (4) is redundant to part of (2), and arguably inconsistent with it because you now have 2 competing provisions on what happens if an MLS club earns 2 spots for 2019.
- In Part (2) it says "In the event that the same MLS club meets more than one of the above qualification criteria, the MLS club with the highest aggregate point over the 2017 and 2018 MLS regular season would also qualify." That seems to mean aggregate over both seasons combined. But why is "season" singular?
- In the seeding para, as
- Then (4) says "then the Club(s) with the next greatest number of regular season standings points, regardless of the Conference, will fill the remaining available berth(s)." And this applies both to one MLS club winning 2 spots or the Canadian contingency ("Should one or more Clubs hold multiple slots or if Canadian Clubs occupy one
or more places"). It also seems to suggest it is based on a single season. Except even that's not clear at all. The fact that it doesn't say aggregate would normally be indicative of one season, except they use "aggregate" indiscriminately so its absence means nothing. The fact that it says "regular season standings points" and not "regular seasons [plural] standings points" would also suggest one season, except that they don't use the plural form of "season" even when saying "highest aggregate point over the 2017 and 2018 MLS regular season" in Part (2) because they can't draft for shit. It also doesn't say which" regular season standings points are to be referenced. 2017? 2018? Both?
Did I say this is shit drafting? Bottom line to me is, this is a power issue and a negotiation. The text and legalities don't really require anything.
Similar threads
