A Thought on Baseball and Whether We’ll See It This Year

Actually, my main thought is that I don’t know.  But I do have a thought on why baseball is having the kind of problems that other sports are not   The reason: The owners in other sports already have what the owners in baseball would like – a salary cap.¹  Baseball doesn’t have a salary cap because baseball players have the strongest union in American team sports.  Players in other sports don’t have as strong a union as the baseball players do, so those sports already have a salary cap.

While salary caps can work differently, it is my understanding the salary caps in other sports are tied to a percentage of revenues.  Which is what the baseball owners suggested to the players this year – at least the percentage of revenues part.²  When the players told the owners where to put that proposal (where the sun don’t shine, in essence), the owners came back with their current idea: Because the teams won’t be getting ticket and concessions revenue, they want to reduce players’ salaries more than just pro rata for the number of games not played, and they suggested cutting the higher-paid players more than the lower-paid players (sort of a progressive income tax).  The union didn’t like this idea because the union wants the most money possible.  Basically, it’s the kind of thing workers and management frequently argue about.  And it’s happening in baseball now.

Which means we have to listen to owners and players posture and argue when all we want is baseball.  But that’s okay because at least one side isn’t controlling the other side.  And meeting in the middle is better³ than one side deciding by itself.
---------
¹ Obviously, baseball owners don’t have to pay the players as much as they do.  They could decide, each of them, on their own, to pay the players less.  The difficulty is that nobody wants to be the first team to do it – because then some other team will get the best free agents.  But if the owners could get together and have an enforceable agreement to keep salaries down, then there wouldn’t be any “cheaters” who pay more.  The problem is that to do this, the owners need the union to agree.  And, as I said, the union won’t.
² Or at least that is what they were talking about suggesting, according to media reports. 
³ Usually.

ADDENDUM (5/31/20 9:33 am): A follow-up based on Paul Sullivan’s article in today’s Chicago Tribune, especially points #3 (“What’s the holdup?) and #4 (“Is there optimism a deal will be reached?”).  It looks to me like it boils down to two questions:
     First, how much of what we are reading is principle and how much is posturing?  I don’t know.
     Second, how well does each side understand what the other side can and cannot compromise on?  This is the scary one.  Misunderstanding the other side’s red lines, the things it can give in on and the things it cannot or will not give in on, is the biggest concern.  It’s what lost baseball the World Series in 1994 and what lost hockey an entire season in 2004-05.  It’s what could lose us baseball in 2020.