Let me add a new thread about the negotiations over restarting baseball. My old thread is here:
What MLB is proposing is similar to the revenue sharing plan that the NFL and NBA have had for decades. It's what the owners have proposed several times 1/x
What MLB is proposing is similar to the revenue sharing plan that the NFL and NBA have had for decades. It's what the owners have proposed several times 1/x
in MLB. Split the revenue between ovwerns and players at x percent for one and y perfect for the other. So simple right? Nope. It's a complete overhaul of the salary system baseball and not something that can be agreed to overnight. That doesn't even get to whether 2/x
the players actually would want it. (Hint: they don't). First, in baseball most revenues are local revenues - tickets, tv contracts, radio deals, concessions, parking, etc. Nobody knows what those revenues are except for each individual team. They share some local revenues 3/x
but mostly don't. This is significantly different than the NFL where the vast majority of the revenue is brought into through league and divided evenly. Baseball owners have always held everything close and kept their revenue sources secret and proprietary. They already hide 4/x
it from each other, why would they share the data with the players. But, that said, what if they were all above board and showed all of their income? Having a revenue split necessitates a cap and a floor, two things that the players have repeatedly rejected. Each puts 5/x
considerable pressure on salaries at the top to be reduced in order to pay those at the bottom. It almost necessitates an individual player maximum, another thing that the MLBPA won't agree to. It only creates cleavages between the players because every dollar one receives (6/x)
takes it from another player in the Union. That's an anti-solidarity agreement, putting players in competition for a finite amount of dollars. Having no individual cap and no team cap (I recognize the salary tax system serves as a de facto cap) allows players to receive 7/x
without being in direct competition for the same exact dollars. It's not a zero sum game.
But, what's disturbing more than the proposal itself or the media shills saying the players have to accept it for the good of the game, is that this is merely shock doctrine. 8/x
But, what's disturbing more than the proposal itself or the media shills saying the players have to accept it for the good of the game, is that this is merely shock doctrine. 8/x
It's a crisis, so the owners are trying to force the issue when they couldn't achieve it in CBA negotiations in the past or future. Very complicated issue that should take months to negotiate in the best of times. The answer is no. Let's talk about it in two years and follow 9/x
our prorated contract MOU that we negotiated in response to this very situation for this situation. 10/10
