On Sunday, the Players Association submitted a proposal to Major League Baseball for a 2020 season that would include, among other aspects, a 114-game regular season and expanded playoffs. It took the league a few days to respond, but on Wednesday owners rejected the union's proposal and said they would not send a counteroffer, according to Ken Rosenthal of The Athletic.
https://www.cbssports.com/mlb/news/mlb-owners-reject-mlbpas-114-game-proposal-for-2020-season-per-report/?fbclid=IwAR2ZYad1wi8oITK86tVVY3SSg438ZdB4nDZH38uMfqOgK_r1Ff524Xq799Y - (
New Window )
Quote:
In comment 14916694 Mike in NY said:
Quote:
In comment 14916692 Italianju said:
Quote:
based on the numbers of games played. They dont want a reduction in their salary. If they were going to make 20 mill and they played half the games they want 10 mill. I mean if they wanted the original 20 mill to play half the games then that would be even more absurd. But even wanting the 10 mill when we know the teams are not making the normal amount of money is aburd.
If the owners are still making a profit, why should the players have to take a hit so the owners make more of a profit?
The owners aren't making anywhere near the same profit. Why should the players make the same salary per game?
Because they are the ones risking contracting Covid or suffering a career ending injury in a condensed season so that as many games can be played as possible.
The owners suggested less games than the players (right?).
Pretty basic common sense approach. I think we could be facing the loss of the entire season over this simple fairness issue.
They are making less by not demanding 100% salary for fewer games played. According to the proposal by the players if they play 70% of the schedule they will make 70% of the pay. Are the television contracts and other income streams to the ownership pro rated? If they are getting the full TV deals despite playing a fraction of the games why should they be the only ones who profit?
Quote:
In comment 14916708 ZogZerg said:
Quote:
In comment 14916694 Mike in NY said:
Quote:
In comment 14916692 Italianju said:
Quote:
based on the numbers of games played. They dont want a reduction in their salary. If they were going to make 20 mill and they played half the games they want 10 mill. I mean if they wanted the original 20 mill to play half the games then that would be even more absurd. But even wanting the 10 mill when we know the teams are not making the normal amount of money is aburd.
If the owners are still making a profit, why should the players have to take a hit so the owners make more of a profit?
The owners aren't making anywhere near the same profit. Why should the players make the same salary per game?
Because they are the ones risking contracting Covid or suffering a career ending injury in a condensed season so that as many games can be played as possible.
The owners suggested less games than the players (right?).
It is not just total number of games, it is how the season is configured. If you are playing at neutral sites in small geographic area (e.g. half of the teams play in Florida and half of the teams play in Arizona and you are only playing teams in your half) then you can fit more games in less time because you have less need for travel days, consistent sleep/work out schedule, etc.
If they're playing a portion of the season, should they get full pay?
Just trying to understand that. Are you suggesting because they have contracts players should still get paid full pay but owners lose out?
How are TV contracts being handled? Are they still being paid to the teams?
How is advertising? Pre-bought TV spots still being paid?
I don't know how all this works, so I don't have many assumptions and I could be wrong, but on the surface sharing in the shortfall between players and owners seems fair.
It's a major give because they agreed to do something that negatively impacts themselves (make less $). The #1 CBA positive for the players is that they have guaranteed contracts. Not saying it's right but their position could have been 'we want a full season come hell or high water'. Start later, play the full 162 with the fall/winter months in Arizona/Florida, skip the entire season and start up again next spring, whatever. NFL training camps may start before MLB at this point, are their players taking a pay cut or is their season shortened? They could have taken a position that they don't necessarily get more money when revenues surge so why should they get less when revenues are down? Again - the owners have mostly reaped the benefits of the current structure of not having salaries tied to revenue. Now they want to punt on the downside too.
The article below is 1 month old but it recaps pretty succinctly all the ways in which the players are being asked to accommodate the owners requests - which seem intent on guaranteeing some self determined profit level (that they have historically cried wolf about time and time again). A lot of what the owners are asking for seems like a fair partnership, but ignores the context that they have never been fair partners. I don't see why anyone would trust their numbers without those numbers seeing public scrutiny.
Five reasons why MLB players are objecting to owners' 50-50 revenue split for 2020 season - ( New Window )
That's why it's a compromise.
I don't consider it a "major give" to agree to a pro-rated salary when even their own proposal was not a full season.
When they agreed to a pro-rated salary I think the framework was with an 81-game season.
of course they could have proposed all those things you said, but none of them could have been executed by them alone.
Quote:
games so that doesnt really hold water in the "risk". Also id love a job where i can work half the time and make the same amount. Im sorry but that is not a major give. Again im not defending the owners, i think both sides are being unreasonable. Also if the owners make less profit, and we 100% know it will be less profit, then its not fair for the players to make less as well?
They are making less by not demanding 100% salary for fewer games played. According to the proposal by the players if they play 70% of the schedule they will make 70% of the pay. Are the television contracts and other income streams to the ownership pro rated? If they are getting the full TV deals despite playing a fraction of the games why should they be the only ones who profit?
Because there will be no freakin fans in the stands! Why is this so difficult to understand? No gate sales. No concessions. No parking revenue, etc...
And again im not calling the owners right in all this, both sides are wrong, but right now i think the players are being slightly less reasonable. I think the owners should get closer to the players requests unless they want to open their books, which we know they dont. That said i dont think the players should be paid as if everything is normal.
That's why it's a compromise.
I don't consider it a "major give" to agree to a pro-rated salary when even their own proposal was not a full season.
When they agreed to a pro-rated salary I think the framework was with an 81-game season.
of course they could have proposed all those things you said, but none of them could have been executed by them alone.
Obviously nobody can demand anything unilaterally. That doesn't make a 50% reduction in pay less of a give. The players went straight to a middle road. 81 game season, 50% less expense for the owners out of pocket in the likely largest expense category. Months later that is still the obvious and simplest solution (with some modifications to improve things for both sides, expanded playoffs, etc).
On the flip side, what have the owners given in on? How much less revenue is actually coming in? Have the owners been forthcoming about that? MLB attendance hasn't exactly been through the roof in normal times and without fans they have less costs to turn the lights on - for some teams like Miami the difference will likely be negligible.
The TV/digital rights are the biggest revenue chunk and were a massive area of opportunity if they could have come back first. The owners proposals have not been serious and they aren't even providing real #'s to try to justify them.
And again im not calling the owners right in all this, both sides are wrong, but right now i think the players are being slightly less reasonable. I think the owners should get closer to the players requests unless they want to open their books, which we know they dont. That said i dont think the players should be paid as if everything is normal.
Honest question - if the owners cancel the season, and the players get nothing, the players also don't lose a season off their contracts, right?
So it's a lost year but as an example - if I have 1 year $10m left on my contract, I eventually get that 10m vs. being willing to compromise and take the prorated 5m? The owners can't just cancel a season and skip paying that year whenever things restart.
But again they would have to figure all that out.
But again they would have to figure all that out.
Right but that is why it's still a big give to agree to the 50% gross paycut (even though it's prorated). These guys have such a short career earning window. Take a run of the mill average salary reliever or back end starter with $5m/1 year left. That guy is always a league average season from a minimum deal next year and then never getting paid to play baseball again. And there are probably 2-5 guys like that on every single pitching staff.
Would you agree to give up $2.5m you've already been guaranteed, that you may never come close to matching on a future contract, or roll the dice to get paid out on the full guaranteed amount whenever MLB declares their emergency interruption over?
Quote:
in the final return. Cause if they cancel the season there will be more negotiations. They wont just come back in Feb for pitchers and catchers like nothing happened. MLB contracts are based on playing, so if they dont play do the contracts just go to the next year? If your contract is 1 year and 10 mill you cant just not play that year and hit FA the following year, you would still have that 1 year left.
But again they would have to figure all that out.
Right but that is why it's still a big give to agree to the 50% gross paycut (even though it's prorated). These guys have such a short career earning window. Take a run of the mill average salary reliever or back end starter with $5m/1 year left. That guy is always a league average season from a minimum deal next year and then never getting paid to play baseball again. And there are probably 2-5 guys like that on every single pitching staff.
Would you agree to give up $2.5m you've already been guaranteed, that you may never come close to matching on a future contract, or roll the dice to get paid out on the full guaranteed amount whenever MLB declares their emergency interruption over?
You can keep throwing out that “guaranteed contract” nonsense all you want. There is a pandemic in the world right now and GAMES ARENT BEING PLAYED. There is less than 0% chance the players would have ever gotten paid 100% of their contracts this season in light of the situation. So please stop with this idea that they made this huge sacrifice. They had no choice. Games aren’t being played. Nobody is making money right now. These are not normal times.
but we're just going to have to agree to disagree.
To me, it's not even a concession or definitely not a "big give" to say that if you play half a season you get half your pay. I would expect it.
of course the TV contract is an open question (for me). I can't imagine MLB and/or the teams collecting full value on it, but don't know.
Also though, no fans, no concessions, no parking, less apparel/retail sales, and probably more....how much of that impacts players vs owners?
to me the starting negotiations should have begun with prorated salary based on games in the season. 100% of the pro-rated value (like MLBPA has demanded), but that's where I assume it should start.
I think the owners should be at least at 80% of the pro rated salaries, if not 90%. The reasoning being the revenue streams crap. If it was all in one big pile like it should be and they can see im going to make 50% less this year on the games that are played (conecession, TV money, gate, etc..) then it would be more fair to ask the players for 50% reductions. But since we know they arent goin to put it in a big pile cause it will hurt them in future years then they should take the hit this year and pay closer to the pro rated amount.
You can keep throwing out that “guaranteed contract” nonsense all you want. There is a pandemic in the world right now and GAMES ARENT BEING PLAYED. There is less than 0% chance the players would have ever gotten paid 100% of their contracts this season in light of the situation. So please stop with this idea that they made this huge sacrifice. They had no choice. Games aren’t being played. Nobody is making money right now. These are not normal times.
No shit, but even though these are abnormal times the language in the CBA still matters. I don't believe MLB has officially exercised their emergency suspension of games clause and even if they do every decision that gets made will be subject to a ridiculous amount of litigation. And if they did go with a nuclear option they would also likely prompt sponsors to pull out of revenues they would have otherwise seen - which is likely why they agreed to some option that took that nuclear option off the table quickly.
All of this is why it's in everyone's best interest to come to an agreement - and that's why the players are willing to accept prorated salaries for a shortened season. The players took a fair first step they weren't obligated to take.
What good faith steps have we seen from the owners so far?
but we're just going to have to agree to disagree.
To me, it's not even a concession or definitely not a "big give" to say that if you play half a season you get half your pay. I would expect it.
The average salary in MLB is $4.4m. So the average salary reduction in a half season is $2.2m. Agreeing to do that, regardless of circumstance, is meaningful - especially since these guys are obviously willing to play more games.
If your company asked all employees with guaranteed contracts to work half the hours and take home half the amount, would you consider it a give to volunteer to do so?
In comment 14916821 pjcas18 said:
of course the TV contract is an open question (for me). I can't imagine MLB and/or the teams collecting full value on it, but don't know.
Also though, no fans, no concessions, no parking, less apparel/retail sales, and probably more....how much of that impacts players vs owners?
to me the starting negotiations should have begun with prorated salary based on games in the season. 100% of the pro-rated value (like MLBPA has demanded), but that's where I assume it should start.
I agree with you that the starting place for the negotiation is as you laid it out. 81 games, prorated, and if it got a deal done as a player I'd probably be willing to accept 80-90%, and also throw in some non-monetary things the owners want (like expanded playoffs). If the owners need more assurances than that open up the books and explain why.
Quote:
You can keep throwing out that “guaranteed contract” nonsense all you want. There is a pandemic in the world right now and GAMES ARENT BEING PLAYED. There is less than 0% chance the players would have ever gotten paid 100% of their contracts this season in light of the situation. So please stop with this idea that they made this huge sacrifice. They had no choice. Games aren’t being played. Nobody is making money right now. These are not normal times.
No shit, but even though these are abnormal times the language in the CBA still matters. I don't believe MLB has officially exercised their emergency suspension of games clause and even if they do every decision that gets made will be subject to a ridiculous amount of litigation. And if they did go with a nuclear option they would also likely prompt sponsors to pull out of revenues they would have otherwise seen - which is likely why they agreed to some option that took that nuclear option off the table quickly.
All of this is why it's in everyone's best interest to come to an agreement - and that's why the players are willing to accept prorated salaries for a shortened season. The players took a fair first step they weren't obligated to take.
What good faith steps have we seen from the owners so far?
They gave up $170 Million in advancements and gave players a full season of service time regardless of how many games are played in exchange for the prorated salaries...
Link - ( New Window )
I don't know what the alternative is.
I do know the MLB players agreed to accept 4% of their contract if the season is canceled in exchange for a year of service time.
What was the alternative? $0 pay and no service time?
the advance payments amount to like 150k per player on 40 man and will be reimbursed. I'd imagine most non-minimum players will opt out.
The key thing the owners received was likely the players agreeing to not sue for their full contracts because they knew that would have been truly nuclear. That's when sponsors would have looked to get out of their contracts.
the advance payments amount to like 150k per player on 40 man and will be reimbursed. I'd imagine most non-minimum players will opt out.
The key thing the owners received was likely the players agreeing to not sue for their full contracts because they knew that would have been truly nuclear. That's when sponsors would have looked to get out of their contracts.
Of course it’s fucking significant. Why else do you think the union would make that agreement? You can minimize the service time all you want. That’s a huge get for the players.
At any rate, I’m done here. Your set in your thinking and any facts presented is not going to change your mind. You’re right. The poor players have no responsibility in this epic disaster. All the owners fault. The players association is dealing completely in good faith here and have tried so hard to make this happen...
I don't know what the alternative is.
I do know the MLB players agreed to accept 4% of their contract if the season is canceled in exchange for a year of service time.
What was the alternative? $0 pay and no service time?
The alternative was $0 pay and damaging litigation that would have taken long enough to only hurt both sides.
I am not saying the players are heroes, just that they've put more skin in the game than the owners have to this point. They and their families are the group that's going to absorb the health risk and they have made more tangible accommodations than the owners have to bring the sport back - which I think we can all agree is what's in the best interest of the game long term as well as the ultimate revenue source (fans).
none of us know enough about MLB daily operating revenues to know for sure what % of salary is "right" - we do know that only the owners know that, they refuse to allow visibility into those specifics, and their track record of good faith in that area is lacking. It's a $10bn/year business in normal years. If the difference is a few hundred mil, is it even worth the negative PR they've already generated?
Quote:
the year of service time is a non-cash give for young players on their initial contracts?
the advance payments amount to like 150k per player on 40 man and will be reimbursed. I'd imagine most non-minimum players will opt out.
The key thing the owners received was likely the players agreeing to not sue for their full contracts because they knew that would have been truly nuclear. That's when sponsors would have looked to get out of their contracts.
Of course it’s fucking significant. Why else do you think the union would make that agreement?
You can minimize the service time all you want. That’s a huge get for the players.
the union made that agreement because the players always have more urgency/less leverage if they are (unexpectedly) not getting paid - especially younger players who haven't made much money yet. With more than half of the players in the league probably being on first contracts that was an easy carrot to dangle that cost the owners $0 and does nothing more than preserve the expected status quo. Same as the reimbursed advanced payments.
but generally agree - we have probably beat this horse to death.
There is a negotiation to be had and likely an acceptable number to the PA below 100% prorated, but MLB's offers do not seem to improve on the 48 game option, which is what's allowing the louder voices in the PA to say they are acting in bad faith.
5h
Original offer: 82 games, players receive $1.03B in salary and $200M if playoffs are played.
Current offer: 76 games, players receive $989M in salary and $443M if playoffs are played, plus no direct draft-pick compensation.
48-game option: $1.03B in salary, no playoff money
Jeff Passan @JeffPassan
4m
- No qualifying offer for 2020. Teams that lose free agents receive draft pick for players who sign multiyear deals at $35M+ or one-year deals at $17.8M+. Teams that sign those FA do not lose draft picks
- Spring training 2.0 lasts 21+ days
- Season starts ~July 10, ends Sept. 27
Salary breakdown to get to the $1.431 billion number:
- 50% of prorated salaries over 76 games: $954,718,000
- Payment to players if postseason happens: $393,000,000
- Bonus pool for postseason teams to split up: $50,000,000
- Forgiveness on $170M advance: $33,998,000
total '20 team payrolls were supposed to be about $4.1bn, this proposal would have given players less than 25% of that amount to play just under 50% the number of games. That's a pretty big haircut and almost 0 incentive vs. the 48 game offer.
The length players are under team control for preventing them from free agency has far screwed over the players more than COVID ever will to the owners. It's the primary reason Kyler Murray chose the NFL over MLB.
The owners also successfully squashed a law preventing minor league players from earning federal minimum wage.
They don't deserve any sympathy for the losses they may incur this season.
The owners also successfully squashed a law preventing minor league players from earning federal minimum wage.
They don't deserve any sympathy for the losses they may incur this season.
What does sympathy have to do with it? I don't think anyone's opinion on what is or isn't reasonable has to do with feeling sorry for anyone.
from Ken Rosenthal and Evan Drellich of The Athletic
from Ken Rosenthal and Evan Drellich of The Athletic
I’d want this in place above all else. I wonder what the players thoughts on this are?
I 100% get anyone who doesn’t want to risk their health. But I 100% understand why a business needs to protect itself.
Is their a COVID waiver in other pro sports?
@JeffPassan
·
1m
The MLBPA is making a proposal to MLB for a season of around 89 games with a full prorated share of salary and expanded playoffs, sources familiar with the situation told ESPN. It would bring the sides closer to a potential deal and is ~25 games under the last union offer.
@BNightengale
·
6m
The #MLBPA has officially sent their 89-game proposal with full prorated pay to #MLB, which is expected to be rejected.
not sure.
they want more games?
Jon Heyman
@JonHeyman
·
3m
Initial reax from ownership source following players latest proposal: “We’re nowhere.”
The owners are rejecting full prorated pay
they want more games?
Who, the owners? They want fewer games, not more, especially at full pro-rated pay.
Quote:
not sure.
they want more games?
Who, the owners? They want fewer games, not more, especially at full pro-rated pay.
Yeah, I had it backwards and thought it was the players who rejected it at 89 games
Jon Heyman
@JonHeyman
·
3m
Initial reax from ownership source following players latest proposal: “We’re nowhere.”
I don't know why it bothers me so much but why can't he just type 'reaction?' He isn't near the character limit and doesnt sound cool
Quote:
not sure.
they want more games?
Who, the owners? They want fewer games, not more, especially at full pro-rated pay.
I dont think its an issue of wanting fewer games... just that if the players insist on full pro-rated pay they are claiming (yeah right) they can only "afford" a 48 game season. They do want to ensure there is a postseason though, thats the most important thing for them, and should be for both sides.
Frankly it would be interesting if you took all the shitty markets out of the league for this one season... had the richest 20 teams play... what they could afford? My gutt tells me this whole ridiculous stand is to protect the finances of Miami, Oakland, Arizona, etc.
Completely Agree with this.
Not to mention, Baseball is the only one of the 4 major sports that has "social distancing" built in. Their chance of catching the covid is really no greater playing the game or not. It's a silly argument I've seen here.
The owners don’t want to open the books to show all of the revenue streams and that they never actually lose money despite what they claim.
This is just a guess but I also think the lack of fan attendance hurts the big markets more than small markets. In Miami they probably employed close to the number of gameday staff as those who had season tickets in last year's calamity.
And in all markets since there's literally nothing on tv and more people than usual sitting around to watch, there were likely lucrative sponsorship opportunities that could have materialized to offset some revenue loss if MLB owned the month of July the same way the Last Dance and NFL draft did. But the owners seem less concerned with investing in the game than they do protecting short term profits.
The players offer is basically for $2bn in a half season's worth of salary, the owners offer was $1bn plus $400m in incentives. There is a deal to be had in the middle. You can't tell me it's not worth $10m more per franchise ($300m) in brand equity alone to have just gotten this sorted out in time to have restarted in time for July 4th. If these billion dollar franchises are bleeding so badly, off a record revenue season last year, they need to put up (the books) or shut up.
This isn't a Walmart paying employees minimum wage - these are collectively some of the richest athletes in sports playing a game with very little longterm health risk.
Sure, the owners do need to make some concessions, but I have a hard time sympathizing with the players other than the minor leagues which does need a rehaul.
This isn't a Walmart paying employees minimum wage - these are collectively some of the richest athletes in sports playing a game with very little longterm health risk.
Sure, the owners do need to make some concessions, but I have a hard time sympathizing with the players other than the minor leagues which does need a rehaul.
Fair... but also consider the hundreds of players in the league making $500-750K a year but unlike you or me... their career ends when they're 35 years old. They dont get to choose from 1,000s of companies to work for up until retirement age of ~65.
The 3 players you mentioned making $1.1b.... that's 3 players. Perhaps in the future baseball should start giving these select few ownership stakes instead of guaranteed salaries, kind of like stock options.
And while very few people are overly concerned about an extreme event to a 25-30 year old from a Covid infection, there is still the very real risk of a career-ending injury in a unusual/strange season with shortened training time... if I were a young pitcher a year or two away from free agency, i'd be very leery about pitching for call it $150K per start instead of $200K (just picking random numbers)
This isn't a Walmart paying employees minimum wage - these are collectively some of the richest athletes in sports playing a game with very little longterm health risk.
Sure, the owners do need to make some concessions, but I have a hard time sympathizing with the players other than the minor leagues which does need a rehaul.
I don't think anyone needs to sympathize with either side, especially not the players or owners who are worth the most because for them money is essentially meaningless when that is not the case for the majority of players especially. What I think we can do is look at this for what it is - a (hopefully) temporary emergency situation and try to evaluate things from both sides.
The average MLB player makes $4.4m and the average career is 5 years, but i'm not sure if that includes minor leagues or not. Even if it doesn't include minors, lets ball park high that the average player's lifetime pretax earnings are $20m. That player has already lost $2.2m or 10% of their career earnings. And that's just the average player - half of the players in baseball are worse off than that player.
I have no doubts there are operational challenges for MLB owners that can't just be absolved because they are rich, but I don't think this situation is going to take 10% off half of MLB franchise values long term. And it is hard to evaluate further than that because the owners have traditionally been so deceptive and non transparent about financials - something that is 100% within the their control to be more honest about right now if their situations are as dire as they claim.
I can appreciate the situation anyone is in who is losing such a dramatic amount of their career salary in this because their job security is highly volatile and their earning window is so short. That is why they want to play as many games as possible and why they are willing to take on the health risk. It's a lot harder to appreciate the situation of a small group who have long term profitability on their side and have traditionally played so many games with their financial situations (which continue here in this negotiation). They are the boy who cried wolf.
I happen to work for a company where since covid hit approx half of our projects have been put on hold. I happen to be on a project that is still active and has been active the entire time since covid hit. Whats going on between the players and the owners would be akin to my company telling me we want you to keep working 100% but we are going to ask you to take a 50% pay cut since we are not able to bill for half the jobs we used to. Would anyone be OK with this? I get the pro-rated salary since games are not being played so technically the players are not "working" right now, but if they are playing 82 games its not any less effort for them since fans are not in the stands. They should be paid 100% their salary for the 82 games they are playing.
Not to mention if there happened to be a year where record attendance and more revenue comes in than expected, would the owners ever just hand out a check to all players due to a good year? Yea the luxury tax threshold would increase the following year, whatever, the same is going to happen with lost revenue this year, salaries will go down next year. I'm just saying they never would adjust players pay upward at that exact moment in time like they are looking to do downward right now.
Better wages need to be met with a cap, IMO. If the fringe MLB guys want more pay and less years under team control, then they need to give a lot on their end and I'd start with a hard cap.