Provision in MLB player agreement voids pro-rated guaranteed wages


The biggest battle between baseball owners and players at the start of the season is how much players will be paid. The owners want the players to receive 50% of the income while the players’ union wants the proportional share of the salaries.

MLBPA Executive Director Tony Clark said on Monday, “A system that restricts player compensation based on income is a salary cap, period. This is not the first salary cap proposal that our union has received. It probably won’t be the last.

He added: “The fact that the league is trying to take advantage of a global health crisis to achieve what it has failed to achieve in the past – and to negotiate anonymously in the media in recent days – suggests that she knows exactly how that will happen. to be received. None of this is beneficial to the process of finding a way for us to return safely to the field and resume the 2020 season, which continues to continue to be ‘be our only goal. “

Yesterday John Heyman from the MLB Network tweeted a response from super-agent Scott Boras to the 50-50 revenue split proposed by the owners: “On the 50-50 split, Boras says the players have already ‘made a deal made by both parties’, the structure of remuneration has been “codified”. And ‘they have to work on that basis.’ But “if you change the foundations, integrity would be compromised and that’s what the players would oppose.”

Boras was referring to the owners of the agreement and to the union formed at the end of March which said in part: “Player salaries for 2020 will be prorated. If teams play an 81 game schedule, players will receive 50% of their total agreed money. If they play 120 games, they will receive 74%. The performance bonus clauses will also be prorated.

But here’s what they haven’t said publicly: There is a provision in this deal that specifically says that the pro-rata salary deal is canceled if matches are played without fans. I haven’t seen the provision, but three people familiar with the March deal – one of whom read parts of it to me over the phone – have confirmed its existence.

It is logical that such a provision was in the previous agreement. Why would owners accept pro-rata wages if only part of the season was played and games were played in empty stadiums?

MLB commissioner Rob Manfred said yesterday that canceling the season would result in losses of $ 4 billion for the league. But prorating players over an 81-game schedule with empty stadiums would result in even bigger losses.

Previous Standard Chartered - distressed income and rising bad debts
Next Magic Johnson funds $ 100 million in SBA PPP loans for businesses blocked by traditional banks

No Comment

Leave a reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *