When talk of a baseball strike date first surfaced about two months ago, owners reacted angrily, suggesting such talk was detrimental to the likelihood of working out a new labor agreement. But as the setting of a date looms, a greater sense of urgency seems to have worked its way into the talks.þþRob Manfred, Major League Baseball's chief labor lawyer, emerged from yesterday's bargaining session sounding downright positive on the issue of revenue sharing, one of the thorniest issues impeding an easy agreement.þþÿWe are clearly further along than where we were yesterday at this time,ÿ Manfred said during a conference call with reporters, using words like positive and productive. ÿI believe the process, as it's operating, could produce an agreement on this issue.ÿþþGene Orza, the associate general counsel for the players union, was more restrained in his assessment of the meeting. ÿI'm not sure the revenue sharing discussion was productive,ÿ he said after being told of Manfred's assessment of the session. ÿIt was informative. It didn't produce any dramatic shifts. It was a discussion that I think both sides are glad we had. There is still a lot of work to do.ÿþþHowever far along the negotiators are on revenue sharing, it has to be remembered that even if they resolve their $70 million difference in the amount of revenue to be transferred from wealthy clubs to other clubs, and the formula for distributing the money, they still have to reach agreement on a payroll, or luxury, tax.þþÿThe tax is going to be a difficult issue; there's no question about that,ÿ Manfred said, adding: ÿLike every other issue, I don't think either side has shown all its cards on that topic. I think that topic is negotiable like every other topic. I think it's a resolvable issue.ÿþþTwo developments seemed to bolster Manfred's positive view. First, the negotiators met for about five hours, which was at least twice as long as they had been meeting. ÿIt was a positive discussion; it seemed productive to stay at it,ÿ Manfred said.þþSecond, after they meet today — for their third session of the week — Manfred said he expected they would meet every day next week. Until now, bargaining sessions had been scheduled ahead of time, a day or two during one week, a day or two the next week. Now the negotiators appear set to adhere to a more traditional schedule, letting the talks dictate the next meeting.þþThey will continue their discussion on the sharing of clubs' local revenue, but they will eventually have to get serious about the clubs' proposal for a payroll tax, under which the portions of payrolls over $98 million would be taxed at 50 percent.þþThe union has steadfastly opposed such a tax, saying that in conjunction with revenue sharing, it would potentially limit player salaries. The same clubs, the union points out, would probably be paying the tax and making the largest revenue sharing payments. The total bill, the union believes, would inhibit even the Yankees from paying players what they pay now.þþBut Manfred said, ÿIt would be very difficult for me to get the clubs to ratify an agreement that didn't have some form of payroll regulation.ÿþþHe did not say if he meant that the clubs might accept something other than a 50 percent payroll tax.þþManfred rejected the suggestion that a payroll tax would act as a salary cap. ÿThis is not the equivalent of a cap,ÿ he said.þþThe union sees the proceeds from a payroll tax as being more money to be distributed among medium- and low-revenue clubs. For example, if the owners' current proposal had been in effect with last season's payrolls, the tax would have produced roughly $60 million.þþBut the clubs' negotiators say the purpose of a payroll tax is not to produce money for revenue sharing but to deal with payroll disparity. They would be happy if no club paid the tax because that would mean no team's payroll was more than $98 million.þþAt the same time, management believes that reduced payrolls on the upper end would not reduce the total industry payroll. Management feels that if the high-spending clubs stopped spending so much, other clubs would spend more in the belief that they could legitimately compete with teams like the Yankees.þþManfred said the two sides had some discussion yesterday on the payroll tax and how it would interlock with revenue sharing, but he declined to go into detail.þþ
Source: NY Times
