Read on Twitter
This article is a good summary of what I've been saying about the unlikelihood of a delayed MLB season. In the absence of a national, state, or municipal restrictions on non-essential businesses, there is no option for the Commissioner to cancel or suspend the season. 1/x https://twitter.com/EvanDrellich/status/1345851776268984329
There are essentially 3 options I have suggested:
1–follow the CBA, which has a 162 game schedule
2–negotiate a shorter season w/ a new, larger split of increased playoff revenue to the players, which would create a pattern for the 2022 season's new CBA
3–violate the CBA
2/x
1–follow the CBA, which has a 162 game schedule
2–negotiate a shorter season w/ a new, larger split of increased playoff revenue to the players, which would create a pattern for the 2022 season's new CBA
3–violate the CBA
2/x
The third option has been floated by several in MLB's media inner circle (those who are frequently the mouthpieces for the Commissioner). But, they don't call it violate the CBA. They refer to it as invoking force majeure to delay opening day. This article rebuts that theory 3/x
But, more than that, the Commissioner moved forward with the season last year under the same risk of business closures. There is nothing different this year. Without government enforced closures, there is no reasonable argument that this year is different. MLB cannot cancel 4/x
or delay the season.
But, what if it did? It would be liable for the salaries for players who didn't play. Not only would baseball owe the players' their salaries, but it would be cutting off the local tv revenues it would have otherwise earned, had the games been played. 5/x
But, what if it did? It would be liable for the salaries for players who didn't play. Not only would baseball owe the players' their salaries, but it would be cutting off the local tv revenues it would have otherwise earned, had the games been played. 5/x
Sure, MLB wouldn't earn ticket revenue or other ballpark and associated revenues. But, it would be cutting off all revenue with the likelihood that the grievance arbitrator would rule in favor of MLBPA and award full salaries to all players for games that weren't played. 6/x
There's no real appeal to court for an arbitrator's decision, if properly written, so we're talking about full salaries to all players for the full 162 game schedule regardless of how many games MLB plays. Better to play them than not.
The status quo CBA puts the MLBPA 7/x
The status quo CBA puts the MLBPA 7/x
in a relatively strong position.
Option 2 has a lot of downsides for the players over the long-term. Others who know more about economics have explained the negatives for free agents about expanding playoffs. But, if they are expanded, the PA will insist on a 50-50 split of 8/x
Option 2 has a lot of downsides for the players over the long-term. Others who know more about economics have explained the negatives for free agents about expanding playoffs. But, if they are expanded, the PA will insist on a 50-50 split of 8/x
new playoff TV revenue, just as it did in the 2020 season restart negotiations. How that's distributed among players is a different question that we haven't been privy to. It could mean a higher minimum, larger playoff shares, or other options I haven't considered. 9/x
. @BizballMaury has reported about the increased TV revenue. It's a lot to distribute if ~50% of the increase goes to players; I'm sure there are novel options.
And, any agreement to expand playoffs in 21 will include this subject as a prelude to 22 and beyond. It's the #1 issue.
And, any agreement to expand playoffs in 21 will include this subject as a prelude to 22 and beyond. It's the #1 issue.
