It’s Bobby Bonilla Day. Again. And Again. And Again.

 

Every July 1, we gather to celebrate a modern fable. A baseball player hasn’t swung a bat in over two decades, yet his bank account gets a seven-figure boost—like clockwork.

That man is Bobby Bonilla. That day is today. And the story never gets old.

The Deal That Keeps on Paying

In 2000, the Mets decided to cut ties with Bonilla, still owing him $5.9 million. Rather than pay the lump sum, the team agreed to defer payment until 2011—with 8% annual interest—then send him $1,193,248.20 every July 1 for 25 years.

That’s right. From 2011 through 2035, Bonilla will collect nearly $30 million. For not playing.

Why would the Mets agree to this? Because they thought they were making fat returns investing with Bernie Madoff.

Yes, that Bernie Madoff.

Deferred Compensation: The Real MVP

Bonilla isn’t alone in getting mailbox money.

• Ken Griffey Jr. made $3.59M from the Reds this year.
• Max Scherzer gets paid by the Nationals through 2028.
• Chris Davis will haunt the Orioles’ payroll through 2037.

But Bonilla reigns supreme. Not just because of the deal’s absurd longevity, but because it’s now a holiday.

Bobby Bonilla Day: Baseball’s Unofficial Financial New Year

It started as a punchline. Now it’s a tradition. Mets fans toast with sarcasm. Twitter lights up with memes. Even Mets owner Steve Cohen has embraced it, once tweeting he might hand Bonilla a giant novelty check at Citi Field.

We may never agree on what constitutes a good contract. But we can all agree: Bobby Bonilla won July 1st. Forever.

And the Mets?

Still paying.
Still Metsing.

See you next year.

---

📎 Sidebar: A Quick Correction on the Trump v. CASA Decision

In yesterday’s blog post, I suggested that the Supreme Court’s decision in Trump v. CASA may undercut the nationwide injunction that blocked the FTC’s noncompete rule.

That’s still true when it comes to universal injunctions. But I missed an important footnote.

In Footnote 10, the Court clarified that it did not decide whether the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) allows courts to vacate agency action nationwide under 5 U.S.C. §706(2). That’s the exact authority the Texas court relied on in Ryan LLC v. FTC when it set aside the FTC’s rule.

So while CASA narrows the scope of injunctive relief, it doesn’t settle whether APA vacatur can still apply broadly.

Credit to Footnote 10—and to the readers who flagged it.