COVID-19 impact on MLB season

[nate82]

 

Still curious how the 50/50 revenue split was floated out there and got abandoned so quickly? If I'm a player OR an owner, this is exactly why I would demand a predetermined revenue split. The players could really short-change themselves if they agreed to a reduction assuming fans will not be at the games....and then fans will be at games (and I believe most municipalities would allow fans as they will be desperate for tax revenue...only exception being some political big-wigs at the state level who think that they will get the federal government to bail them out). Same thing with owners, what happens if they get 80% of the way through a shortened season, the weather gets colder, and another COVID-19 breakout causes a shutdown and they lose all the playoff revenue (I agree that it's the longest of long-shots that this would happen). How could both sides be so stupid as to not want to do this, especially when it's been the model adopted BY ALL THE OTHER MAJOR SPORT LEAGUES.

 

The players union do not want a salary cap which is what shared revenue would bring in. The players rejected the last attempt at a salary cap and revenue sharing in the 90's which resulted in a strike.

 

I am surprised that the large market teams would even suggest revenue sharing. Maybe there were enough small and mid market teams that wanted the revenue sharing and it passed.

 

There are way too many obstacles for revenue sharing to ever be something that will happen in MLB.

[tmwiese55]

Yes at some point life will continue with this as part of the risk of life like many other things such as: Driving, other illnesses, flying, someone shooting you, etc. Of course we can add in many of the things learned here like keeping space, emphasis on cleanliness, reduction of capacity in confined spaces and others to help minimize. same way we have speed limits to try and limite traffic deaths a bit.

 

The grand question without an easy answer is at what level to kinda restart things. Seems almost everyone would agree with the level it was out there in late March/April wasn't the right level. The actions we did gutted the numbers down a ton. Obviously lots of the country has been on a slow opening path already. I don't see why sports would not be included in the same discussion or why it would be held any different since it's more high profile. There's no clear answer on this and no one is crazy on this if they view it a bit different. As a society overall, my top priority would be schools open in the fall. So I'd be slightly more on the bite the bullet now and gut it even more to have a lower starting point, even if it does end up being a few weeks more than in hindsight was needed. But, with all the other safeguards in place now and testing up to speed there's tons of gray area. And in general things seem to be being done well so far and not creating problems through the country. The big problems back in March (besides the unknowns and high numbers of affected people) of no testing, ppe, and possible risk of overburdening healthcare system are largely gone now.

 

Sports with no fans though shouldn't be too difficult to attempt, not saying something weird won't happen, but why not try. When to have fans and at what capacity is an impossible question to answer with any certainty. Especially as jabronis on the internet. But at some point it will happen while the virus is still around.

[owbc]

After reading the responses, I would consider going to an MLB game in 2020 if they took temperatures at the gate, denied entry to the stadium to anyone with a fever, and designed the seating with alternating rows being empty and no more than 2 parties per occupied row (so I would not have to step over anyone to get out of my seat).

[adambr2]

Maybe I'm missing something, but I'm not understanding how scanning for fevers is even going to help. I would guess conservatively around half of COVID-19 infections are totally asymptomatic based on studies that estimate that number as anywhere between 42 and 81%. https://www.advisory.com/daily-briefing/2020/06/01/asymptomatic-patients

 

So there are so many out there with no fever, no anything, they feel fine and they're infecting people. How is checking for a fever going to find these ones?

 

One would have to think that the asymptomatic ones are in most cases the ones doing the spreading. They're out, they don't even know anything is wrong. The ones with the fever, at least the smart ones, are staying home.

 

You can force some degree of distancing at the stadium by limiting capacity and reduce spread that way, but there's no way you're keeping it out of the stadium even with scanning.

[owbc]

Maybe I'm missing something, but I'm not understanding how scanning for fevers is even going to help. I would guess conservatively around half of COVID-19 infections are totally asymptomatic based on studies that estimate that number as anywhere between 42 and 81%. https://www.advisory.com/daily-briefing/2020/06/01/asymptomatic-patients

 

So there are so many out there with no fever, no anything, they feel fine and they're infecting people. How is checking for a fever going to find these ones?

 

One would have to think that the asymptomatic ones are in most cases the ones doing the spreading. They're out, they don't even know anything is wrong. The ones with the fever, at least the smart ones, are staying home.

 

You can force some degree of distancing at the stadium by limiting capacity and reduce spread that way, but there's no way you're keeping it out of the stadium even with scanning.

 

No method is perfect, it's all about keeping the R-value low.

[Thurston Fluff]

Even on top of the health questions, what about the fairness of allowing some teams to have fans and others cant.

 

Seriously? For 10 days straight crowds of tens of thousands have gathered in close proximity in virtually ever major city. Let me get this straight, it's fine to march in demonstrations regardless of health consequences because that's their constitutional right but people can't gather in churches (also protected by Constitution) or pursue happiness (spelled out in Declaration of Independence) by going to a ballgame?

 

I never got the "all or nothing" about sports. 15,000 people can rattle around in Miller Park and maintain plenty of distance.

 

We don't know the covid consequesces of those riots yet. Might be best to wait to make the "somebody else did it so I can" argument until we know that.

[Machu Peach]

One would have to think that the asymptomatic ones are in most cases the ones doing the spreading.

 

This is probably what you're 'missing'. Asymptomatic individuals generally have much lower viral shedding, and therefore are much less likely to infect others, than those with symptoms in every viral disease I can think of. There's no reason to think COVID is any different. Asymptomatic people certainly can spread, but at least a few case studies have shown that this is less likely than initially reported. Thus by removing people with fevers you are reducing the amount of potential spread. You are certainly not eliminating possible spread, but neither does almost all of the mitigation efforts (Eg, 6 feet distancing, masks).

 

The other thing I would caution against is the idea that people that go out with a fever aren't smart. People can run a fever without realizing it. I went to work with a bad headache this morning. Was it caused by a fever? No, but I didn't know that until I took my temperature (required before I go to work).

 

A big part of the confusion is the term "asymptomatic" is ridiculously imprecise, almost to the point of uselessness from a disease tracking point of view. If someone runs a fever, but doesn't realize it or doesn't report it to a healthcare provider are they asymptomatic? Of course not, but they will be recorded as asymptomatic. A term that's generally used often to avoid that problem is "sub-clinical", where someone may or may not have symptoms, but the symptoms are not severe enough to cause the individual to engage with healthcare. "Asymptomatic" has been used to mean "sub-clinical" throughout the pandemic, even by people that should know better than to confuse the two. I assume that's intentional to avoid public confusion, but I think it actually making things more confusing.

[KeithStone53151]

 

Bulletpoints I've seen on the new proposal are in the link but I'll also note them. 76 game season, 75% prorated salaries, playoff pool for players, no draft pick comp. I saw a separate tweet that said players would make 19% more this way than they would on full prorated 50 game schedule. This feels like overall an improvement for players. I think the 76 game season makes sense, if I'm the players I'm trying to bump the prorated share to 90% or so and stick with the current schedule(they deserve 100%, but at this point they need to cut the best deal they can). I think a deal could happen relatively quickly if players work off this framework of games/offers from the owners and simply try to bump their slice of the pie. If they go back to trying for 100+ games, they'll end up with a 50 game season.

[JohnBriggs12]

I'm 67 years old with no underlying conditions other than weight. I'm playing golf 2-3 times per week. I sit outside and have a beer after my round. I would have no qualms about attending any sporting event held outdoors where there's sufficient room to avoid maintaining close contact and face coverings are worn. I don't consider walking over someone (which takes like 5 seconds) who also has his or her face covered to be even close to as risky as driving an hour to the venue is. The media in this country has overblown the risks tremendously. But the media has a political agenda and have been wrong throughout. People contract this virus almost exclusively indoors. Half the deaths are from frail, ill, elderly in nursing homes.

 

That's not to say all ballparks are completely safe. Wrigley with it's cramped concourses is not and worse would be L trains to and from. But if it's fine for people to decide for themselves to march for a cause in crowds of tens of thousands, then I think people have the right to decide for themselves if they want to pursue their happiness by attending a sporting event.

[JosephC]

 

Bulletpoints I've seen on the new proposal are in the link but I'll also note them. 76 game season, 75% prorated salaries, playoff pool for players, no draft pick comp. I saw a separate tweet that said players would make 19% more this way than they would on full prorated 50 game schedule. This feels like overall an improvement for players. I think the 76 game season makes sense, if I'm the players I'm trying to bump the prorated share to 90% or so and stick with the current schedule(they deserve 100%, but at this point they need to cut the best deal they can). I think a deal could happen relatively quickly if players work off this framework of games/offers from the owners and simply try to bump their slice of the pie. If they go back to trying for 100+ games, they'll end up with a 50 game season.

 

If the average salary for an MLB'er is 4 million (was just under that number last year), then the math:

 

4 million * 50 games / 162 games = 1.235 million per player

1.235 million per player * 26 players per normal roster * 30 teams = 963,300,000 to the players with a normal roster size

 

4 million * 76 games / 162 games = 1.877 million * 0.75 per new proposal = 1.408 million per player

1.408 million per player * 26 players per normal roster * 30 teams = 1,098,240,000 to the players with a normal roster size

 

There are reports that this proposal send an additional 200 million to the players but my math has it as more around 135 million. However, if the owners expanded the 26 man roster to 40, then this would be in the ballpark of sending another 200 million to players.

 

Based on reports that there would be just a bit over 3 billion in revenue if a half season was played, the number for the MLBPA to shoot for would be 1.5 billion. Players are safely up to 1.1 billion with this, still seems a bit low to me, but we don't know the details of the playoff share or to what extent rosters would be expanded. If the playoff share guarantees the players another 100 million and they expand the rosters to 35 players, then this is probably a pretty fair deal for both sides.

[KeithStone53151]

My 90% number would get salaries to 1.3 billion. Add in the expanded rosters and that gets players about half the revenue, which again seems fair.

[homer]

I thought this was kind of funny:

 

MLB: here have a burger

 

MLBPA: you promised steak

 

MLB: [/rips burger in half] here have two burgers

 

MLBPA: that’s not two burgers

 

MLB: can make it four burgers if you want no problem

[stoutdude04]

I'm 67 years old with no underlying conditions other than weight. I'm playing golf 2-3 times per week. I sit outside and have a beer after my round. I would have no qualms about attending any sporting event held outdoors where there's sufficient room to avoid maintaining close contact and face coverings are worn. I don't consider walking over someone (which takes like 5 seconds) who also has his or her face covered to be even close to as risky as driving an hour to the venue is. The media in this country has overblown the risks tremendously. But the media has a political agenda and have been wrong throughout. People contract this virus almost exclusively indoors. Half the deaths are from frail, ill, elderly in nursing homes.

 

That's not to say all ballparks are completely safe. Wrigley with it's cramped concourses is not and worse would be L trains to and from. But if it's fine for people to decide for themselves to march for a cause in crowds of tens of thousands, then I think people have the right to decide for themselves if they want to pursue their happiness by attending a sporting event.

 

I dont see any sports allowing fans this year.

[jerichoholicninja]

This is basically two petulant children arguing over an ice cream cone. No one is actually going to get the ice cream cone because it's going to be gone and melted before they figure out how to share it.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

I'm 67 years old with no underlying conditions other than weight. I'm playing golf 2-3 times per week. I sit outside and have a beer after my round. I would have no qualms about attending any sporting event held outdoors where there's sufficient room to avoid maintaining close contact and face coverings are worn. I don't consider walking over someone (which takes like 5 seconds) who also has his or her face covered to be even close to as risky as driving an hour to the venue is. The media in this country has overblown the risks tremendously. But the media has a political agenda and have been wrong throughout. People contract this virus almost exclusively indoors. Half the deaths are from frail, ill, elderly in nursing homes.

 

That's not to say all ballparks are completely safe. Wrigley with it's cramped concourses is not and worse would be L trains to and from. But if it's fine for people to decide for themselves to march for a cause in crowds of tens of thousands, then I think people have the right to decide for themselves if they want to pursue their happiness by attending a sporting event.

 

I dont see any sports allowing fans this year.

 

The NFL is watching Orlando, you can bet on that. If we are into August and there is no breakout tied to Disney or Universal I believe the NFL will do something. Probably not 80k fans at once, but something.

[tmwiese55]

I'm generally on the be cautious as a society camp and to take it seriously and everything. And I'm confident there isn't going to be a catastrophic type outbreak. Mostly because even as we start mixing it up a bit again we do have so many other things in place to help now, basically its still at the forefront of many people's minds. I'ts already been about 1.5 months since gradual openings started happening and nothing has gotten crazy, sure maybe some further declines didn't happen that could've or you do see some slight uptick here or there. But nothing looks disastrous. It's not just going to disappear so at some point we'll have to live with its risk like many other things. But of course, we shall see how the next few months go.

[JosephC]

I see the owners also want to have a 16-team playoff field. If that happens it will be a real easy decision not to waste time watching any regular season games, especially since they will be butting up right next to football season. Not knocking anybody who is desperate for baseball and want to see games no matter what. But for me, this season will come off as so asterisk-filled that I'll probably only find interest if the Brewers can work their way into a playoff.

[adambr2]

MLBPA to reject the 76 game proposal by the owners of 75% prorated salaries.

 

https://www.rotoworld.com/baseball/mlb/player-news/headlines/9644446

 

Just take the season out back and shoot it. Both sides have proven to be catastrophic failures in the face of labor tensions. Neither side could care less about the fans or the morale of the country during a pandemic. Most of the country has moved on with their summer at this point.

 

I hope the drop in attendance when labor peace is restored makes the 1995 drop of 20% look mild in comparison.

[MoreTrife]

MLBPA to reject the 76 game proposal by the owners of 75% prorated salaries.

 

https://www.rotoworld.com/baseball/mlb/player-news/headlines/9644446

 

Just take the season out back and shoot it. Both sides have proven to be catastrophic failures in the face of labor tensions. Neither side could care less about the fans or the morale of the country during a pandemic. Most of the country has moved on with their summer at this point.

 

I hope the drop in attendance when labor peace is restored makes the 1995 drop of 20% look mild in comparison.

 

Yep. Really botched handling of this by both sides. NBA was pretty seamless. Or at least they did the work behind the scenes.

[Ron Robinsons Beard]

MLBPA to reject the 76 game proposal by the owners of 75% prorated salaries.

 

https://www.rotoworld.com/baseball/mlb/player-news/headlines/9644446

 

Just take the season out back and shoot it. Both sides have proven to be catastrophic failures in the face of labor tensions. Neither side could care less about the fans or the morale of the country during a pandemic. Most of the country has moved on with their summer at this point.

 

I hope the drop in attendance when labor peace is restored makes the 1995 drop of 20% look mild in comparison.

 

Yep. Really botched handling of this by both sides. NBA was pretty seamless. Or at least they did the work behind the scenes.

 

The optics are terrible, as most publically leaked negotiations are. Both sides look incredibly greedy in a current society where most people have made pretty major sacrifices. I see most people blaming ownership, using the argument of "they're all bilionaires, they can afford to lose money." It's not that black and white, though. Both sides are squarly in the blame crosshairs in this case.

[MillerParkSouth]

I love how the owners are offering the same salary to the players just in different appearances with % prorate and # of games. Like the players wouldn't see right through that. It really doesn't seem like the owners want baseball this year.

[Ron Robinsons Beard]

I love how the owners are offering the same salary to the players just in different appearances with % prorate and # of games. Like the players wouldn't see right through that. It really doesn't seem like the owners want baseball this year.

 

They want baseball, but are only comfortable taking a loss up to a certain level. Obviously they got together and agreed as a whole that they can afford to take a XXX loss to put a product on the field this season, and have the numbers worked out for different scenarios with the number of games. These guys aren't idiots. They became billionaires by taking calculated risks that have, for the most part, paid off. Even though they all will be taking a big loss, to bring baseball back the financial risk still needs to be mitigated, or it isn't going to happen. I agree that it sucks, but that's the business side of things. That's reality. The owners aren't holding out on bringing baseball back because they don't want to. They are holding out because it doesn't make financial sense not to.

[MillerParkSouth]

I don't believe for one second that they will actually lose money on a season. They're just trying to protect their profits, which I understand, but it's kind of ridiculous to ask the players to share in the losses when they have definitely not been sharing in the profits in recent years.

[Ron Robinsons Beard]

I don't believe for one second that they will actually lose money on a season. They're just trying to protect their profits, which I understand, but it's kind of ridiculous to ask the players to share in the losses when they have definitely not been sharing in the profits in recent years.

 

How many privately-owned businesses engage in profit sharing nowadays? I'm guessing it is not many. And if you don't think owners would lose money this season, consider the estimate that 40-50% of total revenue comes from ticket/concession sales.

[owbc]

I love how the owners are offering the same salary to the players just in different appearances with % prorate and # of games. Like the players wouldn't see right through that. It really doesn't seem like the owners want baseball this year.

 

They want baseball, but are only comfortable taking a loss up to a certain level. Obviously they got together and agreed as a whole that they can afford to take a XXX loss to put a product on the field this season, and have the numbers worked out for different scenarios with the number of games. These guys aren't idiots. They became billionaires by taking calculated risks that have, for the most part, paid off. Even though they all will be taking a big loss, to bring baseball back the financial risk still needs to be mitigated, or it isn't going to happen. I agree that it sucks, but that's the business side of things. That's reality. The owners aren't holding out on bringing baseball back because they don't want to. They are holding out because it doesn't make financial sense not to.

 

This is exactly the problem with professional sports (as well as college sports). Run purely as a business to make as much money as possible. Every single decision made with the balance sheet in mind. We’ve known this all along but now the rot is out in the open and it is disgusting to see.

 

Most (all?) billionaires are about as smart as the average senior executive, they just got lucky or started their lives on third base. I refuse to hold them on a pedestal. As a billionaire running a sports team I would argue that they have an obligation to bring baseball back and uphold the good of the game that they are entrusted with an ownership stake in. It’s a moral obligation. And a contractural one. They should have written the risk into the contracts if they didn’t want to pay them when a crisis happened. There are a thousand other things they could have bought and profited on instead of a sports team.

 

The “run as a business” crap is reality but it doesn’t have to be reality. It didn’t used to be reality. When Selig was running baseball there was a balance between profits and the good of the game and it turned out that improving the game was good for business. Now the pendulum has swung so far towards profits that it may destroy MLB in the long run. Which might be a good thing.