Major League Baseball and the players’ union met yesterday to engage on a possible restart to the pandemic-paused 2020 season. While the talk in the run-up to the sit-down surrounded economic disputes, the sides seem to have started the conversation in less contentious realms.
Yesterday’s chatter involved matters that might seem mundane, but which matter quite a bit to the hot stove. Roster and transaction rules were on the table, as was with the plan for a second Spring Training, per ESPN.com’s Jesse Rogers.
Also under discussion was the complicated matter of health and safety, though it sounds as if there’s much more to come on that score. The league is preparing a lengthy presentation on all sorts of measures and protocols for dealing with the coronavirus pandemic, according to Ken Rosenthal of The Athletic (subscription link).
It sounds as if the approach is to lay some groundwork before moving on to the owners’ desire to further pare back payroll. Yesterday’s meeting did not include any discussion of player earnings, per Rogers.
Players have already agreed to a game-for-game reduction in salaries. With something like a half-season on the table, they stand to sacrifice about half of their anticipated annual earnings even without taking further cuts. But MLB is reportedly angling to limit salaries to 50% of certain league revenues — it’s not clear what would be included — in order to boost team balance sheets.
If that’s the final and most difficult question to be answered, it’s not the most important. Finding a path to play that’s responsible to participants as well as the general public remains the primary challenge. The league has obviously done a lot of groundwork; Rosenthal adds that several agents have arranged briefings for players from disease experts.
It’s sad that this has to be played out in public. What other management-union negotiations are done in public?
exactly. it stinks there is very little other sports news happening right now to let this stay behind closed doors like it should.
Lots of negotiations (or tactics to influence negotiations) are done in the public eye. Teacher’s contracts, police, firefighters, mass transit, etc.
most arent though. they only tend to. become public knowledge when someone wants to make a stand. 99% of the time those negitiations dont go public.
Where did you get that figure? Asking for a friend.
His behind obv
This seems like unnecessary BS from the owners. MLB is a league with guaranteed contracts. You already have an agreement with MLBPA to prorate salaries based on games played. Safety is a necessary discussion topic. Seeking further concessions based on expected revenue losses that are separate from players’ contracts is not.
There is some discussion that the March agreement allowed a renegotiation if games were played without fans. I read something yesterday (maybe a Passan article) that had more detail on this. Sounds like the owners are interpreting the agreement one way, and the players another.
In any case, the financial part will eventually get sorted out. Neither side will be happy. Whether the games get played will come down to perceived health risks (actual risks are difficult to determine with any accuracy).
This is laying the groundwork for canceling the season/locking out the players. If you’re an owner, regardless of how much money you have, and the choice is to play the season and lose money, or not play the season and lose less, which would you do? Negotiate with the players to reduce loses on your part, or just throw in the towel? Baseball will not be played with players making their current salaries. It’s just a matter of whether the players will decide to take reduced salaries, or if they’ll forfeit their entire salaries for the year.
Hopefully, neither the owners or players are stupid/short-sighted enough to piss away this unique opportunity they have to showcase their game to a live sports-starved public that would love nothing more than to turn on a baseball game right now.
Safety is obviously a concern, but if they let labor negotiations over temporary revenue losses turn a chance to grow their game into yet another event that further alienates a generation of fans, they deserve whatever fallout comes from that.
Agree with you 100% specially sports franchise owners who are used to pillaging towns and players for all the value they can suck out but in business a company can run a short term loss to gain in the long term. I think they need to look at TV contracts and get more money there not from players. One of many things owners will do post screwing players first to recoup income loss
sure it’s no problem that owners will lose tens of millions of dollars….whew…
It doesn’t bother me if owners lose money. We’re always reminded how baseball is a business. Well business has risk, and it isn’t always profitable at times.
Why should the players not share in the industry’s risk ?
Why should owners pay players same rate per game if there are no fans paying to park, buying a ticket and purchasing refreshments ?
So it’s ok for millionaire players to lose 10s of millions of dollars, but not the billionaire owners that gave out those contracts, knowing they carry risk? Everybody is losing money, and players already agreed to prorated contracts, they dont owe anymore than that.
That was before games with NO fans became a possibility. That changes everything.
Appalachian makAs a valid point, too. Owners arent gonna give players more money, if revenue exceeds projections, why do they need to take cuts to finance revenue losses? And why are owners only wanting to include certain sources of revenue, and not all? Maybe bc they’re still making billions in tv contracts and merchandising?
Phillies had over 200 consecutive sell outs a few years ago. I don’t remember any of their players getting a bonus, not even the ones making league minimum..
Not having any fans in the stands surely should trigger a renegotiation. A pro rated salary based on games played makes sense if everything was normal, but it isn’t
Why? The players are doing same job whether theres fans in stands or not. Owners dont want to Share revenue from tv contracts or merchandising, they just wanna dock pay for revenue lost from not having fans in seats. If u wanna cut players pay due to loss of revenue, then count all sources of revenue and give bonus based on revenue. U cant expect ppl to help u mitigate ur losses,if ur not gonna let them share in the profits.
Who cares if it stays behind closed doors or not, you should be happy there’s even a hint that baseball is coming back
Players have had no pay cut. Reduced hours, like half of the country, but no cut.
If I understand correctly, the owners do want to decrease salaries based on both the reduction of revenues and the reduction of games played.
The players, I believe, want to keep their same rate of pay, and not have to take a reduction based on reduced revenues.
I think both positions are sound. Given that virtually everyone in the country is sacrificing something right now, both sides need to give a little.
What I would love to see (won’t happen), is for the rate of pay to players to stay the same, but players collectively make large donations to MLB charities, which the owners then match. Then challenge the fans to make donations as well. If you want baseball to return send $10 (or whatever) to the MLB charity of your choice.
Win-win-win.
They agreed to prorated salaries back in march, meaning they dont get paid for games not played. And that was generous on their part. They have guaranteed contracts, they dont have to agree to a cut in pay at all. If they break their leg or need Tommy john surgery and miss an entire season, they’d still get paid
After reading the excellent book Lords of the Realm, I’m pleased this gets press coverage. Owners have a history of treating players poorly and deceptively. Perhaps this press coverage will keep them a bit more accountable.
Have players not been deceptive too? And in recent memory too. Marwin Gonzalez seems to have benefited greatly by the sign stealing/trashcan scheme, and cashed in with a large FA deal.
It’s hard to feel empathy for young men making six and seven figures while 80,000 Americans are dead and 33 million unemployed.
And I’ve never felt any empathy for sports team owners.
Speaking of deceptive…80,000 and 33M.
Yes, players have been deceptive in the recent sign stealing scandals.
But the players have not been deceptive about their positions regarding labor negotiations – which is the current topic.
It’s hard to feel empathy for the 30 of the richest men in the world worth nine and ten figures..
I never understood why fans routinely support the billionaires when it comes to labor negotiations. Hard to feel sorry for millionaires, but even harder to feel sorry for billionaires.
Because one is a business owner the other is an employee. David Price makes 10,000 a pitch. Arod made over half of the value of the KC Royals Franchise in his career. Don’t sit there and cry Wo for players making a hundred million dollars with ZERO risk
so health risks don’t count? no one pays to go to a game to watch the owner count money in his vault.
Why would you cite players that are so far from the norm it’s laughable as an example? Each owner is massively wealthy. Players vary between extremes of the scale.
Many fans often seem to support owners because they likely think that if players would take less money, then the costs of going to games and whatnot would come down. They often blame the players’ contracts for high costs, which in fact the opposite is true.
I don’t care who gets the better end of the deal, because it’s not me. But looking at it from an outsiders perspective, it’s the owners who have the most leverage. They’re likely going to lose (or not make as much) money this year than they have in year’s past, but they have the financial wherewithal to withstand one bad or terrible year; not all the players, especially the fringe ones, do. That is why the owners can (and likely will) draw a line in the sand, and say…this is what the deal is; you can play for X amount of dollars (or percentages), or we can scrap the season and try for next year.
If the difference between paying players at their current pro-rated amounts or getting them to accept a discount, is a sizable difference in the bottom line, versus not having any games at all and not paying players…the owners might just decide to sit this season out.
Because most of Americans support capitalism. Owners earned their fortunes. The mlb arrangements of guaranteed contracts is absurd. Think David Wright making tons of money not even playing
I agree. If MLB had contracts like the NFL with each team having the same payrolls it would be a better sport to watch. Teams with 300m payrolls vs 60m ?? In football you don’t hear about the New York Giants having better players than the Steelers because their payroll is 5 times the Pittsburgh team.
Generally, I support owners in labor negotiations bc they do own the team, they do assume the financial risks and responsibilities. But, I’m with the players here for the exact opposite reason… the owners are trying to mitigate their losses at the players expense. If u want players to assume part of losses of revenue, then u need to give them a share of profits. U cant have it both ways.
No, they haven’t, Joe…at least to the degree the owners have. Look at every work stoppage since 1972.
My point is that neither side is completely innocent. I agree the players are more innocent than the owners, but most people act in the selfish best-interest. Players and owners alike (and fans too).
I would disagree that the salary issue is not the most important thing. It is THE thing that could unravel any plan to restart games. MLB is not going to be so irresponsible as to not come up with a solid plan to play games safely. Leading with that is pretty much low hanging fruit for the league.
There’s never going to be a season. Period.
I agree with kreckert. Regardless of what happens in these negotiations, in the end, the pandemic will prove that it’s not safe to play ball. In South Korea, they’re playing, cautiously, due to their country’s very successful containment. We are not containing the virus here. There are far too many people involved in MLB, even with no fans in the stadiums, to control it. If MLB even starts the season, I am guessing they’d have to stop it when 1, 5, 10 players (or worse, managers, umpires….older more vulnerable support staff) test positive.
Every owner is rich. Many players are not rich at all. Whatever happens needs to take care of the players who are not making a lot of money and for which not playing is a true hardship.
Sure, the fans want to see the stars, that’s why they come to the games. But there are no fans at the games so watching the games on TV is the only way to enjoy them. Take care of the players who make this whole thing enjoyable. The ones who aren’t wealthy.
I’m in the middle of this whole thing, but why do you make it sound like because an owner is rich, and not all players are, that the owner is a bad person? It’s a business.
Like I said, I see both sides. For the players, there was an agreement already on prorated salaries, but that was agreed upon not knowing about fan attendance. Either way, it was still agreed upon. The players are also the driving force of the MLB. Without Trout, Betts, Bellinger, etc., there isn’t much to market, so MLB needs them, so the players should get paid.
However, the players need the MLB as well. Without the platform of the MLB, who knows if there would be a Trout, Betts, Bellinger playing baseball. Without MLB, who knows what those guys would be doing in life. Without fans, there’s no ticket sales or concessions, two major types of revenue for any sport. Without that money, MLB and teams are losing money. Sure, the Yankees, Red Sox, Dodgers, and other large market teams can absorb that, but teams like the Marlins, Rays, Royals, Orioles, Reds, Athletics might not fair as well. MLB needs those teams for the product as a whole to do well, so bailing them out wouldn’t do anyone any good. Sure, MLB has a lot of money, and can bail them out, but would you want them to take that much of a blow? There’s a lot of repercussions there long term.
At the end of the day, both sides need to sacrifice a little here. Don’t just take the player’s side simply because the owners are “greedy billionaires”. They’re not billionaires by accident. They’re billionaires because they played their cards right many many many times. I understand though, the owners need to take a slight hit, but I think the players need to as well. Why? Because the longevity of the sports rides on it.
Being the first sport back in America would be huge not only in the short term, but the long term. Giving the nation and the world even something to lift their spirits up would go a long way, and could very well attract many more people. Putting your differences aside and reaching an agreement could even help the player 5-10 years down the road. If the league gets more eyes on attention on the product that is in 3rd in sports in America, who knows, maybe in the long run, they grow because they were able to set their egos aside. Putting your ego down now could mean many more possibilities and more money down the road, not just for players, but for whoever works within Major League Baseball, whether it be in concessions, marketing, front office, etc.
Not playing because of money would look terrible, and could have long term repercussions. Playing for the good of the nation and the sport would go a long way, and tbh, MLB could use a spark. It does need to be fair for both sides, I understand that. I think if the owners can give more, and the players can be ok with taking a tiny bit less, then everyone will win in the long run.
The owners are cheap. The players are greedy. This is disgusting considering the rest of the world is sacrificing in some form or another right now. Players should be playing for less and both the players and owners should be donating funds to the frontline workers.
I hope this pandemic ends up making people less greedy and helps them focus on what’s important.
There’s a reason rich people stay rich. Cheap and frugal.
Both owners and players should be better prepared than this, because the entire process is altogether too public. Players have a finite time to earn money, and that time is diminished by every day they aren’t on the field. Considerations like service time, the impact of roster size, arbitration, have a cumulative effect on gross career earnings far beyond just what they get paid this year. And, they need to worry about their health. Protocols need to be in place for those players who have health issues, and those who have family members with health issues. Trading could be complicated–a player may not want to go from a lower-risk environment to a higher one. If players are found to be infected, what happens to their teammates and the schedule? We fans want to see baseball, so we just want to get it settled anyway it can. But if the two sides can’t work something out, all those unanticipated or murky areas are going to be PR disasters and lead to a lot of lawsuits,
I am someone who believes that the owners should have to live up to what they agreed to. But if you are going to play, that means. 1: No additional pay for the players. They are millionaires not health care workers or Walmart employees. 2: Everyone plays ( stars included) or not. For example: Why should the Angels even play in 2020 if Mike Trout is not playing.
I’m assuming you mean no hazard pay, but no further reductions from what was agreed to (seemingly agreed to) before. Not sure I agree with you on the subset of players who are at heightened risk because of underlying health issues. If those players can’t, or shouldn’t, I don’t think the remaining 90+% should be governed by that. Your Mike Trout mention is an interesting one. Imagine a player getting sick (not just infected, but sick)–I know the chances are relatively small, but there are examples of people in this age cohort that do–it is both a terrible outcome for them personally and the sport.
mike156 – “If those players can’t, or shouldn’t, I don’t think the remaining 90+% should be governed by that.”
Good concept.
That same notion should be expanded to the American population as a whole. People with health issues know their limitations and should take the proper precautions. Personal responsibility is still a thing.
No one should be forced to play baseball during a pandemic. It’s a game. If a player wants to sit out, they should have that right.
If it comes down to that, cancel the season.
Then cancel the season. While I agree players should not be forced to play, and ( or) lose one penny more then agreed to ( ex: If someone makes $5m he gets $2.5m), owners should not be forced to pay for a team that that is not offering its best.
Outlaw – “It’s a game.”
It’s a business that’s based on a game and therefore they have to make decisions in the best interest of the business. I think players should get paid a prorated amount based on the number of games played.
Just curious if during previous pandemics any players had reservations about playing.
Never heard of it happening in the past. The seasonal flu is nasty every year.
*Round 1 fight. *in mortal kombat voice.
From the A.P.
“Players are more interested in medical protocols and testing designed to protect them from and detect the new coronavirus.”
Seems money is the owners interest and health is the players focus.
What a surprise that is.
If there’s a way guys get it together take the lead Make them talk Baseball on ESPN instead of what Brady and Gronk are doing
Quite certain that baseball without fans was reality back in late March, when the two sides got together.
All they accomplished was jotting down some vague lawyer-speak that they could bicker the interpretation of later. Unreal but unsurprising.
They should look at the financial models of the NBA, NHL and NFL, understand what’s working for them and apply it to baseball this year and in the next CBA. 50/50 split, high and low caps that move yearly depending on revenues.
The vast majority of fans just want competitive baseball from top to bottom. The small market teams need to spend their revenue sharing money. The large markets can’t rely on outspending everyone for their chance to win. They need to get on the same page for the betterment of the game instead of selfishly dividing the game.
Baseball is enormously profitable the way it is. They don’t need to permanently adopt strict revenue sharing/caps and floors. And, because this is big business, they really don’t need to do what we fans wants, either.
Why should they look to the other three leagues? The MLB model has been highly profitable for both sides. Don’t let the spending habits of the Rays and Pirates fool you. Those owners have significant ROI and control assets worth multiple times more than what they paid for them.
As for the revenue split, if youre a player, particularly one who makes the minimum or are, would you bail your employer out here? Not like the owners toss the players bonuses after years with significant revenue spikes.
My randomly worthless prediction? We’ll have baseball this year. The players won’t accept the 50/50 split, but will agree to salary deferral. Healthy players who don’t want to play due to Covid fears will not be placed on the restricted list and be left unpaid, but will have to take further salary reduction. I also wouldn’t be surprised if some form of an All Star event is held prior to season’s start to generate revenue from the nationally television, just won’t be in LA. We may also see more than 82 games. Depends if the players as a group are willing to play extra doubleheaders. More rest and comfort, or more money?
I’d honestly prefer a lockout, bring in minor league players, they’d gladly play for percentage of income. Tired of these ridiculous contracts. And lower ticket price too
Why don’t you just go to minor league games exclusively? That’s essentially what you’re asking for.
I do, and enjoy them
Got news for you. Players could earn Del Crandall wages, ticket prices still ain’t coming down.
Between 2006 and 2019 total MLB payroll has gone up 73%, average ticket prices have gone up 50%. Attendance has dropped about 10% during that time period as a response. Seems pretty simple.. labor costs go up, the costs are passed to the consumer, the consumer buys less due to the higher price.
I hate this is a players vs. owners fight.. nobody even mentions the fans in all of this. A family of four in Baltimore is spending $200 for a night out to watch Chris Davis play baseball. That’s a problem.
The players have very legitimate talking points. But I can certainly understand the owners side also. Forget the billionaire/millionaire debate. If any business, small or large, was suddenly facing the prospect of losing roughly 40% of their income, that business would likely be asking the employees to share in the loss. But because the players association is so completely set against any income sharing proposal, that won’t happen. But the two sides will find a way to get this done because there’s too much money at stake not to.
Owners refuse to open their books. No one knows what they gross. Last years guess was just under 10 BILLION. How do you revenue share with the owners books shut?
Yep. Agreed there needs to be more transparency. Nearly every major sports team benefits from tax-payer subsidies but they are not required to report anything to the public.
Good luck,the billionaires and multi-millionaires need more money because that is what drives them. I remember going to games without havig to fork over a days wages just to take my family to see some real players like Mike Schmidt, Ozzie Smith, Tony Gwynn, etc Todays players all about the dough
You don’t think guys from that era weren’t all about the dough too? Curt Flood? Reggie Jackson? Nolan Ryan? :::cough::: Pete Rose :::cough:::
I think today’s players in the current situation are all about their health and their families’ health. Dough seems second to me.
If safety alone was the case, then all Tony Clark has to do is announce that “In the best interest of the players, managers, coaches and support staff, we have decided not to play baseball in 2020.” End of story, end of discussion.