Sure but why don't we say the same thing about the owners? Probably because we have no idea what they make. It's kind of funny the hero worship/distortion that goes on in the baseball labor fight. Just change the context, what if instead of baseball players they were all auto workers for a single American car company. In a wage dispute, the auto workers could always leave and go make cars for another company in Mexico, Japan or Korea but wouldn't be paid as much as they currently get. They don't have the skill set to move to a different industry (NFL, NBA, NHL) so they're stuck as auto workers. The auto workers make the finished product, but don't own the finished product. It's the car company's obligation to continue to market the product, sell the product; and the auto worker's don't share in any of that cost or risk. Certainly, if the car company is really successful they could share more of their profits with the workers, but they're under no real obligation to do so, and wouldn't be alone in America sharing none of their profits with their workers. As most sides do in a labor fight the MLBPA is trying to win in the Court of public opinion. In reality they have less leverage than it seems. The owners always could go the same way they did in '95 and offer $25,000 guarantees to professional players not in organized baseball to come to spring training with another $100,000 guaranteed if they make an opening day roster, and they'd have to beat of the folks who show up in Arizona and Florida with a stick. I'm sorry but your analogy is off. Almost anybody can learn to be an auto worker. You don't like it, fine we'll hire someone else and won't see a difference in productivity. MLB players are the 1/10th of 1% and Soto is in the top 10% of that. He wants to leave? Fine, we'll hire Chris Magruder's younger brother to play instead.