COVID is bad...I know.
I live on Long Island, where if statistics are reliable, we have lost over 4,000 to COVID.
But the numbers are declining rapidly here, probably will continue to do so, and I see no reason why, by July 4, MLB could not figure out how to safely start a season. Including some location adjustments if needed.
In NYC, home of the Yankees and Mets, it has been the world's epicenter of COVID. Maybe NYC will still be too risky.
OK, so if there are no fans, anyway, get around that by playing their games in drastically lower COVID locations like Binghamton and/or Syracuse.
And if a player chooses, out of safety concerns, to not play, he can feel free to sit out the season without pay, and without penalty. Everyone will feel different about it - but if COVID infection risk can be greatly reduced, and the age group the players are in has a very low mortality rate if infected (probably less than 1/10 of 1 %), but some might be willing to sit out - that's OK.
An older coach or manager might want to sit out - work around it.
Everyone signs a COVID waiver, to prevent lawsuits except for gross negligence, in order to avoid lawyer bloodhounds from making legal risk too high to proceed.
Assuming the hurdles of safety and legal risk are smartly cleared by MLB, the thorny issue of player salaries comes up.
Here's how I see it:
Nobody wants to give up salary...and the owners need to not worry so much about the bottom line, and more about putting on a safe, happy season. They need to eat most of the losses due to a lack of fans this year.
Because owners typically own franchises for decades...and the compounded rate of increase in the value of franchises has skyrocketed. In other words, until this year, owning a team has been an unbeatable investment. The players, many of them, have short careers - losing a big part of this year is a huge hit to those players.
But if baseball plays half the games, players should get half the normal annual pay, and pretty much turn it into a pay per game equal to what it was if there was no COVID.
Except I don't think the loss of fan net attendance revenue should entirely be borne by the owners - the players can help out there a bit.
If there is to be a further haircut on their salaries, to help owners with part of the incremental net losses caused by having no fans, I would propose the following:
1) NO cut to major league "minimum wage" players - you get the same amount per game. So if you were due (rounding #s for simplicity) $500,000 for a normal season you get $250,000.
2) Anything a player is contractually entitled to above the minimum, the players get 80% of the daily rate.
So if a hypothetical player normally would have made $5.5 million for the season, they would get half of the initial $500,000 (rounded to keep the #'s simple) plus 50% of 80% of the other $5 million.
In other words, $250,000 (50% of $500,000) plus $2 million (50% of 80% of the remaining $5,000,000), or $2,250,000, rather than a straight half-a-season $2,750,000 (50% of the $5.5 million).
That would be $500,000 less in pay to Mr. Hypothetical, due to no net fan revenues.
The normally $5.5 million player, of course, would not pay taxes on the skipped $500,000, so he would probably lose about $300,000 in spendable income.
So Uncle Sam gives up something in the deal too.
Seems like a reasonable compromise.
Settle this, suit up, and...PLAY BALL!
11 comments:
Where is the revenue coming from? Just television and radio advertising?
So...
Players have to sign a waiver?
Wow. That's an incentive to come back.
Tom
I am not putting down your post.
I am just one of the growing minority that cares more about the health of the players than having the return of baseball.
Me?
No vaccine... no baseball.
I like the idea of using Binghamton and Syracuse as those areas are about to re-open but not sure MLB players would like being "home"away from home.
Tom:
I agree with your concept, but think it needs 'tweaking.' think 5% (or 1/162 for each game played) is fine, but instead of plucking 80% out of the air, the $s should be tied to revenue. I'm assuming few or none in attendance, so that that money plus concessions are gone; I'd suggest whatever % TV and radio monies are of normal revenue would be fair. then there's also the taxi squad, which I'm hearing may run 15 - 20 players; I'd suggest they get some % of the minimum.
Mack:
in a perfect world, no one ever takes any risks or dies. what if it takes 18 months for the vaccine to be available? do we lose 2 years? if that happens, and everyone stays home, we won't be worrying about tens or hundreds of thousands dying from COVID-19, but hundreds of millions starving. I think prudent risks should be taken. and any one who feels it's not in their best interest to participate has the right to stay home, without penalty. but with 18 months of no income, not only could the majority of businesses and jobs disappear, but MLB could, too.
There is no guarantee there is going to be a successful vaccine. Their is a possibility that we never get a vaccine. What then no baseball ever again. They never developed a vaccine for HIV. We have to learn how to adapt to live in a world with Coronavirus.
Raw, it seems there is an all out race by several major parties on vaccines. Using different techniques. All of them saying progress and speed is promising so far. Maybe this time it is different. Otherwise, we have to live.
Dr Scott Gottlieb on CNBC a lot feels there will be therapeutics within months that will provide temporary protection, not longer term like a vaccine. That would be very positive in the fall.
They need to be largely safe - but then play in a safe and optimally controllable situation - which to me, won't be the Bronx and Queens.
Also, I reiterate that players at their age are at low risk. Not risk free, but lower.
John, Cuomo said today that NYC had 1,127 more positives yesterday. Broome County, where Binghamton plays? 3 more positives. 1,127 vs.3.
Jon, I assume net overall revenue will be a net overall loss for all teams.
Everyone lost half their games. SO I start out at 50%. But owners will certainly lose much net revenue from a non-attendee game. I don't know the figures...but it seemed that paying the hypothetical $5.5 million player, normally $34,000 a game, to take $2,250,000 for 81 games, or $27,800 per game, is a reasonable blind stab, meant only to be a hypothetical model since I do not know the players' #'s. So a major league minimum guy gets the same amount per game, while the $5.5 million guy gets 81.7% of his normal per game amount.
A simpler way would be to have every ballplayer get 40% to 45% of his normal pay for a half season.
Another way to look at my proposal: Let's say total full season team salary would have been $180 million. Half the games, $90 million. 15% reduction to help share the fan losses with owners: $75.5 million is total salaries.
I somehow posted the prior comment before it was done. SO let me start over.
Another way to look at my proposal: Let's say total full season team salary would have been $180 million. Half the games, $90 million. 15% reduction to help share the fan losses with owners: $75.5 million is total salaries.
Lets say that the average full season salary of $140 million.
Half of that is $70 million.
15% of $70 million times 30 teams = $315 million "donated" to 30 team owners to partially help them with "no attendance" games. I'd imagine the lack of attendance will cost that "business segment a lot more than that.
Post a Comment