Advertisement

MISL Commissioner Gives Players Possible Formula for Cutting Salaries

Share
Times Staff Writer

Concerned with what he said has been a lack of response from the Major Indoor Soccer League Players Assn., MISL Commissioner Bill Kentling has suggested a way that players might allocate $850,000 per team under a reduced salary cap proposed by the league.

When requesting the salary-cap reduction from $1.275 million per team to $850,000 on Feb. 26, the MISL board of directors asked the players to devise a formula by which the money might be fairly distributed.

The league has said that if the proposal is not accepted by the players by April 15--two days before the Sockers’ final regular-season game--it will terminate after the playoffs conclude in June.

Advertisement

Thursday, Kentling said: “Since the league has not received a substantive response from the players association, I sense that is because of confusion about how the proposal would be implemented . . .

“What you’re hearing is, ‘What can I do humanly possible to avoid making a decision?’ ”

Kentling therefore has given the union this possible formula:

- Guaranteed contracts would be reduced by a third. Players with guarantees would play at 66.7% of their contracted compensation after this season and through the length of their contracts. The percentage is the difference between the $1.275 million cap now in effect and the proposed $850,000 cap.

Socker goalkeeper Zoltan Toth, who is in the first year of a three-year guaranteed contract worth $85,000 a season, did not take kindly to the suggestion.

“I feel like when you go to the dentist and they pull out all your teeth,” Toth said. “We played for a guaranteed contract so we could have security. They guarantee contracts and then take it back. We don’t take championships back.

“I don’t think this is right. We will fight for it (guaranteed contracts). It’s a very, very bad move from Bill Kentling. Why don’t they take the commissioner’s salary? “

Kentling answered by saying that he, too, would take a cut if the league survives: “Anybody who loves it (the sport) will take an economic restructuring, and that includes the commissioner.”

Advertisement

- Each club would have the option to terminate any or all nonguaranteed multi-year contracts at the end of the season, including contracts of injured players. If a player were offered a new contract by his present team, he would have 30 days to solicit other offers. His present team then would have the right of first refusal.

- No player with an existing nonguaranteed contract or signing a new contract would receive more than $7,500 per month in compensation. Because most MISL contracts are for 12 months, that means a maximum salary of $90,000. The minimum would remain at $2,000 a month for first-year players, $2,250 a month for second-year players and $2,500 a month for third-year players.

Kentling said there might also be more contracts of fewer than 12 months, reducing salaries further.

The recommendations were the result of a conference call between the MISL board of directors and Kentling Wednesday.

“There appears to be no urgency on the part of Mr. (John) Kerr (director of the players association) to bring the players together,” Socker President Ron Cady said. “It’s, ‘Don’t worry about it, we’ll get to it next week.’ If they’re not going to move forward, we’ll give them suggestions.”

Kentling sent a copy of the proposals to Kerr, each of the 11 teams and their player representatives. Kevin Crow, the Socker player representative, said there would be a conference call Monday to discuss selecting a committee to meet with Kentling and the owners.

Advertisement

Cady said a team meeting is planned for today.

“I don’t want to criticize what they’re saying,” said Crow, whose $90,000-per-year contract is up at the end of the season. “But of course, if you can get the guys with guaranteed contracts to come down, you’ll reach the $850,000 figure.”

Crow said the allocation of the salaries may be premature because “the players haven’t decided what route we’ll go” when it comes to accepting or rejecting the proposed salary-cap reduction.

Advertisement