OT: Other Sports 73

[Putt Pirate]

I don't think the players will ever go for that.

 

[hawksrule]

I don't think the players will ever go for that.

If they want to play this year they may not have much choice. Revenues are going to be hammered.

That said, I would imagine that some players who are on the verge of free agency may choose to sit the season out so as not to risk injury or a down year that will hurt their negotiating position next offseason.

 

[HawksBeerFan]

If they want to play this year they may not have much choice. Revenues are going to be hammered.

That said, I would imagine that some players who are on the verge of free agency may choose to sit the season out so as not to risk injury or a down year that will hurt their negotiating position next offseason.

Honestly, I don't really care about the owners finances. They own the teams, they don't give the players extra money when they have a great year and now they want to claw back more money from the players. Pro rate their salaries for the number of games played, sure. Taking back more than that is ridiculous.

Part of owning a business is you benefit when things go well and you are hurt when things go bad. These guys are all basically billionaires.

 

[Putt Pirate]

If they want to play this year they may not have much choice. Revenues are going to be hammered.

That said, I would imagine that some players who are on the verge of free agency may choose to sit the season out so as not to risk injury or a down year that will hurt their negotiating position next offseason.

This year will hurt the Cubs on the Bryant trade front for sure. They were hoping there trade deadline would get them a haul but that looks slim now.

With no fans that is a big revenue hammer. It is mostly TV revenue and sales of hats, jerseys, etc. They really don't have much of a choice as you say. But it seems like they could negotiate these %s a bit too. The way they negotiate it will be completed in December of 2021.

 

[hawksrule]

Honestly, I don't really care about the owners finances. They own the teams, they don't give the players extra money when they have a great year and now they want to claw back more money from the players. Pro rate their salaries for the number of games played, sure. Taking back more than that is ridiculous.

Part of owning a business is you benefit when things go well and you are hurt when things go bad. These guys are all basically billionaires.

Sure. The owners will have to make a business decision. And the players will have to do what's right for themselves.

It may not matter to you whether owners lose all the ticket/concession/merch revenue, and you're entitled to feel they should just pay up regardless. It's easy to feel magnanimous with other people's money.

 

[RayP]

Do MLB players get paid by the game I assume? I would have thought since their contracts were guaranteed they’d still be entitled to their entire pay regardless of how many games were played.

 

[HawksBeerFan]

Do MLB players get paid by the game I assume? I would have thought since their contracts were guaranteed they’d still be entitled to their entire pay regardless of how many games were played.

That's what they are trying to figure out now. They signed an agreement with the owners in March to pro rate salary by number of games player. Now ownership wants to reduce that even more.

 

[RayP]

That's what they are trying to figure out now. They signed an agreement with the owners in March to pro rate salary by number of games player. Now ownership wants to reduce that even more.

What was the players incentive to sign that? Were they threatening to not pay them at all or something?

I haven’t followed closely, but seems like the players are getting f***ed.

 

[HawksBeerFan]

What was the players incentive to sign that? Were they threatening to not pay them at all or something?

I haven’t followed closely, but seems like the players are getting f***ed.

I think the idea was it was a fair agreement between the two parties. Players weren't expecting to get 162 games worth of salary for playing 82 games or whatever it would end up being.

I'm not really sure how the contracts work. For example, in the UK soccer players are still getting paid despite not playing games. I would've thought it would be similar for baseball players but I guess not.

But yes, now ownership wants to pay them even less than their pro-rated salary so they would be getting f***ed.

 

[RayP]

I think the idea was it was a fair agreement between the two parties. Players weren't expecting to get 162 games worth of salary for playing 82 games or whatever it would end up being.

I'm not really sure how the contracts work. For example, in the UK soccer players are still getting paid despite not playing games. I would've thought it would be similar for baseball players but I guess not.

But yes, now ownership wants to pay them even less than their pro-rated salary so they would be getting f***ed.

Somewhere BWC is smiling at the idea of billionaire owners screwing over their employees.

 

[hawksrule]

Somewhere BWC is smiling at the idea of billionaire owners screwing over their employees.

I don't see it as screwing them over. A pro-rated salary based on the number of games played doesn't take into account that the seats will be empty for those games. The salaries of pro athletes are correctly justified as a reflection of the revenues they produce. For the time being they are not producing those revenues.

 

[HawksBeerFan]

I don't see it as screwing them over. A pro-rated salary based on the number of games played doesn't take into account that the seats will be empty for those games. The salaries of pro athletes are correctly justified as a reflection of the revenues they produce. For the time being they are not producing those revenues.

Remind me again when owners have given players more than what was in their contracts when MLB's revenue exceeded expectations?

 

[hawksrule]

Remind me again when owners have given players more than what was in their contracts when MLB's revenue exceeded expectations?

Players get paid more then they "produce" all the time. A player that gets injured still gets paid. A player that stinks after signing his contract gets paid. When do injured players or players who stink give back the money?

But your question is not a reasonable question. When has there ever been a surprise revenue to the upside that could match the complete disruption to the business model professional sports is now facing?

 

[HawksBeerFan]

Players get paid more then they "produce" all the time. A player that gets injured still gets paid. A player that stinks after signing his contract gets paid. When do injured players or players who stink give back the money?

But your question is not a reasonable question. When has there ever been a surprise revenue to the upside that could match the complete disruption to the business model professional sports is now facing?

Again we are talking about league revues, not individual players over/under performing their contracts.

To your second point, it literally happened a few years ago with BAMTech. Owners have made at least $2.5 billion from the sale and players have not seen a dime. The owners are proposing a plan that would take $500 million from the players if we are comparing against a pro-rated 82 game season (i.e. 82 games pro-rated is about $2 billion in salaries, and the owners new proposal would pay them $1.5B for those 28 games).

So just a couple years ago owners got $2.5 billion in extra money which the players saw nothing of, and now they want to take $0.5 billion more from the players because times are tough. In other words, the "surprise upside" you are talking about happened a couple years ago and was 5x greater than what they are asking the players for.

Disney to give MLB another $1.58 billion for BAMTech. The players will see none of it. - HardballTalk | NBC Sports

 

[hawksrule]

Again we are talking about league revues, not individual players over/under performing their contracts.

To your second point, it literally happened a few years ago with BAMTech. Owners have made at least $2.5 billion from the sale and players have not seen a dime. The owners are proposing a plan that would take $500 million from the players if we are comparing against a pro-rated 82 game season (i.e. 82 games pro-rated is about $2 billion in salaries, and the owners new proposal would pay them $1.5B for those 28 games).

So just a couple years ago owners got $2.5 billion in extra money which the players saw nothing of, and now they want to take $0.5 billion more from the players because times are tough. In other words, the "surprise upside" you are talking about happened a couple years ago and was 5x greater than what they are asking the players for.

Disney to give MLB another $1.58 billion for BAMTech. The players will see none of it. - HardballTalk | NBC Sports

Fair enough, although it's the players union that is vehemently against revenue sharing, not the owners. The owners would sign up for revenue sharing in a heartbeat.

I'll give you an example. I know someone who owns a restaurant that is staying closed for now because at 1/3 capacity he will lose more money than if he keeps it closed. He can afford to open in the literal sense, but he is choosing not to as the unfortunate but prudent business decision. You are asking owners to make a business decision in which they will likely lose more money by opening than writing off the season. They can probably afford it, but it's a bad business decision. Agreements with players were predicated on normal times. As long as the contracts have "acts of God" or similar clauses, I have no problem with the players making less when they are not producing anything resembling the revenue they were expected to produce. Tons of people are losing their jobs or getting pay cuts during the pandemic. I don't see what makes baseball players so special that exempts them from the repercussions of what the rest of society is going through.

 

[HawksBeerFan]

Fair enough, although it's the players union that is vehemently against revenue sharing, not the owners. The owners would sign up for revenue sharing in a heartbeat.

I'll give you an example. I know someone who owns a restaurant that is staying closed for now because at 1/3 capacity he will lose more money than if he keeps it closed. He can afford to open in the literal sense, but he is choosing not to as the unfortunate but prudent business decision. You are asking owners to make a business decision in which they will likely lose more money by opening than writing off the season. They can probably afford it, but it's a bad business decision. Agreements with players were predicated on normal times. As long as the contracts have "acts of God" or similar clauses, I have no problem with the players making less when they are not producing anything resembling the revenue they were expected to produce. Tons of people are losing their jobs or getting pay cuts during the pandemic. I don't see what makes baseball players so special that exempts them from the repercussions of what the rest of society is going through.

I completely understand the economics of the decision ownership will need to make. Your analogy doesn't quite work though because with MLB the backlash against the sport in general if they can't figure this out because of money could cause real long-term damage to the sport.

The owners are well within their rights to not play any games this season, next season or whenever. They are hurting themselves long term by doing that.

As I said, if ownership had built some goodwill with the players in the past, fine. They haven't though.

 

[hawksrule]

I completely understand the economics of the decision ownership will need to make. Your analogy doesn't quite work though because with MLB the backlash against the sport in general if they can't figure this out because of money could cause real long-term damage to the sport.

The owners are well within their rights to not play any games this season, next season or whenever. They are hurting themselves long term by doing that.

As I said, if ownership had built some goodwill with the players in the past, fine. They haven't though.

You're shifting from saying the owners are screwing the players to now saying the owners are making a bad business decision. It may or may not be, we're not in a position to know, but we have to assume they are motivated by what they think is the right business decision.

 

[HawksBeerFan]

You're shifting from saying the owners are screwing the players to now saying the owners are making a bad business decision. It may or may not be, we're not in a position to know, but we have to assume they are motivated by what they think is the right business decision.

I'm not shifting at all, I think the owners are being ridiculously unfair to the players. I am just acknowledging it is their right to not play again games at all this year if they think the financial conditions are that onerous. I just think it would have severe long term consequences.

Of course they are motivated by what they think is the right business decision. They'd pay the players minimum wage if they could. THEY are the ones who want the players to take less than what they agreed to pay them.

 

[hawksrule]

I'm not shifting at all, I think the owners are being ridiculously unfair to the players. I am just acknowledging it is their right to not play again games at all this year if they think the financial conditions are that onerous. I just think it would have severe long term consequences.

Of course they are motivated by what they think is the right business decision. They'd pay the players minimum wage if they could. THEY are the ones who want the players to take less than what they agreed to pay them.

Paying the players minimum wage wouldn't attract the best talent and would therefore be a bad business decision.

I don't think a reduction in salaries commensurate with the reduction in revenues is unfair. We can agree to disagree.

 

[HawksBeerFan]

Paying the players minimum wage wouldn't attract the best talent and would therefore be a bad business decision.

I don't think a reduction in salaries commensurate with the reduction in revenues is unfair. We can agree to disagree.

So owners can keep all the revenue excesses but pass on their excess losses to players in your world. I guess that is the American way.

My policy is to simply not bootlick for management. We agree to disagree then.

 

[hawksrule]

So owners can keep all the revenue excesses but pass on their excess losses to players in your world. I guess that is the American way.

My policy is to simply not bootlick for management. We agree to disagree then.

You're all over the place. You had agreed with me that the owners are well within their rights. Now you're back to claiming that stance is only in my world, and amounts to bootlicking. It's neither. It's reality. Owners are going to make the right decision for themselves, and players will make the right decision for themselves. Both sides are motivated by self-interest. I don't see it as a good guy vs. bad guy as you seem to, but rather dealing with unforeseen circumstances and plunging revenue in the midst of a pandemic. If you think players should be paid every last nickel and they should be exempt from any negative fallout from the pandemic (unlike the rest of society), you're entitled to think that. I don't see a reduction of salaries as "unfair", but again we can agree to disagree. We're going in circles, so I'll let you have the last word.

 

[DisgruntledHawkFan]

Fair enough, although it's the players union that is vehemently against revenue sharing, not the owners. The owners would sign up for revenue sharing in a heartbeat.

I'll give you an example. I know someone who owns a restaurant that is staying closed for now because at 1/3 capacity he will lose more money than if he keeps it closed. He can afford to open in the literal sense, but he is choosing not to as the unfortunate but prudent business decision. You are asking owners to make a business decision in which they will likely lose more money by opening than writing off the season. They can probably afford it, but it's a bad business decision. Agreements with players were predicated on normal times. As long as the contracts have "acts of God" or similar clauses, I have no problem with the players making less when they are not producing anything resembling the revenue they were expected to produce. Tons of people are losing their jobs or getting pay cuts during the pandemic. I don't see what makes baseball players so special that exempts them from the repercussions of what the rest of society is going through.

The union agreed to prorated salaries on March 26th. MLB signed a bad deal at the end of March, but they signed it.

 

[Kaners Bald Spot]

We need to get the idea that businesses are entitled to a profit out of the minds of people here.
If a business is running a deficit, that is NOT the employee's problem. It is ownership/management's problem. End of story.

Business is not entitled to make a profit at all times under any circumstance, and if they don't pass the burden onto their employees and the public. It's wrong on so many levels.

 

[Putt Pirate]

I am assuming they are just trying to break even and not make a profit.

 

[HawksBeerFan]