Despite the antagonistic tone of the negotiations that spilled so frequently into the public square last winter, the MLBPA is hopeful that the sequel this winter will strike a more amicable (and private) tone, per the Athletic’s Evan Drellich.
At the same time, Drellich provides interesting comments from executive director of the MLBPA Tony Clark, who spoke harshly of last winter’s mediation in saying, “In essence, going back to March, what manifested itself thereafter, we view largely as a lockout. There are lines that can be drawn between what happened this year and what may have happened historically. But I continue to remain optimistic that as a result of that experience, we have an opportunity and take advantage of the opportunity, to work through our respective disagreements to the benefit of the game moving forward.”
It’s unclear what to glean from Clark’s retroactively labeling the coronavirus shutdown as a work stoppage, but if nothing else, his point highlights the severity of those negotiations. It also puts in no uncertain terms the length the players are willing to go in order to have their needs met.
Clark says the players are open to any conversation this winter, broadly speaking, but he also made a point to note the MLBPA’s general skepticism about the financial numbers being put forth by MLB in regards to their operating losses from 2020. The owners’ use of the word ’debt,’ for example, Clark explains as an evocation that misconstrues the true function of debt for businesses the size of MLB.
Issues like the universal designated hitter and extra-innings rules appear on the back-burner priority-wise for the MLBPA. One might expect a less steadfast approach from players in those areas. The MLBPA won’t be as flexible on issues of player pay. Players expect a battle in securing a full 162-game season in 2021, especially if fan attendance remains a non-guarantee. The owners will want the players to take some part in the financial risk of putting on a season when fans may not be allowed to attend, but the players don’t appear willing to bear that burden unless provided with more substantive proof of the operating losses suffered by MLB and the owners.
Until some of the numbers being put forth by MLB can be verified in some form or fashion, the owners’ financial concerns are likely to fall on deaf ears. MLB has been hesitant to provide more detailed financials to the players, however. This saga is likely to continue well into the winter, much as it did prior to the truncated 2020 season.
Sooooo, there are paper people in the stands where there are normally 30-50k, and he’s skeptical? Well, ok. But it doesn’t change the fact that they’re negotiating for more millions while the country may be heading into another quasi-shutdown so I don’t know that many are going to be overly sympathetic to this plight.
not only paper people in the stands, but they also played 60 games instead of 162
thanks to slimy commish. remember players wanted to play 81-82 games!
no. the players didn’t want to play at all until the money came. then they wanted more games. let’s not get confused here.
Because they would make more for 81 games. The big clubs are fine but small teams were killed last year.
@dpsmith22 Imagine, not wanting to do one’s job without being paid! The nerve of those players! /s/
during a pandemic, no less!
@MWeller77 Right, MLB players are just regular working Joe’s
@empirejim So they should play for free?
Wow half a season!!!!! They wanted more money for the joke of a season. Turner confirmed what many know and it’s MLB is legitimate as WWE. They are in the sports entertainment business but certainly not the baseball business. The fact the players played instead of protesting Bregman and Altuve among others spoke volumes.
no. they wanted 110% per game. the owners balked so the players blamed covid safely blah blah. owners came up to 100% and all of a sudden covid was no longer scary.
owners conceded per usual and then And only then, did the players agree to play.
Braves have to release their quarterly earnings and they haven’t been pretty for 2020. 3rd quarter got a little better but still more than half off the revenue from last year. 2nd quarter was horrific.
The Braves took in $11 million in Q2 which was down from $208 million in 2019 for Q2.
Story from August: bizjournals.com/atlanta/news/2020/08/10/atlanta-br…
What were their expenses in Q2? They weren’t paying the players, so that’s a big savings.
Revenue drops are serious, but if expenses plummet, too, profit could be similar.
In this case expenses probably don’t matter for Q2. What it does suggest is that the revenue drops would hurt more when players were back on the field. The article say Q3 was pretty bad but not as much as Q2 (this suggests some revenue streams resumed in Q3–probably cable). The point is, the hit was big and now we know since the Braves can’t hide their numbers. They are owned by a publicly traded company.
Can you imagine the losses for the teams that actually have large regular attendences?
Braves actually have drawn well at the new stadium. Lots of losses from overpriced parking and concessions that weren’t generated, to be sure.
Lol…what an absolute buffoon.
“…we view largely as a lockout.”
Say what?
Now I’m not really a union kinda fella. So there’s that. But the players simply have to get rid of this guy, man.
Look I’m no fan of Manfred, either.
But jeeez…Clark should get fitted for some floppy shoes.
I agree with the argument that the owners can’t claim extreme debts as a negotiating ploy without providing proof. The fact is that open books should be the price of getting public anti-trust exemptions. It should be the cost of being allowed to have monopolies. The players and the public deserve to know.
Not to mention getting tax subsidies for stadiums and whatnot. Excellent point Mo.
Tax subsidies, tax exempt bonds, public infrastructure, below-market rate rent. The list goes on and on, basically for the right to siphon local expenditures away from local businesses like retail, bars and restaurants, theaters and other music and stage venues. Let them not only open their books but prove through independent, peer-reviewed analysis that their subsidies are net benefit to the local economy.
yea let’s ask your bosses bosses bosses boss, to see the books. Really?
@dpsmith22 Are you doing that thing where you write sentences based on what your phone suggests via predictive text? That would explain a lot.
Do those bosses of whom you speak have monopolies? Can you read? I’m saying they should open their books BECAUSE we give them monopolies.
We didnt give Baseball anti-trust protections, they won that in the Supreme Court. They dont owe us open books.
you stole my thunder Jim, but thanks for the support.
The Federal League brought an antitrust suit against the AL and NL back in 1915 after it failed in becoming the third Major League. Federal judge Kenesaw Mountain Landis hears the case but decided to sit on it with the hope that it would go away and all but one of the clubs folded after receiving concessions from MLB. However, the Baltimore franchise brought their own suit but that was lost in the U.S. Supreme Court in 1922, in particular because it was ruled that MLB did not engage in interstate commerce and thus was exempt from the Sherman Antitrust Act. One thing of note is that commerce, at that time, involved the production or distribution of physical goods.”
And as a side note to all this, Kenesaw Mountain Landis was apppointed as MLB’s first commissioner in 1920, while he still was a federal judge.
And a question: Why haven’t other professional sports also been granted antitrust exemption?
+1 MoRivera
Don’t forget that Federal Baseball was reaffirmed by the SCOTUS in the 1950s on Toolson.
Fully agree. Open the books or close your mouth.
Private businesses aren’t required to produce a financial statement. Hell, the POTUS didn’t have to show his taxes. I see no reason that MLB has to open their books. Besides, even if they did, the players wouldn’t believe it. They’d come up with some conspiracy theory about the books being cooked. This is headed for a war, believe me.
Mo, your points are definitely valid, however the clubs simply cannot predict how bad 2021 losses will be. They may very well be worse and baseball teams are a business first. Many of us have gone through an austerity season during which we had to remain status quo in salary because of environmental factors outside of everyone’s control. A failure to recognize that on the union’s behalf will backfire, imho. Who can say anything if they remain getting paid millions, just not the millions they believe they’re worth? It’s somewhat insulting if they call for a strike based on that when their support (fans) are losing their jobs in droves due to Covid shutdowns.
???
What owner is claiming “extreme debt”? They’re saying that it was a very poor year revenue wise.
Which a monkey with an abacus could figure out lol.
I’m typically pro management. I’ve had eleven employers… nine no longer exist. We are talking seven, eight, nine and ten figure revenues. It’s hard to run a business. There is a lot of risk.
That said, if teams are claiming they are suffering hardships, they should share financial information. If you expect the union to give, supply some evidence.
It really doesn’t take a higher than average IQ to understand that revenue was down in 2020.
Of course the players want to get theirs, but, it’s always easier to replace a high priced option with a cheaper option.
There are more players available that will play for less. It’s not like there’s gonna be 20 new owners in MLB in 2021.
yeah, that works like that in a day-labor market. what you are forgetting is that in mlb, cheap, less skilled players will never attract the fans and money as you must think.
TB was largely made up of cheap lower wage players. I enjoyed seeing them play more than, say, the NYY or HOU this postseason.
Cheaper doesn’t have to mean not fun to watch
but they were certainly not less skilled!
And since the fans in TB
aren’t going to show up
anyway…..
@Vizionaire What fans? No guarantee fans will be in the stands. And most of the money now is tv money. Much easier to bring in cheaper replacements in this environment than at just about any time historically. I hope both sides get together, but if the MLBPA decides this is the year to play hardball I’m guessing they will find the owners are not afraid to move forward without them.
in this hard times, owners won’t stand a chance with a lockout or replacements. why would anyone economically disadvantaged by the pandemic spend a dollar on less-skilled players playing ball?
@vizionaire I didn’t watch much baseball after Blake Snell’s comments. I would say people are disgusted with MLB players hence the “stars” couldn’t draw squat. I don’t see much difference from owners than the players except millionaires want sympathy from the average citizen who are struggling to survive right now.
Excellent point @JDubz.
@jdubz very true. many out here truly support the players when they hold as much, if not more of the blame. how dare the owners to want to pay less even though they are going to make less.
Negotiating publicly always brings the highest level of rapport and results.
Here are two things that cannot be denied. No fans in the stands and bad TV ratings. If there is a strike or a lockout the results could be disastrous for MLB.
Ratings only reflect cable and satellite viewership. With cutting the cord and streaming gaining popularity, pushing forward TV ratings as the entirety of viewership is asinine.
Small market teams only prosper because of subsidies from major market teams in terms of revenue sharing and equal shares of network/cable TV contracts which they could not negotiate without the drawing power of major market teams. The value of a particular franchise is irrelevant. if there is insufficient cash flow to fund operations. The lack of fan attendance is a direct reduction in that cash flow. The massive reduction in the fan base is another. The players fail to understand that the market has shrunk and the ability to generate revenue has been impacted severely. There is a very real possibility that small markets teams will go under thus reducing the number of positions available for players. Owners aren’t going into debt or use their own money to keep their teams afloat. They will file Chapter 11 bankruptcy first. Baseball is not immune from basic economics. Tony Clark doesn’t seem to understand this.
funny what helps keep the small market teams afloat is what also keeps them from being competitive, for the most part.
Ugh, what!!!???
small market owners won’t go up against big market owners in a salary cap fight because of reasons like this. they can’t. So they are stuck with an unlevel financial playing field.
small market teams are still worth over a billion dollars each. and many of them decide to pocket the revenue sharing instead of spending it on roaster improvement. create lower threshold along with upper threshold with heavy penalties for teams that go over or under.
Viz: Would you agree, however, that the top needs to be raised substantially; especially with the demands of players for increased salaries?
Teams aren’t worth a billion dollars if they can’t generate revenue. It’s called cash flow.
agree 100%. however the union will call this a cap if the penalty is too severe.
Until the owners open the books the players shouldn’t even come to the table.
55% of all revenue.
Minimum team budgets $100M
Raise minimum player salaries. $1M
Again the not opening of the books is a non starter. Period.
sure. ask your boss to open his books….
@dpsmith22 You don’t seem to understand that the owners benefit from an anti-trust exemption. If they want to be treated like other businesses that can deny the public a view of their books, then they should be willing to give up that exemption.
It’s not as if players don’t benefit from an “anti-trust exemption” as well. If, by this logic, there was no monopoly as some put it, then anyone could start teams and compete with the 30. However, this would do nothing more than drive down wages and create a volatile market. Some teams would go bust since there would be too many teams for specific markets and players would lose the value of any contract.
Players have benefited immensely by this system.
You rock MWeller77!
So according to your economic theory, a worker is better off when they have fewer potential employers rather than more?
If Adam Smith wasn’t already dead, this would have killed him.
he rocks!!! But he is wrong! supreme court have them this right. blame those liberal judges. comical to support players rich enough to buy the teams they played for….
owners are not necessarily boses of players.
So the employees should get a larger portion of the profits than the owners do? Are the players also going to pay 55% of the various rents, the payrolls of all of the vendors, the insurance, the medical bills, coaches, trainers, ticket takers, food service workers, revenue sharing, etc., etc…? Share in the risk? Share the losses? Or do they just get the larger portion of the profits and none of the risk or the worries?
You say this as though the owners haven’t, in many cases, privatized the profits while socializing the losses thru their sweetheart stadium deals.
How are they socializing their loses? The good players make the top dollars and the league average ones don’t. If Mike Trout was making the league minimum or contracts were being voided (they can’t get away with that) then you’d be on to something. But this is not the case. If anything, owners are forced to eat the loses themselves. Look at all the large contracts that flop.
If the players come with your demands there will be no season for the MLBPA. Then Clark will get to see what a lockout really looks like
hey, this is a discussion for adults.
“I demand a huuuge raise! And to be able to dictate what percentage of revenue the workers get! And you have to do it or else you have to open the books to the public!”….umm, life doesn’t work that way
I mean, a quick look at Toronto and Atlanta gives you a general idea on impact right?
TV rights deals are public. In person attendance was…. zero. We don’t know everyone else’s debt costs or front office/scouting/development costs and the like, BUT, you can get an idea how hard the income side was getting hammered….
Just posturing to get into the books which was always wanted. You’ve got to be crazy to argue there haven’t been losses.
I don’t think anyone’s arguing that there haven’t been losses. But exactly who is losing money and how much is the question, because the owners are claiming that they are all losing gabillions of dollars. If they are going to use that blanket claim for negotiating then they should have to prove who is losing how much. There’s no reason they should just be trusted when there’s so much money at stake. Not when they’ve been given monopolies to print money. I wish I had a monopoly….
Mo, my brother, I think it is factually correct to surmise teams, particularly ours, have lost their ass in revenue. I think if both sides are reasonable, they can come to a conclusion. I just don’t see that with the MLBPA and Clark.
Mo,we know 2019 attendance and ticket prices.
Earlier this year I multiplied out all types of numbers, but it’s undisputed they lost around 4 billion in revenue there alone.
Braves financials showed somewhere around 95% revenue loss for q2, first half of season, where money is supposed to get banked for all year. Combined with q3, even when TV rights at least paid, that was supposedly an 80%+ drop in season revenue – again, for a time where money is supposed to get banked for off season costs/expenses.
You don’t have to assign those losses to be equal for everyone. But common sense tells you it’s reasonable to presume all teams lost BIG in a year 4 billion wad lost altogether and revenue sharing was cancelled.
When the union comes to the table and says “we don’t believe you had big losses, open your books” against that backdrop, that’s NOT how you open negotiations in good faith.
What you SHOULD do, at least if you want things to be productive, is say “ok, well, we have seen numbers showing xyz in losses. So we’re willing to negotiate off THOSE numbers until you prove different.”
The only one who is claiming the owners are claiming losses of…what was it?, “gabillions of dollars”…is, well, *you*.
I get it. Down with the owners, power to the people brother, blahfeckingblahblahblah.
I guess the use of actual facts is wishful thinking on my part.
Benefit of the game? From the players? Clark must have had too much eggnog.
Time for holiday drinks
already!!!???
YES!!!
Clark views Covid as an owner lockout….. Clark doesnt think the owners took a financial hit from Covid…. Doesnt sound like Clark is in touch with reality
players took huge risks playing during a pandemic. risks for themselves, for wives, kids, parents or, in some cases, grandparents. they should have been paid double the rate. but players were quite generous!
They risked NO MORE than the average person does to keep food on the table and a roof over their heads.
Well, other than take more than a 50% cut in pay.
For only doing 37% of their normal work….. If I dont work I dont get paid either. They risked no more.
But were you forced to work 63% less and get paid 63% less? They risked more than you. They have bills too. Adjusting to that much less pay is tough for anyone. Except billionaires. Oh wait…
They risked less, actually, because of all the precautions and control mechanisms in place by MLB, that most everyday laborers don’t/won’t have the advantage of getting.
Exactly.
I mean, I’d’ve loved to be able to provide the same safety measures afforded MLB players to my building tradesmen.
That just isn’t realistic, however.
I’ll take a 50% pay cut if I was making millions
Justin Turner didn’t think it was a risk. Wink* wink*
I was just getting ready to say this elmedius. The entire Dodgers team clearly doesn’t view Covid as any risk at all. Nor does the league since no fine or suspension of a few games were given for breaking protocol.
Why didn’t they just file for unemployment and get the extra $600 a month like the other millions of people?
This is going to be the ultimate p****ng contest to prove who’s dumber: Manfred or Clark
Smartest man on this board – three cheers RSox! The most perfectly succinct summary of the impending disaster between the two knuckle-brain leaders.
I agree
According to the Atlanta Braves corporate owners financial reports the Braves only lost
$6 million dollars. Not exactly a bloodbath…..
and very likely massaged numbers!
@jorge78
Let’s say you make $70,000 per year. All of your expenses are structured around that. Your mortgage, car payment, insurance etc, etc are setup to comfortably pay for that with a decent margin for emergencies. Now imagine next year instead of making your regular $70,000 you lose $2,000. That’s hardly a bloodbath right? But you are still going to lose your house and your car.
It’s like the eviction moratorium during the pandemic. People aren’t LOSING money, but they aren’t making any of the money they depend on either.
I’m sorry, I’m not losing my house or my car by taking a $2,000 a year pay cut.
Anyone that loses their house and car because they went from $70,000 a year to $68,000 a year, isn’t very good at allocating funds.
@takeitback
Atlanta Braves 2020 2nd quarter profits:
google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j…
Atlanta Braves 3rd quarter profits:
google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j…
Could you survive this? So instead of $70,000 you are looking at less than $20,000. Could you still pay your bills?
Expected income that doesnt come in is most definitely a loss.
Business Journal has their loss at $150 million, not including the postseason That’s a bit different. Are you sure you’re looking at the right numbers?
Tony Clark was a left handed beast
Pretty good player. Union head…. not so much.
He’s a regular ol’ Scott Boras of MLBPA
MLB and the Player’s Association really need neutral mediators, but neither side will ever agree to it because both sides believe they can beat the other one into submission.
Serious question: Where do all other team and stadium staff fit into a clubs revenue. Trainers, coaches, medical personnel all the way down to the concession people , merch booth people , ushers, parking and ticket attendants, security employees? Not to mention all other random positions held within a ball club. That I would have to think is a significant part of annual payroll.
pay is easy fix. if 20% of fans are allowed, players get 20% of pay.
no fans, no home games
This site could be so great if the comments section on virtually every post wasn’t a disrespectful dumpster fire of keyboard warriors arguing for the sake of needing to pick fights. Actually, back when Tim started this site it was much better, people didn’t “who?” every retirement and respond to every CBA related post with politically infused commentary. I’m happy Trade Rumors has built a good business across a few sports, but the comments section of this site has turned beyond toxic.
As one who’s been here since the “good old days” I agree that the tone has gone downhill, but then, it has everywhere. But I also remember that in the good old days posts could be deleted for any reason, including if they were more than 100 words long. Fortunately that policy was dropped and expressing complete thoughts is no longer prohibited, but we could use a quicker and more consistent moderation response to off-topic and antagonistic posting. It’s a thankless task but someone needs to do it.
Both the league and the union came out of the covid negotiations looking like petulant children. Hopefully the CBA negotiations are smoother… but with dueling ignoramuses playing brinksmanship games every time anything comes up, it’s gonna take a lot of hope.
Spot on
Lots of money to go around with or without fans in the stands. Is it enough to pay ‘normal’ baseball salaries? Probably not.
Issue is that neither side will bargain in good faith and Tony Clark is not up to the task of negotiating in an adverse market with a pandemic going on. Count on another sh## show in 2021 if fan attendance is significantly limited
By the way, the deals that ownership gets by way of public money for stadiums have NOTHING to do with player salaries. Nothing whatsoever. Hard to believe people here think they do. One thing has nothing to do with the other.