Milb can't afford to pay players minimum wage

Oh, then we would have Mommies and Daddies yelling at coach for PT and positions they play. LOL

Handling travel is a huge part of pro ball. In AAA you get up at 3am to get on a plane at 6 in the pacific league. Never a direct flight. You get in and have a few hours to sleep until you report to the field. It does get weiry after awhile. This is your life.

My son liked the bus rides better, you get on and that's it, not as many steps to complete which is easier on ball players.  And if you have floor duty your back is messed up for days.

 

My son always came to the park earlier than he had to when home. He liked to prepare, he liked to hang out with his teammates and eat a few times. He also took fielding practice even when he didn't have to.  Games take 2-4 hours.Then shower, eating and more hanging out.  Not sure how you can figure in time on the job. Not much you can compare to.

Get used to the grind because if you can't you won't last long. 

 

I agree if the costs increase they will cut down on teams. Less will have opportunity.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

On top of what I was saying, I have been on salary for a long time. Probably close to 30 years. When I first started I was low man on the salary totem pole. I worked a LOT (sometimes 90 hours a week - gotta love food service to survive ) for pretty low pay. If I averaged it out, most weeks I made less than minimum wage. As I got better at my job and got promoted, I got more money. I got better hours, I got smarter and began to work smarter therefore less hours. I stopped a very long time ago figuring out what I make an hour. I accepted what I make per week and then the expectation is to get the job done. If I do that well, promotions and more money will follow, if I don't I will be looking for another job. I had a goal of where I wanted to be, I knew approximately how long it would take to achieve it as a career path. I made that decision to work 90 hours early in my career to have where I am at now. For me, it was a great decision, because I am at pretty near the top of what I do for a living. I have many friends who it did not work out for.  For whatever reason they got out of this industry

 

I guess that is kind of like MiLB as you rise, more money until the ultimate prize (MLB) where money and living conditions are fantastic. but not everyone makes it there.

 

I guess the biggest difference between what I do and baseball is I have choice to move within my industry to better myself, either financially or conditions, where in baseball for a while at least (6 years?) they don't. Not sure how that plays out as far as fairness

Goose egg I am sure that you realize milb is not meant to be glamorous or for every player to advance.  Its meant to weed out most. Getting paid a few more dollars really won't change much as most will never get higher than AA if that.

Interesting thought - perhaps the long term result of a change in the pay scale could be the elimination of the minor league system, or at least a pretty radical change.  Perhaps the minor league system shrinks to an MLB prep system in which a year or two of AA or AAA are used to prepare kids coming out of college.  If costs really are an issue, and if the league can't ignore pressure to change, then this would seem like a realistic possibility.

Glamorous, not glamorous, irrelevant. Lettuce pickers (probably not a glamorous job), fast food workers (likewise), gardeners (same), etc., all have to be paid minimum wage.

 

As for MLB shutting down MILB clubs because they would need to comply with the law; well, at one time there were literally hundreds more MILB clubs. Those are no more. MLB decided it could accomplish what it needed with fewer MILB clubs. Within the past decade some clubs have decreased the number of MILB clubs; others expanded in areas outside the U.S. None of those decisions had to do with minimum wage. MLB will do what it thinks is needed to put on a product for which the public will pay. In other words, MLB will do whatever it needs to do - at the lowest possible expense to itself - to rake in the big bucks.

 

No one has articulated an argument - valid under the law - to paying less then the law requires. Every business needs to comply with relevant laws; MLB should be no better then my business. I know that it would sure be great to pay my unskilled workers (and skilled workers) at the same rate. But, I can't; I need to comply with the law.

And that is THE huge difference. Your choice would be to seek another employer in your industry. Indeed, if you were a skilled and desirable worker, you may constantly seek to move laterally into a new employer with better prospects. Any attempt by Burger King, Arby's, and shake shack to restrict those options would be greeted harshly by the courts. (Think of the recent cases involving Silicon Valley in which hi-tech firms attempted to regulate the market through informal agreements not to poach employees.) This ability to move within an industry (as you are building up skills) forces businesses to have competitive wages (the free market at work).

 

Why should an industry (actually closer to a cartel) set artificially reduced wages, completely eliminate your ability to move and better yourself, make you waive the some of the key protections of workers compensation, require you to perform uncompensated labor (think spring training and all season conditioning), make you repay any bonus money (on a pro rated basis) if you decide to leave, make you ineligible for unemployment compensation during the uncompensated portion of your year, and prohibit you from certain activities (including skiing, basketball, etc.), be permitted to wrap itself in its anti-trust exemption but not comply with the wage law?

 

And, although irrelevant to the question of complying with the wage law, the additional money would not make the players rich. There would be no huge bank accounts or portfolios being built up during those years. Rather, players would eat better, hire better personal trainers in the off season, etc., and a lot of the increased wages would be plowed right back into the communities where they play. 

Bingo!

The sad part is that delusional parents (including myself at one time) are throwing money at organizations that are willing to take it for the dream of making it to the toil and grind with low pay of the minors.  

 

This is why I'm steering my son to the military academies.  At least there you are getting paid while going to college with a degree that can actually be used to make a living. 

 

Once this summer is over this should be the last $$ I spend on anything associated with travel ball or showcases.   AT least I hope.  

Right! It's unbelievable that baseball is given an antitrust exemption AND simultaneously allowed to restrict the labor mobility of its players -- which, I assume, the only employees in baseball that are subject to restrictions on their labor mobility.   Add to that the fact that minor league players have no union to collectively bargain on their behalf.  It's a witches brew of injustices, if you ask me. 

The thing that makes this issue so complicated is trying to compare it to other industries.

 

Every person working outside of baseball and other sports has a job that in one way or another creates revenue for that company.  In baseball that minor league player that didn't receive a decent signing bonus produces absolutely zero revenue to his MLB organization.  You could say, in some cases, he does produce revenue for his minor league team/owner.  However MLB owners receive revenue by having MLB players and those ready to take their place as MLB players.  All of those type players are paid extremely well.

 

I'm not sure I agree with everyone on the long term commitment.  If someone proves to be a valuable asset to an organization, he moves up and makes more money.  If he is not a valuable asset, and had the freedom to go to nother organization, what would he be worth to that organization.  He is either a MLB prospect or he isn't, no matter what organization it is.  Those that are not considered MLB prospects end up getting released at some point.  At that time they become free agents and if some club likes them they can sign them.

 

I'm all for minor league players making more money.  But I get confused when people start talking about minimum wage and fast food.  I get confused when I hear they should be paid to stay in shape in the off season.  And the most confusing thing to me is this... They all know how much money they will get.  No one has to do it!  Yet, every year we get many calls even from graduated college seniors seeing if we can help them get this horrible low paying job.

 

Baseball like many things is in the entertainment business.  So are most other sports!  There are former college football players playing in leagues and making less than minor league baseball players while they risk their long term health.  How much do the bottom players make in tennis, golf, or any sport.  How much do aspiring actors, models, comedians, sports announcers, etc., make when they first start.  I know of a young man that graduated from college (Journalism) and he has a great voice.  After graduating four years ago, he still picks up a few radio play by play jobs and lives in poverty.  He still dreams about hitting it big, getting that big break.

 

It's too bad, that many of the professions above don't make much money when they first start out.  They all dream about hitting it big, defying the odds.  I applaud every single one of them.

 

All that said, if law suits can change the system in place without limiting the number of opportunities for young baseball players, I am all for it!  If the system doesn't change, everyone has a choice, and I certainly am all for that as well.  In other words it is playing baseball not flipping burgers or doing construction. If you aren't making any money and you find you don't like the conditions it's simple... Go do something else.

 

BTW, it's not just the players, how many of you dads out there would just love to see your son have the chance to get one of these low paying minor league baseball jobs?

 

I know, it still doesn't make things right.  I hope that day comes when things improve.

 

 

Respectfully  PGStaff -- and you deserve as much respect as anybody on this board -- there's one thing in your reasoning that I strongly disagree with.  

 

That's your claim that at non-prospects don't produce revenue -- i.e don't generate any economic value.   Well, maybe not directly, at least not when considered player by player.

 

But ask yourself what would the minor leagues be and how would the major leagues benefit from the minor leagues if there were no non-prospects in the minor leagues at all  for the prospects to play against?  

 

Collectively,  the non-prospects are providing, I submit, an extra-ordinarily economically valuable service to the major leagues (and also to minor league baseball).

 

You want to test that proposition about their collective value?  Then give the minor leaguers the power to collectively withhold their services.  You will pretty quickly see how valuable that service is.

 

Sure, if you make each minor leaguer stand alone by restricting their labor mobility and simultaneously both giving their employers cartel rights to set salaries unilateral and in concert and also exempting those same employers  from fair wage and labor laws and standard that apply in other industries, then, yeah, they pretty quickly lose all economic leverage.  But anybody who  faces such a one-sided bargaining situation, in which your "partner" has all the chips, and you have none, is bound to be radically under compensated. 

 

One of the tricky things about a minor league players union is that the bonus baby prospects and the guys who sign for peanuts have very different short term and long term interests.  So a union to which they all belonged would be a complicated and delicate thing. It would have to strike a balance between competing interests.  But at least the players would have some voice in striking that balance. 

 

SluggerDad,

 

The respect is mutual. 

 

I like the idea of a union.  Just seems as if it would be extremely difficult to start and operate.  When does a player become eligible?  Immediately after signing? Some never make it out of rookie ball.  

 

I'm afraid that as long as this dream exists among young players, the non prospect minor leaguers will have no voice and no real value.  MLB clubs would simply go with the next group of eager players more than willing to sign.  At some point a couple of these players replacement players will make the Big Leagues and the dream lives on for the next generation.  Truth is if you take the bottom tier of minor league players and compare them to those that just barely missed out, you have more that missed out than there are those that signed.  The real kicker is that the difference in quality of play wouldn't hardly be noticed.  In fact, some of the replacements would end up being better than some of those who quit. Actually, a case could be made that baseball could even be improved because those willing to do what it takes are more likely to succeed than those that aren't willing to do what it takes.

 

Anyway, it is a very difficult issue.  I would always side with the players, but there is so much to consider as to will those changes be good or bad for the game.  Will they create more or less opportunities for young players? At the end of the day, MLB will adjust.  Will that be good or bad?

 

I had two boys play, both started at the bottom.  I was proud and they were happy living their dream.  I don't think anyone grows up dreaming about listening to complaints while working the counter at a fast food restaurant. Guess I have a problem when I read those type comparisons.

 

Every kid that signs a contract has a "chance" to become a multimillionaire playing the game.  Every kid that does it and it don't work out, has a chance to be a multimillionaire at something else.  I very much consider professional baseball an education.  One that most people don't get to experience. I believe it is valuable despite the low pay.

 

BTW, it's always OK to disagree with my thinking.  I'm wrong a lot!

 

 

This is the 3rd or 4th time that you have posted this.

If your son wants to attend a military academy and serve his country afterwards that is outstanding. If you think he will play baseball at one of these academies without any talent or being seen,  you are wrong. And stop calling parents delusional.  Most parents want their kids to go to college, and let it help pay for their education, there is nothing delusional about that.

As always, calling parents what you do, is insulting.

The argument about "hourly pay" is irrelevant when we're talking about a salaried employee, no? 

PG's posts are really on point.  I agree with all he has said.

 

MLB employs thousands of people, 100's of thousands. Thats why they have exemptions.

I think so, I may be wrong, but salaried employee loses a lot when they accept those terms.

In what make believe world is MLB not complying with the law?  Has anyone been arrested? Charged? Indicted?  Fined?

PG,

there are many, many jobs in most every non-baseball company in America that do not produce revenues.  HR departments, Finance departments, IT departments in most companies are "cost centers" - i.e., they have spending budgets but have no offsetting revenue.  They exist because they provide critical infrastructure and services for the company to operate.  It's the job of the company to balance spending with revenues and make it work.  In no case are they excused from paying employees fairly because they do not produce revenue.  It seems pretty clear the minor leagues provide a critical service of prepping ball players for MLB otherwise it wouldn't exist.  I'm sure it would be disruptive to change the pay scale and it would likely lead to fewer minor leaguers (higher pay usually = fewer jobs).  I just don't see how they can defend these practices, and all it will take is one lawsuit to blow this open.

The issue of when a player becomes a dues paying member of the union isn't necessarily  co-terminous with the issue whether there should be a union with the right to collectively  bargain on behalf on minor league players.  Even if guys in rookie ball aren't members of the union, the union could still negotiate on behalf of those players -- just as the major league players association sort of does for minor league players  (except that they seem to mostly sell them down the river). Short of revoking the anti-trust exemption or a finding that baseball is subject to fair wage and labor standards act the minor league players clearly need their own union.

 

And the players themselves need somehow to get a serious dose of reality about their real chances of living out the dream. They have to build into their expectations that if they aren't a high round draft pick, their chances of making the majors are pretty thin.  And if they are counting on that big payday to compensate for the years toiling in the minors, it is very unlikely to come for most of them.  Start with that assumption and negotiate from there, I'd say.  If they are "atomized" by not having a union, then there is no way that any of them is going to rock the boat -- especially the poor kids from Latin America who can barely speak english would  face grinding poverty back home if they are sent packing.   So they only way they are going to get better treatment is by standing up collectively. 

 

I admit it would definitely be tricky, because, again, the high signing bonus prospects and the non-prospects have very different interests both financially and professionally.   But I don't think that's an argument against trying.

Please give examples of why a milb player would need a union.

you're not serious are you?

 

Basically for the same reason that other sports professionals have a union.

 

Do you really think the minor league salary would be as it is if the minor league players had the right to collectively bargain? 

Besides salary.  I mean seriously what wpuld they bargain for that they would get. No one wants to bargain with anyone who will be gone after a season.
I mean you guys must be kidding...seriously this is a temp job for most players.

Smitty,

 

I'm very aware of the fact there are many jobs that don't directly produce revenue.  Man am I aware of that!

 

However, our writers, scouts, business officers, IT dept., do influence how much revenue a company produces.  It's just difficult to quantify from one job to the next.  However, all of these people are vital to a companies success.

 

i don't mean this to sound mean, but that first year minor league player that was a free agent or low draft pick, has absolutely no bearing on the success of any MLB organization.  When and if he becomes important he will make more money. He in no way 

Is comparable to the head of an IT department or even a writer.

 

If we look at as a favor... Who is doing who a favor... The low level minor leaguer who dreams of the Big Leagues.... Or the MLB organization that is giving him that opportunity. Every time this topic comes up, I can't help to think about the thousands who would give anything just to get that one chance.  Those are the ones I feel sorry for.  I never ever feel sorry for anyone that gets the chance to play professional baseball.  

 

Until things change it is very simple.  They tell you how much they think you are worth to them.  They tell you how much you will be paid.  You either say yes or say no! Saying yes and then failing to make it and then filing a law suit doesn't really seem right to me. There is nothing misleading involved in the process.

 

A union could be the answer, but aren't most unions funded by employees?  It's mostly the lower levels that would benefit from a union.  The turn over is astronomical at those levels.  There are no 6 year minor leaguers playing for $1,100 a month.  The other thing to consider is health care, per diem, and other advantages.  Often these things don't exist in minimum pay jobs.  

 

I agree with everyone that things could be better.  Wish they were better.  I know first hand how tough it is. Some find it too difficult so they quit.  It's not like they are locked behind bars.  Most don't quit because they love it!  Only recently has anyone ever thought about suing MLB.  Why do so many college seniors sign for practically nothing and know they will be paid so poorly.  Why not take their degree and do something else?

 

I think that the law suit if successful could backfire and create less opportunities for young players. Maybe they will cut back their minor league system.  And it will hardly bother anyone drafted in the first twenty rounds.  Sure they need a certain amount of players in order to fill rosters.  But they have a million players waiting and praying that they are given that chance.  

 

Last thing, I don't get the theory of staying in shape during the off season without pay.  I know people that work extremely hard to stay in shape and they are far from professional athletes and they actually pay to do it.  What business pays its employees to stay in shape? What is the hourly scale for that? and what hours should a player be paid for? The time spent at the ball park?  Everything other than when the player is sleeping?  Should they punch a clock?  We are talking about things that are difficult to figure out.

Well, I do agree that many would do that job for even less money to chase a dream.  I guess I don't think that makes it right.  How many jobless or homeless people would do jobs for any amount…it doesn't make it right to take advantage of that either.  MLB and MiLB are obviously operating within the law and doing what makes business sense, but in this country people have a way of rising up and challenging real or perceived injustices, and the change often goes further than it would have if the changes were made voluntarily.  I think MLB will be in for it if they wait for a lawsuit to challenge the status quo.

I agree 100% with every word of what PG said.  This is an opportunity of a lifetime.  Not a career choice.  Baseball can put food on your table and and give you a happy living in so many ways other than playing.  PG for instance.  None of my business what he makes but I presume its a good living.  A former player of mine we just got some comp tickets from is a mlb batting practice pitcher among other duties making it a full time spot.  He loves it.  This from the connections he made over a four or five year minor league stint.  Another guy I went to school with bounced around the minors for quite a while.  I asked him why he was still at it.  He said he wanted to coach and was spending time making contacts.  He made it to AAA manager last I knew.  Another friend of mine is a color commentator at the mlb level.  In fairness he also played in mlb and made a few million there.  We all know any number of former milb players who do instruction for a living.  Or start their own organizations.  A friends son who played a little minor league ball works for PBR one of PG's competitors.  I could go on and on as we probably all could.  Just that little time in the minors gives credibility and contacts.  You may make peanuts for a few years while you are young.  You hopefully will have a blast giving it your best shot.  Then the doors of opportunity are wide open to you when you leave.  Even if you choose not to pursue a living in baseball people love to hire former pro athletes.  Its our nature to gravitate towards those people who had a brush with greatness.  Anybody who wants to guarantee my son a few years in the minors?  He will do it for free!!  As an old friend and mentor of mine used to say "I would have signed for a stick of gum"

The modern minor league model:

1.) Draft a few high end athletes. Pay those few a large bonus. Hope you can teach them baseball.

2.) Find some sucker to work for peanuts and a dream to play catch with those high end athletes.

2A.) If 1.) is a pitcher, be sure and draft some cheap all glove no hit defensive help to make the pitcher look good.

3.) Trade pitcher for some more 1.)

4.) Repeat yearly. Discard Group 2 as needed.

 

If you are not in Group 1 you are very often around for the sole purpose of giving the Group 1 players someone to play with. You are expendable because they have no significant investment in you.

 

I think you understand, and I get the sarcasm.  

I don't want to repeat what PG has posted he pretty much nails it every time this comes up, year after year.  I also have a big problem with these guys filing a lawsuit over money when they knew what they were getting into. Kind of sounds like sour grapes for me.

 

The only thing that I think needs changing is how players are compensated for injuries after they are released. Most guys leave because they were hurt along the way, at any other job you get to settle for your injuries. This is a very big issue for many players, leaving or being fired with an injury you are stuck with.  Years ago that was called a pretty existing, these days no questions asked.  Every player should understand not only will they leave with no money, but maybe with some chronic condition. 

 

 

There are players (employees) that aren't considered top prospects yet they stick around and move up.  They are considered valuable because they are steady, dependable, hard working, and a good influence on those considered valuable prospects.  These are not the type to file law suits or create problems.  They are most often called organizational players.

 

Not really strange that many of these types end up in baseball for life.  They become coaches, scouts, managers, etc.  

 

BTW, being under paid is not exclusive to professional baseball.  There are many small college coaches, even some young Major college coaches, that aren't getting minimum wage once you count up all the hours. Nobody is lobbying on their behalf.  Many have families and they would be listed in the poverty category.  They do it because they love the game and hope to build a good career out of their effort. Being a player is just the beginning, most everyone starts there.  Players are only one segment, though a critical one, of the baseball industry.

I remember reading somewhere that Kevin O'Sullivans salary was the lowest of the SEC programs at 300k. This guy works harder than anyone I know.  I would imagine if you took the hours he worked at his job he would be at poverty level.  I know it is a lot more he made at Clemson as second in command, but let's say he obviously paid his dues!

 

I don't want to sound mean either, but in these discussions sometimes I get the impression that people expect some type of entitlement when their players become professionals.  You don't have the players here complaining about low wages. 

I taught for many years and my salary never made up for the hours I put into it year after year. I was off for two months during the summer and not paid unless I worked summer school or another job. I could not collect unemployment either. I never felt entitled as some do today. It was my job and I had an opportunity to leave if not happy (which I did) and never sued anyone.  My husband and I both taught and made 17k first year we were married.

We had the time of our lives and we survived!

Low wages is not just found on the milb level.

It would be interesting to know what Kevin O'Sullivan earned his first year as an assistant at Florida Community College. I bet it was below the poverty level and below minimum wage.

       
Are you working his salary on an hourly basis?  Our high school baseball coach makes at least $50k / yr. Hard to compare to true poverty level milb pay

These are always interesting threads showing the strong diversity of views.

So, lets ask this question:  Could Apple, Intel, Microsoft, Facebook and Twitter (as examples only) have an agreement among themselves which sets up a parent corporation and have the parent corporation implement hiring and employment procedures which say, to the effect, every software engineer hired will be required to stay with the hiring company for 6 full years of employment and during each of those years they will be paid exactly the same, no matter which company they work for, and the pay will be scheduled to start at $1,150 per month and increase over the course of each year to about $2,500 per month, unless the company decides to terminate your agreement or "sells" your efforts to one of the other member companies? I doubt anyone would say this is lawful.  This, however, is what 30 very rich and powerful businesses have done, using a model flowing from their anti-trust exemption and years and years of established practice.

To use the Kevin Sullivan example, the analogy does not work for me. The only way to use him as an example is to highlight the legal issues of the "colluded" pay scale in Milb: could the colleges work (collude together ) and have an agreement that so long as Sullivan wanted to be an assistant coach, or at least 6 years, he would be classified as exempt and Kevin Sullivan would be paid  the exact same amount as every other college assistant during the first 6 years he would be a college assistant?

My view is the players  comply with applicable laws including paying income taxes is the States where such laws apply and where they play along with Federal taxes, etc.

The question here is should MLB also comply with all applicable laws, and do they.

That is what the lawsuit is about.  The questions include whether and what wage and hour laws apply to MLB/MILB pay, can teams collude through MLB to restrain movement for 6 championship seasons, can teams collude on the pay during those years and are players exempt or non-exempt from wage and hour laws(i.e., are they hourly or salaried and properly classified as such by MLB/MILB.)

To use the Sullivan example, lets assume a player is drafted in round 25 and paid a bonus of $1,000.  By the end of year 2-3 in Milb, he has moved into the top prospects of that organization, performed at very high levels such as to be one of the players invited to fall instructionals,etc and has clearly moved past those drafted in the first 10 rounds.  Absent a colluded 6 year agreement on his playing control, if that player was a free agent to negotiate with all 30 teams, it is pretty likely he will be paid more than the standard/controlled pay. Sullivan, and other coaches, (Bakich for example) have been  able to use the law of supply/demand and the quality of his work to improve his situation. Not so, the Milb player.

How many players actually play a full 6 years these days?

Don't know. How many, like CD's son, might have more and better opportunities during those 6 years if they weren't bound to the rights of the drafting team?

How many entry level software engineers stay with one company for 6 years vs. leave for better opportunities and higher salaries and benefits, based on the laws of supply/demand?

Why should MLB be able to control someone for 6 years no matter how well he performs when Apple, or a college AD, for instance, cannot?

       
       

Lol.  I think this model starts much earlier than milb level.

TPM, you and I actually agree on most things, but do you see the internal inconsistency of the above positions?

 

All players know about injury risks. All players have experienced some form of injury caused by playing. Every player KNOWS there will be no disability component of workers compensation for which they should be entitled. Every pro contract forces the player to waive that component. 

 

So, you're fine with paying rates below the Federal minimum (which is really the sole basis for any recovery), but not fine with the clubs not providing the full protections to its workers? In both cases, players go in with eyes wide open and understand what they're signing and agreeing to. Why did you draw the line where you did (and, FWIW I agree with you about the injury issue)?  While in most cases, parties to a contract can waive lots of legal protections, in some cases, SOCIETY has determined that such waivers violate the unconsciounability standard. Wages are one such area, and apparently Workers compensation isn't. So, MLB has succeeded in off loading this component to the player, his family, and if the player is too disabled to work to his full potential, to society at large (the taxpayer).  Fair, no; legal, so far. (But that topic opens up a whole new can of worms.)

 

As for the observation that simply paying the payers a salary will turn them into exempt workers (and therefore allow the employers to work their employees as much as they want without further compensation), the law has developed ways at piercing the label placed upon the employer/employee relationship to determine if an employee is exempt. I don't think the exemptions apply to the work the players do. (Except the seasonal exemption which is where I think the case will turn).

 

In all these discussions, if the employer was Facebook (or Google) paying 4$ an hour and the employee was a computer science major (supreme coder; in the top part of his skill group) from CalTech, would you feel that FB would be permitted to pay half the rate set by law because it was the dream job of the Cal Tech graduate; because he knew what the rate would be; because it was an adventure; because he was only doing the job for a short period of time before the CT start-up got off the ground? Now, most will say the CT grad should simply up and move; and indeed he could and stay in his field. And that argument (up and move) can be made for every normal employee/employer relationship. Such relationships assume that there is a free market of buyers of labor and sellers of labor. Here there is no such market. Arguably in such a market the weaker hand needs the protections set forth in the law - even more then in cases where the free market is unfettered.

 

MLB doesn't run its MILB because it can pay low wages. It runs the present system because MLB thinks it works. Many new developments may cause MLB to trim its MILB programs - e.g., data mining has made it much more efficient and easier to judge talent quicker. If MLB thinks it could determine who is and who is not MLB material earlier, it would reduce its unnecessary overhead (MILB levels) - and paying minimum wage would not even enter into the equation. While MLB is a non-profit entity, it is not a charity.

 

One further observation. It is almost implied that MILB operates on an economic shoe string. While that may be true with a few clubs, the prices at which MILB franchises change hands leads me to conclude that there are either lots of really dumb businesspeople or there is indeed a healthy return to be made with MILB franchises. 

 

Baseball, of which MILB is but a small component, is a huge economic driver. MLB sits atop a huge pyramid, creating, monitoring, innovating, supporting, and maintaining a huge economic enterprise that impacts many more businesses then the $9 billion generated only by MLB (think little league, PG, Easton, blogs, apparel, beer vendors, etc., etc.). Yet, it can't afford to pay its employees minimum wage (any thing more then that is up to the players to figure out).

 

PG I keep going back to the physical conditioning really only to support the point that the players are under total contractual control - and not getting paid for it. While I want my employees to stay in shape because healthier employees are better employees, I couldn't force them to do this except by contract. And as everyone knows, if I would burden an employee with off site, off hour requirements, the employee deserves to be compensated. This physical conditioning must be important to MLB because it is a specific part of the contract (I believe that players would do it any way because it's part of the basic skill set needed to succeed, but it's written into the contract anyway.)

"All players know about injury risks. All players have experienced some form of injury caused by playing. Every player KNOWS there will be no disability component of workers compensation for which they should be entitled. Every pro contract forces the player to waive that component."

 

Goosegg, it does not. MLB/MILB knows it cannot have any player waive their rights to workers' compensation benefits.  Do they properly and fully advise the player of their rights? Very different question.  One thing for sure, MLB will aggressively and assertively manage any exposures to benefits, especially when the injury is career ending and/or requires treatment over a longer term following the end of a players career.

I used sully as an example of how in this game if you work hard you get rewarded.

I used my own example of leaving my job because I wasn't paid enough.

Here's my bottom line. If you don't like the pay, if you don't like the terms don't take the job.

As far as the time commitment, there is no way you can have players going to different teams. Mine played for two different teams with different philosophies. The player has an opportunity to make a mlb roster his 4th season. After that, you aren't really a prospect anymore. Sometimes it isn't the case, there are exceptions.