By all accounts, Major League Baseball’s talks with its players union about a new contract are proceeding smoothly. But, sources say, the agreement could be costly to the long-struggling Oakland A’s.

The A’s are in danger of losing some or even all of their substantial annual check from baseball’s revenue-sharing system, which redistributes income from richer teams to poorer teams to maintain competitive balance. Oakland was grandfathered into the program because of its antiquated stadium, despite being in a larger market, and received upward of $34 million in revenue sharing last season.

A’s officials declined to comment, citing ongoing labor negotiations, but there are many in the union — as well as other team owners who shell out revenue-sharing checks each year — who believe the A’s aren’t doing an adequate job of spending that hefty sum on team improvement.

“That’s definitely been a topic,” said one source in the Players Association, who was granted anonymity because they were not authorized to speak on the record.

The negotiations come at a time when the A’s are under fire for consecutive last-place finishes, for parting with numerous fan-favorite players for cost reasons, and for their inability to identify a site for a new stadium.

Any loss in revenue-sharing proceeds could reduce Oakland’s already frugal spending — and also could trigger at least a partial ownership change.

The A’s Opening Day payroll this season was $87 million, 26th among baseball’s 30 teams. In recent years, Oakland has made a habit of trading away its highest-priced players as top young players begin to see significant salary increases in arbitration.

That has been on display this postseason, with former A’s prospects and players such as Addison Russell, Ben Zobrist, Coco Crisp, Dan Otero, Josh Reddick and Josh Donaldson playing for other teams.

“It’s very hard to look at the World Series and the names on the back of the jerseys,” said Andy Dolich, the former A’s vice president and former Golden State Warriors and San Francisco 49ers chief operating officer.

“It’s literally A through Z. You look at someone like (A’s outfielder) Khris Davis hitting 42 home runs and you wonder, ‘How long are we going to see him?’”

Teams have previously received slaps on the wrist for low player payrolls. In 2010, the Florida Marlins, facing the threat of a formal grievance from the players’ union, announced an agreement with the league and union to spend its revenue-sharing checks on player salaries and development. As part of the deal, both organizations were allowed to monitor the team’s finances for three years.

Back to Gallery Baseball’s labor negotiations could be costly to A’s 5 1 of 5 Photo: David J. Phillip, Associated Press 2 of 5 Photo: Matt York, Associated Press 3 of 5 Photo: Rob Tringali, MLB Photos via Getty Images 4 of 5 Photo: Nathan Denette, Associated Press 5 of 5 Photo: Jamie Squire, Getty Images









At the very least, even if the Marlins and A’s do not see an outright reduction or elimination of their revenue-sharing in this new agreement, “the A’s and Marlins are on notice,” a union official said.

“I would think the A’s are a prime candidate to receive less money,” said labor law expert William Gould, a Stanford professor and former chairman of the National Labor Relations Board. “There are a confluence of factors that would make them a prime target for direct or indirect reduction in revenue sharing.”

A’s officials, including co-owner Lew Wolff, team president Mike Crowley and general manager David Forst, declined to comment for this story, but one team source noted that even if the franchise isn’t signing big-name free-agents, the payroll always is significantly higher than its revenue-sharing income — plus, Oakland had a three-year playoff run that ended just two years ago.

The current collective bargaining agreement, which ends Dec. 1, stipulates that revenue-sharing checks must go toward improving on-field performance and requires teams to detail the ways in which those monies were spent. In addition to big-league payroll, other expenditures that qualify include adding scouts or front-office staff, improving technology systems, and signing international players.

“There is leeway to justify other expenditures,” a union official said. “But if a team shows no progress year after year and most of the revenue-sharing spending is on non-major-league salaries, red flags go up. There are clubs that other clubs look at and say, ‘What are they doing? Is this really the best use of our money?’”

There are no indications that MLB or the union have found the A’s annual reports lacking. They continue to receive heftier revenue-sharing checks each year.

“The main question is: Is there a framework in place to get better?” said Dolich, who now runs a sports consultancy firm.

“Fans will complain, ‘You didn’t give players long-term contracts,’ or ‘You don’t sign free agents,’ but they don’t see it if it’s international signings — anything short of a championship, and good luck convincing anyone. But you have to look at the DNA of what’s going on.”

Given that revenue-sharing is adjusted each season based on teams’ financial status and demonstrated ability to spend responsibly, why would the A’s be an issue now?

Unlike the Marlins, Oakland never has had seasons in which its payroll was barely higher than its revenue check. Plus: Miami has a new stadium, while the A’s play in a 50-year-old shared facility, a disadvantage so obvious that it enables Oakland to continue receiving disbursements. All other teams in the sport’s top 15 markets are disqualified from payouts.

Under the current deal, that largesse was set to end when Oakland got a new stadium. And therein lies the primary point of contention: There are many players, union officials and team owners who don’t believe that the A’s are pushing hard enough for a new home, happily pocketing revenue-sharing booty instead of hastening its disappearance.

“The view would be: They’re not really a small-market team, and they really have no place to go other than Oakland,” Gould said. “Revenue-sharing could be a club to say, ‘Start working on a stadium or you’re off the welfare.’”

If the team no longer is as profitable, there is an increased chance that it would be sold, according to multiple sources, or that a minority owner might cash out.

Ironically, one of the clubs thought to most dislike the A’s annual revenue-sharing check is the San Francisco Giants, who invoked their territorial rights to refuse to allow their cross-bay rival to build a privately funded stadium in San Jose.

“There is one team in particular that would like to keep us weak in this market,” one A’s official said. “But I don’t get why the union or anyone else would want to do that.”

The perception that the A’s are dragging their feet on finding a new facility, team sources said, is one reason majority owner John Fisher has taken on a more visible role in the stadium search.

From a practical standpoint, though, some A’s officials believe it’s necessary to wait on a potential move by the NFL’s Raiders, with whom the A’s currently share the city- and county-owned Coliseum. The site, with its existing public transportation and parking infrastructure, has several advantages over potential alternatives like Howard Terminal, near Jack London Square, which Oakland mayor Libby Schaaf is pushing for.

Those officials argue that the A’s aren’t sitting on their hands and raking in revenue sharing, but prudently ensuring a lower-cost stadium in an ideal spot.

“If you don’t have to do it, you’re not going to,” Dolich said. “The A’s have a brilliant business plan, and I’m not saying that cynically. The value of the franchise is $800 million, the profits are significant and they don’t have to be a (revenue-sharing) payer.

“Yes, it is a very complicated market, and so is the stadium situation, which we’ve been hearing for a long time, but in that same time, the 49ers and the Sacramento Kings have gotten new buildings. So get on with it and do it.”

Susan Slusser is a San Francisco Chronicle staff writer. Email: sslusser@sfchronicle.com

Twitter: @susanslusser

Baseball’s labor contract talks

There are other issues up for discussion in the new contract that could impact the A’s and fellow West Coast teams, which incur disproportionately difficult travel schedules. Among the possibilities:

A reduced schedule, including returning to a 154-game regular season.

More days off during the season.

Adding a 26th player per team rosters, which would help cut down on fatigue, particularly on pitching staffs.