MLB Lock-Out is Finally Freakin’ Over

[bob2the2nd]

They seem to think that some of the small market teams are essentially sandbagging, and not spending revenue sharing dollars on player salaries. So that's how they're trying to change the rules regarding revenue sharing.

But I think the bottom line is that MLBPA doesn't think the survival of small market teams is their concern/responsibility.

For a very short period of time I worked for a small family owned duct work factory. The local Duct Workers union (or whatever) kept trying to get into the company and this was their typical view that survival of the company wasnt their concern. They viewed things as the amount of work isnt going to suddenly go away, so its irrelevant if company A has the work or Company B has the work. To some extent I agree with the MLBPA, as far as I am aware no team in professional sports has just stopped existing in the last 40-50+ years because it couldnt pay its bills. Worse case the current owner sells and the team goes to another city. Presumably a city that has more money and where players can get paid more.

That said its a fucking terrible way of tryign to prop up an industry, and for a while I really hated unions because of this exposure to them. You cant run a union completely blind to the industry you work in. There has to be some trust and some partnership

 

[BimboColesHair]

Except the MLBPA hates revenue sharing and wants to drastically reduce it. Their solution isn't to enforce that revenue sharing must be spent on player salaries, their solution is to cut revenue sharing altogether.

They don't hate revenue sharing, they believe it doesn't work and incentivizes teams not to spend as opposed to what they thought it would do for less profitable markets when it was first introduced to the league in the 90s. And they don't want to reduce it because they're "anti-small market".

The only thing I believe the MLBPA to be anti is anti-Poverty Franchise. They don't like franchises saying they're broke and unwilling to spend on MLB talent or put an MLB caliber product on the field all while collecting a net payout of ~$100m every season from revenue sharing once payments and payouts from the pool are completed.

They're rightfully asking where those funds are going since, in some cases, its clear to them it is not being reinvested back into MLB payroll which is what it is intended to do.

Now, on the flip side, teams are required to provide receipts to the league on where the funds they got from revenue sharing were then spent, cause as mentioned it is supposed to be spent all on MLB payroll. So it's a bit of he said, she said right now on this topic between the 2 groups.

Players think the lack of spending and lack of attempt to field a competitive MLB product year-in and year-out from 5-10 teams every season not only hurts their pockets when it comes to how much they get signed for, but hurts the product as well.

Owners from smaller media markets believe if they spend to the levels of LA or NY or Boston to keep talent or to sign free agents they will no longer run a profitable business model and kneecap themselves in the future at being a profitable business, and will eventually price themselves out of players yet again.

It all comes back to who you believe. Do you believe the players and that they think ownership groups are crying wolf about their actual yearly profits and have an issue with them not reinvesting back into their MLB talent and product? Or do you believe MLB teams in smaller markets would lose so much money and fold if they were forced to spend more to compete with the teams that already spend a ton of money?

A big issue with revenue sharing moving forward is something not even being talked about much in this CBA negotiation, but both sides have had preliminary discussions about in preparation for the next CBA down the line. RSN's are going to be a thing of the past soon. That is going to cause massive problems with the revenue sharing system as it is currently.

 

[sportscoach]

Except the MLBPA hates revenue sharing and wants to drastically reduce it. Their solution isn't to enforce that revenue sharing must be spent on player salaries, their solution is to cut revenue sharing altogether.

@The Human Q-Tip @bob2the2nd @BimboColesHair as well

Maybe what they need to do is essentially make the revenue sharing number as the minimum cap? That way teams have to spend a certain percentage of their revenue sharing...

 

[BimboColesHair]

@The Human Q-Tip @bob2the2nd @BimboColesHair as well

Maybe what they need to do is essentially make the revenue sharing number as the minimum cap? That way teams have to spend a certain percentage of their revenue sharing...

That is already somewhat required.

By August 15th of each league year teams have to submit receipts of where every dollar of their revenue sharing profits were spent and a performance related plan on how they intend to use their funds gained through revenue sharing to improve their competitiveness to the league office, otherwise they can lose a good chunk of their revenue sharing profits. And any money gained through revenue sharing has to be spent "in an effort to improve its performance on the field".

The MLBPA believes not everyone is meeting that requirement and the league office is looking the other way.

 

[daddywags]

It all comes back to who you believe. Do you believe the players and that they think ownership groups are crying wolf about their actual yearly profits and have an issue with them not reinvesting back into their MLB talent and product? Or do you believe MLB teams in smaller markets would lose so much money and fold if they were forced to spend more to compete with the teams that already spend a ton of money?

I think they are both right. I see no reason why it has to be one or the other.

 

[BimboColesHair]

I think they are both right. I see no reason why it has to be one or the other.

Problem is it is hard to figure that out, as the owners don't make their full financials known. Makes transparency an issue from the players association's standpoint.

The Braves and Blue Jays are the only teams with published financials, quarter to quarter and year to year, because they are owned by a public company.

 

[daddywags]

Problem is it is hard to figure that out, as the owners don't make their full financials known. Makes transparency an issue from the players association's standpoint.

The Braves and Blue Jays are the only teams with published financials, quarter to quarter and year to year, because they are owned by a public company.

Not to quibble but hard to know doesn't mean untrue. I quite understand why players are skeptical about financial claims when they are unable to test the veracity of such claims. I can also understand why privately held businesses would prefer to keep their financials private. Both sides are represented by competent legal and economic advisors, this isn't their first rodeo.

 

[BimboColesHair]

Not to quibble but hard to know doesn't mean untrue. I quite understand why players are skeptical about financial claims when they are unable to test the veracity of such claims. I can also understand why privately held businesses would prefer to keep their financials private. Both sides are represented by competent legal and economic advisors, this isn't their first rodeo.

100%.

There is a reason the middle ground is almost always met in any CBA negotiation for any league, not just the MLB.

 

[CATS44]

Its a wonder.

Some teams receive revenue sharing every year, but their payrolls never go up. Thats a lot of annual spending on player development, etc.

Esp when you consider that some teams...Pittsburgh comes to mind...never seem to develop players.

Perhaps, teams should be required to spend a percentage of their revenue sharing directly on increased payroll for the MLB team. What doesn't get spent goes back in the pot for the other smaller market teams....or just fine a non spender enough money to really hurt, which would eliminate the shenanigans.

Using fake numbers, a team receives $40 mil in revenue sharing. It is required to spend $25 mil additionally on its MLB roster. (If the payroll was $60 mil, it has to jump to $85 mil.) If not, the team loses its entire $40 mil....or make it even higher. Make it so high that no owner will be willing to pay it.

Not one honest owner acting by the letter of the law would oppose such a suggestion. The ones lining their own pockets would.

Which is why such a suggestion has little chance of becoming a reality.

 

[Criznit]

That is already somewhat required.

By August 15th of each league year teams have to submit receipts of where every dollar of their revenue sharing profits were spent and a performance related plan on how they intend to use their funds gained through revenue sharing to improve their competitiveness to the league office, otherwise they can lose a good chunk of their revenue sharing profits. And any money gained through revenue sharing has to be spent "in an effort to improve its performance on the field".

The MLBPA believes not everyone is meeting that requirement and the league office is looking the other way.

I believe the MLBPA is 100% correct here. How egregious the offenses are I surly do not know, but accounting of the spent shared revenue dollars appears laughable/non-existent.

Owners are likely to be less than helpful in this arena of the negotiations.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

That is already somewhat required.

By August 15th of each league year teams have to submit receipts of where every dollar of their revenue sharing profits were spent and a performance related plan on how they intend to use their funds gained through revenue sharing to improve their competitiveness to the league office, otherwise they can lose a good chunk of their revenue sharing profits. And any money gained through revenue sharing has to be spent "in an effort to improve its performance on the field".

The MLBPA believes not everyone is meeting that requirement and the league office is looking the other way.

Seems to me that is broad enough to encompass scouting, practice and training facilities, minor leagues, data collection and analysis, etc.. I mean, all those things really exist to put a better major league product on the field, right?

 

[33Y0]

 

[jup]

Seems to me that is broad enough to encompass scouting, practice and training facilities, minor leagues, data collection and analysis, etc.. I mean, all those things really exist to put a better major league product on the field, right?

Correct

And the PA looks at it solely from a payroll standpoint.

But it is kind of like a typical government thing - out here in CA, start the lottery with the proceeds having to go strictly to education. Passes. So they cut funding out of the general budget that used to pay for education, spent that money elsewhere (all the pet projects they couldn't/didn't want to rqise taxes for) and used Lotto money for education - slight of hand - education funding was suppose to go up - never did.

I am sure revenue sharing money gets spent on making the team better to meet the letter of the "law". The question becomes what happened to the other money that would be used for "player" purposes, that would have paid those expenses if there was no revenue sharing. And that money is not disclosed. So did the "money towards player payroll/enhancement" really advance ? Or did the owners just use the revenue sharing money to replace other revenue that they would have had to use for those purposes ?

I think that is a little more too the point about revenue sharing proceeds and why the PA has a problem with it.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

Correct

And the PA looks at it solely from a payroll standpoint.

But it is kind of like a typical government thing - out here in CA, start the lottery with the proceeds having to go strictly to education. Passes. So they cut funding out of the general budget that used to pay for education, spent that money elsewhere (all the pet projects they couldn't/didn't want to rqise taxes for) and used Lotto money for education - slight of hand - education funding was suppose to go up - never did.

I am sure revenue sharing money gets spent on making the team better to meet the letter of the "law". The question becomes what happened to the other money that would be used for "player" purposes, that would have paid those expenses if there was no revenue sharing. And that money is not disclosed. So did the "money towards player payroll/enhancement" really advance ? Or did the owners just use the revenue sharing money to replace other revenue that they would have had to use for those purposes ?

I think that is a little more too the point about revenue sharing proceeds and why the PA has a problem with it.

That sounds exactly right to me. I can see why the two sides view that differently, and in some sense, neither is really wrong.

 

[Gson]

Correct

And the PA looks at it solely from a payroll standpoint.

But it is kind of like a typical government thing - out here in CA, start the lottery with the proceeds having to go strictly to education. Passes. So they cut funding out of the general budget that used to pay for education, spent that money elsewhere (all the pet projects they couldn't/didn't want to rqise taxes for) and used Lotto money for education - slight of hand - education funding was suppose to go up - never did.

I am sure revenue sharing money gets spent on making the team better to meet the letter of the "law". The question becomes what happened to the other money that would be used for "player" purposes, that would have paid those expenses if there was no revenue sharing. And that money is not disclosed. So did the "money towards player payroll/enhancement" really advance ? Or did the owners just use the revenue sharing money to replace other revenue that they would have had to use for those purposes ?

I think that is a little more too the point about revenue sharing proceeds and why the PA has a problem with it.

Correct... sources of cash.. uses of cash.. it's the owner's sandbox & the adjunct version of the golden rule prevails: He who has the gold, makes the rules...

With highly limited restraint..