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
How much of the funds did tony clark take with him before he resigned?
That investigation went quiet.
No charges were filed. He resigned because of an affair with his sister in law.
lemme hold a couple dollars
You got a Dolla I can have
I need about tree fiddy.
They know two thirds of owners are demanding changes and what that means.
Tony Clark is an idiot. Enough said about him now that he is no longer part of this.
He’s as much a criminal as many of the owners, just using slightly different methods.
Its a crime to sleep with your sister-in-law?
Let’s hope not! (For Tony’s sake I mean).
The investigation continues…
Interesting because the US Attorneys’s Office for the Eastern District of New York said that the investigation is not ongoing.
Except for the fact that 2/3rds of the owners are not demanding changes and Tony Clark is a formerly very smart guy that thought with his little head instead of his big head, I agree with everything you said.
He did it The Payers Way 🎶
Drellich was proven wrong in 2021 and how much do you want to bet that he is off by a factor of 5 like he was back then?
It was Meyer that released the actual size of the player’s strike fund, right? I would think he knows more about it than Drellich.
Yes, he was. Prior to the start of negotiations for the current CBA he said that they had placed 100% of licensing money other than what went to retiring players into the strike fund for the previous 3 years as well as the majority of union dues for the past 16 years. He did not say exactly what that majority was, but obviously that means more than 50%.
The licensing money amounted to $68 million in those 3 years and total union dues and investment generated revenue, all of which are reported publicly, was $2.84 billion over those 16 years since the 1994 strike.
If they have continued to add to that strike fund in the interim, that would be approximately $154 million from licensing added to the fund and the union has received $756 million from dues and investments over those 5 years.
The numbers Drellich is trying to foist on us don’t fit with the numbers that are publicly available.
$2Billion for Owners, $500M for players, and those numbers will get higher. Franchise values continue to rise. Golden Goose ready to be killed-short-term for even more riches down the line. Good thing the tax payers and local fans always ready to step up? Someone has to pay.
I hate to be ‘that guy’ but who cares about the financial well-being of an organization meant to protect an extremely select group of people consisting of people who are, arguably (because there’s going to be another ‘that guy’) well-off?
Which game are you interested in? The one on the field, the one on your betting app, the one in the boardroom or is there another ‘to be named later’?
MLB players and owners have been shooting the fans in their feet its astounding we’re still standing.
I like it when people are” that guy “ 🤝👌
Are we talking about the owners or the players?
Worker solidarity
If only franchise value did more than allow a team to get into debt. That San Diego is getting higher bids than the NYM sold for, SD being in one of the smallest markets, while the Mets are in one of the largest, is downright stupid. Just to pay the loan will cause SDP to be unable to compete. What bank will be dumb enough to finance this disaster? Get ready for a sell off. This is also a great reason for a strike. Minnesota couldn’t even get an offer.
I’m not sure about today but some years ago the Padres market was considered small but the ‘experts’ didn’t consider the over the border market. at the time it wasn’t really known how big it was, but it was significant enough for other ‘experts’ to say that they really are not a small market. like the As were.
Trying to remember a time you were correct. Nope. Can’t think of even one time. For me that confirms that the Padres will be ok after the sale goes through.
Both sides leadership groups should be negotiating ~40 hours a week instead of hoarding money like dragons.
You don’t start negotiating until you’ve tried to leverage yourself into the most powerful position possible, which in this case means building a warchest that lets you say “lockout? fine, we’re ready for it.”
The players way was always $$$
Chad do you think the owners are any different?
Who deserves it more? The millionaire product actually performing on the field or the billionaire owners up in the luxury box seats? Lesser of two evils which points me in the direction of the players. If there’s gonna be a cap implemented (unlikely), there better be a floor, and more importantly, the result for fans better be savings passed on to the fan experience for things like affordable tickets, concessions, and merch (also unlikely so F’ em all!).
Dickiesox: There’s not even one evil, let alone two evils. We’re willing to pay for the entertainment. If it allows businessmen and players to get or stay rich, that’s how it goes.
Without the owners investing billions buying existing and expansion teams, the players and many others wouldn’t have jobs, no? I’m pro players.
The only way the game becomes more “affordable” to attend and experience is if fans stop paying current pricings. They aren’t as reflected in 2025’s MLB record attendance figures and total revenue. “Affordability” has nothing to do with the CBA. Owners will charge fans as much as they can regardless of what they pay players.
This reporting always seems to get the fundamental issues wrong. If the teams are, in fact, complaining about revenue imbalances, they can easily solve that issue between them. This would also be the solution to improving competitive balance, if, in fact, the team owners are genuinely concerned about it (which, I doubt). The real conflict is over how the game’s revenue is split between the owners and players. Ownership pushes for a salary cap because they want to keep more of it for themselves. So, this isn’t very complicated after all — if you don’t try to hang too many ornaments on the tree.
I disagree. I think the real conflict is between the owners and players on one hand and the fans on the other. The owners and players want to extract as much as possible from the fans, but the owners and players can’t agree on how to divide the loot.
The very biggest mistake we can make is to imagine that the fans have any say or part in this. Our choice as customers of the game is to either patronize it or not. Same as any other commercial product, no more can be “extracted” from us for it than we are willing to pay, and no less ever will be. The pie we make as voluntary customers of baseball is the one the owners and players are fighting over. Same as it ever was.
Skeptical and BlueSkies: you’re both right in a way.
If team owners are complaining about revenue imbalances, ONLY they can solve that issue. Its called revenue sharing. The Dodgers and Yankees make no money if the small market teams don’t play them.
As you said, it also solves much of the competitive balance issues, although some teams would still stand out because they have invested in the personnel and technology to give the players the information they need to improve.
A salary cap only benefits the owners.
If the owners lock the players out for a full season the owners lose all of the $13+ billion in revenue Manfred said they had in 2025 while still having to pay most of their employees, their leases, and all of their debt. The losses would add up to more than $18 billion in one year.
The players would lose their salaries and if you take what the union leaders have said instead of Drellich, they have a strike fund that will cover half of that. They end up losing about $2 billion.
If they are locked out, MLB cannot stop players from barnstorming or making income in other ways. It also does not stop the money the players earn from merchandising, licensing, and sponsorships.
Who stands to lose more? Who can weather this storm more easily?
Some team owners have been griping about revenue imbalances (or more nakedly, payroll disparities), but that’s something the owners will take care of behind closed doors so as not to appear fractured during CBA negotiations. I think there will be greater revenue sharing because owners understand there’s less to lose there than opening the books to the players, but owners are going to try to offer that as a concession to the players’ side. Ultimately, players aren’t going to budge from the salary cap and owner’s aren’t going to agree to %-based revenue split because they want to keep their finances under lock-and-key. It’s sad, because I think a leaguewide revenue-split with a high floor and escalating cap would do a lot to address the competition issues and put more total money in the players’ pool.
I don’t know that I’ve ever seen any documented cases of a team owner publicly griping about revenue or payroll disparities. This would not look good to the other 29 owners of MLB. What they say behind closed doors, who knows? Further, prospective team owners buy these franchises with their eyes open, and they pay for them based on an expected return on their investment. They know the numbers going into it and value the franchise accordingly. Nobody buys the Marlins thinking they got the Yankees.
Of course they’ll be no public griping before a contentious negotiation (Monfort came kinda close when he criticized the Padres’ spending after the Bogaerts signing, but charitably you could read it as a sustainability critique.) Cohen was reportedly drawing flak from other owners at the outset of the most recent CBA (remember the “Cohen tax” tier of the CBT?) and the Dodgers are now the one with the target on their backs according to Drellich.
Team valuations are always going to depend on intrisic factors; no two clubs or markets are alike. Individual team owners are buying/selling stadiums, attached mixed-use development, broadcast deals/media markets, and salary obligations. Historic/successful/large media market clubs are always going to have the best valuations when they change hands; I don’t see anyone railing against that.
Of course is right, and it’s also my point. The owners do not air their disagreements with other owners in public, so we can only guess at what they might be about. Lots of people seem to enjoy that guessing game. Not so much for me. But we don’t need to guess about one important factor: No doubt all of the owners want to make more money, and they talk about how to accomplish that all the time.
The league has internal rules to guide franchise sustainability. How strictly they are enforced is hard to know, as once again this is a private matter between the owners. These guidelines seem to work, mostly, as bankruptcies are rare. Beyond that, as you say, we know very little about the complex inner workings of MLB.
its pretty to see when you got a single player making nearly as much as a “small market” franchises total value over the course of the years.. there is a problem. fixing it in a fair way well.. no one wants to agree.
This is an owners’ problem where players are being asked to pay for.
Thus does capital always treat labor
Troy: are you being facetious? When you send off a letter do you use sealing wax?
I don’t understand why they aren’t already in serious negotiations. I know the players have the games, but most of the negotiations can be done by professional negotiators, then bring in the Players Committee when they’re close to a deal on a point. It would suck a little for those on the committee, but isn’t a bit of OT, much of which they could do on travel days, worth it to avoid a work stoppage that costs everyone?
And can we please allow the trading of draft picks? There’s no good reason this can’t be included, like the other major sports.
A very good question. Both sides have professional negotiators, but what they lack is arbitrators — a neutral third party empowered by both sides to iron out disputes. In the past, the union has offered to enter into binding arbitration, but the owners have refused, and the fact that the sides are pre-arming with financial cushions suggests that both are entering the contract negotiations believing in their ability to prevail.
C’mon hyrax. You KNOW in ANY situation nothing gets done until there’s a deadline.
The players making $30-40 million per year should be fine without using funds from the union. Any players making multi-millions shouldn’t need funds from the union. The players making league minimum are the one who likely need them.
The financials of the game have changed drastically since 1994 when it was reported in New York that guys like Brett Saberhagen, Bobby Bonilla, and Paul O’Neill were collecting unemployment
All players would be eligible to collect unemployment if the owners lock them out. Those like O’Neill that was under contract for $3.5 million in 1994 and players like Stanton that are under contract to make $25 million or more.
That’s a quick way to divide the union against itself
Yes they should be fine but they shouldn’t be excluded from drawing from those funds if necessary. The MLB minimum is $780K. Where do you draw the line for player salaries? And how about those who had signed large draft bonuses?
Ah, literal millionaires v. billionaires.
Labor vs capital.
Don’t be a bootlicker, we workers need to stand together!
I fully expect to lose some games in 2027, especially if the owners are really intent on pursuing a salary cap. The larger MLBPA war chest also means they are more prepared for a work stoppage.
I don’t think so. I think we’ll see something closer to the last CBA negotiation. I doubt the owners are willing to lose billions for a salary cap. We might miss the start of ST, but they’ll find a way to play 162.
The MLBPA war chest means they can conceivably hold out until it really starts to cost the owners more than they’re willing to lose. It’s larger than last time, and the owners caved then not getting one. The problem is the small market owners, but the big market teams will probably increase revenue sharing to make it more palatable for them.
If the owners lock the players out for a full season the owners lose all of the $13+ billion in revenue Manfred said they had in 2025 while still having to pay most of their employees, their leases, and all of their debt. The losses would add up to more than $18 billion in one year.
Do you really think that 23 or more of the owners are willing to lose all their revenue while still paying much of their expenses? I don’t. I think its a negotiating ploy.
Looking more and more like there will be lost games in 2027.
I doubt it. This is the same prediction we heard in 2021. They took it to brink and settled in time to play all the games. Most likely they will do the same again. It’s a stupid kabuki show that serves only to piss off the customers, but there we are.
Let’s say Tony Clark “took” $1 million for the phony charity. That’s just 0.2% (one-fifth of 1%) of the $519 million. So it will be written off, swept under the rug, and ignored just like most corruption, embezzlement, and fraud to keep it out of the headlines. Sad but true.
“Players Way”, now that’s an interesting name. Seems like “labor” unions, which long ago began as an effort to help powerless oppressed workers (my father was a trade union militant) have often morphed into sinecures for the union leaders and, of course, sources of graft.
Labor organizes not because it is “oppressed,” but because it allows employees to collectively bargain with employers on a coequal basis. If you need any lessons on how it has “morphed” in this sport, you need only to look at the minor league players, who voted for union representation just a couple of years ago.
BlueSkies: I was speaking of the past, was that not clear?
Yes, and I pointed out the lack of relevance.
Quit bootlicking and side with your fellow workers!
Billionaires and millionaires both stashing money away for a rainy day, how comical. Both sides care so much about the fans.
It’s not your labor or capital. You also have the right to walk away and enjoy a plethora of other entertainment options.
I plan to join the professional putt-putt tour next summer since I am apparently going to have a lot of free time on my hands. Me and Tiger are going to play doubles
Somehow I think the millionaires and billionaires will be just fine
They don’t get paid enough to play a game. Destroy MLB once and for all in the name of greed. This is why I haven’t gave MLB or their merchandise a penny in a decade.
What would really be awesome is if you stopped commenting about a sport you don’t support.
The players are playing by the rules set by collective bargaining. They are not breaking the law. The owners and players made these rules. If the rules change they will play by the rules. When I was younger I used to think the players were greedy . They’re all greedy. If any of us were fortunate enough to play MLB I find it hard to believe most of us wouldn’t take the extra 25 million if we could get it.
When it is capital vs labor, labor is always in the right, even when they’re not.
Whoever would have thought that putting an unaccountable organization like a labor union in proximity to lots of money would lead to corruption and scandal? This undermines my faith in the Democratic Socialists of America and Karl Marx!
But what we really want to know is how Tony is making out now that his affair with his wife’s sister came to light.
It’s funny to me that both the MLBPA and the owners actually think they generate this kinda money without the help of dear old Uncle Sam.
MLB is an iron clad machine meant to funnel US tax dollars into the pockets of already made Billionaires. If it was based on true profit and not corruption these players and owners would make a fraction of what they are now.
There’s no grand solution because no matter the payment regime, regardless of how dis/favorable it is to the players, the owners will always try to claw a little back in each negotiating cycle. That’s what happened during the peaceful years of Clark’s reign, and that’s what’s happened in every other major sport.
That said, I do believe there’s only one solution that promises peace, resolves most issues, and offers some grace to fans—a straight revenue share. Teams and players evenly split all sources of gameday revenue—tickets, concessions, broadcasting, etc. For ease, we make this a 55/45 split in favor of the players (stay with me). Merchandising/licensing remains with the players. Development (land) and other creative uses of the franchise brands remain with the individual teams—it’s too difficult to account for the value of enterprises like The Battery. In this manner, the actual monetary split should be ~50/50 between the product and the people who capitalize the product.
At the field level, teams receive their share of the pie based on regular and postseason performance. The World Series winner might get 10% of revenue. The Rockies might get 2%. (I haven’t worked out the math (because it’s a pipe dream). I figure the bottom 20 teams get half and the top 10 get the other half, escalating to the WS winner). Once total revenue is split by team, the team takes half then apportions the players payments based on “shares.” In this manner, players can choose their teams for purer reasons—quality of the roster, access to playing time, quality of instruction, etc. This eliminates the money grubbing aspect of the sport that rubs many fans the wrong way and lets the players focus on playing.
As part of this agreement, minors and development leagues would be centralized and more generously funded. There would be more player movement—that’s unavoidable in this concept—but more money would flow to players based on talent rather than service. They’d have the opportunity to play where they want rather than winning/losing the draft lottery.
This arrangement also takes pressure off individual franchises to profit maximize. Instead, they’ll want to interest-maximize so their secondary assets (i.e. The Battery) can profit maximize. That should result in a better game day experience for fans.
Will it happen? No. But it takes a solution of this scale to solve MLB’s problems. That they’re predictably unwilling to do so will result in pain…someday.
The gigantic fly in the ointment is your scheme would require MLB to disclose its finances to the players, and the owners have been every bit as adamant in refusing to do so as the players have been in accepting a salary cap. So you are right, this could never happen.