Bleacher Bums Forum

I mean it is going to be a mess.
1) Salary cap- will the players give in
2) Revenues- will teams put revenues that have been considered outside of the team on the table.  For the Cubs it would mean Wrigleyville and Marquee profits.
3.) Revenue split to come up with salary cap

I don't see that being super complex.  Easy answers for first two. 
1) Salary cap- will the players give in
No.  No-brainer.  Not complex or messy.  Definitive no. 

2) Revenues- will teams put revenues that have been considered outside of the team on the table.  For the Cubs it would mean Wrigleyville and Marquee profits.
No. No-brainer.  Not complex or messy.

The existing boundaries of shared-pool local revenue are already defined, no?  Local broadcasting/television revenue, ticket sales, concessions, and sponsorship revenue.  I don't anticipate much messiness fighting over redefining those boundaries/definitions. 

3.) Revenue split to come up with salary cap

What percentage of shared-pool local revenue gets shared, that's a clear area for negotiation.  Should 48% become 50% or 60% or 70%, that's a negotiation question.  But redefining what's counted into shared-pool local, I don't think that's a big-deal fight? 

Your basically thinking that it is going to end up being a status quo CBA.

The players may not want it a salary cap, but their are enough big and small cap teams that want it.  I think a large chunk of the season is going to missed fighting over the salary cap and what is the revenue that makes the salary cap.

You are basically thinking it is a status quo CBA and not the Armageddon CBA that is coming up.  The players lost the last CBA by being too agreeable.  They want to take back revenue.  The owners, outside of the Dodgers and Mets, don't think the status quo is working.  It is going to be a fight.

The players are employees. It is not the employees’ job or responsibility to manage the business and make it more profitable for the owners or to have divisions within the management structure be “more competitive” within that structure. Indeed, under labor law, employees cannot insist on negotiating over these managerial responsibilities—except to the extent it impacts employees’ pay and working conditions.

That’s the starting point. Owners manage. Employees are not co-managers of the business. When some baseball writers say that the players have a kind of quasi co-responsibility for the integrity of the business model—baloney. Not the way American corporate structure is modeled or recognized under labor law.

Other sports have some form of salary cap because the unions in those sports haver never had the bargaining party to resist. Never had the solidarity to inflict pain on ownership.

If MLB players want to assist the owners to come up with creative solutions to manage the owners’ business and have the business model be “more competitive”——fine. If the owners want that, good.  By all means.

And if the players ultimately agree to some form of salary cap, it will be because they now lack the bargaining power and solidarity to achieve the players’ best interests. Remains to be seen. If the owners are serious about losing a season or a very big chunk of a season, it will be because they now believe the MLBPA is too weak and divided to resist.

Or, maybe the owners themselves are divided or will be at crunch time. Remains to be seen.

Maybe owners don’t really believe the Union is weak and will settle before games are lost or too many are lost. Remains to be seen.

Assuming more or less equal bargaining power on both sides, the parties will reach an agreement when both sides are in pain or near-pain and can live with the offer on the table. Don’t have to be enthusiastic about it; just can live with it.

Just heard on the Score, that percentages of tv packages and home receipts have been saved over the last 4 years as a war chest for clubs.  Each club has $75M tucked away to survive a long lockout.  Just reporting, don't know if true.

Yes.  100% TV sharing in NBA/NFL.  Local TV deals in mlb share only 48%. 

The variance in local-TV revenue is the dominant factor that differentiates Dodgers from Cubs or Brewers, and that differentiates mlb from NFL/NBA.   

But that % is subject to negotiation in the next CBA.  Is it going to jump from 48% to 100%, obviously not.  That's more implausible than salary cap.  But might it jump from 48% to 53% or 62%?  Incremental adjustments relative to status quo seem plausible. 

....Other sports have some form of salary cap because the unions in those sports haver never had the bargaining party to resist. Never had the solidarity to inflict pain on ownership....

And if the players ultimately agree to some form of salary cap, it will be because they now lack the bargaining power .... to achieve the players’ best interests. ...

...Remains to be seen.

Assuming more or less equal bargaining power on both sides, the parties will reach an agreement when both sides are in pain or near-pain and can live with the offer on the table. Don’t have to be enthusiastic about it; just can live with it....

Several tangent thoughts, reb. 

1.  Agree. Owners would like to improve the status quo.  But the status quo is win-win, and neither side will want to destroy mlb.  Negotiation and compromise will happen as always, but in the end there will be a deal.  The 7 Cubs post-FA starters average over $20.  Not sure how acute their pain?  Players will eventually want to play.  There will be a fight; but in due time a compromise will be reached.  Killing the entire season would be lose-lose and the two sides won't mutually commit to that.  Too much profit for both sides to mutually self-destruct. 

2.  Reb, Your primary premise is that if the players agree to some form of salary cap, it will be contrary to the players’ best interests.  It's obviously never going to happen, of course, because the players union has always held your premise. 

3.  You have a second premise that NFL and NBA players are worse off, because they have salary cap due to weaker unions that induce less adversarial pain. 

I'm uncertain if either premise is true?  Per simple Google AI, the percentage of revenue 51%/48% for NBA/NFL, versus 42-47% for mlb.  How much worse off are the NBA/NFL guys?   

Reb, you rhetorically note:  "If MLB players want to assist the owners to ....have the business model be “more competitive”——fine."

Your view is that adversarial pain must be the only path to any CBA.  But if fan interest grew, revenue grew, and the players agreed to an NBA/NFL-style 50%, might that not actually be to mutual advantage?  More fan interest, more revenue, a higher cut of revenue, which of those would be contrary to player interest? 

Admission:  Referencing the 50%-of-revenue earnings for NBA/NFL is a vulnerable logic chain.  Baseball's lower %-of-revenue reflects higher operating costs.  NBA/NFL have cost/free player-development in college, no minor league costs.  NBA team has one stadium; NFL maybe 3-4 additional practice fields.  Cubs have both Wrigley; plus 6-7 fields in massive Mesa complex; plus ~6 other fields/stadiums divided between Dominican and A-AA-AAA minor-league teams.  More operating expense.  Cubs play 162 games plus spring plus post-season, Bears host maybe 12?  More operating expense.  Cubs have much larger volume of front-office/scouting personnel and analytic costs, etc..  More operating expense. 

Still, it's not really obvious that NBA/NFL players are doing any worse than mlb players; salary cap may not provide meaningful disadvantage?   

Baseball doesn't need a salary cap. They need a solution targeted at one rogue franchise. That's hard to do but a cap is not the answer and the players will never agree to one anyway.

There may be enough owners who feel the Dodgers are bad for the game to find some common ground with the union on possible fixes. More revenue sharing makes a lot of sense but it doesn't really do anything to deter the Dodgers. They've made it clear no amount of financial penalty will be any deterrent to them - they just don't care. Something like a forfeiture of draft picks and IFA money targeted at extreme offenders - with real and severe penalties when clubs abuse the system like the Dodgers do - might be a possibility.

A great idea if you want to encourage teams to tank.