“Nuclear Option” is a term that refers to the most extreme measures that may be taken, militarily is the obvious application. But generically, the term has been used to describe the most severe parliamentary action, and may also be applied to drastic business decisions. But a “Nuclear Option” for MLB players could bring about the decertification of the Major League Baseball Players Association (MLBPA) as their bargaining representative.

Only 15 months into the renewal collective bargaining agreement (CBA) and there is already talk of the players striking when the that agreement expires in December 2021. Players are becoming more vocal over their increased frustrations with owners, MLB executives, and their own leadership over free agency, qualifying offers, a smaller percentage of record earnings going to players, determination of major league service time, unilateral implementation of new playing rules – the list is long.

The threat of decertification should weaken the knees of MLB executives more than any work-stoppage. Moving from a process by which MLB must only negotiate with one representative over the legally required mandatory subjects (e.g. free agency, pay, benefits, working conditions, seniority / service time, grievance procedures) to negotiating with individual players would be loaded with landmines, not the least of which is free agency.

In 1975 Dave McNally and Andy Messersmith won free agency in arbitration (which was upheld by the courts) after playing one season without a signed contract that effectively reduced the MLB reserve clause to one year. Only through collective bargaining was MLB able to limit free agency to players with six years of major league service time.

Then there is the matter of the June MLB Rule-4 Draft (more commonly known as the MLB First-Year Players Draft) of eligible U.S., Canadian, and Puerto Rican players while limiting the amount of money that teams can spend to sign those players. Decertification of the Players Association could allow teams to sign those players for any amount and at anytime. An attempt by MLB to restrict those players from signing with any team for any amount could be challenged in court as a potential restraint of trade.

The “Nuclear Option” is incredibly complex, but does not come without risks to players; there would be no requirement for teams to continue health and welfare plans, no minimum pay, no restrictions on teams offering more than a 20 percent reduction in pay, implement any rules it deems good for the game – that list is also very long.

MLB, owners, and players could find themselves in chaos and the potential that any time after one year, that the players could (and undoubtedly would) form a new union and be ready to negotiate a new CBA.

MLB players may not choose the “Nuclear Option” route, but it is definitely an action for consideration.

    *    *    *    *    *