True. I propose a 99%-1% split.

True. I propose a 99%-1% split.
by Hunt (2020-05-20 09:15:24)

In reply to: MLB owners proposed a 50-50 split for 2020 posted by HScorpio

It's a tough and complicated situation.

When players enter into bad deals (either collectively as a CBA or individually in contract negotiations), the general mindset is "Hey, it's business. You agreed to a bad deal. It's on you." There obviously is some reality to that. But it never seems to go the other way.

Along with those splits that the NFL, NBA, and NHL have, the books are essentially open. That is not the case in the MLB, and owners still aren't willing to open the books. Also, there is a salary floor that all teams must adhere too. There is no salary floor in MLB either, and they don't want one. So the MLB owners are asking for all the benefits of a revenue-sharing agreement with the players, but aren't doing any of the other things that go along with it. They want the best of both worlds.

Listen, this is a unique situation. I'm not saying the players shouldn't be willing to negotiate and give some. But a huge part of this is on the owners. THEY agreed to a CBA that did not tie salaries to revenue. THEY have always refused to open the books. THEY signed a deal about the 2020 season that did not include per-game salary reductions in case of no or limited crowds.

But this is America. If you're rich enough, profits are always looked at as good, smart business and capitalism (while anything that costs them money is shouted down as socialism), but losses aren't their fault need to be fixed by socialism.

you're a bit off base

the players don't want a system where the pay is tied to revenue as they see it as a salary cap and they'd never agree to a salary cap. What is basically being said at this point is that the players agreed to a pro rated salary based on number of games played (true) and the owners are saying that, while they did agree to that, both sides agreed to continue to negotiate if fans couldn't attend the games (in dispute).

Nobody has made any formal proposals as of yet and the owners are again negotiating in bad faith by leaking things to the press before taking it to the players. I believe that the owners see an opportunity here with the weaker (than in the past) leadership in the mlbpa.

Well, many players are debating in the media too. *

mlbpa leadership is very lacking

never would have happened in the Don Fehr era.

Agreed...but

I agree with all that.

But I also think that if the owners want the cost certainty of the players getting a certain percentage of the revenue, they also need to do the other things that the other leagues are doing. Opening the books is a huge one.

Is this a true "employer/employee relationship" or is this a partnership? If it's an employer/employee relationship, the players have no right to the books...but risks like economic issues like this also fall on the owners (until they choose to pass it on to the players via future individual contract negotiations and the upcoming CBA negotiations). If it's a partnership, then that's a different issue.

But who in their right mind would agree to revenue sharing if the other side isn't showing you the true revenue?

At this point in time, it is pretty much a non-starter

this is decades of mistrust.