JUNE 2: While the league may implement a 50- or 60-game schedule, the union could object to it based on March’s agreement, which says the commissioner’s office must put forth its “best efforts to play as many games as possible,” per Ken Rosenthal and Evan Drellich of The Athletic (subscription required). Regardless, the two sides aren’t making much progress, nor have they scheduled further negotiations. As Rosenthal and Drellich point out, if MLB and the MLBPA are going to meet in the middle for an 82-game season that starts July 4, time’s running out. For that to happen, the players would have to be back in spring training by the middle of this month.
JUNE 1, 10:09pm: The two sides remain far apart in talks, Joel Sherman of the New York Post reports in a piece that’s worth reading in full. In regards to the counter-proposal the union made over the weekend, deputy commissioner Dan Halem told Sherman via text: “The one piece of good news out of [Sunday’s] meeting is that Tony Clark acknowledged that the March Agreement contemplated another negotiation over player salaries if the 2020 season could not be played in front of fans. We were concerned based on media reports if players knew that. Tony told us the players were aware that the March Agreement did not resolve the issue of player salaries in a season without fans. And he said the players‘ decision to accept nothing less than 100 percent of their prorated salaries was due to the risks of playing the season, not because they were promised it in the March 26 agreement.” Clark fired back in an email to Sherman, though, calling Halem’s quote “purposefully misleading and inaccurate.” Clark added that MLB is trying to “negotiate through the media instead of focusing on how to bring baseball back to its fans.”
6:58pm: A season with roughly 50 games would be “a last resort” for the league, Passan writes. The hope remains that MLB and the MLBPA will reach an agreement to avoid that outcome.
4:48pm: The MLBPA and MLB haven’t been able to see eye to eye on a potential 2020 season as they negotiate during this pandemic. In the latest developments, the union proposed a 114-game season this past weekend, though it seems the league is open to a much shorter campaign. MLB plans to propose a smaller schedule – perhaps one with as few as 50 to 60 games – per Jeff Passan of ESPN, but the league would give players a full portion of their prorated salaries.
Whether this plan will appeal to the players remains to be seen, as they wouldn’t come close to their normal salaries in such an abbreviated season. However, as Jon Heyman of MLB Network notes, commissioner Rob Manfred has the right to implement a schedule that’s as long or short as he wants based on the agreement the owners and players made back in March. As of now, Manfred and the league are still hoping to reach some sort of compromise that works out for both sides, Heyman suggests, but Passan adds that MLB is prepared to go with a schedule length of its choosing if it’s unable to find common ground with the players.
Season length aside, it’s notable that the league’s willing to give players their prorated salaries without further reductions in pay. The league presented its latest economic proposal last week – one that didn’t go over well with players, including Nationals ace and influential union member Max Scherzer, who noted the players had already agreed to take lower salaries in the form of prorated salaries and weren’t open to accepting even less money. A 50- to 60-game schedule obviously would not be ideal for the players from a financial standpoint, but if they’re not on board with this plan, perhaps they and the owners will be able to meet in the middle on schedule length in the coming weeks and get a 2020 campaign underway.
MLB doesn’t want a season.
I think the owners don’t want to lose money. Whether their fear is real or imaginary, this seems to be a valid position.
MLB is not going to lose money. Stop believing the lies of billionaires who LITERALLY refuse to open their books and prove that they are losing money.
This entire profitable or not profitable discussion has been driving me crazy. So I looked into the Texas Rangers the best I could. Through a lot of google searches you can get bits and pieces of the teams expenses. So here is a breakdown of what I could find:
– total 2019 revenues: $335M: this includes tv deals, tickets sold, stadium naming rights ($11m annually) National MLB TV deal that is shared with each team, etc…
– 2020 mlb payroll: roughly $150M
– annual debt obligations: $60M
– gate receipts: $71M (doesn’t include parking or concessions)
– couldn’t find a consolidated summary on salaries for executives, scouts, trainers etc…
According to data I could find, the average MLB team made profits of $50M last year. This includes the behemoths such as the Yankees.
So with incomplete data, even without fans, I could still see the Rangers realistically making a solid profit. However, with that being said, most of the profit would stem from the fairly lucrative TV deal they have and a decent fee for naming rights.
I could see teams that have a meager tv deal or limited naming rights losing their shirts.
But revenues and expenses is just one factor of the equation. Once again, limiting my view to just the Rangers, they were bought for $593M in 2010. According to Forbes (which is the best 3rd party valuation out there – in my opinion) the Rangers are now worth $1.75B. So in 11 years the owners have seen their initial investment skyrocket by over $1.1B. So even if the Rangers were to lose money (I don’t see how that’s feasible though), they’d make so much money off a sale that a one year loss would be a minor inconvenience. Once again the Rangers aren’t the A’s, or Tampa, or Miami, etc…
The problem doesn’t appear to be with baseball itself. Rather the problem appears to be with MLB being reluctant to relocate teams to cities where they be better positioned financially. I get that there are lots of politics and history that needs to be factored in for moving. But if I’m the players, this is one of the many items they should be clamoring for.
CursedRangers: Your comment on relocation is a great insight. There are numerous metropolitan areas with potential fan bases substantially larger than some of the current small market clubs, but history, politics, and inertia have prevented serious discussion of possible franchise moves. Instead, we periodically hear of possible expansion, the effect of which I think would only dilute the product on the field. It’s worth noting, though, that not all small market clubs are desperate for revenue. The cardinals come quickly to mind.
@cursedrangers:
Using your numbers you say that most mlb teams seem to average 50m a yr in profit.
But then you say gate revenues minus concessions and parking were 71m… that alone is enough to put them in the red.
But let’s unpack further. There are stadium maintenance fees, payroll taxes (which are NOT part of player contract t salaries, the Fed Govt makes you may extra on top of employees salary) front office costs, player benefits, insurances, talent scouts, advertising, the list keeps going.
So work backwards, it’s vastly more likely than not that the Rangers go in the red without gate revenues. I’d expect most other franchises doing the same.
Also, as much as the team doesn’t pay full salary without a full season, I’d expect sponsorships and tv revenues also get reduced/pro rated being a wash.
Agree, time to add 2 teams next year, and move 2 teams. Move the Rays to Montreal, move the A’s to Vegas, add Portland and Charlotte or Nashville.
Ok, but franchise valuation doesn’t equate to cash (unless it is sold) or even cash flow. It does go to how much a team can borrow and at what rates.
Quick math lesson: If the Braves make $90M in profit and the Rays make $10M in profit, combined profit is $100M. The average profit in that example is $50M.
So while the average MLB team makes $50M in profit, some make a ton more & others make a lot less.
But putting that aside. The point is even if the Rangers were to lose a crazy number this year (you can pick the figure you wish), they still have gone up in value by over $1B in 11 years. That’s a serious ROI. And yeah it would suck to lose money for one year, but when the owners sale the team they will be doing cartwheels regardless.
How do you get that? Gate sales are at least a significant chunk, and at your suppositions, $50m is still roughly 1/7th, or 15%, of total revenue.
Also, what percentage of revenues is diminished by the lack of TV revenue from missed games?
On a 15% profit margin, where is this capital windfall?
Gate sales are 29 percent, or about $ 3.2 billion. Concessions are another 8.8%. Obviously, that’s different in every park, but that is local revenue, of which 48% goes to revenue sharing, then divided 30 ways.
Local TV revenue is estimated to lose about 25% of $2.2 billion, but that’s one of the hardest things to calculate. We know how much each contract is worth. They average about $ 73 million per year per team. But there are 30 different contracts and some 21 teams own a share in the regional networks as part of the deal, so they’re paying themselves, and they gave themselves sweetheart deals in some cases.
As long as they have playoffs, even expanded playoffs, the national TV revenue will come in 100%.
No…you’re painting with a braid stroke. The A’s and Ray’s don’t revenue share at a net loss. Those teams may already be sunk without the Yankees in the pot.
*Broad stroke
I live in a Nashville and cannot see supporting a team – not 82 games in the summer months. Charlotte probably a better option IMO.
Lol cursed. Are you aware that you left out major factors? People are not watching whacky alignments, playoff changes and while in empty stadium’s. Game’s played during football is a no And another thing that you forget! How about if the Pirate’s reach the world series because their players didn’t catch the coronavirus and all the good teams lose their stats because they get the virus. All this is why the TV revenue numbers are not going to be factor in making a profit for the owners. Everyone wants the owners to gamble with their money. They can offered losing money they say. Funny thing is this hypocrisy is getting old here. When it’s your own money then the real opinions come out about the importance of securing profit.
Solid comment, Cursed.
A couple of things I’ll throw in:
The valuation of the franchise doesn’t help cash flow. Without game day revenue, it’s not hard to see some franchises may need to borrow money to make payroll. And some of the franchises that would need to borrow probably have other debt to service. And don’t forget thr commissioner’s office has some “debt to value” equation that prevents franchises from becoming to much in debt (goes back to the previous Dodgers’ ownership).
Methinks a plan were some player salaries are deferred makes sense. Or a shorter season.
In any case, I do believe the financial issues for some franchises is real. The bigger question is if players should care. Seems to me they should, since they only have 30 potential employers and having just a few in a bad debt situation could be harmful for overall player salaries. If someone else says the players shouldn’t care, I won’t argue too hard against that opinion.
The owners are not going to lose money??? Explain
Here’s what you’re not factoring in, minority ownership. I’ll use my favorite team as an example, the Pirates. Most believe Bob Nutting owns the Pirates, but in actuality he is the majority Owner. He has partners who may or may not have the financial wherewithal to ride out a season where they lose millions of dollars. And Nutting isn’t allowed to subsidise the team from his vast fortune without increasing his stake in the team.
In short, your scenario where a team can justify a short-term loss and recoup it on the sale of the franchise isn’t as cut and dry as you may think it is.
Then the players will sue and win.
It’s dubious the players could force the league to operate under any circumstances but the March agreement gives the owners the right to schedule a season for as many games as they want or not schedule one at all. The players too $170 million plus service time in exchange for owners making the call.
Just stop posting this over and over. They have nothing to sue over
Right – they agreed not to sue in the March agreement.
IT’S A LIE
The notion that playing more games with prorated salaries brings them less money is a load of crap. The TV revenue per game, both local and national, far exceeds player salaries.
If any teams lose money, it’s because they have debts unrelated to playing games that puts them in the red. They have those debts with or without games, no matter the length of the season.
$3.1 billion national TV revenue, $ 2.2 billion local TV revenue, $1.1 billion sponsorships. $4 billion player salaries. That’s for a full season. The more games they play, the more money they make for MLB overall.
You’re using a false assumption that national TV revenue is paid to MLB based on games played and that playing 10% more games will increase national revenue by 10%. National TV revenue is heavily tied to the post-season. I don’t know the exact number but I guess it’s more than 50%. So 10% more regular season games might increase national TV money by 2%, not 10%.
Some expenses like employee salaries aren’t tied into games played. Some are. Every game you play at home is going to run up your electricity bill.
I make no such assumption.
National TV revenue includes FS1, ESPN, Fox Sports, MLB.tv, DirecTV and satellite packages, and a few more.
The post season makes a lot more revenue per game, and that’s almost all part of the National revenue stream which totals $ 3.1 billion according to Forbes. But it’s not more than half.
Local TV revenue is $2.2 billion, which is almost all regular season. That does not count the fact that 21 MLB teams now own a stake in their RSN’s.
Player salaries are about $4 billion. Even if the local TV revenues are cut in half for a prorated season, there is more than enough money to cover player salaries- per game or per season.
Also dont forget to add in the additional expenses that will have to be added due to corona. They will have to have doctors and technicians on site to administer tests before games for every player and worker in the stadium.
They will also have to be in compliance with federal standards and pretty much sanitize the entire stadium. i would have to guess per game you are probably looking at an additional mil alone for all that because even if they dont use the area (fans seats) you will probably have to sanitize that as well. Which is probably why it was suggested to do 2 games a day to reduce that expense.
Sure, there are added costs associated with playing games, but $1 million per game? Over 82 games that would be $ 1.23 billion. (82 games x 15, 2 teams per game).
And there will be substantial cost savings per game as well. No ticket takers, no concession salespeople, no clean up crew for the stands or concourses. And travel costs are drastically reduced. But all this is chicken feed compared with the big items which are TV revenue and player salaries.
I’m not saying that some teams won’t lose money, but they lose more money by not playing games. And both sides know it, which is why they won’t limit games to 50 or 60.
Y’all saying “player salaries” aren’t factoring in all of the infrastructure. All teams loose on their farm system, scouting, and draft compensation.
You don’t need to do a google search. Look at the Braves. They are public ally traded. They report their total expenses and profits accurately or they’re sanctioned by the SEC.
ajc.com/sports/baseball/braves-revenue-rose-476m-2…
Last year, on paper as a business, the Braves made $54m.
That’s seriously like 2 big contracts on most teams. That’s like, Mark Melancin, Will Smith, Cole Hamels and Travis D’Arnaud.
Those are all players the Braves won WITHOUT last year. That’s a rough margin for error.
I think you seriously overestimate the additional corona cost. And if fans are in the stands, why “sanitize” the stadium? And is it even necessary? If the CDC says I don’t have to sanitize groceries from the store, does the stadium need to be steam-washed every day?
I can’t say with certainty that this applies to sports crowds, but it would make sense if it did. I work at an outdoor concert venue, and the list of equipment we’ll have to buy, additional training that our existing personnel will have to get and extra personnel we’ll have to hire in order to meet the regulations being put for all makes it truly prohibitive for us to have shows any time soon. We’re crossing our fingers hoping for a Labor Day return (summer season has been wiped out, our bigger money maker), but even if we can somehow pull off the miracle, we’re being told maximum allowable crowd will be 500 people (our capacity is 4800). For us, obviously not the revenue generator that an MLB team is, the extra expenses coupled with severely reduced crowds makes it pretty much impossible to have much hope.
Which, I guess, is sort of the long way around the barn to say that additional corona costs are exorbitant to us, and if the same (or perhaps even more stringent, due to capacity) regulations are enforced at stadiums, it’s a LOT of money. Just to give you one example – we’ve been told that we will be required to have personnel in EVERY restroom “sanitizing every hard surface used by a client” EVERY time the facilities are used.
We’re also being told (obviously, things change often, so who knows) that these regulations will be in effect until there is an effective vaccine readily available.
MLB may not think they can carry out a season with the novel corona virus still around and testing where it will likely be this summer. There are just too many people involved, even without crowds, at least 100 per team including the players, staff, and stadium employees and the amount of testing they’d need to do to ensure that anyone infected gets isolated and does not infect others may not be possible.
My man, safety issues have very little to do with the divide at this point.
Indeed. Besides I think the urban rioting has killed to virus. Not even a Chinese virus can beat American hooligans.
Instigators from both extreme sides of the fence. Far left and right
Marc MLB was the one who said it was safe and submitted a 67 page report to prove THEIR point.
F Manfred and F the owners. I hope congress strips there anti trust protections. 40 game joke season because owners that have made money hand over fist for years cant risk losing any ever!
This is unlikely to ever happen. Most accept baseball’s monopoly as the natural order of things. In fact, the players probably want it this way as well. Sure, new teams could be created without the franchise but many of them would probably go broke and players would be worse off. Also, where else would new teams be created. Could NY handle another team? CA? I guess you could put one in ND but it wouldn’t last long. Sometimes state monopolies exist to achieve what is hoped to be a better outcome than not having one.
Well one advantage of dumping the anti-trust exemption would be that the A’s, or whomever, could relocate to San Jose without the Giants or the Leagues permission.
Tampa could move to NYC. Could it support a third team? Sure. At the level that the Yanks or even the Mets are supported? Probably not. But certainly much stronger than Tampa is receiving now.
Are you saying the protected territories are a result of the Anti-Trust exemption? Big, if true. Pretty much meaningless, too.
That’s what a court said about a lawsuit filed by the City of San Jose. The suit was shut down before it ever got started on that issue. That doesn’t mean they’d prevail, but the anti trust exemption has allowed MLB to divide up the country into territories.
Knee Jerk Anti-Owner Posters: MLB’s secret agenda is to make money hand over fist from its broadcast rights for games.
‘Also Knee Jerk Anti-Owner Posters: MLB doesn’t want any games.
zzz
I agree. 40-60 games is a waste of time. See you in 2022 boys and we will see who is still watching. I won’t be.
I will take any amount of games.
I am happy to see the owners making a quick counter offer. As a fan, I still want more games though.
Are people (including Connor Byrne) not even reading Passan’s story? This is not a proposal or a “counter offer”:
“Though MLB does not intend to propose this to the players, the possibility of implementing a schedule of around 50 games that would start in July has been considered by the league as a last resort in the event the parties can’t come to a deal, sources said.”
Lol can’t wait til August when the country is on fire and mlb proposes a 16 game season.
The usual worthless drop in.
It’s his material
12 games, take it or leave it.
Glad you are enjoying this destruction, Monty. Makes one of us.
MLB Owners: Complete Douchecanoes since 1892 (possibly before then)
fivethirtyeight.com/features/mlb-owners-say-they-c…
The short story is no, not even close.
Because the owners have always operated transparently and above board.
Collusion I, II, and III.
Contraction threats
Blackballing
And so on…
If I wasn’t clear, I was agreeing with you. The link was in support of that.
No worries. My bad!
Hey how is Mrs. Schwarber doing these days??
That take is way too optimistic on the amount of revenue owners will get and how much they’ll be able to reduce non-player expenses. There’s no way they can cut non-player expenses in half. I doubt they can reduce them by more than 10-20%.
@Coast1: I agree.
Salary reductions reported to staff members were not 50% cuts. Some highest ranking front office members, maybe, and for a couple months. Major league players are paid during the season, April through sept. Staff are paid over 12 months. So a reduction in staff salary didn’t impact the 25% that was paid jan-mar, nor what would be paid going forward. And when the season and games resume, those staff need to go back full-time. So, for april-june, itself only 25% of a pay year for team employees, even if you DID say be half, you only cut 12.5% off the expenses for the full year.
Then you can keep going to where they say they dont know what type of income loss comes from tv deals… they reduce local tv revenue by 25%, but why? If the loss of games results in an ability for the stations to cut revenue, why wouldnt the reduction be proportionate to the loss of games? The article was written using a 81 game season. They talk about halving player costs. Why cut tv by 25% when any right to reduce would be exercised proportionately… or 50%?
Then they speculate about inability to save off debt, stadium expenses, etc.
All in all, the best case with very fuzzy manipulated math they seem to show a slight (relatively) $120m loss… but correcting their tv revenue deal alone pushes it closer to $1b, and as stated above, they err in non-player payroll pretending it wasn’t 1/4 already paid for the year before the virus hit, and any savings from the 3 month shutdown would be 6-12% of yearly totals at best.
The footnote on local revenue says
“In light of the lost programming and advertising money in proportion to how much of the RSN teams tend to own.”
Also, the contracts with RSN’s are 10, 20, sometimes 25 or 30 year deals. They give MLB teams an ownership stake in the networks, and at the top end of the scale, they give ridiculously low broadcast fees to the clubs, because 48 percent of that money has to go into revenue sharing.
Salaries for non player personnel, other than front office executives, are chump change on an MLB balance sheet, but they are costs that have to be paid as long as the employees are not furloughed. Stadium debt is a fixed cost in every case.
$170 million was paid to the players in spring, which is 4.25 percent of $4 billion in player salaries for the season. They do not err. The article is as good of an estimate as you will find.
82 games with expanded playoffs just like the NBA appears to be the eventual middle ground.
Econ 101: Growing (or maintaining) your market share is more important than short term profit.
In the case of MLB owners, growing (or maintaining) your franchises’ value is more important than short term profit.
The idea that they’d be better off losing market share and destroying their franchises’ value if they can’t make a profit this year is just nonsense.
The question is did enough of the owners make their own money in business to understand this or are there too many silver spoons who only know how to inherit money and do not understand this?
Great angle that isn’t getting discussed much.
This is why there will be a season, the long term damage is far worst then the short term losses. Owners and players know this, why all the sudden the owners moved quickly to counter today? because there is a sense of urgency starting to happen.
Expect a quick counter from the union, they both know they have to get a deal done this week.
I don’t think the MLBPA minds skipping a season or two. Their leadership is bad, the top earners are set for multiple lifetimes, and the MLBPA doesn’t really concern itself with the state of the game or MiLB players (some individual players do care; the union doesn’t).
I think right now, owners care more. I think you’ll see many of them try to sell soon, and I don’t think they are trying to avoid a major equity hit. Playing a season with no profits hurts many franchises.
Agree with both of u. The owners have got ppl brainwashed into thinking they are actually losing money, when the “losses the keep referring to, is actually reduced profits. And if one bad season bankrupts u, u prolly shouldnt be an owner. And its gonna look great for owners to cancel 2020, then have a strike/lockout after 21. What’s that gonna do to profits and revenue and longterm fan support
I wouldn’t be surprised if some operated at an actual loss this year. But that’s the business world, some years are better than others.
Econ 102… negotiating deals. Your first offer should be wildly in your favor so you can “settle” for something less which in the end was the most sensible option to begin with. If you start with the sensible option the other party will try to get more every time.
In theory all of the teams will take an equity hit this year but it won’t be important in the short run to any team that isn’t trying to sell. For teams that need to borrow against their equity MLB might have to loosen up their debt to equity rules. The real threat to the MLB enterprise in all of this is customer alienation. You’d think they would understand what happens if the fans give up on the game (it’s happened before), but very little in their behavior suggests that they get this at all. Basically MLB is a business with 30 owners and no customer relations department.
Economics didn’t stop at 101. If your argument stops there it’s probably not as strong as you think.
And if this is the extent of your reply, your counterargument is weak as can be.
Most start ups lose TONS of money for years, why?
Because they think they can survive the losses to create a business that gains market share and EVENTUALLY make a profit. (Example: None of Elon Musk’s companies have made a dime but that doesn’t stop the investors, does it?)
So, if all you can see is profit vs loss, you need to repeat 101 before you start flunking out of 102.
Again, the idea that MLB owners should scrap this season if they can’t make a profit is insipid. In fact, they could sustain hundreds of millions in losses this year and it’s still far better for them than having the franchises lose value.
They are either making the worst bluff ever or they need to dig up their dads for advice.
Sorry, forwhomjoshbelltolls, but your original post flunks both Econ 101 and Bus 101. In your original posts, your first two sentences are assumptions about the motivations of the owners, which may or may not be true. Successful businesses need not subscribe to those motivations. You present them as some laws of economics which they are not. (Yes, i am an economist.).
Growing market share is only one approach a business can take to profitability, it is not the only one nor is it the one adopted by all successful businesses. Some businesses have been successful by focusing on exclusivity rather than a larger market share.
Increasing the valuation of your business is also only one approach. Some business owners pursue a strategy of sustainability not growth while others may see one business as a cash cow to finance other ventures. In the latter case, you are willing to destroy the long term prospects of one business for short term profits that enable you to do something else.
“Some businesses have been successful by focusing on exclusivity rather than a larger market share.”
If their goal is to become a niche industry, more power to them, they are well on their way.
“Some business owners pursue a strategy of sustainability not growth while others may see one business as a cash cow to finance other ventures.”
“See, I told you Nutting was using the Pirate money to buy more ski lifts for Seven Springs.” – any DK reader or FAN caller reading this.
What path to success or sustainability or any of the other alternative motivations you have posited is achieved by flushing the season, other than myopically avoiding short term losses?
The last two companies I worked for were only about short term profit. They were owned by private equity, which really doesn’t care much about the long term. MLB owners seem to have similar vision,. I think many owners buy a team to sell it. The hard part is finding entities with enough money or credit to buy.
MLB does not want to be up against the NFL and College Football, and I cannot blame them. The obvious compromise is 82 games with expanded playoffs.
That is where I think the compromise will be too, 82 games with 16 teams playoffs just like NBA and NHL. Prorated salaries for the players and owners make up the loss with the expanded playoffs. That is where it is heading.
How do the 53% of the teams who don’t make the playoffs make up their loss?
Shared revenues from the television rights like every season. This year they’d have expanded tv contracts too
TV revenue >>>>> player salaries
Player salaries are only about half of mlb expenses….
NFL and college football start in September. MLB goes up against them every year.
So basically it sounds like they’re gonna stick with orginal agreements back in March regarding pro-rated pay?! What a waste of time for everyone sheesh!….is having as a little as 50 games as another way to pay the players as little as possible also?
It will likely be full pro rated salaries ( players win), extra players ( players win), extra playoffs 2 years ( owners win).
How to the owners of more than half the teams who DON’T MAKE THE PLAYOFFS win?
By splitting extra TV money.!
The fewer games the better for owners if there are no fans. This deal is more owner friendly than the March deal was. But if the players refuse to compromise on the prorated aspect of things this is one way to still have a season. Hopefully it forces the players into being reasonable and taking a small pay cut beyond the prorated number to get back to half a season.
Your the first person who gets it!
Not true. MLB makes more money from TV revenue than they pay the players. Per game, for a partial season, full season, whatever. Claims to the contrary are false.
Fifty or sixty regular season games is not worth the hassle or health risks regardless of the playoff format.
It will not be 50 -60 games, it will be 82, it is now the union turn to meet the middle ground on games which is 82 and throw in the expanded playoffs, this is what the owners are likely will to meet at but cannot just throw that on the table or the union will ask for more.
JoshBell makes a great point about market share. We’re hard core fans, we’d be around in April of 2021 but to go an entire year without highlights, nationally televised games and playoffs at a time when baseball is already dropping in the sports landscape would be tough long term.
Sixty games may be enough when you consider there will be no other live events competing with MLB until September. The broadcast partners will want to air as many games as possible over the air or on ESPN to get eyeballs. More games before national audiences means more money. I’d rather see at half-season, but less than that could work. And it could prevent playoff games stretching into November, when football is king anyway.
81 games, half the salary, expanded playoffs. Now who doesn’t play but gets the credit? Do 6 season players manufacture an excuse to skip the half season and enter free agency? Will pitchers risk injure do close to FA? This ought to be interesting.
See you in 2021
2022
This is a giant middle finger to the players. “Okay you won’t work with us and insist on pro-rated salaries, then let’s do pro-rated salaries for very few games.” Owners are forcing the players to move off the March agreement.
MLB proposes 78 – 82 game season. The MLBPA counters with 110-114 games. MLB responds with 50 – 60 games. I am just sick of the nonsense. Neither side cares one iota about the fans.
You really think either side cares about the fans? Really?
When a company hammers out a new contract with their union, the customers don’t factor in no matter what the industry is.
If they drive away their fans there will be no major league baseball. They should care about the fans. I know that they do not, however.
The public/fans aren’t smart enough to walk away from the game. They do what they’re told.
Most of the fans that you see at games aren’t concerned about this stuff right now like we are. But if they put on a show, fans will be there.
Maybe you do what you are told, but there are many smart, frustrated people that are done with all of their nonsense.
Hockey John, I’m with you. I don’t do what I’m told. I don’t give a damn if these guys play. I’m completely done with them and have been for a long time. I think athletes, as a whole, are selfish and don’t care about the fans. My point is a majority of fans will rush back to the games because they think baseball is still the great American pastime.
I am tired of the greed also; however I happen to feel we have a good leader in the White House so keep your damn political comments about our president out of these baseball discussions.
80 games +/-, players give up a little bit of their pro-rated salaries to account for absence of fans, and an expanded playoff to generate a few extra dollars from TV partners. This will be the final deal.
Does this league really have to air it’s dirty laundry in public
id they could keep these things under wraps than thry would, but there isn’t much other news to cover it up
that makes no sense
Last proposal was for salaries at about 35-40% of normal years. 50-60 games is 31-37% of a season.
Sounds like the owners have a soft number they want to pay players. Whether that number is spread over 50 games, 100 games, or somewhere in between is now the question.
Every thing goes back to the March Agreement. The players will get their pro-rated money ( but the claim of a 65 year old parent entitling you to no play but full pay is out), the players are not getting Boras’s 114 game schedule either. The owners will get two years of expanded playoffs in return. The compromise is 82 games which both sides want. Health for the players ( 114 games means more risk), 114 games for owners means up against football
50 or 60 games? Maybe that will appeal to some or even many but not me. I’ve always said that about 82 games is the minimum to have some semblance of a regular season, otherwise it seems like an exhibition. So I’m not really interested in their scraps especially when the impediment to a longer season is millionaires and billionaires arguing over money.
It will not be 50-60 games, nobody wants that, this is just a negotiation tatic, to get the union to counter back with with compromises and get closer to a middle ground.
Owners know 50-60 game season is not going to happen,
A 50 game season is like a nuclear option for the league because the original March agreement apparently allows them to set the schedule if they pay full pro-rated amount. (Or at least they think it does)
So basically they are just proposing this to let the players know that if they don’t make concessions the league is going to do what the players want and “abide by the original agreement”, but they are going to do so in a way that effectively gives the players the least amount of money possible.
Not exactly. This is what the March agreement said:
MLB will propose a schedule “using best efforts to play as many games as possible, while taking into account player safety and health, rescheduling needs, competitive considerations, stadium availability, and the economic feasibility of various alternatives.”
Odd take here. You suggest that owners propose 50 games in order to give players least amount of money possible. I believe that owners are doing so in order to lose as little as possible. Big difference. Remember, the reason that players have contracts is because owners provided them.
Contracts aren’t provided from the owners to the players like you suggest, they’re agreements between two parties – an exchange of services for payment. So the converse of what you just said is true as well, the owners only have baseball teams because they have players under contract who agreed to play for them.
My point is the players are demanding fully pro-rated salaries, and this is basically the owners way explaining to them that if the owners are going to concede on pro-rated salaries, it’s going to be a Pyrrhic victory for the players because they’ll just end up making 30% of their normal money based on less games rather than 30% of their normal money on reduced salaries.
The owners are giving the players the one thing they wanted: pro-rated salaries. At this point, the players can’t really say anything. They can argue for more games, but as noted, the agreement they signed gives MLB the choice of the number of games. So this is basically done. Play Ball!!!
pretty much correct. union will push for 82 games but will offer more revenue perks to the owners to make it to happen.
Expanded playoffs and possible offseason homerun derby challenges like the old school days and and possible all-star game after the world series likely to be included to give the owners more revenue.
None of those “perks” will produce meaningful revenue. This is a $10 billion business and you’re talking things that’ll add $5-10 million at most.
which is much more than cutting minor league pay might equal, so they probably do care.
I have no dog in this fight, because I don’t feel bad for either side, except the development time the minor league players will lose, which could effect their ability to get to the majors as quickly(thus, potentially, effecting their future income dramatically). With that said, the owners are not very bright. Instead of fighting with the players over prorated salaries in their original proposal, they should just have offered the 50-60 schedule to begin with, which honors the prorated salaries the players wanted. If offered originally, it would have been put all on the players laps if they wanted to try to get more games, which the owners could of just said isn’t feasible due to the current climate.
Again….
MLB will propose a schedule “using best efforts to play as many games as possible, while taking into account player safety and health, rescheduling needs, competitive considerations, stadium availability, and the economic feasibility of various alternatives.”
Just play every team in your division 20 times each. The division winners all make the playoffs and there will be three wild cards in each league. The three wild card teams will have a double-elimination round-robin tournament to determine who advances to the LDS. The winning team gets to rest each time during the round-robin while the losing team has to play the next game….as long as there are still three teams.
What a farce
I think they will come to an agreement on an 80 game pro-rated salary which will make the players happy. I also think fans will be allowed to attend in August (at a 25%-33% capacity) increasing revenue which will make the owners happy.
No agreement will include possible fans returning, it will be base only without fans. If they can show up later then just a bonus.
Owners’ interest is long term: franchise value, averaging dips in season income, making it big every 10-15 years.
Players’ interest is short term: careers average less than 6 years, 1 in 5 don’t make it past 1 year, always a chance career ends that day, about 11% end every year, get that one contract that makes your life
Hard to agree without common interest — it’s like a date.
Wwe is on tonight yay
I cannot understand how anyone is siding with the players
RH. I can’t understand how you do not see the lying owners can’t be trusted.
Amen!
Well, what to you know. FINALLY!
After the owners’ wildly insane financial proposals, and after the players’ even more wildly insane 114 game proposal (I mean, really, I’d just love a hit of whatever the jokers who were came up with that one were smoking), somebody has actually plugged in their brain and come up with something reasonable and rational.
Why is this a good idea?
1) The players get their full contractually negotiated pay based on the amount of work they do. That’s fair.
2) The owners get the shortened season they seem to want based on their pleas of “no fans” poverty, blah, blah, blah.
3) The league, I assume, still gets their expanded playoff which they seem to be betting the whole season on.
4) From a public health perspective (really, the one and only perspective that matters) this regular season could be wrapped up in 10 weeks, and the whole thing, from soup to nuts, done in less then four months. That means they have a chance of having it over and done before the virus makes its Fall sequel.
Now, is any of this perfect? No. I’m still skeptical about having a season at all. But a really short season is the only way to make it work, it’s the only plan worth trying.
Now, as a special note to the players who’re going to be moaning and groaning about wanting to play more and get more money: SHUT UP. You’re getting the money you contractually deserve. Be happy with that. You are absolutely not going to get a 114 game season in. Or a 100 game season. Or a 90 game season. You probably haven’t even got the time now for an 80 game season. If you try for something longer you’re going to fail, the season will end without a playoff for the first time since 1994 and a very angry fan base will put it all on you, the players. You will cripple the sport. Agree to this, or don’t play at all.
MLB will propose a schedule “using best efforts to play as many games as possible, while taking into account player safety and health, rescheduling needs, competitive considerations, stadium availability, and the economic feasibility of various alternatives.”
March agreement
You’re assuming there’s a fall sequel to this virus when there’s nothing to support it so that shouldn’t be a determiing factor in anything
The majority of virologists and epidemiologists seem to be in agreement that diseases with similar epidemiological patters to Covid 19 usually have second major waves and that more often than not the second wave is worse than the first.
Are you a virologist? An epidemiologist? Have you got any pertinent scientific knowledge?
Or are you just one of those jokers who think that because we don’t know everything that we have to behave as if we don’t know anything and therefore ignore the available facts and evidence?
All of the virologists and epidemiologists have been absolutely WRONG about this virus. All of the models are guesses that use bad data. Community spread was around last fall. This spring WAS likely the second wave. There will be a third wave this fall, and another wave after that, and then another new virus. You are obviously scared to death, kreckert. That’s fine. Hide out. Let the rest of us go to the ballgames. The virus is bad, but the response to the virus has been FAR worse. Go ahead and fear monger and cry wolf some more, but until you and your frightened cohorts learn to live with the virus there is no hope.
Only a month into the season. The first half of the season is roughly 88-90 games. June 30th is when they propose to resume. From that date to Sept 30th with days off that’s 90 games. The only way we get 100 games is if they start a week from now
Add a few double headers, as the players proposed. This thing has to boil down to within a certain range not much more than the 82 games.
What about 100 games, but the players only get paid for 82 + postseason?
Pass the bread cuz that’s baloney.
you are still asking the players to take a cut which will not happen.
And it’s no bonanza for owners either. They make get more from local TV rights holders for the 18 more games but with no fans in the stands the increased revenue won’t be that much.
No fans for the first month at most.
Players are taking no cuts or unless the virus returns have their money deferred. If a player makes $10m and plays he gets $5m, which is fair. What would be unfair is players not playing and getting paid because mommy Or grandma is a Senior Citizen, or getting 114 games when everyone ( Scott Boras included) knows about football and I can tell you as a Steeler and Penn State fan, almost NO ONE in Pittsburgh cares about the Pirates when those teams are playing.
Seventy five games July thru September, expanded playoffs. Going any longer runs into football which is more popular than baseball. Some kind of fan attendance, maybe fifty percent capacity? See no point in games with zero fans.
I’m waiting to see if there is a spike in “covid” after all these riots.
It would not shock me in the least
There won’t be because they’ve already moved on to the next false flag with the race riots.
Riots?
Since mass gathering is apparently now allowed, MLB should just say screw it and proceed with fans in the stands.
So they’ll settle on a 81 game season and prorated salaries. Pitter patter…..
That’s basically the original March agreement so I think the owners have to get some other form of concessions otherwise what’s even the point of these negotiations?
A shorter season makes more sense for the owners as they would save on salaries and thus could afford a full prorated salary. Do that and expand the playoffs (where the owners make a killing) and the owners should make out well enough to have a season.
The contracts were negotiated with the belief that revenues would be generated by game attendance….the belief amongst the players that this new paradigm of empty stadiums shouldn’t affect their salary is absurd.
Lawson – correct. Did you see the “clarification” email between the MLBPA lawyer and MLB negotiator? It makes crystal clear that no fans is a new paradigm.
The bigger travesty in my opinion is the MILB season being cancelled, stifling the growth and development of future prospects. For all the people on here who champion the little guy, you haven’t been talking about this. Anti-owner commenters also have no love for the minor league players. Way to have your priorities in-order.
They will be playing expanded fall leagues probably in both Arizona and Florida. After they screw the minor leaguers out of their salaries, and they screw 150 towns across America out of their games, they will play games at MLB owned facilities to get some player development in.
I am more upset with the players over what they did to the amateur draft than anything they’ve done in these negotiations.
Expanded Arizona Fall league? First, so what? Second, that’s no guarantee. Third, not all will be accommodated. Forth, the players are not thinking or caring about the non-union minor leaguers. The greed and selfishness of the players is arguably as bad or worse than the owners.
At least they got the huge pay boost in the form of the stimulus check.
Based on the 3 division set up, 72 games (4 home, 4 away vs every division team) is a balance and comprise. I’d like to see more, but this wouldn’t surprise me.
Right now it looks like they settle on 82 games with prorated salaries for players.
bring on the scabs
The players taking a prorated salary is them getting paid for the games they actually played. It’s not a pay cut. Do you get paid if your work partially furloughs you? No. you get paid for your work. I have no idea how much the owners make, but am offended by the notion that the players took a pay cut.
Exactly!!
For 50 games, the owners can shove it!
We all hate billionaire owners who feel entitled to restrict their product to the public. They’ll be the laughingstock of sports if they restrict the season as a way of reducing player salaries in highly escalating franchise environment. They’ll also seal the deal for players sitting out 1/2 to 2/3rds of the 2022 season as well.
The optics for baseball in general won’t look too good if MLB is the only professional sport that doesn’t make a return this year. Follow that with a strike and you can put a fork in professional baseball.
Despite the very negative reaction here and on social media, and despite the fairly universal disgust for these proposals, the two sides are getting closer to a deal, even if they have to demonstrate their greed in public to disparage the other side.
Manfred is pretty obviously using the number of games to try and get more concessions from the players. The players opened the door on deferred salaries even if they tied it to canceled playoffs. Players know that MLB has TV contracts expiring and other ones starting on October 3, and networks have commitments. And owners know they make more money by playing more games.
The gap is closing pretty quickly, so the good news is there will be baseball. And we need baseball right now.
As long as the Chicago Teachers’ Union does not get involved in these negotiations, there will be baseball this season.
I just want some baseball this season.
Over it. Let’s plan for 2021.
Yeah.
Re: the 10:09 p.m. update – This is starting to get old, fast. Not the reporting, but the proposals aimed at failure and the incessant squabbling between the two sides without and perceived progress. Sit down the next couple of days and hash it out. If neither side will budge on the pro rated salaries, then wrap it up and point to 2021. Prolong this bickering enough and people aren’t really going to care if there is a season. I am almost there myself.
This amazes me. Guys making $300m contracts refusing to loose <10% of that in the face of a national emergency while owners incur the lions share of the risk, all the while maintaining maximum pay for lesser paid players. What’s wrong with that?
I mean…what if the post season doesn’t happen? Good luck Mookie Betts getting a 3 years deal over $45m next year.
If Splitting profits 50/50 isn’t good enough, then don’t complain when players don’t get the paydays they want over the next 5 years.
I’ll betcha an American dollar right now that Mookie Betts signs a contract worth more than $45MM before the 2021 season no matter what happens this season…
I would LOVE to see players not get paid these enormous free agent contracts in the future.
I think we can pretty much assume that neither side is negotiating in good faith.
I’m thinking there’s a huge, huge pent up demand to watch sports on TV. There’s nothing else to watch. MLB should ask to revise their TV contract based on ratings. Then if there’s extra revenue, share with the players.
The problem is ad revenue. Who is buying ads for local TV broadcasts?
That’s down the road and is really not MLB’s problem in the short term. Their contracts with regional sports networks are for 10.,20 years or more.. The RSN’s have to worry about getting ads.
Things are a lot more complicated than you think.
The problem is teams are still losing something. The Yankees and Dodgers are not getting 3m plus attendance, the Yankees are still paying $75,000.000 on the Stadium lease.
And what if go down? Besides most contracts in place now not up for renewal and discussions. Soon there will be much more to watch. NBA, NHL, NFL.. college. I also don’t expect big ratings with no fans..changes.
Baseball always finds a way to grab itself by the scruff of the neck and drag its own self through the mud.
Soon Joe Sports Fan’s ESPN ticker burned into their screen will be flashing NBA playoff game scores, NFL training camps opening up, Soccer soccering, and baseball will be an afterthought.
Everything always works out in the end.
Until it doesn’t.
Play a 100 game season with every teams 32 best minor leaguers. Pay them all the MLB minimum for a full season, not pro rated. The minor leaguers get a huge windfall, we get to watch baseball, and the MLB players will see that they can be replaced.
Great idea. I’ll bet all the TV networks and their sponsors would love paying out major money to watch minor leaguers we’ve never heard of. I want to watch major league players, not major league uniforms.
Doesn’t work that way. For one thing , this isn’t a strike. If baseball were to start up without an agreement and the players returned they would get their full salaries. The owners are not going to start the season unless there is an agreement with the players they can live with. If they can’t come to an agreement with the players, most likely there would be no season. But since it isn’t a strike, replacement players can’t be used. Plus, why would the owners want to pay major league salaries to minor leagues? They don’t want to pay them minor league salaries. And again this is all contingent on it being deemed safe to return. Even if the players agree to come back for free, there isn’t going to be baseball any time soon
Did any of the 30 MLB majority owners make their billions from owning a MLB team? No. Their interest in owning a team is from an investment standpoint and their MLB team is just part of their financial portfolio. These owners have to protect their investments just as American citizens do.
The Yankees did. George Steinbrenner bought the team from CBS for $10m. Almost as much of a bargain as when Paramount bought Star Trek and Mission Impossible from Desilu
CBS sold the Yankees because no one was going to the games. The team never finished above 4th place during their ownership. Also, it was actually for $8.8 and two parking garages.
I love all of the ‘fans’ who say they don’t care and to just scrub the season. You know with 100% certainty they will watch when they can. Many might be too scared to actually live and attend ballgames, but this type just likes to whine and complain. Ultimately, that is really the problem with society. We have way too many idiot human beings around. The laws of nature realize this and we need to learn to live with pandemics like this. Until the human population is reigned in we are going to really struggle to survive on a planet with limited resources.
The fans who say scrub the season aren’t scared. They say it because the game and the rules will be using is not baseball we are use to. No fans…DH…divisions. And I for one am tired of hearing people are scared to attend. They are not scared…cautious, watching how things unfold. What happens to this virus before jumping right into things. The real problem is people attacking others if they don’t think like they do right now.
There to many goats here that believe there will be a season. Me and a very few have been saying that it is basic thinking that there will not be a season. Wake up, drink a gallon of coffee
Bull! I know more about bAseball than you!!
Lmao fatherhater! I think you are may. Players and the owners will screw over fans and the season is over but when and if they resume I will know you were right that you knew more baseball
Owners and players need to sit down and look at the bigger picture now, America needs sport now more than ever, this has been a crap year for many people, time to put issues aside, work out the details later, just play for the LOVE of the game this year. Sport helps us heal. PLEASE MLB you can make a difference.
Something I haven’t seen discussed is the risk of the playoffs being cancelled. With TV revenues heavily tied to playoffs and player salaries tied to games played, the owners could be in for a bath if the season is cancelled at that point.
A longer season significantly increases that risk that this could happen is that there is a real possibility of a second wave in the fall. It’s being predicted by the science as it’s what tends to happen with similar viruses. No idea what the chances are, but it’s not close to zero.
I believe this is why the owners submitted the revenue share option first and now the owners are looking at alternatives. A 50-game season started in early July has playoffs likely starting by early to mid-September. An earlier finish to increase the chances they get the playoffs in.
Expanded playoff setup will also increase the number of playoff games. The playoffs and TV deal could be fully 100% paid off, but the problem is that if the playoffs are cancelled, the owners could be hit hard. In a completed season, they will make a profit.
I don’t know the math on this to be certain, but I feel like based on numbers and values, research on the virus and dealing with planning for this in my own business, this has to be a real challenge to the discussions.
MLBPA should only take less pay if the MLB teams’ books become open to the public.
The players are NOT taking less pay, they are not even deferring pay ( unless the virus shuts down the season again), and I do not think they should have to. But they should not be able to opt out and still get paid or have a 114 game schedule and talk about “Safety.” You cannot have it both ways. Not to mention competition against football.
Outside of publicly traded companies, workers never have the right to view private financial records. This is the benefit of privacy.
Let me get this straight: Tony Clark used the media to accuse the owners of using the media? Sounds about right.
MLB is in the dumpster. Leave it there !
Tony Clark is inept. Rob Manfred is inept. Can we please have new leadership here?
I don’t think nearly as many viewers will tune into games with empty bleachers. That’s going to have a host of ramnifications. The Marlins, who are negotiating a new TV contract for next season, are going to suffer big time.
I lived in South Florida ( Pembroke Pines), and they care nothing about the Marlins. It is Dolphins, Dolphins, Dolphins, then College Football ( University of Miami and the Florida Gators) then everyone else ( Marlins included).
They finally have figured out a way for the Marlins home TV empty seat lack of caring fans situation look less bad with everyone playing to empty stands. Was thinking this may be the way the future looks for the MLB with spiraling out of control players salaries and consequently 100% empty stands?
50 games…why bother? It would be a joke of a season with no true champion…except those making the money. Why would a television network pay big money for a joke of a playoff and WS? Are they desperate? Also, what if two teams, that normally would have no chance, get on a hot streak and end up playing in the WS? Can’t the MLB and MLBPA put their manhood away for a few months and think of the fans or is this just the new “MERICA”.
I guess I’m puzzled why Tony Clark thinks the owners think they could get anywhere by negotiating through the media?
If either side listened to or cared about the fans they’d take a 90% salary cut and a corresponding 90% cut in ticket and TV on demand charges.
And these guys would get back to work like yesterday.
Safely of course.