MLB OWNERS PROPOSE 50-GAME MICRO SEASON
Negotiations enter so-called deadline week with no deal in sight to save the season
In the back-and-forth negotiations between Major League Baseball players and owners, designed on getting the 2020 season started during the coronavirus pandemic, the latest counter proposal from owners is for a micro season in the neighbourhood of 50 games, ESPN reported Monday.
The owners originally proposed an 82-game regular season to start in early July, followed by playoffs. On Sunday, the MLB Players’ Association countered with a 114-game season that would start June 30, followed by playoffs.
According to Monday’s report, the owners are willing to relent to the players’ demand of a pro-rated portion of salary by number of games played. But instead of meeting in the middle on how many regular-season games would be played, the owners are now considering “a schedule of around 50 games,” according to the report by Jeff Passan.
Under the owners’ latest proposal, the season would get underway on an unspecified date in July.
The players believe that an agreement between the sides back in March awarded them a pro-rated portion of their salaries based on games played. The owners believe the same agreement gives them the ability to mandate a shorter season, as well as the ability to further reduce player pay if fans aren’t in the stands for games.
The consensus is that a threeweek renewal of spring training is needed before players take the field. If the shortened season were to start on July 1, teams would need to return to a spring training setting by June 10.
The dispute between MLB and the union regarding the terms of the 2020 season, which has now been delayed 9½ weeks by the coronavirus outbreak, is fundamentally over money — and, in that regard, the sides remain an ocean apart, with time running short.
As the sport entered what had been considered its deadline week — when an agreement would need to be reached to launch “spring training 2.0” in mid-june and the regular season around July 4 — it was still unclear how, or whether, the league and the union can bridge their differences and get baseball back on the field.
The union’s proposal on Sunday was notable for what it didn’t include: namely, any concessions on 2020 salaries. Though this was to be expected, after union leaders, including Washington Nationals pitcher Max Scherzer, signalled last week their continued opposition to further pay cuts, the proposal served to entrench the players even deeper into that position.
In the league’s own proposal last week, it had called for a second round of cuts to player salaries on a sliding scale, with the most severe cuts going to the highest-paid players. The league contended it would lose significant money for every game played without fans unless the players agreed to the additional salary reductions.
The players had previously agreed in March to accept pro-rated shares of their 2020 salaries based on the number of games played. In the 82-game season proposed by MLB, that means players would receive roughly half of their original salaries.
The current dispute stems from the vague language in that agreement: The players believe the matter of compensation was settled, while the owners contend the agreement pertained only to games with fans present, and that games without fans require a second “good faith” negotiation to account for the lack of in-stadium revenue.
The union’s firm stance — no further discussions over salaries — informed its proposal on Sunday. That proposal contained only one small financial concession: players would agree to defer with interest $100 million in 2020 salaries, focused on the highest-paid players, in the event the post-season is cancelled or shortened. The union also framed the expanded post-season and an offer to contest a home run derby and all-star game in the off-season as revenue-generating events for the league. The union also proposed a $100-million salary advance for players at the start of spring training 2.0; a $170-million advance agreed to in March was scheduled to expire on Sunday.
MLB worries that a second wave of coronavirus in the cooler weather of the fall could jeopardize the post-season, its primary source of revenue, which is one reason the league proposed a shorter regular season and a post-season contained within October. Players, however, earn more in salaries for each regular-season game, based on the pro rata agreement from March, which informed their proposal for an additional 32 games (beginning June 30) and a post-season pushed into November.
The union’s opt-out proposal, meantime, called for players who choose not to play in 2020 to be divided into two categories: Those who are deemed high-risk (for example, because of pre-existing medical conditions) or who live with someone deemed high-risk would receive both their salary and their accrued service time, while those who do not meet those criteria would receive service time but not pay if they opt out.
The respective proposals from MLB and the union leave the sport still in need of a major breakthrough in economic negotiations. The main reason for optimism is the shared understanding that the nuclear option — killing the 2020 season in a dispute over money — would have devastating consequences for the sport, both in the short and long term.
The first week of June was considered only a soft deadline for a late June/early July start to the regular season, and the sides could continue negotiating and push back the targeted Opening Day.
But each week that passes makes it more difficult to achieve both objectives of a longer regular season (to maximize players’ pro-rated pay) and an expanded, completed post-season (to maximize owners’ revenue).
The sides remain philosophically opposed on their core beliefs. Something has to give. Reuters, with files from the Washington Post