Not much harmony thus far

Sources: Union unhappy with financial proposal presented by ownership

Major League Baseball officials submitted their first formal proposal to the players regarding the financial terms of the sport’s return to action on Tuesday, leaving the union disappointed, according to multiple reports.

Several outlets reported that the union leadership was unhappy with the owners’ proposal that players accept reduced salaries, with the highest paid players taking the biggest hits.

The sides likely have about a week to 10 days to iron out their differences if they are to reach an agreement in time to start the season around July 4, the date in the plan the owners had presented two weeks ago.

One source, who was familiar with the health and safety discussions, on Tuesday characterized the sides as also “far apart” on that front.

Owners initially floated the idea that players’ salaries would be capped at a predetermined percentage of the revenue, but players balked at that idea before it ever became a formal offer.

The latest offer, according to multiple reports, would not tie salaries to revenue, but instead have players accept reductions right off the bat. Rather than

have all salaries cut by a flat percentage, the higher paid players would take bigger cuts, according to reports.

“We made a proposal to the union that is completely consistent with the economic realities facing our sport,” MLB spokesman Pat Courtney said. “We look forward to a responsive proposal from the MLBPA.”

In March, the sides agreed to a deal that would pay players a small percentage of their salaries in April and May, regardless of whether games were played, in exchange for players still receiving service time in 2020.

That deal also called for players to be paid a prorated portion of their full salaries based on the number of games played.

In an 82-game season, as has been proposed, all players would then make roughly half of their full salaries.

While players believe that agreement settled the issue of salaries, owners contend that agreement was contingent on games being played with fans in attendance.

As it now appears a foregone conclusion that the season would at least begin in empty ballparks, thereby slashing the teams’ revenue, owners are seeking further reductions in salaries.

Owners have contended that if they paid players their full salaries, even on a per-game basis, for games without fans, they would lose more money by playing than by not playing. If no games are played, owners would lose TV revenue but pay nothing in player salaries for the rest of the year.

Although the financial agreement seems to be the largest hurdle for the sport to resume, the two sides also must agree on the safety protocols that would allow players to return to action during the coronavirus pandemic.

A 67-page document detailing the testing, social distancing and cleaning procedures was sent from owners to the players earlier this month.

One area that could be subject to negotiation is in the 2020 schedule. The union would like to play more than 82 games, since it would mean more money for players, while MLB is proposing an expanded, 14-team playoffs in order to capitalize on higher revenue from television in the postseason. As part of its proposal Tuesday, MLB reportedly offered to share more postseason revenue with players.

Both sides are mindful that many experts are predicting a second wave of coronavirus to hit in the fall, which has kept the sport from considering an expanded schedule that goes into November or December.

But those officials were also readying for the task of briefing the union’s 1,200 members and were not prepared to say what their next move would be.