I think mid-season would be when they’d do it if it happens, most likely during the World Cup. It would have the lowest impact and allow sides to have some sort of a window of opportunity to resolve issues. Although ultimately, I hope the players drop most of the demands and realize the league can’t sustain those things for the time being

On a CBA with which they disagree?

Is that they are a means to an end, not an end of themselves. There seems to be this sense that the strike itself will accomplish something. In reality, it’s the threat of a strike that is meant to get something done. What I mean is that before a strike happens, the players will set a deadline (or the owners will set a lockout date) with the hope that fear of that date will drive the other side to get serious about bargaining.

That being said, if there’s going to be a strike, it will be on the later end of your scale. Plus, they’re going to want to get as much bang for their buck as possible. If I was planning the strike, I’d probably want it to happen after Red Bull’s opening and before the season really starts, so March 25 I guess. That way, you tease the owners with that success of the opener and still get the threat of really raining on the parade.

But in this economy are the players going to get any sympathy from fans?

If there were games with scabs, would that be good enough?

The Columbus Dispatch does a decent job of portraying possible scenarios.

There’s a lot of misinformation out there right now, mainly along the lines of “There is no CBA” and “the players have to strike if they don’t get a deal done by First Kick.” While opposing minds can disagree on the merits of the strike or lockout, the cold hard fact is that it is not a literal must.

This article lays out the situation in about as clear a way as possible, even citing the actual labor law.

2. Although the CBA has now expired, nearly all of its provisions remain in effect. Employers are required to collectively bargain in good faith under Section 8(a)(5) of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). Part of this duty includes maintaining the status quo established in the previous CBA as the two parties negotiate a new CBA. The status quo is protected as a matter of law, not under the contractual binds of the old CBA, and the employer may not alter its terms unilaterally, according to the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Litton Financial Printing Division v. NLRB. Basically, the NLRA ensures MLS will function as it did under the previous CBA with a couple of key restrictions stripped away to permit either side to wield power at the bargaining table.

While I disagree with some of his opinions, best I can tell he gets all the facts right.