Murray Chass On Baseball: THE ARBITRATION GAME

A look back with Marvin Miller. (ding-ding - Bowie googlealerts…it’s Kuhn)

I asked Marvin Miller, the Union’s original Executive Director, if he could have envisioned a player seeking $13 million when he and Moss negotiated salary arbitration in 1973.

“No,” he said, “unless you told me what the industry’s revenue growth and revenue figures would be at this time. I might have come close.”

Besides larger salaries, the biggest change in arbitration over the years has been the inducement it has served for clubs and players to settle their salary differences before players file for arbitration, before players and clubs exchange salary figures or before they reach hearings.

“Settlement is a purpose of salary arbitration,” Miller said.

Miller and Moss had been running the union for seven years when they achieved the arbitration breakthrough. They had been pushing for a change in the reserve rules, under which players had no control over their careers or even a say in their salaries. Miller was never certain why the owners relented in 1973, but he suspected what the reason was.

“My conjecture at the time was their attorneys advised them that some movement would be necessary,” the 92-year-old Miller said. “They couldn’t rely on courts upholding the reserve clause or not violating antitrust laws. Their lawyers knew they were. At some point I sensed they were looking for something that would satisfy us.”