- This topic has 498 replies, 26 voices, and was last updated 5 years, 11 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
The umpires have an agreement. Players are next.
MLB umpires' salaries to be cut 30% in revised deal. Next
on the clock: Negotiations with the players union. https://t.co/I6JHUYEWjQ— Bob Nightengale (@BNightengale) May 1, 2020
There is only so much owners can do to cut payroll this year, but this coming off-season is shaping up to be ugly for free agents.
At least one MLB ownership group has instructed its front office to cut its payroll in 2021. A lot of club execs expect others to follow. The youngest players (who are paid little, per CBA agreement) and the players with existing long-term deals won't necessarily be affected.
— Buster Olney (@Buster_ESPN) May 7, 2020
Makes sense. Fans are not likely to be clamoring to buy 50 dollar-plus tickets with the economy the way it is. I would think that the Cardinals will take a loss in 2020 and another loss in 2021. Then they will have to rebuild their fan base. IMO, this disaster for the economy precludes any possibility of Arenado ever coming to St. Louis. The good news for the Cardinals is that Goldschmidt, Mikolas, and maybe Carpenter are the only heavy player contracts they will have to carry after 2021. I suspect that negotiations between MLB and MLBPA after the 2021 season will be far, far different than what people have been talking about for the last year.
Some league officials and team executives believe the best plan for baseball in 2020 would include a totally revised economic system — a revenue-sharing arrangement between the players and teams, if only for one year.https://t.co/9X88XmlHlH
— Evan Drellich (@EvanDrellich) May 8, 2020
Andrew Miller says that if it is not safe enough for fans to attend games, then the players should not have to take reduced salaries for the risk they are taking by playing. But it is not about money…
I talked with a couple of players who are on the executive board of the PA. Story here: Health, fair compensation on MLB players' minds https://t.co/mZaYQhQjFH
— Jesse Rogers (@JesseRogersESPN) May 9, 2020
Andrew Miller must not have taken economics, accounting, or finance courses at U. of North Carolina.
“If the owners hit a home run and make more money, we don’t go back and ask for more on our end.
This quote by Miller must be a talking point circulated by the MLBPA because I have seen it used by others several times over the last few days. They are basically saying that when owners make more than expected they don’t give players a cut until a new CBA is negotiated but now that revenue is down owners want to re-negotiate immediately.
I doubt the general public is going to buy that argument.
I doubt the general public is going to buy that argument.
Probably not. The other side of Miller’s point is also a risk for the owners. If owners make less than expected, they can’t recoup salary from players either. If they are trying to relate this situation to the CBA, then that doesn’t hold water. This situation is not covered by the CBA, so it must be negotiated now.
Andrew Miller says that if it is not safe enough for fans to attend games, then the players should not have to take reduced salaries for the risk they are taking by playing. But it is not about money…
Simple then. If they are unwilling to take additional risk for a nonessential activity, then cancel the season and forgo additional salary. The billionaires and millionaires can handle that much more easily than the other 95%.
Miller’s point doesn’t have a good sound to me when some docs/nurses have been furloughed and some docs/nurses on the COVID-19 ICU/ER front lines have suffered salary/retirement benefit reductions due to the economic shock this has caused hospital operations — all while having to reuse PPE in ways that were formerly considered substandard.
Euro wrote:
Simple then. If they are unwilling to take additional risk for a nonessential activity, then cancel the season and forgo additional salary. The billionaires and millionaires can handle that much more easily than the other 95%.
Let’s stick with this for a minute. If it came to that, who has more to lose by the season not being played? I strongly suspect it is the owners. And if so, they are going to have to give some ground to get the players to buy in.
In a game of chicken, the owners are going to have to yield first – if the union is strong enough to hold its ground. However, MLB has built up fan expectation that they are so close to resuming that the players will be painted as the bad guys if it plays out this way. Forget about the testing limitations and safety risks. Fans want their baseball and MLB is trying to give it to them! But those greedy and selfish players are in the way…
Brian, yes the owners will have to give ground. As will the players I believe.
Another consideration is who has more to lose if the season IS played? The loss of ticket, game day, merchandising, and media revenues will be significant. Depending on whatever plan and locations are adopted, the additional logistical and marketing expenses beyond the normal will be significant. The owners will certainly bear a much larger brunt of these issues. Eventually, there is a breaking point where it isn’t worth it for the owners to proceed. If MLBPA is unwilling to budge on salary, that would push things closer to the wrong side of the breaking point.
I believe the economic impacts of this pandemic on people’s level of suffering is best viewed in relative terms rather than absolute terms. The billionaires might lose more in absolute value, but the millionaires might lose more in relative value. Many of the billionaires have other businesses that may or may not be as severely impacted.
In terms that are more realistic to most of us, a person making $400K a year with a 25% salary reduction should be able to adjust and survive a while. A person making $40K losing 25% might immediately have to decide which bill(s) not to pay (e.g., rent or car payment). The $400K person loses more in absolute value, but should feel less pain for essential needs.
Clarification…
Some numbers MLB will be wielding as it heads into negotiations with PA: Per source, gate and gate-related revenue accounts for 51 percent of local revenue and 40 percent of MLB's total revenue. That's regular season. So, that's where a lot of this will start.
— Tim Brown (@ByTimBrown) May 10, 2020
MLB ownership will try to sell its players a new proposal to begin the 2020 season. With seemingly less to lose, will the MLB Players Association get enough of what it wants? If not and they dig in their heels, could it backfire on them? (free) https://t.co/H3zGzUu8ju pic.twitter.com/a8BGZ5uuxP
— Brian Walton (@B_Walton) May 11, 2020
More details on the proposal.
Amid coronavirus pandemic, #MLB owners will vote on historic revenue-sharing plan that guarantees at least 48% to players on 82-game season with universal DH and extra playoff round. https://t.co/xs3g6LbJP6
— Bob Nightengale (@BNightengale) May 11, 2020
The #MLB proposal that was agreed upon among the owners and submitted to the union now calls for a 50-50 revenue split. https://t.co/iG7fd7PN4k
— Bob Nightengale (@BNightengale) May 11, 2020
More background on why the money discussion is going to be tough…
After reaping billions in profits over the last three seasons, Rob Manfred and MLB owners don't even want to have a baseball season if it means they might not turn a profit. https://t.co/6ZUxI5mWWw
— Craig Edwards (@craigjedwards) May 11, 2020
The only surprise to me is that the union did not even wait until the presentation before rejecting it.
MLB revenue-sharing plan is a nonstarter for the players’ association. Union head Tony Clark: “A system that restricts player pay based on revenues is a salary cap, period.” Story with @EvanDrellich: https://t.co/4TXrKHAMhF
— Ken Rosenthal (@Ken_Rosenthal) May 11, 2020
A big issue now is that it was not put in writing if the first agreement on prorated salaries covers games played in empty stadiums. The players say yes, but the owners say no. Hence the owners will push for a lower percent of pay if they can re-start, since it is assumed they won’t have gate revenue, just the TV money.
It is crazy they did not get this clarified from the start.
We saw this coming almost a month ago.
This week will get ugly for baseball — and it'll be easy to get pessimistic. Don't. As MLB and the union meet this afternoon, both sides have too much to lose to allow money to blow up the sport's return.
20 Questions on MLB's return-to-play proposal: https://t.co/TB9DsR8i9J
— Jeff Passan (@JeffPassan) May 12, 2020
Heyman sharing the owner position on money. Now the bargaining begins…
So you lose money for a year. You own the business. Free-market capitalism, yo. Take the good with the bad. Lord knows MLB owners have experienced about as much 'good' from the system as anyone. https://t.co/gUBcSI3I9I
— Brenden Schaeffer🎳 (@bschaeffer12) May 13, 2020
The end of the Passan article is interesting.
For one, union lawyers believe they’re in the right legally when it comes to guaranteeing players’ prorated salary. The March agreement contains a Player Compensation and Benefit section that does not specifically address a reduction in salary if games are played in front of no fans.
That said, on Page 1 of the agreement, the first point of the Resumption of Play section includes the words: “(T)he 2020 championship season shall not be commenced unless and until each of the following conditions is satisfied.” One of those conditions ends with: “(T)he Office of the Commissioner and Players Association will discuss in good faith the economic feasibility of playing games in the absence of spectators or at appropriate substitute neutral sites.”
The first sentence of the compensation section begins with the clause: “If and when the conditions exist for the commencement of the 2020 championship season … ” — language similar to that on the first page.
When asked by ESPN to interpret the language, four longtime labor lawyers who work for neither MLB nor the union adopted different positions. Two said the similarity in the language made it clear that those sections were meant to be tied together. One agreed with the union’s interpretation that anything about compensation changing should have been written explicitly. The fourth called any potential grievance on the matter a toss-up.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.