Players union may file collusion charge

[waroriole]

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.

Oops, I guess I didn't think this through properly. Since the no collusion is a part of the CBA the anti-trust leeway and baseball exemption don't apply here. Still, it's going to be really tough for the players to make out a case here, especially with the down economy.

[Arthur_Bryant]

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?

Any argument that the players are making too much money is (by implication) an argument that the money belongs in the pockets of the owners, unless you happen to believe that money which doesn't get paid to players would be returned to fans. So in that sense it's certainly an either/or proposition.

And fans don't equally turn their resentments toward players and management. Almost inevitably their sympathies are against the players--and, by extension, with the owners.

It's almost reflexive. Just look at the tenor of reactions in this thread. I'm not knocking any of the members here, but typically almost any discussion about MLB compensation, in almost any public forum, is going to run strongly against the players, not against the owners.

waroriole himself nailed the typical fan reaction: 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.

In general, owners get a major pass in discussions of money matters. The big exception is when fans get angry at owners for being too tight-fisted and reluctant to spend on free agents: i.e., for not paying enough money to players.

Little bit of irony there...

[waroriole]

waroriole himself nailed the typical fan reaction: 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.

Just to be clear, I'm not making this argument but I think that will be the general consensus. However, I don't mind seeing salaries remain the same b/c that is one less reason to raise ticket prices.

[DrungoHazewood]

Just to be clear, I'm not making this argument but I think that will be the general consensus. However, I don't mind seeing salaries remain the same b/c that is one less reason to raise ticket prices.

Salaries have nothing to do with ticket prices. Ticket prices are set by what people/corporations are willing to pay. If the owners could pay the players $1.75 a year but still charge $30 a ticket and draw 30k fans a game, they'd do it in a heartbeat.

[Leitch]

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

Players are more visible

Player salaries are a matter of public record

Familiarity breeds contempt

Cheap populism is instant TV/Radio Gold

[Arthur_Bryant]

Players are more visible

Player salaries are a matter of public record

Familiarity breeds contempt

Cheap populism is instant TV/Radio Gold

All good points, thanks.

I think #1 and #4 are especially valid.

Another reason that occurred to me this evening is that most players and fans start out at more or less the same socio-economic level. This means that fans identify more with players than with owners, and they tell themselves that if they were players they'd be more grateful for the chance to play.

The dream of playing big league ball is still pretty powerful, and I get the sense that some fans feel that players are somehow debasing that dream when they try to get the maximum amount of money out of doing what most fans imagine that they would do for free.

[RShack]

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.

They don't have to conspire to exist. That's what the owners would like you to believe, but it's entirely BS.

Making a schedule is not conspiring. A draft certainly is: it prevents players from choosing who they want to go to work for, but the owners don't need a draft to exist. The absence of a draft was a big part in how the Orioles became the best franchise in baseball: they just scouted better and signed better players than the other teams did. The owners instituted a draft to keep themselves from bidding against each other, but they didn't have to, they just wanted to so they could keep more of the money for themselves, that's all.

[waroriole]

They don't have to conspire to exist. That's what the owners would like you to believe, but it's entirely BS.

Making a schedule is not conspiring. A draft certainly is: it prevents players from choosing who they want to go to work for, but the owners don't need a draft to exist. The absence of a draft was a big part in how the Orioles became the best franchise in baseball: they just scouted better and signed better players than the other teams did. The owners instituted a draft to keep themselves from bidding against each other, but they didn't have to, they just wanted to so they could keep more of the money for themselves, that's all.

Actually, you're wrong. Going by the definition of conspiracy that is exactly what they're doing. Is the schedule made by one team? Or do they all get together to determine when people are going to play?

[RShack]

Actually, you're wrong. Going by the definition of conspiracy that is exactly what they're doing. Is the schedule made by one team? Or do they all get together to determine when people are going to play?

Just making plans is not the same thing as a conspiracy. A conspiracy implies two things: (a) some kind of secret plan which (b) is aimed at doing something wrong or unfair. There is nothing about scheduling ballgames that implies sneaky plans to do anything wrong. It's just scheduling ballgames, that's all...

[hobbycars]

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.

Well said sir.

[BaltimoreTerp]

Just making plans is not the same thing as a conspiracy. A conspiracy implies two things: (a) some kind of secret plan which (b) is aimed at doing something wrong or unfair. There is nothing about scheduling ballgames that implies sneaky plans to do anything wrong. It's just scheduling ballgames, that's all...

What about how the unbalanced schedule affects the Orioles?

[waroriole]

Just making plans is not the same thing as a conspiracy. A conspiracy implies two things: (a) some kind of secret plan which (b) is aimed at doing something wrong or unfair. There is nothing about scheduling ballgames that implies sneaky plans to do anything wrong. It's just scheduling ballgames, that's all...

Maybe the dictionary definition of conspiracy is what you listed, but we're dealing with a different animal. In the anti-trust realm it's an agreement between two separate entities. The question then becomes whether this conspiracy has resulted in a restraint of trade. In this case, you could say that it has b/c, for example, the Orioles would make more money if they played the Red Sox on X date. Instead, the ability to capitalize on the market is infringed upon b/c they have to play the Royals. That's a restraint of trade and b/c it was agreed upon by two or more entities it could be a violation of the Sherman Act. However, sports is given more latitude in determining if something is a conspiracy b/c, as I said, they have to conspire to exist.

My information is coming from a Sports Law class, and not an Anti-Trust class, so I might have skimped some information related to the Sherman Act. But, I think I have the jist of it down.

[Mad Mark]

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

Yeah, but these are the same fans who think the owners actually put their own money into running the teams. It doesn't surprise me in the slightest. Players are highly visible and highly temporary. The only thing that ends most owners' times with a team is death.

[Lucky Jim]

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...

Any argument that the players are making too much money is (by implication) an argument that the money belongs in the pockets of the owners, unless you happen to believe that money which doesn't get paid to players would be returned to fans. So in that sense it's certainly an either/or proposition.

And fans don't equally turn their resentments toward players and management. Almost inevitably their sympathies are against the players--and, by extension, with the owners.

It's almost reflexive. Just look at the tenor of reactions in this thread. I'm not knocking any of the members here, but typically almost any discussion about MLB compensation, in almost any public forum, is going to run strongly against the players, not against the owners.

waroriole himself nailed the typical fan reaction: 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.

In general, owners get a major pass in discussions of money matters. The big exception is when fans get angry at owners for being too tight-fisted and reluctant to spend on free agents: i.e., for not paying enough money to players.

Little bit of irony there...

Not really. I think there's plenty of argument that the top-end salaries are as high as any single player deserves and that if there is extra-money it should be going in the hands of these guys:

http://forum.orioleshangout.com/forums/showthread.php?t=94800

Anyone who thinks that the argument about keeping down the top-end salaries is about justice is just as mis-guided as far as I can tell.

I think it's pretty clear that the, if #$%* rolls downhill, it's the MiLB players at the bottom.

[Lucky Jim]

Just making plans is not the same thing as a conspiracy. A conspiracy implies two things: (a) some kind of secret plan which (b) is aimed at doing something wrong or unfair. There is nothing about scheduling ballgames that implies sneaky plans to do anything wrong. It's just scheduling ballgames, that's all...

I'm pretty sure that Shack-ian colloquialisms are not equivalent to the law of conspiracy.