Getting your pay cut in half isn't really a cut at all since you're only playing half the schedule. They would still be making the same salary on a per game basis.
Now the owners are asking the players to take less money per game. For somebody like Bieber it's not much at all.
The March 26 agreement reduced Bieber’s contract to $315,466. Tuesday’s proposal would drop it to $274,438.
Bieber would only be losing $41,000. But Mike Trout OTOH would lose about $10 million.
The highest-paid MLB players would take the biggest cuts under the proposal. Players earning $35 million for 2020 would receive $7,843,363.
The $17.5 million for playing half a season under the March agreement would be cut almost $10 million. To me it's only fair that the highest earners take the biggest hits. They still end up making a ridiculous amount considering they're playing a half season.
The players' position is they should be paid as if the owners were selling tickets, concessions and merchandise even though they won't be. I think that's not realistic.
The players want the owners to eat 100% of the lost revenue for playing in front of empty seats. Their argument is the owners made huge profits in recent years so they should basically donate some of that money to the players so nobody has to play for less on a per game basis.
I'm not sure some teams, like the Indians, made huge profits in recent years. I also feel it's only fair that both the players and owners share the financial losses since it's not either of their fault. It's fair that the players with the biggest contracts take the biggest reductions. I don't have a problem with Lindor and Santana playing for only $4.6 million if Bieber is getting $274K.