The Negative Impact Of The 1994 Baseball Strike Of 1994

As the start of the 1995 season was beginning to come around, the owners eventually decided they would have to work with replacement players. Only the Baltimore Orioles refused to sign any replacement players. These players consisted mostly of players in the minors or amateurs who were not a part of the players’ union. The decision to play replacement players likely only helped the players’ union. This decision was noted by research conducted by Steven Mellor, who wrote, “In this situation, major league players effectively were the product. Based on published training camp reports that suggested poor quality play by replacement players, informed fans may have expected that replacement players in season games would represent product deficiency.” Though fans had little effect on whether or not
During the strike months he found that hotel room sales had been lower in 10 baseball cities during the months of August and September, when compared to those previous 2 months’ figures in 1993.
The baseball strike of 1994 left a lasting scar upon the baseball world. For many the game of baseball at the highest level was no longer the same simple game which they had grown up watching. The game experienced the same issues every other industry in the United States faced. Though the strike created changes for the league, and the game, the results from the strike determined the way the game was played. The strike indirectly created the steroid era, negatively impacted many fans’ attitudes to the game, and introduced payrolls restrictions to teams that were unprecedented in major league baseball. The luxury tax is considered to be a half-win for the league, while the rise in minimum salaries is seen as positively for them. Nobody was really able to come away from the strike as a clear-cut winner. Though the fans who missed the 1994 World Series were the obvious losers of the 1994