In response to pinstripezac35's comment:
a very interesting answer youk
Great posts Beantowne, in line with that great commandment, "follow the money". All parties with a financial interest ought tto have a financial stake in the integrity of the game.
Zac, the reason I say the union is weak, is two parts, first one is allowing Selig, a sitting owner, to become the commmissioner in the first place. That shifted the job description away from "the good of the game", which tacitly concerns the intersts of the players to one of, "for the interests of the owners". There is no way a strong Union allows this power grab to happen.
seeing how commissioners have always been voted in by the owners
and only the owners
I don't see having an soon 2 B former owner as a much of a difference
The second reason is the real money in baseball is not made through tickets and TV deals, although there is a ton coming from there, the real money comes from franchise appreciation. Recent sales of the Cubs, Rangers, Dodgers and Astros are off the charts. Two of these franchises sold due to poor business acumen in the owner's other businesses, (Cubs and Rangers), the Dodgers were dumped due to McCourt's divorce, and the 'Stros were sold after the owner decided to retire. All were sold with tremendous appreciation. There was never any risk of the owner not "making" it, plus the other owners can reject any offer to purchase a team, which allows them the ability to set the value of the available franchise, and artificially inflate the value of their own. Until the players negotiate a place at the table in franchise sales, they will in my mind be weak. After all, the union could blacklist a franchise and tell players not to sign there, thereby decreasing the incentive to purchase a team.
let me just say I tend to lean towards management / owners more often than not
so rather than turn this into a political debate
let me ask you again
is this really enough to call it a 'weak union'
how many unions have what you suggest they should have above
in the sports world ?
in the entertainment industry ?
I also think this from your OP is a tad unfair
only under pressure from Congress did Selig began to address cheating and illegal activity in his business
baseball instituted a minor league steroids policy in 2001
which is all the union would allow at that time
as far as I know congress didn't step in until 02
Yes, the position was always voted in by the owners, and the nominee was always someone with enough gravitas to police the owners from themselves.I don't think you get that effect from drawing from the owners. The strenghth of the union might be measured by jobs created or maintained, back in the day, team rosters were 25 men, the owners reduced that to 24, eliminating one salaried player on each team. The minor league steroid ban was a start, the league could've gone further, and didn't.