Chicago Cubs outfielder Ian Happ was on 670 The Score today discussing a range of topics, and he got into the outstanding financial issues that permeate the sport following the pandemic-shortened-and-altered 2020 season.
Happ speaks not only as a player and not only as a Cubs player, but he speaks as the union player rep for the team. So when he speaks on issues impacting the league, and on the relationship between the players and owners, you have to listen more closely:
“You don’t really see the players coming out and saying that we took a 63% loss this year,” Happ said on the Dan Bernstein Show on Tuesday morning. “That’s not the narrative from the players, because we didn’t lose any real money. Guys still got paid. Guys still made more than zero. We didn’t have to give anything back. So it’s really tough to claim loss when it’s just money that wasn’t realized.
“But that’s the case on both sides, right? The case is there was a projection for earnings, and nobody met their projection for earnings. And that was the case in 2020. That was the case for many businesses across the world in 2020. And you don’t see players coming out and using that narrative because it would go terribly, right? You would have no fans sympathetic to a professional baseball player for not making 100% of their salary and only making 36, 37%. But that’s the narrative that’s being spun on the other side. It doesn’t make a lot of sense.”
That’s a tough subject to get into on the fly on the radio without flubbing, and Happ really nailed the player perspective.
You can have the discussion about the merits there, but let me just say up front that what Happ presents is a really sophisticated understanding of what plays and what doesn’t play in the court of public opinion. Maybe that matters, maybe it doesn’t, but I’m telling you: over the past two years, the players have gotten so much better at swaying public opinion in their favor. For whatever reason, large swaths of fans never want to hear players talk about money – “they’re millionaires playing a game!” – even as money that doesn’t go to players goes to the owners. I, myself, try not to get too deep into “rooting” for one side or the other in this stuff (I’d like them all to work together to grow the pie, so long as players are getting their fair share), but I do think it’s nuts to be “anti-player.” Why would we not want to see players get paid well for what they do when we enjoy it so much?
To pick nits with the substance of Happ’s comments, I’d imagine owners would reiterate that they have not claimed merely lost revenues in 2020; they’ve claimed actual losses. As in, more expenses paid out than revenues taken in. That’s not the same thing as merely not achieving the level of revenue you expected. People can (and will) take issue with what owners do with their books to claim losses – and the players do not have visibility to those details – but I’m just pointing out what the owners’ position actually is.
Obviously this whole discussion just sets up what looms with respect to the 2021 season (how many games, how much pay), and – more frighteningly – the CBA negotiations.
It’s clear that, even absent the pandemic, the players believe the system is broken in a fundamental way, given how league revenues have moved over the past five years of the CBA, whereas salaries have stagnated. Meanwhile, it’s clear that, even absent the pandemic, the owners would love a revenue-sharing system in place like the NBA and NFL have. I know that players will always fight against a salary cap, but as we’ve discussed, the current CBA wound up putting in an effective salary cap (luxury tax with harsh penalties) without actually providing the players the benefits that usually come in a capped system (salary floor, guaranteed share of revenues, more data sharing). I’m not convinced that a revenue-sharing system wouldn’t wind up being best for both sides, so long as it includes exceptions (like the NBA), rollover (like the NFL), and fundamental changes to service time and free agency. There’s a version that makes the pie bigger, and gets more money to more of the players in their prime years. That seems like a good tack to take.