I know the bottom line is money but what exactly are the issues that these two sides are so far apart on?
About this pending Baseball strike
- Thread starter Snake Plissken
- Start date
The Issues
Last Updated: July 6, 2002
The collective bargaining talks between the players association and Major League Baseball involve countless issues. But the focus is on these five:
Revenue sharing: Both sides agree the new contract should include more revenue sharing. But the devil is in the details.
The owners want 50% of all local revenue to be shared, an increase from 20%. The existing plan redistributed $166 million from the top six revenue teams to the six teams on the bottom.
The union has proposed to raise revenue sharing to 22.5%, but wants assurances that the franchises that need the money receive the most revenue.
Competitive balance tax: The owners have proposed a 50% tax on team payrolls above $98 million, which they see as a way to hold the line on ballooning payrolls. The players are steadfastly opposed to the tax, arguing that no one is forcing owners to spend now, yet they do.
The 60/40 debt rule: Major League Baseball has a rule that says a team can't have a debt higher than 40% of its asset value. The rule was upheld by an arbitrator in 1985. Bob DuPuy, president and chief operating officer of Major League Baseball, told Baseball America last week that one-third of the 30 teams were not in compliance with the rule.
The players feel strongly that the rule should be subject to collective bargaining, largely because the rule in their view is a de facto salary cap.
Bud Selig's discretionary fund: The owners initially proposed that Selig have a $100 million fund to be used at his discretion to help out struggling teams. The owners' negotiators recently lowered that amount to $85 million and proposed a change in the formula used to figure the value of certain contracts for payroll-tax purposes.
The union is opposed to the fund. In effect, they don't trust Selig enough to let him play with that kind of money. The union has reportedly proposed that $30 million be taken from baseball's central fund and used for what it calls "supplemental sharing."
Drug policy: The owners want a drug policy, especially for drugs that can improve performance, such as steroids. The union says privacy is the issue here as it pertains to random drug testing. Don Fehr, the union's executive director, said Friday that he needed to meet with more clubs before the union is ready to offer a drug-testing proposal.
Last Updated: July 6, 2002
The collective bargaining talks between the players association and Major League Baseball involve countless issues. But the focus is on these five:
Revenue sharing: Both sides agree the new contract should include more revenue sharing. But the devil is in the details.
The owners want 50% of all local revenue to be shared, an increase from 20%. The existing plan redistributed $166 million from the top six revenue teams to the six teams on the bottom.
The union has proposed to raise revenue sharing to 22.5%, but wants assurances that the franchises that need the money receive the most revenue.
Competitive balance tax: The owners have proposed a 50% tax on team payrolls above $98 million, which they see as a way to hold the line on ballooning payrolls. The players are steadfastly opposed to the tax, arguing that no one is forcing owners to spend now, yet they do.
The 60/40 debt rule: Major League Baseball has a rule that says a team can't have a debt higher than 40% of its asset value. The rule was upheld by an arbitrator in 1985. Bob DuPuy, president and chief operating officer of Major League Baseball, told Baseball America last week that one-third of the 30 teams were not in compliance with the rule.
The players feel strongly that the rule should be subject to collective bargaining, largely because the rule in their view is a de facto salary cap.
Bud Selig's discretionary fund: The owners initially proposed that Selig have a $100 million fund to be used at his discretion to help out struggling teams. The owners' negotiators recently lowered that amount to $85 million and proposed a change in the formula used to figure the value of certain contracts for payroll-tax purposes.
The union is opposed to the fund. In effect, they don't trust Selig enough to let him play with that kind of money. The union has reportedly proposed that $30 million be taken from baseball's central fund and used for what it calls "supplemental sharing."
Drug policy: The owners want a drug policy, especially for drugs that can improve performance, such as steroids. The union says privacy is the issue here as it pertains to random drug testing. Don Fehr, the union's executive director, said Friday that he needed to meet with more clubs before the union is ready to offer a drug-testing proposal.
This is all purely my opinion, as always..... and I apologize for not directly answering the question and going off a little bit, but anyway....
I think that fletcher really summed it up in a previous thread. The players don't want to strike but the owners are really forcing their hand to do something. I think that the owners feel that if a stoppage is to occur, the public's outcry will be against the players. So far, that is what it seems to be since they are in the spotlight. Because of this, the owners are hoping that the players won't strike and instead make some concessions.
The players union is mostly concerned with the happenings on the major league level. In short, they want the salaries and benefits to be the greatest for those that are playing in the big leagues. Really that only makes sense.
However, they (the players) are tied into things like the draft, which is also big bucks. The owners have some degree of control over the bonuses, but the problems are deep rooted and they're not able to be fixed easily. Too many issues come into play, just looking at the draft alone. One possible solution would be to cut the compensation and sandwich picks which would in essence keep the union out of the draft. The owners could then go to a slot money system or some form of an international draft, or somehow modify the draft to make it more meaningful (in a sense that the best player gets drafter first, etc) and also cheaper. This appeases the union because, for example, Tampa giving a guy 10 mil. without ever having set foot in the bigs is quite a stretch, with all due respect to the very good organization that Tampa has. Again, only my opinion, but it is a lot of money anyway you cut it.
But something like this would affect the salaries of free agents, so the solution is not simple, but my guess is that the draft will soon be out of the hands of the union's demands/requests.
The owners have had trouble policing themselves, and all of a sudden (or was it coming all the time?) have run into the likes of Boras and other agents who have learned the system so well that they can take advantage of the owners lackadaisicalness in previous years. Over time, this sort of thing builds and builds and until I would say two or three years ago, salaries and other incentives have grown at rates that are not consistent with a businesses increase in revenue. That's not to say that I feel the teams aren't making money -- that's a given -- these are all astute business people who want to buy teams.... It's not as if they are going to enter into a field that loses money. However, their growth in revenue isn't consistent with their profit margins, and I think this signals a long term concern for their accountants. But the problem arises when the owners look to make changes, but are meeting resistance from the players.
Contraction is a huge huge issue that has implications that I'm sure nobody has even considered yet. This would have to be the biggest issue on the table, i would imagine. It's going to put players, workers, vendors, local businesses, etc. on the street with nothing to do. I think it's a terrible idea myself, but that's also a slanted view because of my own standing. But regardless, contraction means only one thing -- fewer jobs for everyone. And if you look at a microcosmic view of MLB contraction -- such as contraction of minor league teams within an organization, you can get a small picture of the ramifications. Imagine multiplying these many times over and is it quite tumultuous to say the least. For many people's sake, I hope that contraction is not followed through with.
There are other issues like the drug testing and tenure issues, but I'm sure the details of it as much and don't want to take the chance to report it incorrectly. Many if not most players are personally in favor of a salary cap that could help restore competitive balance, but it's a complex issue that many players are not comfortable dealing with because they're not accountants. Many of their advisers see dollar signs and advise their clients to resist. But players are very much human and have come from very humble backgrounds and fought their tail off to get where they are, so it's not like they're oblivious to whats going on. But their dealing with lawyers that are trained in these things, so there is an element of self-doubt as to what is reasonable for both sides.
Personally, I don't think that drug testing will affect anything. It is tested for in the minor leagues and illicit drug use is still very active. Testing will make for better public relations and will keep players off the front page of the National Inquirer, so to speak, but in reality won't change anything. Fletcher also touched on some of those points, as well, and I agree with what he has said.
The draft issues are huge but at this time tough to resolve. There is no clear cut answer. An international draft has some advantages, but is logistically impossible. Getting rid of the draft completely is the best thing in my estimation, as it will shift the focus to true player development and scouting, but will never happen. This part goes back to the fans, who want immediate results. They want their team to sign the big name free agent, even if it means neglecting their team for the next few years through neglecting the farm system. If the draft was done away with, the best scouts would find the best players and sign them, and in time the big market teams would spend millions upon millions on 'busts' from the amateur level. After a while, the small market teams who invested less money, but more in scouting and player development, would have the stronger farm system. But even that alone won't solve the problems.
In anycase, there seem to be mixed reports on what will happen. Things are much more optimistic now than they have been, I would have to say. Teams are making big deals and looking to sign high dollar players all the way through, so I imagine that things can be worked out. Many of the player reps are leaning towards more reasonable alternatives such as delaying a work stoppage until after the season. I could see something like that happening.
Well, this whole issue will surely stir up some controversy... here are a couple burning question's I've had from reading other threads and posts:
What makes many people think that players in the major league work less and don't play as hard as minor leaguers and guys in college?
I disagree with this. Haven't you heard of makeup? That's what makes a guy get from college to the pros and from the minor to the bigs. In many cases, its almost as big as talent. Sometimes the only reason a minor leaguer works hard is becuase lifting and running and all that jazz is usually mandatory for the whole team through atleast AA. But then as the guys 'mature' or atleast are supposed to, the requirements drop off and those that are left on the AAA club and big league team are doing stuff on their own. Now which player is more motivated? I don't have a psychology background, but I've heard some stuff about internal motivation versus fear -- and I think that most of those guys in the big leagues are there because it's internal.
Sure, guys want to get to the bigs, but there are as many guys that dog it in the minors as there are in the bigs. You just don't see that because it's not on sportscenter. I'm not disagreeing with you that there are dogs in the bigs, but they're all over -- minors and college. To make a blanket statement is just plain wrong, in my opinion. They're dogs in every business and every walk of life -- how about the guy at the gas station that probably got a 1500 SATs, isn't that dogging it? but who cares.... you'll find them everywhere, that's for sure, but no more so at the show than in all the rest of baseball!
Edit: wrote this before IE's posts, which is straight from fact....
I think that fletcher really summed it up in a previous thread. The players don't want to strike but the owners are really forcing their hand to do something. I think that the owners feel that if a stoppage is to occur, the public's outcry will be against the players. So far, that is what it seems to be since they are in the spotlight. Because of this, the owners are hoping that the players won't strike and instead make some concessions.
The players union is mostly concerned with the happenings on the major league level. In short, they want the salaries and benefits to be the greatest for those that are playing in the big leagues. Really that only makes sense.
However, they (the players) are tied into things like the draft, which is also big bucks. The owners have some degree of control over the bonuses, but the problems are deep rooted and they're not able to be fixed easily. Too many issues come into play, just looking at the draft alone. One possible solution would be to cut the compensation and sandwich picks which would in essence keep the union out of the draft. The owners could then go to a slot money system or some form of an international draft, or somehow modify the draft to make it more meaningful (in a sense that the best player gets drafter first, etc) and also cheaper. This appeases the union because, for example, Tampa giving a guy 10 mil. without ever having set foot in the bigs is quite a stretch, with all due respect to the very good organization that Tampa has. Again, only my opinion, but it is a lot of money anyway you cut it.
But something like this would affect the salaries of free agents, so the solution is not simple, but my guess is that the draft will soon be out of the hands of the union's demands/requests.
The owners have had trouble policing themselves, and all of a sudden (or was it coming all the time?) have run into the likes of Boras and other agents who have learned the system so well that they can take advantage of the owners lackadaisicalness in previous years. Over time, this sort of thing builds and builds and until I would say two or three years ago, salaries and other incentives have grown at rates that are not consistent with a businesses increase in revenue. That's not to say that I feel the teams aren't making money -- that's a given -- these are all astute business people who want to buy teams.... It's not as if they are going to enter into a field that loses money. However, their growth in revenue isn't consistent with their profit margins, and I think this signals a long term concern for their accountants. But the problem arises when the owners look to make changes, but are meeting resistance from the players.
Contraction is a huge huge issue that has implications that I'm sure nobody has even considered yet. This would have to be the biggest issue on the table, i would imagine. It's going to put players, workers, vendors, local businesses, etc. on the street with nothing to do. I think it's a terrible idea myself, but that's also a slanted view because of my own standing. But regardless, contraction means only one thing -- fewer jobs for everyone. And if you look at a microcosmic view of MLB contraction -- such as contraction of minor league teams within an organization, you can get a small picture of the ramifications. Imagine multiplying these many times over and is it quite tumultuous to say the least. For many people's sake, I hope that contraction is not followed through with.
There are other issues like the drug testing and tenure issues, but I'm sure the details of it as much and don't want to take the chance to report it incorrectly. Many if not most players are personally in favor of a salary cap that could help restore competitive balance, but it's a complex issue that many players are not comfortable dealing with because they're not accountants. Many of their advisers see dollar signs and advise their clients to resist. But players are very much human and have come from very humble backgrounds and fought their tail off to get where they are, so it's not like they're oblivious to whats going on. But their dealing with lawyers that are trained in these things, so there is an element of self-doubt as to what is reasonable for both sides.
Personally, I don't think that drug testing will affect anything. It is tested for in the minor leagues and illicit drug use is still very active. Testing will make for better public relations and will keep players off the front page of the National Inquirer, so to speak, but in reality won't change anything. Fletcher also touched on some of those points, as well, and I agree with what he has said.
The draft issues are huge but at this time tough to resolve. There is no clear cut answer. An international draft has some advantages, but is logistically impossible. Getting rid of the draft completely is the best thing in my estimation, as it will shift the focus to true player development and scouting, but will never happen. This part goes back to the fans, who want immediate results. They want their team to sign the big name free agent, even if it means neglecting their team for the next few years through neglecting the farm system. If the draft was done away with, the best scouts would find the best players and sign them, and in time the big market teams would spend millions upon millions on 'busts' from the amateur level. After a while, the small market teams who invested less money, but more in scouting and player development, would have the stronger farm system. But even that alone won't solve the problems.
In anycase, there seem to be mixed reports on what will happen. Things are much more optimistic now than they have been, I would have to say. Teams are making big deals and looking to sign high dollar players all the way through, so I imagine that things can be worked out. Many of the player reps are leaning towards more reasonable alternatives such as delaying a work stoppage until after the season. I could see something like that happening.
Well, this whole issue will surely stir up some controversy... here are a couple burning question's I've had from reading other threads and posts:
What makes many people think that players in the major league work less and don't play as hard as minor leaguers and guys in college?
I disagree with this. Haven't you heard of makeup? That's what makes a guy get from college to the pros and from the minor to the bigs. In many cases, its almost as big as talent. Sometimes the only reason a minor leaguer works hard is becuase lifting and running and all that jazz is usually mandatory for the whole team through atleast AA. But then as the guys 'mature' or atleast are supposed to, the requirements drop off and those that are left on the AAA club and big league team are doing stuff on their own. Now which player is more motivated? I don't have a psychology background, but I've heard some stuff about internal motivation versus fear -- and I think that most of those guys in the big leagues are there because it's internal.
Sure, guys want to get to the bigs, but there are as many guys that dog it in the minors as there are in the bigs. You just don't see that because it's not on sportscenter. I'm not disagreeing with you that there are dogs in the bigs, but they're all over -- minors and college. To make a blanket statement is just plain wrong, in my opinion. They're dogs in every business and every walk of life -- how about the guy at the gas station that probably got a 1500 SATs, isn't that dogging it? but who cares.... you'll find them everywhere, that's for sure, but no more so at the show than in all the rest of baseball!
Edit: wrote this before IE's posts, which is straight from fact....
