MLS has locked out its referees.
A flippant response to this by a fan might be "good, they sucked anyway." And, while we'd all like to see the referees be a little more consistent -- as I'm sure they themselves would like to be -- MLS fans are likely to discover just what "sucks" really means with the replacement officials.
A recent example would be the NFL referee lock-out from two seasons ago. It took a comically bad call that directly cost a team a game in that dispute for the NFL to come to its senses there.
[PRBREAK][/PRBREAK]
The money involved in this dispute is peanuts compared to what MLS owners make through Soccer United Marketing. Whenever you hear MLS crying poor they are being disingenuous with the numbers they use. Prior to the 2010 season, The 24th Minute was provided with documents that showed that every team in the league was profitable once the SUM money was included.
Although the the figures provided are nearly 5-years old now, it's difficult to imagine teams being less profitable now that we've seen another round of expansion fees come into the league.
There is a theory out that suggests MLS is playing hardball with the refs as a warning to its players ahead of the 2015 CBA negotiations. It's possible, but it is also small thinking.
As part of a global marketplace, MLS players might have more power than people believe -- especially since many of the rules MLS uses to restrict movement and control costs only survive legal challenge because they have been collectively bargained.
But that battle is still a year away. As it relates to the current lock out, MLS had best sort it out before March 22 or March 29.
Why that day? Some British Columbia labour law is below for your enjoyment.
Maybe the players can referee the game on the honour system during Vancouver's home opener?*
*The issue could be forced a week earlier in Quebec, where a similar law exists. However, there might be a loophole in the Quebec law that allows MLS to use current, non-unionized employees.
----
Replacement workers
68 (1) During a lockout or strike authorized by this Code an employer must not use the services of a person, whether paid or not,
(a) who is hired or engaged after the earlier of the date on which the notice to commence collective bargaining is given and the date on which bargaining begins,
(
who ordinarily works at another of the employer's places of operations,
© who is transferred to a place of operations in respect of which the strike or lockout is taking place, if he or she was transferred after the earlier of the date on which the notice to commence bargaining is given and the date on which bargaining begins, or
(d) who is employed, engaged or supplied to the employer by another person,
to perform
(e) the work of an employee in the bargaining unit that is on strike or locked out, or
(f) the work ordinarily done by a person who is performing the work of an employee in the bargaining unit that is on strike or locked out.
(2) An employer must not require any person who works at a place of operations in respect of which the strike or lockout is taking place to perform any work of an employee in the bargaining unit that is on strike or is locked out without the consent of the person.
(3) An employer must not
(a) refuse to employ or continue to employ a person,
( threaten to dismiss a person or otherwise threaten a person,
© discriminate against a person in regard to employment or a term or condition of employment, or
(d) intimidate or coerce or impose a pecuniary or other penalty on a person,
because of the person's refusal to perform any or all of the work of an employee in the bargaining unit that is on strike or locked out.