MLBTR Podcast: The CBA Standoff Begins
The latest episode of the MLB Trade Rumors Podcast is now live on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, and wherever you get your podcasts! Make sure you subscribe as well! You can also use the player at this link to listen, if you don’t use Spotify or Apple for podcasts.
This week, host Darragh McDonald is joined by Tim Dierkes of MLB Trade Rumors to discuss…
- The MLBPA’s opening CBA proposal (1:50)
- MLB’s proposal, which pushes for a hard cap/floor system (10:10)
- Is it surprising that the owners are aligned when they have different priorities? (20:35)
- Will competitive balance picks come up later in the negotiations? (28:55)
- Competitive balance proposals often come from limiting player agency (31:45)
- Many fans dislike Rob Manfred but are aligned with him on wanting a cap (36:35)
- How should the MLBPA think about the public relations battle? (40:00)
- Is the player-fan relationship different in the age of the internet? (47:10)
- Can any optimism be taken from the fact that both sides addressed the economic imbalances of the game? (51:00)
- We don’t know what Manfred thinks about his legacy (55:05)
- The looming expiration of many broadcast deals after 2028 (56:15)
- Is the character of the ownership group is different than previous eras? (1:04:55)
Check out our past episodes!
- Gage Jump, Tigers Trade Speculation, And The Twins’ Roster Shuffle – listen here
- Colt Emerson Debuts, Blue Jays’ Rotation Issues, And What To Make Of The Mets And Astros – listen here
- Patrick Bailey To Cleveland, The Struggling Astros, And Arizona’s Outfield Changes – listen here
The podcast intro and outro song “So Long” is provided courtesy of the band Showoff. Check out their Facebook page here!
Photo courtesy of Kirby Lee, Imagn Images
Rob Manfred Discusses Economic Proposals
Rob Manfred spoke with reporters after this week’s quarterly owners meetings. Jorge Castillo of ESPN, Ronald Blum of The Associated Press and Evan Drellich of The Athletic were among those who relayed the commissioner’s comments.
Manfred spoke publicly for the first time since the league and Players Association exchanged initial economic proposals last week. Those were worlds apart, with the most notable development being MLB’s first official proposal for a salary cap since the 1994-95 players strike. The league proposed a $245.3MM cap and $171.2MM floor. That would come with a 50-50 revenue split between players and ownership, which requires holding some of players’ salaries in escrow in case the league underperforms projections.
[Related Podcast: CBA Standoff Begins]
MLBPA executive director Bruce Meyer unsurprisingly blasted the proposal on Monday, reiterating the union’s opposition to a cap — which he called “a form of institutionalized collusion.” Manfred didn’t directly respond to Meyer’s comment but took his typical approach, framing it as a competitive balance issue.
“We have tried mightily over several rounds of bargaining to use a competitive balance (luxury) tax to address competitive concerns,” Manfred said. “And sometimes you’ve got to admit you failed.” Manfred didn’t expressly state that a cap was the only solution but implied that drastic changes were necessary.
“We made a proposal on one set of topics. At the outset of negotiations, I went and said myself, ‘We’re open to whatever ideas people have, but we need a realistic framework that addresses the fans’ concerns about competitive balance.’ You just can’t ignore that financial penalties have not gotten it done for us.” The luxury tax has been in place since 2003.
That’s a standard talking point for the league. The union’s initial proposal called for more revenue sharing and a “competitive integrity tax” penalizing teams that spend less than $150MM on payroll. The union favors maintaining the luxury tax setup and proposed raising the base threshold dramatically to $300MM.
Of course, both sides are going to push for competitive balance measures that are in their favor on revenue split. Fixing spending on players would also go towards owners’ goals of escalating franchise values. It’s debatable whether either really cares about competitive balance, though that’s obviously a primary concern for many fans — especially those of smaller-market clubs.
An offseason lockout seems inevitable once the current bargaining agreement expires on December 1. The 2021-22 lockout lasted 99 days and narrowly avoided the cancelation of games. “Of course I do,” Manfred replied when asked if he was worried about a more disastrous work stoppage like the ’94-95 strike. He declined to answer a question about whether the league’s desire for a cap would make an extended lockout worthwhile, saying he wouldn’t “speculate about work stoppages.”
There’s no incentive for Manfred to answer that question. The extent of both sides’ willingness to tolerate a lockout that’d cost them game revenue is a pivotal piece of information that neither will disclose publicly. It behooves both parties to stress their resolve more generally.
The commissioner also touched on a few non-CBA topics. He provided an update on the sale agreement that values the Padres just shy of $4 billion. That’s still pending approval from the other 29 owners. Manfred said that’s “not ready for a vote today” but is likely to come up at some point this summer. He also touched on expansion, noting that’s a topic which will be on the back burner until a new CBA is in place.
MLBPA’s Bruce Meyer Comments On League’s First Economic Proposal
Last week provided an early preview of the expected forthcoming offseason lockout. The MLB Players Association made its first collective bargaining proposal to the league on Wednesday. MLB countered with its initial proposal one day later, one that confirmed the longstanding expectation that the league is looking to incorporate a salary cap/floor system in the next CBA.
Readers can find the details of each side’s proposal at the above linked posts. Neither has a chance of being approved by the opposite party. They’re notable only insofar as they provide an insight into each side’s priorities as negotiations get underway. It behooves both to stake out maximalist stances this early in the process.
MLBPA executive director Bruce Meyer held a video chat with reporters (including Alden González of ESPN and Evan Drellich of The Athletic) on Monday afternoon. Unsurprisingly, Meyer was less than enthused with what the league put forward. “I thought they would try harder to make it look good, and they didn’t even do that.”
Meyer reiterated the union’s firm opposition to a salary cap, which he called “a form of institutionalized collusion.” MLB’s proposal included what the league deemed to be a 50-50 revenue split between players and ownership. That reportedly would’ve included a $245.3MM cap and $171.2MM floor. A portion of player salaries would be held in escrow in case the league underperformed revenue expectations to maintain the 50-50 balance. The NHL and NBA have used similar setups.
“Using MLB’s definition of revenue and player share as set forth in their proposal and their presentation to us, player share under their proposal would go down,” Meyer said. “Player share for this season, 2026, is projected to be well over 50%, using, again MLB’s definitions of revenues and what counts against player share.” He claimed that if the league’s proposal had been in place for the 2026 season, players would have made roughly $500MM less than they actually will.
League spokesman Glen Caplin responded to Meyer’s comments via a prepared statement. “Our salary cap-and-floor proposal addresses our fans’ concerns by leveling the playing field while sharing baseball revenue with the players 50-50 like the other leagues. Under our proposal, major league players will receive more compensation in year one of the system than in 2026,” Caplin said. That’d ostensibly be due to the need for various teams to raise payroll to meet the salary floor.
The union would presumably dispute that assertion. It also seems notable that Caplin’s statement specified “major league players” while Meyer focused on “player share” more broadly. Meyer said the union anticipates the league will propose cuts to spending on amateur signing bonuses, though he added that MLB has not yet done so. “They projected MLB players’ payroll in ’27, ’28, would be flat,” he noted. “The only way to get to even those numbers would be to drastically reduce or eliminate amateur entry compensation, both domestic and international.”
MLB has traditionally looked to curtail spending on amateur players in previous bargaining agreements. The Players Association doesn’t formally represent them until they enter professional ball. The PA does take amateur players into account, as a player’s initial signing bonus can impact their later professional earnings. A player who signs for a modest bonus as an amateur may be more inclined to lock in earnings on an early-career contract extension, for example. That can have a trickle-down effect on free agency.
There’s nevertheless a tension for the Players Association between balancing the interests of amateur and minor league players — the latter of whom are now under the MLBPA umbrella after unionizing in 2022 — against those of major leaguers. The MLBPA had traditionally been willing to make concessions on tightening amateur spending (e.g. accepting hard caps on international bonus pools in 2016) for more immediate benefits for big leaguers. They started to move away from that under the ’22 agreement — most notably in rejecting the league’s offer to agree to an international amateur draft in exchange for the elimination of the qualifying offer, which adds penalties for teams that sign certain free agents.
Interested readers can find more of Meyer’s comments in the linked pieces from ESPN and The Athletic. Jeff Passan of ESPN notes that commissioner Rob Manfred is likely to meet with the media on Wednesday at the end of the quarterly owners meetings. It stands to reason Manfred will restate some of the league’s talking points and provide a response to Meyer’s media session.
It’s worth reiterating that public combativeness on both sides was always to be expected. The 2021-22 lockout featured months of this kind of squabbling. This set of negotiations is likely to be even more contentious. MLB is making its first formal cap push since the 1994-95 players strike; the players’ initial proposal called for a much higher luxury tax threshold and far more revenue sharing that’ll be opposed by bigger-market clubs.
Caplin’s statement added that the league is “ready to listen if the MLBPA wants to counter our proposal at the bargaining table.” Meyer said no talks have currently been scheduled but would be soon, even if to negotiate on areas aside from core economics.
MLB Submits Initial Counterproposal To MLBPA
One day after the Major League Baseball Players Association released the details of its initial proposal on a new collective bargaining agreement to the public, the league submitted a counteroffer to the union, as expected. While MLB did not formally disclose the details to the public, ESPN’s Jesse Rogers reports that the league’s proposal contained a hard salary cap set at $245.3MM and a salary floor set at $171.2MM.
The Athletic’s Evan Drellich adds that the league is proposing an even 50-50 split in revenues. It’s not entirely clear how that can coexist with the more concrete numbers the league also suggested. In the event of a percentage-based revenue sharing split, the cap and floor would be fluid and dependent on revenues.
We’ve seen that fluidity play out in other leagues. NBA players, for instance, were only paid 90.9% of their reported salaries for the 2024-25 season after the league’s revenues came in under projections. (The NBA’s bargaining agreement calls for 51% of league revenue to go to players.) The NBA held 10% of player salaries in escrow to begin the season, and 91% of that money wound up going back into teams’ pockets rather than to the players. It’s possible that the $245.3MM cap and $171.2MM floor are just based on current projections for the 2026 season, but specific details surrounding the proposal have not fully come to light.
Rogers further notes that MLB’s proposed floor includes player benefits (insurance, transportation costs, etc.). Player benefits are already factored into each team’s luxury-tax ledger to the tune of about $18MM per year. It’s not clear whether the $1.667MM each team contributes yearly to the leaguewide pre-arbitration bonus pool are factored into that spending floor as well, but that sum does count toward a team’s CBT calculation. If both player benefits and pre-arb bonus pool contributions count toward the floor, that $171.2MM floor proposal (however it’s been calculated) would realistically call for closer to $150MM of spending toward player salaries.
That’s still a higher sum than a dozen teams in baseball are paying. The $245MM cap, conversely, would require at least eight teams to reduce payroll. Whether that’s actual cash payroll or luxury-tax payroll (calculated based upon the combined average annual values of a team’s contractual commitments) also remains unclear, though the latter seems likely. Either way, a cap/floor system would likely be implemented gradually. The Dodgers surely wouldn’t be forced to trim $200MM from payroll, just as the Guardians wouldn’t be forced to add $90-100MM to reach the floor in a single offseason.
A cap system has long been a total nonstarter for the union. MLBPA interim director Bruce Meyer and his charges have been staunchly against the implementation of any form of restriction on player earnings. The union has already issued a swift rebuke of the league’s proposal. Bill Shaikin of the L.A. Times has the full, lengthy response for those who wish to read it in full. Within, the union makes the pointed claim that owners are not seeking a cap “out of generosity or a desire to protect the game’s well-being” but rather “to control costs, increase profits and maximize franchise values.” The MLBPA’s statement also states:
“The last time the owners made such an explicit push for a cap — over 30 years ago — it led to the longest work stoppage in MLB history. For generations, our members have fought against cap systems because they harm players at all levels, erode or eliminate contractual guarantees, pit player against player, lead to more work stoppages, not less, and get worse for players over time. Caps don’t lower ticket prices for fans, eliminate tanking or ensure teams are run with equal competence. They suffocate competition by offering owners an all-purpose excuse for inaction and mediocrity.”
Baseball is the only of the four major North American sports that doesn’t presently have a salary cap. The league will focus its arguments on the necessity for a cap to balance the playing field and create greater parity, leveraging recent World Series titles for the big-spending Dodgers as “proof” that the current system is untenable. The union, conversely, will undoubtedly point to torrid starts from small-market clubs like the Rays and Brewers (to say nothing of flops from big-payroll clubs like the Mets, Astros, Giants and Red Sox) as their own “proof” that the existing system isn’t an impediment to competitive balance. The eye-popping sticker price in the recent sale of the Padres will undoubtedly be a talking point as well.
There’s little sense in delving too deeply into the weeds on original proposals. Both sides’ first overture was always going to be a total nonstarter for the other party. That the league and union began exchanging proposals more than six months prior to the expiration of the current collective bargaining agreement (on Dec. 1) is likely to be a moot point. The last time around, they began negotiating even earlier, and the two parties still spent the 2021-22 offseason embroiled in a 99-day lockout that put a stoppage on all major league transactions (e.g. trades, waiver claims, free agent signings). Both sides continually blew past artificial negotiating “deadlines” until a much more tangible, real-world deadline — Opening Day 2022 — was firmly on the horizon.
It’d register as an immense surprise if Meyer and commissioner Rob Manfred were able to hammer out a new deal prior to the expiration of the current agreement. However, the fact that a lockout is a near inevitability does not mean that the same is true of missed games in 2027. The league’s formal proposition of a cap/floor system is surely intended to signal a hardline stance, as was the case with the union’s proposal (which, among other things, included a soft salary floor with no cap, substantial increases to league minimum salary, a tripling of the pre-arbitration bonus pool, and an earlier path to free agency).
That said, it’s in the best interest of the league and the players to avoid any work stoppage that actually sees games lost in the 2027 season. The league can claim a cap is a virtual necessity, but MLB has also taken great pride in touting continually rising attendance and broadcast numbers. Renegotiation of national media broadcast rights and streaming deals with platforms like Netflix, Apple and Peacock are all looming on the near horizon as well, in 2028. Similarly, the union can point to the deterioration of the “middle class” of players, but there have been notable earning gains through the increased minimum salary and the implementation of the pre-arb bonus pool, while salaries on the top end of the earning spectrum continue to rise. And in the event of lost games, ownership will invariably try to recoup some of those losses by decreasing spending on player acquisition in the years following any season with lost games.
Put more concisely: the specifics of these initial proposals will prove inconsequential. Neither party expects anything other than an outright refuting from the other. The league and union both seem to constantly jostle for the upper hand in a PR battle with fans, though they’d arguably be better off just conducting negotiations behind closed doors since most proposals from either party tend to alienate some section of the fanbase.
Ultimately, the notable takeaway from today’s proposal is that the league came out swinging with a hard cap/floor system. The players are again touting goals like earlier free agency and substantial increases to early-career earning power. Both sides will dig in their heels. Subsequent counters will be made, but it’s unlikely we’ll see any serious movement in negotiations before November, and in all likelihood, a lockout will drag talks on a new CBA into 2027.
MLBPA Releases Details Of Collective Bargaining Proposal
The formal process of the next collective bargaining agreement has begun. It was reported two weeks ago that the talks had kicked off with informal introductions. Today, the MLBPA made its first official proposal and released details to the media. Jeff Passan of ESPN, Evan Drellich of The Athletic and Bill Shaikin of the Los Angeles Times were among those to relay the details. As expected, the union’s proposals involve improved outcomes for players. The proposal also has a heavy focus on the revenue-sharing system, as the players are hoping to improve the economic imbalances of the game without the implementation of a salary cap. The league will counter with their proposal tomorrow.
Many of the details involve the adjusting of measures already in place, in a pro-player direction. For instance, the union proposes raising the minimum salary to $1.5MM, almost double this year’s $780K minimum. It would continue to go up to $1.65MM, $1.825MM, $2MM and $2.2MM in subsequent seasons. They also propose expanding the $50MM pre-arbitration bonus pool to $180MM. The Super Two designation that currently goes to 22% of players between two and three years of service would jump to a 44% cutoff. The minimum tender in arbitration would be $3MM. The service time needed for free agency, which is currently six years, would drop to five years for players at least 30 years old. However, teams could keep such players for a sixth year by offering them a contract with a salary that averages out the 125 highest-paid players in the league, which is the same calculus for the current qualifying offer. (Passan relayed those details in a subsequent post.)
Those measures would all directly benefit players financially. They also propose measures that would help players indirectly, by improving the abilities for club to spend. The threshold of the competitive balance tax would jump from $244MM to $300MM, then $315MM, $330MM, $345MM and $360MM in subsequent seasons. Non-monetary penalties, such as the impact on draft picks, would be eliminated. The qualifying offer would be eliminated, along with the penalties for clubs who sign free agents, though the bonuses for lower revenue clubs who lose free agents would be increased. The draft lottery would be expanded to further disincentivize tanking. The rules to address service time manipulation would be expanded.
There would be a “competitive integrity tax” for any team that does not spend $150MM. This would be an inverse to the competitive balance tax, which is already in place. Currently, baseball effectively has a soft cap in the form of that tax. Some teams blow past it but face penalties, both in the form of the payments and the impact of picks being pushed later in the draft. There’s not really a soft floor, as teams who receive revenue-sharing payments don’t really have conditions attached.
The Athletics did lose their revenue-sharing status for a while and they seemed to spend a bit more on players recently because they didn’t want to go down that road again, but no other club has been similarly motivated. The A’s reportedly had to get their CBT number up to $105MM to avoid a grievance but several other clubs have carried CBT numbers well below that without any consequences.
As mentioned, many elements of the proposal involve significant changes to the revenue-sharing system. Under this proposal, teams would actually send out less stadium revenue but there would be a notable increase in terms of the sharing of broadcast revenue. Lower revenue clubs would receive at least $240MM annually but with conditions. Teams who do not spend the revenue-sharing money would be subject to penalties. Teams that do spend that money would receive bonuses if they make the playoffs or have a winning record.
These revenue-sharing details are significant because they are presumably a counter to a salary cap. The league is expected to push for a cap, something they have wanted for decades and have pushed for in the past. Some fans like the idea of a cap because of the economic imbalances in the game. The clubs with greater revenue and higher payrolls have had a lot of success in recent years, with the Dodgers being an oft-cited example. The teams have pushed farther apart recently in terms of broadcast revenue. The clubs in large markets are generally doing fine while many of the smaller clubs have seen their broadcast deals collapse. The league has stepped in and is now handling broadcasts for almost half the league. That setup can reach more viewers via streaming but generally leads to less revenue.
With these revenue-sharing elements, the players appear to be trying to address competitive balance in a way that does not involve a cap. They directly address the broadcast revenue imbalance and would broadly be giving the smaller clubs a greater ability to spend. They also put conditions on the money, so that lower-revenue clubs can’t just pocket what they get from other teams, which is a concern in the current setup.
As mentioned, MLB will make their opening proposal tomorrow, but they have already gone public to oppose what the players have proposed. MLB spokesperson Glen Caplin released a statement, with Drellich among those to relay it, effectively saying that MLB’s position is that this proposal makes competitive balance worse and not better.
It’s worth pointing out that the players won’t get everything they are asking for. The way that collective bargaining works, both sides are going to stake out a bold position at the start. Over the coming months, as the bargaining process plays out, the sides will back down in some areas. The question is how long it will take to find an overall agreement that both parties consider acceptable.
The last round of CBA talks didn’t result in any lost games but went to the brink. MLB locked out the players when the previous CBA expired on December 1st of 2021. That lockout lasted until March 10th. The opening of the 2022 campaign was delayed but a full 162-game season was played. It is expected that this round could be just as contentious, if not moreso. The current CBA again expires on December 1st at 11:59pm Eastern.
For those looking for positive signs, there are some to be found. In Drellich’s column, he points out that things are ahead of schedule, relative to last time. In 2021, the players also made their first proposal in May but the owners didn’t make theirs until August. When the owners make their proposal tomorrow, that will be three months earlier than 2021.
Photo courtesy of Evan Petzold, Imagn Images
MLB, MLBPA Begin CBA Negotiations
Major League Baseball and the MLB Players Association held their first official collective bargaining meeting of 2026 in New York City today, per reporting from Jeff Passan of ESPN and Evan Drellich of The Athletic.
At this point, there’s not much in terms of news. Both reporters note that today’s meeting was mostly about the two sides presenting basic overviews of their positions. Formal proposals will come in future meetings. The current collective bargaining agreement expires on December 1st. It’s not unusual to begin talks about this far out. As noted by Drellich, they are actually starting a little later than last time. In 2021, opening presentations were made in April.
This round of negotiations is going to be closely monitored, both due to the way the last round went and because of how things have transpired since then. The previous CBA expired without a deal on December 1st of 2021 and the league immediately instituted a lockout, the first MLB work stoppage since the 1994-95 strike. The lockout included a transaction freeze and lasted until March 10th, going about as long as it could have gone while still playing a full 162-game season in 2022.
Over the past few years, the economics of the game have featured a number of contradictions. Perhaps due to the pitch clock speeding up games or due to the rise of international stars like Shohei Ohtani, the sport’s popularly is on the upswing. The league regularly issues press releases about increased ratings and attendance figures. A notable statistic was that Game Seven of the 2025 World Series was the most-watched MLB game since 1991. The final games of the 2026 World Baseball Classic had comparable ratings to the most recent NBA Finals.
But at the same time, many claim that not all clubs are benefitting to the same degree. The collapse of the cable television model has hit some clubs harder than others. Many don’t have a regional sports network at all, with the league handling broadcast distribution for those teams. Other clubs, particularly those in larger markets, seem to still be raking in TV money. Though there is a revenue sharing system in place, there is clearly a massive imbalance in terms of spending. RosterResource calculates the Dodgers’ payroll at just under $400MM. They are on track to pay a tax bill of about $150MM, putting them in line to spend about $550MM on this year’s team. That’s more than the six lowest-payroll clubs combined.
The league is expected to push for a salary cap and floor system. They have made such attempts before, most notably in 1994. That led to the aforementioned strike and the cancelation of that year’s World Series, without a cap being implemented.
The union has long been against a cap since it would negatively impact players’ earning power. The MLBPA continues to have that stance even though they recently had a change in leadership. Tony Clark was the executive director until he stepped down in February, in relation to various scandals. Deputy director Bruce Meyer was voted interim executive director shortly thereafter.
Finding consensus will be a challenge, given that owners and players will have opposing ideas about the best solutions for the game’s current situation. Even among owners, priorities may be different. Smaller clubs may like the idea of a cap but would simultaneously be worried about meeting a high floor. In either case, those small clubs would likely suggest greater revenue sharing is necessary, something the bigger clubs wouldn’t be as excited about.
Most in the industry expect a rough battle. The last lockout went to the brink and it’s possible a similar staredown occurs this time. MLB commissioner Rob Manfred has spoken about his positive view of lockouts. That prompted Clark, when he was still leading the union, to say he expected another lockout after 2026. Assuming a lockout does take place in December, the major question will be if it is once again resolved in time or if it drags on long enough to lose games in 2027.
For those looking for positive signs, there are some to be found. As mentioned, the game is on the upswing in terms of popularity. Though the league wants a cap, they may not want to push so hard that they have to cancel games next year. Such an outcome would certainly cut into the positive momentum with fans. It would be a poor time to take such a hit since most of the league’s broadcast deals expire after 2028, with Manfred and the league hoping to negotiate lucrative new deals prior to 2029. Manfred is also planning to step down when his contract expires in January of 2029, when he will be 70 years old, and may want to go out with a record of no canceled games.
The exact timeline of what happens after today is not clear. Drellich points out that, in 2021, the union made its first economic proposals in May. The league followed in August. Drellich says talks are expected to continue through the upcoming summer, though no specifics are publicly available at this time.
Photo courtesy of Kirby Lee, Imagn Images
Latest On MLBPA’s Funds
The Major League Baseball Players Association is putting aside money in anticipation of the end of the collective bargaining agreement, as it routinely does. Jorge Castillo of ESPN and Evan Drellich of The Athletic report that the union has about $519MM in total assets, as of the start of this year.
It is standard practice for both MLB and the MLBPA to set aside money in a CBA year, as having a war chest could be needed for a work stoppage or for leverage in negotiations. Back in February, it was reported that the league had set aside about $2 billion. No details on the MLBPA’s funds were available until this week.
As both Castillo and Drellich point out, the MLBPA war chest has more than doubled relative to the last round of CBA talks. In 2021, just after the COVID-impacted 2020 season, the union had under $200MM on hand. Castillo reports they had $171MM ahead of the last round of negotiations, though Drellich puts them slightly higher at $192MM. Both reports note that the players have allowed the union to withhold licensing checks since 2024, in order to bolster the available funds.
After more than 25 years without a work stoppage, the league locked out the players in December of 2021. That lockout lasted 99 days until a new agreement was reached in early March, just in time to still play a full 162-game season, with some creative scheduling.
Many in the industry are expecting yet another lockout after the CBA expires on December 1st this year, with the bargaining perhaps becoming even more contentious. The game’s economic imbalances have seemingly widened. Clubs like the Dodgers and Mets continue to ramp up spending to record highs. Other clubs have been clutching the purse strings tightly, pointing to the decreased broadcast revenues as many fans cut cable cords and pivot to streaming.
The owners are expected to push for a salary cap, as they have done in the past. The players are opposed to a salary cap and will likely push for alternatives involving greater revenue sharing between clubs. Any salary cap proposal would be accompanied by a salary floor, which would likely require the smaller clubs to receive more money from the bigger clubs, in order to meet that floor. A notable shake-up of baseball’s finances seems inevitable, though the league and union will have different ideas about which changes are acceptable.
If the two sides can’t reach consensus on an acceptable framework, the possibility of losing games in 2027 would grow. Such an outcome would have negative consequences for baseball at a time when its popularity is on the upswing. Ratings and attendance have been increasing in recent years, with Game Seven of the 2025 World Series the most-watched game since 1991. The recent World Baseball Classic had TV ratings comparable with the most recent NBA finals. Cutting into that popularity could be costly since a large number of the league’s broadcast deals expire after the 2028 season.
Even if the two sides can avoid cancelling games in 2027, a lockout is still widely expected. MLB commissioner Rob Manfred has spoken positively about how a lockout affects negotiations. In the wake of those comments, then-executive director of the MLBPA Tony Clark said the union expects to be locked out. Clark recently resigned under the shroud of scandal with deputy director Bruce Meyer taking over on an interim basis.
Speaking of Clark, during his tenure, concerns were raised about an MLBPA-owned company called Players Way. The company came under federal investigation as the union seemed to be diverting millions of dollars to it without the company doing much with that money. The union hired a law firm to conduct an internal investigation in response to those concerns, as well as the investigation of OneTeam Partners, a joint venture with the NFLPA. That internal probe reportedly uncovered messages between Clark and his sister-in-law, an MLBPA employee, which led the union to seek his resignation. This week, both Castillo and Drellich report that Players Way has now been shut down.
Photo courtesy of Evan Petzold, Imagn Images
MLB, MLBPA Putting Aside Money Ahead Of CBA Negotiations
The collective bargaining agreement between Major League Baseball and the Players Association expires December 1st. Many in the industry expect a lockout and some even worry about the potential for lost games in 2027. Jon Heyman and Joel Sherman of The New York Post report that the league has put aside a war chest of about $2 billion, roughly $75MM per team, from a central fund to help weather a potentially lengthy stoppage. The MLBPA has made similar preparations but the report doesn’t provide specifics for that side.
At first blush, it may seem ominous that such measures are being taken, especially when the rhetoric around the negotiations has been contentious. However, the piece from The Post points out that these kinds of steps are standard procedure when a CBA is expiring, both for MLB and the MLBPA.
When the previous CBA expired, the owners immediately locked out the players. That lockout lasted 99 days and was resolved just in time for a full 162-game season to be played in 2022. Another lockout is expected after the upcoming season. That’s both due to tensions seeming high and because MLB commissioner Rob Manfred has spoken positively about how a lockout affects negotiations. In the wake of those comments, then-executive director of the MLBPA Tony Clark said the union expects to be locked out. Clark recently resigned under the shroud of scandal with deputy director Bruce Meyer taking over on an interim basis.
For those pessimistic about a speedy resolution, there are things to point to. The economic imbalances of the game have seemingly grown more extreme. The Dodgers have been consistently in the playoffs for more than a decade and have won the past two titles, while running historically high payrolls. That has led to many fans to call for a salary cap, something many owners want as well. Ownership has historically favored a cap with the union opposed. The ownership side often cites competitive balance as a justification for a cap while the player side will say the owners simply want to control labor costs and increase franchise values.
An optimist could point to other factors. Manfred’s contract runs through January of 2029 and he has said he doesn’t plan to seek another term. He may not want to have a lengthy work stoppage as his parting legacy. He also intends for the league to seek a massive payday from broadcast rights after the 2028 season, when a large number of the current contracts will expire. Baseball’s popularity is currently on the rise but could drop if a large number of games are cancelled, which would hurt the value of the broadcast rights.
Time will tell how it all plays out. For now, both sides are getting prepared, as they always do. The Post says that negotiations are expected to begin once the regular season commences in late March.
Photo courtesy of Susan Tompor, Imagn Images