Potential Owner Player Salary Fight

[diehardtwinsfan]

Interesting article on the hard ball times, but this might lead to some additional labor unrest... I really hope this isn't the case, but it's looking more and more like we're in for a major labor stoppage at some point in the near future.

 

https://mlb.nbcsports.com/2020/05/08/an-owner-player-salary-fight-could-be-looming/

 

 

[rdehring]

I read about this a few weeks ago. In that article, there was a mention of some language in the prior deal that alluded to future economics. Agents like Mr. Boros immediately jumped on this issue staking out their side of the argument. 

 

At the time that deal was struck, there wasn't a lot of talk about games being played with no fans. With ticket sales being somewhere in the vicinity of half of revenue, it is ridiculous, in my opinion, for players to maintain they should get their full per game salary based on their contracts. If the players refuse to a reasonable compromise, they aren't going to look good to most folks who are living thru these trying times.

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

My memory of it is different, rdehring. From the earliest dates, I assumed there would never be fans at games in 2020 (or that schools would ever reopen this spring, despite dates that were floated, same idea). In any case, I think the writer is saying that the owners already made a deal with the players that the players would be paid their full salary pro-rated if games started back up in 2020.

[rdehring]

 

My memory of it is different, rdehring. From the earliest dates, I assumed there would never be fans at games in 2020 (or that schools would ever reopen this spring, despite dates that were floated, same idea). In any case, I think the writer is saying that the owners already made a deal with the players that the players would be paid their full salary pro-rated if games started back up in 2020.

Tend to agree with you, although the article I read indicated that there was a reference to economics that the owners are counting on.  That's why they are saying the deal they made needs to be changed to account for no fans.  I expect if the players don't have some movement, we will not have baseball this year.  

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

Tend to agree with you, although the article I read indicated that there was a reference to economics that the owners are counting on.  That's why they are saying the deal they made needs to be changed to account for no fans.  I expect if the players don't have some movement, we will not have baseball this year.

 

I think in the interests of survival—and considering the NFL is going to go forward with their season come hell or high water—that both sides need to work something out and play some semblance of a season. I wouldn’t call it a possible “win-win” as the writer does, but a matter of survival.

 

 

“It’s also worth noting that the matter of revenues, which would necessarily be the basis for any revenue sharing deal, is historically fraught with ambiguity. Owners only share certain revenue figures with players, not all. They also have a ton of revenue sources which they will likely argue should not be subject to any deal for 2020. The Braves, for example, own a massive real estate development around their park that, in many ways, benefits from the playing of baseball games there. So do the Cardinals. Will players get a cut of that too? If not, why not? How about media deals? How about those business partnerships with sports books? How about the money that comes in from so-and-so company being “the official so-and-so company of Major League Baseball?”

 

“None of this is to say that some novel, alternative arrangement isn’t theoretically better for everyone involved for 2020. It may be. We’re in uncharted waters. There could be win-wins to be found here if they go back to the table and figure one out.”

 

https://mlb.nbcsports.com/2020/05/08/an-owner-player-salary-fight-could-be-looming/

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

Although surviving at all could be considered a win in this environment.

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

 

Tend to agree with you, although the article I read indicated that there was a reference to economics that the owners are counting on.  That's why they are saying the deal they made needs to be changed to account for no fans.  I expect if the players don't have some movement, we will not have baseball this year.  

 

This is my concern as well. There's already a lot of labor strife due to some pretty poor FA periods the last two off seasons (this one excluded), so much so that a labor stoppage seems rather likely... add this in and I think there's going to be a lot of consternation... a lot.

 

Bottom line though is that I think with all these shutins that we need a distraction like baseball. So I do think it's on both parties best interest to make sure games get played.. Pro-rating the contracts make sense, but I also think the owners would be smart to do a 1 time revenue sharing to keep some of the weaker franchises afloat while letting the players take home the lions share of the profits... That, to me at least, would be the smart play. 

[Doctor Gast]

IMO all parties concerned will work this out, there is enough motivation to do so. Looks like someone is trying to stir up things up to keep it from happening. Hope that cool heads will prevail

[DocBauer]

I'm not sure what guarantees for revenue exist in MLB. I mean, in the NFL, for example, they negotiate a perecteage of total revenue to be paid to players. I'm not sure that exists in MLB. I want to say, in this circumstance, players are always pro-rated by games played. But is that flat based on TV/radio revenue or is there some clause that equates to total revenue based on gates and parking and food and drink, etc?

 

Don't have a clue. Glad I'm not in charge.

 

At the end of the day, we're still talking about a business. And all business is affected at this point. There is going to be a big loss in revenue and salaries. They just need to come to some sort of compromise. Even in a multi-billion revenue sport, there is going to have to be an acceptable loss in both sides. Sounds simplistic, but part of something is better than all of nothing.

[Trevor0333]

 

I read about this a few weeks ago. In that article, there was a mention of some language in the prior deal that alluded to future economics. Agents like Mr. Boros immediately jumped on this issue staking out their side of the argument. 

 

At the time that deal was struck, there wasn't a lot of talk about games being played with no fans. With ticket sales being somewhere in the vicinity of half of revenue, it is ridiculous, in my opinion, for players to maintain they should get their full per game salary based on their contracts. If the players refuse to a reasonable compromise, they aren't going to look good to most folks who are living thru these trying times.

 

The owners will be fine.

 

When a player & team outplay their value salary wise and bring in extra revenue in attendance, merchandise, extra playoff games. Do they get more money? If the league goes bonkers popularity wise and league revue doubles, triples etc and owners are raking it in, do they get to renegotiate? The point of signing the contract is valuing security over real time value, they could always get more year to year. This same goes for ownership. They can afford to honor those contracts and absolutely should be required to.

 

Again, the owners will be fine.

[rdehring]

 

The owners will be fine.

 

When a player & team outplay their value salary wise and bring in extra revenue in attendance, merchandise, extra playoff games. Do they get more money? If the league goes bonkers popularity wise and league revue doubles, triples etc and owners are raking it in, do they get to renegotiate? The point of signing the contract is valuing security over real time value, they could always get more year to year. This same goes for ownership. They can afford to honor those contracts and absolutely should be required to.

 

Again, the owners will be fine.

Are you sure the owner's will be fine?  What happens to a couple of the weaker teams if they lose $50,000,000?  What if they play and the player's get their full salaries and those teams lose $100,000,000? 

 

 

I'm not sure what guarantees for revenue exist in MLB. I mean, in the NFL, for example, they negotiate a perecteage of total revenue to be paid to players. I'm not sure that exists in MLB. I want to say, in this circumstance, players are always pro-rated by games played. But is that flat based on TV/radio revenue or is there some clause that equates to total revenue based on gates and parking and food and drink, etc?

Don't have a clue. Glad I'm not in charge.

At the end of the day, we're still talking about a business. And all business is affected at this point. There is going to be a big loss in revenue and salaries. They just need to come to some sort of compromise. Even in a multi-billion revenue sport, there is going to have to be an acceptable loss in both sides. Sounds simplistic, but part of something is better than all of nothing.

Sure wish there would be someone as wise as you, Doc, sitting at the table when the sides sit down.

 

[Shaitan]

All negotiations start on the fringes. This why actual negotiations don't take place through the press.

 

Both sides have interests. They're going to state them, then work toward the middle. Here's to hoping for a successful resolution.

[Tomj14]

IMO, the owners have the upper hand right now, number 1 reason safety, they can always use that as an excuse, there are probably a few teams that will lose less money not having baseball then having it and paying full price/salaries (the same as quite a few businesses right now)

The players have to deal with demanding full salary for half the work when there is a good percentage of people not getting paid at all or taking less money on unemployment.

Plus the players have to justify they deserve full pay when no other baseball players in the country are even allowed to play.

 

[Mike Sixel]

 

Are you sure the owner's will be fine?  What happens to a couple of the weaker teams if they lose $50,000,000?  What if they play and the player's get their full salaries and those teams lose $100,000,000? 

 

 

Sure wish there would be someone as wise as you, Doc, sitting at the table when the sides sit down.

 

am I sure billionaires will have enough money? Is that the question?

[Mike Sixel]

Whatever happened to 52% on salaries? 

[darin617]

Nobody can feel sorry for any "poor owners" complaining that the players need to play at a reduced salary. Nearly all stadiums were either publicly funded 100% or close to it. Every year the owners continue to raise ticket prices almost every year and they never have to pay back the state for building their stadiums.

 

It would be nice if the state could at least get a tiny percentage of the parking & concessions at least to help the state back out for building their stadiums.

[rdehring]

 

am I sure billionaires will have enough money? Is that the question?

And someone playing a game for tens of millions of dollars also has enough money.  But that isn't the question.  

 

Yes, some or even many of the owners were billionaires.  But I suspect many, if not all, are taking hits on some or even most of their other investments.  Whether they can afford to take a hit isn't the question.  It is whether they want to.  And I repeat something I don't know to be true but is probably likely, losses of $50,000,000 to $100,000,000 may put several teams into or on the verge of going bankrupt.

 

I know you won't agree, but I am of the opinion that in a time like this you can't expect only the owners to take a big financial hit while the players get 100% compensated for the games played.  Even if the players agreed to a 50% cut of their per game salaries, the owners will still lose money this year...a lot of money.

[Mike Sixel]

 

And someone playing a game for tens of millions of dollars also has enough money.  But that isn't the question.  

 

Yes, some or even many of the owners were billionaires.  But I suspect many, if not all, are taking hits on some or even most of their other investments.  Whether they can afford to take a hit isn't the question.  It is whether they want to.  And I repeat something I don't know to be true but is probably likely, losses of $50,000,000 to $100,000,000 may put several teams into or on the verge of going bankrupt.

 

I know you won't agree, but I am of the opinion that in a time like this you can't expect only the owners to take a big financial hit while the players get 100% compensated for the games played.  Even if the players agreed to a 50% cut of their per game salaries, the owners will still lose money this year...a lot of money.

 

Isn't that the "risk" we always here about, when we are told why owners make so much money? They bear all the risk? If there is no downside, there is no risk. Again, if they might go bankrupt, that is capitalism and freedom. That's the chance you take when you buy a business. Just like players take the chance they will get cut and lose their jobs.

 

And, no place have I, or anyone, said the players should get 100% of their salary. No place.

[rdehring]

 

Isn't that the "risk" we always here about, when we are told why owners make so much money? They bear all the risk? If there is no downside, there is no risk. Again, if they might go bankrupt, that is capitalism and freedom. That's the chance you take when you buy a business. Just like players take the chance they will get cut and lose their jobs.

 

And, no place have I, or anyone, said the players should get 100% of their salary. No place.

Then why are arguing so strongly against my position that it shouldn't just be the owners taking a hit when/if they begin playing games with nobody in the stands.  

 

Yes, the owners screwed up by not getting clearer language in their original agreement about resuming games without fans.  But as DocBauer pointed out, both sides are going to have to be reasonable to get this game back on the field.  And comments I have seen from Mr. Boros and others sure don't sound like they want to be reasonable.  But that may also be their first salvo at bargaining, which would be understandable.

 

[Tomj14]

 

Isn't that the "risk" we always here about, when we are told why owners make so much money? They bear all the risk? If there is no downside, there is no risk. Again, if they might go bankrupt, that is capitalism and freedom. That's the chance you take when you buy a business. Just like players take the chance they will get cut and lose their jobs.

 

And, no place have I, or anyone, said the players should get 100% of their salary. No place.

I agree the owners have the risk, and they can go to the players and say this is what is needed to have a 2020 season and if the players don't agree the owners can choose not to have the season. They have to decide what risk is the least for them.

Now I also believe the owners need to get together and figure out how to spread some of the losses out across the board, it does no good for the big market teams to make some or possibly quite a bit of money while the other half (or whatever the number is) to lose money. That does no good for the games future.

 

I haven't head one person say that restaurants and other business be required to pay their employees 100% salary if they are not at full capacity or even closed and barely staying a float even if the owner is super rich.

 

On a side note I am not sure why it is OK and/or safe enough for major league players to play but it isn't for anybody else. It just confirms the elites are just better then the rest of us serfs.

 

[DocBauer]

I could do multiple quotes, assuming I could remember how to again, lol, but will just state that various arguments here are all valid in their intended arguement. And my following point(s) are not directed at any single post or poster, just the debate we are having. Want to be clear on that.

 

I don't know what the original agreement was tentatively put in place between the owners and players in regard to 2020 salaries. Perhaps it was fair. But perhaps, as time has gone one, there has been a re-evaluation where projected revenue and projected losses now appear to be vastly different than expected. Let's just say original projections were 50% for arguement sake but now look more like 60-70%. For the structural integrity of the game itself, and it's future, that is huge.

 

I take no sides in this. I want baseball and I miss it, and I want it back in the best form we can have for 2020. I also want the game to be healthy. Players want to play and get paid. Owners want to get paid. Financially, I can't and won't side with either party as I can't even conceive of the $ we are talking about as a "normal Joe". But ML franchises are still a business. And those billionaires that own them also have many other investments and businesses that are feeling the hurt at this time. What about those businesses and the people that are affected including the "average Joe's" like us who work for them? Would they be OK losing salaries and jobs because MLB paid out full salaries for a shortened season? So just stating billionaires are billionaires and they will be OK is really not a valid arguement.

 

Again, I'm not for or against either side. I'm just looking at MLB as a separate business entity, which it is. Both sides can be OK here if they just compromise in the situation here. Everyone still gets paid, baseball comes back, and things hopefully return to normal in 2021. It's just fair compromise on both sides.

[AZTwin]

Isn’t most of the money made with tv deals anyway? With more people watching maybe ownership should be negotiating with the cable companies for more money?

[Cast of Thousands]

Mind-numbingly stupid to think that the players shouldn't/couldn't agree to some kind of agreement that correlates to revenues for this season alone.  The level of uncertainty and unknown is beyond comprehension and the players shouldn't have any skin in the game?  

[Richie the Rally Goat]

Isn’t most of the money made with tv deals anyway? With more people watching maybe ownership should be negotiating with the cable companies for more money?

the owners, for good reason, are not transparent about revenue. Most estimates like Forbes use 50/50 at the stadium (tickets, concessions, etc) vs TV. Every team is different, different ticket structures, different TV deals. It does appear the better off teams have the better TV deals. Of course what is opaque as black tar is revenue earned by other subsidiaries of the ownership because of the games but not earned by the ballpark.

 

Example, Atlanta’s ownership group owns a huge business development around the ballpark and the Pohlads own media and part of FSN and advertising companies that broadcast or simulcast games.

 

We just don’t know, but if I were a player, my spidey-senses would tingle on the offer of 50-50 split of revenue between players and teams vs salaries because it’s really “50-50 split of the revenue we tell you about”. Only Atlanta is publicly held, all the rest are private and not subject to SEC rules or GAAP

[Mike Sixel]

Then why are arguing so strongly against my position that it shouldn't just be the owners taking a hit when/if they begin playing games with nobody in the stands.

 

Yes, the owners screwed up by not getting clearer language in their original agreement about resuming games without fans. But as DocBauer pointed out, both sides are going to have to be reasonable to get this game back on the field. And comments I have seen from Mr. Boros and others sure don't sound like they want to be reasonable. But that may also be their first salvo at bargaining, which would be understandable.

Are the owners going to share extra revenue with players when they get more? Of course not. The players should get their pro rated salary. Nothing less.

[Mike Sixel]

Mind-numbingly stupid to think that the players shouldn't/couldn't agree to some kind of agreement that correlates to revenues for this season alone. The level of uncertainty and unknown is beyond comprehension and the players shouldn't have any skin in the game?

Will the owners increase everyone's salary when revenue rises? Of course not. They'll pay the salary they agreed to. Not one penny more.

[Mike Sixel]

I could do multiple quotes, assuming I could remember how to again, lol, but will just state that various arguments here are all valid in their intended arguement. And my following point(s) are not directed at any single post or poster, just the debate we are having. Want to be clear on that.

 

I don't know what the original agreement was tentatively put in place between the owners and players in regard to 2020 salaries. Perhaps it was fair. But perhaps, as time has gone one, there has been a re-evaluation where projected revenue and projected losses now appear to be vastly different than expected. Let's just say original projections were 50% for arguement sake but now look more like 60-70%. For the structural integrity of the game itself, and it's future, that is huge.

 

I take no sides in this. I want baseball and I miss it, and I want it back in the best form we can have for 2020. I also want the game to be healthy. Players want to play and get paid. Owners want to get paid. Financially, I can't and won't side with either party as I can't even conceive of the $ we are talking about as a "normal Joe". But ML franchises are still a business. And those billionaires that own them also have many other investments and businesses that are feeling the hurt at this time. What about those businesses and the people that are affected including the "average Joe's" like us who work for them? Would they be OK losing salaries and jobs because MLB paid out full salaries for a shortened season? So just stating billionaires are billionaires and they will be OK is really not a valid arguement.

 

Again, I'm not for or against either side. I'm just looking at MLB as a separate business entity, which it is. Both sides can be OK here if they just compromise in the situation here. Everyone still gets paid, baseball comes back, and things hopefully return to normal in 2021. It's just fair compromise on both sides.

No one is asking for a full salary. They should get their pro rated salary. No one is asking for a full salary.

[Tomj14]

 

No one is asking for a full salary. They should get their pro rated salary. No one is asking for a full salary.

isn't that just semantics? The players per game salary isn't changing, but the owners per game revenue is.

The players are dealing with the same stuff half the country is, no pay for no work, so asking for their whole yearly salary they would be joke.

Are the teams paying their employees that work at the stadium but won't be working because they aren't needed without fans?

[Mike Sixel]

So if the owners per game revenue goes up in a year, they will pay the players more than their contracts?

[Vanimal46]

*Checks calendar*

 

Yep, the CBA is expiring next year. Owners act like they’re pinching pennies when it’s time to meet at the negotiating table.

 

Honestly at this point it would be more entertaining if a team actually went bankrupt just to see what happens. Owners crying that they’re on the verge of bankruptcy doesn’t do it for me anymore.

 

NBA owners whines about barely making enough money to keep the lights on before their last CBA. From what I’m gathering, there are still 30 teams in that league.