It doesn’t appear many (if any) fans will be permitted to attend Major League Baseball games this year during the COVID-19 pandemic, but there are at least a couple of teams that could have somewhat of a home-field edge. Two major league sources told Evan Grant of the Dallas Morning News on Thursday that the league may leave it up to local and municipal governance on whether to allow fans in the stands. That would be a plus for the Rangers and Astros, as Texas Gov. Greg Abbott announced this week that teams in the state will now be able to fill their stadiums to 50 percent capacity.

This must be welcome news for the Texas-based clubs’ ownership groups – after all, MLB has claimed it could lose $4 billion if there aren’t fans in the seats this year. The Rangers, for their part, are still waiting to play their first game in the brand-new Globe Life Field. The Astros, after an offseason of turmoil caused by a sign-stealing scandal, would surely be happy to receive some in-person support from their fan base.

Of course, despite this news, it remains very much up in the air whether there will be baseball in Texas or anywhere else this season. The league and the union still haven’t come to a deal that would clear the way for baseball in 2020. There may also be health and safety protocols standing in the way, as Grant writes that Texas’ optimistic plans could change based on those matters. Notably, we’ve seen the coronavirus rear its head in Japan’s Nippon Professional Baseball this week.  It’s unclear how MLB would proceed with players or fans should the illness affect one of its own teams, even if that club’s local government is open to letting spectators into the stadium.

It’s well known that Major League Baseball owners and players have been at loggerheads over several important issues during the sport’s shutdown. One of the key disagreements centers on the length of a potential season. The union side proposed a 114-game campaign with full prorated salaries over the weekend, but the owners clearly have other ideas.

While they have already proposed a sliding pay scale based on an 82-game schedule, they’ve at least kicked around the idea of something in the vicinity of 50 games. Even as few as 42 contests is a possibility, according to Bill Shaikin and Jorge Castillo of the Los Angeles Times. At least to the owners, that would offer some sort of season while mitigating teams’ monetary losses during a year in which there may not be any fans in the stands. MLB claims it would lose $4 billion if there’s an 82-game, spectator-less season in which the players would receive full prorated salaries.

As of now, however, a 50-game season doesn’t look like something the players are going to accept. Commissioner Rob Manfred is allowed to implement as long or short a schedule as he wants; however, as Ken Rosenthal and Evan Drellich of The Athletic reported earlier, the players may be able to object based on the agreement the sides made in March. That deal says the commissioner’s office must make “best efforts to play as many games as possible.”

The players, like the owners, have finances near the forefront of their minds during this standoff. The league’s potential proposal would entitle the players to prorated salaries, but it wouldn’t move the needle enough for them during a severely truncated campaign. As Travis Sawchik of FiveThirtyEight tweets, 50 games is “not acceptable” to the union side. Furthermore, Sawchik points out this potential proposal wouldn’t make nearly enough of a financial difference in the players’ minds. They’d earn roughly 31 percent of their pay – about the same total as owners offered in their first proposal – per Sawchik.

Beyond the money factor, there’s concern on the players’ side over whether a 50-game season would be worthwhile, Jesse Rogers of ESPN.com explains. For instance, would it behoove the players to put themselves at greater risk for injury or contraction of the coronavirus during what would essentially be one-third of a typical season, wherein they’d earn far less money than expected? Rogers also wonders how such a shortened season could affect salaries down the line, as teams and players would have to weigh such a small sample of statistics in future contract talks.

This continues to look like a dire situation for the game, especially with time running out toward actually starting any kind of season (remember, the players would still have to go through another few weeks of spring training beforehand). Now, if the owners don’t offer another counter-proposal, the players will be “done” talking, Sawchik reports.

JUNE 2: While the league may implement a 50- or 60-game schedule, the union could object to it based on March’s agreement, which says the commissioner’s office must put forth its “best efforts to play as many games as possible,” per Ken Rosenthal and Evan Drellich of The Athletic (subscription required). Regardless, the two sides aren’t making much progress, nor have they scheduled further negotiations. As Rosenthal and Drellich point out, if MLB and the MLBPA are going to meet in the middle for an 82-game season that starts July 4, time’s running out. For that to happen, the players would have to be back in spring training by the middle of this month.

JUNE 1, 10:09pm: The two sides remain far apart in talks, Joel Sherman of the New York Post reports in a piece that’s worth reading in full. In regards to the counter-proposal the union made over the weekend, deputy commissioner Dan Halem told Sherman via text: “The one piece of good news out of [Sunday’s] meeting is that Tony Clark acknowledged that the March Agreement contemplated another negotiation over player salaries if the 2020 season could not be played in front of fans. We were concerned based on media reports if players knew that. Tony told us the players were aware that the March Agreement did not resolve the issue of player salaries in a season without fans. And he said the players‘ decision to accept nothing less than 100 percent of their prorated salaries was due to the risks of playing the season, not because they were promised it in the March 26 agreement.” Clark fired back in an email to Sherman, though, calling Halem’s quote “purposefully misleading and inaccurate.” Clark added that MLB is trying to “negotiate through the media instead of focusing on how to bring baseball back to its fans.”

6:58pm: A season with roughly 50 games would be “a last resort” for the league, Passan writes. The hope remains that MLB and the MLBPA will reach an agreement to avoid that outcome.

4:48pm: The MLBPA and MLB haven’t been able to see eye to eye on a potential 2020 season as they negotiate during this pandemic. In the latest developments, the union proposed a 114-game season this past weekend, though it seems the league is open to a much shorter campaign. MLB plans to propose a smaller schedule – perhaps one with as few as 50 to 60 games – per Jeff Passan of ESPN, but the league would give players a full portion of their prorated salaries.

Whether this plan will appeal to the players remains to be seen, as they wouldn’t come close to their normal salaries in such an abbreviated season. However, as Jon Heyman of MLB Network notes, commissioner Rob Manfred has the right to implement a schedule that’s as long or short as he wants based on the agreement the owners and players made back in March. As of now, Manfred and the league are still hoping to reach some sort of compromise that works out for both sides, Heyman suggests, but Passan adds that MLB is prepared to go with a schedule length of its choosing if it’s unable to find common ground with the players.

Season length aside, it’s notable that the league’s willing to give players their prorated salaries without further reductions in pay. The league presented its latest economic proposal last week – one that didn’t go over well with players, including Nationals ace and influential union member Max Scherzer, who noted the players had already agreed to take lower salaries in the form of prorated salaries and weren’t open to accepting even less money. A 50- to 60-game schedule obviously would not be ideal for the players from a financial standpoint, but if they’re not on board with this plan, perhaps they and the owners will be able to meet in the middle on schedule length in the coming weeks and get a 2020 campaign underway.