The recent change in leadership in the Major League Baseball Players Association matters to most fans for only one reason.

The effect it could have on the pending lockout by MLB owners.

Union members promoting labor lawyer Bruce Meyer to MLBPA Executive Director after the stunning resignation of former ballplayer Tony Clark won’t change the players’ overall strategy. Their goal remains to get the best deal possible, which means not accepting a salary cap under any circumstances.

It’s funny to hear arguments about how players in other pro sports that have a salary cap receive a higher percentage of revenue than baseball players, and “Why don’t MLB players realize this and just agree to a salary cap?” Even if it were true, it defies credibility to assert that MLB owners are threatening a lockout, where games could be lost, along with perhaps an entire season, because they want an economic system that guarantees more money to the players. All to champion “competitive balance.” I’ve got a major league team in Montreal to sell you if you believe that one.

Not that there was a good time for Clark to go, but it does seem like a bad time for players to go to the bullpen, with team-by-team union meetings happening in Spring Training, and collective-bargaining negotiations set to begin in earnest soon thereafter. But better now than a year from now.

Multiple union reps reacted with disbelief on the record when Clark announced Tuesday he was resigning because of a personal scandal that became public knowledge. And it wasn’t the scandal that everybody knew about: Clark has been accused of having an inappropriate relationship with his sister-in-law, a woman he hired to work for the MLBPA.

A family love triangle would have been bad enough. A distraction at the minimum. Worse, a judgment on Clark’s judgment. But could it get worse than that? Sure!

The previous scandal with Clark related to a federal investigation of his alleged mishandling of union finances. It would have been the lowest-hanging fruit for owners to strip Clark of any ability to lead. If not at the bargaining table, certainly in the media and the court of public opinion, owners would have used Clark as leverage against the players. It was a curious decision by the MLBPA to stick with Clark for as long as they did after the first investigation became public 15 months ago. Especially considering the union’s recent mediocre performance in negotiations.

Clark was compromised already.

It could be worse: Earlier in 2024, several union reps tried and failed to fire Meyer as Clark’s first lieutenant. They viewed Meyer as too beholden to the wealthiest players, something a tool of agent Scott Boras, and not inclusive enough of minor leaguers, who in recent years joined the union and have a powerful voice in it.

Not that Clark’s reputation was much different as it related to marginal players. But if the Meyer insurrection had worked, the MLBPA might not have either of their top two leaders.

Cutting out Meyer might have been short sighted, but it doesn’t mean the unhappy faction didn’t have a point. For all of the moaning by owners about the competitive balance gap between the richest teams and smallest spenders, there’s a growing wealth gap between the richest players and the middle guys. The squeeze has been on for some time. A higher percentage of players than ever are making close to the league minimum salary.

Are these concerns going to guide Meyer in negotiations? They should; the MLBPA has many more members in it now thanks to the minors. That also means more opportunities for cracks to develop.

On the owners side, are the Dodgers and the Yankees going to keep solidarity over the Pirates and Guardians? Are the wealthiest players going to look out for the 19th man on the roster, or some lifers in Double-A?

If everybody wants a short lockout, both sides will have to keep the little guy in mind.