{"id":833510,"date":"2026-10-20T04:33:14","date_gmt":"2026-10-20T04:33:14","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.rawchili.com\/mlb\/833510\/"},"modified":"2026-10-20T04:33:14","modified_gmt":"2026-10-20T04:33:14","slug":"chicago-cubs-financial-secrets-at-stake-with-cba-negotiations-ahead","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.rawchili.com\/mlb\/833510\/","title":{"rendered":"Chicago Cubs Financial Secrets at Stake With CBA Negotiations Ahead"},"content":{"rendered":"

\n\tAs Wrigley View Rooftop appeals<\/a> a federal judge\u2019s decision granting summary judgment to its neighbor, the Chicago Cubs<\/a>, and entering a permanent injunction<\/a> blocking the rooftop owners from selling tickets to watch games, concerts and other events at Wrigley Field<\/a>, the two sides are waging another battle with implications that could extend far beyond Wrigleyville.<\/p>\n

\n\tThe sides are arguing over whether U.S. District Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman should unseal the trial court record and all the financial information, contracts and potential trade secrets it contains.<\/p>\n

\n\tThe timing is especially important given that MLB<\/a> is expected to institute a lockout<\/a> after the current collective bargaining agreement between MLB and the MLB Players Association expires at 11:59 p.m. ET on Dec. 1.<\/p>\n

\n\tThe labor dispute will concern numerous issues, but at its core will be money, including how MLB revenue is divided between owners and players and the owners\u2019 push for a salary cap. There are fears the lockout could extend well into 2027 and lead to lost games.<\/p>\n

\n\tIn professional sports labor disputes, players\u2019 unions often argue that teams are more profitable than they claim. Unsealed financial records from the Cubs could attract attention well beyond this litigation, including from the MLBPA<\/a> as it prepares for a potentially contentious labor fight.<\/p>\n

\t\tUnpacking Wrigley View Rooftop\u2019s arguments\t<\/p>\n

\n\tIn a memorandum authored by Matthew De Preter and other attorneys from Aronberg Goldgehn Davis & Garmisa, Wrigley View Rooftop offers several arguments in hopes of persuading U.S Coleman to unseal the record.<\/p>\n

\n\tWrigley View Rooftop highlights that the Cubs \u201cchose to bring this case\u201d and thus \u201cchose to put information at issue in the presumptively public forum of the Federal Court system.\u201d<\/p>\n

\n\tUnlike litigation in federal court, arbitration and mediation are generally conducted outside the public judicial process and often subject to confidentiality arrangements. Wrigley View Rooftop maintains there is a \u201cstrong presumption\u201d in favor of public access to judicial records.<\/p>\n

\n\tLast year, Coleman denied Wrigley View Rooftop\u2019s motion to dismiss on the grounds that an arbitration provision in a prior settlement agreement was an \u201cimproper mechanism\u201d for dismissing the Cubs\u2019 lawsuit. In 2004, the Cubs settled litigation with rooftop businesses, including Wrigley View Rooftop, through agreements that allowed the businesses to sell rooftop access in exchange for payments to the Cubs. The team\u2019s agreement with Wrigley View Rooftop expired on Dec. 31, 2023, and while the Cubs struck deals with other rooftop businesses, they didn\u2019t do so with Wrigley View Rooftop.<\/p>\n

\n\tWrigley View Rooftop insists that the Cubs should not \u201chide behind its self-anointed confidentiality designations to shield the public from the full record of the case and prevent\u201d Wrigley View Rooftop from \u201cfully responding.\u201d<\/p>\n

\n\tTo that point, Wrigley View Rooftop objects to some of the media coverage of the litigation. One specific grievance is with the headline for Sportico\u2019s Aug. 17 story<\/a>, \u201cCubs Slam Wrigley View Rooftop as \u2018Parasitic\u2019 in Legal Battle.\u201d<\/p>\n

\n\tThe story summarizes and analyzes the Cubs\u2019 criticism of Wrigley View Rooftop\u2019s business model of selling seats and concessions to ticket holders to watch events at Wrigley Field, a business model the Cubs portrayed as parasitic. (To be clear, the Cubs used the word \u201cparasitic,\u201d and Sportico wrote about that.) Wrigley View Rooftop also objects to several stories and videos published by other media.<\/p>\n

\n\tWrigley View Rooftop maintains that \u201cthe bias of this coverage\u201d reflects the Cubs\u2019 redacting information in court filings to present the team in a more favorable light.<\/p>\n

\n\tThe Cubs, Wrigley View Rooftop insists, \u201cpick and choose what information\u201d to reveal in court filings \u201cso as to unfairly frame\u201d the Cubs\u2019 image \u201cwhile deriding\u201d Wrigley View Rooftop. The company maintains it would be in the \u201cpublic interest\u201d for the record to be released.<\/p>\n

\n\tIn addition, Wrigley View Rooftop argues the Cubs have violated the terms of a confidentiality order issued by Coleman, who set parameters for the two sides to discuss which materials ought to be designated as confidential and sealed. Wrigley View Rooftop maintains that the Cubs haven\u2019t explained the rationale for opposing the removal of confidentiality designations.<\/p>\n

\n\tWrigley View Rooftop also objects to the sealing of information regarding the Cubs\u2019 installation of signage and screens that partially block rooftops\u2019 views into Wrigley Field. These screens and signs \u201care within the plain view of the public\u201d and ought not to be considered trade secrets, Wrigley View Rooftop charges.<\/p>\n

\n\tThe company also contends that if it is \u201cparasitic,\u201d as the Cubs charge, the Cubs could have stopped any misappropriation \u201csimply by installing opaque screens that fully blocked the view into Wrigley Field.\u201d<\/p>\n

\t\tUnpacking the Cubs\u2019 counterarguments\t<\/p>\n

\n\tThe Cubs offer a starkly different perspective on this topic.<\/p>\n

\n\tThrough a brief authored by Martin Roth and other attorneys from Kirkland & Ellis, the Cubs argue that it is unconvincing for Wrigley View Rooftop to ask Coleman to unseal documents both parties agreed to keep sealed\u2014including documents Wrigley View Rooftop wants sealed\u2014on the basis that the sealing \u201chas somehow rendered [Wrigley View Rooftop] unable to speak to the press.\u201d<\/p>\n

\n\tThe Cubs, which say they\u2019re open to unsealing some documents with appropriate redactions, object to unsealing the entire record, particularly given that both sides have \u201clegitimate business needs for confidentiality\u201d that include \u201cprivacy required to protect the Cubs\u2019 trade secrets or their customers\u2019 personally identifying information.\u201d<\/p>\n

\n\tThe Cubs also argue there\u2019s no case precedent for the proposition that \u201can inability to effectively persuade the media of a party\u2019s position requires widespread unsealing of an entire Court record.\u201d<\/p>\n

\n\tFurther, the Cubs insist the media coverage hasn\u2019t favored the team.<\/p>\n

\n\tTo that end, the Cubs note that last week ESPN published a feature based on its interview with Wrigley View Rooftop owner Aidan Dunican, with the headline<\/a> \u201cInside a Wrigleyville Rooftop Owner\u2019s Fight with the Cubs.\u201d<\/p>\n

\n\tThe ESPN story, the Cubs highlight, contains \u201cprofessionally curated photographs of Dunican on his rooftop, interviews with his friends, supporters, and neighbors, and commentary from an attorney who formerly represented the rooftops in previous iterations of this dispute.\u201d<\/p>\n

\n\tThe Cubs also point out that four of the story\u2019s first five paragraphs mention the screen the Cubs installed, \u201cthe only specific issue [Wrigley View Rooftop] claims\u201d it has been \u201cunable to talk about,\u201d the Cubs charge.<\/p>\n

\n\tIn that same vein, the Cubs argue nothing has prevented Wrigley View Rooftop from discussing the case publicly, and the public hasn\u2019t \u201cfaced any barriers\u201d to discussing it, either.<\/p>\n

\n\tThe Cubs point out that unsealing the case record would expose customers\u2019 names, contact information and personal credit card numbers.<\/p>\n

\n\tFurther, the Cubs argue that unsealing would reveal \u201chighly sensitive information, such as specific pricing, costs, margins, growth strategy, and financial projections for multiple products (such as game tickets, concessions, apparel, and more),\u201d as well as other materials that are \u201croutinely sealed.\u201d<\/p>\n

\n\tThe Cubs point out that it\u2019s not just the team that has an interest in protecting this information from public review\u2014it\u2019s also other MLB teams. Unsealing, the Cubs say, \u201cwould harm the Cubs and potentially other Major League Baseball stakeholders if this information were publicly disclosed.\u201d<\/p>\n

\n\tTo support this point, the Cubs note that Coleman \u201cmade no findings\u201d as to precise dollar figures for Cubs expenses and thus didn\u2019t publicly disclose finances. Instead, Coleman offered more generic projections as they were sufficient for purposes of reaching legal conclusions.<\/p>\n

\n\t\u201cThat a baseball team would incur expenses related to ballpark operations, payroll, construction and equipment, and related topics is obvious and comports with the Court\u2019s comment that it also relied on \u2018common sense,\u201d the Cubs write.<\/p>\n

\n\tIn addition, the Cubs note that sharing \u201cdetailed financial information,\u201d including the Cubs\u2019 contracts with other rooftop businesses, runs counter to the fact that the Cubs, Wrigley View Rooftop and other rooftop businesses are all, to some degree, competitors.<\/p>\n

\n\tThe Cubs\u2019 contracts with other rooftop businesses could contain \u201chighly sensitive competitive information such as audit rights, margins, and payment terms,\u201d the disclosure of which, the Cubs insist, \u201ccould harm competition in a competitive market environment.\u201d<\/p>\n

\n\tIn the days ahead, Coleman will issue a ruling on whether to unseal all, some or none of the documents. It\u2019s fair to say that readership of whatever is unsealed would extend well beyond the Cubs and Wrigley View Rooftop.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"As Wrigley View Rooftop appeals a federal judge\u2019s decision granting summary judgment to its neighbor, the Chicago Cubs,…\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":833511,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[3],"tags":[5,16812,24,16521,4,11023,16522,738],"class_list":["post-833510","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-mlb","tag-baseball","tag-cba","tag-chicago-cubs","tag-ip-law","tag-mlb","tag-mlbpa","tag-trademarks","tag-wrigley-field"],"share_on_mastodon":{"url":"https:\/\/channels.im\/@mlb\/117471373141201976","error":""},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.rawchili.com\/mlb\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/833510","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.rawchili.com\/mlb\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.rawchili.com\/mlb\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.rawchili.com\/mlb\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.rawchili.com\/mlb\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=833510"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.rawchili.com\/mlb\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/833510\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.rawchili.com\/mlb\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/833511"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.rawchili.com\/mlb\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=833510"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.rawchili.com\/mlb\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=833510"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.rawchili.com\/mlb\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=833510"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}