Fay Vincent has a (severely flawed) idea about how to compensate players

6 Comments

Former baseball commissioner Fay Vincent has a column in today’s Wall Street Journal in which, after noting how businessmen and actors get an equity stake or points on the gross in their deals, why baseball players can’t do the same thing and take an ownership interest in the team:

Mr. Pujols will in all likelihood negotiate a salary of around $35 million annually in a four- or five-year agreement. He and his agent will surely notice the enormous bite the tax collectors will take of that income. Why not take some of the pay in the form of a piece of the Cardinals franchise? Who would argue the Cardinals are not more valuable if they can keep him?

First: $35 million? Really? I kind of figured it would be like $30 million, but let’s save that for another day.

Second: As Vincent himself notes, baseball prohibits players from owning a stake in their team unless they get approval from the commissioner and unless, pursuant to Major League Rule 20(e), they sell their stake in the team if they switch teams.  Specifically, that rule provides that the agreement “shall provide for the immediate sale (and the terms there of) of such stock or other proprietary interest or financial interest in the event of the [player’s] transfer to or joining another Club.”

I’m just a dumb litigator, but I don’t think I’m wrong when I say that a player-ownership scenario that is designed to provide tax savings and greater flexibility is a tad bit hampered by a rule that requires the stake be divested immediately if the player switches teams.  That, my friends, would lead to an immediate taxable event. It would also severely hamper the value of the ownership stake, which would piss off both the player and the team’s majority owners, who likely don’t want to have to force chunks of the team out into the market the moment the team’s GM comes up with a spiffy trade.

Sure, you could change the rules about immediate divestment upon being traded, but then you run into the uncomfortable scenario of someone playing for the Cardinals, for example, who owns a stake in the Cubs. Or a Dodgers player — Juan Uribe, for example — whose wealth depends on the Giants having a greater franchise value.  In an age where franchise values are dependent upon regional sports network ratings, and those ratings are dependent upon winning and losing, that’s a recipe for disaster, is it not?

In other news, for all of Fay Vincent’s virtues, the game is way healthier, financially speaking, today than it was when he was commissioner. If this article is evidence of his business acumen, there may be a reason for that.

DOJ settles antirust lawsuit against cable companies who don’t carry Dodgers games

Getty Images
1 Comment

Last November, the U.S. Department of Justice sued AT&T, accusing its subsidiary, DirecTV, of being the ringleader in a plot in which it conspired with Cox Communications, Charter Communications and AT&T cable (then a separate company), to refuse to carry SportsNet LA, the Dodger-owned TV channel in violation of antitrust laws.

Now that lawsuit is over. DOJ has settled with AT&T last night.

The bad news: no part of the settlement obligates DirecTV or any of the other alleged co-conspirators to carry Dodgers games or to even negotiate to that end. There is likewise no fine or truly substantive penalty. It’s basically a “do not do this again!” agreement with some antitrust training requirements for executives and some orders to monitor their communications about these things.

“We are pleased to have resolved this matter to the satisfaction of all parties,” and AT&T spokesman said yesterday, likely in the tone of a guy who is pretty happy to have had a major antitrust suit against him settled so quickly.

When the suit was filed, I anticipated a settlement, as most antitrust suits brought by the DOJ are settled. Such a settlement could’ve featured a cash penalty or, more significantly, a brokered agreement between the parties in question in lieu of a cash settlement that could’ve led to Dodgers games being carried on more channels. After all, more competition is the end game of the Antirust Division.

As it is, however, it’s hard to see this as anything other than a surrender by the DOJ and a victory for the those carriers who coordinated their efforts to not carry the Dodgers.

An open question, unanswered in anyone’s statements yesterday, is whether this settlement is 100% about the merits of the case — keeping in mind that the DOJ tends not file antitrust suits unless they think they can win, instead preferring to negotiate first — or whether it represents a new set of laxer priorities when it comes to antitrust enforcement from the Trump Administration and AG Jeff Sessions.

Video: Jake Arrieta hits a 465-foot home run off of Zack Greinke

Jamie Squire/Getty Images
5 Comments

Jake Arrieta‘s bat is in midseason form already. The Cubs’ ace swatted a solo home run to center field off of Zack Greinke in Thursday afternoon’s Grapefruit League exhibition game, his first homer of the spring.

The blast went 465 feet, according to MLB.com’s Daren Willman.

Arrieta has hit two home runs in each of the past two seasons. Madison Bumgarner (eight) and Noah Syndergaard (four) are the only other pitchers to match or exceed his output in that department.

Greinke, meanwhile, is hoping to bounce back after a miserable 2016 season. He finished with an uncharacteristic 4.37 ERA in 26 starts in his first year with the Diamondbacks.