Tony Gwynn was closing in on Ted Williams' batting average record, the up-and-coming phenom Ken Griffey Jr. ended the season with 40 home runs and the Montreal Expos were the front-runner to win the World Series with a record of 74-40.
In the blink of an eye it was gone: The records, the averages, the home runs and the money.
The Major League Baseball strike of 1994 was as inevitable as Phil Jackson drawing-up a last second shot for Michael Jordan in a timeout.
The Major League Baseball strike ultimately cost owners millions of dollars in lost revenue and the disillusionment for fans across the country.
The tension between owners and the MLBPA didn't happen overnight and could have been avoided if the owners would have been more flexible in the early days of salary negotiations and free agency issues. The owners across Major League Baseball have one interest and that is the bottom-line. Cash is king in Major League Baseball and the owners wanted it all for their own endeavors. As Helyar notes in Lords of the Realm, owners such as Gussie Busch wanted exclusive rights on advertising, specifically his Budweiser beer ads. In Atlanta, Ted Turner was building a behemoth television network that brought in more money for his franchise then had been seen up to date. The owners were making money and the players were unhappy at their compensation program.
As the Collective Bargaining Agreement expired in December of 1993, the foundation of the house began to crumble. The main issue stalling the two parties was the owners desire to implement a salary cap and the players did not feel that a salary cap was fair compensation for their on-the-field attributes.
In June of 1994, the owners presented their Collective Bargaining Agreement to the MLBPA:
- Seven year contract that split total revenue 50/50, while "phasing in" a salary cap over a span of four years
- Provided revenues didn't fall, players would be guaranteed $1 billion total in salary and benefits during 1994
- Limited salary arbitration, but allowed players with 4-6 years experience to become a free agent
- Players "share" of revenue would decrease from 56% to 50%
- Players did not want to share revenue and the loss of arbitration would remove major impetus' to higher paid and more deserving salaries
- Free agency was becoming liberalized, but only on the catch that a club could retain a player by matching the seeking clubs offer
- Health care, pensions and other benefits would be taken from the players' 50% revenue share
As Heylar notes, Curt Flood was traded because of his desire to an increased salary. He was a landmark in St. Louis and Gussie Busch, the Cardinals owner, refused to pay him fairly. The debate on "fair market value" for players could have been avoided in 1994 if owners' from earlier generations had been more flexible to the idea of fair compensation plans. As ticket prices soared and advertisements streamed in, the revenues that the owners saw were becoming increasingly higher. Economically speaking, as supply (revenues) goes up, so does demand (the players right to higher compensation programs).
The strike of 1994 caused serious distress for America's national past-time. Along with the loss of revenue, the loss of regular season games and playoffs, the fans became disenchanted with Major League Baseball.
Where does it end? How do you diagram a fair compensation program? Who should be paid what? These are all questions that are out of my ballpark. I do know one thing, however, the owners can sit in their luxury box and say Player A should be paid 'this' and Player B 'that', but they are not on the field, leaving their emotions onto the field. They are financially devoted, yes.
But when do you draw the line on a game?
No comments:
Post a Comment