milb wages may be exempted by lobbyists

“We’re in 42 states, 160 cities. We’ve got over $3 billion of infrastructure, much of which is still being paid off by the clubs and the communities where they exist,” he said. “This is about constituents, this is about jobs at home, and this is about quality of life at home.”

This is the biggest nauseating lie. Yes, "clubs" are paying it off; THE MILB CLUB pays this. The MLB club pays the salaries of the players - a non-expense of the MILB club. Indeed, paying the players more would DIRECTLY benefit the local community where the MILB plays. Unfortunately, today most MILB clubs are owned by entities (owning multiple teams) and have no real tie to the local community. The days of the local car dealer owning the team are past. This provision actually hurts the communities it is broadcast to help.

I don't see how this preempts a lawsuit,   players still have a strong case.  

Doesn't matter how strong the case for paying minimum wage is, Congress can pass a law - the very law proposed in 2016 - exempting Minor league players from the minimum wage laws. That law would override current federal law, pre-empt state wage laws, and end the suit. (Once MLB has an exemption, it can even reduce wages for MILB players.)

(The law could be written to "clarify" MLB's position that minor leaguers were always intended to be exempt.)

I'm surprised that mayors from the towns affected aren't complaining - the law would directly impact and adversely effect their towns. Increasing pay by even a few hundred dollars a month would help all a town's businesses as the players would turn around and spend their largesse at local businesses.

There is something that parents/players can do: call your local representative and educate them. Most don't get deep in the weeds to understand a bill; in this case your rep would need to understand the difference between MLB, MILB, who pays what costs, who owes what obligations and who would be hurt (local towns) and who would benefit (large corporate absentee owners). If your local representative has an MILB franchise in the district, it should be easier to educate him/her.

So, make the calls!

Perhaps a bulleted list of fact points that people could utilize when contacting reps would be helpful to members??  We have enough members here who have son's who played MiLB ball to understand the issues.  Just a thought.

Mot sure how it would pre-empt the suit since any suit could only consider the state of the law during the time period they are suing for. It would preempt future action.

I'm not sure which is worse....greedy owners or the politicians that protect the interests of the greedy owners. 

Goosegg posted:

“We’re in 42 states, 160 cities. We’ve got over $3 billion of infrastructure, much of which is still being paid off by the clubs and the communities where they exist,” he said. “This is about constituents, this is about jobs at home, and this is about quality of life at home.”

This is the biggest nauseating lie. Yes, "clubs" are paying it off; THE MILB CLUB pays this. The MLB club pays the salaries of the players - a non-expense of the MILB club. Indeed, paying the players more would DIRECTLY benefit the local community where the MILB plays. Unfortunately, today most MILB clubs are owned by entities (owning multiple teams) and have no real tie to the local community. The days of the local car dealer owning the team are past. This provision actually hurts the communities it is broadcast to help.

I think that major factual point is that there is a distinct divide between the financial health of a MiLB team and the wages paid to the players who are rostered on that team (whose payroll is paid by MLB teams).  There is some argument that higher wages might reduce the number of teams affiliated with MLB, but the dollar amounts being tossed around would not seem to justify this argument.  It is relatively certain that all AA and AAA teams would survive without question as would all the short season leagues simply out of necessity.  The comments made about infrastructure "still being paid off" is along the lines of fear mongering and simply not true as are all the other fears laid out.  

Does anyone know what role "Minor League Baseball" (whose president was quoted) plays as it relates to players and owners in MiLB?

Also, does anyone know what laws, if any, govern seasonal employees or apprentices?  Is there anything like those which govern tipped employees?

I like the idea of lobbying. If someone has the knowledge to put out a few bullets, I think it's well worth the time. We do some lobbying on newspaper related issues here in Iowa and it's very effective. Seems crazy people have time to worry about an issue like this when the whole government might shut down, but heck. Money talks. And if the clubs and the owners are the only ones talking, it talks even louder.

https://www.fangraphs.com/blog...ve-americas-pastime/

Nice article about the proposed 2016 legislation that failed, but I assume would be the template for any new legislation.

Root, it may go something like this: the players argue the law should be interpreted one way and the owners in another way. The court would then look to legislative intent in devining a meaning and resolving ambiguities. The amended law would be clear that it's purpose (the amended law) is NOT TO CHANGE EXISTING law, rather, to clarify existing law. The court then hangs its hat on that.

Of the issues I have with Washington this one is not in top 100

Goosegg posted:

Root, it may go something like this: the players argue the law should be interpreted one way and the owners in another way. The court would then look to legislative intent in devining a meaning and resolving ambiguities. The amended law would be clear that it's purpose (the amended law) is NOT TO CHANGE EXISTING law, rather, to clarify existing law. The court then hangs its hat on that.

No, they can't do that. Any analysis of legislative intent cannot be derived from sources that did not exist at the time legislation was passed. Not to mention, an existing legislative body can't clear up what a previous legislative body intended.

fenwaysouth posted:

I'm not sure which is worse....greedy owners or the politicians that protect the interests of the greedy owners. 

 

I understand from the corrupt politician’s point of view. MLB purchased his vote. It allows him/her to get re-elected and be bought off by more special interest groups. By the time the politician leaves Washington he’s wealthy. 

The problem is now they don’t leave. Being a congressman or a senator is just a 174K per year internship for becoming a 2M per year lobbyist. 

In 1975 A level players made $600 per month. Just adjusted for inflation A level players should make $2,850 per month. It’s a difficult argument to make their salaries shouldn’t be adjusted for inflation. That is, unless you have politicians in your back pocket.

84% of American MLB players come from the top ten rounds of the draft. A tenth rounder averages signing for about 100K. The top Caribbean prospects get decent to high priced bonuses. I’m sure MLB figures if many of the rest of the prospects give up and go home baseball will be just fine. 

The minor leaguers don’t have anyone with clout behind them. They don’t have money to buy politicians. 

Root, that's what I always thought. But here is a quick find:

"Subsequent Legislation

If the views of a later Congress are expressed in a duly enacted statute, then the views embodied in that statute must be interpreted and applied. Occasionally a later enactment declares congressional intent about interpretation of an earlier enactment rather than directly amending or clarifying the earlier law. Such action can be given prospective effect because, “however inartistic, it ... stands on its own feet as a valid enactment.”332 “Subsequent legislation declaring the intent of an earlier statute is entitled to great weight in statutory construction.”333

332 F. REED DICKERSON, THE INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION OF STATUTES 179 (1975).

333 Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 395 U.S. 367, 380-81 (1969). By contrast, a “mere statement in a conference report ... as to what the Committee believes an earlier statute meant is obviously less weighty” because Congress has not “proceeded formally through the legislative process.” South Carolina v. Regan, 465 U.S. 367, 379 n.17 (1984)."

I guess we can debate whether or not a yet undecided case on a not yet interpreted law is prospective or not. But, the court doesn't even need to go that far; the court can simply rule without explaining, or it could rule by adopting MLB's interpretation without even referencing the new amendment. 

Goosegg posted:

Root, that's what I always thought. But here is a quick find:

"Subsequent Legislation

If the views of a later Congress are expressed in a duly enacted statute, then the views embodied in that statute must be interpreted and applied. Occasionally a later enactment declares congressional intent about interpretation of an earlier enactment rather than directly amending or clarifying the earlier law. Such action can be given prospective effect because, “however inartistic, it ... stands on its own feet as a valid enactment.”332 “Subsequent legislation declaring the intent of an earlier statute is entitled to great weight in statutory construction.”333

332 F. REED DICKERSON, THE INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION OF STATUTES 179 (1975).

333 Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 395 U.S. 367, 380-81 (1969). By contrast, a “mere statement in a conference report ... as to what the Committee believes an earlier statute meant is obviously less weighty” because Congress has not “proceeded formally through the legislative process.” South Carolina v. Regan, 465 U.S. 367, 379 n.17 (1984)."

I guess we can debate whether or not a yet undecided case on a not yet interpreted law is prospective or not. But, the court doesn't even need to go that far; the court can simply rule without explaining, or it could rule by adopting MLB's interpretation without even referencing the new amendment. 

The key word in the statement "Such action can be given prospective effect," is prospective. Red Lion found that the Federal Communications Commission's expressed interpretation carried great in case concerning the issuance of licenses after  that interpretation was issued.

But here, there are no merit rulings so the underlying law didn't change; it was merely "clarified" before the court ruled.  If there had been rulings on the merits - by this court or any other - a new law would change the result. But here, there is no result to be changed, so the rulings are prospective based on the law (but, retrospective on the facts).

This isn't a case of the court ruling a contract unenforceable retroactively; it's simply applying an ambigious law to the facts in a way which is in harmony with the now amended law - in which the new law specifically makes clear the new congressional intent (whether applied retroactively or not).

New laws do impact cases - statue of limitations changes make former non-actionable behavior actionable for example. But it's an area in which I lack true depth of knowledge and, therefore, will not be a hill I die on!

PS. And all this skirts the issue of what if the new law specifically states it's meant to apply retroactively?

Goosegg posted:

But here, there are no merit rulings so the underlying law didn't change; it was merely "clarified" before the court ruled.  If there had been rulings on the merits - by this court or any other - a new law would change the result. But here, there is no result to be changed, so the rulings are prospective based on the law (but, retrospective on the facts).

This isn't a case of the court ruling a contract unenforceable retroactively; it's simply applying an ambigious law to the facts in a way which is in harmony with the now amended law - in which the new law specifically makes clear the new congressional intent (whether applied retroactively or not).

New laws do impact cases - statue of limitations changes make former non-actionable behavior actionable for example. But it's an area in which I lack true depth of knowledge and, therefore, will not be a hill I die on!

There is some merit to the notion that when a court looks at the entire legislative history of an act, they naturally compare the current clarification with past application and, if it matches closely, they will implicitly give it weight. So, yeah, any legislation like that would likely affect the current cases.

Don't you guys need some type of disclaimer about the quality of services provided is no greater is no greater than the services provided by others?

I've got to ask again - assuming an individual is deemed a "seasonal employee" or "artist", what, if any, labor requirements must be made relating to wages?  Does this line up with the idea of someone being an unpaid intern (a practice that many companies have abandoned)?

"allowing its clubs to pay players as little as $1,100 a month"

Boohoo. Remind me again how much college players make for doing the same job.

SultanofSwat posted:

"allowing its clubs to pay players as little as $1,100 a month"

Boohoo. Remind me again how much college players make for doing the same job.

There are some colleges out there that pay $6,000 cash plus food/lodging (not all, but some) not counting the extra check for any time after the school year ends.  These guys end up taking a hefty pay cut when they leave school and sign.

It's not the same job - not even close. Except, the tools looks somewhat the same (if you don't consider the bat or the ball- a minor tool - or the strike zone).

If a player is deemed to be a seasonal employee - similar to teenage camp counselors or summer carnival workers (which were the reasons for the exemptions in the first place) - working less then six months, there is no federal minimum wage.

Players report in late February and play through Labor Day. Then for some there are the Instructional Leagues, Arizona Fall League, and mini-camps; as well as year round drug testing and year round contract requirements which dictate behavior (must remain in first class condition) and prohibit certain behavior (skiing, rock climbing, etc.).

If a player only plays ST and the season, it's more then six months. So, except for the very first draft year, the minimum a player plays exceeds the statutory exception of seasonal. That's why MLB insists that ST doesn't count - and pays about $25 per day, plus two hots and a cot for it. 

I've decided to start a custom ditch digging service.  We will provide hand-dug ditches to the customer's specifications.  I am starting to put together my team and am looking for lots of able bodied folks who wish to learn the "art" of ditch digging.  As such, we are looking for folks interested in summer internships - below is a brief outline of this exciting opportunity.

- Work in nature and enjoy all the elements that exist outdoors

- Learn the art of hand digging ditches to include equipment maintenance and form (sharp shovel strong back)

- In addition to free training in this exciting field, you will receive $10/day and all the bark you can eat

- Work during the summer months only but you will be expected to train during the "off season" with some opportunity for winter digging on your dime.

- If you desire a second year, you will be invited to a spring ditch digging event where you will compete with other returning ditch diggers (no cost for this exciting opportunity - discounted accommodations available and some free bark)

- If injured, we will work to stop all bleeding and drop you off at the nearest hospital.  You are welcomed to heal thy self and return for the spring dig.

We welcome you to sign up for this exciting opportunity and enhance your skills in this exciting industry.  You will be one of a very few hand ditch diggers and if you can convince someone to pay you, you should do OK.  Otherwise you can always read the instructions for the ditchwitch and get a real job paying 5x this opportunity simply walking behind this wonderful machine.  

2017LHPscrewball posted:

Don't you guys need some type of disclaimer about the quality of services provided is no greater is no greater than the services provided by others?

I've got to ask again - assuming an individual is deemed a "seasonal employee" or "artist", what, if any, labor requirements must be made relating to wages?  Does this line up with the idea of someone being an unpaid intern (a practice that many companies have abandoned)?

The legal guidelines for an unpaid intern are pretty strict. The internship must be an extension of an already paid job - any performance must be a compliment to the work of a paid employee. You can't take on an intern to do a job that you would otherwise have to hire an employee to do. The test is that if the intern weren't around and you'd have to actually pay someone to do what the intern is doing then it's not an internship. This is the legality of it. However, in the real world, it doesn't really work that way. I spent 9 months after law school working as an "unpaid intern" 40+/hrs a week as a law clerk just to be in place when funding came through for the position to be paid. My work definitely didn't legal fit into the definition of "intern."

Out of players gross income they pay taxes , rent , meals, weekly dues (players pay clubbie to wash uniforms and spread) Players provide their own equipment,cleats, turf shoes ,bats.   If your lucky you have a agent who helps out

Goosegg posted:

If a player is deemed to be a seasonal employee - similar to teenage camp counselors or summer carnival workers (which were the reasons for the exemptions in the first place) - working less then six months, there is no federal minimum wage.

Players report in late February and play through Labor Day. Then for some there are the Instructional Leagues, Arizona Fall League, and mini-camps; as well as year round drug testing and year round contract requirements which dictate behavior (must remain in first class condition) and prohibit certain behavior (skiing, rock climbing, etc.).

If a player only plays ST and the season, it's more then six months. So, except for the very first draft year, the minimum a player plays exceeds the statutory exception of seasonal. That's why MLB insists that ST doesn't count - and pays about $25 per day, plus two hots and a cot for it. 

Not to mention they are under contract which doesn't allow them to take their services in their profession elsewhere even during the "off-season" when they supposedly aren't working. Could you imagine other "seasonal workers" being under those restrictions?

roothog66 posted:

Goosegg posted:

If a player is deemed to be a seasonal employee - similar to teenage camp counselors or summer carnival workers (which were the reasons for the exemptions in the first place) - working less then six months, there is no federal minimum wage.

Players report in late February and play through Labor Day. Then for some there are the Instructional Leagues, Arizona Fall League, and mini-camps; as well as year round drug testing and year round contract requirements which dictate behavior (must remain in first class condition) and prohibit certain behavior (skiing, rock climbing, etc.).

If a player only plays ST and the season, it's more then six months. So, except for the very first draft year, the minimum a player plays exceeds the statutory exception of seasonal. That's why MLB insists that ST doesn't count - and pays about $25 per day, plus two hots and a cot for it. 

Not to mention they are under contract which doesn't allow them to take their services in their profession elsewhere even during the "off-season" when they supposedly aren't working. Could you imagine other "seasonal workers" being under those restrictions?

No other field I can think of offers the opportunity to make $10M, $20M or more per year if you are really good at it.  Obviously this is what keeps the "worker" pipeline filled. If MLB paid $50k to start and offered 5% annual raises + health insurance we probably wouldn't have an MiLB.  Baseball is a unique field and really doesn't compare to corporate internships or seasonal employees.  Having said that, I think it is time to pay these guys a living wage.

Smitty28 posted:

roothog66 posted:

Goosegg posted:

If a player is deemed to be a seasonal employee - similar to teenage camp counselors or summer carnival workers (which were the reasons for the exemptions in the first place) - working less then six months, there is no federal minimum wage.

Players report in late February and play through Labor Day. Then for some there are the Instructional Leagues, Arizona Fall League, and mini-camps; as well as year round drug testing and year round contract requirements which dictate behavior (must remain in first class condition) and prohibit certain behavior (skiing, rock climbing, etc.).

If a player only plays ST and the season, it's more then six months. So, except for the very first draft year, the minimum a player plays exceeds the statutory exception of seasonal. That's why MLB insists that ST doesn't count - and pays about $25 per day, plus two hots and a cot for it. 

Not to mention they are under contract which doesn't allow them to take their services in their profession elsewhere even during the "off-season" when they supposedly aren't working. Could you imagine other "seasonal workers" being under those restrictions?

No other field I can think of offers the opportunity to make $10M, $20M or more per year if you are really good at it.  Obviously this is what keeps the "worker" pipeline filled. If MLB paid $50k to start and offered 5% annual raises + health insurance we probably wouldn't have an MiLB.  Baseball is a unique field and really doesn't compare to corporate internships or seasonal employees.  Having said that, I think it is time to pay these guys a living wage.

If you look back before free agency MLB players worked second jobs in the off season. In 1967 Jim Lonborg wrote 10K on his glove. It was to remind him when he took the mound in the World Series how badly he needed the money. 

100k was outrageous pay in 1967 reserved for the best players. The Red Sox were called crazy for giving Yastrzemski 500Kfor three years. The minimum salary in 1967 was 6K

The net present value of 100k in 1967 is 793K. It hardly compares to the best players now making 20-30M per season. The net present value of 6K in 1967 is 45K. Minimum pay is now 507K.

My point is players before free agency were willing to play because they loved the game rather than big bucks. 

Pro sports has changed. When I was a kid a NBA player lived down the street. He didn’t have the nicest house on the street. He probably wasn’t in the top 50% of income on the street. 

Back in the 1940s, pro athletes and celebs were also drafted for the war. It's a different time.

I give credit to the player's unions for the various pro sports here in the US, they have done well for their players, of course with continued room for improvement. The interesting thing to note here is that prior to the big-time salaries, back in the days when these guys also worked 2nd jobs, the income the teams were making were also a fraction of what it is now. Sure, they were still being paid a pittance compared to team incomes, but teams became wealthier in the era of cable television.

MiLB is a known evil. You either go into it with a signing bonus to hold you over or you have a support system to help you out (family, wife, etc). Caveat Emptor

What is wrong with the milb model is they haven’t kept the wages in line with inflation. But MLB franchises know what they’re doing. 84% of American players who make the majors come from the first ten rounds of the draft. Slot bonus money for round ten is about $150K. The bonus money helps support the player for the time it takes him to make the majors or pack it in. The rest of milb are long shots used a single A roster filler for two or three years. 94% of American MLBers come from the top twenty rounds. After the twentieth round players are extreme long shots to make it to the majors. But the prospects need minor league teammates. 

If the clubs can't afford to pay more imo they should have less affiliates.

90% of the minor leaguers are "fillers" anyway and while sometimes a late round draft becomes somebody most don't.

If pro ball says it can't afford to pay restrict the draft to 20 rounds, limit the number of affilates to 5 and then pay the remaining guys better.

I think teams could cut their number of minor league guys by 30% without missing much.

RJM posted:

Smitty28 posted:

roothog66 posted:

Goosegg posted:

If a player is deemed to be a seasonal employee - similar to teenage camp counselors or summer carnival workers (which were the reasons for the exemptions in the first place) - working less then six months, there is no federal minimum wage.

Players report in late February and play through Labor Day. Then for some there are the Instructional Leagues, Arizona Fall League, and mini-camps; as well as year round drug testing and year round contract requirements which dictate behavior (must remain in first class condition) and prohibit certain behavior (skiing, rock climbing, etc.).

If a player only plays ST and the season, it's more then six months. So, except for the very first draft year, the minimum a player plays exceeds the statutory exception of seasonal. That's why MLB insists that ST doesn't count - and pays about $25 per day, plus two hots and a cot for it. 

Not to mention they are under contract which doesn't allow them to take their services in their profession elsewhere even during the "off-season" when they supposedly aren't working. Could you imagine other "seasonal workers" being under those restrictions?

No other field I can think of offers the opportunity to make $10M, $20M or more per year if you are really good at it.  Obviously this is what keeps the "worker" pipeline filled. If MLB paid $50k to start and offered 5% annual raises + health insurance we probably wouldn't have an MiLB.  Baseball is a unique field and really doesn't compare to corporate internships or seasonal employees.  Having said that, I think it is time to pay these guys a living wage.

If you look back before free agency MLB players worked second jobs in the off season. In 1967 Jim Lonborg wrote 10K on his glove. It was to remind him when he took the mound in the World Series how badly he needed the money. 

100k was outrageous pay in 1967 reserved for the best players. The Red Sox were called crazy for giving Yastrzemski 500Kfor three years. The minimum salary in 1967 was 6K

The net present value of 100k in 1967 is 793K. It hardly compares to the best players now making 20-30M per season. The net present value of 6K in 1967 is 45K. Minimum pay is now 507K.

My point is players before free agency were willing to play because they loved the game rather than big bucks. 

Pro sports has changed. When I was a kid a NBA player lived down the street. He didn’t have the nicest house on the street. He probably wasn’t in the top 50% of income on the street. 

Totally agree sports changed when the revenue went from a few million to a few billion over the last 50 years.  Players in US Professional Sports (NFL, NBA, MLB) generate more revenue per capita than almost any other labor in the world.  Apple generates $1.9MM per employee.  For a MLB baseball team that would be $50MM.  The A's generated over $200MM last year and that was the lowest number in the sport.  Payers should get paid, they earn it.  IMO there is a decent argument that they are underpaid for the physical trauma many endure. 

As for the idea players played "For the love of the game" is way over romantic nostalgia.  The Players hated the Reserve Clause as much as blacks hated Sharecropping - mostly because they were brothers as approaches to labor.  They hated it so much they created the Federal League 100 years ago and nearly broke the hold of MLB.  

In todays day and age - they might have been able to do it but because of Free Agency 40 years ago it became unnecessary.  Although the thought of watching the players running the sport would be amusing.  We'd get to see what happens when labor makes decisions....my bet is it would end badly.

As for Milb and the lobbyists...it is just more evidence that our government is not working correctly.  Paying people minimum wage and OT should not be too controversial.  If you figure the average MilB player probably puts in close to 80 hours a week when travel is factored in - that would be the equivalent of 100 hours at $7.50 which is $750 per week.  Or roughly $3,000 per month.  Currently in low minors most make $1,100 to $2,200 per month.  If you assume all were at $1,100 for 25 players that means the cost would increase would be $250-$300k for a season.  For the 4 or 5 low level Milb teams this would impact costs about $1.0MM per club max.  More likely it would be less than that by a fair amount.

This is the kind of thing that happens all over the place every day because people are not paying close enough attention to what our representatives are really doing. 

Follow the money - In God We Trust.

Pointing out players played for a lot less before free agency isn’t romantic nostalgia. Who wouldn’t want to be paid more? But because they loved the game pro athletes played for what they could get rather than chose other careers less physically demanding. 

This is a simple free market capitalism question.  You are either for it, or you are not informed, or an idiot.

If you artificially raise wages, you WILL HAVE TO FIRE PEOPLE.  The pie does not get bigger, there is only so much pie.

I want as many people as possible to have a chance at making it to the Show.  Raising wages, kills dreams.

SultanofSwat posted:

This is a simple free market capitalism question.  You are either for it, or you are not informed, or an idiot.

If you artificially raise wages, you WILL HAVE TO FIRE PEOPLE.  The pie does not get bigger, there is only so much pie.

In a market with low wages (for example, fast food) this would be true. In a market with high salaries and/or large profits only one of these would be affected. It would probably be profits if the organization wanted to have continued success. However, the big money in pro sports is the value of the team for sale purposes. It’s not the annual bottom line.

Every major league organization is not the same. A financially successful large market organization could probabaly afford to pay minor leaguers more and not affect the big picture significantly. A small market organization probably couldn’t. What would happen is the rich get richer. There would be more competitive imbalance than already exists. 

Baseball has already made moves regarding minor leaguers to attempt to remove team imbalance. Teams like the Red Sox and Yankees used to be able to draft players late out of high school who insisted they were headed for college.Then they offered enough money to sway them to sign. Now each team has a limit on how much they can spend on draft picks.

If MLB organizations were all forced to pay minor leaguers a certain amount it would place a financial strain in some teams. 

What could have worked is keeping up with inflation annually or every two or three years from the beginning. But like a previously stated signing bonuses procises the players expected to make it extra money. Even the better Latin players now receive significant signing bonuses.

You want make better money get promoted, or get real job. 

Supplu and demand dictates that MiLB players hold no value. It is that simple IMO

Becoming a pro baseball player is a high risk, high reward process. By the way, what do minor league actors make? Do they have to sleep six to an apartment?

old_school posted:

You want make better money get promoted, or get real job. 

Supplu and demand dictates that MiLB players hold no value. It is that simple IMO

I don't agree. If you don't want to pay them  that is fine but then don't make them team controlled for 5 years and allow them free employer choice.

European soccer is capitalism but american sports is actually socialism (revenue sharing, draft, team control).

If mlb wants free demand and supply market get rid of team control and make everyone a free agent so you have to pay 20yo mike trout 50m per year.

But owners don't want that and have instead created a socialist system.

I'm open for teams having to pay minor leaguers nothing but then also don't have demands at them and let them sign with every team they want.

I mean google can also have unpaid interns, but they don't control the guy, if apple makes him an offer he is gone within a week.

Imo the very restrictive team control over players also means monetary responsibility, there are many low paid "minor leagues" in other industries but none of them controls the guy for a decade.

A minor league actor might not make anything either but if he gets an offer by Spielberg his former employer never sees him again.

If owners don't want to pay minor leaguers make minor leagues an independent league and make anyone a free agent. But don't keep them as slaves who can't change employer for half a decade.

If minor leaguers had no value teams should allow them to change franchise without getting anything back on a week's notice, shouldn't they.