Tim Pahuta Joins 32 MILB players to Sue over Wages

[Reboulet'sStache]

Slavery made cotton production highly profitable under suboptimal conditions, but that's not a good justification for slavery.

Are minor league players forced to join Harrisburg, PA's team against their will? If not, I don't get the comparison.

[DrungoHazewood]

What do you mean? MLB is a monopoly to the extent that they have rules that govern the teams within the league. But MLB is not stopping you from forming a baseball league and paying players whatever you want.

Technically you're right. It's just that the barriers to high-level competition are exceptionally prohibitive. The established league has a full compliment of lavish government-funded stadiums with parking and luxury boxes and very favorable revenue deals. They have almost all of the available' date=' good talent from age 16-45 locked up in contracts. They have MLB teams in almost every city and minor league teams in 300 other places. They have an anti-trust exemption. There's a reason that there hasn't been a semi-high level indy league since the PCL of the 50s, and no real MLB competitior since the Federal League in '14-15.

A startup league would have to play in places like crumbling RFK Stadium with talent only a step or two up from the Atlantic League. So Major League Baseball has a [i']de facto[/i] monopoly on high-level baseball.

[osfan83]

Slavery made cotton production highly profitable under suboptimal conditions, but that's not a good justification for slavery.

I don't think slavery was voluntary.

[DrungoHazewood]

Are minor league players forced to join Harrisburg' date=' PA's team against their will? If not, I don't get the comparison.[/quote']

The slavery analogy was a stretch. But... If they want to have a career in baseball, yes. When the Nats assign them to Harrisburg they have no say in the matter (unless they're in the unusual case of having enough experience to refuse a minor league assignment).

[Reboulet'sStache]

Technically you're right. It's just that the barriers to high-level competition are exceptionally prohibitive. The established league has a full compliment of lavish government-funded stadiums with parking and luxury boxes and very favorable revenue deals. They have almost all of the available, good talent from age 16-45 locked up in contracts. They have MLB teams in almost every city and minor league teams in 300 other places. They have an anti-trust exemption. There's a reason that there hasn't been a semi-high level indy league since the PCL of the 50s, and no real MLB competitior since the Federal League in '14-15.

A startup league would have to play in places like crumbling RFK Stadium with talent only a step or two up from the Atlantic League. So Major League Baseball has a de facto monopoly on high-level baseball.

I'm sympathetic to the government funded argument, which is why the government should never get involved in the market.

But a lot of MLB's success, or de facto monopoly, is due to the fact that they put out such a good product. Which allows them to be in every city, and eat up most consumer demand. There just isn't much demand for a competitive balance to MLB. But that shouldn't really be held against them, or a reason to scream, "monopoly, monopoly."

[Reboulet'sStache]

The slavery analogy was a stretch. But... If they want to have a career in baseball, yes. When the Nats assign them to Harrisburg they have no say in the matter (unless they're in the unusual case of having enough experience to refuse a minor league assignment).

But that's because they chose to sign with the Nats. When I was younger and cut fish at "Giant," they would make me go all over Southern Maryland to work in the seafood departments of their various stores. That could do that because that's what I signed on for, but I didn't HAVE to sign on, and was free to leave whenever I wanted.

[MurphDogg]

But that's because they chose to sign with the Nats. When I was younger and cut fish at "Giant' date='" they would make me go all over Southern Maryland to work in the seafood departments of their various stores. That could do that because that's what I signed on for, but I didn't HAVE to sign on, and was free to leave whenever I wanted.[/quote']

Right. You could apply to work at Safeway or Weis. They couldn't apply to work for the Orioles or the Yankees. That is the difference.

[SilentJames]

Yeah. It's a difficult issue. I see great arguments for both sides. Anyone know in more specifics what MiLB players make?

I really don't understand the other side of this argument at all. They are professional players, they perform very specific skills at high levels. There is no reason that the MLB can't pay these players wages that woudl at least allow them to be self-sufficient in the regions they play and live.

The fact they aren't is ridiculous.

[SilentJames]

But that's because they chose to sign with the Nats. When I was younger and cut fish at "Giant' date='" they would make me go all over Southern Maryland to work in the seafood departments of their various stores. That could do that because that's what I signed on for, but I didn't HAVE to sign on, and was free to leave whenever I wanted.[/quote']

Anyone can do that job, not anyone can be a baseball player at that level. You don't walk off the street and sign up to play for the Ironbirds.

There is no reason they shouldn't make a living wage. No reason whatsoever.

[DrungoHazewood]

But that's because they chose to sign with the Nats. When I was younger and cut fish at "Giant' date='" they would make me go all over Southern Maryland to work in the seafood departments of their various stores. That could do that because that's what I signed on for, but I didn't HAVE to sign on, and was free to leave whenever I wanted.[/quote']

I think it's somewhat different because these guys have very specialized skills and only one real option for exploiting them. You sign with MLB, or you do something else in a field you didn't train for.

It would be like if you'd spent your teenage years as an apprentice to a fishmonger and Giant had an exclusive contract to sell fish in the US. You had one exceptional skill, and one employer to choose from.

[Reboulet'sStache]

Anyone can do that job, not anyone can be a baseball player at that level. You don't walk off the street and sign up to play for the Ironbirds.

There is no reason they shouldn't make a living wage. No reason whatsoever.

But it's all relative. The extent to which you are able to bargain for contractual terms, is entirely dependent on your market leverage. You're right, I had none. But either do minor league players for the most part, because their demand still isn't THAT great. There's plenty of people who can stop in and fill the void of the 10 year journeyman that never made any money.

[MurphDogg]

There's plenty of people who can stop in and fill the void of the 10 year journeyman that never made any money.

Agree to disagree.

[Reboulet'sStache]

I think it's somewhat different because these guys have very specialized skills and only one real option for exploiting them. You sign with MLB, or you do something else in a field you didn't train for.

It would be like if you'd spent your teenage years as an apprentice to a fishmonger and Giant had an exclusive contract to sell fish in the US. You had one exceptional skill, and one employer to choose from.

But once again, you're example involves the use of government force to create a true "monopoly." The government's monopoly on legalized force has created a situation where all other competitors have been legally outlawed. That isn't true of MLB. The fact that MLB puts out a product capable of satisfying consumer demand to the point where I don't sit around wishing there was another rival company, is not MLB's problem. It's not something we should hold against MLB. They can offer what they want. You can ask for what you want. And if it creates demand for another competitor within the workers of the industry, the consumers of the industry etc., you are free to start it up.

[DrungoHazewood]

I'm sympathetic to the government funded argument' date=' which is why the government should never get involved in the market.

But a lot of MLB's success, or de facto monopoly, is due to the fact that they put out such a good product. Which allows them to be in every city, and eat up most consumer demand. There just isn't much demand for a competitive balance to MLB. But that shouldn't really be held against them, or a reason to scream, "monopoly, monopoly."[/quote']

MLB's success is directly tied to the fact that in the 1870-1950 era they consolidated their power and systematically eliminated all other competitive leagues. When the American League popped up they merged. When the Federal League came into being they forced them out of business. In the 1920s they began forming agreements eliminating all independent minor leagues and teams, over the strenuous objections of people like Baltimore's Jack Dunn. When the PCL agitated for an open classification, and a clear path to becoming a new Major League, they immediately began moving teams and expanding. When teams started going rogue and competing with one another to pay amateurs big bonus money they instituted a draft. When J.D. Drew signed with an indy league rather than the team that drafted him, they changed the rules so that even players in other US professional leagues were draft-eligible.

All of this under the guise of the anti-trust exemption and with the government's support and approval. Baseball has a very long history of making sure they're the only (baseball) game in town.

[Reboulet'sStache]

Right. You could apply to work at Safeway or Weis. They couldn't apply to work for the Orioles or the Yankees. That is the difference.

They can go work for the Southern Maryland Blue Crabs.