The 'Ramirez Provision' Is No More
The player's union did not like this, and filed a grievance against the Dodgers and 21 other teams who had similar provisions in contracts with 109 players. On Wednesday Major League Baseball ruled that these types of clauses would no longer be allowed, though there are still a few instances in which players can make the donations.
Under the agreement between the commissioner's office and the players union, this "Ramirez Provision" can still be included contracts that meet the following guidelines:
• The player signing the contract is a free agent, because after all, a free agent isn't required to sign with anybody so he's agreeing to the provision.
• The player is signing a contract extension that buys out at least one year of that player's free agency. An example of this would be the extension Justin Verlander just signed with the Detroit Tigers.
• The player signing the contract was born on a Monday in an even numbered month when there was a full moon.
OK, so I made that last rule up. I just find all the rules to be a tad bit ridiculous. All MLB had to do was say that teams either can or can't require players to make donations as part of their contract. Instead they chose to make things more difficult then they have to be.
It's going to come down to the player's decision anyway. He either wants to make the donation, or he doesn't. Using Verlander as an example again, he could have just told the Tigers he wasn't going to sign the extension if they kept the charity provision in the offer if he was against helping the children.