We talked about the stuff with Jon Singleton the other day. How he took what will probably end up being a well-below-market value from the Astros. At least well-below market if he becomes a solid everyday player. But hey, given the system, that’s what he felt he had to do in order to abrogate his risk.
But what if he had another option? Like the option D.R. at The Economist suggests: Singleton basically selling bonds to investors backed by future earnings?
The other possibility is a free-market solution from outside baseball: human-capital contracts, in which players would sell a share of their future earnings in exchange for cash up front. Just like the deal Mr Singleton accepted, such arrangements would guarantee athletes’ future financial security regardless of their on-field performance. But rather than having to negotiate with a single team, players could auction off the rights to a given percentage of their wages to the highest bidder, thus securing fair market value for the expected income. They would then be free either to take their chances with salary arbitration on a year-to-year basis, or to demand a far richer extension from their employer.
I’m not an expert in the Collective Bargaining Agreement or MLB rules along these lines, but at first blush I can’t see why this wouldn’t be allowed. It’d be like any other outside investment scenario that is none of baseball’s business, right? Or would someone consider it gambling or something?
I doubt baseball players break ground here — it’s somewhat radical for the sport and it’s the sort of thing that might get you labeled an oddball or egomaniac or something by teammates and the press, but I at least think it’d be legal. Someone let me know if I’m wrong, though.
Either way, it’s pretty cool.
