home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- <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>
-
-