So let’s talk about what the March Agreement
actually says, not what MLB’s press release implies that it says.
It has been
widely reported and confirmed by the parties on
multiple occasions that the March agreement between owners and players gives players the right to receive prorated pay on a per-game basis for any season played. The owners, meanwhile, have the right to set the length of any season played. It also specified that “The Office of the Commissioner and Players Association will discuss in good faith the economic feasibility of playing games in the absence of spectators.”
Given that the sides could have, but did not, specifically state in the March Agreement that players must make salary concessions if there were no fans, what then are the discussions of “economic feasibility” it refers to?
I would argue that that means the two sides would discuss what could be done to make fan-free games a more financially viable proposition. Things like adding additional rounds of playoffs, which the players have proposed, or changing things on the field such as having players wear microphones of the creation of different in-game revenue or marketing initiatives. Advertisements on uniforms, perhaps. Different rules regarding off-field expenses for lodging or travel, perhaps. Anything
besides the one specifically set term, which is salary.
The kicker here is that MLB has admitted as much. While it can say what it wants in a press release, in at least two formal letters sent to the MLBPA during negotiations,
MLB’s chief negotiator Dan Halem and legal counsel Pat Houlihan have admitted that salaries are a settled term. Specifically, in a May 18 letter to Tony Clark:, Halem said “[MLBPA] is free to take the position that players are unwilling to accept further reductions.” In a May 22 letter Houlihan said “We agree with the [MLBPA] that, under the Agreement, players are not required to accept less than their full prorated salary.”