More On: Coronavirus
Joe Biden Tests Positive for Wuhan Coronavirus Again
Aaron Rodgers, Green Bay Packers Fined for Violating COVID-19 Protocols
Shailene Woodley Defends Aaron Amid Rumored COVID-19 Quarantine Outings
Howard Stern: Aaron Rodgers Should Be Fired for 'Bulls--t' Vaccine Comments
Emilio Estevez Denies Being Anti-Vax After Exiting 'Mighty Ducks' Series
A smoking gun potentially exists that the union knew another negotiation needed to be had beyond a March agreement with MLB about how the players would be paid in 2020 if games were contested without a paid audience. An email from an MLB lawyer to top league officials dated 10:41 a.m. on March 26 was …
A smoking gun potentially exists that the union knew another negotiation needed to be had beyond a March agreement with MLB about how the players would be paid in 2020 if games were contested without a paid audience.
An email from an MLB lawyer to top league officials dated 10:41 a.m. on March 26 was obtained by The Post. A conversation was had earlier on the morning of March 26 between two MLB officials and two Players Association officials, according to the email, to cover a variety of issues raised about the negotiation that would cover rules without the season starting on time due to the coronavirus pandemic.
Included in the seven points covered by the email is that MLB explained to the union officials that MLB would need a second negotiation if games were not played before fans to determine pay and that the union officials understood that concept.
March 26 was supposed to be the first day of the regular season and the sides were using that as a deadline to reach an agreement, which they did. The document states that players will be paid a prorated amount of their 2020 salary for games played if the sport returns. MLB, though, has pointed to part of the document that states that if games are played without fans that further talks about economic feasibility need to be undertaken.
The two sides had a formal negotiating session last Tuesday in which MLB laid out extensively its proposal for restarting the game with safety and health. The sides also talked economics, but MLB did not make its expected proposal for a 50-50 split in revenues this year. The sides have not formally spoken since with the clock ticking if MLB actually intends to begin a second spring training in mid-June and start the season the first week of July.
The staredown and absence of talks is based on neither side wanting to flinch on economics. Players Association executive director Tony Clark and powerful agent Scott Boras have been publicly strong in stating that the matter of salary already has been determined for a 2020 restart and no further negotiations need be had.
But the email from MLB senior VP, Labor Relations and Deputy General Counsel Patrick Houlihan suggests otherwise. He and MLB executive VP of baseball economics Morgan Sword spoke on the morning of March 26 with Players Association deputy general counsel Matt Nussbaum and director of analytics and baseball operations Greg Dreyfuss. The union was seeking clarification on matters that include service time and the draft.
But in an email that Houlihan sent to deputy commissioner Dan Halem, MLB’s lead negotiator, that was cc-ed to several other prominent league officials, he wrote on Issue 1:
“Matt asked what ‘economic feasibility’ meant in Section I. I told him it meant that we would only consider playing in neutral sites or without fans if it worked for us economically. I reminded him of Rob’s comments at the outset that playing in empty stadiums did not work for us economically. But I said, for example, that we might be willing to have a conversation about playing some limited number of games in empty stadiums if players agreed to reduce their daily salaries for those games, and if it was part of a larger plan that made economic sense. Matt confirmed that that is what he thought we meant, but appreciated the confirmation.”
Rob refers to Commissioner Rob Manfred.
The union had no comment about this email when reached by The Post. The Players Association position has been that not only does the March 26 document supports its pro-rata position, but that MLB has not made a clear case to the union that it is not economically feasible to pay the players in full even without fans. The union feels players will be taking health/safety risks, yet take a second pay cut so that owners will lose less money. In the March agreement, players agreed to waive claims for billions of dollars in salary in exchange, the union has stated, for the prorated pay when games return.
And the Players Association still is waiting for a formal financial proposal from MLB.
MLB believes the March 26 agreement language is clear and — just as vital — what was said between the sides reflects that. Yankees president Randy Levine, who was the lead negotiator for MLB in the labor dispute of 1994-95, was not part of the negotiation, but has subsequently read, among other items, the bargaining notes that led to the agreement. He told The Post that he believes all of it together provides a picture of what the intentions of the agreement were.
“As I have said, our players are patriots and they are all wise enough and careful enough to make decisions that are in the best interests of them and their families and we all respect those decisions,” Levine said. “However, they need to make their decisions based on what the March agreement actually states and has been signed off on by both sides. I personally reviewed all of the documents and the bargaining notes from the dispute over the provision about renegotiating salaries and they are just clear that it does not state what Scott Boras and Tony Clark have said.
“It clearly states in bold language that if there are any bans on mass gatherings — which there are to this day — that prevent fans in the stadium, and/or any travel restrictions exist — as they do today — for example, people have to quarantine for 14 days going in and out of Canada and/or the commissioner has to certify that it is safe to go to a ballpark, which has not happened because he is bargaining with the union about the health and safety protocols; since those three conditions have not been met the agreement says that based on those facts and the economic feasibility of the moment there has to be a renegotiation on salaries. That is not my opinion, that is what the text of the agreement says. As long as the players and the clubs feel it is safe to return, I am hopeful we will get past arguing over language that is clear and unambiguous and quickly get to negotiating a deal that is satisfactory to all.”
