Labor Negotiations Between Major League Baseball (MLB) and MLB Players Association (MLBPA)

Instruction:
Over the summer, Major League Baseball (MLB) and the MLB players union (MLBPA) were engaged in negotiations over a resume to play for the 2020 season. Media reports suggest the sides were far apart in negotiations as the timeline for starting the season is running down. After years of historical profits and the massive appreciation of franchise values, the owners were claiming that a shortened season without fans in the stands will result in them losing money. On the other hand, players who have shared MLB's recent revenue growth in the form of significant pay raises and a rise in the average player salary in the league. Complicating matters was a March agreement where the owners agreed to pay the players a pro-rated salary based on the number of games played
For this discussion response, you should critically analyze the labor negotiation between MLB and MLBPA the occurred last summer. What were the issues being discussed? What were the financial details? What were the details of the negotiation? Ultimately, what was the final resolution?
In the end, I want you to choose a side who you think needed to budge in negotiations:
Should it have been the owners? Shouldn't they expected to incur any potential loss? Isn't that the entire premise behind capitalism, and the belief that any owner takes on board the risk of opening a business (and indeed that's why they're entitled to profits? And weren't they the ones who signed players to lucrative contracts? Shouldn't they be required to honor them?
Or should it have been the players? Their careers average 3.86 years and a limited time to earn their money. The owners have the financial might to withstand them in any standoff. Plus, they're making millions of dollars to play a kids game. And if owners lose money, then baseball won't be around for much longer.
I will post the criteria in the next step. And I do think you need an additional citation to match the point.