Read on Twitter
I'm going to parse the first part of this article. Others are more qualified to discuss the economic effects of expanded playoffs on player salaries, so I'll leave that to them.
The first part of this article reads like an MLB press release, which shouldn't surprise anyone. 1/x https://twitter.com/BNightengale/status/1350094783604133890
The first part of this article reads like an MLB press release, which shouldn't surprise anyone. 1/x https://twitter.com/BNightengale/status/1350094783604133890
Let's look at the details of the planted leak - which comes from someone in the Commissioner's office. The Universal DH & roster size are no different than playing field rules. They are not separate & distinct issues, but that's a bit of slight of hand to make it seem like 2/x
the game play rules (7 inning double headers & runner on 2nd extra innings) have less value in negotiations than Universal DH & 26-man rosters. All are mandatory subjects of bargaining. There is also another tell. The first two are presented as a fait accompli. Meanwhile, 3/x
the other two are treated as though they are more complicated and bogged down. Yet, there is a tell, the Universal DH is something that both parties have an interest in. It's a shared interest. MLB is merely using it as a leverage in other truly unrelated matters. 4/x
The 26-man roster, though, is an economic issue because of service time, the extra financial expenditure, etc.
The real issue here is the expanded revenue from expanded playoffs and how that new revenue is shared. That's not something its article addresses, but it's the 5/x
The real issue here is the expanded revenue from expanded playoffs and how that new revenue is shared. That's not something its article addresses, but it's the 5/x
driver behind everything. Because MLB was doing all the leaking early in the 2020 restart negotiations, that subject was obfuscated in reporting, but it became clearer late in the process. It shouldn't surprise anyone that this early leak ignores that question-more proof 6/x
the sources are both from MLB. Last negotiations, the MLBPA proposed splitting increased playoff TV revenue 50-50. MLB wanted to stick to gate receipts or a fixed pool. Ultimately they agreed to a fixed pool, but with double what MLB proposed. That issue hasn't gone away. 7/x
It remains the primary issue. If playoffs are expanded, how does the Union ensure that its members are the beneficiaries of the consequential increased TV revenue for expanded playoffs? An extra roster spot isn't going to cut it. Extra gate receipts - not enough either. 8/x
TV and streaming are what create increased revenue. The Union has to figure out a way to negotiate a better share now, because whatever it is now will be a template for the 2021-22 CBA negotiations. It may actually make those negotiations easier if the parties can agree 9/x
now. It's hard to envision a system that added financial value to the players' pool, but spreads it more broadly than playoff only teams, without creating a minimum spending requirement other than the league minimum. A salary floor ultimately is related to a salary cap 10/x
so I can't see distribution of increased TV-revenue resulting in that solution. But, vastly increased league minimums, plus increased 40-man roster minimums is a solution that spreads the wealth better.
As a news consumer, don't get bogged down in the picayune details. 11/x
As a news consumer, don't get bogged down in the picayune details. 11/x
This is a pre-negotiation for the next term contact negotiations and it's primarily about revenue distribution, not the small potatoes issues that are likely to be reported. /end for now, probably more thoughts later.
