So Bill Shaiken writes that MLB and the players union have reached an agreement that no longer can a team require a player to donate to the club’s own charity, but so what does that mean?  Manny Ramirez’s last contract with the Dodgers stipulated that he would donate to the charity, but that was a point of negotiation.  Granted, Dodgers owner Frank McCourt suggested that all Dodger contracts would contain such a clause.  OK, so a team can’t make a blanket statement like that.  But what does this really affect?

Perhaps it means contract value can go down a touch, because sometimes a team might be willing to give a bit more to a player if the player is then giving it back. (Does seem a bit shady, after all the controversy in the Domincan Republic last year over the Buscone’s getting young men large signing bonuses but requiring the the player give them back to the Buscone. )

So giving the player less money- or making the contract value lower- affects every other player.  Players negotiate based on comparable contracts and comparable numbers.  Arbitration cases are settled on that.  Rarely are the details of the contract examined, more the larger dollar figures, which sometimes vary a lot in terms of the actual value of the contract.  Remember, sometimes money is deferred, and sometimes it is deferred with interest.  But, how many players are really concerned with how their contract affects someone else? I’m doubtful really at what big news this is.

What is to stop a club from negotiating on the side that the player has to donate money and announcing it at the introductory press conference?  Sure, there is no legalese that requires the player to follow through, but there is the power of the press and the fans.