Baseball Unions
... to $32 million (Edes 1). Since the players union voted and said that Rodriguez should not have to take a pay cut even though, Rodriguez said he would take the pay cut to go to Boston, the union still would not allow it. This example shows just how greedy and stubborn the union is regarding the rights of the players, and yet continues to add to the frustrations of the owners because they cant even get a guy who wants to go to their team because the of union stepping in and saying no. If players unions were abolished, the deal would have been made and the owners and players involved would have all been happy. In addition, to the players union getting involved with blocking trades, they also have given a tough stance on steroid testing. Major League Baseball wants tougher more stringent steroid testing for its players. However, the players union, especially Union President Donald Fehr refuses to bow to public or political pressure demanding more stringent testing for performance -enhancing drugs. According to an article in the Charlotte Observer, it states that it is impossible to pinpoint what the union is defending with its milquetoast stance on steroids. (Future union slogan: Steroids are kind of bad, but not really.) They keep trying to downplay this issue (Hayes 1). The players union caters to its superstars, and some of the biggest names in baseball have been linked to the BALCO scandal. Maybe that is why the union is determined to fight for a small number of elite cheaters instead of those who feel pressured into taking steroids to compete. Major League Baseball’s ultimate goal is just to have stricter steroid testing so baseball can be a fair playing ground for all its players. Major League Baseball is not trying to single out any players; it is just trying to keep the purity of the game intact by eliminating steroid use from its players. However, Major League Baseball could only achieve this goal if the players union wises up and realizes it will be beneficial for the game. Quickly in defense of premise two, that Major Baseball player’s unions are no good for baseball and the owners , is that you can just look at how the players control there own salaries and make the owners pay their ridiculous contracts. Each and every year in baseball, players who are free agents bolt for teams that offer them the most money and the longest contracts. There is almost no hope for a small-market team to keep its star player in the same uniform for his entire career because they cannot afford to pay their ridiculous salaries they want. If a salary cap were imposed, it would provide an equal spending ground for all of Major League Baseball. This would prevent all-stars from jumping of one team to another for more money or in some cases signing players to huge contracts and they do not produce and the owner is wasting his money on a player who stinks. One article backs up this point and states, “Teams regularly drop millions on long-term contracts for overrated and over-the-hill veterans. The Tampa Bay Devil Rays, for example, have almost $17 million promised to Wilson Alvarez (6.32 ERA) and Greg Vaughn (.163 batting average and 82 strikeouts in 69 games). Bud Selig's Brewers — currently in the NL basement — have spent $7.5 million on career-.278 hitter Jeffrey Hammonds and another $5 million on utility infielder Mark Loretta. In essence, the owners are overspending. And they want the players to take the responsibility” (Lewis 1). The only way to make baseball fair for all its teams is to institute this salary cap, but that can only happen if the players union is abolished. Therefore, in my defense and examples of both premises I think players unions are terrible for baseball and that baseball would a much better game without them. On the other hand, it may be contended in criticism of premise one that although the players union may be bad for baseball, it does not mean the players union has never done anything good for baseball either. In fact, the players union was designed to make sure the better interest of the player was at hand, and not let the owners take advantage of their players. For instance, before the players union was established in 1966 the owners had control over their players for the entire career, because of rule called the reserve clause. Therefore, in 1975, a one-sided, anti-free market rule the "reserve clause" effectively met its end. The clause had given teams the option to ...