President Bush seemed to sum up the feelings of many baseball fans when he said last week he would be "furious" if players and owners could not avert a work stoppage by the union's Friday strike date.
An even worse outcome of the current labor negotiations, however, would be a new agreement that does not address the fundamental competitive unfairness that exists in the sport.
Fans of teams that now can't afford to put a competitive squad on the diamond — i.e., most franchises — should countenance a shutdown if it ultimately results in a system that gives their hometown nines a fighting chance to win. Leveling the future's economic playing field is well worth losing the current season.
Because Major League Baseball teams can spend endlessly on players, with few restrictions, the discrepancies between the "haves" and "have-nots" are vast. The New York Yankees have a $135 million player payroll, $25 million more than the next highest-spending team and up to $100 million more than others. Predictably, the Yankees have won four of the past six World Series. Some of the low-payroll franchises are doing well this season. But success will be short-lived under the current system, because they will be unable to afford to hold onto their best players.
In baseball these days, geography is destiny: Franchises in more lucrative markets generate more money and, so, can sign better talent. But team sports are the rare industry that creates its best product — exciting games — when competitors are evenly balanced. The more farsighted sports leagues and player unions already have mitigated the natural advantages. The National Football League, for example, pools and redistributes much of its revenue to allow teams from smaller, less lucrative markets to compete. The emphasis is on a football team's ability to manage its checkbook, not how much is in it.
When this baseball season began, two-thirds of the teams had no legitimate chance to win the World Series. In stark contrast, football's New England Patriots went from last place to a championship in one year.
The NFL set up its economic system long before sports became such big business. Baseball has to put toothpaste back in the tube — not easy, but necessary. What's needed is an agreement that doesn't significantly cut the amount spent on player contracts, but reallocates it more equitably. Ideally, NFL-style revenue sharing among teams would be combined with both salary caps and a floor on total team salaries. Following the lead of the NFL and the National Basketball Association, the players could get a fixed percentage of the sport's total revenues. That would make management and labor partners, not antagonists.
Right now, the two sides are far from a partnership. The players are wary that the owners' stated intent to improve the competitive balance is really a sneaky curve ball aimed at trying to cut their paychecks. The owners contend that the players aren't concerned about the game's long-term economic health. Both sides can afford to miss a few paydays, which makes the pressure to resolve their differences less intense. Only a strike may move them off their positions.
The public should realize that a work stoppage might be the unfortunate but necessary detour on the road to the more important goal of realigning baseball's economic system and ending once and for all the constant off-the-field labor-management strife.
In 1994, the players walked, canceling the season. That settlement did little to rectify the sport's structural inequities. This time, management and the union should shut it down until they get it right; in fact, it would be irresponsible for owners to accept a system that wouldn't level the playing field just to get an agreement. Fans shouldn't boo the two sides if the games are stopped — only if a strike doesn't lead to changes that give every team a fair chance of success.
|
