Thread by @EugeneFreedman

After the negotiations concluded today I got a number of questions about a possibility of a players' strike. What follows is probably going to be a long thread, so buckle up. Preceding a strike there would have to be a lot of internal union activity, including goal setting, 1/

member education, a vote of the leaders, and likely a vote of the membership (I haven't reviewed the MLBPA Constitution to see if the process is laid out). A vote usually only authorizes a strike at a later point - frequently determined by the leadership. You can't go 2/

into a strike without a goal. It's not just to pressure the employer. There has to be a substantive goal to achieve, otherwise you won't have the members united once it's achieved - some will consider it a waste of time/effort and lose faith in the union. You have to educate 3/

the membership on the status of negotiations, what management is doing, why your proposals are fair and reasonable and must be accepted, and what the goals of the strike are. Without solidarity, you have nothing. And, you have to have a validation of that solidarity through an 4/

authorization vote. It's both empowering of the membership and makes them take a public commitment. It also shows management solidarity of the membership. They can't cleave a divide between the union leaders and the members. They are one. Then, you use that authorization as 5/

leverage in the negotiations. Presently, a strike authorization is no leverage at all. Management has locked the players out. Withholding their labor makes no difference when the bosses are prohibiting them from labor already. But, what about if the lockout ends and spring 6/

training opens on time and the season is set to begin as scheduled? What if management concedes the lockout didn't achieve its goals and they want the players to play. Would the players then authorize a strike vote? I don't think so. At least at this point. The reason is those 7/

goals. What are they? The Union has been pretty clear in what it wants out of the new CBA-pay players earlier in their careers, end or reduce service time manipulation, eliminate team disincentives in free agency (draft pick compensation), and make tanking less attractive-more 8/

competitive teams means more competition for free agents-means higher pay. But, what happens if there is no lockout? The players continue to play under the last CBA. Those terms and conditions remain in full force and effect. They are not ideal fo the players, however they 9/

are also not ideal for management either. The owners want expanded playoffs. The status quo doesn't achieve that objective for them. The owners want a new CBT - remember the old CBT sunset at the end of the regular season. There is no CBT threshold or tax under the status quo.10/

So, if MLB ended its lockout, free agents could sign and teams would have no risk (at least immediately) of paying a tax on free agents above the prior threshold or even the Union's proposal in bargaining. In fact, no two or more teams could act in concert to reduce their 11/

salary expenditures. That would be collusion. They couldn't say, we're just all sticking with the old $210M limit or event the $214 that management has proposed. Steve Cohen could go right on signing the top free agents without any concern of penalty and any other owner who 12/

called him out would just be giving the Union more evidence for its grievance. The CBT is to reign in owner spending, nothing else. Sure the draft pick compensation scheme would continue in effect. Dumping (ahem) rebuilding teams would continue doing their thing, but at this 13/

time, a strike doesn't make sense from a leverage perspective. The offseason without a CBT is a good time to live under the old CBA. Some of the other things can be negotiated to apply retroactively, including service time credits toward arbitration next offseason. There's 14/

little risk to the Union in beginning the season on time without those new rules in effect. Even the minimum salary can be negotiated to start mid-season or even retroactively. Many unions negotiate a signing bonus for bargaining unit employees or retroactive raises paid as 15/

lump sums upon signing or within a number of pay periods thereafter. Those things can all be made up for.

The Union doesn't gain leverage in terms of timing until much later in the season. MLB's shared revenue is paid out mostly in the later part of the season and during 16/

the playoffs. That's when the bulk of the $58M/team in national TV revenue will begin to flow. Unless you're the Dodgers,* that $58 is half of the team's non-ticket revenue.

*The Dodgers local TV revenue outpaces almost all other teams by a large magnitude. 17/

The Pirates for example, earn $50M in local TV, likely spread out over the full 6 months of the regular season. They earn $58M like all others from the national TV deals. They get other shared revenue from streaming, etc. They get some from the Commissioner's small market 18/

fund. They probably get $120M+ before a single ticket is sold. They spent $55M last year on player salaries. A strike in August puts them at risk from a huge profit center to closer to a break even proposition if the playoffs are canceled. But, what about other 19/

lower* revenue teams that actually are spending to compete. If they are spending $100M or they are in their window and upped it to $130-150M, they will be at risk of major losses.

* There are no low revenue teams, only relative levels. 20/

When the Commissioner unilaterally implemented the lockout, he said (paraphrasing) it was to put pressure on the parties to get it done quicker. Then his team took a 43 day Christmas break. Hey, the uberwealthy need vacations too. That's not exactly trying to get it done 21/

quicker. But, I digress. There was no pressure on his own side. Their big pressure point is the pennant race and the playoffs. The players don't get paid until the regular season starts. No pressure on them yet either. It was a falsehood, not much different than his saying 22/

a lockout is just part of the process. No, it's a tactic that can be employed voluntarily, but is definitely not required and infrequently used by employers.

All that said, the players aren't likely to strike now. It makes no sense. They want to bank their salaries 23/

in that first 4 months of the season. They want to take the pressure off the league minimum players by letting them earn some money. They want to maximize the risk to management while reducing their own at the same time. I don't even think they would vote to authorize a 24/

strike until much later in negotiations. Why lose the fans by voting too early. Use it when you need the leverage. Sometimes a strike vote accomplishes your goal without a strike. That's what it's for. It creates pressure without using power.

An end for now.