*This content was translated by AI.
On the 12th, the Korea Baseball Organization (KBO) officially announced, "No club or player has applied for salary arbitration this year." According to Article 75 [Application for Arbitration] Paragraph 2 of the KBO Covenant, a club or player applying for arbitration must submit an application for arbitration to the President by 6 p.m. on January 10 every year. However, if the deadline for filing an arbitration application is a public holiday (including Saturdays and Sundays), the first non-public holiday thereafter shall be deemed the deadline for filing an arbitration application.
This year, January 10 was a Saturday, so the next weekday, the 12th, was the deadline, but not a single application was received. As a result, KBO salary arbitration applications will continue to be "all-out" for five consecutive years starting in 2022.
KBO salary arbitration used the expression "annual salary adjustment" in the past, but the name was changed to "annual salary arbitration" from 2025. Since the launch of the KBO League, there have been a total of 99 applications for salary arbitration, but 21 cases have actually been referred to the arbitration committee. And among them, there are only two player wins (LG Ryu Ji-hyun in 2002 and KT Sovereignty in 2021), and 19 club wins. In terms of winning percentage, the player's side is only about 9.5%.
If you look at the referral to the arbitration committee by year, there is a clear trend of decline. There were 8 cases in the 1980s, 5 cases in the 1990s, 5 cases in the 2000s, 2 cases in the 2010s, and 1 case in the 2020s. As time goes by, the annual salary arbitration system is actually becoming "private culture."
In the case of the U.S. Major League Baseball (MLB), the dominant country of baseball, a total of 476 annual salary adjustment hearings have been held since 1974, of which 203 have been won by players. The winning rate is about 42.6 percent. From a player's point of view, salary adjustment is considered a "fight worth trying."
On the other hand, the NPB's salary arbitration system is no longer working than Korea's. Since foreign player Leon McFurden of the Hanshin Tigers applied for the first participation fee adjustment (annual salary arbitration) in 1972, only seven participation fee adjustment committees have been held. The most recent example was Hideaki Wakui of the Seibu Lions in 2011. At that time, the committee decided on an annual salary of 253 million yen, the middle point between the club's offer (220 million yen) and the player's demand (270 million yen). It was described as a "player victory" in the media, but since then, the participation fee adjustment committee has never been held in the NPB.
Then, why is the annual salary arbitration system not active in KBO. The first is the burden. The moment you apply for an annual salary arbitration, the player is a burden, and the club is also a burden. KT Wiz Sovereign's salary arbitration in 2021, the most recent example, was also not a bright atmosphere for both the winning player and the losing team. Even if the club professes not to penalize, it is likely that uncomfortable cohabitation will continue for at least one season.
In fact, if you look at the seven cases of participation fee adjustment in Japanese professional baseball, all of the players left the team within three years through release, trade, and FA.
The second is the odds. In the KBO, a player's chances of winning are very low. It is only two of the 21 times, with a 9.5% winning rate. MLB has a 42.6 percent winning rate for players. In the NPB, where the annual salary arbitration system is not working as well as in Korea, three out of seven were decided based on the median between the club's offer and the player's demand. The media described it as a victory for the player. In other words, the player's winning rate is 42.9%. It is a decisive factor that makes KBO players hesitate to apply for salary arbitration.
The third is the existence of the FA system. In KBO, the qualification for applying for annual salary arbitration is granted only after three years have elapsed. Many of the players who are considering applying for annual salary arbitration may have few FA left. Rather than creating a conflict with the club through salary arbitration, it may be a reasonable option to wait for the FA to be evaluated in the market. Prior to the introduction of the FA system in 2000, conflicts between clubs and players were frequent during salary negotiations, but as the FA system was established, conflicts over salary contracts were relatively reduced. This trend seems to be related to the decrease in annual salary arbitration applications.
Of course, there are voices calling for institutional supplementation. Representative opinions are to advance the deadline for applying for annual salary arbitration and to allow the team to choose the middle value between the club's offer and the player's request like NPB. In fact, in the case of sovereignty in 2021, the results of arbitration came out on January 25, and in an environment where the starting point of spring camp has been advanced to late January since last year, the application for arbitration itself can lead to the burden of not attending the camp.
However, in my view, the deactivation of the annual salary arbitration system is more a matter of culture and perception than the system itself. In cultures that value relations, such as Korea and Japan, annual salary arbitration can be perceived as an "option to leave a crack in the relationship" rather than a "dispute resolution device." On the other hand, in the sports culture of the United States, which values contracts and business, annual salary arbitration can function as intended.
The victory of sovereignty in 2021 was also interpreted as a sign of the revival of the salary arbitration system. It was also predicted that the number of applications for annual salary arbitration would increase once the official player agent system is established. But the reality was the opposite. Since then, there has been no application for five consecutive years. This is the learning effect left by the experience of "It's not comfortable to win."
Therefore, unless the players and clubs' perceptions of the salary arbitration system change significantly, the record of no salary arbitration applications is likely to continue in the future.
<© STARNEWS. All rights reserved. No reproduction or redistribution allowed.>
*This content was translated by AI.
