MLB’s lockout is finally over, but details regarding the late stages of collective bargaining talks are still emerging. One revelation late in the process was that the league was not only requesting that the MLBPA drop previously filed grievances against the Rays, A’s, Pirates and Marlins (which pertained to their usage of revenue-sharing funds), but also to drop a $500M grievance filed in wake of return-to-play negotiations in the COVID-shortened 2020 season. Stephanie Apstein of Sports Illustrated reports that the MLBPA did indeed drop the 2020 grievance but did not drop the grievances against the Tampa Bay, Oakland, Pittsburgh and Miami franchises.
The now-dropped grievance pertaining to the 2020 season was filed in May 2021 and saw the union seek $500M in total. The grievance alleged that MLB negotiated in bad faith during return-to-play negotiations and had not done everything in its power to play as many games as possible. The league originally indicated that it hoped to fast-track any subsequent proceedings so they did not affect the looming collective bargaining talks, but that clearly never came to be. The MLBPA was seeking what amounted to 20-plus games' worth of retroactive pay, contending that those contests could have been played had the league made its “best effort” to return to play, as had been previously agreed upon. That suit will now be put to bed, it seems.
As for the others, the initial grievances were filed in February 2018, alleging that the teams had not sufficiently dedicated their revenue-sharing funds to improving the on-field product. Revenue sharing is collectively bargained, and the spirit of the issue is intended to be one of competitive balance; that is to say, those funds are technically intended to help small-market clubs keep pace with their larger-market peers. The grievances were expanded in subsequent years, as the union continued to contend that those teams were not properly utilizing those funds.
The Rays, notably, authored multiple winning seasons during that time and did put forth a fairly sizable two-year, $30M offer to sign Charlie Morton. The other three clubs in question spent at more minimal levels and, in the cases of Pittsburgh and Miami in particular, did not enjoy the same level of on-field success. Those organizations figure to contend that said revenue-sharing funds were allocated to other important organizational measures that improve the team, even if not directly through adding to the current major league payroll (e.g. investments in player development, analytics, international scouting and other less tangible areas).
Precisely what the union is seeking in relief and just when the grievances might eventually be resolved — either by an arbitrator or, should commissioner Rob Manfred agree that sanctions are needed, by punishing the clubs in question — are not yet clear.
More must-reads: