When Major League Baseball and the MLB Players Association agreed to a new Collective Bargaining Agreement in March, the issue of a potential International Draft was tabled to give the union time to make a decision on the league’s proposal. It was agreed that either an International Draft would be adopted, with the current qualifying offer system for free agency abolished, or the International Draft idea would be dropped and the qualifying offer system from the last CBA would remain in place.

The deadline for the union to make a decision arrives on Monday. The July 25 date was chosen because clubs need to know the fate of the qualifying offer system prior to the upcoming Aug. 2 Trade Deadline.

Though each side has submitted a proposal regarding the International Draft, the MLBPA’s choice is not between proposals. It is between MLB’s most recent International Draft proposal, which contained movement on issues such as drug testing, medical information and education, and the status quo with the qualifying offer.

So these are the two options faced by the union, with Monday’s deadline approaching:

A. Accept the International Draft proposal

MLB made its first proposal on the International Draft on July 28, 2021. The MLBPA countered on July 8 of this year. The league’s last proposal was then submitted a week later. A summary of that proposal is as follows:

• A 20-round International Draft with more than 600 selections (regular picks, plus Competitive Balance selections), which are guaranteed because clubs cannot pass on their selections.
• Spending on international amateurs would increase by $23.4 million, an increase of 14% relative to the current system. Each slot in the Draft would carry a set signing bonus amount. This would guarantee at least $181 million in spending on signing bonuses for international players, vs. the current international bonus pool of $167 million (that is not guaranteed to be spent in full). MLB views hard-slotting as a key measure to address the root of the corruption involving early-deals.
• There would be no limit on the number of players who could sign, if they were not selected in the Draft. Thus, the Draft should not affect the total number of players signed -- and players who were not selected in the Draft could sign for more money than they are receiving in the current system.
• The qualifying offer system would be abolished. Teams would no longer forfeit domestic Draft selections signing a free agent who rejected the qualifying offer. (The compensation to the teams that lost the free agent would come in the form of supplemental Draft picks based on the total and average annual value of the contracts signed by departing players.)
• Elimination of the current rule calling for Competitive Balance Tax payors to forfeit their second- and fifth-highest domestic Draft selections (along with $1 million in international pool space) when signing a free agent who rejected the qualifying offer.
• If a club places a rookie-eligible player who was included on a preseason Top 100 Prospect list by two or more of Baseball America, ESPN.com or MLB.com on its Opening Day roster and that player finishes second or third in the Rookie of the Year voting or fourth or fifth in the MVP or Cy Young voting, the team receives an extra International Draft selection.
• The international signing age -- and the countries from which international players could sign -- would remain the same.
• The International Draft would begin in 2024 and take place either sometime between Jan. 15 and March 31 or sometime between Aug. 15 and Sept. 15.
• The current drug testing system for international amateurs would remain in place, meaning players would be subject to random testing after registration and would not be suspended if they test positive (leaving it up to the clubs to determine the value of a player who has tested positive). MLB withdrew its original proposal that all players be subject to mandatory testing with discipline associated with positive test results.
• Clubs would rotate through Draft order in groups of 10 over a three-year period. So the Draft order would not be tied to team record. Rather, clubs would have equal access to international talent over the life of the CBA.
• International Draft picks could be traded between clubs.
• International players would be guaranteed at least $5,000 for continuing education during or after their playing careers, and those who either possess the equivalent of a GED upon signing or obtain a GED while playing would be guaranteed at least $10,000.

B. Forgo the International Draft, and retain the qualifying offer system

• The current international signing system, with a non-guaranteed bonus pool of up to $167 million, would remain in place.
• So, too, would the qualifying offer system. Clubs that sign a qualifying free agent would continue to forfeit Draft picks and international pool space.
• Clubs with payrolls above the Competitive Balance Tax threshold would face stiffer penalties than other Clubs when signing free agents who rejected the qualifying offer.
• The International Draft picks component of the Prospect Promotion Incentive (PPI) program goes away. Only one domestic Draft award -- given to teams whose promoted prospect won the Rookie of the Year or finished top three in the Cy Young or MVP voting -- would remain, thereby decreasing the incentive for teams to put top prospects on Opening Day rosters. In 2022, 10 Top 100 Prospects (including Julio Rodríguez) were promoted to the Opening Day roster, the most since 1995. Under the prior CBA, more than three-quarters of PPI selections would have been awarded in the International Draft.
• International players would not be guaranteed any continuing education money.