There is the idea in game theory that there are situations in which being selfish gets the selfish person a bigger reward, but being non-selfish brings a total bigger reward for everyone. The prisoner’s dilemma is the usual example, but I prefer the courting example:

In the previous two CBAs, the sides agreed to limits on the money spent on both rule four draft picks and international signings. There appeared to be an implicit understanding that money saved on amateur players would be used to increase the salaries of major league players. Management wins by getting to spend less money bring on new talent, and the major league players win by seeing their salaries rise.

That did not happen, or at least, it did not happen the way the players wanted it to happen. Either way, the amateurs ended up the blonde.

So now we appear to have moved into a tit for tat game. It started last season, when the agreement to delay the season had an implicit renegotiation if fans could not attend games. So the players refused to recognize the implicit agreement, just as the owners failed to recognize the implicit salary increases in the last two CBAs.

The owners retaliated by negotiating away from the mid-point of games proposed, and the players retaliated by filling a grievance when the commissioner dictated the number of games to be played.

I suspect this will continue until the owners cooperate. The players feel their cooperation in the past was not reciprocated, so they are going to look for something explicit in the agreement.

One way might be to form a coalition between the players and a set of owners. Competitive balance has become the reason given why both sides are digging in their heels. Both sides believe their proposals will increase competitive balance. In a nutshell, the players want all teams to spend like the Houston Astros, while the owners want teams to spend like the Tampa Bay Rays. Both are successful franchises with very different payrolls.

In fact, however, I suspect there is some split among the owners. The teams that spend like the Astros would probably like to see a higher ceiling on the competitive balance tax, and free agents reaching the market in their primes. They also may be of the same mind of the players on an implicit promise not being fulfilled. Revenue sharing money hasn’t exactly been used to make lower tier teams more competitive in the short run, just like the money saved on amateur players.

That type of coalition is tough to form, since almost all negotiation goes through representatives, not principals. One way would be for the players to start talking about how big market teams spend a lot of money on leveling the playing the field only to see lots of teams tank. Show them the players and big market clubs are in the same boat. The show how the MLBPA proposals help the big clubs. Maybe then some owners will see a path to cooperation.