The MLBPA wants charitable clauses gone from Major League contracts.
The MLB Players’ Association has filed a grievance on behalf of players who have a provision in their contracts under which they agree to make a donation through his club to a charitable organization, MLBPA chief operating officer Gene Orza confirmed to ESPN’s Karl Ravech.
This type of clause came into the spotlight earlier this month when Manny Ramirez re-signed with the Los Angeles Dodgers.
In his contract, the slugger agreed to make a $1 million donation to the Dodgers Dream Foundation. After Ramirez’s deal was signed, Dodgers owner Frank McCourt announced that “every future Dodger” will be required to donate a portion of his salary to the foundation.
This strikes me as a kick back. Players can be charitable in their own rights, they don’t need it forced on them by owners. I’m with the union on this one.
Hat tip, BBTF.
Maybe the Dodgers put it in the contract because Manny was supposed to do the same thing in Boston and never did.
I agree the provision has broad potentially negative implications for contract negotiations, but at the same time, players don’t have to sign with teams that require those types of provisions. There’s no need for their to be an explicit ban, it just takes one player to say that he’d prefer to donate to his own charitable cause and that he won’t be coerced into contributing to an owner’s desire to create an altruistic image of himself and his organization.
If these types of provisions are banned, then player requests for special accommodations (their own trainer, hitting instructor, cars, planes, Pedro’s masseuse, A-Rod’s office) should also be prohibited from contracts as a coercive force designed to put more value into a contract on top of the dollar amount. That’s essentially the same concept as an owner trying to recoup some of the dollar amount from the original contract. We’ll sign you only if you do something extra for me = I’ll sign with you if you do something extra for me.
Manny’s case was unique-the Dodgers were in a position where they could ask Manny to sacrifice in exchange for saving face on his earlier gigantic demands because they were the only bidders. The circumstances for an owner to do this are rare and will continue to be rare. In normal economic times, a player will only agree to it if the charity money is built into the contract above the value that he could get somewhere else without having to donate to the team charity.
John,
I think the problem was the the Dodgers were going to require this in all their contracts. It’s one thing if they negotiate it separately, it’s another if they force it into a contract, especially for those players who are not free agents.
And you cannot say that “players don’t have to sign with teams that require those types of provisions”. In effect, you would reduce the number of teams and jobs availablr to that player – a definite issue under the collective bargaining agreement. It is in the category of permissible topics of discussion regarding agreements, but not to be mandatory.
And the CBA takes precedence over any team UPC.
And Frank McCourt is President of the Foundation – his wife is VP, so there is some self-interest involved. Smells like a shakedown for his benefit, as the charity only raises $ 1mm per year – Manny’s gift would double their fiscal year contributions!
The Dodgers Dream Foundation has smelled like a vanity affair from the beginning. When McCourt came to town, one of the first things they did was cancelled the yearly walk for autism that took place at Dodgers stadium, and sever the ties the Dodgers had with the local autism community. A couple of years later, they decided that all Dodgers charitable giving would be done through thiss Foundation, and funnelled to only a couple of causes such as cancer research, which, while worthy, already had organizations set up to raise money and place it wisely. The point isn;t that the Doidgers and McCourts shouldn;t give money to cancer research, but that it only needlessly increases administrative costs all around not to do so through existing organizations.
I guess my assessment that this was/would not be a universal problem was short-sighted since the grievance involves 109 players on 22 teams. And if the charity clause/kick back is mandated for minor leaguers coming up in the organization, that is turning the clock back way past the pre-free agency days. The McCourt method of contribution and their charity seem especially shady.
The MLBPA is right to challenge this since it does limit a player’s ability to receive full market value, but the way that they pick and choose issues is a disservice to the full range of players that they represent. Allowing some players to seek special perks above the value of their contract (but not included in the value of their contract) suppresses other players’ values while solely benefiting the player and the clubs that are in a position to offer those types of contracts.
“Frank McCourt is President of the Foundation – his wife is VP”
As soon as I heard about the clause I figured somebody’s wife was involved.
You suppose the foundations funds paid for any information trips to charity confereneces tahiti? or Paris?
This is the kind of thing that usually costs a politician an election.
It doesn’t appear thatway. However, they LOST money on two events – golf ($47.000) and bowling ($27,000).
Out of $585.000 in special event receipts, less than 10% ($46,000) made its way to the Foundation. And then, there were “normal” management expenses for the Foundation.
This is something that should spark state attorneys general and’or the department of state to investigate this foundation’s operations.
How is this grounds for a grievance? McCourt could request, in contract negotiations, that everyone dress like elves on Christmas day. So what? You don’t want to dress like an elf, sign with the Nationals.
If the Dodgers collude with every other team to make this a standard provision in a contract, that becomes a problem.
But if owners independently want to force highly paid players to contribute to a given charity as a condition to getting the really big money, the players can say “no.” Market pressures will dictate the answer to this.
Here, 109 players on 22 teams…that’s nothin’. Less than 15% of the rosters. Most players signed without such a clause. I gotta believe Manny and his agent have enough bargaining power to get rid of that term if it is really so unpalatable. Backdooring it by filing a grievance strikes me as pretty nasty behavior.
Take college coaching. Colleges always want a hefty liquidated damages clause in their contracts with head coaches if the coach takes another job before the end of the contract term. Some coaches sign contracts with those clauses; some negotiate those clauses away; some negotiate a smaller amount of liquidated damages.
If the University of Tennessee insists upon it for all future head coaches, you agree if you wanna be at UT. Or you use your bargaining power to alter it. Or you go somewhere else. If UT can’t find someone to say yes, they’ll alter the requirement.
Fact is, McCourt can’t “require” anything in a player contract. The players either agree, or they don’t, and considering that 1,100 players on MLB 40-man rosters don’t have a clause like this, there are lots of other choices.