broadcast media. This was very consistent with contract negotiations over the past quarter-century in baseball and suggested a strong likelihood of a work stoppage (Layden 26).Baseball negotiations in the modern era have been plagued by strong-willed personalities. Marvin Miller set the tone when he refused to accept the paternalism between owners and players that had existed for so long in the game. Instead, he was determined to establish an adversarial relationship that continues to the present.The players felt they had little alternative to striking. Had they continued playing through the season without coming to an agreement, the owners could have declared an impasse and most likely implemented their proposals. Also, the timing of the strike, which began on August 12, 1994, was favorable for the union because it inflicted maximum damage on the owners. That late in the season, the players had received most of their pay, but the owners were vulnerable to big losses because they receive three-fourths of their television revenues from postseason play. In anticipation of a strike for the previous 4 years the Players Association had retained a portion of each players licensing revenues from the sale of products such as baseball cards. As a result, a strike fund of about $175 million was accumulated so that each player with 4 years experience would have about $150,000 to hold them over until the strike came to an end (Monthly Labor Review).At the beginning of the strike, the parties had agreed to accept mediation efforts by the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service. Mediators try to persuade the parties to make concessions and come to an agreement, but unlike arbitrators have no power to impose a settlement. Therefore, mediation would not necessarily bring an end to the dispute. Several Federal mediators, including the Conciliation Services director, John Calhoun Wells, were unable to make progress toward settlement in 199...
