Interestingly, something similar to this happened in 1890 with the formation of the Players League, which lasted only that one year. A fascinating era of baseball, indeed. Albert Spalding, John Montgomery Ward and what is referred to as the "Civil War" of baseball.
Yeah. I don’t know a lot about this because I haven’t ever studied it, but I know it existed and have heard stories. I presume that it would be harder then than now to form a break away player league because the talent was more dispersed then, hadn’t been discovered in a lot of places and wasn’t discovered. We have about 1200 major leaguers on an active roster in MLB. They are probably all amongst the top 2000 or 2500 baseball players in the world (other leagues, minor leagues, amateur ball making up the rest of the top 2500 in baseball), and they probably represent something like 98 of the best 100 players in the world (and we know that to be true). Back then when guys weren’t discovered from elsewhere you could plausibly argue that your hometown hero might have been as good as the guys playing in the official and sanctioned professional leagues. Now, you just can’t make that argument anymore as the talent is found and collected so much more efficiently. But, that’s just a guess on my part.
Toughest part today would be finding stadiums to play in and getting TV deals. Without that you simply can’t compete
No doubt. That’s logistics and it matters and is important. I was more thinking about the demand side did the equation with people being willing to watch the zombie MLB or not today vs back then.
So I’m starting to get the sense that there are about 5 or so owners that are extremely cheap and preventing the MLB from reaching a deal. Can one owner kill any deal? Would be kind of silly if that were the case.
I think it takes 9 owners to kill a deal. The owners as a group typically are ruled by the small markets.
I'd say those teams (mid-to large market) are going to be the ones who stand their ground. The small market teams are likely never going to get close to the CBT threshold (unless they're in a true contending year), however the above teams have shown the ability to raise payroll very high at times when the finances make sense to compete. There just needs to be a more unified system.... as now there could be a whole other category of 'market' (teams that could spend more if worth it, but not spend more continuously/indefinitely). The Astros are certainly part of that group.
Small and mid market teams like having 50% of luxury taxes distributed to them, like the other half going towards player benefits (instead of from their pockets), and like being competitive (more an abstract thought for teams like the Pirates). The Yankees and Dodgers brand are worth so much when those teams are winning that they are probably fine with the players' proposed CBT thresholds as it means they pay less and their opponents don't get their money.
Better system needed. As the finances of the game continue to grow (as they optimize streaming, TV deals continue to be inflation proof, and they get rid of April for good), they are going to be arguing about the threshold indefinitely, and yes... half the teams (or more than half the teams) look at it from a different point of view than others.
Best system from my point of view would be sharing the revenue of all broadcasts/streaming. Every team's games are available for purchase on the internet from MLB regardless of the fans location. No more blackouts. Players (MLB and minors) get X% of revenue (estimated by viewership/number of people in stands to keep owners from gaming the system). Minimum MLB salary at least $1.5M. Minor leaguers get paid $50-75K per year not counting bonuses. Free agent salaries get scaled up and down to meet that percent. All players hit free agency at 28 years old or 9 years of service (major and minors) depending on which happens first (may need some tweaking for players signing internationally).
Owners will never agree to anything like that cause they ain't opening their books...why do you think they won't open their books? Also, the high high salaried players are the ones negotiating all of this, they give good words about wanting the lower paid players to have it better, but notice their biggest issue is one that would benefit them the most, not the lower end players lol Both sides are F'd
That point about teams games available for purchase on the internet... is that additive to getting your local stuff on an RSN or instead of that? Because if it's instead of I think that's a non-starter for me. Also, if you did this it would allow lots of people to cut the cord. Which would make the RSN's less valuable. Which would mean they pay less to the teams (or are diminished in value if the actual teams own them) and be a net loss of value. RSN's are free riders on the system, sports fans get more than they take. Now- is the blackout rule way too expansive? Yes. I don't think you can get a teams located east of I-35 in Vegas for example b/c they are all claimed as home locations. It's stupid. But I don't think that switch is as easy as you think it is. As far as the minor league pay- that is totally and completely beyond the scope of MLBPA and they have ZERO interest in making those guys part of the union (not should they). There are sooooo many more players in MiLB than MLB that they would run the union and it would be a disaster for the guys in the bigs. Does that mean that you can't negotiate for someone else not in your union? I mean, I guess maybe technically no. But what would your incentive be. I wouldn't hate 1.5M minimum salary. My personal number that I think is fair/reasonable to both sides is 1M. And maybe $100k for being on the 40 man roster as a bonus at the beginning of the year would make some sense. If you are on the 40 you are part of the majors as basically a form of a teams taxi squad, and if everyone is going to get paid more I don't have a problem with those guys benefiting more than pro-rated pay when they get called up. I think that would be fair and good.
Curious what you mean, "get rid of April for good." Are you suggesting that the regular seasons will start in May at some point?
One of the minor upsides of this getting resolved soon is I'll never have to see the term "Master Agreement" again, which bothers me because it's not a real thing and CBA is the proper terminology. I've held off on this for months now.
This is from my perspective if I had unilateral control. Fans being able to watch competitive games either in person or at home at a reasonable cost is priority one. Making players and owners happy is secondary. Though on opening the books, the only things owners would have to open in my system are how many people watch and how many people come to games.
On minor league pay being out of scope of the MLBPA, the draft, restrictions on what drafted players can sign, and preventing drafted players from signing MLB contracts should also be out of their scope as well. Any drafted player should be a member (or at least a junior member of the MLBPA) or the MLBPA needs to get the draft out of their CBA. If I had unilateral control, minor leaguers would be added to the MLBPA. If MLBPA objects, I'd keep minor leaguers out of MLBPA, but send MLBPA members less money and more money to the minor leaguers out of spite.
The way their TV deals are structured, they don't have to give any money back if they miss a month's worth of games. Also attendance is usually sparse in April (minus opening day). Of course future TV deals will probably stop paying for 25-30 extra games that don't happen. Apparently the owners wanted the same thing in 2021 (start the season later) citing "covid".
