MLBPA to File Grievance Regarding Charity and Contracts; Rays Could Be Affected

by R.J. Anderson on Mar 21, 2009 11:13 PM EDT

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 told ESPN's Karl Ravech.

ESPN

Outside of Willy Aybar, I'm not sure I can think of an extension that hasn't included a provision for the player to send money towards the Rays charity. Apparently the money would have to repaid to the players since the union is going to argue that the players should not be contractually obligated to donate to charity.

This should end well.

Tweet Comment 13 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

I don't get it

Are the players forced to sign contracts with such a clause?

by mittens on Mar 21, 2009 11:52 PM EDT reply actions

I could see a situation down the road where this becomes commonplace

i.e. players are getting strong-armed into leaving more at the table than they want to. While I personally like the idea of players giving money to charity, I think the notion behind it is that the players should be free to spend their money as they see fit (or put more cynically, that the only people telling them what to do with their money should be their agents/managers).

by GomesSweetGomes on Mar 22, 2009 2:39 AM EDT up reply actions

Billy Beane: 'We would have reached an extension, but see, the thing is, Matt Holliday hates kids with cancer.'

by GomesSweetGomes on Mar 22, 2009 2:43 AM EDT up reply actions

All that will end up happening....

if the union wins is that the money will go right back to the charity or the community will look at the players that keep the refund as a gigantic douche. A waste of resources for the union that could be better spent elsewhere.

I want Baldelli to be healthy enough to play in 150 games, I just hope he sucks. Like Greg Vaughn suck.

by SeanDubbs on Mar 22, 2009 12:20 AM EDT reply actions

Well, they could donate the money elsewhere

Not all charities are created equal. As I understand it, many team charities main purpose is to give away free tickets to kids, a self-serving function for the team, and one that would place it very low on the philanthropic totem pole.

by GomesSweetGomes on Mar 22, 2009 3:02 AM EDT up reply actions

Hmm

My understanding is that this was an arrangement where the team paid the money to the charity, but set it up in a way to make the players look like they were giving to the community and to get them a tax break.

Vogt early, Vogt often.

by Brickhaus on Mar 22, 2009 12:49 AM EDT reply actions

Kaz's contract contains charity clauses as well

by GomesSweetGomes on Mar 22, 2009 2:33 AM EDT reply actions

oops

read your intro wrong

by GomesSweetGomes on Mar 22, 2009 6:01 AM EDT reply actions

Discussion at Shysterball.

http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/shysterball/article/the-ramirez-provision/

by bobr on Mar 22, 2009 7:12 AM EDT reply actions

Funny quote from BTF discussion...linked from Shysterball

if my employer forced me to give to a charity that they ran and setup, my first thought would be fraud… my second thought would be fraud… my third thought would be tax dodge… and my 4th thought would be gainful employment at a high salary for idiot sons, daughters, spouse, etc of said owner.

I once gave to the United Way after being asked for a contribution from my employer. Didn’t really think much of it at the time.

by GomesSweetGomes on Mar 22, 2009 11:37 AM EDT up reply actions

and the union wonders why they have a bad rap.

by walkoffwalk on Mar 22, 2009 8:54 AM EDT reply actions

Well, the Dodgers said outright that they would require a contribution

Obviously, a contribution isn’t truly required because Aybar didn’t want to contribute, and that’s fine. But I was under the impression that for the Rays, it was pretty much a forgone conclusion. Now that I think about it, I wonder if that’s where the true difference in the $105k was in their extension talks?

No, I don’t think teams should require a donation, or imply that it’s required. It should be strictly voluntary. It should be encouraged by the team with all of the information as to what the charity does transparently accessible to the agent, but that’s it.

Check out my blog on (mostly ColdFusion, but some PHP) web development at kericr.wordpress.com

by kericr on Mar 22, 2009 10:15 AM EDT reply actions