home
***
CD-ROM
|
disk
|
FTP
|
other
***
search
/
TIME: Almanac 1995
/
TIME Almanac 1995.iso
/
time
/
082294
/
0822993.000
< prev
next >
Wrap
Text File
|
1994-10-21
|
3KB
|
61 lines
<text id=94TT1092>
<link 94TO0175>
<title>
Aug. 22, 1994: Cover:Sport:The Price of Freedom
</title>
<history>
TIME--The Weekly Newsmagazine--1994
Aug. 22, 1994 Stee-rike!
</history>
<article>
<source>Time Magazine</source>
<hdr>
COVER/SPORT, Page 71
The Price of Freedom
</hdr>
<body>
<p>By Richard Zoglin
</p>
<p> Baseball owners are looking for a way to hold down costs, but
the job would be a lot easier, in their view, if their employees
were not free agents. Ever since players won the right to shop
their services after six years in the majors to any team willing
to bid for them, salaries have soared. But what would happen
if the players were free starting from Day One? That, oddly
enough, could depress salaries even more than the owners' much
desired salary cap.
</p>
<p> For the reason, one has to return to 1975, when an arbitrator
(supported by later court rulings) struck down baseball's reserve
clause, which tied players to one team for as long as the club
wished. Despite the apparent victory, players' union chief Marvin
Miller knew well the laws of supply and demand. If all players
are on the market, he reasoned, most will be relatively cheap.
If 20 left-handed hitting outfielders are available, teams that
need one won't have to pay much. If only two are up for auction,
the bidding will be fierce.
</p>
<p> So even as militant players were demanding total emancipation,
Miller played the great conciliator. Claiming that players recognized
the need to foster team continuity and to compensate owners
for the time and money spent developing young players, he worked
out a compromise: only after they had played in the big leagues
for six years could players become free agents. The agreement
was good for baseball, Miller said, but he knew it was even
better for the athletes. By regulating the flow of talent, Miller
created the overheated, not-quite-free-market conditions that
have made players wildly rich.
</p>
<p> What would happen if the owners tried a version of Miller's
hidden-ball trick and gave the players what they originally
wanted: unrestricted free agency? Fans would no doubt be dismayed
to find their teams dispersed and reassembled every season--though most owners would probably still tie up top players with
long-term contracts. But if Miller's economic analysis is correct,
the scramble to pay huge sums to midlevel players would quickly
subside, and payrolls might finally level off.
</p>
</body>
</article>
</text>