Are Minor-Leaguers Exploited? BleacherReport argues so.

[MentalDisabldLst]

Zachary Rymer over at Bleacher Report has a well-written, fairly concise article arguing that MiLB players are, as a whole, unfairly exploited, possibly illegally so.
 
The article is brief enough you should just read it, but here are a few of the key economic tidbits:
 

• Precipitating this discussion is a class-action lawsuit by several former MiLB players against MLB
• The maximum (not average, not minimum) salary for low-level minor leaguers is $1,100 / month.
• $1,100 / month, assuming 4 weeks and 40 hours/week, equates to a wage of $6.87 / hr, below the federal minimum wage of $7.25/hr.
• At AAA, the average salary is $2,150 / month.
• And that is only paid for the 5 months of the year that games are actually played - players are not paid during the offseason, even though "They report to spring training, participate in various workout programs and do other such things that require them to commit time to their baseball careers", all of which they do without pay.
• Players only get a meal allowance (of $25 / day, a quarter of that for MLB players) when they're on the road.
• Salary guidelines are in place, set by the bargaining between MLB and the MLBPA (which doesn't represent minor leaguers' interests), and until you hit 6 years of service time, you can't really negotiate around them.
• These salaries have actually gone down over time, when adjusted for inflation.  In the 70s, players were paid almost double what they are today when you account for inflation.

There's more, but it's worth a discussion here: are minor leaguers unfairly exploited?  Should they have their own union?  If the class-action suit gets traction, is there any possibility of Joe Posnanski's fevered dream of free minor leagues?

 

[MakMan44]

I was all ready to knock this for being on Bleacher Report but actually, it brings up some fair points. I don't know; I don't have an answer to the question proposed but there is enough smoke here that it clearly warrants a discussion. 

 

[MyDaughterLovesTomGordon]

It's funny that the working conditions of both NFL cheerleaders and MiLB players are in the news in the same week, but both stories are valid for the same reason: They involved monied interests taking advantage of employees because the jobs they offer are so highly coveted by the employees. 
 
There's a rule in the writing profession: You'll be paid inversely to how interesting the story is to write. If you want to write about music and sports, you will make dick. If you want to write about 3D laser technology, you can score some cash. The same is true in professional sports. I bet the janitor makes more than the players do at the lower levels. Maybe the higher levels, too. 
 
The case for the minor league players, though, seems particularly strong to me. They're full-time employees. There's no way they could do anything else at the same time to earn a living. 

 

[Jer]

I'd be fine with them bumping up the pay to minimum wage and compensating players for mandatory work (i.e. spring training).
 
However I think it's important to keep in mind that the vast majority of these 3000+ players aren't really prospects. Many of the hot prospects do get bonuses, which should be more than sufficient to pay for a lean lifestyle. It's unclear to me if teams can give players a bonus outside of signing bonus (i.e. related to performance). I believe this should also be allowed, to ensure that guys that demonstrate unexpected potential, can focus exclusively on their development.
 
Low level minor leagues are damn close to local theatre or struggling artists. It's really a labor of love where the participants are chasing a dream. As far as I know, the teams aren't terribly profitable and often are financial losers.

 

[TheGoldenGreek33]

I'd be fine with them bumping up the pay to minimum wage and compensating players for mandatory work (i.e. spring training).
 
However I think it's important to keep in mind that the vast majority of these 3000+ players aren't really prospects. Many of the hot prospects do get bonuses, which should be more than sufficient to pay for a lean lifestyle. It's unclear to me if teams can give players a bonus outside of signing bonus (i.e. related to performance). I believe this should also be allowed, to ensure that guys that demonstrate unexpected potential, can focus exclusively on their development.
 
Low level minor leagues are damn close to local theatre or struggling artists. It's really a labor of love where the participants are chasing a dream. As far as I know, the teams aren't terribly profitable and often are financial losers.

 
100% agree.
 
I would also be interested in some data on MiLB players being put up by host families. Combine that with signing bonuses, and I think the majority of players are fine so long as they aren't blowing it on a Bimmer. For non-bonus babies, they have a shorter leash. It's a once in a lifetime opportunity, and they've agreed to that compensation. The doors that can be opened for an ex-MiLB player are huge if they network correctly.
 
And if you think MiLB players have it bad, do some googling on Indy ball guys.

 

[StupendousMan]

• The maximum (not average, not minimum) salary for low-level minor leaguers is $1,100 / month.
• $1,100 / month, assuming 4 weeks and 40 hours/week, equates to a wage of $6.87 / hr, below the federal minimum wage of $7.25/hr.
• Players only get a meal allowance (of $25 / day, a quarter of that for MLB players) when they're on the road.

 
$25/day for meal allowance times 15 days/month (assuming half the time is on the road) comes to $375/month.  Add that to the maximum salary of $1,100 / month and it comes to $1,475 / month.  That's the equivalent of $9.22 per hour.
 
I wouldn't want to do it myself, but as others have pointed out, it's similar to the money an aspiring actor can expect to make ... and the baseball player is actually being paid for what he does on the field, instead of having to wait tables in his free time.
 
Heck, this isn't _all_ that different from the pay of a graduate student. 

 

[Plympton91]

I started a similar thread last March which has a link to a Baseball America article making the same points. 
 
http://sonsofsamhorn.net/topic/76848-minor-league-salaries-are-a-disgrace/
 
I absolutely think the teams should be held to a standard of paying minor leagues at least the equivalent of the minimum wage for a full-time job during periods where they are required to be in attendance.  Not only that, but there are minor leaguers on food stamps. I assume that the teams provide individual and family health insurance, so that is something in their favor.  MLB is not a free market, by virtue of their anti-trust exemption, and as such, they should be held to a good public policy standard.  Every major league team could take $2 million from it's major league payroll and increase the salaries of their full season minor leaguers, managers, and coaches by $15,000 to $20,000 per year.  Congress should hold the anti-trust exemption over their heads in order to enforce this. 

 

[moondog80]

How standard are pre/post game meals in the clubhouse?  Does it extend to the low minors, home and away?

 

[gtg807y]

I'd be fine with them bumping up the pay to minimum wage and compensating players for mandatory work (i.e. spring training).
 
However I think it's important to keep in mind that the vast majority of these 3000+ players aren't really prospects. Many of the hot prospects do get bonuses, which should be more than sufficient to pay for a lean lifestyle. It's unclear to me if teams can give players a bonus outside of signing bonus (i.e. related to performance). I believe this should also be allowed, to ensure that guys that demonstrate unexpected potential, can focus exclusively on their development.
 
Low level minor leagues are damn close to local theatre or struggling artists. It's really a labor of love where the participants are chasing a dream. As far as I know, the teams aren't terribly profitable and often are financial losers.

 
Yeah, when I think of an "exploited" class of workers, especially in the sports context, it means something where the workers have artificially low wages and/or are missing out on substantial profits derived from their work - like top-level NCAA football. I don't really think either of those things are happening here - though the players' union that these players aren't allowed to join being the ones negotiating their salary guidelines doesn't seem quite right. They should be paid at least minimum wage and for all times they have to be there working, of course. I just don't really buy the article's premise, that baseball is a booming multi-billion dollar business and a huge portion of their workforce is being kept from their share. The 47th round no-tool Sally Leaguer is probably getting paid fairly close to his actual value. 
 
That article isn't bad, but man that is one Bleacher Report-y headline. Clickbait!

 

[nvalvo]

 
Yeah, when I think of an "exploited" class of workers, especially in the sports context, it means something where the workers have artificially low wages and/or are missing out on substantial profits derived from their work - like top-level NCAA football. I don't really think either of those things are happening here - though the players' union that these players aren't allowed to join being the ones negotiating their salary guidelines doesn't seem quite right. They should be paid at least minimum wage and for all times they have to be there working, of course. 

 
I think the players' union should make this a priority, and I wouldn't be surprised to see it happen soon. Attention has already turned in the last CBA to markedly improving the pay of pre-arb players. After that's happened, the next step is minor league pay, even if the minor league players are not voting members of the union. 

 

[Frank Fenway]

 
$25/day for meal allowance times 15 days/month (assuming half the time is on the road) comes to $375/month.  Add that to the maximum salary of $1,100 / month and it comes to $1,475 / month.  That's the equivalent of $9.22 per hour.
 
I wouldn't want to do it myself, but as others have pointed out, it's similar to the money an aspiring actor can expect to make ... and the baseball player is actually being paid for what he does on the field, instead of having to wait tables in his free time.
 
Heck, this isn't _all_ that different from the pay of a graduate student. 

You cant add meal allowance into the wage, its required by federal labor laws. Its even tax deductable if youre a free lancer on the road for work.

 

[TomRicardo]

Where did you get 40 hrs a week?

 

[LondonSox]

It's one thing to criminally underpay people who are working to get  dream job, it's quite another to charge people to come and watch them and then throwing them to the trash if they get hurt.
For fucks sake it's just ridiculous that the union fights to prevent players from not taking the maximum money they can while ignoring the vast majority of players who never make the bigs.
 
It's completely unacceptable. To some extent more fool the kids for accepting this, but given there is a) a union b) rules to prevent an alternative league from starting that might actually pay kids to lure them away I think the multi biliionaires should probably do more than the bare minimum to help these kids.
 
Sports are a joke. The most corrupt, monopolies accepted by all. In soccer, where kids are free to sign anytime for money the money for talented kids is exploding (though I have my issues with that too).
 
What's the argument for not paying kids a living wage? I'd love to hear it

 

[Frank Fenway]

Who knows how many hours they actually work?

 

[MentalDisabldLst]

I started a similar thread last March which has a link to a Baseball America article making the same points. 
 
http://sonsofsamhorn.net/topic/76848-minor-league-salaries-are-a-disgrace/
 
I absolutely think the teams should be held to a standard of paying minor leagues at least the equivalent of the minimum wage for a full-time job during periods where they are required to be in attendance.  Not only that, but there are minor leaguers on food stamps. I assume that the teams provide individual and family health insurance, so that is something in their favor.  MLB is not a free market, by virtue of their anti-trust exemption, and as such, they should be held to a good public policy standard.  Every major league team could take $2 million from it's major league payroll and increase the salaries of their full season minor leaguers, managers, and coaches by $15,000 to $20,000 per year.  Congress should hold the anti-trust exemption over their heads in order to enforce this. 

 
Quoted before the real P91 regains access to his account. (I kid, I kid)
 
I think the BR article gets at the core issue: the MLBPA is negotiating with MLB on behalf of MiLB players, but does not have those MiLB players as members so it does not represent their interests.  I'm the opposite of an expert on unions, so I'm curious: could MiLB players unionize?  They're never going to change the system by which players are called up (that's obviously at the discretion of the big-league teams), but their working conditions while they toil away in obscurity definitely seem like the very definition of a problem that the FLSA and NLRB were created to solve.
 
 

Where did you get 40 hrs a week?

 
I needed some standard by which to compare their pay to the guy working the fry-o-lator at McDonalds.
 
I realize that most MiLB players are playing ball 6 days a week when it's in-season, are almost certainly not getting overtime, and during game days probably are at the ballpark more than 8 hours.  So if anything, the numbers above overstate their wages relative to the federal minimum wage.

 

[Homar]

It has always seemed crazy and unfair to me that in an industry that generates billions of dollars, some more equitable division of resources can't be possible.  Bill James has argued that talent is like a pyramid: for every one at the top, there are hundreds half as good.  It is of course only fair that the guys at the top be rewarded accordingly.  But meanwhile, in the minors, those hundreds who are half as good are playing baseball games, and working just as hard as anyone, and even if its only so that the talented have games to play in, it seems to me that they ought to earn a living wage for doing so.  If changes were made so that minor leaguers were pulling down say $50K annually, and that meant that Mike Trout only made $350M on his next deal instead of $400M, I could live with that, and so could Mike Trout.  
 
Such gross inequity is not only unnecessary, it's unseemly.  
 
When he was 14, my son worked at the St. John Street McDonald's, within sight of Hadlock Field in Portland, Maine.  He was soon on a first name basis with most of the Sea Dogs, because they ate there at least once, and often twice a day.  It sometimes seemed as though he had as much disposable income as they did.  
 
I do believe it's unjust, and in an industry that's literally awash in cash, it smells awful.  

 

[Jer]

Do you guys feel the same way about struggling actors versus Hollywood A-listers? Garage bands vs Pop-stars?
 
MiLB should be in compliance with the labor laws that all businesses adhere to. It's also clear that if a union is representing these players interests, then they should be voting members of that union (or a separate union should be formed).
 
However, if I owned a MLB team, I absolutely wouldn't pay $50K for a player that didn't generate significantly more than $50K of revenue. It's just bad business.
 
Comparing Trout's salary to a minor leaguer makes no sense to me. Trout's performance generates tremendous revenue. Apple and oranges. Asking him to cough up $50M so that the roster fillers in A-ball can make $50K for 22 weeks of work is nutty. I can't think of any other area in our workforce where a practice like that occurs.
 
I'm certainly sympathetic with anyone who works their ass off for meager compensation. It's a tough life. But it's one that many lead. Most have less choice in the matter than a minor league baseball player.

 

[Ramon AC]

Do you guys feel the same way about struggling actors versus Hollywood A-listers? Garage bands vs Pop-stars?

The minor leagues create competitive environments for the real talent to develop. The scrubs serve a real utility for the big league clubs, even if it is just as cannon fodder.

 

[StupendousMan]

You cant add meal allowance into the wage, its required by federal labor laws. Its even tax deductable if youre a free lancer on the road for work.

 
The point is, if I have a job as a baseball player which pays me $X per month as a "salary", and $Y per month for "food", and I want to compare it to a job as a waiter which pays $Z per month, I'm going to add $X + $Y before I compare to $Z.

 

[Winger 03]

My experience being involved the the fan club of a high A team is that the post game meal is virtually non-existant. My family and I would volunteer to cook a large meal for the team one Saturday night per season. Further we were encouraged to cook a lot extra so that the guys could take some home.

Absent of the Saturday night meal from the fan club, I believe that they would get concession leftovers if there were any. Lest you think differently, this was one of the premier A teams in the country, routinely finishing in the top 10 for attendance at about 300k per season.

We became friendly with one of the players and his wife and young son. Their life was awful!!! Tom was "old" for a high A player and was clearly more suspect than prospect. Chasing a dream, he was. The wife and kids were just along for the ride. Miracle of all miracles, he was on the major league roster for a day due to an emergency at his position. His pay for one day at the major league minimum was nearly his entire AA pay for the year.

Regretably, the end finally came after washing out of both organized and independent ball. I am sorry to say that we have lost contact. I often wonder whatever has become of him.

How standard are pre/post game meals in the clubhouse?  Does it extend to the low minors, home and away?

 

[OttoC]

What percentage of these players get a significant bonus to sign? Three three that are bringing suit (Senne, Liberto, Odle were 10th, 21st, and 22nd rounders, respectively---all out of college, so they probably did not have much leverage).

 

[Toe Nash]

One thing that is just confusing from a "winning games" standpoint is the low allowances for food / lack of food post-games. The MLB teams should want their potential players eating the healthiest, best food available, just as they'd want them to have access to the best coaches. Certainly the guys with signing bonuses can pay for their own food, if they wish, but why wouldn't an MLB team looking to gain an advantage spend an extra pittance to take the best possible care of their players' bodies?

 

[IdiotKicker]

This is a very simple case of the supply of labor being much higher than the demand for it.  There are millions of people who would kill for a chance at the majors.  There are a few thousand minor league roster spots.  Thus, the wages for minor leaguers are going to be at or close to minimum wage.  We can have a separate discussion about whether or not the minimum wage should be higher, but the basic economics of it are pretty hard to argue with.  Especially since unlike other entry level jobs, there is a pretty clear path to the top if your talent is there.
 
As far as being paid year-round and actually at federal minimum wage, the issue that comes to mind for me is the cost.  Typical roster is going to be 23-25 players.  So if you're going to be paying those players an extra $1,000 a month (just a base number, no idea if this is the average), you're talking about an extra $150k/year per club in order to cover this.  Now I don't have the most accurate minor league data, but coming from a couple sources, it looks like the average ticket price is around $8 and the average club draws around 4,000 fans per game.  So you're looking at about $2.2M in revenue on average per team, so ticket prices are probably going to have to go up by a dollar or so to cover the added cost.  Not a huge deal, but the money does have to come from somewhere.
 
I'd be inclined to advocate for year-round pay and minimum wage, but I wouldn't go much further than that, just because of the reasons mentioned in my first paragraph.

 

[Homar]

I think that the value of having competitive games for the developing stars to play in may be underrated here.  It might be true that there are a thousand people who'd volunteer to play minor league ball, including me.  But Xander isn't going to get any better if he's hitting my pitching.  To be the best, he's got to hit against the best available.  It could be argued that that the "best available" is only worth $1,100 per month, because they're currently obviously willing to work for that.  But that sounds a lot like the argument that the owners were making in the mid 1970s: if Stan Papi didn't want to play ball for $5,000 a year he could go drive a truck.  
 
Seems to me that there ought to be a union.  

 

[Plympton91]

The minor leagues create competitive environments for the real talent to develop. The scrubs serve a real utility for the big league clubs, even if it is just as cannon fodder.

I would also argue that baseball is not so much a science that teams know within the first 3 years of their career whether the 35th rounder who got no bonus really is worse than the 6th rounder who got $100k to sign. It's also not clear that a player who isn't going anywhere at 23 won't provide value when he's 26 or 27 (Pedro Ciriaco) Thus, it is in the interest of baseball, if it really wants to provide the best product) to pay enough to minor leaguers for them to play through their 20's without starving their families. It could also net out for the owners. By underpaying players at 22 and 23, they're narrowing the talent pool at the bottom of the major league rosters. I could see having very little interest in paying a lot for short-season or low A, but I'd pay $24k for high-A, $48k for AA; and $72k for AAA to make sure I kept anyone who even had a chance of still breaking out as a situational reliever or 4th outfielder. Get a one of those every other year who replace a 6th year arb guy like Badenhop or Bonifacio and you make back your whole investment.

 

[IdiotKicker]

I would also argue that baseball is not so much a science that teams know within the first 3 years of their career whether the 35th rounder who got no bonus really is worse than the 6th rounder who got $100k to sign. It's also not clear that a player who isn't going anywhere at 23 won't provide value when he's 26 or 27 (Pedro Ciriaco) Thus, it is in the interest of baseball, if it really wants to provide the best product) to pay enough to minor leaguers for them to play through their 20's without starving their families. It could also net out for the owners. By underpaying players at 22 and 23, they're narrowing the talent pool at the bottom of the major league rosters. I could see having very little interest in paying a lot for short-season or low A, but I'd pay $24k for high-A, $48k for AA; and $72k for AAA to make sure I kept anyone who even had a chance of still breaking out as a situational reliever or 4th outfielder. Get a one of those every other year who replace a 6th year arb guy like Badenhop or Bonifacio and you make back your whole investment.

Possibly true, but water tends to find its own level and they can do so without spending more. Prime example of this is Daniel Nava. Why pay extra for those additional years when the independent leagues can do it for you for free?

 

[Frank Fenway]

 
Do you guys feel the same way about struggling actors versus Hollywood A-listers? Garage bands vs Pop-stars?
 

 
Neither one of those is an example of an employee/employer situation. Additionally, struggling actors are paid far more than minimum wage for the roles they do manage to get. Garage bands are typically self-managed and can play for whatever they can negotiate. 

 

[Comeback Kid]

One thing that is just confusing from a "winning games" standpoint is the low allowances for food / lack of food post-games. The MLB teams should want their potential players eating the healthiest, best food available, just as they'd want them to have access to the best coaches. Certainly the guys with signing bonuses can pay for their own food, if they wish, but why wouldn't an MLB team looking to gain an advantage spend an extra pittance to take the best possible care of their players' bodies?

This was discussed in the past on the Rany and Joe podcast as a possible market inefficiency: wouldn't one MLB team want to invest an extra million or two into their minor league systems' meals each year just to try to gain a competitive advantage from the health and nutrition benefits that could eventually be gained at the major league level?

 

[Frank Fenway]

Shit just think of the PR win you could pick up by being the team that pays 50% more to minor league players than any other team. 

 

[Lowrielicious]

We became friendly with one of the players and his wife and young son. Their life was awful!!! Tom was "old" for a high A player and was clearly more suspect than prospect. Chasing a dream, he was. The wife and kids were just along for the ride. Miracle of all miracles, he was on the major league roster for a day due to an emergency at his position. His pay for one day at the major league minimum was nearly his entire AA pay for the year.

Regretably, the end finally came after washing out of both organized and independent ball. I am sorry to say that we have lost contact. I often wonder whatever has become of him.


 

 
For some reason I thought even one day in the majors would have qualified him for the MLB pension. But turns out  (according to this at least) its 43 days minimum for that, although he does get lifetime healthcare for his one day apparently.
 
"MLB players must play 43 days in the majors to earn a minimum $34,000 annual pension plan.  Just one day in the majors gets them lifetime healthcare coverage."
 
(I assume on the roster covers it - even if he didn't get on the field..)

 

[Frank Fenway]

 After 10 years in the big leagues, benefits grow to $100,000 annually.

 

[Infield Infidel]

 
The point is, if I have a job as a baseball player which pays me $X per month as a "salary", and $Y per month for "food", and I want to compare it to a job as a waiter which pays $Z per month, I'm going to add $X + $Y before I compare to $Z.

 
It's apples and oranges. The waiter isn't on the road; he can go home at night and cook dinner. Per diem is mandatory and tax deductible for players because they are on the road and theoretically don't have kitchens in their hotel rooms.
 
It would make more sense to compare it to a flight attendant or truck driver or maybe a young MLS player. 

 

[Cuzittt]

Just an FYI... all minor league salaries (players, coaches, trainers) are paid by the Major League Club. Not by the minor league affiliate.

And, minor league players SHOULD get more. I don't know how much more... but definitely more.

 

[SumnerH]

I assume that the teams provide individual and family health insurance, so that is something in their favor. 

 
 
Unless it's changed recently, they cover the player's insurance 100% but the player has to kick in money to get dependent coverage.
 
The players are also responsible for clubhouse dues, which can be about 10% of their income (it's a tax deductible business expense, at least):
 

But, among the various things you’ll wish you could unsee when visiting the cramped confines of a minor league locker room, you’ll also see what’s known as the spread. Players are provided with a table full of food after batting practice and games to help get them through the day. Spend enough time in a clubhouse, and you’ll also see attendants running around cleaning cleats, laundering clothes and carrying out various tasks for players. In exchange, players have to pay what are known as “clubhouse dues,” which can add up during the course of a season. The amount owed also increases as players move up a level and is just another expense that can add up over the course of a season.
 
The individual leagues are in charge of dictating the minimum amount that players owe, but according to Smith, dues can run anywhere from $350-375 a month depending on how much he tips.
 
“The minimum is $10 a day (at home),” says Thunder home clubhouse manager Tom “Tonto” Kackley.
 
“But what they get is all their baseball laundry cleaned, they get their spikes cleaned each night, they get a nice, light spread after batting practice — a lot of sandwich meat, fruit, snacks. And then a regular meal after the game. Those are the basics that you get, but there’s a lot involved in terms of running errands and things like that.”

(the article goes on to note that the batting practice spread is an extra that the Yankees pay for at all levels, most affiliates don't have it--the Yankees also put new players up for 3 days in a hotel room to give them time to find a place to crash).
 
Players also pay for their own bats.  The level of excitement here about the team chipping in for partial payment is kind of sad:

"What was cool about the Yankees is that they would pay for pretty much 50 percent of my bats, and I’ve never seen that. Never heard of it, never seen it. Then, you go up to Triple-A, they buy the first 12 of your bats that you want. After that, they’ll pay half. That’s just awesome, that’s stuff you just don’t hear about from other teams"

 
 
 
On top of the pay mentioned above, minor leaguers qualify for the professional baseball scholarship program--if they return to college within 2 years of leaving the minors (or majors) they get several thousand bucks a semester in reimbursement.  The exact amount depends on the first milb contract.
 
There's also a milb pension; it's pretty tiny (about $20/month per year of service, plus or minus depending on what level you were at).  But once you hit 65, you get it.

 

[geexploitation]

As someone who primarily lurks on this site I'm reluctant to wade into this at all lest my contribution appear as criticism of any particular poster (it's not!), but I think that a key point that's being missed in some of the details here is the anti-trust exemption.
 
We subsidize for-profit sports with public goods all the time (NFL's non-profit status, stadium subsidies, etc), but it does seem to me that the MLB anti-trust exemption is a special case. The question I think this brings up is whether or not MLB has some kind of ethical obligation given their exemption. How much of a public good is baseball? If it is a public good, and we as a society have agreed to subsidize it by exempting it from certain legal standards, does baseball have some kind of obligation to treat its employees in an ethical way?
 
If you answer "yes," to that question, you're still in a bit of a morass since what is ethical or not here is something over which reasonable people can disagree, but trying to find analogous situations to minor-league pay in other industries that don't have the anti-trust exemption is problematic IMO. The anti-trust exemption is a highly, highly valuable tool we've given MLB. It colors everything that MLB does, including its payment and treatment of employees -- and, I'd argue, including those minor league players who are unrepresented in the MLBPA but still have to play by the rules its negotiates with MLB.

Given the extra marginal income made by MLB due to the anti-trust exemption, and given the utility of every scrub minor leaguer to the development of MLB players, it seems reasonable to me that, at the very least, players should be making enough money to avoid public assistance like food stamps. In some sense, those players make this game we love. Pay 'em.

 

[MentalDisabldLst]

To all other lurkers - if your first post on this site looks like that, you're doing a good job.
 
On the substance, geexploitation, my impression is that even without the antitrust exemption, not much would change for MLB.  The independent leagues would still not be affiliated with the MLB system, or get any attention beyond the immediate towns in which they play.  I'm just saying that given a choice between their antitrust exemption and their current treatment of minor leaguers, they would probably prefer the latter because it matters more to their bottom line.
 
Not being an expert on the nuances of this exemption, can you (or anyone) point out what benefits that exemption confers?  This article offers a few details, but they suggest that the antitrust exemption was wholly interpreted into the law by the Supreme Court in 1922, and was never formally passed as an exemption by an act of Congress:
 
 

The prospective [Federal League] owners then filed an antitrust lawsuit against Major League baseball [in 1916], claiming a conspiracy to destroy the Federal League. In April of 1919 a court found in favor of the Baltimore owners, and awarded them $240,000 in damages. The case was appealed in 1920, and the appellate court didn’t rule until 1921. When they did rule, they overturned the lower court’s decision, stating that baseball “was not the kind of commerce” federal law was intended to regulate. On May 22, 1922, the Supreme Court upheld this decision, reinforcing baseball’s antitrust exemption.

 
Some more answers are in this ESPN Q&A from 2001, which notes that the primary "exemption" is that a team can't move unless MLB allows it to move (and also controls contraction of teams).  Additionally,
 

Q: So, other leagues are subject to antitrust lawsuits?
 
A:. Yes. If an owner wants to move a team to another city and the league stops him from doing so, the owner can bring an antitrust claim. Raiders owner Al Davis won an antitrust lawsuit in 1982 after the league wouldn't allow him to move from Oakland to Los Angeles. The NFL lost and Davis moved. The threat, and in some cases the actual filing, of antitrust lawsuits led to more movement among NFL teams, such as the Los Angeles Rams to St. Louis and the Cleveland Browns to Baltimore. Since the last MLB team moved in 1971 (the Washington Senators became the Texas Rangers), there have been seven NFL moves, seven NBA moves and nine NHL moves.
 
Q: Why does MLB want to keep the exemption?
 
A: If the exemption is repealed, teams can sue if they are not granted the right to move at will. Like other leagues, Major League Baseball might still charge a relocation fee, either to compensate another owner in a nearby market or to compensate the league for moving into a potential expansion market.
 
Commissioner Bud Selig said baseball will open its books at Thursday's hearing in order to convince Congress that the game is in bad economic shape and needs to keep the exemption. Therefore, baseball could go forward with contraction without an antitrust challenge.
 
Rep. Conyers has asked Selig to show in detail the financial records of the Florida Marlins, Kansas City Royals, Minnesota Twins, Montreal Expos and Tampa Bay Devil Rays.

 
Based on a cursory reading, I'm not sure the antitrust exemption has any bearing on MLB's duties or discretion with regard to compensating its employees.  Marvin Miller already fought this war and won, didn't he?

 

[Max Power]

 
 
 
Players also pay for their own bats.  The level of excitement here about the team chipping in for partial payment is kind of sad:
 

 
I'm surprised Johnny Damon was able to play 400 games in the minors without starving to death.

 

[YTF]

Seems to me that this wouldn't be a bad cause for Bud Selig to champion on his way out the door. Not as sexy as banning PEDs from the game, but a heluva a lot less expensive and a decent thing to do. Yeah most of these guys will never get a sniff at AAA or the majors but if Major League baseball deems these lower level, minor league teams and players as being necessary then they should be properly supported. Though I can appreciate some of the comparisons being made here between MiLBers and low wage earners from other walks the fact remains that these guys can't seek out another source of income while in season and employed by VERY wealthy employers.

 

[LondonSox]

As someone who primarily lurks on this site I'm reluctant to wade into this at all lest my contribution appear as criticism of any particular poster (it's not!), but I think that a key point that's being missed in some of the details here is the anti-trust exemption.
 
We subsidize for-profit sports with public goods all the time (NFL's non-profit status, stadium subsidies, etc), but it does seem to me that the MLB anti-trust exemption is a special case. The question I think this brings up is whether or not MLB has some kind of ethical obligation given their exemption. How much of a public good is baseball? If it is a public good, and we as a society have agreed to subsidize it by exempting it from certain legal standards, does baseball have some kind of obligation to treat its employees in an ethical way?
 
If you answer "yes," to that question, you're still in a bit of a morass since what is ethical or not here is something over which reasonable people can disagree, but trying to find analogous situations to minor-league pay in other industries that don't have the anti-trust exemption is problematic IMO. The anti-trust exemption is a highly, highly valuable tool we've given MLB. It colors everything that MLB does, including its payment and treatment of employees -- and, I'd argue, including those minor league players who are unrepresented in the MLBPA but still have to play by the rules its negotiates with MLB.

Given the extra marginal income made by MLB due to the anti-trust exemption, and given the utility of every scrub minor leaguer to the development of MLB players, it seems reasonable to me that, at the very least, players should be making enough money to avoid public assistance like food stamps. In some sense, those players make this game we love. Pay 'em.

 
I did mention it and I think it's worth mentioning again and again.
These kids can't choose which team to play for and no rival league can set up to provide them an alternative choice that might provide better income.
 
Those quoting the free market, try harder, it's not a free market it's been a declared monopoly. Having been given a license to print money the least you can do is pay the kids striving to help you make even more money enough to live on. It's a freakin disgrace. You don't get to say this is what the market agrees to pay as they are willing to work for that. They don't have a choice! IF they want to do this then they have to suck up the low wages for years to get a shot. Which most wont even get. 
 
Paying a legal minimum wage seems like literally the least they can do.

 

[IdiotKicker]

 
I did mention it and I think it's worth mentioning again and again.
These kids can't choose which team to play for and no rival league can set up to provide them an alternative choice that might provide better income.
 
Those quoting the free market, try harder, it's not a free market it's been a declared monopoly. Having been given a license to print money the least you can do is pay the kids striving to help you make even more money enough to live on. It's a freakin disgrace. You don't get to say this is what the market agrees to pay as they are willing to work for that. They don't have a choice! IF they want to do this then they have to suck up the low wages for years to get a shot. Which most wont even get. 
 
Paying a legal minimum wage seems like literally the least they can do.

 
I don't think anyone in this thread is saying the status quo is acceptable.  Even my view, which is probably the most market-oriented in this thread, argues they should get at least minimum wage and be paid year-round.  Beyond that, I'm not really sure that there should be anything else done.  Baseball, out of all the sports, is the closest to a meritocracy as you will find.  You put up numbers, you will make the majors and have a chance at those big salaries.  If you don't produce, just like anywhere else, you're cut loose.  It's not like their lives are over at that point, they can go and work regular jobs just like 99.9% of all other Americans.
 
Whether or not the minimum wage in America is high enough to be a living wage is a completely separate issue.  Personally, even though I tend to be free-market for most things, I actually do think that if you're willing to work full-time, you should make enough to not have to work a second job to get by.  And to be honest, in baseball, given the $8B that MLB earned in revenue last year, even if you give every minor leaguer a $20,000 raise, you're only talking about a 1% reduction in margins, so it's definitely doable.  But that's a different argument from the one that we're talking about here.

 

[hbk72777]

 
$25/day for meal allowance times 15 days/month (assuming half the time is on the road) comes to $375/month.  Add that to the maximum salary of $1,100 / month and it comes to $1,475 / month.  That's the equivalent of $9.22 per hour.
 
I wouldn't want to do it myself, but as others have pointed out, it's similar to the money an aspiring actor can expect to make ... and the baseball player is actually being paid for what he does on the field, instead of having to wait tables in his free time.
 
Heck, this isn't _all_ that different from the pay of a graduate student. 

 
 
Was going to say the same thing. here are a lot of minimum wage workers who would take a little less per hour if they also got $25 per day for food.
 
They also get transportation, which most minimum wage workers pay for themselves (gas, car insurance, bus, train fare etc)
 
While they're not rolling in dough, these things have to be taken into account when calculating the "Below minimum wage"  sob story.
 
 
 
 

 
I did mention it and I think it's worth mentioning again and again.
These kids can't choose which team to play for and no rival league can set up to provide them an alternative choice that might provide better income.
 
Those quoting the free market, try harder, it's not a free market it's been a declared monopoly. Having been given a license to print money the least you can do is pay the kids striving to help you make even more money enough to live on. It's a freakin disgrace. You don't get to say this is what the market agrees to pay as they are willing to work for that. They don't have a choice! IF they want to do this then they have to suck up the low wages for years to get a shot. Which most wont even get. 
 
Paying a legal minimum wage seems like literally the least they can do.

 
 
There are the independent leagues. They pay even less, but they are an alternative. It's not a monopoly, it's a lottery. People give up something for a chance at the big prize. Everyday people do this too. Unpaid internships. People will sacrifice now for a large reward in the future. It's not for everybody.
 
If these guy's were really worried about making a living wage, they'd take a job at Hobby Lobby or someplace else that pays above the minimum with no skills. That's not what they want. They want the big payday.

 

[MentalDisabldLst]

They also get transportation, which most minimum wage workers pay for themselves (gas, car insurance, bus, train fare etc)
 
While they're not rolling in dough, these things have to be taken into account when calculating the "Below minimum wage"  sob story.

 
This "sob story" you're preaching about also happens to be required to be paid for by the employer, per federal law.  It's no different than high-priced management consultants submitting their business expenses for traveling to the client site every week, staying in a hotel, renting a car, and expensing their meals.  Employers aren't allowed to force employees to cover these things out-of-pocket - not to mention that it's a lot more capital-efficient for employers to cover them with pre-tax money than make employees cover them with after-tax money.
 
These things aren't "compensation".  They are business expenses.  The amount of money that the player receives to meet their own needs - food, shelter, healthcare, you know, "sob story" stuff - is compensation.  The amount that is paid on behalf of the business so that the employee can even carry out his duties - that's not compensation.  Nobody in Single A, riding the bus for 10 hours to go play the West Podunk Asshats is thinking to themselves, "man, it's great that my job pays for this bus ride, because I totally would have gone here myself and paid out of pocket if it wasn't for my job!"
 

There are the independent leagues. They pay even less, but they are an alternative. It's not a monopoly, it's a lottery. People give up something for a chance at the big prize. Everyday people do this too. Unpaid internships. People will sacrifice now for a large reward in the future. It's not for everybody.

 
Uh, yeah, which are illegal too.  As was reinforced by a wave of lawsuits as recently as last year.
 
Your arguments are not exactly covering you in glory here.  There is probably a free-market defense of MLB's practices to be made, but business-travel expenses and unpaid internships are not the stuff to do it with.

 

[zenter]

I've always been on the "let them unionize" bandwagon. Have an mLBPA as a subsidiary of the MLBPA (with different CBA, different head, etc). Let the players negotiate together since they're mostly in the same boat. Unionization exists for precisely these types of situations - workers benefit by having a voice in the process and management can leverage the CBA in draft contract negotiations.

 

[geexploitation]

LondonSox -- absolutely agreed. I saw your emphasis of the anti-trust exemption and didn't mean at all to imply that no one had brought it up. I think you're right that the central problem is the free-market assumption in some of the discussion. Comparing baseball wages to wages in other markets that are, while regulated, much more free than baseball's is not valid.
 

On the substance, geexploitation, my impression is that even without the antitrust exemption, not much would change for MLB.  The independent leagues would still not be affiliated with the MLB system, or get any attention beyond the immediate towns in which they play.  I'm just saying that given a choice between their antitrust exemption and their current treatment of minor leaguers, they would probably prefer the latter because it matters more to their bottom line.
 

 
Thanks for the info you quoted. I am just not enough of an expert on the economics and legal issues at hand here to know the answers to the questions you bring up, but I can see some ways in which the exemption might distort things here. For instance, what is the "market" for minor league teams? Yes, they're selling a product to fans, but they're also producing players... and the only local market they can "sell" into is MLB. MLB can also freely collude to dictate terms to minor league affiliates and not get in trouble for such collusion. I think it may also be valid to consider the delicate management/players balance between MLB and the MLBPA as, at least in part, an artifact of the exemption. The players, who in a free market would be able to shop their services anywhere, have to concede lower salaries during the first 6 years of their careers. Can we say the anti-trust exemption is at least partially responsible for that? And doesn't that MLB/MLBPA negotiation also dictate how minor league players are treated? I would think so, but I admit to being out of my depth on the topic.
 
The independent leagues are fascinating in this debate... if anyone knows more about the differences in the daily lives of players in the independents vs the affiliates that might be interesting to read.

 

[cromulence]

Might be worth a new thread but just saw that the Mets are making minor leaguers pay to attend offseason workouts. Really, truly pathetic, even for the (broke-ass) Mets.

 

[Rasputin]

Might be worth a new thread but just saw that the Mets are making minor leaguers pay to attend offseason workouts. Really, truly pathetic, even for the (broke-ass) Mets.

 
That's insane.
 
It would cost a relative pittance to ensure that all minor leaguers were paid a halfways decent wage. And frankly, if I were a team owner, I would be arranging for meals not so much to benefit the players but so you could have some kind of control over their nutrition. And pay them minimum fucking wage for all the time they spend working out and shit.

 

[HriniakPosterChild]

 
That's insane.
 
It would cost a relative pittance to ensure that all minor leaguers were paid a halfways decent wage. And frankly, if I were a team owner, I would be arranging for meals not so much to benefit the players but so you could have some kind of control over their nutrition. And pay them minimum fucking wage for all the time they spend working out and shit.

 
Most of them are just there to provide live BP for the real prospects, so the MLB clubs don't care about their nutrition. Or anything else.

 

[Spacemans Bong]

 
Most of them are just there to provide live BP for the real prospects, so the MLB clubs don't care about their nutrition. Or anything else.

 
That would be a decent, if cynical and morally questionable, argument if the terrible postgame spreads didn't have a knock on effect on the actual prospects. There's overweight big leaguers all over the place, most of whom are probably overweight because they eat like crap. They've cemented those bad eating habits before making the majors. 
 
Nevermind that a lot of players are using the $25 per day diem to supplement their pathetic salaries (save $10 a day and you've effectively increased your salary by one third), so players are going for the least worst option under $8, aka Chipotle. 
 
This piece is supposed to be a puff piece on how the Cubs are doing it right - but that player's diet is actually horrible. I'm firmly in the camp that there will be a competitive advantage in treating your minor leaguers better and one team is going to realize this sooner rather than later. 

 

[Rasputin]

 
Most of them are just there to provide live BP for the real prospects, so the MLB clubs don't care about their nutrition. Or anything else.

 
If you get one guy who eats well and goes on to be a decent player instead of eating his way out of baseball, you've paid for the program for like five years.

 

[Plympton91]

If you reduced your major league payroll by $1 million, you could give 165 minor leaguers a $6,000 raise. Given that they'd spend that money on better nutrition, conditioning, and practice time instead of offseason paying work, I don't see any way in which that wouldn't be a net benefit to the major league team in relatively short order.