| KEY DATES |
| Aug. 30 |
Labor agreement reached |
| The story |
| Revenue sharing |
| Owners | Player |
Solution |
| Want to increase local revenue sharing (involving money from local media contracts and gate receipts) to 50 percent from 20 percent. |
Fear too much sharing will prevent rich clubs from awarding big contracts but have moved closer to owners' proposal. |
The amount of money transferred from the wealthy teams to the poorer ones will rise from $169 million to $258 million, using 2001 revenue figures for analysis. High-revenue teams will have to share 34 percent of their locally generated money, up from 20 percent. An additional $72.2 million will be taken each year from the central fund and distributed to lower-revenue teams, and the commissioner will be given a $10 million discretionary fund.
|
| "Competitive balance" tax |
| Owners |
Player |
Solution |
| Want luxury tax to put a drag on players' salaries beginning with 50 percent tax on payrolls over $102 million and escalating from there. |
See luxury tax as salary cap in disguise and want only those payrolls over $130 million to be taxed (and at less than 50 percent). |
Portions of payrolls will be taxed, with the threshold starting at $117 million
next year and rising to $120.5 million in 2004, $128 million in 2005 and $136.5
million in 2006. The rate will be 17.5-40 percent, depending on the season and
the number of times a team goes over the threshold.
|
| Drug policy |
| Owners | Player |
Solution |
| Want to test for drugs, particularly in light of growing steroid rage. |
Under a proposal, the players have agreed to be checked for illegal steroids starting next year. |
For the first time, players agreed to undergo mandatory testing forsteroids, which will start next year on a survey basis. |
| Contraction |
| Owners |
Player |
Solution |
| Owners wanted to dissolve teams, namely the Expos and Twins. |
The union fought contraction, citing the loss of jobs. |
Owners agree not to contract teams through the 2006 season. Relocation of teams, however, is possible. |
| SCOTT MILLER'S TAKE |
| Well will you take a look at this! They're actually spread out across the country now preparing to play ... baseball? How do you like that? I've been writing for most of the summer that the players and owners finally would reach an agreement and avert a work stoppage, which is either A) Very enlightened, or B) Just plain stupid, based on the fact that they were 0-for-8 in avoiding work stoppages before this summer. I'm certainly not going to claim A. I think Friday's deal is a tremendous thing for two reasons. First, the increased revenue sharing should help give the small-market recipients some extra weapons to compete. And even though this deal probably didn't go far enough in the luxury tax area, I still think enough progress was made that it will far outweigh what certainly would have been crippling effects to the game had there been a strike -- whether it was for two days, two weeks or, as hawkish owners such as San Diego's John Moores say they were prepared for, all of 2003. The luxury tax side of the ledger is lacking, to be sure. It likely will affect just four clubs next season -- the Yankees, Los Angeles, Texas and Boston. But if you're the owners, you can't atone for 30 years of sins in one agreement. To their credit, the players union made significant concessions -- more than anybody ever would have imagined in the areas of revenue sharing, steroid testing and, yes, even the luxury tax (that they even consented to it at all represents something of an upset). But before canonizing them like so many others are quick to do, let's also remember that they gained one underrated concession from management: A 50 percent increase in the minimum salary from $200,000 to $300,000. That immediately addresses a constituency of the players' union that has been overlooked ever since big money has started coming into the game: The other end of the spectrum. And at no small cost to management. Bottom line, this deal takes a step toward making the players and owners true partners in the industry. Now, if they can take a few more steps in that direction, maybe some of the mistrust and malice will melt away for good. OK, so maybe that's actually getting carried away ... |
| HISTORY |
| Year | Stoppage |
Games Missed | Main issues |
| 1972 | Strike | 86 | Pensions |
| 1973 | Lockout | None | Salary arbitration |
| 1976 | Lockout | None | Free agency |
| 1980 | Strike | None | Free-agent compensation | | 1981 | Strike | 712 | Free-agent compensation | | 1985 | Strike | None | Salary arbitration | | 1990 | Lockout | None | Salary arbitration, salary cap | | 1994 | Strike | 920 | Salary cap, revenue sharing |
| |
Headlines
Quotable
"It was close. I was about to make my flight arrangements to go home."
-- Cubs outfielder Roosevelt Brown |
Your Call
"Good job both sides! I didn't think you were that stupid (although I was wondering). Only time will see if they are serious about changing the state of baseball. ... To (Kansas City pitcher) Paul Bird, who commented that the fans 'don't have a right to act the way they did,' I ask you this question: Who is paying your salary?!! We have every right to demand better and be angry! And we did!"
Matt Untch
Send us your comments! | |