By making public their initial offers to each other in collective bargaining, Major League Baseball and its players’ union have signaled to fans where their priorities lie in labor negotiations.
None of the offers or counteroffers are likely to resemble a final version of the next Collective Bargaining Agreement that governs the sport’s top league. Nor are they designed to. The two sides are months away from attempting to compromise around shared priorities.
It was never realistic, then, to expect a warm reception to the league’s latest salary cap proposal from the MLB Players Association. The union’s response to the league’s latest proposal on June 25 was predictably cold.
“After making a series of proposals to reduce player compensation by billions of dollars, eliminate fundamental rights with a salary cap, and destroy the amateur entry process, Major League Baseball and team owners are now attempting to distract from the true impact their plan would have on baseball,” the MLBPA’s statement read. “These misleading offers are designed to look like ‘improvements’ but are of little or no value, given they are expressly conditioned on agreement to the league’s cap system which eliminates the free market, and ensures gains for one player only come at the expense of another.”
MLB proposed a number of player-friendly concessions in exchange for a hard salary cap, something the MLBPA has never agreed to in its 60 years of existence.
More news: MLB’s Latest Proposal to MLBPA Makes Its Negotiating Strategy Clear
Specifically, the league proposed making the minimum salary $1 million for players with at least two years of service time, $900,000 with the potential for an additional $100,000 more for players with 0 to 1 years of service time, and eliminating the qualifying offer (which has restricted the ability of first-time free agents to achieve fair value on the open market after they reject their team’s qualifying offer).
While the proposal concedes that players who are 30 years old can qualify for free agency with five years of service time — down from the current six for players of any age — MLB also proposed eliminating deferred salaries in any new contracts. Many teams have used deferred contracts to sign players to monster deals without incurring competitive balance taxes.
The Dodgers’ $700 million contract with Shohei Ohtani, which defers all but $20 million in salary until after the 10-year deal expires, is the most famous example.
More news: A Former General Manager Just Destroyed MLB’s Pro-Salary Cap Argument
The league’s latest proposal also introduced a concept similar to the NBA‘s “Bird rights,” in order “to give every team a fair shot at retaining their fans’ favorite star players.”
All of these proposals are contingent on the players agreeing to a hard salary cap, which has been a non-starter in the past.
“The league also introduced a litany of additional restrictions on player rights — limiting salaries, contract length, performance, award, and signing bonuses. While MLB claims to be acting in the interest of fans, their proposals thus far are entirely consistent with owners’ long-held goals: suppressing player salaries and maximizing club profits.
“Owners’ attempts to pit players against players are nothing new, but they’ve failed in the past and will fail again now, because PA members remain unified. We are committed to achieving a fair deal that protects the rights of all players, promotes competition, and leaves our game better for future generations.”
For more MLB news, visit Newsweek Sports.