A guide to Major League Baseball's contraction issue
This article was posted in 2001.
The decision made by Major League Baseball owners to contract two teams before the 2002 season was the first punch thrown in what appears to be a winter-long battle royal over the future of America's national pastime.
The vote, which occurred one day before the league's collective bargaining agreement with the players' union was set to expire, is most likely the owners' attempt to gain some leverage in renewal discussions.
But by threatening to pull two franchises out from under their respective cities and fans, the owners have drawn a slew of state legislators, lawyers, stadium owners, judges, members of Congress, and outraged fans into the mix.
If you think of offseason owner-player negotiations as one of those all-too-familiar, on-field brawls, the owners have essentially opened up the gates and let the grounds crew, umpires, concession vendors, and fans join in the pig pile.
The contraction debate is just the latest dispute to come down the pike in what has become a traffic jam of issues concerning baseball's financial future.
Back to the Bargaining Table
The collective bargaining agreement outlines things such as player's minimum salaries, the rules for arbitrating players' contracts, and revenue sharing between the teams. The last agreement was signed in 1995 and ended a 232-day players' strike, the eighth work stoppage in league history.The results of contraction-related litigation and the details of this new agreement will ultimately decide the fate of Major League Baseball.
Here are the two major players in the contraction debate:
A Revealing Debate
The history of the business of baseball begins a historic new chapter this week when Commissioner Selig takes the contraction issue to Capitol Hill. Selig said he will open up the teams' financial ledgers for the public to see during testimony in front of the House Judiciary Committee.
Congress wants to, in turn, discuss baseball's 79-year-old antitrust exemption. The 1922 Supreme Court ruling held that baseball exhibitions did not constitute interstate commerce, placing it outside the country's antitrust laws—a decision Justice William O. Douglas called "a derelict in the stream of the law" a half-century later.