Question:

MLB Collective Bargaining Agreement – its negative impact on Baseball -- MLB News

by  |  earlier

0 LIKES UnLike


MLB Collective Bargaining Agreement – its negative impact on Baseball -- MLB News
Major League Baseball (MLB) and Major League Baseball Player Association (MLBPA) successfully and cordially entered into another 5-year agreement, the Collective Bargaining Agreement. The agreement was signed between Commissioner MLB, Bud Selig, and Michael
Weiner, MLB Players' Association’s head. The newly introduced agreement would be effective after the inception of spring training in February YEAR, whereas some of its clauses are already active such as the winding up of Type-A and Type-B free agent categories.
When the agreement was signed and the newly introduced rules and regulations popped up in the print media, I thought that everything is good and in order and that it might be a perfect agreement since both parties agreed upon it unanimously. After going
through the details, my perception changed a bit. There are some aspects in the agreement that have raised questions in the minds of many analysts.
The main deficiency that bugs me is not providing the leagues with low investment and less money, an ease to carry out their business. In the recent CBA, the minimum wage rate has been hiked. For the short term it looks like a piece of cake but one has to
consider the long term picture as well. The minimum wage in 2011 was $414,000 which has been escalated to $480,000 for the next year and would be further increased to $500,000 in the year 2014.
This raise will be nominal for the hefty business-making franchises but would definitely affect the fiscal situation of teams like Tampa Bay Rays, Pittsburgh Pirates and Kansas City Royals. These teams  tend to keep at least 10 to 11 players in their roster
as backups. If they pay these backup players the minimum wage which would be $500,000 in 2014, then one can imagine what a burden it will become for such a team to maintain its 40-man roster.
This issue hasn’t been addressed at all in the new accord. Furthermore, a particular restriction that I initially thought was good is the salary caps or maximum wage restrictions for new or relatively less experienced players. It makes sense that the young
aged newbie(s) coming from the minor league to major league, should not be paid hefty salaries or drafted at amounts, almost equal to that of the icons of the game since as opposed to the youngsters,  these players have spent the better part of their lives
to reach a certain pay-scale or value that is a reflection of their performance.
I agree, but at the same time, the salary cap should not be reduced to such a low amount as mentioned in the new agreement since it will have a drastic impact on the game. Nowadays, American lads have a wider choice with regard to getting into professional
sports, including NFL and NBA at their disposal, which seem far more attractive than MLB considering the current restriction. Youngsters, who start their sporting careers from school or college and decide which game to opt for in future, would now select either
football or basketball over baseball, in all likelihood.
With the current restriction on the maximum wage for the young lads, the incentive of receiving hefty money and salaries in the beginning, which was definitely a big motivation, will now be absent. MLB has witnessed several players who opted for baseball
over other sports solely because of this incentive. Players such as Matt Holliday and Carl Crawford left football, prioritising baseball in light of the perks presented in MLB.
Similarly, Aramis Ramirez was formerly a basketball player before he made a rock solid entrance in MLB. Matt Kemp and Curtis Granderson also belonged to different sports altogether but they shifted to baseball. With the new CBA’s restrictions, such stars
would not prefer baseball, and possibly players would go for other sports with better incentives. This rule’s implementation is very stiff since any team crossing the designated 15% limit will not only be charged a luxury tax, but will also lose the two top
draft picks available.
I would like to mention here that MLBPA didn’t fight truly for its players despite doing a good thing by approving HGH testing stipulation, and introducing many other positive rules. However, these rules are only feasible in the short term and would have
an adverse affect on the charm of the game in the long term. MLB and MLBPA should carefully go through the terms of the agreement again to ensure that they serve the best interest of all those involved in the game.
There is just one major concern here. What if the young generation loses hope and interest in the game due to Selig’s initiatives? Well only future impact of the recently introduced CBA can answer this question.

 Tags:

   Report
SIMILAR QUESTIONS

Question Stats

Latest activity: earlier.
This question has 0 answers.

BECOME A GUIDE

Share your knowledge and help people by answering questions.