Find out the latest on COVID-19's impact on the sports world and when sports are returning by subscribing to Breaking News push notifications in the Sports and COVID-19 section.
Major League Baseball and the Major League Baseball Players Association have publicly been at odds about how salaries will be doled out if a shortened season gets underway without fans in attendance.
In a recent meeting between the two sides, the league gave the union two options, according to Jon Heyman of MLB Network.
First, the players could agree to renegotiate the 2020 pay structure to something other than the prorated salaries previously agreed upon. The second option is waiting to begin the season until the coronavirus pandemic clears enough so fans are allowed to attend games.
In March, owners and the union agreed to prorate 2020 contracts, with players earning a reduced amount based on the total games played. Owners maintain that agreement hinged on the understanding it was only feasible if paying fans could attend games, though the MLBPA refutes that claim, Heyman adds.
An email an MLB lawyer sent to top league officials dated March 26, which Joel Sherman of the New York Post obtained, suggests the union understood a second negotiation might be necessary if ballparks remained empty when the season started.
MLB reportedly told players that paying prorated contracts without fans in attendance would cost the league $640,000 per game.
"The contract itself is very clear that in the event of a partial season players will get paid pro rata salary - whether with fans or without," Bruce Meyer, the MLBPA's senior director of collective bargaining, told Sherman in response to MLB's email. "And it doesn't require any further concessions on pay from players who have already agreed to give up billions of dollars in salary in the event of a partial season in which they would be taking on unprecedented risks and burdens. ...
"That the commissioner's office has claimed it needs additional salary concessions should not be surprising to anybody. But there's a difference between what they need and what they want."
The owners have suggested a 50-50 revenue-sharing plan, but the union has been against that and considers it a variation of a salary cap. Despite continuing talks, the league hasn't formally submitted a proposal to the union regarding revenue sharing, according to Heyman.
