Last week, Major League Baseball submitted a proposal on (some) fundamental economics to the MLB Players Association. Among the features included in the league offer: the implementation of a draft for the acquisition of international amateur players.
The league’s interest in an international draft is nothing new. MLB also pushed for their inclusion during negotiations on the 2016-21 collective bargaining agreement. The MLBPA did not agree to one during the latest round of CBA talks, although the union did consent to a modification of the existing international signing period setup:
In the last CBA, team spending funds allocated to international amateur signers were capped. That turned out to be a much stricter restriction than what had been in place under the previous CBA, when teams could exceed their allotted bonus funds (and often did so dramatically) as long as they were willing to accept spending limitations on each one of the next two seasons.
So far, in the CBA negotiations, the union has continued to propose alternatives to an international draft, however, members of various groups – MLB, MLBPA, player representatives, essentially buscones (hybrid coaches/agents for Latin American amateurs), players and team officials – believe that the process for acquiring amateur players from Latin America needs some kind of adjustment.
Under the current system, amateur players who are not subject to the national draft (ie those outside the United States, Canada, and Puerto Rico) are eligible to sign with clubs after they turn 16.
While players have to wait until that age to officially sign, however, it’s common practice for teams to make verbal deals with prospects several years in advance as part of a race for talent that has accelerated since the introduction of maximum limits.
The league has pointed to a desire to end deals so early as justification for its desire for a draft. Those kinds of early offers can put players out of business. Teams may agree to verbal deals with players that, when added together, exceed their assigned cap value:
With rules prohibiting clubs from fulfilling all of their commitments, the team can go back to second- or third-tier prospects and require them to lower their bonus demand. The player often has few resources to do so.
Unlike a national high school prospect, the international signatories they do not usually have an imminent university commitment as a negotiation lever. And while they might try to buy their services from other teams, many clubs will already have verbally committed all of their bonus funds to other players in the transfer class.
That said, the union doesn’t seem to agree that an International Draft is the optimal solution. The implementation of a Draft inherently removes the player’s flexibility in choosing their first employer, an element the union finds concerning.
The MLBPA would prefer that the league implement and Strictly enforce a ban on verbal agreements with players under the age of 15. The union is also seeking more flexibility for teams to transfer funds from their annual bonus pools, which it is not allowed under the current system.
In addition to concerns about early deals, there is a look at other issues with the current setup. Ulises Cabrera, a player representative for Octagon, says that some scouts have received clandestine payments from buscones to arrange deals with players outside their assigned geographic scope.
It may interest you: MLB International signing period for 2023 could be modified as a result of Elian Soto
The article also goes into detail about concerns including lower pay for international prospects relative to domestic recruits of similar caliber and the eradication of performance-enhancing drug use. It is worth reading in its entirety to get a picture of the many issues that need to be resolved.
see more
