The economy is in shambles, almost one in every ten people in some states are unemployed, people are losing their houses, and it would seem like a great time for those more fortunate to give back. Right?
It was reported by ESPN today that the Major League Baseball Players Association (MLBPA) filed a grievance against the clubs because of the Dodgers new “Ramirez” provision which calls for a charitable donation in all contracts from now on.
Manny Ramirez accepted a 2 year $45 million deal on March 4th. At the same time he made a $1million dollar donation to the Dodgers Dream Foundation at the request of the Dodgers owner Frank McCourt. Now it is not known if McCourt asked for that much or if Manny generously offered up the million after being asked for just a donation. But McCourt vowed that he would require all contracts from the Dodgers to have a “Ramirez” provision.
This provision is a blank line for the player to write in an amount that they want to donate to charity. So it does not require a certain amount, as long as it’s something. It could be a dollar or a million. But the player that donates more will certainly benefit from the positive image it creates for them in their new team’s city.
Back to the grievance. The MLBPA’s lawyer feels that its fine for players to make donations whenever THEY want to, but that forcing players to make a donation was not allowed under the current agreement.
The Executive VP of Labor Relations, Rob Manfred, says that it’s totally fine and that teams have been doing it for years. He says that as long as it is a club policy and is adhered to then clubs are free to bargain with players and make special pacts.
“Article II of baseball’s labor agreement states contracts can include special covenants which actually or potentially provide additional benefits to the player. We’re at a loss to understand how the MLBPA could possibly take the position that making a charitable donation does not provide a benefit to the player,” says Manfred.
Frank McCourt was surprised by the news when asked about it today but I feel that he put it best in his statements below.
“I have not seen the grievance, but I find it odd that in these challenging times, that we encounter a complaint against the idea of players giving back to the communities that support them,” he said in a statement. “We believe there are qualities that represent the Dodger way. The player’s contributions to the team, appreciation of the fans, and impact on such a supportive community all combine to help our organization live up to our core values. We seek players who embrace these values. The Ramirez provision is a blank line to be filled in with whatever number a player chooses.”
Way to go Frank! The MLBPA needs to pull their heads out and open up THEIR pocket books, along with the players and continue to give back to their communities and help those less fortunate than them.
The grievance was filed Friday and if it’s not settled it will go to arbitrator Shyam Das for a decision.
Miguel – could you post a correction to this column – please see the mlbpa website…http://mlbplayers.mlb.com/pa/trust/…and also know that players have estbalished their own foundations and give to their own causes in the community without the self-serving grandiosity of the McCourts.
Players Trust: Making a difference in the community
“Since 1996, the Major League Baseball Players Trust has touched the lives of thousands of disadvantaged people in hundreds of communities around the world.
The 501 (c) 3 charitable foundation — the first in professional sports to be established and administered by the players themselves –- helps support the players’ individual charitable activities and augments them with a core group of community outreach programs.
“The Players Trust provides players with the opportunity to assist people who need our help,” Torii Hunter said. “As players, most of us are in good position to help and the Trust helps us connect with the people who need our help most.”
The Trust is administered by three Trustees — MLBPA executive director Donald M. Fehr and the PA’s two player representatives, Mark Loretta and Tony Clark, in conjunction with a Trust Committee made up of players from each team. Additionally, there is an Advisory Board comprised of leaders in the field of community service.
The Trust is funded through contributions from all MLBPA members, a percentage of licensing revenue and special events such as the Players Choice Awards and the Players Trust Golf Tournament. “
Hi RMA,
Thank you for stopping by and leaving such a well informed comment. Yes, I agree in that I realize that there are many players that give quite a bit to charity. There are also those that choose not to though. The idea behind putting a blank line in the contract, in order to solicit some sort of donation to the “local” charity is to get the player involved in THEIR new community and team. It is important to the player to be accepted in the community and look good to the fans (player’s benefit), it is important to the team to have upstanding community leaders on their teams, and it is important to the less fortunate to get the help they need.
Players can and do give to their own charities all the time and this “Ramirez” provision does not stop that. It simply asks the player to give back to the LA community, one in which they will be a part of. This is what the MLBPA should be focusing on and not limiting charitable donations.
So what if you want to give to “your” charity and don’t really care about the Dodgers Dream Foundation or whatever other charity a team has. Fine, then just put $1 in the blank line of your contract and then turn around and donate more to whatever one it is that YOU want to.
You are mssing a few points
In this case, Frank McCourt has two conflicting roles – owner of the Dodgers and President of the Dodgers Dream Foundation.
The player has no choice over where the funds go. What if the player has a moral aversion to one of the projects?
The union isn’t limiting charitable donations – it is doing its primary job – trying to keep an out of control ego-driven owner who will refuse to sign players unless they fund the charity he leads and restricitng player movement.
I didn’t miss that point, I addressed it in the first reply. The player can simply put one cent in the blank line of the contract for the Ramirez provision and then donate away to where they wanted to. Make no mistake about this the players do not need “protections” from this sort of stuff! That is bull crap! The players can simply do as I outlined and only put in a dollar or a penny if they want to get around contributing to what 99% of people would call and outstanding cause.
The MLBPA could and should be spending time on other more important issues is really the point here. Its just like our government, focus on crap and spend a ton of time and money on crap.
And McCourt should be applauded for his stand on this. This is not his fight alone though. Many teams have been doing this for years and it never was a big deal. But now that its Manny and its McCourt and the big market Dodgers, the MLBPA wants to jump in and get some attention and waste some more of the player’s money.
The main reasons for McCourt doing this, I believe, are to get their players involved more in the local community which in turn gets them in better standing with the fans, and to spur an attitude of giving organization wide. To me, those are great things. Much greater than a player’s ability to say you can’t put stuff like that in our contracts. Players don’t need protection from that. They just dont and none of this makes any real sense. A huge waste of everyone’s time.
How would you feel if a team decided that they wanted better role modles for players and decided to add a clause that the players had to attend religious services?
That’s supposedly a good thing? Why not?
I love the responses, thank you RMT. I see your point. But I think that the comparison between religion and charitable contributions is not on a level enough field to make that comparison. I would say that a much larger percentage of people would say that they favor charitable contributions more than than they favor church going.
You see, giving to charity is more popular than going to church. I guess it really boils down to players feeling pressured to give to the local, or stated upon, charity. Even if it is only a dollar. And that to me is just silly. If they don’t like, then give a penny or a dollar, that will send the message to the organization that you don’t like that clause. It just does not require the time, energy, and attention of the MLBPA. I feel that they have bigger, more important fish to fry than trying to protect the ego of players.
2007 990′s
http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments/2007/954/623/2007-954623022-041bb7f8-9.pdf
Page 10 – who is Howard Sunkin and why does he get $ 400,000 or 40% of the cash donations during that fiscal year? Why, he’s the.senior VP of public affairs for the Dodgers.
http://tigers.mlb.com/la/community/executives/sunkin.html
“Most notably, Sunkin oversees the outreach of the Dodgers Dream Foundation, spearheads ongoing development of the organization’s relationship with its neighboring community, and maintains open lines of communication with local, city, county and state officials.”
“He joined the Dodgers after nearly 20 noteworthy years as Vice President of Local Public Affairs with Cerrell Associates Inc., one of Los Angeles’ oldest and most reputable public affairs firms. At Cerrell, Sunkin headed the local government affairs unit, primarily working with the Los Angeles City Council and other Los Angeles County cities and agencies. Sunkin has been a key figure in strategically building relationships, formulating and implementing strategies, and providing advocacy services for Cerrell clients. He is experienced in legislative matters at=2 0all levels of government.”
Funny, but there’s no lobbying money listed being spent by the Foundation…(Page 15). What did he do for this money – was he being paid out of the not for profit AND the Dodger front office payroll?