Strike won't strike

Jagged economy will keep players on the field

Enough of this gnashing of teeth, fretting over baseball’s labor mess. (Do you really care?) I’ve been saying along, and I’m not changing my tune: Don’t bet on there being another strike.

See, it’s all about the economy, stupid. And right now, financial times are bleak enough that neither side can afford a protracted work stoppage. You have to assume the investment portfolios of many a player have been whacked silly, unless they’ve been stashing money in offshore accounts. You also only need subscribe to The Wall Street Journal to understand the tough times some hardball barons find themselves in.

The Journal ran a terrific piece by Sam Walker recently looking at the business interests of several prominent owners -- and found that as bad as their franchises might be faring, most were hurting even more off the diamond. You remember Tom Hicks, right? The Texas sharpie who doled out a record $252 million for Alex Rodriguez. Well, not only are his Rangers in the tank, but Hicks’ investment firm has lost nearly $1 billion in a telecom/broadband investment and has another $1 billion tied up in a shaky media venture in Argentina.

And Hicks isn’t alone.

Cleveland Indians owner Larry Dolan’s fortune is tied to Cablevision, whose stock price has dropped almost 90 percent in the last year. The same thing has pretty much happened to AOL Time Warner, which owns the Atlanta Braves. Shares in the communications company owned by Toronto Blue Jays owner Ted Rogers have declined almost 70 percent since 2000.

Colorado Rockies owner Jerry McMorris’ trucking company has been liquidated and he may be liable for $12 million in unpaid wages to former employees. Shares in the software company that San Diego Padres owner John Moores helped build have plunged from $80 to less than a dollar.

Yes, we get mail ...

At a time when people are losing jobs in every industry, the economy is trying to recover, unemployment rates are high and the political landscape of the entire world impacts our everyday life, I don’t want to hear that the millionaires and billionaires are fighting over who gets more money. They all already make way too much money to begin with. I’m not real sure that the owners and players have a real understanding of the financial problems the rest of America is facing, but I can guarantee that if baseball pulls a strike/lockout you won’t see fans flooding back to the game so fast.
-- David Blyn, Staten Island, N.Y.

As I touched on above, I think reality has struck both sides. I spoke to a negotiator for the players this week who is encouraged by the dialogue with the owners. By his count, the parties have met 16 times in the past month and may talk more this weekend. Ownership apparently has given indications that there’s room to move on some key issues and they indeed desire to reach a settlement. Another very positive sign was the proposal for random steroid testing offered by the union this week. Specific details still need to be flushed out, but this was a huge concession by a union that has been dead-set against testing for the better part of two decades. The proposal seemed to be warmly accepted by the owners, who can also walk away from negotiations claiming this among their victories. Keep in mind that no one is saying a settlement is imminent and the players could still set a strike date when they meet Monday in Chicago, but I’m told that once the two sides agree to make a deal that one could be struck within a matter of days.

As a longtime sports fan in Pittsburgh, it is readily apparent that revenue sharing and a salary cap are the only hope any major league sport has of achieving competitive balance. I need look no further than the Steelers to see how a relatively well-run league like the NFL is proof of that. Undoubtedly, new stadium revenues are driving Mr. Rooney’s recent spate of free-agent signings, but the overall financial health of teams in the NFL, aided by revenue sharing and a salary cap, allows all teams to succeed or fail based on their merits and talents, not their market size. Conversely, the Pirates and now the Penguins will never be competitive, given the status quo in MLB and the NHL. The bottom line, one that I feel neither the owners nor union understand, is that most fans would rather have no baseball at all than the Class AAA garbage that all but a few cities have been forced to stomach for the past decade. In lieu of balance, perhaps the Yankees, Mets, Dodgers and Red Sox could just play each other 162 times a year and leave the rest of us out of the charade.
-- Mark Campbell, Pittsburgh

The players' union contends competitive balance is better now than in the last 20 years, but I tend to agree that the large-market teams are dominant. You might argue that Minnesota is a small-market club (Mr. Selig’s contraction favorite, too) and the Twins are enjoying a successful season. Neither St. Louis or Arizona fall into the large-market classification, yet both spend money freely to acquire top players. It would be nice, though, to see clubs like Pittsburgh and Kansas City have a chance again to be competitive. Then again, 15 or 20 years ago clubs like Seattle and Cleveland were dogs.

How about if a player was caught using steroids and the team got penalized, say having to forfeit five games. I guarantee that a little in-house correcting would go a long ways.
-- Karl Hanson, Missoula, Mont.

Great idea, but what if baseball honchos decided the Brewers should “win one for Bud?" Wouldn’t you start to wonder if a handful of Astros, Cards and Reds suddenly popped positive drug tests?

Steroids are turning what has been a great tactical sport into a carnival freak show of who can crush the ball the farthest. My son, who’s finishing a great Little League career, often tells me he wants to be a baseball player when he grows up, like so many kids. How do you explain steroids to him? Instead, I encourage him to focus on soccer, where drugs can’t enhance your performance, and where the sport has taken a firm stand on this issue.
-- David deMilo, Los Gatos, Calif.

I understand the difficulty of finding the right words to explain steroids to a child. Then again, you’re kidding yourself if you think steroids are foreign to soccer or any other major sport. Certain of these performance-enhancing drugs play a role in helping build strength and stamina, as well as speeding recovery from injury -- all of which seem to fit soccer and a lot of other sports.

I’ve enjoyed your articles on the academic issues at the University of Tennessee regarding the athletes taking “crip courses.” Frankly, I believe the entire Division I structure is incompatible with the educational mission. Division I has become nothing more than a farm league for professional sports, and I don’t believe that should be a purpose of our educational institutions. But the money has taken over, and at institutions such as UT that run at a profit it is not going to change anytime soon. That said, I also believe that as the game is now structured Tennessee is playing well within the rules.
-- Jonathan Reed, Knoxville, Tenn.

I can’t speak to whether UT plays by the book, or if some of the Vols have ever bothered to open anything other than a playbook. But I agree with your characterization of big-time sports.

I understand there are some academic concerns at both Tennessee and LSU, but neither one to me seem nearly as serious as huge payouts (at Alabama) for the exclusive rights to a recruit(s). Changing grades to keep players eligible hardly seems like a major violation. It seems like a lack of priority that a school needs to self-address. If that school wants to be known simply as a football school, then it will be seen as that and not as a school of advanced learning. That’s a school and an administration’s choice, not a SEC or NCAA matter. Tennessee and Alabama are not Harvard and Yale. Let’s get some perspective here.
-- David McClister, Nashville, Tenn.

OK, Bama and UT grads aren’t to be confused with Ivy Leaguers. Got it. Now the premise that doctoring grades to keep an academically challenged football player eligible isn’t a big deal -- wow, I think we have a serious ethical parting of ways. Sounds like we best ship down one of them Harvard-educated ethicists.

Mike Tyson needs to put his pride in his back pocket and make up with Kevin Rooney. If Tyson had had Rooney when he fought Lewis, Tyson would be the champion today.
-- Russell Maxwell, Bronx, N.Y.

Iron Mike would be better served making up with his ex-wives and lady friends. Then, maybe he wouldn’t be begging to climb back in the ring for another paycheck.

The difference for people who really know boxing is that Tyson was the so-called champion and he is the one who was demolished. Will you people now please get off the Tyson bandwagon? It’s been over for a long time.
-- Jay, Birmingham, Ala.

Yeah, but if he ever gets Kevin Rooney back in his corner . . .

My major objection to paying players and big-time athletic programs is that athletics have nothing to do with the instructional, research, extension, or outreach mission of a major university. In fact, the general instruction (not athletic) budget of Auburn pays for cleaning up the campus after football games. That amounted to $250,000 last year. That does not include the other monies needed to cover damage and vandalism in academic buildings and installation of Port-a-Potties to keep drunken alumni (from Auburn and elsewhere) from destroying university property.

And some folks want universities to divert monies from their budgets to pay these jokers a salary? Forget about it.
-- Austin Hagan, Extension Plant Pathologist and Alumni Professor, Auburn University

Wow, professor, tell it like it is. I hate to break the news to you, but if your Tigers should win big this fall -- heck, if they just handle Alabama -- the players won’t get another legal dime. Count on Tommy Tuberville and his junior assistants cashing in.

Jim Martin, and the other people in this world who feel that student-athletes should get paid for playing college athletics are either idiots (I doubt a law professor is an idiot) or crazy (which anyone practicing law must be). Why on earth should they be paid? They get a full ride! Most revenue generated from major college sporting events are recycled to cover scholarships for sports that don’t generate revenue and building bigger and better athletic departments. Any money left over from that should go towards bigger libraries, better educational facilities, more handicap parking spaces, etc.
-- Andrew Strasser, San Diego

I’m for spreading the revenue around, building libraries and the like. So rather than the football coach taking home $2 million a year, let’s also see if we can’t find a way for a few quarters of that to go to his players.

I happen to be a student at the University of Denver School of Law, so your article piqued my interest. My instant response was, “Are you serious?” The idea of giving bonuses to college football players borders on insanity. A winning team does generate more revenues for a school, but it does not mean that students should share in the proceeds. Jim Martin’s argument is flawed by the fact that the majority of Colorado’s players are from out-of-state (64 out of 102 or 62.7% are out-of-state), and the tuition then jumps to a whopping $17,321 plus an additional $5,790 for room and board and another $1,100 for books/supplies. What does Mr. Martin plan to do with the discrepancy between in-state and out-of-state athletes? Does he plan to pay the in-state students more to make up the difference? As a professor of “Sports and the Law,” Mr. Martin should know that such an idea is discriminatory to a person from another state, and therefore, unconstitutional . . . I have the opportunity to take Mr. Martin’s class, and I plan to do so in the spring. I hope then to show him exactly how flawed and irrational his “idea” truly is.
-- Scott Watson, Denver

Good luck. And, hey, check back when final grades come out.

Northwestern's medical preparation in such extreme temperatures (re: death of Rashidi Wheeler) was sadly lacking. How could there not be a single cell phone among all these "professionals" in light of today's technologies? And why on earth had it not occurred to any of the coaches to make sure they had access to 911 services in case of emergencies? These "educators," and I say that loosely, should be as prepared for medical emergencies in such extreme workouts as they expect these young men to be prepared for the football field.
-- Debbi Corley, Texas

It makes you wonder how much thought went into an emergency medical plan. Wouldn’t it be nice if the NCAA gumshoes spent time checking on this kind of stuff rather than worrying about an 18-year-old getting an extra T-shirt on a recruiting visit?

As a parent of a son who played high school football and baseball and then college baseball, I have seen the drills that kids go through -- pads in the summer heat in Florida with (from my point of view as a nursing educator)less than adequate water breaks. Kids practiced on fields with no available telephone and that was before cell phones were as prevalent as they are now. ... Coaches have to be educated regarding the dangers of strenuous exercise and its relation to chronic asthma. There are far too many uneducated and cavalier coaches out there.
-- Deborah Cary, Florida

Most coaches are well trained and protective of their players, but unfortunately there are still a few Neanderthal characters roaming the sidelines. Wouldn’t you like to see a role reversal and have them put through hell?

Mike Fish is a senior writer for CNNSI.com.

Comments? To e-mail Fish, click here.

 

Related information

Stories

SI's Phil Taylor: Little Leaguers should have their demands heard, too CNNSI.com's Mike Fish: CU prof stands up for athletes CNNSI.com's John Donovan: Steroids proposals a start

Multimedia

Visit Video Plus for the latest audio and video