Report: Lawyer Email to Officials Shows MLBPA Knew About Pay Re-Negotiation

Major League Baseball believes an email between sent between its officials shows that the players association knew it would need to have another negotiation regarding payroll, separate from the pay cut the players took in March, per Joel Sherman of the New York Post. 

In the email—sent by senior vice president, labor relations and deputy general counsel Patrick Houlihan to deputy commissioner Dan Halem and other league officials—Houlihan recounted a meeting he and MLB executive vice president of baseball economics Morgan Sword held with players association deputy general counsel Matt Nussbaum and director of analytics and baseball operations Greg Dreyfuss.

The email read, in part:

"Matt asked what 'economic feasibility' meant in Section I. I told him it meant that we would only consider playing in neutral sites or without fans if it worked for us economically. I reminded him of Rob [Manfred's] comments at the outset that playing in empty stadiums did not work for us economically. But I said, for example, that we might be willing to have a conversation about playing some limited number of games in empty stadiums if players agreed to reduce their daily salaries for those games, and if it was part of a larger plan that made economic sense. Matt confirmed that that is what he thought we meant, but appreciated the confirmation."

If all of this sounds very far into the weeds, well, it is. And it's likely the players association will fight back against the notion that they ever agreed to the concept of a second payroll negotiation. NBC Sports' Craig Calcaterra offered a different perspective on the email:

There's little doubt a public relations battle is brewing between the sides, with the specter of a lost season looming. The 1994-95 strike was devastating for the sport, and neither the players nor owners want to be seen as the driving factor for another work stoppage. 

So, what is at issue? In essence, in the original March agreement, the players agreed to take on prorated salaries if the season was shortened, and forfeit their salaries if the season was lost. As Ronald Blum of the Associated Press wrote, "While the thresholds for the luxury tax remain unchanged, the amount due by a club would be reduced by the percentage of regular-season games not played by that team."

In the original agreement, it was stated that "each of the parties shall work in good faith to as soon as is practicable commence, play, and complete the fullest 2020 championship season and postseason that is economically feasible."

The players feel they've already taken a major pay cut by prorating their previously negotiated salaries based on the amount of games being played. The owners, fearing major financial losses with no fans in the stands, want to add a 50-50 revenue split on top of the March agreement. To the players, that represents taking a second pay cut. 

It's complicated, it's messy and it's certainly possible that the two sides won't bridge the gap. If they don't, that means no baseball in 2020. That will not only hurt both sides financially, it will also hurt the reputation of the sport.

So it's in the interest of both sides to work this out. Baseball fans will be waiting anxiously to see if that happens.