This has a good chance to end poorly.
This has a good chance to end poorly.
I’m fully expecting not to watch any baseball at this point. Really hope I’m wrong.
Agent Scott Boras, who represents about 100 major league players, told USA TODAY Sports that all of his players are prepared to play right now and are willing to squeeze in as many as 124 regular-season games through October.
On one condition.
They will not accept a penny less than the prorated salaries they agreed to following negotiations with the owners on March 26
This is so stupid. Why bite the hand that feeds you when it's offering more than it ever has before? Players have always gotten the short end IMO on salaries, but I'm stunned they think the 50/50 split of revenue is an unfair or unreasonable offer. They're idiotic to not take that and then use it as a starting point for the next CBA. They get nowhere close to 50% of revenue now, do they?
I also think Scott Boras is satan incarnate. Force majeure clauses exist for exactly the type of situation we're in now. Do MLB contracts really not include force majeure clauses? If they do how is this tool even being so aggressive about this?
I'd be interested to see that litigated. My understanding of force majeure from business law almost 20 years ago ties the triggering of the clause to an event that makes fulfillment of a contract agreement unrealistic or impossible. While playing would indicate the event is less severe than it was previously, the fact that they would be playing with safety mitigations when they resume would concede the event isn't over.They do include force majeure clauses. I could be wrong but I believe the issue becomes that as soon as they start playing again the circumstances that trigger the clause cease to exist. Or more simply put I believe the clause is only in effect if they aren't playing. If the two sides don't come to an agreement the players aren't getting another cent. That's a fact.
I'd be interested to see that litigated. My understanding of force majeure from business law almost 20 years ago ties the triggering of the clause to an event that makes fulfillment of a contract agreement unrealistic or impossible. While playing would indicate the event is less severe than it was previously, the fact that they would be playing with safety mitigations when they resume would concede the event isn't over.
Moreover, the deleterious effects of the event are the more pertinent factor, IMO, so if the effects of the event are felt well into the next season I'm not sure why players should expect to receive full salaries until then. What if fans don't return to stadiums in 2021 at more than 50% of previous attendance figures? Wouldn't that still trigger force majeure?