Research Project: MLB Strike Historical & Rhetorical Context

Scott Autenreith

4/8/2016

Historical Context

“Baseball’s economic model: individual teams generating their own revenue and keeping as much of it as they can. This pre-dates television, radio, flight, the internal combustion engine; it goes back deep into the nineteenth century and it utterly unsuited for the modern age” -George Will. In 1994, the Montreal Expos looked like the next great baseball dynasty. They were loaded with young talent: Moises Alou, Larry Walker, Pedro Martinez, and Marquis Grissom. They posed a serious threat to the Atlanta Braves, the best team in the National League. By the end of July, the Expos seemed unstoppable. They were developed through their minor league system, eager, young, and could play stellar defense. Montreal was not the only city that was playing great baseball that summer. In San Francisco, Matt Williams was hitting home runs at a furious pace. Possibly on track of breaking Roger Marris’ record of sixty-one home runs in a single season. In San Diego, Tony Gwynn, the Padres great right fielder had been hitting so consistently that he had been able to keep his batting average above .390. By August, it seemed that he might do what no one had since Ted Williams in 1941; hit .400 in a season (PBS). But then, developments off the field stole the spotlight.

            Ever since the players had developed a union in 1966, tensions with the owners had steadily escalated. There had been a strike or a lockout every time they had had to negotiate a new contract. Over the years, court rulings had given the players more and more power. Now in the middle of the 1994 season, the two adversaries were embroiled in their bitterest contract dispute yet. Desperate to unify their own ranks, the owners, who had also been squabbling among themselves over revenue, had ousted commissioner Fay Vincent, replacing him with one of their own, Milwaukee Brewers owner, Bud Selig. Selig was certain that if baseball was going to thrive, the owners had to work in concert. During the 1994 season, the owners made a proposal they knew the Players Union would never accept. They offered to share revenue with each other, but only if the Union agreed to a limit on a total amount each team could pay its players; a salary cap. Tom Glavine, a start pitcher for the Atlanta Braves said that, “We are ready to play but we are not going to play under the terms of a salary cap.” (Billionaires vs. Millionaires). On August 12^th, the players walked out (PBS).

The baseball season was suspended indefinitely. The owners were prepared to wait them out, confident that the Union would give in. At this time, the players’ average compensation was $1.2 million dollars (BLS). The owners Chief Negotiator, Richard Ravitch said, “all the owners are trying to find out are how much more they want.” (Billionaires vs. Millionaires). Don Fehr of the Players Association said, “this dispute arises because the clubs could not get their own internal house in order and redefine their revenue sharing rules” (Billionaires vs. Millionaires). Soon after, Bug Selig officially stated that the remainder of the season and postseason were going to be suspended. When the season ended after 117 games, Tony Gwynn’s batting average was .394. George Will talked to Tony Gwynn and he said, “Tony did not hesitate about striking. Tony the he was a Union guy, people sacrificed for me and he will sacrifice for the future generation of baseball players. The Montreal Expos were in first place in their division, with a six game lead over the powerful Atlanta Braves. They would never find out if they were in fact, the greatest team in baseball. That was the beginning of the end for the Expos. The Expos would never play that well again. Their fans never came back. Twelve years later, the city of Montreal would lose its baseball team.

During the offseason, the owners declared that negotiation had reached an in pass, and that they would therefore implement a salary cap unilaterally. They also outraged fans by starting to hire replacement to put on the field in place of the striking major leaguers. In March of 1995, federal judge Sonia Sotomayor found the owners guilty of negotiating in bad faith. The players then agreed to go back to work under the contract that been in effect before the strike began. In the end, the owners had lost more than $700 million without winning a single concession. The players had lost the respect of the fans did not understand why they had walked out in the first place since many of the players were earning more in one week than the average American made in a year. When stadiums opened back up in 1995, many stadiums were half empty. Those fans that did come out seemed more interested in de-rating their hometown teams than cheering them on. At Shea Stadium in New York City, fans ran onto the field and tossed dollar bills at the feet of Mets players. In Detroit, they threw bottles, cans baseballs, and lighters. All across the country, the games biggest stars were met with choruses of boos. The loudest taunts were reserved for players that had spoke for the Union, like Atlanta’s Tom Glavine. A month into the season, attendance was down 20% (Cornell). Pedro Martinez, an outstanding pitcher for the Expos at the time, understood why fans were upset but he said that, “Baseball has an ugly face, and it’s the business part. Negotiations are not pretty, but fans need to remember that we love to play for them” (Billionaires vs. Millionaires).

Works Cited

Burns, Ken. "Millionaires vs. Billionaires." Dark Days. PBS, n.d. Web. 5 Apr. 2016.

Staudohar, Paul D. "The Baseball Strike of 1994-95 : Monthly Labor Review: U.S. Bureau ofLabor Statistics." U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Mar.1997. Web. 05 Apr. 2016.

Yankwitt, Russell M. "Buy Me Some Peanuts and Ownership: Major League Baseball and the Need for Employee Ownership. CornellJournal of Law, Apr. 1996. Web. 5 Apr. 2016.

Scott Autenreith

4/8/2016

Rhetorical Context

In 1994, the Major League Baseball Players Union went on strike because they were not in favor of the contract that the MLB team owners proposed about the collective bargaining agreement. There had always been disagreement about renewing the revenue distribution prior to 1994, but not to this extent. The result of the lockout led to the suspension of the rest of the regular season, and also the post season. This was the first time since 1904 that a World Series was not going to be played.

            On one side of the protest was the Players Union. The first Players Union was developed in 1885 with a total of eight baseball players. In 1965, players came together and reached out to experts who could help their cause. Their search led them to Marvin Miller, an Economist, who then went on to raise the minimum wage salary for a player, and was the first to promote the use of arbitration within the Major Leagues. After Miller, Don Fehr became the Executive Director of the Players Union. He led the players during a large growth of the baseball industry. During his tenure, player’s salaries went from $413,000 in 1986 to a whopping $3 million when Fehr left his position in 2009 (MLBPA). Although baseball became so large, the owners were still able to beat the Players Union in contract disputes. In 1986, the Players Union filed for ownership collusion and again in ’87. The result of the first allegation led to $10.5 million in determined damages. The second allegation, arbitrator George Nicolau decided that the owners violated the “Basic Agreement” which led to the Players Union being awarded $38 million. As time passed, 1994 came with disagreement occurring again in contract disputes. This time, both parties did not budge. The Players Union held out until the owners could not bear losing any more money due to a lack of game being played. The Players Union strategically went on strike on August 12^th because that was a time that players would have received at least a third of their contract salary, and it was also a time where owners would still lose a large sum of money (MLBPA). Ever since the Players Union was created, they have had a never-ending battle with owners to create the best situation for themselves and the future generation of baseball players.

            On the other side of the strike was Major League Baseball team owners. The owners had much conflict with the Players Union until 1981. At that time, the owners decided to implement their own free agency plan and that did not sit well with the players. In ’81, the first mid-strike season occurred. Because of the loss of revenue, the owners decided to drop their free agency plan. Owners lost out on 713 games over the span of 50 days (MLBPA). Now it was 1994, and the owners proposed a deal that they knew the players would reject. They voted 28-0 on the proposition of a salary cap. They thought that this proposal was positive move because it would even out the playing field. Teams like the Yankees, Dodgers, and Chicago had a much larger payroll to work with, whereas teams such as Pittsburgh, Milwaukee, and Seattle had a tough time competing with large payrolls. The catch to this that did not sit well with the players was that if there was a salary cap, it would limit the amount given to the player. This event created a conflict between both parties that eventually headed to a lockout. Led the by the owners was a man named Richard Ravitch, a graduate of Yale Law School and had a successful career in urban development. Outside of his baseball work, he was known as a “Union Buster” (BLS). He made strides in negotiations with the Players Union, but without his knowledge, an owner withheld $7.8 of scheduled payment to the players’ pension fund. Ironically, the money was supposed to go players that participated in 1994 All-Star game. In this situation, the All-Stars were the best players in the game at the time. So, the fact that the owners did not give money that they owed to highly marketed players did not make the Players Union any happier. In the 1994 strike, the owners went down a slippery slope and no of their proposals went their way. They ended up losing a total of $1 billion and settled on the same collecting bargaining agreement that was in place for previous season. No positive outcome came for the owners in the strike of 1994.

            Major League Baseball team owners in 1994 were very wealthy people. They were seen as the 1%. Over the course of years that Major League Baseball had been around, the owners continually profited off of contract proposals that the Players Union could not successfully overturn. In 1986-1995, The Players Union was done giving in to the owners. Although there was never a lack of effort to make changes from the Players Union, they were just never on the winning side of things. They wanted to improve the quality of their financial status for the rest of their careers. For this to happen, they had to make sacrifices. Included in those sacrifices included some loss of respect from the fans.

            After going on a lockout, MLB fans were necessarily glad that their teams were back to playing America’s pastime. Instead, the felt betrayed, abandoned, and confused. Players were booed and had items thrown at them for a large part of the 1995 season. Although the reactions from fans were negative, the lockout was necessary for the future of baseball and for America. The owners consistently made deals that would only increase the revenue for them. The fact that the owners could not have a salary cap had many benefits. A salary cap meant less money to the players and more money to the owners. But is that it? Taking a deeper look, since the players were able to make more money financially, it opened the doors for many opportunities. This included extra money that could have been given out to the community. Player usually set up a foundation in relation to their name and advertises it so that they can have a positive reputation amongst the fans. For example, Zack Greinke, a player for the Arizona Diamondbacks signed a contract over the summer for $206 million over a six year spread. Greinke decided that 1% of his annual salary would go to his charity (SI). That is a value of $206 million. Had a salary cap been in place, the chances of that happening in 2016 would have been slim. With the idea of a salary cap gone, players could have had more money to fund a charity that would better their community.

            Their Players Union goals outside of extinction of the proposed collective bargaining agreement, was to set themselves up better for the future not in baseball, but in life. The idea of a salary cap put a limit on what a player was worth. There would have been a set-in-stone number that the top players would have been valued at. Without that salary cap, it meant that that amount given for a players contract was the actual value that that player held within that organization. Lets take a look back Zack Greinke’s contract value.  The Diamondbacks signed him for $206 million over six years. If you relate that to another pitcher that signed around the same time as Greinke you are able to understand which MLB organization values that player more. David Price was a free during the winter of 2015, along with Greinke. On December 1^st, Price signed a contract with the Boston Red Sox that was a deal for $217 million over 7 years. While that is a bit more money than Greike’s, Zack’s contract is worth more. See, the Diamondbacks are paying a higher AAS (Annual Average Salary) to Greinke than the Red Sox are to Price. The two players ended up signing the two richest contracts in MLB history. But because the Diamondbacks gave Greinke more money, they value him higher than Price and any another player available. If a salary cap had been in place, the contract would be nowhere near those numbers. Baseball is a rare business that does not have a salary cap. It makes the teams truly think about the value of the player that they are signing. The Players Union used this as a strategy when thinking about baseball in the future. They knew that the sport of baseball was growing and they wanted to take advantage of the opportunity to get as much value to the players, communities, and the economy as possible without allowing large amounts going to the owners.

Works Cited

"MLBPA History." Major League Baseball. MLB, n.d. Web. 09 Apr. 2016.

Staudohar, Paul D. "The Baseball Strike of 1994-95 : Monthly Labor Review: U.S. Bureau ofLabor Statistics." U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Mar.1997. Web. 05 Apr. 2016.

Woo, Jeremy. "Greinke Donating 1% of Annual Salary to Charity." Zack Greinke Donating 1% of Annual Salary to Diamondbacks Charity. Sports Illustrated, 11 Dec. 2015. Web. 09 Apr. 2016.