[ESPN] MLB suspends spring training, delays Opening Day at least two weeks

If the players want to stand behind the March Agreement, it calls for no games to be played under current conditions or for further negotiations. Two MLBPA representatives were informed prior to the March Agreement being signed that pay would have to be negotiated in a subsequent agreement if games could be played without fans as the March Agreement did not cover pay in this scenario.

If the agreement called for pro-rated salaries under the current conditions, MLBPA should force arbitration or bring to court instead of playing on people's feelings through the media. While the owners can't force the players to negotiate a lower salary, the players can't force pro-rated salaries per the March Agreement. As players have not made any notable concession regarding pay, at least some of the blame has to go on them.

As the dead lock lasts, at some point, pro-rated salaries will work for the owners. At that point, if games aren't played, it will all be on the players.

Granted: The above should not be taken to express my love for the owners. It is merely a reflection that I think the owners have better lawyers while I think the players are acting on emotion instead of logic.

 

No you wouldn't, because their CBA's already cover all of this. If there are no fans, revenues go down, meaning salary cap goes down, and player salaries are automatically cut. It makes perfect sense - both sides share the suffering. It's built into their economic design. It's the same system that resulted in the huge increase in NBA salary cap when the NBA signed their new TV deal. Both sides could complain, but legally they would already have a system to move forward that both sides agreed to.

Yes the no-fan scenario was discussed - The agreement specifically said there would have to be further discussions in that scenario and that it was not already accounted for. Trying to make further adjustments is literally what they said would need to happen - its the exact opposite of bad faith.

Pro-rated salaries addressed the lack of certainty in what portion of the season might be viable. The benefit MLBPA got was a guarantee of about $200 million even if there were zero games. The benefit MLB got is that the players wouldn't sue or try to recover salaries for unplayed games. Beyond that, everything remaining to start a season was left to negotiation. That includes lack of fans or financial uncertainties.

If MLBPA doesn't want to further discuss salaries, that's seems to be basically the end of that. There's no benefit or reason for MLB to run a season where they are losing money on each game they play.

 

Their NBA salaries that are already in place now are still going to be paid. Sure, new salary offers from there on out get affected by cap space, along with buyouts, etc... but NBA teams specifically would not be proposing additional cuts now because 80% of their revenue has already been accrued. Had they had to propose additional cuts, the players would likely oppose that. On top of that, there are several MLB teams that feature rosters that are void of a truly high salary player.... and these teams still can't afford to pay a pro-rated share simply because of how each teams' individual finances are supported. Its a problem amongst each owner in baseball, not necessarily a "salary cap". A salary cap/floor based on revenues actually serves to force some small market owners to have to pay more than they are right now.

The bad faith is the they did not have discussions or negotiations... they simply announced there would have to be further cuts.

The key argument here is that not all teams would lose money based on each game they played... and the few ones that did probably don't make up the bulk of teams or employ most players... but the owners have kept that info private.

 

So you're expressing your love for the lawyers?

 

And if not, why not??!!!??

 

They didn't have to propose additional cuts because the additional cuts *automatically happen*. If revenues come in below expectations, everyone's salaries go down automatically. The salary cap is based on projections, but if BRI is lower than intended, salaries can retroactively get cut and players have to pay back that money if already paid (in practice, some of it is escrowed and just doesn't get paid out). The NBA doesn't have to propose anything - players get a set % of BRI and salaries automatically go up or down based what BRI comes in at.

It seems obvious on the surface that if you planned for fans, and then have no fans, there would have to be cuts. The negotiation is how to get there. Both sides made a demand with no discussions or negotiations; in both cases, the other side rejected it, so by your standard, both sides were acting in bad faith. Players have been equally as stubborn on this.

As is their right. Players don't have to believe the owners - that's their right too. The end result is almost certainly no season. ESPN did the numbers for us, so we already know owners lose at least $600,000 per game based only on local TV revenues vs payroll. They make that up from tickets, concessions, and national TV revenues (largely playoffs) and are losing the tickets and concessions part here. It's pretty easy to see the math, and it's easy to see the players will lose somewhere around $700M-$1B by not playing a season vs the owner's proposal. The owners will likely come out better with no season vs anything close to the MLBPA proposal. Plus it puts the players in a tough spot with any future strike. So the owners, realistically, have all the leverage and should just wait it out. There's basically no downside for them doing so.

 

ESPN is accurate, but they have not added in the opportunity cost, the value of future leverage, and the simple fact that both offers are at a loss. Those things all have value. It's not as simple as they want to make it out to be. I do agree that the owners have all the leverage here. And unless the value of the franchise falls, which it won't, they are winning each and every minute regardless.

 

I have filed with patent for: "Replacement Players Lives Matter."

 

Spoiler

The Players Association isn’t convinced Major League Baseball actually wants to play in 2020.

In a letter sent Wednesday, Major League Baseball deputy commissioner Dan Halem detailed the different reasons the league rejected a proposal for a 114-game season from the Players Association. On Friday, top union negotiator Bruce Meyer sent a blistering response, accusing MLB of employing a “cynical tactic of depriving America of baseball games,” while adding that the league “has done nothing to persuade” the players that its financial claims are accurate and warning that the union has no obligation to an expanded postseason if the league attempts to implement a schedule it picks on its own.

“We are happy to hear that ‘the Commissioner is committed to playing Baseball in 2020,’” Meyer wrote in reference to Halem’s letter, “since MLB’s course of conduct continues to lead to doubts.”

The league’s well-known position is that it wants the players to take additional reductions. If players do not, Halem said that 27 of 30 teams would endure financial losses for each regular season game played. The Players Association has received some underlying financial documents from the league to support those claims, but has requested additional verification.

“You confirmed for us on Sunday that players are unified in their view that they will not accept less than 100 percent of their prorated salaries, and we have no choice but to accept that representation,” Halem’s letter ends. “Based on that position, the positions espoused in your counterproposal, the significant health risk of extending the regular season past September, and the fact that we have missed our June 1 deadline for resuming Spring Training by June 10, we do not have any reason to believe that a negotiated solution for an 82-game season is possible.

“Nonetheless, the Commissioner is committed to playing baseball in 2020. He has started discussions with ownership about staging a shorter season without fans. Assuming that those discussions go well, we will notify you at the appropriate time of our intentions. In the meantime, we stand ready to discuss any ideas you may have that might lead to an agreement on resuming play without regular fan access in our stadiums.”

In explaining the league’s formal rejection of the union’s proposal for a season of 114 games, Halem cited six areas in a three-page letter, a copy of which was obtained by The Athletic: The calendar, the number of regular-season games, the end date of the regular season, deferral of player salaries, postseason risk and player opt-outs.

“We are uncomfortable from a public health perspective extending the regular season into October,” Halem wrote. “In addition, your proposal ignores the realities of the weather in many parts of the country during the second half of October. If we schedule a full slate of games in late October, we will be plagued by cancellations.”

In its letter Friday, a copy of which was also obtained by The Athletic, the union called the refusal to consider October games “wholly unjustified,” noting that the league waited until the final week of May to make its first proposal for economic concessions.

“The March 26 Agreement contemplates a discussion of playing regular season games in October and calls for the league to use ‘best efforts to play as many games as possible,’” Meyer wrote. “‘The league’s excuses for not doing so have no validity. Meanwhile, other leagues are moving forward with their plans for resumption.”

The union also suggested that the league consistently cries poor.

“Even assuming that this is an appropriate basis for the league to frustrate the playing of baseball games (we note that the league frequently claims that it has negative operating profits from playing baseball yet it still puts on baseball games every year), the league has done nothing to persuade us of the veracity of its claims,” Meyer wrote.

At least for now, the league’s stance is that it will pursue a season of 50-plus games and not submit a formal counter-proposal to the union’s 114-game offer.

Postseason media deals valued at a potential $787 million will account for a large percentage of league revenue in 2020, Halem said. One concession the players offered in their proposal was a deferral of $100 million in player salaries, with 6 percent interest, if the postseason is canceled.

Halem rejected that idea, saying, “this deferral would provide more of an economic benefit to the players than to the Clubs because it is unlikely that players would receive a 6 percent return by investing their salaries in the current environment.”

In addition, Halem said teams have already taken on an additional $2 billion in debt and, “do not have the financial capacity to push more 2020 financial obligations into future loans and years without impacting their financial stability.”

“Our Clubs anticipate generating approximately $1.2 billion in RSN revenue in an 82-game season, but player salaries at 100 percent proration will cost Clubs approximately $2.1 billion in player payroll expenses,” Halem wrote. “Under many RSN agreements, Clubs would fare even worse economically if we were to play a significant number of double-headers, as your counterproposal contemplates. The other incremental revenue from playing additional games is offset by the costs of staging games, particularly in light of the additional incremental costs necessary to implement the COVID-19 protocols (including, for example, between $40-$50 million for COVID testing alone).”

Union head Tony Clark previously told The Athletic that in a meeting Sunday, commissioner Rob Manfred informed the union, “we can pay you 100 percent of salary right now.” While Manfred might have been referring to paying that amount in a shorter schedule, Meyer pointed out Friday that teams are not missing any payments from regional sports networks and wrote “the league has no liquidity issues.”

The players in their proposal sought to provide opt-outs with pay and service time to players who are at high risk for COVID-19, as well as for those who live with someone high risk. They also wanted to allow players at lower risk to opt out because of health concerns and still receive service time.

Halem acknowledged a forthcoming discussion on opt-outs, but suggested the league would not entertain giving service time to players who do not fall into a high-risk category, or live with someone who does.

“We will not entertain providing every player who chooses not to participate in the 2020 season with Major League service,” Halem wrote.

In addressing the possibility the league unilaterally sets a schedule for 2020, Meyer noted that the union would reserve its rights, preserving the possibility of a grievance if the league moves forward with a 50-game slate. Meyer also warned the league from taking too much into its own hands.

“The March 26 Agreement requires the parties to meet in good faith to discuss the process by which players will prepare for the season,” Meyer wrote. “The league’s declaration that it will inform us in its own time of its plans is not consistent with that Agreement.”

The union also indicated that the health protocols and other details were not yet finalized.

“We also continue to await a revised and updated version of the proposed 2020 Operations Manual incorporating the comments we provided you in writing on May 21, along with proposals from the league regarding on-field rules, rosters and transactions, and other back to work issues that will need to be agreed upon by the parties,” Meyer wrote. “We will be available at your convenience to continue those discussions, including over the weekend.”

 

Can you show me where a decrease in the basketball salary cap automatically causes all current salaries to go down?

I thought we already went through this exercise after the China/Morey debacle and everybody projected the cap to be cut by several million... but I don’t recall seeing how that would impact existing signed contracts, just ones to come.

 

Can't shoot 'em all.

Sorry, @MadMax

 

You should read the CBA's of the various Leagues, you don't seem to understand things.

 

Can we at least get dueling emails. What century are we in.

 

I fully understand how/why the cap can fluctuate in leagues that have a cap.

But do players with active contracts get forced pay cuts when the cap goes down? It certainly effects free agents and new contracts.

Baseball owners/players have also both been reluctant to accept an NBA type luxury tax capped system... scrapping the current pre-arb years altogether.

 

It's all in the CBA if you'd like to read it, but a quick google search comes up with this article. Basically, unless they negotiate an alternative, they have to pay back money out of pocket if the cap ends up higher than 51% of revenues. Players normally escrow part of their salaries and that part is paid out once all the accounting is done. If the BRI is lower, they won't get all the escrow money. It's normally rarely an issue because they don't miss the revenue forecast by that much, so escrow would take care of it. But every year, if BRI is lower than expected, players don't make whatever their stated contracts say. It's a system that avoids the whole MLB issue by connecting salaries directly to revenues, so both parties' incentives are aligned.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/bryant...of-huge-revenue-drop-in-2020-21/#7ac7bad0cc85

Neither the NBA nor the NBPA appear interested in a drastic one-year decline in the cap, so the two sides will have to find another way to make the numbers work. The collective bargaining agreement limits players from receiving more than 51 percent of BRI in a given season, but many players are already under contract for set amounts in 2020-21.

Players could agree to allow the NBA to withhold a larger percentage of their salaries in escrow next season to protect against another revenue shortfall relative to BRI projections. If they don't, they could find themselves having to pay back their teams out of pocket or having full paychecks withheld in 2021-22.

Here is another more detailed article:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/bryant...er-salaries-has-only-just-begun/#5dd1b4a554e3

While most players are paid on a biweekly basis—and thus should have enough remaining money owed to them to cover any shortfall—a few have a shortened pay period that ends May 1, according to Wojnarowski. If their remaining salary can't make up the difference, they'll either have to pay their teams back right away or have salary withheld in 2020-21. For players who get traded this offseason or sign with a new team in free agency, their new team would withhold their first paycheck (or paychecks) and reroute it to their old team.

 

Thanks. Very informative.

There is still the likelihood of a needed negotiation of player reduction in salary that happens if the NBA hadn’t played most of the season. They have yet to have to invoke such measures, but it’s not a problem they’re completely immune to.

Fan attendance still represents almost half of their revenues as well as the NFL’s. No league will come out financially “ok” with no fans.

 

Agree that no league will come out OK. Leagues will make less and players will make less, but all of that is built in.

If the NBA plays 50% of their games and 50% of their revenues are from fans, they end up making 25% of their normal revenues. Players would then get paid 25% of what they expected to using the already-existing structure with no negotiations required.

If MLB plays 50% of their games and 50% of their revenues are from fans, they end up making the same 25% of their normal revenues. Players would get paid 50% of what they expected to based on what MLBPA wants - and they consider that already a major sacrifice.

This is ignoring postseason revenues which are not connected to per-game season - which does have a substantial impact - but you can see the difference in the basic numbers and where the unique problems exists for MLB.

 

But again, baseball being highlighted/targeted because their season never started.

I do not feel NBA players would happily accept beyond initial paycuts for an entire season, regardless of explicitly built in or not.

 

Man... what a shame if there is no baseball season in 2020.

 

2020 was perfectly set up for the Oakland A’s. Instead, they will be one of the biggest losers in baseball if the season is canceled.

https://whitecleatbeat.com/2020/06/07/supposed-oakland-as-year/

Go Mike Fiers!!!