Omnichannel Integration Expert
- May 10, 2017
- Reaction score
I don't quite understand the idea of realigning the schedule based on traveling/ geographical opponents only. The point is to limit traveling/spreading things, but teams will still be traveling, just shorter trips with it all regional.So the marlins would be facing only regional teams...Braves....Nats...Yankees...Red Sox...Rays...Phillies...good lord it’s gonna be a blood bath lol
Isn't there also supposed to be expanded playoffs, meaning more teams would make it.That'd be a rough schedule but on the other hand, shorter season could favor an underdog team.
MLBPA officials told Ken Rosenthal and Evan Drellich of The Athletic on Monday evening that a revenue-sharing pay structure is a "non-starter."
RotoWorldRosenthal reported Monday afternoon that MLB owners had approved a proposal for a 2020 season possibly beginning in early July that included a 50-50 general revenue split between the players and the league's ownership groups. But that proposal still needs to be presented to the union -- there are virtual meetings scheduled for Tuesday -- and it sounds like negotiations could get testy when it comes to the economic side of things. The players apparently want to keep the normal pay structure intact and feel they already agreed to a significant cut in pay in their agreement with the league back in March, an agreement that included a lump-sum advance but prorated salaries based on how many games are played. Health and safety are obviously huge aspects, and unanswered questions also abound on that side of the debate.
The players need to work an "average American job" for a little while, to remember what it's like to get paid an absurd amount of money to play a game that most people would love to play.Players did not agree to any pay cut ... merely a proration based on shorter length of season and their contractual salary. You could call it a reduction in hours, I guess, but not a cut.
I'm pretty sure the team owners earn much more outrageous amounts of money for no more effort than the players put in.The players need to work an "average American job" for a little while, to remember what it's like to get paid an absurd amount of money to play a game that most people would love to play.
Essentially they're wanting to get paid for sold out stadiums, though not a single ticket will be sold.
The prorated portion is a no-brainer. I don't know how they could think they took a "pay cut" based on the prorated schedule.
Maybe not physical effort, but you're talking about organizations that are worth hundreds of millions of dollars, in several case $1 billion +. You think the owners just woke up and pulled that out of their ass?There were several risks involved, and they continue to take them every day.I'm pretty sure the team owners earn much more outrageous amounts of money for no more effort than the players put in.
I agree with most of this. I didn’t think it was fair to go after the players for being “ungrateful” or “greedy” but not the owners.Maybe not physical effort, but you're talking about organizations that are worth hundreds of millions of dollars, in several case $1 billion +. You think the owners just woke up and pulled that out of their ass?There were several risks involved, and they continue to take them every day.
If a player fails to perform, he doesn't get paid in the future. If an organization fails to perform, or performs improperly, the owner is at risk of losing their entire net worth.
The number being thrown around is that 40% of MLB revenue is made at the gate.
So the players want 100% pay, while the company makes only 60% of it's revenue.
I'll take this a step further, because I know it'll come up during the next CBA negotiation.
If the owners agree to pay 100% (pro-rated), The player's union is going to start bitching that their salaries need to be higher anyway, because the owners are too profitable, and can afford to pay the salaries with only 60% revenue. Remember that...it will happen.