Photo: Ken Lund, via Wikimedia Commons
Labor & CBACan MLB Owners Force a Salary Cap? They Can Lock Out the Players. They Can't Impose the Cap.
A lockout stops the games but writes no terms. A cap needs the union's signature or a genuine impasse, and baseball's owners lost that fight in federal court in 1995.
Major League Baseball's labor deal expires at 11:59 p.m. Eastern on December 1, and a lockout is widely expected if there is no agreement. The owners want a salary cap. MLB's own proposal calls for a $245.3 million cap and a $171.2 million floor, with players getting 50 percent of baseball revenue. By the league's own numbers, eight clubs, led by the Dodgers, Mets and Yankees, would have to cut a combined $578 million to get under it. The players' union has called a cap institutionalized collusion. That sets up the question every fan is asking: if the players refuse, can the owners just impose one? Two federal labor rules answer it. The first is the lockout. The Supreme Court held in American Ship Building Co. v. NLRB (1965) that an employer may lock out its workers to put economic pressure behind a legitimate bargaining position. The second is the duty to bargain. Under the National Labor Relations Act, wages and other terms of employment are mandatory subjects of bargaining, and courts have treated a salary cap as one of them. An employer cannot change those terms on its own while bargaining continues. The only exception is a genuine impasse reached through good-faith bargaining, after which the employer may put in place terms from its last offer. The owners can lock the players out. They cannot force a salary cap. Those two powers get confused because they arrive together. A lockout stops the games, and stopping the games is real leverage. But it does not write a single term into the contract. The cap still needs one of two things: the union's signature, or a genuine impasse that a labor board and a court will accept. Baseball has run this experiment before. During the 1994-95 strike, the owners declared an impasse and announced they would impose a salary cap. They later withdrew the cap and made other unilateral changes instead. The labor board went to federal court, and a district judge named Sonia Sotomayor ordered the old rules restored. The owners admitted in court that an impasse had not been reached. The replacement-player season never started. That history is the owners' real problem. Impasse is not something a league announces; it is a finding a board and a court make after the fact. Declare it too early, impose a cap, and the old system can come back by injunction. The counterargument is that leverage works without a legal shortcut. A long enough lockout can push a union to sign what it otherwise would not, and that is exactly what the law allows. True. But that is a negotiation the owners have to win, not a rule they get to write. The NBA and NFL have caps because their unions agreed to them. Baseball will have one only if its players do the same. The owners hold the lockout and the calendar. The players hold the one thing a cap requires: their signature. A reported provision extending most national TV deals a year if 60 or more games are lost gives the owners their own reason not to let a stoppage run deep into the season. Lockout, yes. Salary cap, only if the players sign. A lockout stops the games but writes no terms, and impasse is a finding a court makes, not one the owners announce. December 1 at 11:59 p.m. Eastern. After that, watch for the word impasse from the owners' side. It is where the legal fight would start, and where it ended in 1995. The full legal breakdown, with every authority cited and a nine-minute video explainer, is in our Clause: Can MLB Owners Force a Salary Cap?
Continue reading →
