Should players be guaranteed a career in baseball?

[owknows]

1 hour ago, Frobby said:

Well, the alternative was the reserve clause system where everyone got paid pennies (relatively speaking) and had no choice in where they played.    To suggest that the players wanted a system where the younger players were still constrained is misleading.  That is something the owners wanted, not the players.   

In a free market people always have a choice.

If for example they found the owners' terms not to their liking... they could start their own league.

And your suggestion that the players accepted something the owners wanted and that they did not, is a little naive.

The primary beneficiaries of today's money structure are older mediocre players (the majority of voting members of the MLBPA)

They young talent gets screwed.... and the superstars would get paid anyway.

[DrungoHazewood]

18 hours ago, owknows said:

Do you honestly think that Collective Bargaining would exist at all, if it had not been demanded by the players?

Exactly what Frobby said.  I think a lot of what's in the CBA is carried over from the early days when they were trying to invent the structures where free agency exists.  The six year control piece is one of those things.  They made a lot of assumptions, some of which probably turned out to be very wrong. 

My understanding is that Collective Bargaining Agreements are the standard way for unions and employers to codify their relationship.  The UAW and GM have a CBA.  The steelworkers union has a CBA with Bethlehem Steel (at least if Bethlehem Steel is still a thing...).  It wasn't a matter of wanting it, this is how the world works.

[DrungoHazewood]

16 hours ago, owknows said:

In a free market people always have a choice.

If for example they found the owners' terms not to their liking... they could start their own league.

And your suggestion that the players accepted something the owners wanted and that they did not, is a little naive.

The primary beneficiaries of today's money structure are older mediocre players (the majority of voting members of the MLBPA)

They young talent gets screwed.... and the superstars would get paid anyway.

The idea that the players could just start a new league if they don't like the terms the MLB owners present is also naive.  The owners have the benefit of 100+ years of history and fanbases and many $billions in taxpayer-funded infrastructure, and existing media deals and on and on. The players would be starting completely from scratch, playing in whatever random stadiums they could negotiate deals with, with no history, no media money.  They'd need $billions in financing lined up.  Half the fans would be against them, another part would refuse to root for a team that wasn't in the existing Majors.  MLB still has their anti-trust exemption, which the new Players League wouldn't.

It would be very daunting.  There are a lot of legitimate reasons it's been 108 years since a serious 3rd major league sprung up.

[Can_of_corn]

3 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:

The idea that the players could just start a new league if they don't like the terms the MLB owners present is also naive.  The owners have the benefit of 100+ years of history and fanbases and many $billions in taxpayer-funded infrastructure, and existing media deals and on and on. The players would be starting completely from scratch, playing in whatever random stadiums they could negotiate deals with, with no history, no media money.  They'd need $billions in financing lined up.  Half the fans would be against them, another part would refuse to root for a team that wasn't in the existing Majors.  MLB still has their anti-trust exemption, which the new Players League wouldn't.

It would be very daunting.  There are a lot of legitimate reasons it's been 108 years since a serious 3rd major league sprung up.

I hear the USFL has a huge celebration planed for their 40th anniversary next year.

[DrungoHazewood]

8 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

I hear the USFL has a huge celebration planed for their 40th anniversary next year.

Yep.  And football is far easier to start up a new league.  Many, many more possible stadiums, especially if they have a spring league.  Also player availability.  Since baseball has affiliated minors most of the players in a new league would just be those out of contract, and people who were cut from A ball.  The 1994/5 scab teams were like rookie-ball quality.  In football the 60th-best guy in camp gets cut and has to go find a job.  There are thousands of recent D-I football players who are just working at the insurance company or teaching PE or as Akron's inside linebacker's coach.  I think I could stand up a new pro football league in six weeks.

[LookinUp]

20 hours ago, owknows said:

An actual free market

1. Would not limit the number of teams.

2. Would not have a minor league that's affiliated to the teams.

3. Would not do revenue sharing.

4. Would be dominated by the wealthiest teams pretty much at all times.

Professional sports, particularly in America, are not free market enterprises. They are managed markets often with explicit statutory rights not to let in competition. No sense in pretending otherwise. It's the system agreed to by owners, players and Congress.

[owknows]

1 hour ago, LookinUp said:

1. Would not limit the number of teams.

2. Would not have a minor league that's affiliated to the teams.

3. Would not do revenue sharing.

4. Would be dominated by the wealthiest teams pretty much at all times.

Professional sports, particularly in America, are not free market enterprises. They are managed markets often with explicit statutory rights not to let in competition. No sense in pretending otherwise. It's the system agreed to by owners, players and Congress.

I'm quite aware of the fact that professional sports in America do not represent a free market.

Nor was I pretending otherwise.

I was simply stating that they'd be better off if they were...

[owknows]

3 hours ago, DrungoHazewood said:

The idea that the players could just start a new league if they don't like the terms the MLB owners present is also naive. 

The AFL (now the AFC) begs to differ.

There is no impediment to the start of another league now... nor has there been.

They players simply find it in their best interests not to do so.

[owknows]

3 hours ago, DrungoHazewood said:

 

My understanding is that Collective Bargaining Agreements are the standard way for unions and employers to codify their relationship.

Yes... of course they are... no one suggested otherwise.

 

[Can_of_corn]

Just now, owknows said:

The AFL (now the AFC) begs to differ.

There is no impediment to the start of another league now... nor has there been.

They players simply find it in their best interests not to do so.

That was over 60 years ago.  We also had the ABA (53 years ago).

Not sure how relevant either one is today.

[owknows]

4 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

That was over 60 years ago.  We also had the ABA (53 years ago).

Not sure how relevant either one is today.

What relevancy does you distinction have?

[Pickles]

7 minutes ago, owknows said:

The AFL (now the AFC) begs to differ.

There is no impediment to the start of another league now... nor has there been.

They players simply find it in their best interests not to do so.

Not that it goes against what you're saying, but the players don't have taxpayer-funded billion dollar stadiums gifted them by degenerate politicians.

[owknows]

Just now, Pickles said:

Not that it goes against what you're saying, but the players don't have taxpayer-funded billion dollar stadiums gifted them by degenerate politicians.

You make the one relevant point that makes things difficult...

(the fact that many pro sports franchises enjoy municipal support in violation of the the Constitution, and of free market principles)

[Can_of_corn]

1 minute ago, owknows said:

What relevancy does you distinction have?

I'm not sure what you mean.

The biggest obstacle I see for a new league would be TV revenue.  Fifty plus years ago TV revenue made up a much smaller percentage of overall revenues.

MLB gets 1.5B a year in National TV money and that doesn't include local deals.

[Can_of_corn]

3 minutes ago, owknows said:

You make the one relevant point that makes things difficult...

(the fact that many pro sports franchises enjoy municipal support in violation of the the Constitution, and of free market principles)

I must be rusty on my Constitutional theory.  What part of the Constitution bans State or local municipalities from acting in such a fashion?