Yes, although those numbers do look better. Do we know if they’ve regressed in other areas?Owners setting it up for players to take the blame if there's no deal today.
Yes, although those numbers do look better. Do we know if they’ve regressed in other areas?Owners setting it up for players to take the blame if there's no deal today.
I hope the MLBPA is insistent on being paid and accrue for an entire season if/when it's shortened. That's the only thing that can convince the owners to negotiate in good faith, IMHO.One reason that there's a good chance they will make a deal in the next day or so is that if they can't play 162 games, another set of issues will need to be addressed when a deal is eventually reached, how salaries and service time are affected by a shortened season, and that is not something that MLB can unilaterally impose.
I don't really understand what you're saying here. This is hardly legislative brain surgery. The bill that got introduced last year (by Senators Cruz, Hawley, Rubio and Blackburn and 29 House Rs) is two pages long and really only requires eleven words to be operative: "Professional baseball clubs shall not be exempt from the antitrust laws." Done.The antitrust exemption is a red herring or a MacGuffin or whatever you want to call it. No changes are going to be made to the antitrust exemption and everyone knows it. We here at SOSH will have more effect on the negotiations than bringing up the antitrust exemption.
More specifically - and even ignoring the current political climate in which little gets passed - Congress would have to pass legislation that either (i) specifically carves baseball out from all or a portion of antitrust law or (ii) carves all professional sports out from antitrust laws. Getting hundreds of Congresscritters not only to agree conceptually to the first - not even mentioning trying to get them to agree to specific statutory carve-outs - is less likely than a rich man getting through an eye of a needle.
The second option is even more unlikely.
People waive around the antitrust exemption as a good soundbite. But practically speaking, it doesn't even rise to the level of a non-starter.
Hey, look, David Ortiz agrees with me but you probably know more about the Dominican system than him:MLB has been talking about the international draft for literally years (5 seconds of googling returns articles on this back to 2014). It is not at all a new issue and there is zero evidence or reason to believe either side hasn’t considered the issue.
Bad math?Found this a pretty sober assessment of baseball's economics, in part because it cites legit experts like Zimbalist.
https://www.theringer.com/mlb/2018/2/21/17035624/mlb-revenue-sharing-owners-players-free-agency-rob-manfred
The net, consistent with what several of us have noted along the way, is that the player's share of revenue has declined noticeably in the past 15 years. One can believe that is bad luck, bad strategy, or bad math I suppose.
The other takeaway, acknowleding that this is a 2018 article and thus recent losses by players are not reflected, is that MLB is still relatively close to the other leagues in the percentage of overall revenue that players earn. I realize there's TONS of stuff in different directions one can look at there---again, I think we should be relying on expert econmoists and not random twitter posts to assess a very complex topic like this but people will vary in how they want to see that.
For me, as WBCD says, part of the reason to think about more of a partnership is that you take out the variability MLB players currently experience across CBAs. Another aspect of that is their visibility into actual revenues would go up, which is helpful. I realize MLB may or may not go for that, but I continue to think there's good reason (and data) consistent with the belief that MLBPA might be better off overall looking to a cap-and-rev share model. Historically, it is the players more than the owners who have refused to explore this model (though, it is also complicated and both sides bear some accountability for sure). Also, the owners decades of crappy behavior need to be acknowledged as a barrier to that kind of partnership, without question.
If you're serious, I'm really surprised you don't understand. I mean I'd guess that you know that baseball's antitrust exemption isn't statutory - it's common law, right? And you also must know that all of the other professional sports leagues, while each not having a exemption specific to its sport like baseball does, collectively enjoy special ("relaxed" is one way of putting it although not strictly correct) status viz-a-viz the antitrust regime, right?I don't really understand what you're saying here. This is hardly legislative brain surgery. The bill that got introduced last year (by Senators Cruz, Hawley, Rubio and Blackburn and 29 House Rs) is two pages long and really only requires eleven words to be operative: "Professional baseball clubs shall not be exempt from the antitrust laws." Done.
Baseball's antitrust exemption is not only stupid, it's stupid in a kind of obvious and apolitical way that means pretty much everybody in Congress knows that it's stupid and that it's something Congress can use as leverage over the sport if and when they choose to do so.
People in this thread keep complaining that neither the owners nor the players have the interests of the fans at heart. What people really mean is that the representatives of the people should be part of this decision. Where are they?
(I see you there Bernie).
I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Are you saying that the other leagues CBAs are based on profit, not revenue?Bad math?
Also, revenue is not the right comparison. You need to look at profits, and you can't exactly find out what the percentage it is without opening the books.
And in any case, owners are not sharing in the increase of the open revenues.
Wild ass guess estimated math perhaps.
In addition, I would imagine that many of the draft eligible kids in Latin America are already under contract or some sort of agreement. Even if a draft were implemented next year or 2024 or a couple of years down the line, it's going to take a while before the old system can run its course.
The power of Big Papi.
Just to be clear, David Ortiz did not agree with you about the only part of your post that I commented on.Hey, look, David Ortiz agrees with me but you probably know more about the Dominican system than him:
View: https://twitter.com/JeffPassan/status/1501605449208115209
Just because something has been broached in the past does not mean it was previously broached in these negotiations, and it certainly doesn't mean it was discussed in depth between the two sides recently. The concept of 'stealing first base' has been discussed previously too (https://mlb.nbcsports.com/2019/07/10/atlantic-league-experimenting-with-batters-stealing-first-base/), that doesn't mean it should be brought in as a bargaining chip to negotiations when there are so many other issues that need to be agreed upon.Just to be clear, David Ortiz did not agree with you about the only part of your post that I commented on.
You suggested (and I quote) "The international draft is hugely complicated and should have been broached months ago if MLB wanted it included".
I said (and again I quote) "MLB has been talking about the international draft for literally years" That is demonstrable through a ton of articles.
I made no comment at all about whether the international draft was good or bad. I only noted (as is demonstrably true) that the issue has been on the table for literally years between the parties and this is not some last-minute thing (as you incorrectly suggested).
To the degree you are trying to say that it is complicated to implement, I agree with that and certainly never suggested otherwise....that the parties have been engaging on it for a long time does not mean it is easy to do. To the degree you misunderstood what I said, I'd ask you to be more careful.
It seems fairly clear to me that the owners did not expect the MLBPA to push this hard on other issues, so in return one of the things they have brought back is their long-time request for an international draft. The MLBPA is generally happy to sell out anyone not already in the majors and their union (the previous CBA probably cost Shohei Ohtani $200M as compared to if he'd signed a year or two earlier) so I'm sure it'll happen in some form.I would also caution the whole "jamming things in at the end" narrative. We're a bunch of people on the internet reading tweets, we have no idea when ideas were presented or discussed or at what length. Maybe there are certain groups discussing certain issues and not everyone is privy to the details of each piece.
Is there any reporting that the above is true, or are you just making up that possibility?Just because something has been broached in the past does not mean it was previously broached in these negotiations, and it certainly doesn't mean it was discussed in depth between the two sides recently. The concept of 'stealing first base' has been discussed previously too (https://mlb.nbcsports.com/2019/07/10/atlantic-league-experimenting-with-batters-stealing-first-base/), that doesn't mean it should be brought in as a bargaining chip to negotiations when there are so many other issues that need to be agreed upon.
We can go back and forth all day, there will be more comprehensive and detailed reporting about the process once it's settled and then we'll see.Is there any reporting that the above is true, or are you just making up that possibility?
What I have seen in articles is that the details of the MLB proposal were first made public recently. That is, of course, different than it not having been raised. One article characterized that the international draft was "still" a requirement, implying it has been there for some period of time. Even beyond that, both of these parties are sophisticated and it is ridiculous to suggest that they were not aware of the possiblity of the international draft being a topic at any point in the negoitation. So the fact it has been commented on by both MLB and MLBPA for literally years makes it pretty hard to argue it is some last-minute thing---these sides have both prepared elaborate negoitation strategies, scenarios, and sets of tradeofs on all sorts of issues and there's essentially zero chance the international draft was not amongst them.
So, I will say that while I see no facts to support this, I do think IF the parties agreed on a set of issues to work through earlier in the process and THEN either party added a new issue late that neither was on the list, NOR related to a concession made on those identified issues, that would be considered bad form by most negotiators. If you are asserting that happened here, I'd be curious the basis for saying so. As others wisely noted, our visibility into what's been discussed is really, really limited and so there's a huge difference between "hasn't been publicly reported" and "hasn't been discussed between the parties"
Thank you for finding and posting this helpful article. It's written by Ben Lindbergh, which to me gives it even more credibility.MLB has been talking about the international draft for literally years (5 seconds of googling returns articles on this back to 2014). It is not at all a new issue and there is zero evidence or reason to believe either side hasn’t considered the issue.
While people may not track it super closely, the reporting doesn’t actually suggest it is a new issue in this round of negotiation, only that the details being made public is new. If I were guessing, that’s because making a deal to get MLB players more money in exchange for an impact on unrepresented international players has some drawbacks…though not so much for the owners.
That last challenge makes me wonder if this is a real must-have issue or a designed concession to get some more value back on the tax or more core terms….
Perhaps---I'm not sure that is anything other than a heroic assumption.Thank you for finding and posting this helpful article. It's written by Ben Lindbergh, which to me gives it even more credibility.
The gist is that about 60 percent of league revenues went to players in the early 2000s (peaking at 63 percent in 2003), but that had dropped to around 50 percent by 2010, where it remained pretty much unchanged until 2017. The piece was written in 2018, so 2017 was the last year of data. The numbers come from MLB, of course, but the MLBPA did not object to them, and as PKB notes, the piece includes interviews with a few top sports economists who essentially vouch for the accuracy of those splits.
Unquestionably, then, the players lost a substantial share of league revenues between 2003 and 2010. However, my reading of the piece is that, far from being bamboozled by ownership--as the players arguably were in 2016--the union made strategic decisions in the 2002 and 2006 CBAs to recalibrate the revenue split to something like 50/50 in exchange for a long and prosperous stretch of labor peace. As league revenues went up, so did players salaries, since the players were holding steady at around a 50 percent slice of the pie up until at least 2017. 2022 presents us with something entirely different--league revenues going up, but player salaries going down.
This is almost certainly not true, and I just don't understand how you can make comments like this with such certainty. The author of the very piece you linked to, after weighing all of the facts and evidence I presented earlier, characterizes things this way:What I would say if I were a player is that MLBPA, with no doubt good intentions and with a tough counterparty, chose a strategic path that led to a major reduction in share of revenue in exchange for a conceptual thing (no cap) which did not actually benefit me personally.
1. That "fawning" stuff that I cited was written not about Gene Orza but about Don Fehr, who is universally regarded as having been an excellent executive director of the MLBPA.A cynical person might even suggest that the fawning stuff about Orza you cited was to some degree a function of reporters who wanted to keep their sources happy (and sometimes, expert economists who wanted to keep getting hired).
Or maybe it won’t take that long.We can go back and forth all day, there will be more comprehensive and detailed reporting about the process once it's settled and then we'll see.
I think its impossible to argue that MLBPA didnt make pretty significant mistakes either in their strategy or the implementation of the strategy over the last twenty years. Primarily:Perhaps---I'm not sure that is anything other than a heroic assumption.
What I would say if I were a player is that MLBPA, with no doubt good intentions and with a tough counterparty, chose a strategic path that led to a major reduction in share of revenue in exchange for a conceptual thing (no cap) which did not actually benefit me personally. Labor peace is then less a goal than a product of a strategy that gave away a lot of actual value for almost nothing in return (just a conceptual benefit of 'no cap')...it is pretty obvious the owners will be happy continuing on that path.
Others may be more sympathetic to MLBPA than I, but as I noted pages ago I think the idea that they've done a great job strategically is largely a function of support for the players, not a real assessment of MLBPA's approach or their results. A cynical person might even suggest that the fawning stuff about Orza you cited was to some degree a function of reporters who wanted to keep their sources happy (and sometimes, expert economists who wanted to keep getting hired).
There may be a contrary case to be told, but the results for MLB players are a whole lot worse than other sports in the same timeframe---at least, than NFL and NBA, I don't follow NHL closely enough to have an informed opinion.
I don't know what you see in that article but what I see is a clear articulation that: (1) the antitrust exemption is stupid, and indeed based on comical notions about the nature of professional sports; and (2) that getting rid of the antitrust exemption would not shut down the sport or require really radical changes in how it operates but would (3) modestly move the sport away from anti-competitive practices. And therefore (4) if a bunch of Congressional leaders got together and plausibly threatened to take away the antitrust exemption unless the owners bring this lockout to an end, the lockout would come to an end, right away.If you're serious, I'm really surprised you don't understand. I mean I'd guess that you know that baseball's antitrust exemption isn't statutory - it's common law, right? And you also must know that all of the other professional sports leagues, while each not having a exemption specific to its sport like baseball does, collectively enjoy special ("relaxed" is one way of putting it although not strictly correct) status viz-a-viz the antitrust regime, right?
I think you would agree that any legislation that is two pages is done mostly for show. Even if any two-page piece of legislation were to be passed (not a chance), it would likely simply overturn Federal Baseball and its progeny which would mean that baseball would simply have the same status as the other professional sports leagues. Which doesn't seem to be a bar to the way the NBA, NHL, or NFL does business.
Overturning Federal Baseball wouldn't have any effect on baseball. If anyone really wanted to deal with baseball, they'd have to deal with all case law dealing with all professional sports. That's definitely not going to happen.
This article says a lot of the above in a different way: https://promarket.org/2021/05/06/eliminating-baseballs-antitrust-exemption-georgia-boycott-republicans/
I don't understand. What am I missing?Steve cohen seems to be putting his fellow owners on blast
View: https://twitter.com/chelsea_janes/status/1501655723784220679
Unclear? I think those are the kind of details still under debate.Does the CBT still include draft penalties?
Great. Split the difference and let's play ball.They are pretty close on the CBT at least, if MLB backs off some of their last minute demands, we might have a deal soon.
View: https://twitter.com/bnicholsonsmith/status/1501663619200790531?s=21
We'll see---there is reporting it has been discussed between them since January, so I think it is more likely that what is going on here is a set of players reacted very negatively to it being in a proposed deal and MLBPA is now backing off---Rosenthal has leaned "player" in his sourcing on CBA stuff. You'd have expected the 'MLBPA will never agree to this' to come out right away, not after players were on twitter complaining about if otherwise. But neither of us knows whether it came up in January or the context for today.Or maybe it won’t take that long.
View: https://twitter.com/dplennon/status/1501652078049083392?s=21
Ken makes a good point why the MLBPA are opposed to thatRegarding the international draft, it seems like MLB is really pushing for it and MLBPA is resisting, perhaps in exchange for other concessions.
View: https://twitter.com/chelsea_janes/status/1501669957712687110
Split the difference is actually difficult in mediations -- especially emotional ones. It's tempting when numbers are close to think that it should be somewhere around the midpoint and get done, but this is sometimes when mediations are the most fragile.Great. Split the difference and let's play ball.
To be that close on each set of those numbers and not be able to look across the table and say, "OK lets finish this." stupid.They are pretty close on the CBT at least, if MLB backs off some of their last minute demands, we might have a deal soon.
View: https://twitter.com/bnicholsonsmith/status/1501663619200790531?s=21
We also - and I know your post intentionally simplifies this for the sake of the illustration - do not know if ‘resolution’ of issues are linear, ie, if the sides seemingly agree on the CBT thresholds, that could suddenly become contingent on favorable resolution of ANOTHER issue.Split the difference is actually difficult in mediations -- especially emotional ones. It's tempting when numbers are close to think that it should be somewhere around the midpoint and get done, but this is sometimes when mediations are the most fragile.
The problem with splitting the difference is that both sides always want to say "split the difference" after the last side has made an offer. So many arbitrations crater over mis-timed "split the difference" approaches that a good mediator stays the hell away from talking about midpoints until he or she is very sure that the midpoint is within both side's authority.
Consider the following simple offer and counter offer scenario. A is the plaintiff and B is the defendant.
A. $40 million
B. $1 million.
A. $30 million.
B. $5 million.
A. $22 million
B. $7.5 million
A. $18 million
B. $10 million
A. $15 million
B. $12 million
This is a really good mediation so far. If you're the mediator, you're happy. Now, imagine A says, let's split the difference -- Call it $13.5 million. B is like "no fucking way -- we just came up $2 million and now you're basically asking us for another $1.5 million without giving anything back." What B wants is A to come back at $14 million so B can then say "split the difference."
Could this really productive hypothetical mediation crater over $500,000? Absolutely. Happens all the time. A comes back and says, "but we made the first offer, so we're on track." B starts saying things like, "but that was a completely bullshit offer -- $40 million was never real, so we basically made the first real offer." Etc. Now feelings are bruised.
The numbers on CBT are close enough that it seems time to move on to other issues and see if they can get resolved. If I'm a mediator here, I put a bookmark on CBT and I hold back the last $5 million gap on CBT until I see whether one side is being asked to give something big on the other issues, and then I go back to it to give one party the extra round on CBT to make up for whatever else they just gave up.
View: https://twitter.com/JeffPassan/status/1501702438440652800What a bunch of BS. Just get this deal done and that goes for both sides.
View: https://twitter.com/martinonyc/status/1501700375530909700?s=21
yet, the owners did not even make their first proposal until SIX WEEKS later"Simply put, we believe that an offseason lockout is the best mechanism to protect the 2022 season. We hope that the lockout will jumpstart the negotiations and get us to an agreement that will allow the season to start on time. This defensive lockout was necessary because the Players Association's vision for Major League Baseball would threaten the ability of most teams to be competitive. It's simply not a viable option. From the beginning, the MLBPA has been unwilling to move from their starting position, compromise, or collaborate on solutions.
I doubt it. They start missing games players are gonna cry about getting paid and the owners won't wanna pay them. Its gonna get much worse now.The past two days make me more confident in a deal sometime in the next two weeks. But it's hard to tell what's real and what's not in the Twitter smokescreen game.
Yes and no.The players' last offer was ENTIRELY reasonable. Owners are guaranteed to get one of the the things they want, and the owners don't even respond. That's ludicrous and just show the owners want a pound of flesh in some way.
The worst thing is, the international system is bad, and if the sides truly agree to play ball and negotiate until November, they could come up with a deal that is fair to the players but eliminate the shady deals cut unofficially when players are 12.