The Owners Say:
We need more of it. If our richer teams give some
percentage of their revenues to our poorer teams --
not from all of their revenues, mind you, just a
percentage from the local revenues -- teams will be
on more of an equal financial footing and
competition, theoretically, will improve. It helps
everyone. |
The Player Say:
We're all for improving the ability of the
small-revenue teams to pay. But not if it's going to
hinder the ability of the big-revenue teams to shell
out mega-deals to mega-stars. And we don't want to
reward poorly managed teams by handing them
revenue-sharing checks. |
Outlook:
This may be the biggest sticking point in the
negotiations. At last look, owners wanted to up the
revenue shared from $186 million to $253 million,
with each team basically kicking in half of its
local revenues. Players countered with a plan that
would up the percentage from its current 20 percent
to about 22.5 percent. The two sides differ on what
formula should be used to distribute the money, too.
Owners want the money to be evenly divided among all
the teams. Players want something that gets more
money to the more needy teams. |
|
|
|
The Luxury Tax |
The Owners Say:
We're willing to tax teams that exceed a set amount on
player payroll. We'll do it for a couple of reasons.
One, to try to prop up the poorer teams (that's where
the taxes will go). Two, maybe a tax will discourage the
richer teams from going overboard on salaries. |
The Player Say:
We agreed to this last time and it didn't really work.
There's no need for it. We believe a decent revenue
sharing plan should take care of any problems. We're
concerned with any plan that puts a limit or penalty on
how much a team can spend on its players. |
Outlook:
This one will be a stickler, too. The last luxury tax
plan -- this is also called a competitive balance tax --
didn't slow salaries at all. The current proposal calls
for a 50 percent tax on each dollar over $98 million
spent on player payroll. The money would go into a
discretionary fund run by the commissioner's office. |
|
|
|
Contraction
|
The Owners Say:
Baseball has to eliminate at least two teams, and maybe
more, as a means of weeding out the financially weaker
teams. That will give a bigger slice of the economic pie
to those who remain. And it will help the league in a
couple of ways. First, because of the improved
economics, the remaining teams will be better able to
compete for talent and the competitive imbalance will
improve. Second, fewer teams mean more concentrated
talent, which improves the game as well. |
The Player Say:
The owners can't simply eliminate teams without our OK.
It's not that we're so adamantly against contraction.
Some of us say it's a negotiable point. Many of us agree
that the talent level has thinned too much. But an
elimination of teams would mean a loss of a lot of our
jobs. That has to be negotiated. |
Outlook:
Arbitrator Shyam Das will decide before July 15 whether
owners can unilaterally impose contraction. If Das rules
in favor of the owners, contraction is alive and kicking
and the players can't do much about it. If he rules in
favor of the players, contraction could be dead, at
least for now. Or, if the owners want to press on, it
could be used as a huge bargaining chip for the players. |
|
|
|
Drug Testing |
The Owners Say:
Steroid use is a big concern. It undermines the
credibility of the game. More than that, it could be
costing us a boatload of money. A lot of these players
using steroids may end up on the disabled list with all
sorts of pulls and strains and side effects we still
don't know about. And we still have to pay them!
Granted, home runs and increased scoring sell. But it's
definitely not good for us, or America's pastime, to be
viewed as a haven for pumped-up athletes on illegal
performance-enhancing drugs. We are for banning steroids
and other drugs and for some sort of testing to make
sure the ban is effective. |
The Player Say:
We've fought off any attempt at drug testing in the past
with the argument that it's an invasion of privacy. But
we may be willing to talk this time around. Steroid use
may have helped many of us get stronger, hit more home
runs and get bigger contracts, but it has hurt those of
us unwilling to use the illegal drugs. And many of us
believe the continued use of steroids endangers the
health of our peers. A return to a cleaner, safer game
won't be easy. But many of us are willing to listen to
ideas on how we might go about doing it. |
Outlook:
Some kind of compromise is possible, but not without
plenty of teeth gnashing. There seems to be enough vocal
leadership in the union for some kind of testing
program, but there are plenty of problems both in
detecting steroids and in figuring out what to do with
players once they are found to be using. It's such a
complicated task, it seems unlikely the two sides can
agree on any comprehensive plan that will immediately
have any major impact. |
|
|
|
Arbitration Changes |
The Owners Say:
We'd like to tweak the system so that we can cut a
player if, within five days of exchanging salary
figures, we so desire. (Right now, once figures are
exchanged, the player is considered signed to a
contract.) We'd also like to eliminate a level of
eligibility, known as "Super-Two" and offer a minimum
contract to those players in that class instead. |
The Player Say:
We absolutely oppose the idea of dumping a player once
the exchange of figures has taken place. And losing the
"Super-Two" level of arbitration is a step backward.
Frankly, the whole arbitration process is demeaning and
often fruitless -- but it's better than just taking what
the owners offer and waiting six years until you can be
a free agent. |
Outlook:
The vast majority of players who file for arbitration --
87 percent from 1990-2001 -- settle on a contract before
going in front of the arbitrator. Those who don't:
Through the 2001 season, the owners had won 250 cases,
the players 191. Still, this issue is important to the
union, and the two main issues -- the owners' desire to
take away the "Super-Two" classification and to be able
to dump a player after the arbitration process has
started -- are big sticking points. |
|
|
|
Fighting Penalties |
The Owners Say:
Fighting cannot be tolerated. Players who engage in
fighting should be fined and suspended without pay. This
isn't hockey, for heaven's sake. Fine 'em, suspend 'em,
fine those who come to their aid and streamline any
appeals process. |
The Player Say:
Fining's fine, as long as it's not out of hand. And a
suspension, same thing. But we absolutely will fight the
notion that we don't get paid while we're suspended. |
Outlook:
This is one of those proposals that is out there for the
compromises, so one side can say, "Hey, we gave you
that," when they're looking for a little leeway on
another point of negotiation. Don't expect the
suspensions without pay to get passed without a lot of
arguing. But owners will get something out of this so
they can say they're cracking down on violence in their
sport. |
|
|
|
Minimum Payroll |
The Owners Say:
We're more than willing to set a minimum payroll to
ensure that every team at least has a base for
competing. We'd like a maximum payroll, too -- a salary
cap -- but we know that's not happening. |
The Player Say:
Nope. Don't want it. To set a minimum payroll is
anathema to everything we believe. The free market
should set how low a payroll can be. Or, as everyone
always points out, how high it can go. |
Outlook:
It doesn't seem that a minimum payroll is necessary, and
it's certainly not welcome by the players, especially if
a revenue sharing plan or luxury tax, or some
combination, is passed. That'll help ensure the
small-revenue teams have a hefty enough payroll,
according to the union. Still, a figure for a minimum
payroll -- $45 million, to be exact -- is on the table.
Maybe negotiable, maybe not. |
|
|
|
Worldwide Draft |
The Owners Say:
With the increasing globalization of the game, we want
to include players from Latin America, Asia, Australia
and elsewhere in a 40-round amateur draft that includes
"domestic" players. That way the talent pool is widened
and, at the same time, we can get a handle on more
players from more places so that there is a fair and
equitable division of talent. We also want to be able to
trade draft picks. |
The Player Say:
We can talk. We've countered with a 16-round draft, with
eight rounds for international players and eight for
American players. The rest would become free to sign
with any team. |
Outlook:
There will be some tweaks and compromises. The current
draft is 50 rounds and covers only "domestic" players,
generally meaning players from the U.S. and Canada,
players who attend an American school or players who
come from a U.S. territory (mainly Puerto Rico). Getting
a system in place to deal with international players is
vital to the long-term growth and future of the sport --
and that means it's important to both owners and
players. |
|
|
|
Competitive Balance Draft |
The Owners Say:
This is another way to address the competitive imbalance
many of us see in baseball today. Generally speaking,
the eight teams with the worst records will be able to
take minor league players from the eight playoff teams
in a draft each December. Because it's usually the
low-revenue teams that don't make the playoffs, this
will effectively enable low-revenue teams to draft
players from high-revenue teams. |
The Player Say:
We don't, as a rule, like plans in which players are
treated as so much coinage. But this could be workable.
We'll want to get a firm hold of this and make sure any
plan where players are drafted and forced to change
teams is fair to everyone. |
Outlook:
There are wrinkles to be considered. The owners propose
that any team that finishes in the top half of local
revenues but finishes in the bottom eight of the league
would be ineligible to draft. On the flip side, a
small-revenue team (bottom half of local revenues) that
somehow makes the playoffs can't have its players picked
off. A compromise can be reached, it seems. |
|
|
|
Information Bank |
The Owners Say:
We want a way to verify offers made to free agents. This
is the only way we can get a true handle on what the
market is so we won't overspend on free agents. Our
plan: Have an independent party verify offers. |
The Player Say:
No, no, no. This used to be called collusion. It's just
a way of conspiring to keep salaries down. What if you
have two employers fighting over a player? It's not in
the player's best interest that each knows what the
other is offering. |
|
|