NEW YORK — The tone of talks for a new agreement governing the relationship between baseball’s major and minor leagues took a positive turn when the bickering sides met electronically for about an hour Wednesday and later issued a joint statement that termed the session “constructive.”
Negotiators for the governing body of the minor leagues asked questions during the session about what the administrative structure would be if Major League Baseball takes over their operation next year, a person familiar with the talks told The Associated Press.
MLB deputy commissioner Dan Halem did most of the talking during the one-hour electronic meeting, the person said, speaking to the AP on condition of anonymity because no statements were authorized.
“The parties are continuing their discussions, with the goal of concluding a mutually beneficial long-term agreement in the near future,” the sides said in a joint statement Thursday.
The sides did not address MLB’s proposal to cut the minimum total of affiliated minor league teams to 120, the person said. That is the most contentious issue in talks to replace the Professional Baseball Agreement that expires after this season.
The minor leagues are prepared to agree to MLB’s proposal, two people familiar with the talks had told the AP on Tuesday. The development was first reported by Baseball America.
No date was set for the next meeting.
Until now, the concept of a joint statement in these talks was inconceivable. The National Association hired lobbyists to push Congress to support minor league teams in their fight to keep affiliations. But the coronavirus pandemic, which has shut down sports in the U.S., cut off revenue and changed the dynamic of a long-term fight.
A radical overhaul of minor league governance would change the relationship between majors and minors that was established in September 1903 by the National Agreement for the Government of Professional Base Ball Clubs. That deal called for National League, American League and National Association teams to respect each other’s contracts.
Comments are not available on this story. Read more about why we allow commenting on some stories and not on others.
We believe it's important to offer commenting on certain stories as a benefit to our readers. At its best, our comments sections can be a productive platform for readers to engage with our journalism, offer thoughts on coverage and issues, and drive conversation in a respectful, solutions-based way. It's a form of open discourse that can be useful to our community, public officials, journalists and others.
We do not enable comments on everything — exceptions include most crime stories, and coverage involving personal tragedy or sensitive issues that invite personal attacks instead of thoughtful discussion.
You can read more here about our commenting policy and terms of use. More information is also found on our FAQs.
Show less