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
You don’t need to repeat what the article says.
Yeah and you don’t need to bang a garbage can cheater.
Shut up, I didn’t cheat. My team did though.
The Astros players didn’t cheat either. It was not a rule in the CBA that season. Can’t break a rule that doesn’t exist.
For team managers and GMs, they were informed in a memo from the Commish that it was not allowed for the team to be involved in it in September 2017., 2 weeks before the end of the regular season.
Rationalize much?
Change players to pitchers and Jose Altuve, Tony Kemp, and Josh Reddick.
Any real union should be run for the benefit of the overwhelming majority of members, not just the top 2% or 3% of Scott Boras clients.
You should change your moniker to MLB Employee. At least that part would then be honest.
Scab would be even more succinct
A problem with sports player unions is that most of the players expect to reach that top 2 or 3%, and so they look out for their expected future interests.
That shows a complete lack of understanding of the situation. In the current CBA minor league players got more than a 100% increase in compensation and benefits. Pre-arbitration and arbitration eligible players got more than 33% increase in compensation. FA players got the smallest % increase in compensation of any group of players over the last 5 years.
“Lack of understanding”..Shouldn’t EVERY CBA(not just the ones under congressional pressure)put the interests of the majority ahead of the interests of it’s highly paid minority?
The current CBA is probably the first time in decades that the MLBPA actually addressed (some) needs of it’s majority and only did so under threat of USA congressional intervention.
The last time I looked the owners were the ones that set the team’s budget, and approved the $100M+ offers to FAs, not the union.
Thank you for pointing out so clearly that you have no clue what you are commenting about.
What part of the vast majority of players got the largest increases in compensation was it that went right over your head?
So minor leaguers went from $20,000 to $40,000, arbitration players went from $3,000,000 to $4,000,000 and free agents only went from $25,000,000 to $30,000,000.
You should take advantage of the time allotted to edit your post towards clarity and comprehension.
Every player votes to ratify a tentative contract. If they do not find the deal to their benefit they can vote it down.
It is. Rising tides raise all ships; we’ve known for decades that when one player gets a raise, that sets a precedent for everyone.
@Troy and Joseph mlb fan could care less about reality in this one. He has a history of letting the political zealot in him come out on any discussion that loosely has a side politically.
I feel for people who cant even have a hobby without it being perversed by politics. What a sad existence when one has bit the hook so hard on either side of political spectrum.
Should a union be run for the benefit of the majority of members or getting what the majority of members want? In some instances the majority are wanting something that might not be the most beneficial for them (remains to be seen if this is one of them or not)
I would like to see a salary cap and floor instituted. Owners consciously fielding non-competitive teams because of penny pinching is just as bad as the teams that are overspending beyond what seems to be (albeit, subjectively) reasonable spending thresholds.
It may be bad for the sport, but it’s 100% rational for several reasons. For one, low revenue teams can’t compete with the big boys so why try. For another, even if the low revenue teams want to spend, they will get outbid on the best free agents and end up having to spend massive percentages of their budgets on mid-level players that don’t help that much (the Pirates found that out this off-season). And finally, the Rays, Guardians, and Brewers prove over and over that you don’t have to spend to be good.
The incentives are the problem.
They wrote they want a cap. Said nothing about a lockout. But odds are high a lockout will happen as it’s a known standard practice.
Cap sounds good to me. Giving fans 1 less thing to complain about can’t be a bad idea. Players will get a guaranteed portion of $. More teams will contend more often and longer. Franchise values will increase.
I can’t blame NY TOR LA etc for wanting to keep their $.
I think ownwrs and players are losing a ton of $ not having a cap. Rebuilds destroy attendance. Losing star players to NY LA makes fans stop being fans. Not my $ though so I don’t care.
I think if owners do nothing it will be the players wanting a cap. We lost our TV $. You don’t want to share your revenue. Want LA in world series every year. We will just do the bare minimum. Already seeing it. Think it will only get worse. If I was a small market owner thats what I would do. Why fight it out with the union. Next cba they could be the ones wanting a cap. If not just keep grabbing up your revenue sharing.
Players only lose money WITH a cap.
Only if they negotiate poorly. A cap means more $ for owners. If players can’t get their piece it’s on them.
Negotiate what? The only way a cap is fair, or is even accepted by the players, is if there’s a set percentage of the revenue .that’s applied every year that’s been agreed to by both parties for the length of the CBA. Exactly what the revenue is has to be known by the players. The trouble is the owners aren’t willing to do what’s necessary for an agreement.
“Negotiate what?”
Umm the CBA
Think before you write.
Skip’s Fungo
Players only lose money WITH a cap.
===================
Only if you assume there won’t be a floor.
For me the problem lies with revenue sharing. Some how teams that aren’t a great attraction still need appreciation for competing against the Giants. The game is great, so reward the less fortunate for helping make it so.
Yes because starting out with 100 million dollars before even selling a single ticket and zero penalty for pocketing it instead of spending it isn’t enough of a reward
yeah, because a salary cap and floor work so well in other leagues… like the NBA where they have no tanking problems at all
Tanking problems are not salary cap problems, are they? Why so hard to stay on topic?
There is no salary cap problem. There is a revenue distribution problem. That cannot be solved by the players. It can only be solved by the owners sharing the revenue of the sport evenly between teams.
That’s the point of the cap. Distribution of revenue fairly so it’s a level playing field.
Skip, It’s a revenue sharing “use” problem. Sharer’s don’t want to keep giving to recipient owners when they pocket the money rather than use it on player payroll.
Fonzo, no. Its not. AFTER revenue sharing as it currently exists there are teams with less than $300 million in total revenue and teams with more than $700 million in total revenue. There is no way that you can have a cap that is fair for all parties when there is that large of a disparity in revenue.
Yes, there needs to be a floor AFTER their is 100% revenue sharing to keep a few guys like Nutting, Fisher, and Sherman in Miami from just pocketing millions and continuing to not spend on the players.
It all has to start by ending the revenue disparity, That is not something that the players can do or should be expected to do. Its all and only an owners problem.
If those teams that pay into the current revenue sharing had wanted teams to actually spend that money, they would have agreed the union’s request that there be teeth in the clause that was put into the CBA about spending that revenue sharing money.
You need 23 of the owners to agree with the CBA provisions. There are plenty enough non spending teams that don’t want those teeth in the revenue sharing clause.
Just like there aren’t enough to agree to 100% revenue sharing. You’re asking the top 10 teams to agree to significantly depress the value of their asset for what exactly? What possible upside is there for them in this?
Teams are getting 100 million dollars of revenue sharing (maybe more) and the highest paid player in the game makes 57 million dollars. I know that’s very simplistic and there is more to it than that but obviously there is some funny business going on with teams on the receiving end of revenue sharing
@Joseph
Someone gets it. My team’s FO, a semi penalty payor has been b-in for years about lining other owner’s pockets, thus why shying from going over. THAT hurts the players…
Even if they don’t go over the revenue sharing still lines other owners pockets. 48 percent of the gate gets pooled and the owners on the receiving end of that just put it in their pocket and call it passive income. I dont blame the big market owners being upset about that.
amen bro
The owners don’t open their books so obviously I can’t say for certain but based on what’s available with 48 percent of the gate getting pooled it looks like you have 6 teams essentially subsidizing the entire league. So you have 24 owners getting more than they put into the pool so I don’t see 8 owners blocking an agreement. I think the 24 don’t want the cap because they want to keep pocketing the revenue sharing
They did agree to the union’s request. It’s hard to prove though. There are pending grievances from like 2018. Last offseason 4 teams were threatened with revenue sharing being taken away. That’s how you get Luis severino signing for 21 million a year with the A’s
If their total revenue including the revenue sharing, whatever amount that is, is $400 million less than the top teams then its ludicrous to set a floor based on what they can afford and expect the players to get a fair share of total revenue.
The only way to have a floor or a cap is to have 100% revenue sharing between the teams. Otherwise the players lose.
That is not how it works.
ALL teams including the low revenue teams put 48% of local revenue into the pot. It is split up 30 ways and all teams get their share.
Team L has $700 million in revenue not including playoff income, of which $330 million comes from their TV deal and another $220 million comes from stadium generated income (tickets, luxury boxes, advertising & sponsorships, concessions, etc…) for a total of $550 million. The other $150 million is in nationally generated revenue and is not split. They pay 48% of that $550 million into the pot and keep 52% or $286 million plus the nationally generated revenue. That $286 million is more than the bottom teams earn prior to revenue sharing. Team A then gets back 1/30th of all the local revenue that all 30 teams have put into the pot.
Team M has $88 million in locally generated revenue $64 million of which is stadium generated income and $24 million comes from their TV deal. They also have $150 million in nationally generated revenue.. They have no playoff revenue. They put $42.4 million into the pot and retain $45.76 million. Then they receive 1/30 of everything put into the pot.
That is called revenue sharing and all 30 teams receive the same amount. For some teams they contributed more than they receive back and they are called revenue sharing paying teams. For some teams they receive back more than they contribute and they are called revenue sharing receiving teams. No team gets back in revenue sharing more than about $70 million more than they put in.
Team L has $286 million they retained from locally generated revenue plus $150 million from nationally generated revenue for a total of $430 million prior to receiving the revenue sharing portion of their revenue.
Team M has $45.76 million they retained from locally generated revenue plus $150 million in nationally generated revenue for a $197.6 million prior to receiving the revenue sharing portion of their revenue.
Before Team L gets back 1/30 of all the money put into that revenue sharing pot, they have $232 million more revenue than Team M has before they get back 1/30 of off the money put into that pot.
After both teams get back that 1/30, they still have a disparity in revenue of $232 million and that does not include any revenue earned from appearing in playoff games. .
There is no way for Team M to spend as much as Team L.
Are you starting to understand the actual situation?
The owners didn’t agree to there being actual spelled out penalties. They only agreed to a grievance process.
4 teams were threatened with losing their revenue sharing money last offseason. Not to mention the union isn’t willing to come down hard on the teams that don’t spend because the star players don’t want to play in these markets
Joeblow, wrong. Three teams were threatened with a grievance by the union, not with losing their revenue sharing money. Only one team has ever been penalized and that was before the clause covering spending of revenue sharing was included in the current CBA. You need to go back to school on this subject.
NBA MLB different? Like does NBA have where you can draft no higher than 10th or whatever like MLB does? I would guess not because there would be less reason to tank in NBA with that rule. MLB you can still get a great talent. NBA good luck.
The problem cannot be solved by a cap or floor unless it is preceded by 100% revenue sharing by the teams. The player compensation is not the problem. The problem is that there are teams that have revenue around $300 million and other teams that have revenue of $700 million or much more. Putting in a cap would only serve to put a greater share of MLB revenue into the pockets of the large market teams. The small market teams would still not be able to compete,
Again revenue sharing is the point of the cap. If you cap it at 300 million but a third of your teams can only spend 150m there is no point other than to allow large markets to pocket more $.
No floor, no ceiling, Howie, it’s time to sink or swim. Patity schmatity, long live the dynasties 🤣
Sounds like the teams are completely united on a cap of some sort, which has definitely not been the case before. That includes the Dodgers at least, and possibly the Mets. I don’t think we get through this without something in that category just to save face, even if it’s just a couple more up-ratchets of penalties to include removal from the waiver priority list, complete wipeout of entire drafts, and zeroing out international signing bonus budgets.
I hope that even if the season gets canceled, they still do the draft and international signing pools, the kids deserve a chance to play. I’ve already said it, they should start negotiations now. I’m going to add that even if they can’t save MLB games, they should try to say minor league games.
Nothing will work short of a cap like the other sports. They could and probably will agree to some compromise. It won’t make them anymore $. Fans who want a cap want it close so ability to spend $ on players isn’t a reason for not being able to win.
Other sports have 100% revenue sharing, open books with the union, and a guaranteed share of revenue going to the players. MLB owners won’t discuss any of that.
The problem is not player compensation.
The problem is the difference in revenue between teams.
That is not something that is the players responsibility to solve. That is the owners problem. They can solve it with the same 100% revenue sharing every other major sport in the US already has in place.
Nobody has 100 percent revenue sharing. Maybe 100 percent of certain revenue streams are shared like the NFL with 100 percent of tv money shared evenly but nobody has 100 percent of all revenue shared. Thats insane
Astros, where would they play? The minor league players are now part of the MLBPA.
What I’m saying is that try to save at least some games.
Astros,that is on the owners.
There is no problem on the players side other than as a whole players are not being paid enough. Their share of revenue is still far below 50%.
The problem is revenue distribution between the teams. Some teams make far more than others. Until the OWNERS solve that problem between themselves, there is nothing the players can do to help.
A salary cap doesn’t help. All that does is lower the percentage of revenue that players receive and put more money in the pockets of the owners of a handful of large market teams.
Salary cap makes the owners more $. If the players make less because of it they just negotiated poorly. If owners make more the players have opportunity to make more. Pretty simple concept.
Some teams should make more than others, in my opinion. They are more popular, have more fans, sell more tickets and merchandise. Being more successful should bring more revenue than being less successful. I don’t have an answer for the CBA issues but equally sharing the league revenue doesn’t seem like the answer.
Skip’s Fungo
There is no problem on the players side other than as a whole players are not being paid enough. Their share of revenue is still far below 50%.
==================
That’s because the players have poor leadership. The owners revenue is rising faster than salaries, but union leadership doesn’t want the players to accept a revenue partnership, and the owners are making more money without a percentage of the gross.
It’s difficult to compare sports, but look at the insane increase in NFL caps over the past 5 years.
Salary cap doesn’t make the owners more money. It saves the owners money. They can decide what to do with the savings. And if you think most of them are going to share the savings with their players, you are delusional. Only way that could happen is to raise the minimum salary.
Not true
sherm, teams should earn more revenue based on success such as playoff appearances. They should not earn more revenue just because they are lucky enough to be located in a city that grew more than the city another team is in. MLB teams are not free to move anywhere they want. That is literally part of the antitrust exemption they have received.
Equally sharing all revenue is the only answer. Its the same thing all other major sports have done.
Joe, without the MLB owners opening their books, something they have steadfastly refused to do, how would the players judge whether they were receiving their share of any revenue partnership? That is why the players have refused to consider a partnership you are suggesting.
In the NFL the players union gets a full accounting of every penny each team and the league as a whole brings in. Same in the NBA and NHL.
They’re not united. This is probably the least united group of owners ever. Which does not bode well for negotiations
If you are spending 300 400 500 on payroll why would you want to give half of that to the other teams? If you wanted a cap you would treat the luxury tax like a cap.
300, 400, 500 what’s?
Seashells? Rubber duckies?
(I know you mean payroll in millions, I’m just joking)
Good joke
I put the statement down there because a lot of people don’t get sarcasm. I never post impulsiveness or vulgar or whatever intentionally or with purpose of harming/letting someone down.
It’s not a united front for a salary cap. Some orgs are perfectly fine paying the luxury tax because they’re still profiting handsomely and increasing team valuation. I think we know who those teams are if you look at the year-over-yeat Forbes lists.
Billionaires and Millionaires fighting and care little about the fans who supplement their bank accounts. Only in America
Welcome to life.
“Only in America”…You mean you’ve lived “only in America”, because the last time I checked, Billionaires battling millionaires and exploiting the majority of people is a worldwide phenomenon and definitely NOT “only in America”.
Relax. Its just a statement about how their our bigger issues in the world than these 2 arguing over $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$.
Yes I’ve only lived in America. I don’t care what goes on with other Countries. I don’t pay taxes there.Do you?
America is not a country. Its 2 continents made up of 35 countries.
DiMN
“Billionaires and Millionaires fighting”
Ownership and labor fighting. Happens everywhere in the world.
Think about who you are rooting for
I do think about it. People in this country homeless. People out of work. And you have these 2 sides who have a life changing money fighting. And who suffers? The people they pay them their hard earned money. $25.00 for a beer at a ball game.
DiMn
“People in this country homeless. People out of work. And you have these 2 sides who have a life changing money fighting. And who suffers?”
Those two things aren’t really related.
How does the owners keeping more of the money that baseball fans choose to spend on MLB keep people from being homeless?
How does the players getting a bigger share of the money that people choose to spend on MLB keep people from being homeless?
It doesn’t
I see two things that would make a difference
1) fans choosing to give their money to organizations that help with the problems you’re talking about instead of choosing to give it to MLB.
2) Taxing the [heck] out of people who make/have millions/billions and using that money to help people who are suffering.
But who gets more of the money that people choose to give to MLB has nothing to do with it.
Except that capital (ownership) wants people to confuse the issue here. If they can get people to side against labor (the players) here, it makes it that much easier to get people (the labor) to side against themselves everywhere else.
Dolemite: Similar situation with soccer in Europe. Not “only in America”.
If people think mlb and America is so horrible just look at these European and Saudi soccer club situations
There are 35 countries spread over 2 continents in America. Most of us commenting here live in the United States of America, just ONE of those nations.
Billionaires and Millionaires fighting
=====================
Everyone fights for more money.
People care more about salary caps than where their taxes go. Bread and circus.
We can choose to spend our money on what we want. We can’t choose to pay taxes or what is done with it.
I would trade the 2027 season for modernized TV broadcasts.
It’s insane that I have to think twice about how and when I watch my team’s games on TV.
I cut the cord in 2008. I’ve been able to watch games for one year since then. One year.
It’s broken and sick. The NFL figured this out years and years ago. Do not talk to me about one game a week. If MLB wanted viewership they could get it.
With the collapse of Mainstreet Sports, this may be more likely. Right now, though, with certain teams making a boatload of cash off their RSNs (Dodgers = 330 m/yr), you’re not gonna get complete change.
You chose not to pay to watch the team you claim to cheer for. That is on you. Today you either pay for the cable/satellite provider or the streaming service that carries their games. That is the reality of the situation.
Or just watch anything you want for free
I own plenty of streaming services. They broadcast plenty of sports. I want baseball? I have to pay for a separate service where the prices and service are worse. Before that? I had to buy a cable package to get one RSN. The MLB app had to be designed in a way that specifically made it useless for my purposes.
None of that nonsense is on me.
Wrong. If you don’t have cable or satellite service you miss 90% of NFL games unless you pay through the nose for NFL Sunday Ticket on YouTube TV. You also pay about the same for that YouTube TV streaming service as you do for just getting cable or satellite TV. Also, services like DIRECTV and Dish are now available on streaming so you get the best of both worlds.
If you choose to cut the cable and can’t see the games, that is on you, not the sport.
IMO Big difference because NFL did it before the big TV deals so wasnt as much disparity. Also one of the teams that was pushing it was the big dollar team in the Giants. Do you think the Steinbrenners and the Gugenheim are going to do the same thing? Not only take in less money but also lose their biggest advantage?
Basically what you are wanting is take a billion dollar lottery you won and instead of collecting your winnings you are handing out 5 bucks to everyone. Or instead of giving everyone bonuses/raises lets have a pizza party for everyone.
The Dodgers broadcasting fee alone covers pretty much their league leading salary last season. Which means they basically profitted on concession, seating, advertising, etc etc. They also benefit still from the bankruptcy years ago with mccourt as they pay less into the national broadcast pool. They have 0 reason to push for cap. I believe the Yankees are in the same boat minus the bankruptcy part. You might get Cohen to lead the charge as he is fan first but none of the owners seem to like him as he pushed this envelope.
I would go the other way instead of a cap and floor consolidate teams and increase market share per team and increase the fund available to the team. Maybe as an example one Florida team, one ohio team, one pennsylvania team, etc etc. Will never happen though. Just like the players will never allow a hard cap and the owners probably wont give a floor.
A vote of 23 owners and what Gugenheim or the Steinbrenners want is academic.
The bottom line is the problem is not one that the players caused nor can a cap solve it.
The problem is one the owners created and only they can solve it. The only way to solve the revenue distribution issue between teams is by MLB teams sharing revenue at or close to 100%. There is no other solution.
The owners have already offered truly ridiculous floors. While revenue averages $433 million per team, the owners offered a floor of $100 million that was tied to a cap of $180 million. A legitimate floor would guarantee players close to 50% of revenue or about $216.5 million. Do you see how ridiculous offering $100 million was? How much of an insult to the players?
The owners have not made any official offer with a cap and floor. It’s all just talk. There has been no official proposal of a cap
Wrong. It was well documented that the owners offered a $100 million floor tied to a $180 million cap. You must be an MLB employee to try to deny that.
They may want that but they still have not officially made an offer. There is lots of talk about a cap but still no official proposal. I’m guessing you must be a union rep no way you shill for free
That was the exact offer the owners made in the negotiations for a CBA that was reported on many media outlets and websites including MLB Network and this website. That makes it “official”. The players “officially” turned it down because it was ridiculous to say the least.
I don’t believe you understand what negotiation means. You certainly don’t understand the CBA negotiation process and were not paying attention during the last two negotiations or you would have already seen this plastered all over the media.
I have never been part of the MLBPA. When I was playing, the minor leagues were not part of the union.
I didn’t read all this and I’m not going to, but a streaming service or deal that doesn’t suck and isn’t a rip is doable and should be mandatory in 2026.
It’s not doable. Teams have contracts for their TV rights going years even decades in the future. Have contracts with Apple TV ESPN whoever else.
You cut the cord. That was your choice. And now you’r e griping about it?
Every sport but baseball had an alternative for almost that whole 16 years.
Cord cutting isn’t the problem.
Baseball’s the problem.
That is hilarious Fuzzo. In the NFL some games are only available on Amazon, Peacock, and ESPN+. Broadcasts are blacked out locally unless the game is sold out. If you do not have cable or satellite TV, you will miss 90% of games even if you have Amazon Prime, Peacock, and ESPN+ streaming platforms. Cutting the cable cuts your ability to watch almost all NFL games,
Skip, but that is changing. 90% of games on Sunday, you mean, cable we get one 1:00 and one 4:30 game (est). Sunday night, Monday, Thursday, and some late season Saturday stream on different networks, causing subscriptions for many platforms PLUS cable for just our 2 Sunday games… getting crazy. AND, can’t watch my cable Sunday games away from my wifi home.
Baseball wanted this to happen. They knew what was coming and actually sped up the process because they have to get the broadcasting rights back before doing anything so the notion that they got caught with their pants down is absurd. They knew they had to lose some of/ most of their tv revenue in the short term and were willing to do it. That’s why they approved the bankruptcy deal despite everyone and their mother knowing it wouldn’t work. They are doing the smart thing by getting the rights back asap then they can package it for a big payout in 2028
That’s the ole apples to oranges, fuzzie. I think you’ve been out in the sun too long, come in & have a cold one. 🤣
Don’t know what people are so excited about with Manfred retiring in 29. They’re just going to appoint Dan Halem as commish.
Might as well jump
Hey you who said that
If Dan gets appointed, he’ll be standing on top of the world.
My dark horse candidate for MLB Commissioner? You guessed it: Frank Stallone.
Steven A. Smith
Is it just me or does he look a lot like Jeffrey Epstein?
I will tell you what, if the players do not negotiate a salary cap, then fans are going to support the owners in this long drawn out mess. Every other professional sports league has one, and it’s time baseball followed suit.
Correction some fans will support the owners
Most fans will support the owners. When players go to another team most fans don’t follow that player they stick with their team. If all the players went to China or Saudi Arabia fans would just root for the new players.
All y’all speak for yourselves. This fan hopes the players strike in August and will support them through it.
Correction, stupid fans will support the owners,
The problem cannot be solved by a cap. Player compensation is not the problem.
The problem is the lack of parity in the revenue the teams get. That disparity is the problem.
Until there is 100% revenue sharing in MLB like there is in every other major sport in the US, that will continue to be the problem.
It is not the players responsibility to solve that problem. The owners created the problem. ONLY the owners can or should be expected to solve that problem.
The problem cannot be solved by a salary cap. Player compensation is not the problem in the first place. The problem is revenue distribution between the teams. The only way that can be solved is for the team’s, meaning the owners of the teams, to share revenue 100%,
Every other major sport in the US has 100% revenue sharing, They also all have open books with the union and a guaranteed percentage of revenue going to players.
ALL of those must happen before a salary cap is discussed.
Every other major sport in the US has 100% revenue sharing
Don’t think that is true but it’s close enough
Let’s talk the real monkey in the room players can fix…
100% guaranteed contracts.
Those need to go. Put in place penalties for voiding non-guaranteed dollars in other areas, but, that really hamstrings a club when a guy gets his check and quits trying (hey there rendon!)
Other ideas… more performance linked contract elements.
Small to mid market clubs cant afford the risk to sign guys to what are known will be non-performing years as a sweetener. Likewise, because deals are fully guaranteed, they cant risk the losses thay come from big declines or guys turning injury prone with age.
And between the cost, the exclusions, and the difficulties to collect, even big market teams have gone on record as not even trying to insure player contracts as a losing prospect. It costs more, compared to what you uktimately collect, when you can collect, to be a losing proposition and cheaper to just write off the loss when it happens.
The big boys can ignore all those problems and just write it off at the end as a cost of doing business.
Get rid of fully guaranteed deals.
“Get rid of fully guaranteed deals.”
OK. Just instead of a guy getting 700m contract they will get a 700m signing bonus. All the billion dollar deals in fake $ will be good marketing.
Maybe. Maybe not.
You could have a requirement that front or back loading of a deal cant vary salary more than 10% money year to the next. And you could say signing bonuses are restricted to a percentage of contract.
Easily solved
You could just have it that no player can make more than a 1 million too. They would never agree to it. Government courts etc will step in. Someone else may start a league that pays more. But if none of that happens sure most players won’t make a million anywhere else. But no way are the going to agree to such a drastic pay cut. Guarantee $ is the only $ that matters. If they can’t get it guarantee they will just all sign 1 year deals. Owners wouldn’t mind but again good luck getting players to sign off on it.
@Skip,
I agree with much of what you have contributed to this conversation, but pro sports leagues in the Americas is not close to 100% league wide team revenue sharing.
In the NFL its around 60%. 34% of ticket sales profits go to the total pool.
In the NBA, a team must create 70% revenue of the average team to receive revenue sharing.
In the NHL the top 11 teams in revenue have to contribute a portion of their profits to the pool for smaller teams. The smaller teams cannot collect more than 8.5% of that pool.
Saying they share profits 100% or close is 100% wrong. They share a lot of terms to try and close the gap, such as national and regional broadcast rights, and leagues vary in what is shared in gate revenue and apparel, but majority have a way of out gaining other teams in their leagues.
Why would the players support a Salary Cap? We go to see MLB players not SCABS. The owners tried that in the 95 season. Bringing in anybody and everybody with a glove and bat. It was a cluster F. It didn’t last long and the MLB players got what they wanted. In 88 the owners tried collusion. They got caught. You wonder how these guys became billionaires.
“Why would the players support a Salary Cap?”
To make more $
The MLBPA have their own war chest too. It existed even before the 1994 strike.
It doesn’t matter.
Lol. I know you don’t believe that.
I do because it’s true. $ isn’t the enemy. Time is the enemy. They can’t build a chest large enough to make up for time lost. You should be able to figure it out now. If not I will go further but you seem bright enough. Just didn’t think about it enough. Happens to best of us.
The MLBPA has been preparing for this since 1994, setting aside money from both merchandising and player contributions and investing it to create what they originally called a Strike Fund. Since 2018 they have increased the funding going into that fund. They have built up a war chest, to use Darragh’s words, that can pay most or all of the salaries of the players during a lost season.
The $2 billion the owners have put aside won’t cover their debt service, let alone make up for their massive loss of revenue. If the owners are thinking the players will back down and give them a cap because of a lockout, they should be prepared to lose all $13 billion in revenue plus pay all their other expenses for the season while not having any games being played.
As has been pointed out over and over, the fact is that the problem is not player compensation, it is the difference in revenue between the teams. The owners have to solve that before anything else can be addressed other than minor tweaks to the CBA.
Fund is irrelevant
Anything you comment is irrelevant. It is also invisible now.
Oh no one of the least knowledgeable most annoying people muted me. How will I go on
See I told you guys I was a expert on how muting works!!!!!!!
Well said. A handful of teams make more from their television deal, alone, than many others make from all sources of revenue combined, and now can’t even find a carrier it says a lot about the state of the game.
This is not new news, been going on a while.
So the teams can set aside $75mil apiece as a “war chest” but they can’t use that money to subsidize small market payrolls?
Would 7-111 subsidize AM-PM?
That’s an oversimplification but true. Can’t see McDonalds and Burger King revenue sharing.
And give even more passive income to the small market owners as if they don’t get a lot already
The lockout is 100% coming. The question is, if and how many games get missed.
They’ll likely start the lockout in December and could have a new CPA before the season begins so no missed games. I think that’s the owners plan.. They will also lately freeze FA signings and trades during the lockout.
I’m not excited about a lockout, just think it’s inevitable. Not hoping for games missed either, just seems like it could happen.
Hmm, yes, so glad the billionaires are setting aside money for each other.
Settle it, folks, Negotiate, posture if you need to,,but settle. Too much crazy in the world–I need a distraction, and few things work better than the crack of the bat.
Whoever okayed the Dodgers revenue sharing exception 20 years ago (MLB and bankruptcy court?) is to blame for this lockout.
For all of you that want a salary cap in mlb, don’t like the NBA? Because that’s exactly what mlb will look like. Salary cap with 100% guaranteed contracts. Do the owners really want to pay 50% of baseball revenue on player salaries?
correction…..”Do you like the NBA…..”
Already guarantee contracts in mlb and they already spend what % on players? And the % is negotiable.
The owners control the situation entirely. The question is: Collectively, are they stupid enough to risk significantly disrupting the flow of content in the face of those upcoming broadcast right negotiations? The vast majority have to understand that compromising that would not be good.
It is those rights that give the Dodgers, and others, their edge financially so anything that helps level that playing field would be best for the game, regardless of any cap or floor considerations.
The Dodgers have a significant edge over the other big market teams (that no other team match given they don’t have to share most of TV revenue). I think if that short sighted ruling wasn’t given back in the day, this would be a very different CBA.
But they sell out every game and make a ton of money from tickets, concessions, merchandise etc and 48 percent of that is pooled so they still wind up paying quite a bit of money to the other teams
The Dodgers have a stadium that has a capacity of 56,000 seats. They averaged 49,537. They do not sell out every game.
The #2 team in attendance last season has a stadium with a capacity of 39,860 seats and they averaged 42,435. They averaged 2500 in attendance per game that sat in a park watching the game on a big screen because there is no direct view of the game from that area.
Here is how revenue sharing works with two examples. Team L and Team M.
ALL teams including the low revenue teams put 48% of local revenue into the pot. It is split up 30 ways and all teams get an equal share of that pot of money.
Team L has $700 million in revenue not including playoff income, of which $330 million comes from their TV deal and another $220 million comes from stadium generated income (tickets, luxury boxes, advertising & sponsorships, concessions, etc…) for a total of $550 million. The other $150 million is in nationally generated revenue and is not split. They pay 48% of that $550 million into the pot and keep 52% or $286 million plus the nationally generated revenue. That $286 million is more than the bottom teams earn prior to revenue sharing. Team A then gets back 1/30th of all the local revenue that all 30 teams have put into the pot.
Team M has $88 million in locally generated revenue $64 million of which is stadium generated income and $24 million comes from their TV deal. They also have $150 million in nationally generated revenue.. They have no playoff revenue. They put $42.4 million into the pot and retain $45.76 million. Then they receive 1/30 of everything put into the pot.
That is called revenue sharing and all 30 teams receive the same amount. For some teams they contributed more than they receive back and they are called revenue sharing paying teams. For some teams they receive back more than they contribute and they are called revenue sharing receiving teams. No team gets back in revenue sharing more than about $70 million more than they put in.
Team L has $286 million they retained from locally generated revenue plus $150 million from nationally generated revenue for a total of $430 million prior to receiving the revenue sharing portion of their revenue.
Team M has $45.76 million they retained from locally generated revenue plus $150 million in nationally generated revenue for a $197.6 million prior to receiving the revenue sharing portion of their revenue.
Before Team L gets back 1/30 of all the money put into that revenue sharing pot, they have $232 million more revenue than Team M has before they get back 1/30 of off the money put into that pot.
After both teams get back that 1/30, they still have a disparity in revenue of $232 million and that does not include any revenue earned from appearing in playoff games. .
It’s rumored to be anywhere from 70-100 million. Some reports suggest that 24 teams get back more than they put in and only 6 teams get back less so essentially they subsidize the entire league. An extra 100 mil before selling a single ticket isn’t going to help you compete on the free agent market? Nobody is denying the Dodgers advantage. But the revenue sharing closes the gap.
Manfred said the highest was around $70 million. Straight from the horses mouth in December.
15 teams take in more than they put in and 15 teams pay more than they receive back.
No, an extra $70 million that only brings a team’s total revenue to $300 million does not help them compete with teams that have $700 million when all is said and done, How does a team with total revenue of $300 million and about $150 million total that they can possibly spend on 40 man roster payroll afford Juan Soto or Kyle Tucker or Alex Bregman? The answer obviously is they can’t.
The revenue sharing DOES close the gap, but not enough to have a cap or floor that is equitable for the players. Full stop.
None of those players make 70 million a year. Teams generally don’t spend every penny on players so it’s not like there’s some bidding war of attrition going on where the dodgers just keep bidding until the smaller market team empties their bank account. If that were the case then I’d understand but it’s not. Even if 70 million is correct (which I don’t think it is) that’s not chump change you think it’s acceptable for the owner to just pocket it and treat it as passive income?
Also 15 teams getting back more than they put in and 15 getting back less is incorrect. I’m going to use a very simplistic example here. Let’s say there are 5 teams. So 5 hands in the revenue sharing pot. One of them makes 6 million per year and the other 4 each make a million per year. 10 million split 5 ways is 2 million each. Only one team got back less than they put in and the other 4 just doubled their money. So it is possible for it to be something other than 15 paying more and 15 receiving more. I don’t think the owners will ever agree to open their books publicly so obviously I can never say for certain but I think the vast majority of the teams receive more than they put in.
“Stupid is as stupid says”. Why are you arguing about this? If you don’t understand, if this is all going over your head, just be quiet. Math is hard sometimes, but simple addition and subtraction shouldn’t be. Why are you having such a hard time with it?
Tucker is making 6/240 or $60 million AAV which includes a $64 million signing bonus. The Dodgers are paying $107.625 annually including CBT fines for him to play for them. Are you so clueless about math that you don’t get that only the Dodgers and Yankees have enough revenue to do something like that? Even the Mets owner had to come out of pocket to pay Soto, their revenue was not enough to cover a contract like that. What part of those simple facts are going so far over your head?
Its exactly correct. The 15 highest pay in, the 15 lowest receive. Full stop. How do we know that? Both Manfred and the union have said so on many, many occasions. Now go away. You are not informed enough to even intelligently discuss the issue.
Owners continue to be the worst thing about the game. No amount of profit will ever be enough for them. It says a lot when the person who did the least is the first to touch the trophy at the end of the season.
“He/She/It” may have done the least but without ___ money, nothing gets done. The trophy touch is not out-of-place.
Frig off.
*
Why they are successful billionaires. They didn’t just I am happy at a million and stopped.
Any fan who believes that ownership’s push for a salary cap has anything remotely to do with competitive balance is seriously delusional. They have bought ownership’s propaganda.
I love how everyone has the answers. lol Wish it were so simple
The answers are simple. The problem is too many owner egos.
You’re not wrong. But to imply the players don’t have egos that contribute to the problem too?
Players have input. They have zero control.
$75 million per team? You know Fisher is praying for a lockout
Let’s hope that Manfred Mann can avoid being blinded by the light and can settle things successfully.
Can Manfred be wrapped up like a d0uche after all is said and done?
So glad to see that the MLBPA and MLB are both putting money away. It would be heartbreaking to see owners and players panhandling on the side of the road. Maybe someone could start a Go Fund me for these poor guys
You have billionaire/millionaire owners, players who have minimum $820k rookie salary, it’s not like the regulars working person on strike.
Minimum salary was $780k last season.
The worst MLB player is still one of the 780 most talented people out of 7 billion on the planet at what they do.
If you were one of the 780 most talented people in the world at just about any skill you would not be earning what the “regulars working person” earns. That is the difference.
Baseball is entertainment. What do the top 780 actors or musicians in the world earn? Tom Cruise earned $150 million. About 3 times what Soto earns. A half dozen actors earned more than $100 million. The Weeknd earned $298 million, 550% of what Soto earns. Taylor Swift earned $202 million and is a billionaire. Beyonce earned $150 million and became a billionaire. Are there any billionaire baseball players? Dua Lipa earned as much as Ohtani.
Sorry no sympathy from me when a middle class family has to struugles and still tries to take their kids to a ballgame at huge cost. If they strike life goes on for the working class while even the minimum player “struggles’ at $820k in 2026
Again, that has nothing to do with the players. The players deserve to earn half of what the sport takes in in revenue. If you have problems with the cost of games, take it up with the people that set those costs, the owners.
The minimum salary in MLB is not $820k. To begin making that MLB minimum the players have spent 4-5 years or more toiling in minor league baseball for what is essentially minimum wage for the working class and now are one of the top people in the world at what they do. The working class are by definition not one of the top 780 at what they do. MLB players all are in that top 780.
If you don’t like the entertainment you get from MLB games watching the best of the best, go watch high school baseball. Its free to attend.
I doubt we miss any games. The union leadership doesn’t want to work on a percentage of the gross, and with the new TV coming up, expansion on the horizon, and the new concept of the ballpark village, the owners will be happy giving away a few nickel and dimes, but not a percentage of the gross.
The owners don’t want to open their books to account for all revenue so there is no way to work on a percentage of the gross since the owners refuse to reveal what that number actually is.
If games are lost the owners will lose far more than the players.
After Covid altered the 2020 and 2021 seasons finally everything was able to get back to normal for 2022. Nope think again lockout. So 2022 got altered as well. The absolute worst time to have a lockout. Now Manfred brags about the so called effectiveness of lockouts. Yeah because the fact that a bunch of fat cat billionaires and spoiled brat millionaires can’t figure out a way to divvy up 12 billion dollars of revenue is totally something to brag about. Saying lockouts are a good thing is basically just giving a middle finger to the fans and small business owners near stadiums that rely on these games being played to make a living. Really dumb thing for Manfred to say.
Shut it down until both sides agree on a salary cap and salary basement. Case of greedy ownership and entitled players.