MLB commissioner Rob Manfred recently conducted an interview with Michael S. Schmidt of the New York Times where he discussed a variety of topics that have made headlines around the league of late, including the league’s plans for the future of MLB broadcasting, the future of the automated ball-strike system that was tested during Spring Training this year, and the ongoing conversation around the league regarding the rise in pitcher injuries over the past few years.
Regarding the broadcasting situation, Manfred once again acknowledged that any overarching changes to the status quo for broadcasting around the league will likely need to wait until after the 2028 season, when MLB’s national TV deals with FOX and TBS expire. The same was true of ESPN, though both the network and MLB decided to opt out of the final three years of that agreement earlier this year, leaving ESPN to stop broadcasting MLB games following the 2025 campaign. It has long seemed likely that the commissioner’s office has its sights set on a more all-encompassing streaming package that MLB.tv currently offers, and Manfred reiterated his desire to “get out of the business of blackouts” going forward.
None of that is exactly new information, but one thing Manfred did note is that fans in Japan may see a change in how they access MLB games when the league’s broadcasting deals expire after 2028. Manfred suggested to Schmidt that while the league has previously sold its broadcasting rights in Japan to Japanese broadcasting companies, that may no longer be the case in 2029 and beyond. Instead, Manfred suggested that the league’s international broadcasting rights, including those for Japan, could be sold to an international streaming company.
“I think [Japan] is vitally important from a business perspective,” Manfred told Schmidt. “When you can say to a streaming company, “I have the ability to deliver an audience of 25 million people in Japan for a game,” they’re interested.”
That would be a major change in the status quo for fans in Japan but could also result in a substantial windfall for the league, allowing them to leverage the league’s rapidly growing fanbase in Japan financially in a more impactful way. Manfred said as much during the interview, suggesting to Schmidt that the value of those broadcasting rights in the streaming market is “way more significant” than the value the league would be able to extract by continuing to sell to traditional broadcasters in Japan.
It’s against that backdrop of upcoming potential streaming deals, both domestic and international, that the next round of collective bargaining between the league and the MLB Players Association will occur. The current collective bargaining agreement is set to expire in December of 2026, and while that’s still more than 18 months away the possibility of another lockout after one disrupted the 2021-22 offseason during the most recent CBA negotiations has been widely discussed. Just last month, MLBPA chief Tony Clark indicated that the players’ association expects a lockout following the 2025 season, and recent discontent among fans regarding the disparity in spending between the league’s top teams and those at the bottom has teed up a potential fight over the club’s economic system.
The league has frequently pushed for a salary cap over the years, even as the MLBPA has always considered the idea a complete non-starter. While Manfred did not discuss the idea of a cap directly in his interview with Schmidt, he did make clear that he is “cognizant” of and “sympathetic” to fan frustrations regarding the disparity in spending among MLB clubs. He went on to note that teams that are outspent by the top teams can overcome that disparity, as seen in the past successes of smaller-market clubs like the Brewers and Guardians, though he suggested that the perception of inevitability surrounding top spenders like the Dodgers and Mets can impact ticket sales for smaller clubs.
“The outcome result is not perfectly correlated with the spending,” Manfred told Schmidt, “But the fact of the matter is the inability or the constant failure to spend affects the business in a way that’s bad for it.”
Manfred went on to agree “one hundred percent” with Schmidt when asked if the disparity in spending “is a massive problem” that the league needs to address. MLBTR readership clearly agrees, as a poll from MLBTR’s Tim Dierkes back in January found that two-thirds of respondents want a salary cap to be instituted in the next round of CBA negotiations, while just over half of respondents went as far as to suggest they would be willing to lose the entirety of the 2027 campaign if it meant that a salary cap would be put into place.
It should be noted that while a salary cap is the most often discussed way to reduce payroll disparity, it’s far from the only method. Many smaller market clubs do not spend in a way that’s commensurate with the revenue sharing dollars they receive. The MLBPA has filed grievances against the Pirates, Rays, Athletics, and Marlins in the past over just that issue, and the A’s needed to spend aggressively this winter in order to get in line and avoid an additional grievance. The Marlins, meanwhile, are risking a grievances by going into the 2025 season with a projected payroll of just under $70MM according to RosterResource, and that’s a figure that could drop further if a pricey veteran like Sandy Alcantara gets dealt at some point this season.
The possibility of a salary cap won’t be the only thing discussed during this next round of CBA negotiations, however, and Manfred’s comments to Schmidt could give the public a window into some other issues that could be discussed. Expansion has been covered in past agreements and remains something Manfred has an eye toward, as the commissioner told Schmidt that he hopes to have the cities selected by the time his final term as commissioner ends in 2029. Aside from that, a major topic of discussion in recent years has been how to mitigate pitcher injuries. As Manfred noted to Schmidt, the incentives for both players and teams as things stand are for both to pursue velocity and spin rate over effectiveness.
That analytics have shown premium stuff to be extremely valuable cannot be debated, and it’s true that teams have increasingly rewarded players with big strikeout numbers, high velocity, and impressive spin rates that all could correlate with an increased risk of injury. A notable point Manfred made in his interview with Schmidt, however, was that the guaranteed contracts offered in baseball skew player incentives away towards maximizing effectiveness rather than staying healthy.
“From a competitive perspective, it’s absolutely clear to young people that we pay for velocity and spin rate,” Manfred told Schmidt. “…So you get injured and they fix you up and you go right back and you do it again. Under our system, because it’s basically all guaranteed money, you get paid. So the incentives there that apply on the athlete are really misdirected. They actually encourage behavior that increases injuries.”
While Manfred did not outright suggest that the guaranteed nature of free agent contracts in MLB could be up for debate during this next round of CBA negotiations, that the commissioner brought it up when discussing the need to “alter incentives” for players and clubs in order to keep pitchers healthy is very notable. Some sports leagues such as the NFL allow contracts that aren’t fully guaranteed, meaning the club may not necessarily have to pay the player in event of injury, but that’s not the case in MLB and would of course need to be collectively bargained with the MLBPA. Much like a salary cap, that seems very likely to be a nonstarter with the union.
One other notable item that Manfred suggested more directly could be part of the next round of CBA negotiations is the automated ball-strike system. ABS was introduced to big league Spring Training games this year as a challenge system, which was mostly viewed as a success around the league. That’s led to plenty of interest in ABS being adopted in regular season games, and Manfred suggested to Schmidt that its arrival could come as soon as 2026. With that being said, Manfred noted he was “uncertain” of that because the union would have to approve it for the 2026 season and suggested that “it would not be shocking” if the union pushed for the specifics of ABS to be resolved during the next round of CBA negotiations after the 2026 season.
On the topic of ABS, Manfred noted that the Umpires’ union (with which the possible implementation of ABS has already been collectively bargained) actually preferred fully automated ball-strike calls as opposed the challenge system used in Spring Training. Manfred noted that players have expressed a preference for the challenge system, in part to protect players who have made a career out of elite pitch-framing abilities from having their skills devalued. It seems as though the league is satisfied with the compromise of a challenge system given that it’s what was used in Spring Training this year, but if either the players decide they’re against the challenge system or the league decides to push for full ABS that could theoretically become an issue discussed in the upcoming round of CBA negotiations even if the challenge system were to get implemented for the 2026 campaign.
So not much going on for the next year or so but lots of complaints
More posturing than complaining I think.
harry – The implementation of ABS would be huge, even if it’s just on a challenge basis. I loved it in ST.
Also just a PSA for those with T-Mobile …..
Recently all T-Mobile app users were offered a survey on MLB.TV because they are considering doing away with their free MLB.TV subscription perk.
I strongly recommend everyone take the survey and let T-Mobile know how important the free MLB.TV perk is to you!! It’s a fantastic $150 savings, those of us who actually enjoy watching/listening to the games need to send T-Mobile the message that we don’t want it taken away from us.
I love my mlb.tv but T-Mobile can jump off of a bridge. Their customer service is a distant backseat to the bottom line. If you don’t believe me, take a found T-Mobile phone to their store to get it back in the hands of the rightful owner.
ab – Thankfully I haven’t had a reason to interact with T-Mobile customer service, so I can’t speak for that.
Xfinity on the other hand …. worst customer service ever.
Interesting trying to link Pitcher Arm health with Guaranteed Contracts. Good grief.
Next it’ll be Hamstring injuries are linked to higher pay too. Then headaches…blisters…stubbed toes…
If you don’t pay the players at all, there will be no more injuries! (or players)
I like how manfred blamed the players for throwing hard and not the teams for using training techniques that many have pointed out as increasing velo and injuries(weighted balls). Teams will literally pull a player if his velo drops too much but it must be the guaranteed money.
He seems to be blaming the athletes for learning the skills the teams pay them to have. This is very strange.
I don’t blame either side more than others. Bluesky and you always seem to find peoples posts on here instead of seeing things as they actually are. You always make the case that manfred works for the owners and commissioners always will while ignoring Giamatti and Vincent who strived to improve baseball but you’re a simp. I’m only expressing the truth. Everyone benefits from these players throwing harder.
Sweet. I can only respond to what someone writes. In your case, insults instead of arguments.
All of the commissioners have worked for the owners, exclusively. The two you cited simply prove the rule. Giamatti died a few months into his term. Vincent was fired because he ticked off his employers, the owners.
This is an expression of the truth.
O’s – He’s not wrong about the guaranteed contracts.
Today’s pitchers are engaging in activities that greatly increase the risk of serious injury, because they know once they land a multi-year guaranteed contract they can always have the surgery and spend a year rehabbing ….all with pay.
It’s true if pitchers weren’t paid for time missed because of injury, they’d cut back on the constant max velo and max spin rate.
FPG — He is wrong. Contracts don’t cause Tommy John.
It’s beyond speculation for him to suggest it. There is no medical certainty on the cause of TJ…there is plenty of indirect evidence.
TJ happened before spin rates were tracked.
Tommy John himself played before there was free agency/guaranteed deals, right?!
Causation vs. Correlation:: (Murder rates increase in Summer. Ice Cream sales increase in Summer. Ice Cream causes murder.)
Don’t believe the Salesman…he has a distinct agenda. 🙂
O’s – Yes TJS has been around a while, but so has guaranteed contracts.
At the very least guaranteed contracts are a contributing factor, for the reasons I’ve explained.
It seems like your enjoying your bliss. UCL’s don’t just tear for no reason. It requires a force to tear it. The wear of repetitive stress and valgus forces from overhead throwing are directly tied to the tearing.
So Manfred isn’t wrong but he does have an agenda. Truth and not just lies can be used nefariously.
Cleveland — If Manfred is right, then my big toe causes Rain Storms.
Tommy John surgery existed before the first CBA.
Therefore, Tommy John surgery created the CBA. (This is Manfred logic…don’t blame me).
I await your research in the New England Medical Journal about the cause of Tommy John surgery being based on workers pay.
At what salary level will pitchers not hurt themselves? 10.00$ an hour?
Cleveland – Of course MLB has an agenda, just like the union, just like player agents, etc.
Anything that impacts future negotiations can be used for leverage ….. and often is.
Manfred’s point was there was a behavior shift and the moral hazard was caused by the guaranteed contracts. Obviously, Manfred is pinning this perspective together for leverage. It is true both sides are complicit with how it happened; however, the owners are not interested in this anymore as it has caused the prices for starters to significantly jump. This elevation of salaries for starters is something continuing to drive the players to take the risks and why Manfred says this. He can gain leverage in negotiations by framing the players are not changing. The threat of removing guaranteed contracts might effectively address the players behaviors. Although this might work, this is still a labor negotiations and it likely won’t resolved itself and will be used to get a compromise on other issues against the union.
Cleveland – Great post! I don’t think there’s a chance of total removal of guaranteed contracts, nor should there be.
What they need is more scrutiny when signing pitchers, MRI’s should be standard (I know they are expensive but teams can afford them) and MLB needs to follow through on minimum innings pitched per game for starting pitchers. Less chance of overthrowing if they are required to go 6 innings.
Honestly I do believe this is just a CBA negotiating ploy. “Okay we will drop our demand to end guaranteed contracts if you accept a hard salary cap and floor”.
Fever Pitch Guy — A hard Salray cap and floor would be a disaster. It just steals money from the players.
The reality is the pitchers need to realize their behavior has given leverage to the owners. Manfred’s right about the moral hazard has crossed the line. I don’t know if the pitchers are even aware what they’ve done to themselves or if they can reverse course, but without it they’ll all suffer the costs with a salary cap.
I’m sorry, this is silly. No “moral hazard” is created by guaranteed contracts. The teams are not forced to enter into any contract; they do it entirely by choice. They are not forced to train their players to take risks; they are doing it entirely by choice. And so on. Don’t be a mouthpiece for Manfred’s claptrap. As with everything else he says, it’s about maximizing team ownership profits, and nothing else.
You clearly didn’t comprehend what I wrote. I don’t take Manfred’s point as my own. I merely acknowledged that there is a moral hazard. I don’t think the cause is the guaranteed contracts because I understand that moral hazards come from people.
It takes two to tango, and now that the owners don’t want to tango because the costs of starting pitching is soaring.
I think recognizing this is important to understand the situation.
I completely comprehended what you said. I simply found it to be silly. Salary increases are not driving risk. In fact, any logical deduction taken from the larger investment teams are making in players would argue for them being more protective of their investments, not less. In fact, we often hear fans gripe about how starters hardly ever go more than six innings anymore because, you know, they’re lazy.
If any one factor drives risk, it is analytics. This is the source of the attraction to mechanically risky pitching styles, including producing spin rate and velocity. The teams know how to value it, and then they pay for it.
Manfred is flipping the concept of moral hazard completely on its head.
I’m glad he says he’s going to stop blackouts. It’s harder to watch a game every year. My friends and I are constantly switching between streaming services trying to find legal options before giving up and using mlbbites type stuff.
I know the league wants robo umps over the challenge system, surprised that the umps do too. The challenge system is just much better to watch, I’ve seen a few opinions from people who’ve seen both in action and most prefer the challenge. The minor league games with robo umps I’ve seen have been bad. Is the league still testing robo umps in the minors this year?
He will not be commissioner IF blackouts end. He’s not that concerned about them. Baseball franchises have never been worth more than now. Obviously black outs have not hurt the value. It only hurts full time baseball fans.
Ending blackouts grows the game. Baseball is killing its audience and driving people to find ways to watch games where they don’t pay them. It’s not just current fans, it discourages new fans from watching
BOOOOOO
How f’ing stupid do you have to be as a “fan” to even say that you are willing to lose baseball for a full season in order to make the owners more money? What the bleep is wrong with you?
Same people that voted because the price of eggs was too high…
Jerry Reinsdorf is laughing maniacally at the thought of holding out and losing a season. History doesn’t repeat but it sure rhymes…
Once you realize that the purpose of everything Manfred proposes is to maximize ownership profits, all becomes clear. Unfortunately it seems that the majority of fans don’t get it.
No they understand BS. Many of us don’t agree with it. You spend a lot of words defending someone who has hurt the game to follow the owners orders. Selig did the same with steroids though and you don’t understand the nuance in these situations. Not surprised based on how clueless most of your posts are
I think it’s because people equate higher player salaries with higher costs in ticket prices. There might be some truth to that, but I don’t think it’s the entire truth.
Wonder if those same ppl think that a salary cap means ticket prices will come down vs putting more money in owners pockets?
Depends if it comes with a floor too, and where the numbers land. I think a lot of the “salary cap won’t do anything” and “losing a season will just benefit the owners” crowd are just Dodgers and Mets and Yankee fans who don’t want to lose their guaranteed-new-toys-and-playoffs-every-year deal they have now.
Seam, ticket prices will not be affected by a floor.
Until the owners get 100% transparent about opening their books to the union there is no way to set a floor. Using Manfred’s unverifiable but almost certainly lower than actual revenue number for the sport the average team revenue was $410+ million. There is no way to even know the revenue the individual teams receive without all TV deals, national and local, being handled by MLB and split evenly by teams. 100% revenue sharing. Do you think the Dodgers and Yankees are going to agree to that?
With a few teams getting $20-40 million and the Dodgers and Yankees getting over $300 million from local TV contracts there is a wee bit of a disparity. One that cannot be closed without those teams opening their books and agreeing to 100% revenue sharing.
Do I seem like a Dodger’s fan? As usual, tenor.com/view/missed-point-point-over-your-head-o…
kell – From my experiences here, the vast majority of commenters don’t attend games therefore they couldn’t care less about ticket prices. There’s also a huge number that don’t watch or listen to games.
Regarding ticket prices, that’s driven more by income in each team’s surrounding area. For instance ticket prices in Arlington are absurdly high, but it’s a booming economy there so the fans and corporations can afford it.
FPG, the highest average ticket prices were in LA, Houston, and Boston. The Rangers average ticket price was more than $80 less than LA and $40 less than Boston.
Pads – Again you’re not grasping the big picture, and your source is probably severely flawed.
It’s not the 1980’s anymore, we now have something called “dynamic pricing” which heavily influences ticket prices in high income cities.
Not sure which LA team you mean, but LA is a high income city as is Boston and Houston. The Rangers sucked last year so of course it drove down ticket prices.
I was just there in Arlington for 3 games, every lower level seat from foul pole to foul pole was over $100 and most of the lower level was $200-$750 which is comparable to Yankee Stadium.
Is this the article you’re referencing? Where it has the Athletics with the highest median ticket prices at $181? If you believe that then you believe anything.
ktla.com/news/major-league-baseball-ticket-prices-…
Well, it completely defies economic logic. Tickets are priced only on the basis of what people will pay for them. Ownership knows if they can field the same players for less money that they can charge the same prices for tickets and retain more profit. This is the one and only reason they push for a salary cap. It’s time to give up on the delusion that it’s for our good. A floor won’t help. It will drive more teams to spend only the minimum and pocket the revenue sharing.
MLB could make the leagues more competitive. They have lots of tools for doing so. Once again, fans should drop the delusion that ownership is interested in increasing competition. They are only interested in guaranteeing profitability for all 30 owners, which the current system does.
The National Hockey League locked out its players’ union for an entire season, 2005-06. Hasn’t hurt the NHL in its main territory of Canada.
The NHL was forced to open their books 100% and guarantee the players 57% of revenue. The league lost $2.2 billion by not playing that season. NHL TV ratings were down 37% the next season. It took more than a decade for the ratings and revenue to return to pre-lockout. The owners of the NHL lost big time by doing that. Let that be a cautionary tale for the MLB team owners.
Pads – Not sure why you believe a salary cap would make the owners more money, but I do agree losing an entire season to implement a salary cap (and hopefully a hard salary floor) is absurd.
Not sure why you don’t understand that FPG.
Pay players less money by placing a hard cap on how much they can make.
The owners make the same or more money. (MLB revenue has risen in every season this century other than 2020)
That equals more money in the owners pockets.
This is not rocket science. Except to you?
Pads – It’s so cute when you try to think, you’re like the little engine that could …. but have yet to ;O)
There are 30 MLB teams.
Guess how many are on pace to exceed the top CBT threshold this year? Only 4.
In fact, only 4 teams have a tax payroll higher than $268M.
So a hard salary cap would have impacted only 13.3% of MLB teams (that’s 4 teams divided by the 30 MLB teams in total).
Now think for a minute, why do teams like the Dodgers spend so much money on players?
Answer: Because it increases revenue even more than the additional amount spent on player salaries!!
So now tell us again, how did you come up with the ridiculous idea that the Dodgers would generate the same amount of revenue without stars like Ohtani or Mookie?
How did you come to the conclusion the Yankees would generate the same amount of revenue without stars like Judge?
What made you think the Mets would generate the same amount of revenue without stars like Soto?
Where did you hear the Phillies would generate the same amount of revenue without stars like Harper?
Not just regular season revenue, but also postseason revenue would go DOWN without those teams paying for those stars.
But you keep believing the big spending team owners would somehow “pocket more money” by not signing star players ….. that really did put a smile on my face :O)
You really are stupid FPG. Its truly sad that you think you should continue to comment.
I like what Manfred is doing. Going to all streaming would be great. I’m sure some games would be sold to different streaming services, but that’s not a big deal.
I’m not fan of the salary cap for baseball. The randomness of the playoffs is the ultimate equalizer. Cheap teams just need to spend more. Steve Cohen is not the problem.
If everyone had the Dodgers local TV deal, you wouldn’t have to worry about teams spending more.
Some large market fans need to educate themselves on reality.
Legit. What an out of touch statement by Astros_fan. “Cheap teams just need to spend more.” Good grief.
Salary gap would be foolish. However, I disagree that cheaper teams need to spend more. Excluding some exceptions, most small market teams already are extended.
Although I think what would be better is to add more teams to larger markets to combat the size of those franchises, there is no way those teams would ever allow their markets to shrink. Hence this problem will remain. And would be best served by allowing those teams to be saddled with huge contracts by removing any caps, soft or hard, and drown them in terribly bloated contracts.
Or make it so the lower end prospects or draft picks those teams have to sign are taxed, so they don’t get savings of cheap players, and it could be an administrative so if those players were traded the cost isn’t different for the smaller market team.
Salary floor. Not salary cap. What a lot of these “small market” teams’ owners get away with is murder. Every single owner is rich enough to afford a $200M+ payroll. Every single one. To me, the fact that almost half of all owners could care less about winning is by far the biggest issue MLB faces and of course, nothing will ever be done about it. The owners don’t have to answer to anyone the way that a CEO answers to a board of directors.
We hear this all the time from large market fans who don’t want their team to lose their huge advantage and could care less about the health of the sport.
If you don’t have both, it doesn’t work.
Do you think that a salary cap will entice marquee free agents to markets like Cincy, Pit, or Fla? With money no longer being the major incentive, what’s left? A history of sustainable winning culture which those teams don’t have. And I say that with all due respect because I’d love to see a little more parity within the league but we have a fair amount of that during the playoffs and World Series winners compared to the NFL. Plus, if you think those greedy owners are going to invest the money saved from a salary cap back into the fan experience and not into their own pockets, you’re delusional.
Do you realize WHY several teams don’t have a sustainable winning culture? Mainly because it is impossible for small markets to do that outside of short periods where they have some kids that happen to come together before they all leave for large markets and big money.
You can’t guarantee a competent front office as the NFL and NBA have proven. But they all have an equal playing field.
Two of those three teams you mentioned used to be known to have a winning culture. But that was the 70s and it was a more equitable game then.
Agreed. And rosters are only so big. There are only so many consistently “winning teams” for free agents to sign
Wave the money and we’ll see
But that’s a pipe dream
TB illustrates the only way for smaller market teams to compete. Get young players with talent, develop, bring them up and improve, compete, and trade or allow them to walk when their contracts become untenable, all while continuing the development
Milwaukee, Baltimore and Cleveland embraced the model. KC just recently
I think the problem with the Reds and certainly the Pirates has been scouting and development to have a well rounded roster but even more, the refusal to sign even mid tier free agents to shore up holes that the development didn’t go as planned
The aforementioned have, and in turn have enjoyed success. In the case of the Pirates, bringing in the cheapest vets has been the idea for years
Tampa Baltimore Cleveland and Milwaukee combine for ZERO World Series wins in my lifetime. A handful of appearances between them. I would not call this successful
They’re successful only if you account the handicap of having 1/3 the resources of the big teams. Which most have multiple World Series wins in my lifetime
Look, I have written off WS championships. If that’s your measuring stick in this debate, you’re insane.
I’m just happy with a competitive team
You Pooh-pooh MIL, CLE, TB but they’re competitive more every year
BAL and KC were in the playoffs last year
Here in Pittsburgh, I’d just like to see a competitive team that hustles for a change
Most small market fans aren’t under any delusions where championships are concerned
You just fell into the small market trap. There is no such thing. Owners use it as an excuse to be cheap. That’s all it is
But that’s the point. Fans of small market teams have to settle for small competitive windows. As a twins fan I’m tired of just hoping to be in the playoff hunt and the next crop of prospects are just enough to continue the cycle
Here in Pittsburgh, we have the worst owner in sports. He has the third most profitable franchise in MLB and he still pushes the small market shtick
Complete propaganda for a carpetbagger who enjoys loading up the Brinks trucks more than paying for middling talent, at the very least.
Every team can easily afford MLB player salaries of at least 50% of their total revenue, According to Manfred in 2021, no team has revenue under $250 million. I am sure that was low at the time and that bottom of the league figure has gone up even for teams like the Athletics and Rays,
The problem is not just the 2 or 3 low revenue teams that are not spending on MLB payroll, its the disparity in revenue between the Rays and Marlins and the Dodgers and Yankees. Being lucky enough to have a franchise in the 2 largest markets in the nation should not be the only factor that determines if you will make the playoffs. Remember, playoff appearances = more revenue. So teams that already have massive revenue and are only spending 30% of their revenue on player salaries today because of the CBT are the same ones that are almost guaranteed a playoff spot and the resulting increase in revenue because of being able to spend more money than other teams because of the market they happen to be in. They can’t make that money without the other teams in smaller markets, but they are not sharing it 100%.
Worst Commissioner of all time !
He has no concern for the players or the fans, just the owners. Tampa Bay and the Oakland fiascos happened on his watch.
Pst he works for the owners not the fans or players,
It wasn’t Manfred’s fault that the Tropicana Field roof was destroyed by a Category 4 hurricane.
Tampa Bay has been a fiasco for 6 years.
That is who he is employed by. So ……………
I agree he is one if not THAT worst.
Sounds like somebody has already forgotten Bud Selig.
Manfred is worse for the fans,
So just to get this straight… Manfred has said he see Dodgers spending a lot is a good thing but also recognizes that this causes a disparity that causes problems and his fix is a salary cap. With this ability to try to please anyone’s talking to how is he not in congress?
So true, the way he talks is sideways and slippery. The salary cap wouldn’t solve anything and would make players lose money. The best solution is to let these teams eat their own tails. The Salary Cap would make it so the richest teams don’t have to spend a higher proportion of their revenue and therefore increase their profits, and the cheaper teams would get more revenue sharing. The players would be the one’s taking a pay cut if they did the salary cap.
There are several examples of teams simply not spending anywhere near what their capacities are, there are teams who tank to collect draft picks and Revenue Sharing, and there are teams that do little beyond leeching from the taxpayers. Some manage all three. If the idea of a salary cap is to make every team competitive by forcing down salaries so every team can afford to buy any players it wants….it’s not going to work. The teams will still maintain their “spending DNAs”
Now, here’s an idea. If they put a cap on salaries, there should also be a cap on ticket prices and the cost to fans of streaming services needed to watch their team’s games. Remember when watching games on broadcast stations was free? The only interests not represented in negotiations are those of us fans.
Television has NEVER been “free”; it’s always been paid for with advertiser and/or viewer money.
The only people who can’t understand that are retro freaks stuck in a 1950s time warp.
Man, you’re nasty. Yes, it was paid for by advertisers, but it required no payment by the viewer to watch games. In NJ, the Mets were on WOR (channel 9) and the Yanks on WPIX (channel 11). National games were on ABC, NBC and CBS. All you had to do was turn on the TV. Like it or not, that’s the true baseline. Look at the starting point and the overall trajectory.
Commercials did pay for it…now we have to pay and still have advertising.
Those who worship the good old days are reactionaries.
I absolutely will no spend one cent to stream a game no matter how big a game it might be. I am a former full season ticket holder who gave up the expense a few years ago but still love the game, attend several games a year and watch every night. But this streaming thing is making me less interested in every spending another cent on a game ever again.
A salary cap is not the answer to reel in the Dodgers. A salary floor on the other hand might work better.
A meaningful salary cap is nearly impossible in baseball. The revenue disparity between the richest and poorest teams in baseball is significant. There is no way for the A’s, Rays, and Pirates and the rest of the lower revenue teams to come close to spending what the Mets, Yankees, or Dodgers spend. They can’t afford half their payrolls. I think the best we could hope for is turning the current CBT system into a hard cap. Will only restrict a handful of teams but would keep those teams in check and keep teams like the Mets and Dodgers from blowing past it like they do now. Mets are about $90M over the CBT Threshold and the Dodgers $162M for 2025 per Cots.
As far as pitching injuries, Manfred has it wrong. The reason why teams and players pursue velocity and spin is because it is what gets hitters out. That is “effectiveness.” There are some things that could be done to help pitchers but it would be nibbling around the edges. Raise the seams on the ball. Seams are much flatter on the ball today than in the past. That would help with movement without throwing as hard or gripping as hard. Second, bring back spider tack. These balls are slick so pitchers have to grip really hard and throw really hard to get spin, putting undue stress on the elbow. A tackier ball would help them create spin without having to squeeze the life out of the ball. Pitchers would still have to control their stuff and would have to learn just how much less grip and effort it would take to create the spin they want. Again nibbling around the edges but it might help a few people avoid some injuries.
I’d bet against Manfred taking any of those pitching suggestions seriously. Sure, they care about not wanting valuable young pitchers hurt but they care far more about higher scoring games and more home runs. They want that excitement from the fans. The art of pitcher’s duel is now meant to be a rare event.
So they’ll look more into incentivizing health or anything else rather than give any advantage back to pitchers.
You are mistaken about the pitching. Manfred is right about the moral hazard the pitchers are pursuing. Prior to this generation of pitchers, there was plenty of success by pitchers and less injuries. The pitchers don’t need things to make it easier to move the ball, a better solution is expanding the strike zone, and force the pitchers to deescalate the chasing velocity and spin rates, and promote endurance and durability while buttressing it with manager trust.
I don’t like Manfred as much as the next person. He says ridiculous things all the time and could screw making a bread sandwich. The only things I will give him partial credit is for: The Pitch Clock, Shift Restrictions, Expanded Playoffs and Universal DH. Otherwise is a a clown, a terrible public speaker and has no respect for the fans.
In the NHL, the lowest spending team is within $20 million of the highest spending team.
Parity CAN be enforced via salary caps.
But, MLB has no interest in actual parity, only the illusion of it.
Having the Dodgers and Yankees win is better for the bottom line than Pittsbugh or Tampa winning and they are content to have the imbalance.
MLB’s nightmare is the Yankees being as irrelevant as the Giants or Jets or Knicks or Rangers or Islanders.
NY can’t buy their way to success in sports with salary caps.
I have no idea what you are talking about. Yankees won many championships when being outspent by Yawkey’s Red Sox. BROOKLYN Dodgers won far more pennants than the Cubs under Wrigley who outspent them.
Wrong century, Bud.
You can always tell a Noo Yawk Sportsfan when he’s name-checking teams from 2, 3, 4 different sports.
And the first Yankee dynasty existed when baseball had the Reserve Clause, a straitjacket that thankfully has been rubbished.
No mention by him in broadcasting regarding fans still stuck with teams and rights in areas. I live 4 hours away from TMobile in Seattle. Can’t make many trips to see gane live. MLB is blacked out also since Root has rights for games. I’m not paying for fubo or a tv contract of over 100 dollars a month to get root. Root offered thier own streaming this year at 20 dollars a month. Mariners ownership blames Root for not being able to spend also, since they have lost other team money sources. Will watch my prime, paramount when games are on. Luckily radio still is free.
Go to a pitching machine. Have the “pitcher” alter the speed and location into the machine and then he drops the ball in and fields the position.
So, the reason against ABS is the “devaluation of pitch-framing skills” or to protect the jobs of those who might otherwise not be baseball players because they have no other skill than lying or influencing an umpire to make an otherwise ball a strike. Good call.
Japan-streaming pivot could quietly redefine sports media economics. This could make MLB the first major U.S. league to fully centralize international distribution via streaming, slashing delivery costs (no local middlemen) while tripling revenue—all without adding a single game.
“Meanwhile” has to start the sentence, not come in the middle between commas.
>just over half of respondents went as far as to suggest they would be willing to lose the entirety of the 2027 campaign if it meant that a salary cap would be put into place
Very stupid. The current tariff war should teach people that it is idiotic to “improve” your financial situation by destroying your financial system.