Why MLS should embrace transparency in MVP, other awards voting

Major League Soccer is in the process of naming its yearly award recipients. Meanwhile, a bunch of writers and bloggers are in the process of boxing some ears about one rather lame policy: MLS doesn’t reveal the voting for these awards.

The league’s reasoning rings hollow. MLS officials say they don’t release voting because, along with media balloting, the voting includes an internal team element.

That’s pretty much all they say, but I’ll share some informed guesses in translation: they don’t want Team A getting into a pissing match with Team B because of choices by players, coaches, GMs or technical directors. Nor do they want to embarrass those who may abstain.

A primary consideration in all this concerns player bonuses, which are routinely attached to some contracts. So, it’s not just bragging rights at stake; there’s some serious green involved.

In the case of MLS All-Star voting, league officials do release voting totals because there is an element of fan balloting in the process. One league spokesman in New York did tell me that a more transparent voting process for the post-season awards is something the league may soon examine; all the hubbub this year over choices that seem a bit like three-day old fish – that is to say, some smell a little “off” – will motivate league deciders to give it serious thought.

Andy Najar’s choice as Rookie of the Year over Tim Ream and Danny Mwanga was met with grumbling in some corners. But no one should get too upset over that one, in all honesty. Good cases could be made for all three players; if you’re man didn’t win, well, you may certainly exercise your constitutional right to kvetch – but conspiratorial cries should be checked at the door.

It’s the choice of L.A. goalkeeper Donovan Ricketts over the seemingly more deserving Nick Rimando (and possibly more deserving Kevin Hartman, although he had a shorter body of work) for MLS Goalkeeper of the Year that got some of our fingers scurrying purposefully across keyboards.

Ricketts was a solid goalkeeper this year, no doubt. But he was better in 2009, and this looks like so much “reputation” voting. Rimando and Hartman were better this year, at least according to most people paying attention.

Rickett’s naming has created a flashpoint for the league’s lack of transparency in this process of post-season decoration – because we don’t get to see which of the wise guys weren’t paying attention. (And I have a sneaking suspicion that we might see more of this less informed “reputation” voting before the league finishes releasing all the annual awards. Just a guess.)

Here’s a story that outlines why transparency is critical in these matters: A few years ago when I covered FC Dallas as a beat for daily newspaper, I voted for Ronnie O’Brien for team MVP. The award was, ostensibly, solely a media vote. I know there were only a few of us who covered the team regularly enough to have an informed opinion. I also knew the press officer pretty well. He was an honest guy.

As the award was announced, a few of us looked up from our keyboards and shot one another curious glances. “What just happened? Who won?”

Simo Valakari had captured the award. He was a good egg and a valuable member of the team. But his influence had waned over the course of the season. O’Brien was the clear choice for most of us. I know, because I knew enough of the voters to feel comfortable asking for whom they had voted. A couple actually had not voted for O’Brien. Rather, they had voted for Eddie Johnson. I could see that, too. The young forward had just enjoyed his breakout season.

Johnson was pissed when the award was announced. So was O’Brien. Here’s the thing: from what I understood, one or both of those players may have had contract bonuses for earning team MVP. I mean, $5,000 may not be much to some people, but I know I’d be one angry owl if I thought I might have been screwed out of 5 large. Were they jilted out of the money?

I truly don’t know. Team officials (a previous, long-gong regime) adamantly refused to release the voting. Why? They wouldn’t say. Officially speaking they more or less said, “That’s not of your business.”

So I wondered to myself, “Would any of this, if ever proven, constitute legal fraud?”

Again, I couldn’t really say. But it certainly seems to me that if a club wants to avoid any impressions of disreputable shenanigans, they should make the system transparent. It’s really not that difficult. They just tell us, “Here’s who votes. Here’s how they voted.”

If someone doesn’t want to participate in an open voting process, that’s fine.

It’s not just bonuses either that clarity and transparency so important. Let’s say, hypothetically, that a player’s contract is up with MLS. Handing him a team award or league honor provides the athlete instant bargaining leverage. Absent a seemingly deserving award, players and fans might wonder if anything underhanded was going on. I don’t honestly believe that anyone at MLS would ever yank a legitimately earned award because it same some scratch. But that’s the problem with lacking transparency: it gives people room to wonder.

Or what about an award candidate who may be sold overseas? Speaking completely hypothetically, what if Sammy Striker finishes second in voting to Willie Winger. But Sammy Striker and his agent have alerted the authorities that they’ll be testing the European market. Wouldn’t MLS be motivated to give Sammy Striker the award to drive up his sale price? Again, it’s overly cynical to suggest that would actually happen. But they can eliminate the scourge of suspicion through transparency.

I think MLS leaders, league officials and GMs and owners, are generally honest people. But it’s a journalist’s job to ask questions, to insist on transparency where possible and to be vigilant along the watchtower while keeping the leaders honest.

Besides, it’s harder to make the case that everything truly is above board when those leaders won’t share information that really needs to be shared.