Solving the battle for the payment of MLB

While Tony Clark and Rob Manfred still have more than a year to go before the current MLB work offer, there was significant noise around the owners who pushed themselves on the canvas hat. (Photo Daniel Shirei / MLB Photos via Getty Images)

MLB Photos via Getty Images

For more than 50 years, the main baseball league tried to join the rest of the professional sports Leagues North American Big League starting a pay cap. Here’s how to solve the problem without setting one.

First, let’s make something out of the way: ideas are easier than to implement them. My suggestions are full of political mines that have disturbed commissioners who returned to Bowie Kuhn, when MLBPA received the retention of the 1960s. However, it is worth seeing problems, considering that, although not mentioned directly, there was a significant noise on the implementation of the pay cap in the large league on the eve of the current job, which expired in December 2026. Years.

Let’s start with some basic facts: there is economic disparity among 30 clubs. This is nothing new, nor something that will always exist. Great markets with notified franchises will always have higher revenues from smaller markets. From a player’s perspective, their view is that this is not a problem solving.

Fixing MLB’s economic problems without pay

For starters, you do not need dramatic transition from the current luxury tax system. If there are concerns about the free consumption owners, then the solution continues to speculate the luxury tax system. Many changes occurred over the years, and in almost all cases, the penalties and creating new supplements from that equation are increasing.

With a luxury tax system, clubs at a certain threshold, as well as in several years, and how many criminal sentences that these clubs now saw a higher percentage of them who will perform in clubs as a form of income sharing.

And it has increased revenue sharing that should become focus and carry out clubs at the bottom that get revenue sharing to use it at a luxurious back tax on the back.

Let’s start with the last. Although MLBPA floated, but discarded by the owner, unless he was related to salary, in the model that I would propose, a system similar to luxurious tax thresholds at the top was created for clubs at the bottom. Calculation of centralized income and how part of the club is divided, the threshold would be set at the bottom that clubs will have to spend up. Clubs could go below this threshold, but they are punished in some way. And like a system that is currently at the top, these penalties would increase if they are done in several years, or in the amount below the threshold under surcharge.

If there is a sluer here, these clubs used excuse to invest in development and / or players during the possibility of a great league club, in the coming years in the coming years, not increasing their MLB Play Cololer.

In addition to creating a luxury tax vice versa, the League must increase revenue exchange by increasing centralized revenues. It is always a difficult matter of commissioner, given that large clubs that make income from small – Hawes and there is no.

As an example, there was discussions about putting all media rights that are currently in MLB.TV UP for grasping. Clubs like Yankees, Dodgers, Red Sok, and cubs will certainly not advocate for this, considering that they have sustainable and lucrative local media rights they want to do not share. It is a political quantum for the commissioner that seems to be not worried about players. But if the package should be sold, then revenues from media rights would become centralized in 30 clubs and increased by a level of economic parity.

As for because CAP does not solve a comprehensive problem, it has yet to be a discussion on the conduct of the cap around the front office. The salaries that close players does not mean the best staff can hire the best staff in the front office, nor do these clubs invest in reconnaissance and developing players in places like the Dominican Republic and elsewhere around the world. If this is really in creating more competitive parity, then these areas create an imbalance. The creation of levels for levels in these areas must be considered if it is really related to creating a league parity.

Players are not completely free of adjustment. Contracts are full of bonus clauses that should not be allowed. A good example is a bonuses for ranking in bbwa rewards or making the All Star match, which has become a thing of manipulation of fans through social media to vote for certain players in certain clubs. Although players can look more favorable in larger markets, which allows their platform to rise in the media, and these clauses increase the likelihood of players more towards clubs that occurred chances of increasing in contracts. In the BiH, BiH suggested that the award-based bonuses would be rejected. If a player is a true star, then work personal support on approval should be something that MLBPA can help grow and encourage, regardless of the market that the player plays in the interior.

Finally, there is this: there is no panacea to create a socialist model in which all clubs have the same resources and the same playlists. Even if they would still be that clubs with an advantage are simply based on size, which gives players a larger platform. For health games, they are diverging too far from a system that seems unreasonably in place. The baseball cap in baseball would be fully different from other sports simply due to game design. Rarely – if ever – does a single player move the needle needle like basketball or football, where the skill-up player can control the outcome of the game. Baseball requires a solid roster construction from above to the bottom. For fans and overall health games, let’s hope that any potential lock does not pull on missing games of the regular season. Push for CAP will fasten them into danger.