Speaker 1: MLBPA interim executive director Bruce Meyer with us. He leads
Speaker 1: the union, joining us live on FT right now. Bruce,
Speaker 1: thank you so much for the time. How you doing today.
Speaker 2: I'm doing great. I'm disappointed AJ is not here when
Speaker 2: I came on you. When I came on your shows
Speaker 2: the first time, he started out by busting MAINO. What's
Speaker 2: about appearing nervous? So I was I was looking to,
Speaker 2: you know, give it back to him. But there'll be
Speaker 2: time for that in the future. And he's with the Pope.
Speaker 1: He's busy with the Pope. That is exactly right, And yes,
Speaker 1: there will be time in the future and you can
Speaker 1: say whatever you want about him when he's not here,
Speaker 1: which is always great. So let's get into bizz a
Speaker 1: little bit here. Proposals being exchanged left and right with
Speaker 1: MLB and the Players Association. I'll start here with you, Bruce.
Speaker 1: I mean, the public sentiment is, oh, MLB is pushing
Speaker 1: a salary cap here. So can other things actually get
Speaker 1: accomplished because we're seeing all of these other details coming
Speaker 1: out right now or does that part need to be
Speaker 1: addressed or obviously for your side, I'm sure taken down
Speaker 1: to really get some work done.
Speaker 2: There are other things we can make proposals on. Both
Speaker 2: sides can make proposals on. We'll keep meeting. We made
Speaker 2: some proposals yesterday which you probably saw, relating to things
Speaker 2: like gambling and other things, and we'll be making proposals
Speaker 2: in the coming coming days and weeks on a number
Speaker 2: of things. So there are a lot of other things
Speaker 2: to talk about. But in terms of the core economic issues,
Speaker 2: it's very hard when we're into completely different universes. That's
Speaker 2: really the where we are at the moment.
Speaker 3: My question to you is the proposal that MLB just
Speaker 3: came up with, is that going to put more or
Speaker 3: less money in the player's pockets that there's been some
Speaker 3: kind of confusion about the whole thing.
Speaker 4: Yeah, thanks for asking you.
Speaker 2: I agree, it's maybe not entirely clear as some of
Speaker 2: the statements that the commissioners may in the league made
Speaker 2: their proposal would result in overall way less money going
Speaker 2: to players, Putting aside all the other things about a
Speaker 2: salary cap that we don't like that basically takes away
Speaker 2: the ability of players to structure their contracts or have
Speaker 2: full guarantees and all those other things. Just in terms
Speaker 2: of math, the proposal that the owners have made. Were
Speaker 2: their proposals in place for this year, players would have
Speaker 2: made over half a billion dollars less than they would
Speaker 2: make now. Stated differently, their proposed share of revenues, you
Speaker 2: have to look at how they define it and what
Speaker 2: they deduct off the top and what they count against players' share.
Speaker 2: If under their definitions, we already make an excess of
Speaker 2: fifty five of the revenues, so when they say we'll
Speaker 2: give you fifty, it's actually a massive reduction. That's the
Speaker 2: same in their amateur proposals. They're proposing hundreds of millions
Speaker 2: of dollars less in amateur signing bonuses, both domestic and
Speaker 2: international entry. I think it's four hundred million in year one,
Speaker 2: billions of dollars over time. So again, in addition to
Speaker 2: all of the other problems with their proposals, and there
Speaker 2: are many many, just as a matter of math, they're
Speaker 2: actually proposing not only players giving up fundamental rights, but
Speaker 2: a massive pay cup for players.
Speaker 5: You said, you said the languages are completely different that
Speaker 5: we're talking about in these two with the two sides,
Speaker 5: how can we get on the same page as far
Speaker 5: as like what players want and also what fans want
Speaker 5: and also what the owners want and create that same
Speaker 5: language within the context of what you were just talking about.
Speaker 2: I think there are some common interests, or there should
Speaker 2: be some common interests. We both have an interest in
Speaker 2: seeing that that the sport continues to grow. We both
Speaker 2: have an interest in seeing that fans have a good
Speaker 2: experience and are happy. We both have an interest in
Speaker 2: seeing that, you know, the game doesn't get shut down.
Speaker 2: Hopefully those common interests, you know, at the end of
Speaker 2: the day take precedence. But you know, I mean they've
Speaker 2: put something on the table that they know they know
Speaker 2: the last time they put it on the table led
Speaker 2: to a massive workstopage. I mean, they have chosen to
Speaker 2: put something on the table that they know players have
Speaker 2: fought against for decades, and it's actually worse than that.
Speaker 2: They've actually put together a proposal that's like a Frankenstein
Speaker 2: monster of the worst elements of all the other systems
Speaker 2: and actually then even made them worse. So they know
Speaker 2: what they're doing, and you know, at the end of
Speaker 2: the day, if they do a lockout, that's their choice
Speaker 2: to do that. So you know, we're going to bargain
Speaker 2: in good faith as we always do. We're going to
Speaker 2: listen to an analyze their proposals, but you know, these
Speaker 2: are choices that they've made to make these kind of
Speaker 2: extreme radical proposals. And having said that, we've made proposals,
Speaker 2: as you know, that we believe are designed to help
Speaker 2: players at all levels and we also think are in
Speaker 2: the best interests of the game and the fans. You know,
Speaker 2: their proposals for things like the salary cap. You know,
Speaker 2: they say, well, we're just listening to fans, but that's
Speaker 2: that's not true. I mean, they're they're trying to increase
Speaker 2: their profits and their franchise values. You know, threatening lockouts
Speaker 2: isn't in the interest of fans and telling teams that, well,
Speaker 2: you can't sign the guys that you think and your
Speaker 2: judgment are going to help the team because of a
Speaker 2: salary cap. That's not in the interest of fans. Having
Speaker 2: every fan focusing on a possible shutdown because of your
Speaker 2: proposals as opposed to celebrating the game is not in
Speaker 2: the interest of fans. You know, we have the All
Speaker 2: Star Game coming up again. It should be a celebration
Speaker 2: of the game. That's what players are focused on, and instead,
Speaker 2: because of the league's pr.
Speaker 4: And and and their proposals.
Speaker 2: You know, everybody is going to be talking about other
Speaker 2: things other than the players and the great game we have.
Speaker 4: So we we we made proposals also.
Speaker 2: That we think do reflect a common interest, and we
Speaker 2: made proposals to allow the league to share more revenues,
Speaker 2: to actually give the teams, the lower revenue teams, you know,
Speaker 2: more in revenue sharing. We think there are there are
Speaker 2: win wins there. We think that that addresses, you know,
Speaker 2: some of the concerns they've raised. But again, they've responded
Speaker 2: with a whole series of proposals that would effectively, you know,
Speaker 2: completely turn back the clock on decades of player rights,
Speaker 2: require players to take pay cuts, hurt the game in
Speaker 2: other ways by not allowing players to start their careers
Speaker 2: as early as they currently can. So look, right now,
Speaker 2: we're very far apart, but it's early and you know,
Speaker 2: we're going to keep meeting.
Speaker 4: At some point we'll have a deal, But right now
Speaker 4: we are where we are.
Speaker 3: You bring up fans a lot, and I think that
Speaker 3: they're getting tricked just a little bit here talking about parody.
Speaker 3: I mean, you see how good the White Sox team
Speaker 3: is doing compared to the Mets, who have all this money,
Speaker 3: have the highest payroll. The Brewers are still dominating and
Speaker 3: the Red Sox aren't doing well. So can you just
Speaker 3: enlighten us a little bit about you know, maybe the
Speaker 3: fans are getting tricked here. They want everything equal, but
Speaker 3: these lower level teams are absolutely doing what they do
Speaker 3: best and they're they're winning ball games.
Speaker 4: Now, yeah, I know.
Speaker 2: Look, I always point out that the Brewers are literally
Speaker 2: the smallest market under our CBA where we have market
Speaker 2: square rankings, the Brewers are thirtieth out of thirty and
Speaker 2: they had the best record in baseball this year and
Speaker 2: they're doing great again this year. You know, Tampa is successful.
Speaker 2: So the notion that the lower revenue teams or the
Speaker 2: small market teams can't compete the problem is that a
Speaker 2: lot of those owners choose not to compete a lot
Speaker 2: of those owners are not doing everything they can to
Speaker 2: put the best team on the field every day and
Speaker 2: try for everyone.
Speaker 4: And the fans know this. I mean the fans, you know.
Speaker 2: I often say the league is saying, hey, we're just
Speaker 2: listening to fans, but they're not listening to the fans
Speaker 2: all around baseball who are literally chanting and holding up
Speaker 2: signs that they want their owners to sell the team
Speaker 2: because they're not trying to compete. You know, that part
Speaker 2: the league apparently is not listening to. So from our standpoint,
Speaker 2: every team has the ability to compete, and even under
Speaker 2: the current system, as you probably know, the lower revenue
Speaker 2: teams make massive amounts of money in subsidies from other teams,
Speaker 2: teams like the Dodgers and other teams, Hundreds and hundreds
Speaker 2: of millions of dollars they get in revenue sharing, in
Speaker 2: luxury tax proceeds, in central revenues, and then they'll go
Speaker 2: out until the oh, you know, we can't afford to compete. Well,
Speaker 2: we actually see a lot of the financials, and the
Speaker 2: league requires us to keep it confidential, and the league
Speaker 2: is not volunteering to show those books to the fans.
Speaker 2: But you know, when a team says to their fans
Speaker 2: we can't afford it, very often, it's just not true.
Speaker 2: Every team in the league can afford to be competitive.
Speaker 2: It's really an excuse, and that's one of the reasons
Speaker 2: why they want the salary caps so badly, because the
Speaker 2: salary cap gives teams the ultimate excuse not to compete.
Speaker 2: You know, I'd like to sign this player, But you know,
Speaker 2: my hands are tied by the salary cap. I've referred
Speaker 2: to it as like an owner protection plan. It's it's
Speaker 2: anti competitive. It protects them from having to compete, and
Speaker 2: that's why at the end of the day, they want
Speaker 2: it in addition to increasing their their profits. So we
Speaker 2: made composals that we think will incentivize competition. We propose
Speaker 2: something called it a competitive integrity tax, which is really
Speaker 2: a reflection of the competitive balance tax, which penalizes teams
Speaker 2: for spending.
Speaker 4: This would actually penalize teams for not spending.
Speaker 2: We've made proposals to require teams that get revenue sharing
Speaker 2: money to actually have more requirements to have to spend
Speaker 2: it to make the team better, which is what revenue
Speaker 2: straring is supposed to be for. So again, we've made
Speaker 2: a lot of proposals that we think are in the
Speaker 2: interests of everybody, fans, players and the game to actually
Speaker 2: have a system that incentivizes teams to win and doesn't
Speaker 2: reward teams who are not trying to win.
Speaker 4: What do you see in those financials.
Speaker 5: I know you're not you're obligated to not discuss the financials,
Speaker 5: but what are things that you can tell us that
Speaker 5: we don't see as fans, or that the owners hide
Speaker 5: from fans that I have seen as an ex player
Speaker 5: when I was on when I was in the.
Speaker 4: PA, I'd said, there are a few things.
Speaker 2: I mean, the smaller market teams or the lower revenue
Speaker 2: teams in general, are the most profitable teams in baseball,
Speaker 2: the most profitable right. And again, we have a system
Speaker 2: now at revenue sharing which really doesn't make sense, which
Speaker 2: allows teams to get all these subsidies from the other
Speaker 2: teams and from Major League Baseball and not have to
Speaker 2: spend it to make the team better for the fans.
Speaker 2: So you know, that's a big thing. Again, I don't
Speaker 2: think fans know how much each team gets in those subsidies,
Speaker 2: central revenues, revenue sharing payments, and luxury tax proceeds. We've
Speaker 2: actually proposed in our last round of proposals, we've proposed
Speaker 2: to make it clear that teams should disclose those things
Speaker 2: to fans. How much they get in revenue sharing, how
Speaker 2: much they get in luxury tax proceeds, which are hundreds
Speaker 2: of millions of dollars that goes to the lower revenue teams.
Speaker 2: So I think, you know, if fans saw how much
Speaker 2: in the current system, Uh, those those teams actually get
Speaker 2: for the purpose of trying to help them compete, even
Speaker 2: though they they don't all use it for that. I
Speaker 2: think that would be very very eye opening. And again,
Speaker 2: our proposals would actually allow them to receive even more,
Speaker 2: but subject them to restrict the requirements to actually have
Speaker 2: to have to use the money for the intended purpose,
Speaker 2: which is to put a better team on the field.
Speaker 2: And I say, I'm sorry the eric, I'm sorry. This
Speaker 2: is one other thing, which is, you know, all the
Speaker 2: stuff around the ballpars now the battery in Atlanta, because
Speaker 2: they're sort of semi public. You know, a lot of
Speaker 2: information comes out about how much profit that they make.
Speaker 2: It's not complete information, but I think again a lot
Speaker 2: of teams are all trying to replicate, you know, the
Speaker 2: battery and generating more and more revenues from around the ballpark.
Speaker 2: So that's another thing that's not you know, that's not
Speaker 2: obvious or transparent to the public. Franchise values well, we
Speaker 2: haven't talked about that. I mean, that's where they end
Speaker 2: up making most of their money. I mean, that's generally public,
Speaker 2: although not the exact details. But you know, that's That's
Speaker 2: another thing that when you hear a team say, well,
Speaker 2: you know, we don't really make a lot of money,
Speaker 2: you know, they always leave out the massive appreciation in
Speaker 2: franchise value. As you see San Diego obviously a small
Speaker 2: market that decided it was going to go out and
Speaker 2: compete and turn the team around both on the field
Speaker 2: and in terms of you know, financial profitability, and was
Speaker 2: rewarded with this massive increase in franchise values.
Speaker 3: Talking about making more money, I'm a big guy on
Speaker 3: talking big market small market.
Speaker 4: I can't stand it.
Speaker 3: You know, at the end of the day, Like, listen,
Speaker 3: doesn't MLB want Dodgers and Yankees to be in the
Speaker 3: World Series? Don't they make more money off of that?
Speaker 3: I mean, listen, you don't want Otani playing, you know,
Speaker 3: for Kansas City or Judge going to Minnesota, Like, doesn't
Speaker 3: that help them make more money?
Speaker 2: I think, you know, Rob is actually that when I
Speaker 2: know in the Dodgers and the Yankees were in the
Speaker 2: World Series, he made some statements to that effect.
Speaker 4: But again, you know.
Speaker 2: We we we believe that every team should have the
Speaker 2: ability to compete, and we believe they do. You know,
Speaker 2: one of the things that I noticed, I mean, the
Speaker 2: owners that are out there telling the fans, oh, you
Speaker 2: have no hope, which again I've said before, I think
Speaker 2: it's just extraordinary. I mean, they should be promoting the
Speaker 2: game instead of telling fans our product that we're selling
Speaker 2: to you is broken.
Speaker 4: That's just you know, that's just appalling. But you know,
Speaker 4: in fact, you.
Speaker 2: See the biggest attendance increases over this CBA are in
Speaker 2: the smaller market teams. Eight of the add of the
Speaker 2: ten biggest increases in attendance are among the lower revenue teams.
Speaker 2: So you know, those fans don't seem to think it's
Speaker 2: not worth showing up to the wallpark, notwithstanding the fact
Speaker 2: that the owners and the commission's office are trying to
Speaker 2: tell them, you know, don't you know you have no hope?
Speaker 2: You know, Athletic did a poll recently showing asking fans
Speaker 2: to the extent to which they're optimistic about their teams,
Speaker 2: widespread optimism, including big markets, small markets. The league seems
Speaker 2: like they would almost rather you know, fans stay away
Speaker 2: and be negative about their teams. It's a very very
Speaker 2: strange way to promote the game. So yeah, I mean,
Speaker 2: I mean, look, you could say economically it's better for
Speaker 2: this team to be in the World Series or better
Speaker 2: for that team, and then that may or may not
Speaker 2: be true. But we're we're we believe baseball already has
Speaker 2: better competitive balance than any of the salary cap sports,
Speaker 2: and again we've made proposals that we think will further
Speaker 2: enhance them.
Speaker 1: Hey, one thing that was just thrown out there was
Speaker 1: the prop bet discussion, and Bruce, just being real with you,
Speaker 1: I really like prop bets. I roll with that all
Speaker 1: the time. So I'm curious was that something that was
Speaker 1: expressed to you as a big concern from players. I
Speaker 1: know that players have had, you know, issues with threats
Speaker 1: and all of that, but but also if somebody loses
Speaker 1: a regular bet with a team, they're going to be
Speaker 1: pissed at that player too. So just curious because it
Speaker 1: definitely affects money and affects some fans, you know, interest
Speaker 1: in the game.
Speaker 2: We have other people who are who are focusing on
Speaker 2: this area. But in general, I would say yes, as
Speaker 2: you know, I mean, players are are more and more
Speaker 2: uh the target of you know, threats and harassment based
Speaker 2: on based on gambling. Uh, you know, it's not all
Speaker 2: based on prop bets. But but we think and the
Speaker 2: players generally feel that that increases the I would say,
Speaker 2: you know, the frustration level of fans. I mean, you're right,
Speaker 2: you know, if you if you lose a game, you're
Speaker 2: you're going to be upset. If you bet on a
Speaker 2: game and the team loses, they're gonna be upset. But
Speaker 2: if you bet on a strike and the pitcher throws
Speaker 2: a ball, I mean, that's going to be directed entirely
Speaker 2: at that player as opposed to the team. And so
Speaker 2: we think, you know, it's again in the interest of
Speaker 2: our players, and I do think the players generally feel
Speaker 2: this way that that was not an option. Yeah, I
Speaker 2: mean to the extent gambling increases interest in the sport generally,
Speaker 2: that's a good thing. But you know, everything is a balance,
Speaker 2: and that's one area where we think we can make
Speaker 2: the situation better for players who are increasingly the target
Speaker 2: of those kinds of threats and harassment.
Speaker 1: A s Geek is MLB's official ticket marketplace, and in
Speaker 1: addition to finding every single game on the MLB calendar,
Speaker 1: there are big events coming up soon.
Speaker 6: There's an All Star game, there's a home run Derby.
Speaker 6: And if you think you're perfect and you can pick
Speaker 6: the right seat at the home run derby to get
Speaker 6: the most home run balls you can get the little
Speaker 6: green dot and that might be your lucky seat. Don't
Speaker 6: go red dot, though, because you might not get any balls.
Speaker 6: But go red green dot and get as many home
Speaker 6: run balls as you think you can catch.
Speaker 1: Yep, you click the seat, you check out what your
Speaker 1: view is. Each ticket's rated on a scale of one
Speaker 1: to ten, so you know you're getting a good deal.
Speaker 1: And that's what AJ's talking about. Green good, red bad.
Speaker 1: With those dots and the code for you Territory one
Speaker 1: zero for ten percent off your next set of tickets
Speaker 1: at Sea Geek. That's ten percent off any MLB tickets
Speaker 1: with promo code Territory ten. Make sure you click the
Speaker 1: link in the description of this episode that'll help you
Speaker 1: download the app and then get the code automatically added
Speaker 1: to your account so that you can use it later.
Speaker 1: Thank you to see Geek Bruce. Two items over the
Speaker 1: last couple of weeks that peaked my interests that were
Speaker 1: revealed in some of this back and forth. One I
Speaker 1: think affects everyone, especially fans blackouts. To me, it read
Speaker 1: as if accept some of this stuff and then we'll
Speaker 1: get rid of blackouts, and of course I'm going to
Speaker 1: give the fan perspective here. Wait, so we can get
Speaker 1: rid of this, but we just don't want to unless
Speaker 1: someone gets their way. So that's one. And the second
Speaker 1: one that I felt with this is I have a
Speaker 1: lot of ends and have covered a lot of players
Speaker 1: that come from Latin American markets, and it sounded like
Speaker 1: there was actually a really interesting plan in place to
Speaker 1: work more with places like the Dominican Republic on limiting
Speaker 1: some of the chaos that goes down there with young
Speaker 1: kids and the trainers and all of that. And I'm like, again, wait,
Speaker 1: can't we already be working harder on that. So curious
Speaker 1: for your thoughts on both of those matters. That really
Speaker 1: hit home for me. I know we talk so much
Speaker 1: about the big stuff, but this is big too that
Speaker 1: I feel like sometimes get swept under the rug.
Speaker 2: So in terms of blackouts, look, we have an interest
Speaker 2: and we have hopefully a common interest with the league
Speaker 2: in giving all our fans the opportunity to watch every
Speaker 2: game they can. That's just, you know, fundamental in terms
Speaker 2: of servicing our fans and increasing the popularity sport. The
Speaker 2: fact of the matter is we the players and the
Speaker 2: players Association have no control over that. I know the
Speaker 2: league came out with a suggestion that, well, you know,
Speaker 2: somehow trying to the plane to the players, like, if
Speaker 2: we would only agree to a salary cap, they can
Speaker 2: get a bit of blackouse. We have no seat at
Speaker 2: the table in terms of the good TV negotiations. Blackouts
Speaker 2: ultimately emanate from territorial restrictions that the league. What's that
Speaker 2: the club's put on each other, So you know, we
Speaker 2: have no direct control over that. The notion that they
Speaker 2: can't fix it without a salary cap, frankly is absurd
Speaker 2: to the extent they're saying, well, we could fix it
Speaker 2: if we were able to share our media revenues. Even
Speaker 2: if that's true, and I'm not sure it is, our
Speaker 2: proposal would allow them, the proposal we made a few
Speaker 2: weeks ago would allow them to share I think it's
Speaker 2: around ninety percent or more of their media revenues, so
Speaker 2: they can do that without a salary cap. I think
Speaker 2: it's just a very sort of obvious pr strategy to
Speaker 2: come out and say somehow this is the player's fault
Speaker 2: and somehow this has some thing to do with you know,
Speaker 2: the existence or non existence of the salad camp. That's
Speaker 2: that's just that's just not true in terms of the
Speaker 2: international system, So, you know, a complicated issue. They just
Speaker 2: made a set of proposals which would were absolutely horrendous,
Speaker 2: I have to say, just to be blunt, like a
Speaker 2: lot of their proposals, I think they were roundly seen
Speaker 2: that way by the entire community, including apparently by people
Speaker 2: on their side. Sure, there are a lot of things
Speaker 2: going on in those countries, the dr that you know,
Speaker 2: we don't.
Speaker 4: Like to see.
Speaker 2: I will say that the cause of those problems at
Speaker 2: PACE is the clubs. I mean, the clubs have created
Speaker 2: those issues and now they're saying, oh, you know, here's
Speaker 2: the only way we can fix it. And what they've proposed,
Speaker 2: we believe, is just dramatically negative for the international players.
Speaker 2: I mean, putting aside of the existence or non existence
Speaker 2: of a draft itself, I mean they've proposed, you know,
Speaker 2: increasing the age which an international player or Latino player
Speaker 2: can start with really no protection for that player or
Speaker 2: no support you know, for what that player is going
Speaker 2: to do from seventeen to eighteen. They also proposed in
Speaker 2: their proposal a couple of weeks ago, to effectively eliminate
Speaker 2: an entire year of international signings. They proposed to reduce
Speaker 2: the number of players who get picked. They proposed to
Speaker 2: reduce the amount of money a player who doesn't get
Speaker 2: drafted can get. You know, just just an absolute, you know,
Speaker 2: nightmare on multiple levels. Not good for players in any respect.
Speaker 2: We haven't yet made a proposal on international entry or
Speaker 2: domestic entry. We will do that less time, as you know.
Speaker 2: We at some point at the end, we actually did
Speaker 2: make a proposal for the first time that would have
Speaker 2: included a form of national draft and at other features
Speaker 2: like protections against a drop in signings for for particular countries,
Speaker 2: you know, other protections for players and joint things to
Speaker 2: come back corruption. Uh, the league wasn't interested in any
Speaker 2: of those things. And also the league's proposal at the
Speaker 2: end of the day was really discriminatory financially towards towards
Speaker 2: the Latino players to.
Speaker 4: A point where you know, we weren't able to make
Speaker 4: an agreement. So we'll be making proposals.
Speaker 2: We think there are ways other than the draft to
Speaker 2: address some of those issues. But at the end of
Speaker 2: the day, you know, we're not going to agree to
Speaker 2: anything that's that's going to screw you know, those players
Speaker 2: or any other players. And and that's in argue, what
Speaker 2: what the league has proposed?
Speaker 4: What is the PA's.
Speaker 5: Answer to payroll disparity, because I feel like that's what
Speaker 5: fans in the MLB PR system has has brainwashed fans
Speaker 5: for what is the PA's answer to that, to that
Speaker 5: payroll disparity in the game right.
Speaker 4: Now, there's there's payroll disparity. There's always been payroll disparity.
Speaker 2: They were complaining about the Yankees, you know, in the
Speaker 2: early two thousands. You can find quotes from a lot
Speaker 2: of the same people, some of the same owners. Oh
Speaker 2: my god, what are we going to do? You know,
Speaker 2: the Yankees or nobody's ever gonna be able to to
Speaker 2: beat them? And we need a salary cap. I mean
Speaker 2: that was twenty five years ago. The Yankees have won,
Speaker 2: you know, one World Series since two thousand and nine.
Speaker 2: I think the Mets, you know, I think the second
Speaker 2: biggest payroll. I think I said this on your show
Speaker 2: last time. I grew up a Met fan.
Speaker 4: You know.
Speaker 2: Now, I don't rit for any particular team, but I
Speaker 2: watched the Mets every night, and sadly, you know, they're
Speaker 2: not doing very well, and they haven't won a World
Speaker 2: Series in forty years. So you know, just to say
Speaker 2: there's payroll disparity doesn't tell you anything about about competitive balance.
Speaker 2: The other thing about payroll disparity is that it can
Speaker 2: be a self fulfilling thing. You know, if the Pittsburgh
Speaker 2: Pirates or the Miami Marlins decide we're not going to spend,
Speaker 2: we're not going to run a healthy payroll, we're going
Speaker 2: to pocket the revenue sharing money we get, then you
Speaker 2: know what, that increases payroll disparity. So part of the
Speaker 2: payroll disparity is actually self fulfilling from the teams that
Speaker 2: don't want to spend. There was a poll, again, it
Speaker 2: was an athletic poll just you know, I think a
Speaker 2: week ago. And again when the league says we're listening
Speaker 2: to fans, they're very selective and what they listened to.
Speaker 2: But literally there's a question who do you believe is
Speaker 2: primarily responsible for the sports wide spending disparity? And two
Speaker 2: thirds of the fans said the owners who spend too little.
Speaker 2: You know, only eighty percent said something other than the
Speaker 2: players who stand in the way of a salary cap.
Speaker 2: So again, you know, ay roll disparity, and we also
Speaker 2: have disagreements with the way that the league measures it,
Speaker 2: and you know how they how they come out and measured.
Speaker 2: But look, baseball is unique baseball. One of the beauties
Speaker 2: of baseball is there a lot of different ways to
Speaker 2: construct the team, a lot of ways to win. You know,
Speaker 2: teams like the Dodgers are good not just because they
Speaker 2: can sign free agents, but because they develop players, because
Speaker 2: the way they scout players. The lower revenue teams actually
Speaker 2: have built in advantages in terms of the entry system.
Speaker 2: So so you know, there are a lot of things
Speaker 2: to it. It's very it's very simplistic to say, well,
Speaker 2: you know, ayroll disparity is bad in baseball. We've managed
Speaker 2: to have competitive balance notwithstanding some degree of payroll disparity.
Speaker 2: And look, the last thing I'll say is, you know,
Speaker 2: we hear this from players. It's like, well, if the
Speaker 2: problem is there are some teams that are choosing not
Speaker 2: to spend, I mean, that's an owner problem.
Speaker 4: Right.
Speaker 2: We may propose that we think will help fix that.
Speaker 2: But for the lead to say, well, you know what,
Speaker 2: this is an owner problem, but we're going to fix
Speaker 2: it by taking taking things out of your pocket or
Speaker 2: taking away your guaranteed contracts or taking away your freedom
Speaker 2: and flexibility. That doesn't make sense to players. So yeah,
Speaker 2: that's probably a long enough answer.
Speaker 1: No, that makes sense. And my follow up to this
Speaker 1: is because yeah, I mean, we're on every day and
Speaker 1: we hear from from fan bases that are like, hey,
Speaker 1: i'm my team's not spending enough. How do we fix this?
Speaker 4: Right?
Speaker 1: And the plan being proposed is well, we do a cap,
Speaker 1: then there's a floor, and now finally we will force
Speaker 1: your owners to spend money. So is the hold up
Speaker 1: here for years just that there are too many people
Speaker 1: on the other side of what you're fighting for that say, hey,
Speaker 1: we want to keep limiting the spending and not being
Speaker 1: told what to do right, Just like we are in
Speaker 1: a discussion right now of hey, MLB wants to limit
Speaker 1: player salaries and limit what teams can spend, the other
Speaker 1: side saying, well, I don't want to be forced to
Speaker 1: spend the money that's coming into me, right, because if
Speaker 1: that was going on for a long time, if someone
Speaker 1: has a team, right, a fan of a team that
Speaker 1: is doing well that year, they just want to know
Speaker 1: they're going to push their chips in for investing in
Speaker 1: the offseason or at the trade deadline. I guess the
Speaker 1: point I'm getting to here Brusus, like, why can't we
Speaker 1: get there? It seems like MLB is pushing the cap
Speaker 1: and like you've mentioned, the players are not going to
Speaker 1: give in on that. So can we actually make any
Speaker 1: progress this time around to get those teams to actually
Speaker 1: spend more money so fans are happier.
Speaker 2: The problem with the floor, and you know, I may
Speaker 2: have said this before, but the union we're not against
Speaker 2: the floor. The problem is what it comes with. And
Speaker 2: the league has made very clear for decades and again
Speaker 2: you know recently that in their view of floor does
Speaker 2: not come without a cap. In fact, they've gone further
Speaker 2: and said to us, every dollar in a floor would
Speaker 2: have to be paid for somewhere else. So their proposals
Speaker 2: are at best just moving money around, while they're actually
Speaker 2: reducing all the all the players' money, and then just
Speaker 2: moving money around. You know in our view that that
Speaker 2: doesn't do it. And yes, they want that system not
Speaker 2: because they're concerned about competition. They want it because it's
Speaker 2: going to hold down their labor costs and increase their
Speaker 2: profits and their franchise rights. So so again the problem
Speaker 2: with the floor is from their from their standpoint, Well,
Speaker 2: in terms of what they propose is what it comes with.
Speaker 2: It comes with just taking money from teams that want
Speaker 2: to spend it and giving it to other teams. It
Speaker 2: doesn't really solve anything for us actually damaging to players
Speaker 2: and we.
Speaker 4: Think to the game.
Speaker 2: You know, another thing is you know, in this this
Speaker 2: may be getting more technical capology. You know, a lot
Speaker 2: of people focus on the floor they proposed and the
Speaker 2: cap they proposed on a team level, but at the
Speaker 2: end of the day, it's less important than the overall
Speaker 2: amount because they proposed an escro system. You know, last year,
Speaker 2: the NBA players had to give back to the owners
Speaker 2: five hundred million dollars of their supposedly guaranteed contracts because
Speaker 2: the revenue didn't need projections. So in what the league
Speaker 2: has proposed, you know, those numbers, I'm not going to
Speaker 2: say they're meaningless, but at the end of the day,
Speaker 2: you know, that's not even a real floor because players
Speaker 2: could be required to give back some of that money
Speaker 2: under the escrow system that they proposed. Now again we've
Speaker 2: made proposals. In our last round of proposals, we proposed
Speaker 2: you could call it a kind of soft floor, but
Speaker 2: it's really just a parallel to what they have with
Speaker 2: the luxury tax. We proposed again, you know, you're penalizing
Speaker 2: teams for spending for trying to put a better team
Speaker 2: on the field. You should have a penalty for teams
Speaker 2: that aren't trying to put a better team on the field.
Speaker 4: So we propose that. We think that's a good idea.
Speaker 2: We proposed again requirements that would affect every team, not
Speaker 2: just the revenue sharing pages the lower revenue teams, but
Speaker 2: we also proposed requirements for teams that get that money
Speaker 2: to spend certain amounts of it or otherwise.
Speaker 4: Have to give some of it back.
Speaker 2: We propose rewarding the lower revenue teams who actually go
Speaker 2: out and finish five hundred and go out and make
Speaker 2: the playoffs. Teams like the Brewers, we propose giving them
Speaker 2: more money as a reward for being competitive. So we
Speaker 2: make proposals, and we think there are ways to address this.
Speaker 2: But the league's only proposal to address this issue has been,
Speaker 2: you know, again, tap everything, take money from one team,
Speaker 2: give it to another, move money around. Oh and, by
Speaker 2: the way, turn it into a system where every dollar
Speaker 2: that a player gets has to come out of the
Speaker 2: pocket of another player, all right.
Speaker 5: Last one, Bruce talking about competitiveness and parody and those things.
Speaker 5: When you hear the owners say we're going to strictly
Speaker 5: we're going to restrict deferred money no more referred. We're
Speaker 5: going to restrict the lengths of contracts, and we're going
Speaker 5: to restrict players getting into professional baseball a year or
Speaker 5: two years later. Does that improve the game of baseball
Speaker 5: that fans are going to watch?
Speaker 4: Well? I mean the last point you raised is easy, right.
Speaker 2: I mean, their proposal to eliminate high school eligibility and
Speaker 2: basically have a twenty year age requirement. I mean, it
Speaker 2: literally prevents the best players from from playing from you know,
Speaker 2: it prevents the fans from seeing the best players. And
Speaker 2: we can all think of examples, you know, whether it's
Speaker 2: Bryce Fauper, Mike Trout, players who would not have been
Speaker 2: playing in the major leagues under their proposal.
Speaker 4: I mean, how can that possibly be good for the game.
Speaker 2: It's bad for fans, bad for the game for fans
Speaker 2: not to be able to see the best players, whoever
Speaker 2: they are and whatever age they are, you know, at
Speaker 2: any given time. In terms of limiting you know, limiting
Speaker 2: deferred complexibility, like deferred compensation. They proposed to eliminate it completely. Uh,
Speaker 2: you know, will respond to that at some point. But
Speaker 2: I think a common theme is all of their proposals
Speaker 2: are designed to remove control from players, to basically take
Speaker 2: control of a player's careers.
Speaker 4: Out of their hands.
Speaker 2: Uh, limiting you know, flexibility in every way they can,
Speaker 2: whether it's out of structure contracts, whether it's how much
Speaker 2: you can you can get paid, whether it's limiting the
Speaker 2: length of a contract, whether it's effectively limiting the guarantees,
Speaker 2: whether it's limiting the flexibility to get a deal done,
Speaker 2: but by doing some kind of deferral, which every team
Speaker 2: can do. Yeah, it's just a common thread throughout all
Speaker 2: their proposals, which is to you know, have have a
Speaker 2: control state, you know where where Central Baseball basically controls
Speaker 2: everything the players do and everything you know, they and
Speaker 2: their agents can do together. We're in fame were of
Speaker 2: you know, player empowerment, player flexibility, and ultimately, you know,
Speaker 2: I'll just say, going to your point about what's good
Speaker 2: for fans, it was interesting that a lot of their
Speaker 2: proposals to eliminate things like or limit performance posts is
Speaker 2: that's one of their proposals or limit the length of contracts,
Speaker 2: or limit small market teams have used those things to
Speaker 2: sign to and retaine a lot of their players. So
Speaker 2: literally is tying the hands of clubs, including those small
Speaker 2: market clubs that want to retain their youngest players and
Speaker 2: a lot of them.
Speaker 4: You know, I've been able.
Speaker 2: To do that Bobby Wit and Julio Ramirez, and you
Speaker 2: know there are many more examples, but the league's proposals
Speaker 2: would have actually prevented the clubs from retaining those players.
Speaker 2: So yeah, at the end of the day, we don't
Speaker 2: think any of it is good for the game or
Speaker 2: good for fans.
Speaker 1: Oh this was super helpful, Bruce, And I'll end on
Speaker 1: like a fun light note question here for you when
Speaker 1: you're in these conversations. It's right because we haven't spoken
Speaker 1: to you since, like the real proposal back and forth
Speaker 1: is going on? Anyone ever crack a joke? Is there
Speaker 1: anything to just humanize the situation.
Speaker 2: Uh, I'm gonna say I'm not going to say never,
Speaker 2: but it's not exactly a left right Yeah.
Speaker 4: We uh, you know, we're generally pretty civil.
Speaker 2: Frankly, our last meeting without getting into you know, stuff
Speaker 2: set across the table got a little spirited, got a
Speaker 2: little spirited. So yeah, I'm not going to say that
Speaker 2: there's a lot of backslapping and yucking it up going on,
Speaker 2: but in general we're.
Speaker 4: Very professional and civil with each other, as as you
Speaker 4: might have menaged.
Speaker 1: Well.
Speaker 4: If something funny happens, I'll be the first be first
Speaker 4: to let you.
Speaker 1: Yet, yes, please do right, Please jump back on for it,
Speaker 1: and and don't be a stranger. This stuff's helpful because
Speaker 1: you know, we feel like we're on the outside and
Speaker 1: want to get as much IMPO as possible. We always invite,
Speaker 1: you know, MLB to send a rep to to talk
Speaker 1: to us as well. So Bruce, thank you so much
Speaker 1: for doing this. Really appreciate the time and enjoy the weekend.
Speaker 1: We'll catch up with you soon.
Speaker 4: Thank you, so Hi to you. Jae