A Boycott of the All-Star game?

[imgreat95]

Boycott rumor creates stir
Report hints players might plan to skip All-Star Game
By DON WALKER and DREW OLSON
of the Journal Sentinel staff
Last Updated: March 6, 2002
As talks on a new labor agreement in baseball begin to take shape in Florida, Baseball Commissioner Bud Selig once again is the center of attention.

There have been rumors that Major League Baseball players are mulling the possibility of staging a boycott of the All-Star Game, scheduled for July 9 at Miller Park.

And what better way for the players to get Selig's attention to reach a deal than embarrass him by staying away from Milwaukee for the midsummer classic?

Reports of a possible boycott have surfaced in recent weeks, but a story in The New York Times on Tuesday raised the issue again.

Without identifying any sources, the Times said that, while talk of a boycott may be premature, many players would like to show up Selig by not showing up.

The new talk, not coincidentally, surfaces as negotiators for the player's union and Major League Baseball continue to meet. Players have been without a contract since last November, and there is concern that baseball is headed toward its ninth lockout or a strike if a deal is not reached this year.

Players union president Don Fehr said through a spokesman on Tuesday that a boycott of the game has not been considered. The spokesman said Fehr would not have any additional comment.

Nevertheless, the mere mention of an All-Star Game boycott upset baseball owners, according to a baseball executive, and raised concerns in Milwaukee.

"They were enraged when they heard about it," the official said of baseball owners, adding that the players stoking the boycott talk were trying to make it personal with Selig.

Selig mum
Selig declined to comment on the boycott talk Tuesday. But Monday Selig told the New York Times, "I was with some players over the weekend. They couldn't have been nicer." When asked further about the players who might want to "stick it" to him, Selig replied: "I suppose it's because of contraction, things that have gone on, whatever. I understand they're unhappy about X and about Y. I have a lot of owners that are angry, too. But what does that do? It doesn't do anything."

Wendy Selig-Prieb, Selig's daughter and current president and CEO of the Milwaukee Brewers, Tuesday called the boycott talk "rhetoric that is not constructive."

"It defies logic in a lot of ways," she added. "Striking the game doesn't hurt the commissioner. It hurts the fans and the community, young players in the Futures Game, the networks, a lot of people. When you think it through, it doesn't make much sense."

Several Milwaukee Brewers players said Tuesday that there was no mention of a boycott when Fehr met with them last week.

"You hear things like that but you don't know if it's somebody talking seriously or just throwing something out there and then other people pick it up and just run with it," Brewers reliever Chad Fox said in camp in Arizona. "You don't know what to believe."

"I don't know how you could boycott that game without going on strike. I just don't see how that could happen," another Brewer said.

Negotiations scheduled
Negotiators for the player's union and baseball met Tuesday in Lake Buena Vista, Fla., and plan to meet today. Another three-day session is scheduled for next week in Fort Lauderdale.

Asked Tuesday how the talks were going, Selig said: "They've gone slowly, but we are engaged in substantive conversations."

Selig has proposed that the clubs share 50% of their local revenue, up from 20% in the previous labor agreement. That 50% comes directly from a recommendation made by a blue-ribbon panel Selig appointed to study the economics of the game.

Fehr has opened the door a little bit to revenue sharing and has proposed revenue sharing at 22.5%.

Last year, revenue sharing transferred about $160 million from the teams with the highest revenue to those with the lowest. Because of new revenue from Miller Park, the Brewers now rank around the middle in terms of revenue compared with the other baseball franchises.

Last strike very costly
The 232-day players strike of 1994-'95 cost owners an estimated $800 million in lost revenue and players an estimated $600 million in lost wages and reduced contracts. The strike soured many fans on the game, and attendance did not recover for several years.

An all-star boycott would have a huge effect on Milwaukee.

Doug Neilson, head of the Greater Milwaukee Convention and Visitors Bureau, said Tuesday that Major League Baseball estimates the game and other events will have an economic impact of approximately $75 million.

[imgreat95]

Selig Has Become a Target

By MURRAY CHASS

AKE BUENA VISTA, Fla.

The hot rumor of the spring isn't about a possible trade or the name of the man who will replace Joe Kerrigan as manager of the Boston Red Sox.

"Is it true," a member of management asked a reporter yesterday, "that the players are considering boycotting the All-Star Game to stick it to Bud?"

He was told that it was premature to speculate on what the players or the owners might do months from now. They have hardly begun to negotiate a new labor agreement.

When the rumor was repeated to a player active in union affairs, he agreed that it was premature. But he acknowledged, "There are a lot of players who would like to stick it to Bud."

Has Commissioner Bud Selig, long the leading labor light on the owners' side, become the boogeyman of these negotiations? Apparently he has.

The connection between Selig and the All-Star Game is too good for some people to pass up. Milwaukee is the site of the game, and Milwaukee is the home of the Brewers, the team Selig operated before he became commissioner and turned the team's operation over to his daughter, Wendy Selig-Prieb.

"I don't get that anywhere," Selig said yesterday. "I was with some players over the weekend. They couldn't have been nicer."

But what about the players who might want to "stick it" to him?

"I suppose it's because of contraction, things that have gone on, whatever," he said on the telephone from Milwaukee. "I understand they're unhappy about X and about Y. I have a lot of owners that are angry, too. But what does that do? It doesn't do anything. You can be mad, but as my dad used to say, `O.K., you're mad; now what?' You still have to make a deal."

Negotiators for players and owners resumed their slow-paced talks yesterday, meeting at a hotel in this town created by the existence of Disney World. The negotiators are here this week for three bargaining sessions because Donald Fehr, the union leader, is meeting with players in this area on his annual spring tour of training camps.

The most important issue the labor representatives are talking about is revenue sharing. They have proposed different percentages of teams' local revenue to be shared and different methods by which the sharing would occur.

Selig, following the recommendation of his blue ribbon panel, has proposed that the clubs share 50 percent of their local revenue, up from 20 percent in the previous labor agreement. The union is not opposed to revenue sharing, but it doesn't want the wealthy clubs to give up so much money that it would take away from what they spend on players. The players have proposed a sharing rate of 22 1/2 percent, but the percentages are not as far apart as the numbers might appear because of the difference in method of distribution.

The players' plan follows a plan that was in effect under the expired agreement and benefits the bottom-revenue tier of teams; Selig's plan benefits the middle tier of teams more than the lower tier.

The players are quick to note that the Brewers are in the middle tier and would benefit from the Selig plan, either by receiving more money from the pool of local revenue or paying out less if their new park continues to enhance their revenue.

The players ask why the Brewers and other middle-tier teams should benefit more while the really financially challenged teams like the Montreal Expos and the Oakland Athletics benefit less.

By seeking to give more money to the middle teams and less to the bottom teams, are the owners saying the revenue that has been distributed to the poorest teams the past six years has been wasted, that competitive balance would be better served by giving more money to the middle clubs? Are they abandoning the poorest teams and saying nothing can help them?

The wealthiest teams, meanwhile, ask, though not publicly, lest they be fined, why they should give up more of their local revenue if the teams receiving it put it in their pockets to enhance their bottom line instead of spending it on players to improve their place in the standings.

The Yankees have spent $105 million the past six years as the leading contributor to baseball's welfare state. The Kansas City Royals have received $55 million as the third most grateful recipient. But last year, when the Royals got $16 million, they were one of only five teams to make a profit, Selig said.

Their critics ask why the Royals didn't sign Johnny Damon or Jermaine Dye or both instead of trading them and pocketing the money.

In the 1980's, when increased revenue sharing was an occasional topic of conversation, George Steinbrenner would say that if Calvin Griffith, then the owner of the Minnesota Twins, would let him help Griffith run the Twins, he would share some of his revenue with the Twins.

But Steinbrenner isn't allowed to aid in the operation of the Twins or the Royals or anyone else, and he is being asked to give until it hurts. He can't squawk too loudly, but he has a secret weapon — the union. Because the union doesn't want to dilute the spending ability of the richest teams, by its bargaining position it stands as the protector of the wealthy clubs. No one hears any nasty rumors about the Yankees.