Can Minor League Players Get Paid Without a Union?

Players who are not on the 40-man major league roster are not eligible for membership in the Major League Baseball Players Association, and as such, are not guaranteed the same protections or benefits of collective bargaining as their union brethren. According to Emily Waldon of The Athletic, the average minor league compensation for 2019 will be between $6,100 for Single-A players and $14,850 at the Triple-A level. For the entire year. There are, however, avenues that players and their advocates could pursue to improve minor league pay and working conditions. It would be extremely difficult without organized leadership, but whereas many of the disputes in major league baseball are litigated through collective bargaining and/or the courts, legislative policy and advocacy present a unique opportunity to these players.

Last year’s somewhat hyperbolically named “Save America’s Pastime Act” ensured that players wouldn’t be paid overtime under federal regulations for anything worked above 40 hours, which surely every minor league player is doing in one form or another. But now, Major League Baseball is even getting in on state legislation that would stymie improving the working conditions of their farm hands. Arizona House Bill 2180 was introduced earlier this year and aimed to exempt minor league players in the state from the state’s soon-to-be $12 per hour minimum wage, as voted on by the electorate. As states increase their own minimum wage laws above the federal requirement, there may be some hope for minor leaguers who are not on the 40-man major league roster to improve their situation above the paltry monthly salary they receive during the season.

While major pushes in player advocacy have historically taken the form of lawsuits or union organizing, one route that hasn’t really been attempted to a large degree is political and legislative advocacy, and for good reason. Lawsuits can proceed with as few as one plaintiff, but advocacy requires coordination best engaged in through the structure of an organization like a union. For now, the question of whether this is the ideal avenue for the much more legally complex issue of a minor league union will be set aside, as we focus on the possibility of engaging in political advocacy as one opportunity available to players. To that end, players and advocates can engage in both advocacy for current opportunities, and if they are able to gain momentum, could even propose proactive changes to improve their compensation.

In order to engage successfully in political advocacy, players would have to recognize the strengths of their opponent, in this case Major League Baseball. The strongest likely strategy for MLB is to leverage its innate advantages: it has an organizational structure that supports a communications department, legal and lobbying efforts, and financial expenditures toward those efforts. MLB can send a memo to all 30 clubs with talking points on why HB 2180 would be good for business, allowing them to align on messaging for the media or legislators themselves. Without an equivalent body representing minor league players, who is coordinating their resources? Are there communication structures to support it?

The level of organization MLB enjoys also creates built-in influence for ownership, which is apparent from the comments made to the Arizona Republic by the bill’s primary sponsor, Rep. T.J. Shope: “Major League Baseball is a major component of Arizona’s commerce and tourism,” Shope told the paper, which went on to add that “[h]e said any business that relies on tourism is grateful for the minor league system in Arizona and the tourism it generates.” One could argue that it’s actually the players who create tourism and commerce for the state, but there is no mechanism to carry that message to the Republic or any other outlet, nor to direct its membership into participating or not participating in that commerce (such as in a strike) like there is with organized baseball.

The other major advantage for MLB and its affiliates, and impediment for a player-focused advocacy strategy, is MLB’s obvious financial advantage. Baseball’s deep pockets allow for well-compensated representation in the forms of lawyers and lobbyists. In fact, public records in Arizona list the Office of the Commissioner of Baseball as a lobbying principal that has retained a private firm to represent its interests with the legislature. Expending financial resources for representation is simply not an avenue that has been available to minor league players.

So, the players have an uphill climb facing disadvantages in organizational structure, influence, and money. Those aren’t easily overcome, but there actually are some advantages that minor league players could consider to build an effective campaign.

The first to consider would be the strength of players: they’re ballplayers. This carries social capital and appeal. They are publicly admired figures (with all the attention that comes with a social media followings) in a way that owners and the commissioner aren’t. Secondly, one might think of the current political climate as a potential advantage, considering that it was Arizona voters who ushered in the requirements for a higher minimum wage in the first place with Proposition 206. That kind of momentum and context could give an advantage to minor leaguers, either in legislative advocacy or in public opinion.

To best utilize these strengths, a successful campaign to stop the current proposal (or perhaps even proactively address some concerns with players’ own legislation) could consider the following strategies, each of which has its own challenges.

Cultivate Champions

In the same way HB 2180 has a main legislative sponsor who championed MLB’s priority, players should look for legislators to be potential sponsors. Using their social capital to do so could provide leverage. Players could use their own social media platforms to call out and thank legislators who are supportive of their priorities, and likewise point out legislators who are in opposition. This would be effective as a means of drawing more attention to the issue, as players likely have significantly more followers than any state legislator.

State laws vary in terms of what constitutes “gifts” are and which gifts can be accepted by a public official, but players could also consider bringing policy makers out to the ballpark as guests. Showing decision-makers what minor-league work is like may help to educate them on the issue of fair pay for minor league players. Even if it’s just an impressive visual for legislators to take in, the publicity could be beneficial when it comes time for lawmakers to reach a decision and vote. It’s the same idea behind public officials going to ribbon cuttings, or touring a school. It’s an opportunity that provides legislators with the ability to communicate priorities and generate goodwill or media attention.

Of course, this strategy runs into the challenge of minor league players not currently having a structure to effectively organize such a campaign; it would require players and advocates to do this on their own. Similarly, without an organization directing such activities, players would either have to rely on major league players (who are probably not as affected by these issues, but do have a larger social media following and are more recognizable), or on players who aren’t union members, who typically wouldn’t have as much social capital. Recent tweets by Christian Yelich and Justin Verlander are good examples of established players using their social capital to address workplace issues by trying to exert public pressure, but it remains to be seen if these players — or non-union members whose careers are at stake — would engage in such an effort on minor-leaguers’ behalf.

Build Coalitions

Given the political milieu that propelled Proposition 206 in Arizona and the national Fight for $15 initiative to increase wages, there is increased organizing activity around minimum wage laws in state legislatures. Minor league players would be wise to capitalize on that momentum by aligning with organizations already doing this work. Supporting the existing work through amplifying partner organizations’ messaging or drawing attention to the organizations could go a long way in building relationships or at least understanding common challenges and solutions.

It’s worth acknowledging that in addition to other community-based organizations or grassroots groups doing this work, there are existing organizational structures that could assist players in moving their priorities forward. The MLBPA has already weighed in on Arizona’s bill; perhaps it could provide lobbying or communications support to non-MLBPA members. Similarly, player agents might have a role here. A forward-thinking agency might be able to allocate some of its resources toward these efforts, recognizing that the best interest of players (whether on the 40-man roster or not) could have long-term benefits for their clients as well as the agencies themselves.

Communicate

A communications-based strategy is another that falls short without the infrastructure a union or advocacy organization could provide, but it could be extremely effective nonetheless given players’ existing reach. In addition to developing common talking points to address the issues that are important to players, an effective strategy to kill HB 2180 would be to label it in the same way the “Save America’s Pastime Act” sought to do. Names have power, and opposing the “Save America’s Pastime Act” is a difficult vote to justify in a soundbite.

Similarly, if more players wanted to write in the Players’ Tribune, or give an interview, or state opposition in social media to the “Government Bailout for Baseball Owners” or “No More Ice Cream at Ballparks Act,” it could help draw some negative publicity to those who support efforts to suppress minor-league wages or provide cover for legislators who may be opposed to such efforts.

I don’t mean to be glib about the very real issues and impact such a law could have on minor leaguers. I only want to point out that labeling these bills could be impactful; those examples have as much to do with the issue as the “Save America’s Pastime Act” did with saving America’s pastime.

In addition to these advocacy strategies to deal state-level legislation, players and their advocates could consider proactively advancing legislation to address their cause. Once again, the lack of a cohesive organization hinders progress here, but if those were to be addressed through a MiLBPA or through coalitions, whether player, agent, or MLBPA-directed, there could be opportunities for players to move their interests forward, which would have two effects. First, the obvious impact would be legislation that would secure the players’ priorities in statute. But a secondary consequence could be that if such legislation gained traction — say a bill defining what constitutes “work” for minor leaguers and for the purposes of overtime — perhaps MLB would be more willing to negotiate or address some concerns rather than let these issues wind up on the books as a matter of law.

Another creative amendment could be tacked onto the existing bill that specifies that minor leaguers are exempt from the minimum wage rule, but that clubs must pay for all equipment the players use (currently minor leaguers pay for their own bats, cleats, and other equipment) and room and board for the players. Suddenly, the bill becomes less interesting for MLB and potentially starts making things uneasy for supporters and detractors in the legislature alike to the point they never bring it for a vote. Perhaps just one such piece of legislation would be enough to garner media attention and pressure concessions. This wouldn’t require a full-on organizational effort, but rather just one legislator to champion the cause.

Arizona’s HB 2180 did not end up moving forward during that state’s most recent legislative session. It’s not clear how the issue will play out in Arizona. In fact, there seems to be some very real challenges ahead, as acknowledged by the bill’s sponsor in the reporting linked above. It would need to pass with a two-thirds majority, and assuming it did, would need to “further the intent of the voters” who passed Proposition 206, lest it be subject to legal challenges. It’s not immediately clear how a bill that exempts minor league baseball players from the initiative does that. Still, the bill is a further reminder that MLB is willing to legislate the compensation and working conditions of minor leaguers and is proactively taking those steps to do so, especially as more states enact higher minimum wage requirements.

It’s awfully difficult to conceive of neutralizing that effort without an organizing force to oppose or even proactively address these concerns. Legal challenges and unions for players have advantages in structure, but political advocacy benefits from flexibility, in that there are multiple opportunities for engagement that wouldn’t need a majority of minor leaguers to sign on. Ten well-informed players who decide to make this a priority and coordinate on messaging and outreach could make a huge difference in a state legislature.

Minor leaguers and their advocates (families, fans, professional organizations, agents, and the MLBPA) have avenues and strategies that can capitalize on some advantages, but even those will probably have to have some type of structure behind them if they’re to be successful. Advocacy at the state level isn’t a sure thing and faces significant hurdles as an effective strategy toward changing the lot of minor leaguers. What it does do is provide an additional option that really hasn’t been undertaken. At a minimum, it could alter the calculus that goes into the Commissioner’s Office’s investments in state lobbying.