Labor Pains

Jason Michael Barker

When last we spoke, you and I, I looked at boxscores and tried my hardest not to mention the Impending Labor Action, or as my friends and I call it, the ILA. Two weeks ago, however, I wrote about nothing but. And if you recall, I was quite optimistic.

Things have changed quite a bit since then, and unfortunately not for the better. The revenue sharing gap -- once believed to be as small as $60M -- has grown considerably as the owners plead ignorance to the players' interest in a phase-in plan, leaving the two sides roughly $223M apart over four years using 2001 revenue figures.

A bigger point of contention is the luxury tax. Not only are the two sides far apart in terms of the dollar figure at which the cap would kick in -- the owners would like $107M each of the first three years followed by $111M, while the players prefer $125M in year one, $135 in year two, and $145M in year three -- they're also far apart on the percentage of tax, and the players want no cap whatsoever in year four, 2006.

The last time we went through this song and dance, which lead to the 1994 work stoppage, the two sides didn't even start bargaining until three months after the strike. So while they're at least farther along than that (and talking), I've also become quite a bit less optimistic in the past two weeks. My stance has changed from "50/50 on there being a strike, and if there is it'll be a short one" to "there will be a strike, and I hope it'll be a short one."

What really bothers me is that Joe Public sees the players as whiny millionaires -- despite the fact that the owners are many times richer -- and views a potential strike as some sort of slap in the face. What's so evil about a strike, anyway? The players, as workers operating under a collective bargaining agreement, are well within their rights to strike as a show of opposition against management.

Another common misperception is that the players are striking for more money, when in fact they're not. I realize that in most labor situations involving a work stoppage, the striking workers are looking for increased pay, better benefits, improved work conditions or some combination of the three. But in this situation that isn't the case at all. With the exception of minimum salary for the players -- an issue on which the two sides have already agreed -- the only people out for more money in this thing are the owners, who would like nothing more than to decrease their labor costs.

The owners want a luxury tax to hold down salaries because they've been unable to do so themselves by other means, such as "good decision making" and "fiscal responsibility." They claim player salaries are spiraling out of control, and yet it's their hand holding the pen which both draws the spiral and signs the checks. They'd love a pure salary cap as the means for holding down salaries, though deep down they must know they'll never get one. Frankly, the only thing being slapped in the face by a salary cap is the free market system.

I realize a large number of fans out there are sweet on the idea of a salary cap, and they won't tire of pointing to the National Football League and National Basketball Association as the sterling examples of why a cap works. Yet somehow they never mention that even with a cap, the Los Angeles Lakers have won three consecutive NBA titles. Before LA, a little team called the Chicago Bulls won it all six years out of eight.

For a sport praised for its competitive balance, what does it say that only four different teams have won a title in the past 12 seasons? During the same span, seven different baseball teams have won the World Series. While it's true that the NFL has had nine different teams win it all over the same period, they also have 100% revenue sharing, an obscenely complicated salary cap, and they still think keeping home games off local TV is a good idea. All this for two extra teams in 12 years?

Baseball fans who oppose the current system hate it when teams have to hold fire sales or trade away players who are soon to be free agents. Some even dislike free agency on some level, saying that with all the player turnover and lack of loyalty, it's hard to even follow the local nine any these days. And yet, in the NFL, high-priced veterans are simply cut in the off-season. These so-called "cap casualties" are the result of a system which allows teams to sign players to big contracts with pro-rated signing bonuses, only to cut them -- and their non-guaranteed contracts -- loose when they no longer have use for them. This sort of thing is good for fans trying to identify with the players on their favorite teams?

Oh boy -- time for another ESPN.com poll! "Where do you stand on the proposed baseball strike of August 30th?" Our choices are "Pro Owner," "Pro Player" (not the stadium) and "On the Fence." I have to be honest with you, I had no idea this one would be so extreme.

Leading the way, "Pro Owner" at 50.6%. Next up, "On the Fence" at 37.3%. And bringing up the rear, "Pro Player" at a mere 12%.

"On the Fence" I understand. Perhaps you don't really understand the issues, don't care about them or simply haven't formed an opinion yet. I don't know what you're waiting for, but I understand if that's the case. But how could half of the nearly 28,000 voters honestly favor the owners in all of this?

Say what you will about the players, but at least they don't lie. The owners, on the other hand, lie at the drop of a hat, even doing so in front of Congress and in the face of an investigation by Forbes into their finances. The owners sign players to big contracts and coerce communities into building them lucrative new stadiums, then cry poor and refuse to open their books. They badmouth the game incessantly, even going so far as to say successful teams like the Oakland Athletics and Minnesota Twins are mere aberrations.

This is the side you're choosing to support, you 14,000 Internet voters?

I guess that's why it's a free country...

about the author

Jason Michael Barker is glad it's a free country, because he's just about tapped out after buying a dozen bobbleheads this weekend for his growing collection. You can offer fifty bucks for the genuine Shane Halter bobblehead to jmb@strikethree.com, but he still won't part with it.

Web Strikethree.com