Reflections on the Revolution in Minor League Labor Relations

Michael Chow-Arizona Republic

Just 14 hours before the start of the MLB regular season, the league and the MLBPA reached a tentative agreement on the first collective bargaining agreement for minor league baseball players. They could have picked a day when the baseball headlines weren’t as crowded, but when it comes to making labor history, there’s no time like the present.

The headline figures include massive increases in the minimum salary across all levels and reforms in most of the areas that have made minor league baseball’s working conditions a target for criticism. All that just seven months after minor league ballplayers announced their intent to unionize.

At the moment, all the two sides have is a tentative agreement, which is essentially a handshake deal on a set of terms that both negotiating teams will take back to their full constituencies for a vote. The vote itself is normally (but not always) a formality if the respective bargaining teams recommend it. That process could be complete, and the CBA finalized, as soon as this weekend.

For a comprehensive breakdown of what’s going to change, see the work of Jeff Passan at ESPN and Evan Drellich at The Athletic, both of whom have been on this story from the start. Rather than analyze every single bullet point, I want to pick out some of the highlights and reflect on how completely and rapidly the minor league landscape has changed over the past few years.

Let’s start with the money, an estimated $90 million in guaranteed salary increases across the various levels:

Minor League Salary Increases
Level Then Now
Complex $4,800 $19,800
Single-A $11,000 $26,200
High-A $11,000 $27,300
Double-A $13,800 $30,250
Triple-A $17,500 $35,800

Players, who were previously paid only during the season, will now receive checks during spring training and most of the offseason, including four weeks’ back pay for this year’s spring training. No ballplayer is going to get rich off the minor league minimum salary. It’d be difficult, if not impossible, to raise a family on any of these minimum salaries, and even for a single man living in league-subsidized housing, $19,800 only just gets you to the bottom of a living wage in places like Florida and Arizona. Baseball will still pay its minor leaguers less than basketball, where G-Leaguers make a minimum of $40,500 a year. In hockey, ECHL players make a minimum of $510 a week, while the AHL minimum is upwards of $50,000 a year.

But consider that minor league hockey players have been unionized since 1967 — major league baseball didn’t even have divisions back then — and minor league baseball players made these gains in one offseason, in their first CBA. It’s huge progress.

Another economic gain for the players is the reacquisition of their name, image, and likeness rights, which had previously been held by the league. Getting these rights was a big enough deal for college athletes that most sports fans know what NIL stands for offhand now. This will probably end up being an afterthought in terms of most players’ wallets. But until the minor leaguers unionized, the league was not only paying them poverty wages, it also restricted their ability to market themselves. That’s a particularly odious double-barreled message of: You’re not valuable enough to deserve a living wage, but also you’re so valuable capital must extract profit not just from your labor but from your name and physical appearance.

Among other improvements to housing and transportation subsidies, players living in team-subsidized housing in the top two levels of the minors will have their own bedrooms. (Anyone who was ever a teenager and has younger siblings knows what a big deal this is.) Players will also have a say in the composition of clubhouse meals through a joint clubhouse nutrition committee. And for the first time, minor leaguers will have the benefit of codified workplace policies the MLBPA won so long ago they’re taken for granted in the majors: the right to a second medical opinion, codified policies on drugs and domestic violence, and a grievance process.

Under this five-year agreement, life in the minor leagues will be hard. The pay won’t be very good, the job security minimal as the sport, by its very structure, continues to cull and eat its own young. But it will be, by orders of magnitude, easier and healthier than it was five years ago. In the hours after the TA was reached, minor league pitcher-turned-attorney Garrett Broshuis posted a tweet thread reflecting on the deal. If you’ve read anything at all on the subject this week you’ve probably seen it, but the particulars are worth revisiting.

Because it’s easy to forget about minor leaguers cramming an entire starting rotation into a two-bedroom apartment on air mattresses, sleeping in cars and closets because they couldn’t afford housing, being unable to afford food. Life will be hard in the minors going forward, but it will be livable in ways players of Broshuis’ generation could scarcely have imagined.

So what’s the catch?

The big concession on the union’s part was agreeing to cut the in-season reserve list from 180 to 165 players. The reserve list comprises all rostered minor league players outside of the complexes in the Dominican Republic, so these cuts basically reduce the number of minor league jobs by about 8%.

That’s not something to be glossed over. With fewer minor league roster spots, teams won’t have the luxury of waiting on late bloomers to develop in their early 20s. Some of the players who fall through the cracks will end up getting their chance in college or indy ball, but that’s not an option for everyone, particularly players coming from overseas.

Reducing the size of the minor leagues has been a matter of ardent urgency for the league for years, most notably in late 2020 when MLB cut a quarter of its affiliated minor league teams. The league sought to cut the reserve list further during the lockout, but the union resisted.

In a healthy economic and cultural environment, the league and its cartel of owners would treat baseball as the end and profit the means. An argument on the grounds of the health of the sport would be persuasive: Fewer minor league jobs means lost opportunities for would-be stars, even if they are few in number. Fewer minor league teams means fewer opportunities for fans (or potential fans) to see accessible, affordable high-level baseball in person.

That’s not the environment we inhabit, however, and so those arguments are not persuasive. If you’re looking for an entity with power, or at least a seat at the table, that’s looking out for the game itself, your search will go unrewarded.

Corporate avarice is at the root of so much that ails the game, from minor league poverty to tanking to high ticket prices to byzantine and expensive TV bundles. And an easy, but fallacious, logical leap follows: that the most powerful organization that stands in opposition to the league — the union — must fight back on all fronts. But the union’s purview is limited to the interests of its own members, and its power is limited to the ability to leverage public opinion against a well-resourced and shameless adversary.

Winning historic pay increases for minor leaguers, and incorporating the interests of overseas workers outside the jurisdiction of American labor law, and fighting corruption in international player recruitment, and not only stemming the tide against the owners’ devout desire to gut the minors, but reversing the cuts they made unilaterally… that’s not something any union is capable of doing. For that, you’d need a genie. No, wait, that list has four things on it and a genie only gives you three wishes.

And even on the front of minor league reduction, this compromise is hardly a capitulation. MLB has been cutting minor league players and teams unilaterally for years. MLB sought the ability to unilaterally determine the size of the minor leagues, but the union negotiated not only a firm number on the reserve list for the life of the CBA, but also got a guarantee from MLB that there would be no further minor league contraction for the next five years.

Those five years will be calmer and more pleasant for all parties than the five that just passed, but the conflict is far from over. The struggle between labor and capital is, well, I remember some guy saying something to the effect of that struggle constituting the history of all hitherto existing society. I swear I read that somewhere.

But for the first time ever, labor has established a beachhead worth defending in this corner of the industry. And as important as it is to remember what gains are left to be won, and what pitfalls must be avoided, it’s equally important to understand how much progress has been made, against such resolute opposition, in so little time.





Michael is a writer at FanGraphs. Previously, he was a staff writer at The Ringer and D1Baseball, and his work has appeared at Grantland, Baseball Prospectus, The Atlantic, ESPN.com, and various ill-remembered Phillies blogs. Follow him on Twitter, if you must, @MichaelBaumann.

66 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
sadtrombonemember
1 year ago

I saw those numbers and my eyes nearly popped out of my head. This is an enormous win for minor league players. This goes from “not being able to survive” to “being able to survive” levels of money. Most players are still probably poor by any reasonable definition, even with minor league housing and whatnot, but it’s basically impossible to even eat properly on 11K a year much less do anything else. At $25K, at least you have a chance.

(On a personal note, I remember earning 20K or less and how miserable it was, but that was a super long time ago…costs are so much higher now. I can’t imagine how I would do it today with prices being higher)

tyke
1 year ago
Reply to  sadtrombone

agreed, this is a massive win and a huge step in the right direction for the MiLPA and people in general. to more than double the salaries for thousands of people is just mind bogglingly wonderful.

Richiemember
1 year ago
Reply to  tyke

Well, they did it in part by cutting their workforce by 10%. But yeah, overall still a wonderful outcome.

Including in that that 10% is professionally better off trying something else amyway. If the Dream! means that personally much to you, fine, there’s still Indy ball, the Mexican league, overseas, plenty of other places in which you get the opportunity to prove yourself.

As to the article itself: Just great. Meg/Appleman have found themselves yet another acolyte of Karl Marx to write Fangraphs screeds against the EVILS OF INTERNATIONAL CAPITALISM!!! Just ‘yeesh’.

tyke
1 year ago
Reply to  Richie

some things are just inherently evil. why would anyone be extolling the virtues of capitalism instead?

snappermember
1 year ago
Reply to  tyke

If it wasn’t for “capitalism”, you and 98% of the world’s population would still be subsistence farmers. In the last 30 years, capitalism has lifted literally BILLIONS of people out of abject poverty.

Last edited 1 year ago by snapper
tyke
1 year ago
Reply to  snapper

perhaps this is true historically, but in its current state it is a system of exploitation. also, nothing inherently wrong with being subsistence farmers!

keithk
1 year ago
Reply to  tyke

What are you smoking? Pretty much everything we have in modern society – including baseball – wouldn’t exist if we were all still subsistence farmers.

tyke
1 year ago
Reply to  keithk

back to the primitive, man

tyke
1 year ago
Reply to  keithk

this argument sucks. so since we have baseball, capitalism is good? capitalism also helped keep slavery going for much longer than it “should have” (which is obviously never), and american capitalism uniquely and systemically aids in the oppression of many groups of people.

Cool Lester Smoothmember
1 year ago
Reply to  tyke

Southerners actually used anti-capitalist language to defend slavery as a positive good, in contrast to the treatment of mill workers in the northeast.

Emancipation dramatically increased plantation profits while cutting costs.

Cool Lester Smoothmember
1 year ago

Hope the downvoters understand that I’m saying slavers were sick fucks who prioritized owning other human beings as chattel over making money.

Chattel slavery in the New World was never about maximizing profits. It was only ever about racism and power.

Hell, it was codified in order to destroy class consciousness among the Wild Bachelors.

Last edited 1 year ago by Cool Lester Smooth
Lanidrac
1 year ago
Reply to  tyke

The history of slavery has very little to do with the concept of capitalism itself. In fact, the slave-free northern states generally had better economies than the slave states. While that’s mostly because they had better industries, but it wasn’t slave labor that allowed them to setup those industries, and even northern farmers could get by without slaves.

Meanwhile, American capitalism systematically aids in the oppresion of much fewer people than every other kind of economic policy currently in use. If you seriously think economics are bad here, you know nothing about living in places like China, Venezuela, Cuba, Afghanistan, or worst of all, North Korea.

Last edited 1 year ago by Lanidrac
Cool Lester Smoothmember
1 year ago
Reply to  Lanidrac

Modern American crony capitalism sucks, and leads to less competition and worse outcomes (including in terms of innovation) than you’ll see in countries with robust social safety nets.

Lanidrac
1 year ago
Reply to  tyke

To some degree, maybe, but there are simply no better options as long as you have proper regulations.

Lanidrac
1 year ago
Reply to  tyke

You’re confusing capitalism with Communism (which is not to be confused with socialism, which most modern countries like the U.S. also practice to a minor degree). The only kind of capitalism that is inherently evil is completely unregulated capitalism. When a capitalist economy is properly regulated and balanced by a decent (but not overblown) amount of socialism, it’s an economic policy that’s about as good as it can reasonably get despite still being far from perfect.

Balk off
1 year ago
Reply to  Richie

Any mention of labor arrangements whatsoever is automatic Marxism to Americans.

Mitchell Mooremember
1 year ago
Reply to  Richie

Your perfectly welcome to make the owners’ case for them if you wish. We’re all eyes.

Jorge Fabregasmember
1 year ago
Reply to  Richie

Prior to unionizing, the owners cut all advanced-Rookie and short-season-A teams from their payrolls with no recourse for the players. As a union, they can at least get something in return and limit/delay the number of cuts.

keithk
1 year ago
Reply to  sadtrombone

Paying minor leaguers enough that they can eat well and providing subsidies for housing seems like a no brainer simply from a development standpoint. A kid who is living in his car eating nothing but Taco Bell is going to have a harder time unlocking his physical potential than someone sleeping on a real bed and eating decent food.

That said, it’s hard to feel too sorry for players once they have enough for basic needs. These are entry level positions with the possibility of a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. (And yes, I’ve done the “living on a pittance” thing in grad school. It was fine. I was young.)

Cool Lester Smoothmember
1 year ago
Reply to  keithk

Yeah – living on $20,000 isn’t fun, but it’s doable.

They’re doing a competitive apprenticeship, with the opportunity to eventually make a truly crazy amount of money. A relatively low salary is reasonable.

Living on $11,000 a year, though, isn’t doable.

sadtrombonemember
1 year ago
Reply to  keithk

I don’t know if it is fine anymore, with inflation over the last few decades. I’m guessing 20K is rather borderline for “basic needs”.

Maybe the housing provision makes a big difference, but I am still confident these salaries put them as being “poor”. I think the main point is…these salary numbers at least give you a fighting chance.

PC1970
1 year ago
Reply to  sadtrombone

The other thing is the NIL $$. Not sure how much minor league players will make off it & it will most likely be the better known prospects that do, but, there is some room to make some extra $$..even if it’s $5-10K to promote some local business, that’s $5-10K more then they had last year.

fjtorres
1 year ago
Reply to  sadtrombone

The housing provision will make a big difference at the higher levels which have more teams in larger (costlier) communities.

Before getting too carried away over the salaries, folks should remember it isn’t take home, but rather gross. Before taxes, inflation, and other obligations.

A big improvement but nowhere near easy street, particularly for players with families.

Last edited 1 year ago by fjtorres
Ivan_Grushenkomember
1 year ago
Reply to  keithk

If something is good “from a development standpoint”, what does “[feeling] sorry for players” have to do with the issue?

JohnThackermember
1 year ago
Reply to  sadtrombone

There’s a tiny amount of “but there’s subsidized housing, etc.” So, like the military or being a grad student, it may or may not be as terrible as the headline number.

In a lot of ways it really is like being a grad student – small salary that you can’t really live in, going into debt or forgoing income in the hope of a job that you probably won’t be able to get, because it’s a tournament and there’s always more hopefuls than jobs.

The upside if you land the job is a lot higher than a research professor job, I suppose, at least if money is the ultimate goal. Tournament-style job markets can be pretty nasty. (Occasionally schools get out of criticism because as long as you call it education, some people think it’s more virtuous than a job that pays slightly more while you earn work experience but is called a job. Other people criticize the educational system just as much.)

I wonder if at some point someone will suggest an absurdly rococo student-loan type system for minor league players, to be forgiven if they don’t make the major leagues. Would be absurd and silly, but not any sillier than grad school.

ballskwokmember
1 year ago
Reply to  JohnThacker

There are already companies that will pay minor leaguers a guaranteed amount of money in exchange for a percentage of their MLB salary (Fernando Tatis Jr. did something like this), but they don’t have to pay it back if they don’t make the majors.

Last edited 1 year ago by ballskwok
cartermember
1 year ago
Reply to  ballskwok

Whatever company he signed w seems like they made out OK, then

Lanidrac
1 year ago
Reply to  sadtrombone

They might have been eligible for Food Stamps if they weren’t moonlighting during the off-season, though.