FYI.

This story is over 5 years old.

Sports

Has Rob Manfred Been Emboldened by Roger Goodell and Deflategate?

Manfred has the express authority to make unilateral changes thanks to the CBA. Sound familiar?
Photo by Mark J. Rebilas-USA TODAY Sports

The big to-do in sports these days, Non-NBA Trade Deadline Madness Division, is: Just what the hell is Major League Baseball doing?

On Tuesday, commissioner Rob Manfred gave a State of Baseball address, in which he outlined the ways he wants to change the game and the ways he's willing to pursue that end. Yahoo!'s Jeff Passan has a thorough rundown, but the long and short of it is this: Manfred wants to shorten games and increase the pace of play. And even if the union doesn't agree to the proposals, collectively bargained mechanisms exist that ensure he doesn't actually need the union to agree to the changes.

Advertisement

Here is where Manfred gets the authority, from Article XVIII of the CBA, which contemplates rule changes (emphasis added):

If during the term of this Agreement any Major League Rule, or other rule or regulation is proposed to be changed, the Clubs agree that they shall give the Association notice thereof, and shall negotiate the proposed change with the Association, provided that the obligation to negotiate with the Association provided by this Article XVIII shall apply only to (a) a change in a Player benefit under an existing rule or regulation and (b) the adoption of a rule or regulation which would change a Player benefit under an existing rule or regulation or impose an obligation upon the Players which had not previously existed.

Except as specifically provided in this Article XVIII, the right of the Clubs to make any rule change whatsoever shall not be impaired or limited in any way, provided that the Clubs shall not make any change which is inconsistent with the provisions of any then existing agreement between the Clubs and the Association. Notwithstanding the foregoing paragraph, if during the term of this Agreement any playing or scoring rule is proposed to be changed, the Clubs agree that they shall give the Association notice thereof, and shall negotiate the proposed change with the Association, provided that the obligation to negotiate with the Association shall apply only to changes which significantly affect terms and conditions of employment. Such proposals to change playing or scoring rules shall normally be made only during the off-season. If the Clubs and the Association fail to reach agreement on a proposed change which is subject to negotiation, the proposed change shall not be put into effect until the completion of the next complete succeeding season (including the Wild Card Game, Division Series, League Championship Series and World Series) following the date the change was proposed.

Advertisement

That is some incredibly broad and discretionary power and it seems impossible to think it just slid under the radar when both sides negotiated this in November. It brings to mind—I can't believe I am saying this—another recent infamous power struggle in professional sports. That's correct, folks: Deflategate. This is yet another example of a labor union giving entirely too much power to management, and it's getting to the point where you are almost running out of sympathy for the unions. You guys signed this thing four months after Brady ended his appeal and NFL commissioner Roger Goodell's arguments were out there for the world and Manfred to see. Which were: I have this authority under the CBA, I used it appropriately, and courts should give great deference to the appropriate use of collectively bargained power.

It might not be all doom and gloom for baseball, though; so far, the changes Manfred has offered are not really all that consequential. For instance, take Tuesday's news that baseball is getting rid of the intentional walk this season and allowing managers to simply have batters take first base with a signal from the dugout. There were 932 intentional walks last year, good enough for one every two and a half games. MLB thinks it might cut off a minute of games in which this actually occurs. So that's…something? But what is the endgame here? We don't know, but we do know that Manfred seems positioned to make the most of his broad authority. And, after watching Roger Goodell have his own version of broad and discretionary power upheld by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, he must feel emboldened.

Not only does he have the express power to essentially change any rule after giving the MLBPA one year to "negotiate" with him, he's got direct and analogous precedent upholding the discretion courts give to the apportionment of power in collective bargaining. "You guys want to test me on this? Here's the Second Circuit's ruling."

For the moment, Manfred is at least being open about his use of this power, unlike Goodell, who just did whatever he wanted and later pointed to the provisions. Manfred is saying, We can and will do this, but we'd prefer to work with you guys. Of course, he is well within his collectively bargained rights to ignore and refuse (in good faith) whatever counterproposals the union comes up with, but again, that is precisely the problem: he's allowed to do that. The union allowed him to do that. And now they've got a year to come up with something better. Otherwise he's made clear what he's going to do:

"Hopefully that process will lead to an agreement," Manfred said. "I want an agreement on these issues. But I'm also not prepared to walk away on this topic just because [MLBPA executive director] Tony [Clark]'s not ready to move forward now."

Right now it's small potatoes, but you never know what's on the horizon. No one could have foreseen MLB and Manfred getting into bed with a quack doctor and interfering with a federal investigation to justify suspending Alex Rodriguez, and no one thought the NFL would fight to the death with Tom Brady over deflated footballs. In the end, those never were the fights. The fights were for power.