Good morning, all. I hope your week is off to a terrific start.
The NFL draft will be held this week. Meanwhile, much was made last week about how Caitlin Clark will only make $78,000 per season, after being the number one pick in the WNBA draft. Numerous articles were written about the disparity between the salaries doled out in the NBA compared to the WNBA. But what if the draft in all professional sports was outlawed?
Professional sports leagues incorporated the draft more than 60 years ago to bring about competitive balance. MLB was the last of the major leagues to institute the draft in 1965. Owners welcomed the draft as a way to stop the New York Yankees. They claimed the Yankees, with their deep pockets, maintained their dynasty by paying the best prospects top dollar. This was a way to stop them.
But this begs the question, why is the draft legal? If you are a super talented athlete, why should you not be able to sell your skills to the highest bidder, like in the old days? In any other field, you are permitted to do so. What if Caitlin Clark was an architect? She could choose from a firm that made her the best offer. Why should it not be the same for professional sports?
For those who predict chaos, if the draft was outlawed, well there was no draft in baseball prior to 1965 and the sport seemed to survive. College sports seems to be surviving just fine and there is no draft of high school athletes into college.
It’s not as if the concept of the draft has not been challenged in court before, under the concept that it violates antitrust laws. In fact, in the 1950s, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled the draft illegal. Then along came players’ unions or associations, as they are better known.
Courts have consistently ruled that the draft in professional sports is permitted because associations, such as the NFLPA or MLBPA, have agreed to the draft in collective bargaining agreements with the owners. Such agreements are not in violation of antitrust laws, the courts claim. Meanwhile, the associations or unions have no problem entering into such deals with the owners, as long as free agency is included. The associations believe they are protecting its members by supporting the draft. Who wants to see some upstart sign for millions of dollars, making more than a player who has been in the business for a few years?
But the blueprint maybe changing. More and more, owners are attempting to avoid paying the 30-year-old free agent a big contract, offering long term and what they believe are bargain deals to unproven, but supposedly talented players. Ceddanne Rafaela and Brayan Bello of the Red Sox are two examples of this.
Some legal scholars insist those who challenge the draft are going after the wrong entity, when they sue a league. They say the associations should be sued for allowing the draft. They claim there is a better chance of winning in court with that approach.
To those who say outlawing the draft would once again create a world of haves and haves not in professional sports, we have that with free agency. Plus, all these athletes now have agents, something unheard of in pre-draft days, and professional teams have more revenue streams from which to draw, when it comes to making a competitive contract offer.
We are witnessing major upheaval in sports. College athletes are now being paid indirectly with NIL agreements. Soon, these same athletes might be paid outright. Dartmouth athletes were permitted to unionize, although school officials are challenging that decision by the NLRB. The sports world, much like the world itself, is changing in so many ways. Do not be surprised if the legality of the draft will once again be challenged in the courts.
Pay TV in baseball was a big issue 60 years ago
Sixty years ago in the April 4, 1964 issue of The Sporting News, the headline on the lead story read: “Will TV Wind Up as Boss of Baseball?” The print publication was concerned about the game selling out to television, as owners negotiated a Monday night television package. (As it turned out, the Monday night deal did not come about until years later, after the owners observed the NFL’s success of MNF.)
Inside that same issue was a story about the Los Angeles Dodgers on the verge of adopting a “Subscription TV” service for their games. When the Dodgers left Brooklyn for LA, they only televised their games against the Giants and no other clubs. All the games, of course, were broadcast on radio.
In an interview with the Cleveland Plain Dealer, Dodgers owner Walter O’Malley - obviously a man ahead of his time - envisioned charging customers $10 for installation of the device to watch the games and $1.50 per game, a price equivalent to a bleacher seat at Dodgers Stadium. O’Malley’s “STV” plan was being challenged by movie theaters, but he persisted. The forward-thinking O’Malley predicted STV “will strengthen the financial foundation of every club.”
What was viewed by some as traumatic 60 years ago is common practice today. Television dictates the starting times of games and fans are paying a lot more than a $1.50 per game to watch their favorite club.” In fact, STV may soon be outdated with streaming of games becoming the big revenue generator. Heck, betting on games is now allowed with some ballparks home to sports books. It makes one wonder what the landscape will look like in another sixty years?
College football rules changes
When the college football season rolls around in August, expect some rules changes, including the institution of the 2:00 warning in the second and fourth quarters. I predict, before long, you will also see colleges change the reception rule to both feet being inbounds rather than just one.
That is going to do it for this week’s newsletter. There will not be a newsletter next week but we will return the week after. As always, thank you for your support and have a terrific week.
DAN LOVALLO