Another day, another owners meeting. Only this time there could be big action: a walkout of the small- and middle-market owners if their revenue-sharing proposal isn’t approved by the big-market owners.
“It could be the biggest schism in baseball history,” said a National League owner familiar with the situation. “If they don’t get the vote, it could paralyze baseball.”
If so, the selection of a new commissioner would be postponed.
Another source from baseball’s top echelon conceded big trouble could be ahead but doubted there would be a walkout.
“I would put it this way,” he said. “No question the small- and middle-market owners are angry, but I don’t know if they’re angry enough to break up the meeting and go home.”
The crucial day is Tuesday when, for the third time in six months, revenue sharing will be discussed. For approval, a three-fourths majority, 21-7, is required. At the first meeting, last August at Kohler, Wis., the so-called “little guys” lost 18-10. A week and a half ago in Chicago, they lost again, but this time the score was 20-8, one vote short.
The big question: Have they since picked up one more vote?
Nobody will speak on the record, but an influential owner told me: “I doubt it. I don’t think there has been any movement.”
What about Fred Kuhlmann of the St. Louis Cardinals? I heard he might switch?
“There has been no indication of that.”
The eight clubs against, in Chicago, were Boston, Baltimore, Toronto, Colorado, Los Angeles, St. Louis and the two New York clubs. They, however, did propose a more modest proposal, which would minimize their contributions. It was defeated; only 11 clubs approved.
To put it simply, revenue sharing is akin to welfare. The richer clubs would donate a portion of their profits to the poor, the franchises reportedly in financial distress, some of them possibly either headed for or currently bordering on bankruptcy.
There is also a minor complication. Dick Ravitch, the owners’ chief labor negotiator, insists management’s universal desire for a team salary cap can be achieved only if a revenue-sharing plan is in place. I never have understood why this is so, but that’s what Ravitch says.
The thorny problem of a new commissioner will be discussed and possibly put to a vote.
More Top Picks Best Reading Guides For Kids
Fay Vincent, baseball’s eighth czar, resigned under pressure on Sept. 7, 1992. In the 496 days and nights since, Bud Selig, president and chief executive officer of the Milwaukee Brewers, had been carrying the baton. Selig’s official title is chairman of the executive council, but, in effect, he has been functioning as an interim commissioner.
“The other night,” Selig revealed, “a friend of mine said, `Buddy, you should be doing this thing permanently.’ “
“And I told him, `I have. It’s been 17 months.’ “
An eight-member commissioner’s search committee, chaired by Bill Bartholomay of the Atlanta Braves, has been on the hunt since last February.
“We had well over 300 people on the list, and 46 of them were interviewed,” Bartholomay said.
Bartholomay is right on schedule, but now there is an interesting twist. The search committee, in effect, has become the selection committee and will recommend only one or two candidates to the executive council. If the executive council approves, one or possibly both will be nominated at a general owners meeting Wednesday.
Approval by the executive council is certain. In the incestuous world of big-league baseball, five members of the search committee also have a seat on the executive council.
According to sources, the finalists are Arnold Weber, the outgoing president of Northwestern University, and Harvey Schiller, executive director of the U.S. Olympic Committee.
While covering the owners meetings, I was advised repeatedly that neither Schiller nor Weber had a chance.
Why the change?
“It’s all cosmetic,” an American League administrator insisted. “Right now the odds against them are enormous. Schiller’s a 100-1 shot. Weber’s 50-1. We have two other candidates, both much stronger, but they won’t accept at this time. They want us to settle our labor problems first. I think they’re right. The public thinks a new commissioner will be a messiah, but that’s a fanciful belief.”
The heavy favorite, according to several sources, with an “80 percent” chance is none other than Selig.
But if chosen, Selig won’t be elected for the commissioner’s usual seven-year term. Fact is, he won’t be elected commissioner. He merely will be asked to stay on for another year in his current capacity.
Asked if he would agree to the extension, Selig replied:
“I’d like to bring this to an end. The only covenant I have is what John Fetzer (the late and former owner of the Detroit Tigers) taught me to do: what’s in the best interest of baseball.”
Is it likely baseball’s best interests would be served if you stayed on?
“Other people must decide that.”
Four owners are definitely opposed: Peter O’Malley of the Los Angeles Dodgers, Fred Wilpon of the New York Mets, Jerry McMorris of the Colorado Rockies and Ed “Rusty” Rose of the Texas Rangers.