JANUARY 20: The league and players union are planning to meet next Monday, January 24, reports Jeff Passan of ESPN (on Twitter). At that sit-down, the MLBPA is expected to present a counter-offer to MLB’s most recent economics proposal. It’ll mark the second in-person meeting between the parties since the beginning of the lockout. MLB’s most recent offer was made via videoconference.
JANUARY 19: The MLB Players Association is preparing its response to the proposal made by Major League Baseball last week, tweets Jon Heyman of the MLB Network. Heyman adds that the union is expected to put its next offer on the table within a matter of days.
The league broached some features of core economics last Thursday, marking the first instance of discussion between the two sides on any especially contentious issues since MLB instituted a lockout on December 2. The league’s offer didn’t address all the most pertinent issues, though, with no mention of free agency eligibility or the competitive balance tax. Instead, MLB’s proposal focused on such topics as the draft order, arbitration, possible solutions to service time manipulation and playoff expansion, among others.
According to various reports, the players were generally dissatisfied with the league’s decision not to cover free agency or the luxury tax. It wouldn’t be a surprise to see the union try to reignite discussions on those issues, as the MLBPA is seeking earlier paths for players to potentially reach the open market and dramatically heightened tax thresholds.
Time is dwindling for the parties to make significant progress in talks if they’re to avoid interruptions to Spring Training, as Ken Rosenthal of the Athletic wrote this morning. Exhibition play is scheduled to begin February 26, and Jeff Passan of ESPN wrote a few weeks ago that Spring Training would likely be delayed if there weren’t notable developments by the start of next month.
This is a bit of a dance at the moment, or perhaps a better comparison is two boxers in the first round trying to read the other before going in for battle. Both sides are trying to determine what issues are most important, where each side might move. The players got a proposal from the owners, and the owners now will get a proposal from the players. I think the real negotiations will begin with the owners next counter proposal next week.
More like a game of chicken, in which both are trying to run the other off the road.
Be sure both sides already know what issues are most important to the other side. I mean, even we fans have a pretty good idea. That said, I hope you’re right and the posturing will end soon and without a head-on collision.
Progress is progress, and progress is good for everyone. Fingers crossed we don’t have any delays to the season!
Movement and progress are not necessarily the same thing.
The problem is I don’t think they realize this is already hurting them with the fans. This time they wont have steroids to help make a homerun chase to bring back fans
Why not? MLB has already shown it will turn a blind eye to problems if it makes them more money. Then, hand out lame punishments when it’s over
They won’t need steriods. Just switch to a tennis ball and watch the dingers fly…
They don’t need steroids they own Rawlings. They have an unlimited amount of juiced balls to change the outcome of any game at anytime.
It’s true.
Juiced players = more homers (and shrunken balls)
Juiced balls = more homers
Manfred’s distorted way to “protect” players and provide the home runs that he thinks will save the game.
They can get some “juice” from Lebron.
BlueSkies, they know the issues, but they also know some issues are more important than others, but they’re not sure which. The MLBPA is not going to undo the last two CBA’s, so they need to begin to maneuver the ship into a new direction. Right now the owners don’t know which issues are most important to the MLBPA and where they might be more flexible. They’ve admitted as much.
I suspect when the final deal is done, many fans will shrug and perhaps even be annoyed at what seems like minimal gains. They may be minimal gains in the short term, but they also may pay off more with each passing year, just as the changes the owners were able to implement in recent CBAs have benefited them over time.
All sides are doing well here, but the MLBPA want to begin tilting some additional revenue they’ve lost back in their direction.
I don’t for a moment believe that ownership doesn’t have a very clear idea about the issues that are most important to the players. They’ve been talking about this for ages. Please don’t mistake all the public posturing designed to spin public opinion for anything else. The failure to come to a deal isn’t because the sides don’t understand each other’s positions, it’s because they do understand them.
The only dog I have in this hunt is the desire to see baseball played. Not sure why a fan would have any other.
It is the advent of analytics and the removal of drugs from the sport which have reduced players share of revenues, not past CBA deals.
The Owners made an offer to significantly increase base pay for pre-arbitration players, which will impact a sizable portion of the union’s membership.
One of the union’s desires is to prevent tanking. However, hastening the path to FA and substantially raising the luxury tax threshold will undoubtedly cause lower revenue teams to replace arbitration eligible players with pre-arbitration players. And cause lower revenue teams to spend even less than they already due without money from the larger market teams coming to them.
It’s clear to me the Union, which is unduly influenced by Boras and his clients, only care about the top 1% of players, like Boras client and Union Rep, Max Scherzer, and the large market teams they play for.
The Union has no interest in leveling the playing field or getting a deal that’s best for the majority of their membership.
Players’ share of revenues have decreased due to a large number of players earning at or near minimum salary being rostered instead of those making more.
The owners’ offer doesn’t really increase the lot of those at the bottom of the pay scale that much. With inflation at 7% last year, the owners’ proposed increase from 570,500 to 600,000 doesn’t even keep pace, and there are no reports of increasing the major league minimum over the life of the next CBA.
This IS the one area where owners should be- strategically- willing to make concessions precisely for the reasons you give- improving salaries for a majority of union members.
The cost of increasing the minimum salary to $1 million for a team with 15 players earning minimum salary would be $6.4 million. Just putting patches on uniforms would cover that cost. It’s a small amount when compared with increasing the CBT threshold by $20 million.
Both sides talk about competitive balance, but it’s code for money. The “competitive balance” tax is about suppressing salaries, and the players’ interest is in getting teams to spend more money.
Hastening the path to FA isn’t gonna happen. Hastening the eligibility for arbitration, paired with increasing the minimum salary, should result in more arb eligible players and fewer earning minimum salary on MLB rosters.
What really would have an impact on tanking is a salary floor or tax on cheap payrolls, or requiring teams to spend revenue sharing dollars on player salaries above the major league minimum. We’ll see what the players’ motives are in their next proposal.
@ Scott Kliesen
Best post I’ve read on this subject. You nailed it.
Just the fact of the players wanting less revenue-sharing as a proposal to discourage tanking is outrageous and angered the SM owners to the point of Manfred saying that was unacceptable and using that as a reason to break off talks at the time.
There are ways to discourage tanking, especially the long tank, without blanket penalties that hurt all SM teams.
Small-market owners vs large-market owners. This is what the players want. To get what they want, which are proposals that hurt the small-market teams disproportionately, they need the LM owners to convince the SM owners to relent.
The players aren’t getting FA reduced, as you say, but they also aren’t getting an extra year of arby, at most an increase of the % of super 2. The owners initial offer of an increase to the pre-arby minimum was just that — a starting point, and will be negotiated upwards.
I think that’s probably where they settle. 2.5 years is 2.086, and this year’s cutoff is 2.116, a difference of 30 days of service time.
I am very skeptical of Manfred’s statement that the players wanted to reduce revenue sharing by $100 million. That makes no sense in the context of wanting small market teams to spend more on player salaries.
More likely, the players wanted to put restrictions on revenue sharing, such as denying the funding to teams that don’t spend the money on player salaries.
This was Meyer’s response to Manfred’s comments:
“Our proposals would positively affect competitive balance, competitive integrity,” Meyer said. “We’ve all seen in recent years a problem with teams that don’t seem to be trying their hardest to win games, or put the best teams on the field. Our proposals address that in a number of ways. And we’ve offered to build in advantages for small-market teams.
“The reference to the $100 million, revenue sharing is a complicated issue. The system has been negotiated and changed for decades since it’s been implemented. We believe our proposals on revenue sharing will incentivize teams to compete.”
I don’t think the players’ proposal on revenue sharing was as simple as Manfred described it.
I also think that this issue might be the biggest sticking point in the talks.
With inflation at 7% last year, the owners’ proposed increase from 570,500 to 600,000 doesn’t even keep pace
=====================================
Holy carp! I assumed you were making up that number. I checked and you are right. 7% inflation and the government is still looking to hand out checks?
Past that, the $600k offer is still almost spot-on correct. To cover the 7%, they need to go from $600,000 to $610,435.
Having a salary cap floor has not prevented tanking nor has it affect competitive balance in other sports. To suggest it as the perfect solution is misleading the simpletons and it’s why it worked on you if you’re suggesting it.
Scott, great post.
My view is that the players counter should include a significant increase in the minimum salary, double the current with increases that take it to $2 million in four or five years. For the vast majority of players, that would have a larger impact that any changes to free agency or the inclusion of a salary floor. The latter would probably not have the effect that it’s proponents are seeking but probably help rich teams unload bad contracts and continue their dominance.
I have not seen the words “perfect solution” anywhere but in your comment here.
Depending on the structure of the “floor”, it would force more spending on player salaries. If there was a tax on the lowest tier of the payroll scale that is equal to the tax on the highest tier of the scale, almost every team would clear that threshold.
If there was a dollar for dollar tax on payrolls below $100 million, for example, every team would spend past that level. If they added draft pick penalties, that would be further incentive.
There are other measures that can be taken.
Requiring revenue sharing dollars be spent on player salaries
Allowing smaller market teams to keep a higher percentage of gate reeipts (the one revenue stream that fluctuates short term with winning),
These measures would also help.
The players really want more money spent on salaries. So if the goal is to reach an agreement, this would all help. “Perfect”? Nobody said that.
Patrick, the union has fought revenue sharing since before its inception. The reason is fairly simple – despite what the simpletons who parrot the union line tell us, the union would rather the money rested with big market clubs thank you very much. So I don’t find it at all hard to believe how Manfred characterized it and I see that Meyer’s carefully calibrated comment doesn’t deny what Manfred said. And I would tend to trust Manfred more because he will be here after this fiasco ends, whereas Clark and Meyer will head off into the payout-to-leave sunset.
Newsflash. The owners aren’t going to agree to forcing clubs to spend more money on payroll. They’re not going to agree to force rebuilding teams to sign players they don’t want, no matter how much Poor Max Scherzer cries about it. I can’t help noticing that the players are so hard done by that the best they can come up with is trying to artificially inflate salaries by forcing clubs to spend money on salaries that they neither need or want to spend.
The owners are good enough at blowing money like there’s no tomorrow (ProTip, there is a tomorrow, as the Rangers found out when they had to file for Chapter 11 after signing every junk bauble Boras was peddling ). They don’t need hot new ways from social media which tell them how more money can be wasted.
They’re also not going to reduce the number of years to free agency and they’re not going to reduce the number of years to arbitration. In short I’m sure the owners will negotiate modest changes to the existing economic structure, like improving the minimum salary, but they’re not going to revolutionize the economics of baseball to try to appease the internet, or to stop player agents from stabbing the union in the back. Unlike Bruce Meyer and Tony Clark, the owners will be here in 5, 10 and 20 years. These clubs are their businesses and they’re not going to have their businesses run on Twitter by people who don’t have a clue about collective bargaining nor business. .
So when this is all said and done, the only question is whether the MLBPA, which hasn’t left itself much escape room, will still be there or whether it will go the way of the MLBUA which the umpires decertified after it too tried to flex muscle it didn’t have.
“I would tend to trust Manfred more”
Trusting the owners’ puppet is not something I would ever even consider.
Best man- the players have not opposed revenue sharing. Rather, they have negotiated terms that require teams to use the money to “improve their product on the field”. This terminology has been the subject of negotiations in previous CBA’s, since the concept was first included in 1996.
That was the same year that they included the “Competitive balance tax”, which was levied on the five wealthiest teams, unrelated to payroll. Only later was the CBT tied to payrolls, as the players unwittingly began to phase in what has become a defacto salary cap.
Prior to 1996, revenue sharing was kicked about but always passed off as something that the players suggested the owners could work out between themselves, rather than placing a salary cap to help smaller market teams compete. By including it as an offset with other terms in 1996, (the first agreement after the collusion suit, and while the Curt Flood act was making it’s way through Congress) the owners made it a subject for future negotiations.
The players are not the only ones that have expressed grief at teams that refuse to spend revenue sharing money. Owners of some large market teams bemoaned the concept as welfare for other owners to pocket their money.
I completely agree that owners are not going to tinker with the six year free agency requirement, and they don’t want players dictating to them how to spend revenue sharing dollars, but it’s on the table as well as a salary floor- or lower end tax. In fact, the owners put the salary floor on the table this round, albeit with an absurdly low CBT threshold.
When corporations are making record profits, its not inflation, its price gouging.
Of course they are still handing out checks, @Brady.
After all, there are still plenty of chumps like myself around that build a few hundred jobs/year or similar deals. They can just slice even more from us. It’s basically getting punished for having the wherewithal to successfully navigate pandemics, riots, etc.
My “reward” appears to be nothing more than higher taxes.
What checks are you talking about the government handing out?
They need a salary floor. Each team received ~$120 million in revenue sharing in 2019 yet there were 12 teams (out of 30) that spent less than that on salary with the Rays basically only spending half that figure at ~$64 million in total salary.
The fans will be forced to pay more for tickets and other costs related to expenses related to the sport. Some fans think of their pocket books
While he didn’t mention them specifically, Meyers has spoken about teams that spent less on 40 man payroll and benefits for players than they received in revenue sharing, a description that fits the Pirates to a T.
There were 4 other teams that fit that description in 2021 and if the 2022 season started today the Orioles, Guardians, and Royals would join the Pirates on that list.
You are not creating enough value in the marketplace then. My taxes have gone down in each of the last 5 years.
I’m just hoping the union isn’t going to just allow expanded playoffs (which means not just the owners but a lot of extra players will make more money too) and then ask MLB to be the only side who makes concessions in every single other economic turn. I really couldn’t care less about how it’s split up but I am certain that if the union does that it’s going to make this take forever. There is no way the owners will agree to not just trade the farm but trade every farm just to get 4 more teams in the playoffs. I wish the owners would accept that because we would get baseball sooner. I know better though. A proposal like that would just be more of a demand by players under the threat of a work stoppage. That’s not helpful to ending the lockout. They need to get creative and figure out some ways other than adding 4 more playoff teams to help the owners if they want all these other concessions. I’m not optimistic, though. Every single proposal I have read by the players is allowing expansion by 2 or 4 playoff teams and expecting the owners to give up on every other subject. I don’t think the owners will accept that. 2 or 4 more playoff teams just isn’t worth that much.
…so the exact same thing the article said?
Time for both sides to get serious and get the job done; NOW NOT LATER!
I think the owners are trying to make the players look bad. The owners are not ready to truly Negotiate a far deal yet.
Are owners trying to delay the season until it’s more likely to be a post-pandemic / endemic situation where attendance is closer to normal?
Or, are they profitable from TV deals alone, and don’t need the gate revenue necessarily?
They’re hoping to scare the players who make under $1mil (approximately half of the union) about losing out on paychecks and hope they force the union to accept a less-than ideal CBA.
The issue is the owners locked out the players, so the owners likely will end up paying all salaries in full once there’s a deal.
Well when the season gets closer with no deal won’t the owners just end the lockout and if so will the players strike? If so the salaries will be pro-rated correct?
It’s difficult to say what’s going to happen in that scenario. The MLBPA can simply say we won’t sign the CBA unless you pay our full contract salaries because you are the ones who locked us out.
This makes no sense. It doesn’t matter if the owners locked out the players. The only way the players get paid full salaries is if there is a full season.
The owners aren’t going to end the lockout until there is a deal. They’re not going to proceed without a collective agreement. And they’re not going to pay players for games and then have the players’ union pull a 1994 clown show where they walk out before the playoffs.
The owners have been here for a long time. It’s their business and they’ll be here for a long time after this contract is signed. They’re not going to undermine their long term businesses to sign a quick deal based on some proposals the MLBPA pulled off Twitter. There is either going to be a deal based on what the owners think is good for their businesses in the long term, or there will be no deal this year. After that it’s just a matter of time until the MLBPA goes the same way as the MLBUA, another clown outfit that misjudged its bargaining power and ended up decertified.
If the lockout were ended, there’s no chance the players will strike in April. They’ll strike in July or August when the threat of postseason revenue loss motives the owners to action. And that’s why the owners are locking them out, so the CBA can be resolved when the timing works in the owners’ favor.
If the owners continue the lockout past when the regular season can start on time then they will have to pay the players 100% of their contracted salaries regardless of how long the season is. 162 games or 100 or 60.
The only reason that they didn’t in 2020 is the payers agreed to take a cut because of COVID. I doubt they will be willing to do the same if games are lost due to a lockout by the owners.
Manfred can set the season length at 60 games or 100 or 154 or 162. Whatever that number is, its considered a full season.
@worst ever The owners would love it if the players decided to extend the previous CBA while they negotiate more.
The MLBPA won’t do that. The MLBPA won’t start a new season without a CBA in place because they feel that the old CBA is not a tenable situation for the players. They won’t agree to play under that agreement.
It is hard to imagine that someone could actually study the situation and come up to those conclusions.
The players simply will not come back without a CBA. If the owners lift the lockout in April, the players will absolutely strike if no agreement has been reached.
Ridiculous nonsense. There is nothing that will obligate the owners to pay for a full season if the season is shortened. Absolutely nothing,
It is unlikely the pandemic is affecting this. All teams were able to sell at full capacity last year for most of the season, some all of it. With cases surging due to Omicron there have been no serious restrictions put in place by local or state governments.
No, this is classic gamesmanship. Owners make money all year long, but the real gravy comes in the post season. They are willing to sacrifice the start of the season as long as they get to play in October. Players make money all year long but little in the playoffs. So for them, a delay in the start of the season hurts them more than the owners. Owners are hoping to force the players to settle for a deal more to the owners liking so they don’t miss paychecks. However, the players seem fairly resolved this year so not sure that is going to work for the owners.
Restrictions aren’t the name of the game anymore, the real issue is the willingness of individuals to be in close quarters and in large groups. The teams also face the continuing prospect of delayed or even canceled games if significant numbers of players are covid positive.
didnt the marlins have something like 16 people on the covid list from the main roster at one point and still played with the longer covid quarantine time?
short of one the big dogs yankees dodgers red sox etc etc getting something like that or major cities closing down i dont think close quarters will slow down games at most you might see some extra double headers similar to football where they just moved a few games or they may choose to cancel a few … i mean 162 games and some teams may just be no reason to play like a baltimore pittsburgh game.
Assuming the season starts on time in late March we should be in a better place, but what comes after that is anybody’s guess. Team owners have to be a lot more concerned about the unknown and unpredictable than they are about imposed restrictions, because even now they virtually don’t exist anywhere. Still, last I checked, nobody could make anyone go to a ballgame. This is the problem faced by everyone in the performing arts. People have to be comfortable being there or they will stay away in droves.
It’s pretty clear from watching fall sports this season, the days of most people being afraid to gather together outdoors are over. MLB has trouble putting fans in stands because it’s turned boring thanks to analytics. More strikeouts and walks than ever means fewer balls put in play. Shifts mean fewer base hits on balls put in play. Combine this with the endless parade of relievers brought into the game, makes for a far more boring sport than it was 20 years ago.
It isn’t necessarily a “most people” situation. If even 10-20% stay away, that’s a big hit to the bottom line. Baseball also hasn’t had to contend with a surge like the one we’re in now. Nobody has.
Ok 10-20% seems like a number you pulled out of that blue LA sky. Sidebar, when I lived in SoCal in the 80’s & 90’s the sky in LA was brown, not blue.
Anyway, I think by the start of season there’s a better chance 0% of people are worried about attending a MLB game due to COVID than the number range you suggested.
“Even” being the operative word. Anyway I did say I expected we’d be in a much better place by the end of March. My point was nobody knows what happens after that. If another wave like this one hits in the middle of the summer my 10-20% guess could well be low. This is the problem with planning any in-person events more than a few weeks in advance now, and baseball goes for seven months even without counting spring training. Whatever you guess is probably going to be wrong.
Far worse than even 10 short years ago. Balls in play=entertainment and it’s very boring now by comparison.
If 10% stay away its a drop in the bucket. Most teams get 30% of less of their total revenue from ticket sales.
The pandemic might be affecting this. States are more and more restrictive. The owners are not in any hurry, why would they rush it?
What states have put restrictions on sporting events that would prevent baseball teams from having the same attendance as before COVID?
You do know that CV 19 has zero impact on the majority of teams attendance. While it might affect the largest two markets, it’s not like the stadiums are sized to their market.
You do know that CV 19 has zero impact on the majority of teams attendance.
=====================================
In 2019, the AL attendance was 68.5M. In 2021, it was 45.3M. Covid must have had a huge impact.
It did, but the majority of that attendance decline was due to restrictions imposed by government policies in the early part of last season.
I’d contend a 9 inning game taking 3:30-4 hours contributes more to attendance decline than post-vaccine COVID concerns.
It’s not the length of a game that makes it boring, it is what you mentioned earlier – the style of baseball being played. I could watch great baseball all day. And have…or at least, used to.
Stolen Bases, Double Steals, Hit & Run, Hitting behind the runner to move them along, Sacrifice Bunts, Suicide Squeeze Bunts, Drag Bunts, Double Switches, Taking Pitches until you have a strike when losing late in a game, Pitchers going 9 innings, ……..I miss all of it. The game of 3 outcomes, HR, BB or K & 13 Pitchers on a roster is boring.
I can’t find any states that have MLB teams where attendance would be limited to less than what the teams averaged for attendance in 2019. All California and NY teams play in outdoor venues with no limitations. Same with Massachusetts. Can you find any?
Ten minutes later Riesdorf leaks to Nightengale that the owners hate the proposal
He should leak it ten minutes before seeing the proposal just for the fun of it.
Basically what the union did. 10 minutes after the proposal was made, they said the players were unhappy with it. I’m guessing that they had to make a call every single second since it’s difficult to get in touch with a 1,000 players in ten minutes.
The baseball business model is fundamentally different than the other professional leagues. I understand and respect the players don’t want pure revenue sharing and a hard salary cap; however, if they agreed to that model the two sides would have alignment on growing the top line.This may be a more workable way to get a bigger share of the overall pie.
They do have a soft cap that has significantly dragged the top line. The soft cap, the luxury tax, or the competitive balance tax, whatever you want to call it, was originally referred to as the Yankee tax. It’s done it’s job. Just look at the Yankees payroll over the last 15 years. It’s basically flat lined. Last year, five of the teams had luxury tax payrolls of over $200M. I believe 25 of the 30 teams had luxury tax payrolls of over $100M. If not for the competitive balance tax, the Yankees payroll should be approaching $400M.
The problem with revenue sharing in baseball compared to say the NFL is baseball is a regional sport while the NFL is a national sport. The NFL national TV contracts are huge compared to MLB. They can fund themselves equally. No way that can work in MLB. You can’t ask the Yankees, Dodgers, Red Sox to keep expanding their brands, build and negotiate RSN deals and then have them turn that money over to a central pool. Why would they even bother? I’m sure their fans will be happy paying $12 for a hot dog to then turn part of their money over to other teams (sarcasm).
The issue is MLB has now created a model where teams can operate successfully on low budgets, like the Rays and A’s and Indians (err, Guardians). It’s a problem because they’re not growing their fanbases. It’s really a problem with MLB for allowing this to go on for so long. Very smart front offices, very bad for baseball. The Guardians ownership is killing fan enthusiasm in Cleveland. MLB needs to incentivize local markets to grow their fan bases. If they institute a hard cap along with a hard floor, then they should eliminate most of the revenue sharing. Force teams to market their teams…or sell them to owners who will.
It’s fine to say MLB is a regional sport but no one Mia going to pay anything or tune in to watch the Red Sox, Yankees or Dodgers play scrimmages among their own team. They need the rest of the league and the competition of the other teams to have a product to offer those regional fans. So it’s in their interest that those other teams are successful businesses as well as their own, because without them the entire league goes under and they lose everything.
When you say “market their teams”, do you mean they should advertise the team more? Or simply spend more money on player payroll?
So… Because the Red Sox would share their TV money, you’re saying they would not build their brand. That’s just horse hockey. The Patriots share, but they still build their brand. And as you noted, only 5 teams had payrolls of $200MM. So explain to me why its so important for the MLBPA to get that increased? 25 of the teams currently don’t budget based off the CBT, so it only changes things for a few teams. The top 5 teams each being able to add another top player does nothing for competitive balance. It also does nothing for the player with less than six years. The union seems more worried that Correa won’t get his $300MM contract, than they are that Akil Baddoo will essentially be at major league minimum in his 2nd season. They need to focus on the majority of players, because there are more Baddoos in their ranks than Correas. The vast majority of players won’t be willing to go without a paycheck just to make sure the top 5% of players get 9 figure contracts.
You would think majority rules in MLBPA, but the fact is Union leadership is unduly influenced by Boras and his clients.
Baseball, the oldest professional sport, has a long history of being non-competitive. The Yankees, Red Sox and Dodgers dominated for 100 years. As the other sports leagues came along they learned from the failing model of baseball and were motivated to preserve competition. That has proven to be the winning formula. The MLBPA won numerous court battles against the owners to establish free agency. Now the MLB and the MLBPA cling to their battle hardened positions of trying to beat one another while winning the biggest share of the declining revenue pie. Revenues may not be strictly declining but the leagues share of the sports dollar has.
The other sports all have some form of minor league system and those players earn higher wages than the MiLB. The MLBPA doesn’t represent minor league players and has no desire to do so. MLBPA won their pension benefits and don’t intend to share. It is in their DNA.
In this century MLB is the most competitive sport. Most different teams to win the World Series and most different teams in the playoffs. They did that with far fewer teams in the playoffs each season.
Not true, on average their are 5 new teams in the playoffs every year. Braves, Dodgers, Nats,, and Astros have won lately. The Royals too!
Unfortunately neither the Union nor the Owners care one bit about economic fairness. Both sides believe they benefit more by ensuring the large market teams are playing in October.
Just look at NFL this year, Buffalo, Green Bay, Cincinnati, Tampa Bay, Nashville, & KC are 6 of the 8 teams left in playoffs. None of these are close to top 10 size markets. MLB being more of a regional than national sport would suffer hugely if this ever happened to them.
Short term thinking is killing baseball. The only way this sport is still here 50-60 years from now is having a league full of strong teams both financially and competitively. Bud Selig knew this as an owner of baseball’s smallest market, and with Jerry Reinsdorfs help, convinced the large-market owners to share their revenue “for the good of the game”.
The game is now back in the same predicament it was in pre-revenue-sharing days with local TV deals and revenue from outside of stadiums separating teams revenue more than ever.
Round 2 of RS needs to happen to save the game long-term. The sooner the better, unfortunately, there doesn’t seem to be another SM owner with the consensus-building ability of a Selig that can convince the large-market teams it’s in the best interests of the game long-term to do this.
So, until that time finally comes, near half the league and their shrinking fan bases will have to suffer through 7/8 years of non-competitive WS contention every decade and watch the behemoths dominate the game. With each CBA, each new revenue-stream, the competitive-balance of this game will further deteriorate until even a 5 year old can see this nonsense has to stop.
For those that say the game was dominated by the Yankees/Dodgers/Cardinals etc. 70-100+ years ago, yeah, sure, but there were many many less teams back then and much less competition from other sports leagues as well.
The league is far stronger than it was 50-60 years ago. Revenue per team and team value adjusted for inflation is higher today. Attendance per game is higher.
if they agreed to that model the two sides would have alignment on growing the top line.
=============================================
It reminds me of 19th century European wars, where someone wants to go to war over a worthless piece of land, simply “because”.
The players probably lose $1B a year by never agreeing to revenue sharing. They are willing to fall on their sword for a concept that has negative value to them.
Just to repeat, if revenue is growing faster than salaries, go for the revenue.
There is not 100% revenue sharing in MLB and the teams refuse to open their books. That makes everything you said impossible.
If a fair path can be reached on luxury tax or floor maybe teams who are in the top 30% of generated revenue need spend more instead of circumventing revenue sharing Lux taxes with lower market teams. How about creating a minimum and maximum cap on payroll vs total revenue generated % – teams under or over pay a tax.
Or another solution is divide league into small & large markets then let 6 from each side in playoffs each year to compete in playoffs. A League needs teams who can compete fairly no? Also markets are developed over time.
Hard to cry/care about MLB players who have the very best union. What other sport has payment out years past retirement. Or what other sport have multiple players making over $20+ million a year on the same team. Yankees have 2 $30+ million players. A no contact sport. DH was introduced as a way of keeping older players in the league but now we have guys who can’t play D well and teams make them a DH @ 25 years old. It’s BS. Just play.
Hard to care about team owners who won’t even tell us how much they make.
See how that works?
Do you post your tax returns and bank statements on your Twitter? Of course not because it’s nobody’s business how much you make and spend. The only difference between you and an MLB Owner is you’re a fan of his business.
Furthermore, if you really care to know, Forbes puts a ton of effort each year into estimating revenues and expenses of every team. And Liberty Media is forced to share the Braves finances since they’re a public company.
If you want to be anti-Owner, there’s plenty of good reasons to be. This isn’t one of them.
Does your employer post your salary on Twitter? Of course not because it’s nobody’s business but the only difference is you think you deserve to know how much players are paid, even though you can’t say why. If you want to be anti-player, etc.
Now do you see how this works?
My salary was posted on the web. I worked for a public college in Arizona. By law, anyone can access how much all public employees make in Arizona. Sometimes it is posted online, sometimes you just have to ask the HR department of the agency or institution. Not saying that is right or wrong, just noting that some people have less privacy than others.
Baseball players aren’t public employees. Disclosing how much they are paid when their employers earnings are secret is a deliberate and very successful technique for getting the fans to take sides against the players.
Two teams do post their tax return. They are publicly held corporations. From their books we can tell that the other 28 teams are lying in what little they do share.
If the owners want the players to take a percentage of revenue then they have to open their books. They refuse to do that.
metfan4ever1 hour ago
Or what other sport have multiple players making over $20+ million a year on the same team. Yankees have 2 $30+ million players.
———————————-
Apparently you do not follow the NBA.
Milwaukee Bucks top 3 players:
Giannis Antetokounmpo: $39,344,900
Khris Middleton: $35,500,000
Jrue Holiday: $30,133,333
Total: $104,978,233
Milwaukee Brewers 2021 total salary: $109,841,514
Because the NBA senior players sacrificed all the young players and gave in to a hard salary cap.
If they are a player in the NBA they all get an equal vote in their union.
Lots of saltiness here. Cole is over $30M+ and Stanton has part of his $31M AAV salary covered by the Marlins. The NBA has plenty of teams with multiple $20M+ players. No contact sport? Does that mean athletes deserve less? Perhaps the bar has been raised much higher for defense which is why you see younger DHs.
If you look at teams spending as a % of total revenue to payroll on the field.. the yankees are one of the most cheap teams in the league not even accounting their friendly TV contract with the YES network. I hate when fans blame the small market teams but they truly do get the revenue share they deserve cause big market teams pocket way more money.
Do NOT* get enough revenue sharing
Doubt the player’s proposal will contain any serious compromises on their previous proposal. I do not think any serious negotiations will occur until February.
They are the product. Without them, there is no game. Why compromise with a small group of elites that already have everything in life? If I had their unique set of skills I sure as he11 wouldn’t.
Because that small group of elites may pay your salary. Of course no one will force you to play for them. There’s always the Mexican League.
It just says “No”.
…. seems the MLBPA/Players are doing what they typically do…. reject anything put forth by MLB/Owners as a knee-jerk reaction. Then respond with the same highly unlikely levels on core economic issues… and then we go another round of offer, rejection, unlikely demands… and on an on.
In the end, money will win. Most profitable teams and highest-paid stars will determine when the season starts, and the vast majority on both sides will just go along with their decisions. This is not a true democracy on either side.
However, as a season ticket holder I hope they get it started by the time the weather gets pleasant in Chicago. 8;)
At this rate, they may agree by all-star break. Lol
Key point–owners are not putting on the table the issues most important to the players. For all those want the players accept whatever the owners offer, remember it’s a negotiation, and the players are entitled to bargain. This lockout is going to take time to resolve itself.
MLB and mlbpa would be best served to sit down with help from the best statistical minds and come up with a group of ten or so irrefutably measurable stats. 5 amongst these stats can be chosen mutually between player and team while negotiating each contract over a certain dollar value. Should the player exceed one escalators can kick in and should they slip penalties can be assessed. How to handle injuries/playing time would be another issue but I think establishing some sort of hard standard for player valuation would reduce the animosity between the owners and players. If the owners felt like there was reduced risk of dead money in the contacts they would be more comfortable giving out higher paychecks.
Pay for performance measured by metrics is problematic for any number of reasons. Market negotiations on pay really should be the way to go.
Agreed. Metrics doesn’t take into account context. A player shouldn’t be dis-incentivized when a manager asks said player to move a runner from second over to third base with no outs. If my paycheck depends on metrics, I’m swinging for the fences EVERY time.
I have turned off the automatic renewal on my mlb.tv. Everyone should do that. They’d get moving if a bunch of tv revenue evaporated.
Hopefully Tony the Tiger and Roberta Frid can finally agree on something.
Don’t any of you players or owners get in any kind of rush, you overpaid, entitled, pretentious prix.
Slow down! Take your time!
The easiest fix for the service time issue is that any player that spends more than 50% of their time on the 26 man roster gets a full year service credit. That would be 82 games. Teams would not be able to afford to hold their star rookies down in the minors for 82 games, and those who are held down probably aren’t A level prospects. The service time calculation is too complex now. Make it easier to achieve and the players might accept teams keeping control over players at 6 years.
They’ll just move up the ladder slower. Instead of a mid-season promotion from AA to AAA, they’ll stay there all season. No rush for a non-competing team.
There should be an age limit. Once you are 27, you are free to be a free agent. Just in time to capitalize on your prime years.
So a guy is drafted at 21 out of college, spends 2-3 years developing, and the team should get 2-3 years out of that investment? I would think something like every prospects free agent clock starts three years after when they sign is more fair for both. Regardless If they’re in the minors or not.
That is a very reasonable proposal. Unfortunately, MLB owners will never agree to anything that reduces service time for free agency.
The service time calculation only gets murky with respect to arbitration, where the “super 2” cutoff changes every year. This year, it’s 2.116. The players will probably have to settle for tweaking that cutoff, probably around 2.5 seasons, which would be 2.086 (half a season is actually 86 days), and there should be an exception for all stars- make them eligible for arbitration with 2.0 years of service time.
An extra season of arbitration is not nearly as painful for teams as losing their star players a year earlier, and owners have been tinkering with the arb eligibility framework in each of their proposals. When teams manipulate a player’s service time to delay free agency, then call him up in mid May, that player will typically get a fourth year of arbitration. Manipulation is rarely aimed at delaying arbitration.
Of course, players would at least like to be able to file a grievance based on service time manipulation. Kris Bryant lost his case, which was an obvious case of manipulation, precisely because there was nothing in the CBA that prohibited a team from keeping a player in the minors for financial reasons. Start by putting that language into the agreement, and at least give players the avenue of filing a grievance. They still have to prove their case, This is not an easy one to solve, but but it’s a start.
The MLBPA is acting stupidly. The only issue is the need for a more equal distribution of player salaries. One guy get $300 million. The kid in the minor leagues gets $400 a week. The Union refuses to change the structure. All they want is for the teams to increase the size of the payroll pool. The owners offer only minor tweaks to the existing system. Both sides ignore the compensation system. The owners are waiting for the opportunity to declare an impasse. Then their minor tweaks will be imposed. by the NLRB as the owners last offer. There is nothing significant to discuss here folks. Nothing major is going to change.
Minor leaguers aren’t part of the MLBPA union.
Minor league players are not part of the MLBPA. No one is talking about them in this CBA. until they unionize they are on their own.
A guy getting $300 million is not the issue. The issue is not enough younger guys get paid well because of service time manipulation and the current system of arbitration and free agency.
In 2021 MLB had roughly $12 billion in revenue. The players received $4.14 billion in salaries and benefits. Something is very wrong with that picture.
The owners cannot impose anything. Either both sides agree to a new CBA or there is no baseball. They cannot force the players to play without a CBA. The NLRB will not either. All the NLRB can do is offer mediation if it drags on.
Billionaires and millionaires fighting over money. Who gives a flying hoot.
Jimmertree: The majority of players aren’t millionaires. They make a good minimum but have to perform early in their career to keep ML status. They are the best in the world at what they do and deserve top pay for it.
Please wake me up when this is over. Do the owners/players even care that this hardly gets any coverage in the sports media? As far as I can tell baseball is losing. The two sides are so silly that they couldn’t just have a commitee of both players and specific owners work together to bridge the gap quickly. At this rate my doubts are kicking in and believe most of the season will be lost because of refusal to discuss the issues.
Nothing happened again…yawn!
I feel sorry for the people that work the spring training games and the like, they are screwed. I agree with Jim Palmer who was on MLB network this morning, they owe it to those people to get together now, and step up their talks, we have gone through too much the past year to drag this thing out!
Also all the Cactus League parks have charity tie ins abs those revenues fund a lot of local programs.
And season ticket holders.
It’s been a full week. They said they’d respond quickly. A week isn’t quickly.
This will be the first proposal by the players. Finally this might turn into an actual conversation instead of tte one way street it has been.
I think the best step the players could make would be to leave the free agency alone, and move on from that issue. That would be a big concession, and a big sticking point!
When the owners locked out the players and then didn’t present their first proposal for six weeks, I’d say responding in approximately a week’s time is fast. Supposedly the MLBPA has said they’ll respond by the end of this week so today or tomorrow.
Considering it took MLB 43 days after the lockout to make a proposal, a week is light speed.
This is the 3rd proposal by the players.
They have not had anything to respond to from the owners since the lockout by the owners.
More posturing so it appears to the uneducated public that something tangible is happening…
In 1981, Earl Weaver said baseball was bigger than the “dunder heads” who tried to screw it up. Unfortunately, Weaver never met the dunder heads now running the game. Anyone who’s ever been in negotiations for anything knows there’s a certain give and take and both sides eventually lower their demands and there’s peace in the land. The best thing for baseball, from a public relations point, is to lock the negotiators in a room until they hammer out a deal. This nation is hurting and the last thing we need is a bunch of millionaires arguing over who gets the biggest cut.
Get it done.
Owners better start coming correct on their obligations to the sport and humanities within their own ranks.Players are united strong & rich.Can’t bluff ,what won’t fold!Call you
The owners are going to give in just like they did in 94 cause the owners don’t want to lose money they already lost so much during the 2020 season ( no fans).
The new CBA should include a hot wing buffet for the World Series champions. Southwest egg rolls will be added for repeat champions.
Im sorry, but if the players union had it their way players would be free agent the day the player is drafted, and there would be large markets teams that can only afford to have a chance to be competitive.. making the problem even worse then it is now, have right now fight with service time issues as they have to try to keep a player as long as they can because they know they will lose or have to selloff before they hit free market .this will always be a sport where greed will one day ruin the sport as how many lockout or strikes will it take for some fans to walk away, ussualy it the small market teams that feel this as they know that their chance of ever having a winner team just got smaller,
As Charlie Finley once said, making all the players free agents will drive down salaries, since the supply of players will exceed demand. Having only a select few players becoming free agents each year results in the bidding wars we see every off-season.
Finley was wrong about that too. A free market will drive UP the price of salaries. Players will still sign long term deals and deals with different lengths, so not all players will be free agents every year.
That is why the owners would never agree to a free market system. The MLBPA would love it.
The fact that the owners fight tooth and nail to restrict free agency shows Finley’s comment is and was ridiculous.
If a high school grad wants to sign a 10 year development contract with a team, let him — with any of the 30 teams, not a single drafting team. If a team wants to stupidly sign him to a 3 year contract when he won’t make the majors in that time, let them. It’s called free market capitalism.
Organizations with good scouting would still win. Any small market competitive balance issues can be resolved by some degree of revenue sharing if the owners decide that’s best.
A free market system. Imagine that in the largest free market economy!! Nope, the owners want to keep their monopoly.
My guess is that the players believe the owners will fold. But they need a fig leaf before they can do so. What scares me about the people at the table are players like Scherzer with his talk about how he is trying to help the fans by making the game more competitive–anti-tanking proposals. That kind of fraudulent bs cannot be a good sign for negotiations. As a fan, I would like to say that our biggest issue in these negotiations is the cost of attending a game. Let me know when they put that issue on the table, because at some point it is going to matter.
That won;t happen, TV money is the big money for the owners, and the price of a ticket is based on what they can get for it. I just paid 600 dollars for 2 Giants NFL tickets. All sports and concert tickets are high, it is just the going rate in an area of the country.
Pogoloco, I think the majority of players are just kids being led down the garden path by MLBPA clowns who pulled their bargaining agenda off the internet. At the end of the day, it won’t be the phonies like Scherzer who’ll suffer, it will be the kids who put their faith in this clown show of a union with their idiotic list of proposals to overturn an excellent economic base. Corey Seager just signed for $325MM. Marcus Semien has only 2 years in his career when he hasn’t had a OPS+ <100 and signed for $175MM. Trevor Bauer's getting $40MM to not show his face next year.. And the MLBPA claims they need a radical rewrite.
I'll watch minor league baseball gladly for a couple of years if that's what's needed to get rid of the MLBPA.
No you won’t watch minor league players. Neither will any of us. We want the best players possible on the field and those are not the guys that are not even on the 40 man roster in the minors.
Marcus Semien was a top 4 SS in MLB over the past 7 seasons. Only 1 SS has played more games. You seem to think that batting is 100% of the game. Its not.
The issue is not that owners are paying the top players. They will always do that. Its that too few of the younger players are getting paid while they are in their prime.
The media is talking to Scherzer because he is a union rep and part of the negotiating committee. Scherzer is a union rep because the other players voted for him to do that job for them. They believe he is smart and understands the issues. That you don’t understand the real issues is obvious.
I’m not sure why this is hard. maybe they should make me King of MLB and i’ll get this done 🙂
None of this will turn out to be beneficial for the fans, more and more fans are turning on them by the day.
Honestly by paying the top tier guys such egregious amounts, owners have driven a wedge between the players. The top tier guys are the most influential. If they are satisfied, there is less squawking from the most visible guys. And the amount of money they get paid have the fans going “he gets paid $30 million a year to hit/throw a baseball?”
But no owner – large or small market – would own a team if they weren’t rolling in money like Scrooge McDuck. Either baseball made them that way or they are so wealthy its a hobby for them. Because if they weren’t, there would be a huge rush to disclose finances and every accounting report under the sun to show that they aren’t getting rich. Even the biggest criers of poverty such as the A’s, Marlins, Pirates, and Orioles disclose absolutely nothing.
For the fans, your upper deck seat is going from $25 to $30, that beer is going from $8 to $10, and both the players and the owners – but especially the owners – will get richer.
Yes, but you pay that to see any sport or concert in the US.. It’s the going rate today!
For the fans, your upper deck seat is going from $25 to $30, that beer is going from $8 to $10
====================================
The price of beer has gone up at the local pub as well, So have concert tickets.
Yeah I don’t go see concerts anymore either. But at least at the local bar you can get a pitcher or two for what you get for a single beer at the stadium.
When I was a kid (mid 80s) I bought my family of 4 tickets, a dog, and a soda at the stadium on a couple weeks’ allowance. I think I made it Mother’s Day and Father’s Day combined, and I was maybe 10 or 11. $2 each for discount tickets, maybe $10-$15 for food and drinks. Free parking in the neighborhood around the stadium. Even if I sit in the cheap seats, this outing today for my family of 4 would start at $200 and could easily be $300-$400.
The escalating cost is exceeding even the high rate of inflation today.
Even if I sit in the cheap seats, this outing today for my family of 4 would start at $200 and could easily be $300-$400.
======================================
When I was a kid, 2 slices and a Coke was $1. Same with bowling two games plus a Coke, was maybe $2.
The average cost for a family of 4 to attend a MLB game in 2021 was $253.
In 1985 it was $108.15 which is about $280 in today’s money when adjusted for inflation.
It goes up to what the drinkers will pay for it. They guy sitting next to me on his third $15 beer doesn’t seem to be complaining about the price. Ticket prices obey the same rules of economics.
People tend to exaggerate the cost of a beer. At Yankee Stadium, you get what I believe is a 24 oz Becks on tap for $13. That’s $6.50 for a 12 oz beer, which is about the same as a 12 oz bottle of Beck’s in the local pub, and less than what you’d pay in Manhattan.
It’s the same with every product. I saw Led Zeppelin at the Garden in the ’70s for $15. Now you can probably add a ‘0’ to that. When McCartney played at Yankee Stadium, I paid maybe $120, and was mad at myself for not anteing up more for floor tickets.
Going off-track a bit here, but where I grew up, no one had any money. Now that my friends and I are, let’s say a bit older, we’re buying the experiences we couldn’t afford as a kid.
The point being, the price is set on the basis of what the beer drinkers will pay. It’s a fantasy to imagine that the price will go up or down depending on the salaries paid to the players. It’s no more dependent on that than it is on the dividends paid out to the owners (secret though they are).
Compared to other revenue sources Tickets and concessions are small potatoes. In many cases concessions are run by third parties that rent the space
Ticket prices are often split as well between various entities. In the pirates example, a portion of the sales go to the group that owns the stadium (with some conditions) the team doesn’t own the stadium. In addition the team also made payments to this group for their portion of the cost of building negotiated in the contract. Also ticket prices are not that high relative to other types of entertainment.
I’d imagine many teams fall into the same boat.
As far as teams.. got to look at other benchmarks. for example on forbes, their operating income. In small market teams a negative number is pretty dramatic
they don’t have 2021 numbers out yet and 2020 is of course lower than it would normally be. also keeping in mind they are estimates since of course the books are not open. there was that leak around 15 years ago but i’m sure things changed since then.
TL:DR: revenue might be decently high but the bottom line is much lower.
Get it done ✅ already!
Nobody likes September baseball. The owner and players should agree to a tournament style playoff system for the month of September. All teams make the playoffs and the teams play for seeding all season. 1 v 30, 2 v 29 etc. and play 3 game series until we make it to a final 4 and then go best of 5/7. Now that would bring excitement and playoff pushes from all clubs each season!
This is getting ridiculous! Don’t they make enough money already? I mean, the really mediocre or rookie starts at around $500,000 to just north of a Million Dollars. What’s their deal?
If J make a $60M contract for playing my favourite sport, man, I’m dancing!
Imagine what I would do for $200, $300 or $400M contract to play ball. I regret sometimes not sticking to playing baseball like I use to in Cuba and carry it all the way to here. I bet I would have had a better life!
Don’t the owners make enough money already?
Don’t the owners invest a billion or so for the right to make that money ?
It’s oranges and apples.
Don’t the players invest tens of thousands of hours and untold amount of money as well as time away from their families and risks to their health to just make it to the draft?
And no, owners do not invest billions. They BORROW money to make an investment they are guaranteed will go up because its a monopoly protected by Congress.
Can you tell me how much the owners made precisely? then i will tell you if it is too much or not enough.
If you can im pretty sure you would be the MLBPA’s best friend right now.
Yeah, he totally missed the point. Lots do.
Exactly! Or else, how in the world they pay for employees, stadium and those massive contracts.
With the money we fans spend on the game.
Now ask me a hard one.
They don’t pay those things. You and I do. TV deals and ticket sales and the merchandise we buy pays for those things.
to4: But you would have to be really good. These players are the best in the world at what they do.
I use to make solid contact, had the ability to hit all over the field, played 2B, SS, LF, CF, RF….Good Defence and Good Eye at the plate and all that was without proper training and all the tools this guys got now a days. Now I’m way to late.
If you were even close to one of the 800 best players in the world you would have had the chance to have the best training and tools available at the time. Obviously you weren’t.
Less than no confidence that the season is going to start on time and on schedule. A bit maddening…. How long have both sides known that the CBA was expiring? Is there a rule against starting negotiations early? Ugh!
lock them in a place for them to figure it out at once!
They’ve both had enough time and opportunity.
Send them to arbitration!
It’s time for the fans to have their voice.
Without fans there would be no billion dollar industry.
There wouldn’t be one owner making hundreds of millions and fleecing cities for millions on top of millions to build throw away billion dollar stadiums.
There wouldn’t be one player making 100s of millions of dollars or even 100s of thousands of dollars for being the top player in a kids game.
There wouldn’t be one agent living in Newport Beach, CA fattening themselves of the occupation of buying and selling human flesh for entertainment.
Without fans buying tickets, concessions, parking, hats, bats, jerseys & beer.
Without fans watching the programming and games that allows advertisers and TV rights distributors to pay billions to MLB and it’s owners…
There would be… just a bunch of grown up kids enjoying a game in the park.
So
Fans need to TAKE their voice. No one currently with a voice in the fight, a seat at the table is gonna give ANYTHING to fans but scraps from the table.
We have less say, less power in something that we have more passive involvement in than anyone.
Yet we have ZERO power.
‘stay home… don’t watch. that’s your power’s
bull shi+. owners would love the loudest, biggest mouth agitators to stay home, boycott.
One player has zero voice. That’s why they have a Players Association.
One owner might be disruptive but if the other owners don’t go along? He’s dog crap.
Fans need A VOICE. A collective voice. An advocate with an equal seat at the table.
In the 100’s of millions of baseball fans around the world, how many of them are attorneys? Get off your asses and protect our interest, our say in this great game.
If we had that voice? I guarantee you this BS would be settled right now and we’d be reading about signings and trades. Not us peasants squabbling over who is getting a minor league contract or going to play in Korea.
Google something called the “free market”. You do, in fact, have power.
But, for sake of discussion, let’s say you (as the representative of the fans) got a seat at the table…
What would you say or do?
Me choosing not to attend or watch has zero impact on issues with the game.
If a thousand fans chose to avoid going to a game or even games it still would have minimal effect. Their tickets would just be bought by someone else.
Owners count on the free market system to minimize the impact of the individual agitator.
The players association operates to give one voice in opposition or competition with the owners in the same way fans need a fans association to stand up for change or at least input that takes the fan’s best interests at heart.
A fan’s union?
Why not?
MLB counter proposal on February 1.
same thing as their first one!
Hard to care to much about the players association demands, players get guaranteed contracts based on previous years stats. Owners should make way more than the players as they assume all the risk. MLB both sides love to ruin momentum in the sport picking up again.
that was how they did it the last time they agreed to. and players are angry at the owners because of it!
Owners assume no risk. They borrow money to buy teams. The taxpayer pays for the ballparks the teams play in. TV money covers all the bills and provides a profit for most teams before a single fan steps in the stadium. The investment in the team is guaranteed to increase in value because MLB is a monopoly that is protected by Congress.
If these owners all went away today, 30 other billionaires would be happy to step in and take their places. In fact, there would be bidding wars to take their places.
If all 914 players that suited up in a major league game this past season went away, no one would watch lesser players in their place. There would be no product to sell. The game would collapse.
The players ARE the game.
I see the owners who have won CBA negotiations the last 30 years want to take as much control over players even more even though they have been giving up a lot with nothing in return, anything less than a win in this CBA will be a failure on the Union’s part , owners have already locked the players out last year so this is definitely something the owners like to do
Plenty of money for both sides, I don’t really care which side thinks they won these talks.
It kills me to say this but MLB players and owners have lost me. I will cancel my MLBTV package. I will buy season tickets to the Vermont Lake Monsters in the Futures League. I will watch my sons play for their high school team and their summer teams. I will attend some local Little League games. Baseball, the game, will endure for eternity. The current MLB owners and players will not. Instead, they will be known to history for their greed and hubris in soiling the sport’s highest level and trashing a season.
we’ll believe if you cancel this site. just changing a tag won’t do.
Vizionaire has been cancelled
still buying 17 mag, kid?
Tick tick tick tick. Let’s pick up the pace here boys.
The owners and players are no closer to an agreement than they were a year ago. This is going to go badly. The system is broken but there isn’t enough trust between the parties to fix it. The players always think the owners are hiding revenue. There is no formula like in other sports to guarantee the players a certain percentage. Players negotiate individually for all they can get to the detriment of the other players. The free agency system makes it possible for the top players to ask for ridiculous sums and get it. The industry is marginally profitable but the players don’t believe it. The solution the players want an unlimited payroll upside with a floor isn’t ever going to be successful. No reasonable owner would buy into a league with that kind of CBA.
We know from the teams that are owned by publicly held corporations that the teams are wildly profitable. From their books we can estimate with some measure of certainty that teams like the Yankees and Dodgers are not only making a 20% net profit, they are also seeing double digit increases in equity on an annual basis.
Literally everything you said was factually incorrect.
Why wait this long. In this day and age deals can be done without parties being present.
I tell ya the fans should be the arbitrator in these negotiations. The game is for the FANS
Owners /MLBPA. Get this deal done!!
Do you have any idea the complexity of a deal like this? That the MLBPA is responding to the owners proposal in a week is lightning fast.
Remember, it took the owners 43 days after the lockout to make a counter proposal to the players last proposal.
It’s been 11 days since they last talked. Can’t you just sense the urgency among the 2 parties to get a deal done and have the season start on time?
Both sides are playing chicken. Once it gets too late (or just late enough), I bet they get it done. Neither side wants to seem to eager to have this over. It’s not yet February and they are having discussions. I predict at least five more “meetings” and proposals before a deal gets done. Feels like sometime between February 15- March 1.
No chance in hell they get a deal done before March. Both sides are hell bent on “winning” and don’t seem to realize there’s plenty of money for everybody.
Wouldn’t mind knowing where Jeter sits. Is he all about cost control these days or is there some waving of the players flag in his game.
The players said they’d have a quick response. 11 days is not quick.
This is, however, the first proposal to come from them. It’s been a one sided conversation to this point.
Hopefully the lawyers are talking behind the scenes. I’m dying to go to spring training in a couple months.
This will be the 3rd formal proposal from the MLBPA on core economic issues. Here is an article on this site about their 2nd one on 11/5/2021.
mlbtraderumors.com/2021/11/mlbpa-makes-second-core…
You can also read the articles from Drellich and others in the Athletic.
The owners took 43 days after the lockout to make a counter proposal to the MLBPA’s last proposal.
I’d be nice if at least one of the 2 sides would at least pretend to give a damn about the overall health and stability of the sport and not just who gets to cash in.
Cap it up tight.
Strange. It’s as if they don’t remember the damage of the last lock out.
I blame rich people.
“The new MLBPA proposal is perfectly fair and only gives the players some of what they deserve and the owners’ rejection of that proposal shows they are just testing the players’ resolve and trying to hold onto the owners’ ill-begotten gains from previous rounds:” preview of Monday’s MLBTR
What in the world are you talking about? How has MLB Trade Rumors shown the bias you are implying?
I’m not implying that MLBTR is necessarily ‘biased’ as you put it. I imagine that, like many, the writers know little about collective bargaining, and secondly, simply reflect the internet consensus. The internet consensus, and that is reflected here, is the childish vilification of Rob Manfred and the owners, the unquestioning regurgitation of whatever comes out of the mouth of an obvious BS clown like Sidecar Max Scherzer*, ignoring the ridiculous ‘Christmas Tree Agenda’ of the players’ union, where a generous CBA that just netted Seager 325, Semien 175, Sidecar 43 per, is supposed to undergo a completely one-sided radical transformation.
So we won’t read on Monday that the players’ union made no effort to compromise (unlike the owners who have addressed some of the player proposals). We won’t read that this ludicrous ‘Christmas Tree List’ of internet-inspired proposals is going to put the season in jeopardy and is advanced, not for the majority of players but to deflect heat for the union brass from agents and the internet. We’ll read an article that pretends that the players’ bargaining agenda is anything but a ridiculous set of internet-driven unicorn proposals.
*Check the article with quotes from Sidecar Max about how the union’s proposals to force rebuilding teams to sign players they don’t want, is not of course to artificially inflate salaries. Perish the thought. Sidecar Max is doing it, he says, for the good of the owners. And not a shred of critical analysis.
Okay, I must have just inferred the bias.
Next question: What do you mean by “internet-inspired* and “internet-driven proposals?”
Two formal meetings since the start of December, even with the holiday break, is pathetic… sending bad messages with this lack of urgency to an already annoyed fan base who mostly sees both sides unreasonable considering both are making out very well financially
MLB has been talking about adding 2 more teams. The teams now are not competitive enough so adding two more teams spreads out players even more & makes teams even weaker. Then they want to expand the playoffs, this again makes the game even weaker. I disagree with both. Infact, I think they should cut 3 teams in the A.L. & 3 teams in the N.L. go back to two divisions in both leagues & only the top team in each division plays for League Champion and moves on to the World Series.. Screw the Revenue Sharing, if a team cannot support itself, they move to a location that will support them.. It is time we get back to teams that are worth watching No Tanking. And the Draft should be a loto every year, each team has a ball with their name & as they fly up the tube, that is the Draft picking order.
There, that is my opinion
Thanks for listening/reading
Why do these so-called counter proposals take so long? Both sides know what they want.
This process takes entirely too long. They’re all just posturing.
Scripted BS. Nothing’s really changed since the “negotiations” for squeezing in a season in 2020. Shameful.
My feeling about sports in general and baseball specifically is that each team should have a more or less equal chance of succeeding over time. In other words, a well run organization in a smaller city should have the same opportunity as the well run organization in the big city. Location should be a meaningless factor. It’s a business.
Now, if a team succeeds and can’t fill the stadium with fans, why have a franchise there? Part of what is great about sports is the fans’ response to success and failure. That is part of the entertainment: “And the crowd goes wild!”
I think locations and ownership could be more fluid. When owners run a crummy ship and have a team that is constantly mediocre, why are they welcome any more? If a team is terrible and nobody comes to the games, change something!
I could see a service time requirement for players, regardless of where the service takes place. Drafted out of college? Four years. Drafted out of high school? Eight years. Drafted out of the international pool? Four years to eight years depending on age. That puts free agency at about 26, heading into the prime years. Big contracts could actually be earned!
Another idea is to have 50% of your pay pre-negotiated and 50% of your pay on your performance. The entire salary pool of the team would be “up for grabs” so to speak with reasonable ranges of outcomes agreed upon before hand, maybe related to service time. So, if you stay with a team past your required service time, you could make more money than the shiny new guy, unless he outperforms you, in which case he has earned it.
I think revenue sharing has to happen, I think a salary floor has to happen, but I think we should all be able to afford to go to games, or watch them on a screen somewhere. And I wish they would have a whole lot less time for commercials and keep the game going at a good clip.
Robot strikes and balls, that’s a no-brainer. Video the heck out of the game and have officials galore minding the shop. Replay review in moments. Get the call right every time.
And if some fool athlete takes some chemicals, show them the door, there’s lots more waiting behind them. and if they think “it’s not their fault”, go to court and prove it. I really don’t want to watch any of them. Ever.
Wake me when it’s over. I have my opinions about what’s fair, same as most people reading here, but they won’t listen to us, so what does it matter? All I care about is when will the season start? Hope it’s early enough they can still play at least 150 games.