Players union may file collusion charge

[Moose Milligan]

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/baseball/mlb/04/06/union.collusion/index.html?eref=sihp

Wow. IMO, the collusion thing in the mid 80's was worse than the Black Sox and worse than Pete Rose. Not as sexy and didn't get as much press, but from a way to damage the game, it was certainly worse.

Pretty nasty charge/accusation from the players association.

[TGO]

They made the same accusation last year and wound up not making any sort of formal complaint.

I think the Union just sees that FA salaries have come down slightly from their peak a few years ago and assume collusion. They seem to have no understanding of the economic climate we've been in for two years.

I'm not saying there was no collusion as I really have no idea, just saying there are other [very obvious] reasons why salaries have not been bid up as high lately.

[Mark Carver]

I guess the players think the economy is still the "Go-Go 90's"...

[DrungoHazewood]

They made the same accusation last year and wound up not making any sort of formal complaint.

I think the Union just sees that FA salaries have come down slightly from their peak a few years ago and assume collusion. They seem to have no understanding of the economic climate we've been in for two years.

I'm not saying there was no collusion as I really have no idea, just saying there are other [very obvious] reasons why salaries have not been bid up as high lately.

I think they're just doing this as a political exercise. They know that the economy and better methods of valuing players are the driving factors here, but they're making noise about this to win brownie points with the players, media, fans, and keep the owners a tiny bit more honest.

The main complaint here seems to be that free agents got similar or identical offers from multiple teams. That could be collusion, or it could be that lots of teams are using analysis that agrees (i.e. look it up on Fangraphs, or equivalent). I tend to think the owners are too divided and competitive to collude in any serious way. They sure don't do it on the draft, even when Bud tells them to.

[waroriole]

I think they're just doing this as a political exercise. They know that the economy and better methods of valuing players are the driving factors here, but they're making noise about this to win brownie points with the players, media, fans, and keep the owners a tiny bit more honest.

If that's the case, they are pretty stupid. They might get more support from players, but they don't need it. Fans are going to look at this and say "here I am, making less money or unemployed, and these millionaires are whining because they're making 2.4M instead of 2.8M." I think most media will spin it this way too.

[Arthur_Bryant]

If that's the case, they are pretty stupid. They might get more support from players, but they don't need it. Fans are going to look at this and say "here I am, making less money or unemployed, and these millionaires are whining because they're making 2.4M instead of 2.8M." I think most media will spin it this way too.

I am amazed at the willingness of fans to adopt the owners' point of view re: player compensation.

[Say O!]

I am amazed at the willingness of fans to adopt the owners' point of view re: player compensation.

Perhaps because the average baseball player makes 100x the normal person?

Or that a family trip to the ballgame costs over $200?

Agree with Drungo that in the information age where statisticians can easily research and asign dollar value to all facets of the game, it will be darn near impossible to argue collusion on the part of owners. It's not like 1985 where "market" prices where established by contract offers alone.

Baseball seems to be moving to a dichotomous structure where stars get their paydays, and everyone else is at the lower end of the spectrum. You're seeing less and less multi-year, middle bucket dollars (say $4M-$8M) contracts given out to veteran players. Instead the only ones crossing into that territory are young players cashing in on promise and buying out arb years.

And this structure isn't a bad thing in my opinion. I come to the park or tune in the TV to see superstars and young players. And this is likely true for everyone in that we'd rather not pay money to see guys like Jay Payton or Marty Cordova. And baseball owners are becoming hip to this.

[TGO]

If that's the case, they are pretty stupid. They might get more support from players, but they don't need it. Fans are going to look at this and say "here I am, making less money or unemployed, and these millionaires are whining because they're making 2.4M instead of 2.8M." I think most media will spin it this way too.

Yeah, my first thought was that this move was pretty tone deaf.

Arthur_Bryant implies a good point, though, which is that the owners are still doing pretty darn well. And player salaries are not the only reason it is expensive to go to sporting events.

[Can_of_corn]

Some interesting prespective from one of the better x-lawyers/bloggers out there:

http://hardballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/04/did-the-owners-collude-against-free-agents-this-past-winter.html.php

but if what my source tells me is true and teams are comparing notes and aligning their valuations, such a thing would cross the line between non-binding advice and illegal collusion.

[byrdz]

Historically bad FA player pool + Historically bad economy = Collusion?

What are they investigating? Just pick up a newspaper. There's an article on the terrible economy every day.

[RShack]

I am amazed at the willingness of fans to adopt the owners' point of view re: player compensation.

It's because the owners pull the same stunt that they've always gotten away with: they portray professional baseball, which for them is a very profitable no-risk monopoly money-machine, as some romantic all-American pass-time, and a lot of fans fall for the crap where players should be playing for the love of the game. Then, people compare their own income with the income of ballplayers who are the best in the world at what they do, and side with the dang owners while the owners rake it in. As if the owners would pass salary-savings on to the fans. It's either sad or hilarious, depending on how you look at it, but some people fall for it every time...

[waroriole]

Some interesting prespective from one of the better x-lawyers/bloggers out there:

http://hardballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/04/did-the-owners-collude-against-free-agents-this-past-winter.html.php

It might technically be a conspiracy in a dictionary sense, but sports leagues are granted a little bit of leeway in the anti-trust realm sense they have to conspire in order to exist. They conspire to make a draft and to adopt a schedule etc.

[Arthur_Bryant]

Perhaps because the average baseball player makes 100x the normal person?

Or that a family trip to the ballgame costs over $200?

I understand that. I understand the resentment.

What I don't understand is why specifically players--and not owners--are the principal objects of the resentment. I don't understand why, in any dispute between owners and players over money, fans (and media) almost always take the side of management--often adopting the language and arguments of management, essentially turning into the spokespersons of management.

The high-impact phrase in waroriole's previous message:

These millionaires are whining because they're making 2.4M instead of 2.8M

could have been spoken by George Steinbrenner or many other owners during the last strike.

Yes, players make 100X the normal person. But owners are worth large multiples more than most players, and that doesn't seem to bother most fans. And players don't set the prices: owners do that. Yet players are somehow blamed for it. Basically, players are reviled as "these millionaires" when they try to get the most they can, but nobody seems to mind much when owners--who are not just "these millionaires" but in many cases close to "these billionaires"-- do the same.

I'm being somewhat argumentative here, but I also truly don't get it, and I'd love to have someone explain this phenomenon.

[BaltimoreTerp]

I am amazed at the willingness of fans to adopt the owners' point of view re: player compensation.

Why is it an either-or proposition?

[BaltimoreTerp]

I understand that. I understand the resentment.

What I don't understand is why specifically players--and not owners--are the principal objects of the resentment. I don't understand why, in any dispute between owners and players over money, fans (and media) almost always take the side of management--often adopting the language and arguments of management, essentially turning into the spokespersons of management.

The high-impact phrase in waroriole's previous message:

These millionaires are whining because they're making 2.4M instead of 2.8M

could have been spoken by George Steinbrenner or many other owners during the last strike.

Yes, players make 100X the normal person. But owners are worth large multiples more than most players, and that doesn't seem to bother most fans. And players don't set the prices: owners do that. Yet players are somehow blamed for it. Basically, players are reviled as "these millionaires" when they try to get the most they can, but nobody seems to mind much when owners--who are not just "these millionaires" but in many cases close to "these billionaires"-- do the same.

I'm being somewhat argumentative here, but I also truly don't get it, and I'd love to have someone explain this phenomenon.

Who says the owners aren't resented? Why are you cherry-picking one comment to come to that conclusion?

Like I asked above, why is it an either-or proposition? Why can't it be that fans get upset when there is any "crying-poor" argument from either side, and since this is coming from the players' side they are the ones getting the brunt of the comments?