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
I am not optimistic that this will be settled without a lockout and games cancelled. Millionaires versus billionaires.
Or, cliche vs. platitude. Nobody wins.
I agree with this. The players want nothing to do with a salary cap yet it seems more likely baseball needs one.
Why does baseball need one? The Dodgers, Yankees and Mets have only won 5 world series in the last 25 years.
Blame cheap owners and terrible front offices for not knowing how to scout properly and spend wisely.
10% of the teams won 20% of the world series in 25 years? This is supposed to be a gotcha?
Teams like the Yankees and Dodgers will always have a financial advantage, and from that understanding, SHOULD win more often than other teams as long as they’re at least “average” in their ability to run a franchise. I don’t think the goal is a communist system where no one holds any advantages, but rather to curb the extent of some teams’ financial advantages that have become too extreme. So, I think his point wasn’t that those teams haven’t won more often, but that you’d expect it to be far worse when the Dodgers & co. are spending 4 to 5 x what some other teams are spending.
DDC, representing competitive equity on the basis of championships (and only for a couple of teams) is flawed, especially given that playoff expansion means the eventual champion is more random and less likely to be one of the top revenue teams.
The real issue is that the likes of the Yankees and Dodgers of the world have to really mess up to miss the playoffs, rendering the regular season just a long rubber-stamp while waiting to see whether the playoffs break right. And while being in the next financial tier has more margin for error, it still is a big advantage. There is a clear association between revenue and overall winning.
The biggest benefit of a salary cap is that there is no way the players would agree to one without a corresponding cap FLOOR. Salary caps don’t limit spending; they *fix* spending as a percentage of total revenue, making sure the players get their portion one way or another.
However, with a cap also comes a necessary (literally) wider spread of spending. While the total spend is the same, it would be distributed more evenly team to team.
Best of all (IMO), with individual teams capped, they would be discouraged from handing out the obscene 7+ year fully guaranteed deals that serve only to tie up more money into players past their prime or even on their last legs. By necessity, they would steer towards shorter deals and away from dead money, which would leave more money to pay the players who are actually performing.
In the last decade, only 2 teams (Brewers and Guardians) have made the playoffs more than 5 times that weren’t one of the ten highest spenders. That is a huge advantage. The gap between the Dodgers (#1)and the Rangers (#10 in spending) is roughly the payroll of the Marlins, Pirates, or A’s for the entire decade.
Baseball does need a cap. Basically it’s same 8/10 teams that are legit contenders.
In the last decade, only 2 teams (Brewers and Guardians) have made the playoffs more than 5 times that weren’t one of the ten highest spenders.
=====================
Over the past 4 years, 23 different teams have made the playoffs.
Big city teams need to win more often in a local/regional team sport.
Baseball is not a sport where over half the sports fans root for out-of-state teams….except in Miami and Tampa.
Cleveland has big advantage over many teams. It’s called the American League Central
Alex Bregman had the simplest, most accurate point-‘we have alot of money but the owners have more and we’re the ones on the field’
Would you run and tell your boss that you’re making too much to have your earnings capped?
Alex Bregman wouldn’t have a field to play on if the owners didn’t provide it for him. We pay too much to watch them in person and to watch them on our televisions, how about something for the fans?
bootsday29
Fans always lose. The millionaires and billionaires only care about how to split up the trough of the fans hard earned money not whether the trough will ever stop.
I have not given MLB or MLBPA very much money over the last 10 years. I have bought coke or pepsi and I’m sure both those companies have directed some advertising dollars at baseball as well as other products I have purchased but that’s it.
‘we have alot of money but the owners have more and we’re the ones on the field’
================
Same in every business. The owners risk their money and get paid more, if they are successful. I never expected the owners of the company to do anything more than pay me a fair salary. BB is more complicated, but owners will always get the lion’s share of profits. If the players think it is that lucrative, they can probably afford to buy one team a year between them.
bullred
Fans always lose. The millionaires and billionaires only care about how to split up the trough of the fans hard earned money
================
That’s not only correct, that’s how it should be. I never understood why fans get so invested in rooting for either side. Once I plop down my money for an ice-cold beer, I couldn’t care less whether it goes to the brewer, the lady pouring the beer (my preference), the owners or the players.
Why do so many people care?
Fans also voted to have a public sales tax to build the Marlins new stadium and nobody goes to the games. So what does that tell you about trusting the general public?
You mean the taxpayers. Most stadiums were either partly or entirely paid for by taxpayers. Even the “privately-funded” stadiums received public assistance in the form of free or below-market rate land, tax-exempt bonds, or similar subsidies. The players are the ones who provide most of the value. They deserve to be paid, not a bunch of billionaires whose biggest concern is estate taxes their kids will have to pay. If teams were really losing money, they wouldn’t all be increasing in value.
That’s the way the world. If you bring in jobs and taxes for the next 30+ years, the government fronts you some money.
And yet the players still make hundreds of millions of dollars.
Hey Alex, how about the ones who are not on the field but still getting paid? Like Rendon, Verlander, etc.
JoeBrady, that would be interesting if valid, but multiple studies have demonstrated that investing in stadiums, pro teams and the like is not a good return on investment for local governments. Local governments would provide more for their residents by investing that money elsewhere. No pro sports? Residents find something else to spend their entertainment dollars on.
JoeBrady, ethics perhaps?
but multiple studies have demonstrated that investing in stadiums, pro teams and the like is not a good return on investment
================
How much tax do you think the NYY generate each year? They had roughly $400M in ticket sales in each of the past two seasons. That’s about $35.5M just from ticket sales.
JoeBrady, ethics perhaps?
===============
Ethics in regard to what?
Mr. Brady
You sound like the perfect consumer. Paying whatever a company tells you to pay with a smile on your face. Good for you! Capitalism is great. Some people like me have to compare the $500 bucks cost for a family of five to go to a game against the experience received in return. I don’t make a 6 figure salary so I am no longer a MLB customer. I’m sure MLB is not hurting from me not showing up. It’s just that I grew up going to the stadium many times and wish that my kids had that opportunity as well. They are able to go but they are not fans of baseball because going to the stadium gives you the spark in your heart.
br
Everyone has to decide if a purchase is worth the cost.
“They are able to go”
Then what are you complaining about?
JB
“If you”
Grease some palms
“the government fronts you some money.”
And the sad part is, MLB doesn’t care if you’re no longer a customer.
There is zero need for a salary cap
I think the current soft cap / revenue sharing system is better than a hard cap, though could be improved. I definitely like the idea of a payroll floor that punishes a team if they don’t meet it. But, we also need to see the financials of teams like the Rays, Pirates, A’s, etc to understand what a reasonable salary floor would be. That’s at least the one area of the MLBPA proposal that aligns with competitive balance. If MLB ACTUALLY cares about competitive balance, I would imagine they will embrace that part of their proposal (though I have a hard time seeing it at $150 million, $100 million seems like a more realistic starting point).
Best thing for the fans is a salary cap. Baseball is already not affordable for me to go to anymore. I’m just worried about the middle class fans making $100 grand a year with very little disposable income right now not being able to afford a ticket.
Poor guys.
$17 a ticket for the upcoming Guardian/Yankee game. You can buy four tickets for your family for less than you can buy a single aged ribeye.
The Dodgers luxury tax bill would be the #19 payroll in the MLB. But sure.. no need to level the playing field.
There is infinite need for a cap
Crk
“There is infinite need for a cap”
0 is in the set of infinite numbers
There is zero need for a cap
Increase taxes on overages
Taxes on underages
More revenue sharing
Ta da!
JoeBrady
Yes, you can go cheap and ask your kids not to look at the kids next to them with their popcorn and drinks and ballcap and take the bus to the game so your not paying $45 bucks for parking but it goes back to the overall experience. I’m trying to get my kids to be fans of the game and sometimes that takes some swag and making sure they can see what is happening on the field so sitting a little closer.
Since the Guggenheim Group took over in 2012, the Dodgers have won the NL West all but once, and the Yankees haven’t had a losing season in 34 years. It’s NEVER just measured in rings.
No deferred money. A tight salary floor and cap, within maybe a $30 million difference between the minimum and maximum payrolls.
Otherwise, why bother?
Correction: millionaires and billionaires versus fans.
Labor vs capital. Labor is always the morally correct side.
Usually.
Except, in baseball, labor is refusing to make the game competitively balanced, so the LA and NY teams can line the pockets of maybe 4-5% of the richest players.
Geno
“labor is refusing to make the game competitively balanced”
A salary cap is not the only way to maintain competitive balance
It’s not even a good way
It’s probably not even a way
The other 3 sports all have caps, and godforbid, teams from Kansas City, Seattle, Denver, Tampa, Oklahoma City, Milwaukee…have all attracted enough top talent to win championships.
In capped leagues with level playing fields, the Jets, Clippers, Giants, Kings, Chargers, Nets…don’t have built-in advantages from local TV deals for owners with unlimited resources, and they don’t make the postseason every single year.
Tell me how a cap IS the way normal sports operate competitively, and why baseball shouldn’t.
I’ll hang up and listen for my answer!
Geno
Because players in other sports are getting screwed doesn’t mean that players in baseball should.
There are other ways to improve parity than capping spending
labor is refusing to make the game competitively balanced,
=================
Is either side trying?
Because players in other sports are getting screwed
================
Are they? From what I read:
1-Baseball players are getting less of the gross than FB players.
2-FB payrolls are going through the roof. $208M cap in 2022, and $301.2M in 2026. Almost a 50% increase in 4 years.
IMO, BB players are screwing themselves by not making themselves partners.
Still waiting for you to explain why a salary cap is only a bad idea in baseball, but not in football, hockey or basketball…where players get so badly screwed to the point that their great grandchildren MAY have to work someday.
“1-Baseball players are getting less of the gross than FB players.
2-FB payrolls are going through the roof. $208M cap in 2022, and $301.2M in 2026. Almost a 50% increase in 4 years.”
What do these have to do with a salary cap?
GSP
“Still waiting for you to explain why a salary cap is only a bad idea in baseball, but not in football, hockey or basketball”
You’re going to be waiting a long time
It’s bad in all of those sports
Bob Nutting is by some reports the second wealthiest owner. Yet the Pirates have the second lowest payroll over the past five seasons.
Please tell me how it’s the MLBPA’s fault for that. Or the A’s, or Marlins, or any other team run by cheapskates.
JuanUribeJazzHands
What do these have to do with a salary cap?
=================
You said players in other sports are getting screwed. I showed you that they weren’t. The players from the other three majors do better than BB players.
JB
“You said players in other sports are getting screwed.”
They are
“I showed you that they weren’t.”
No. You didn’t
“The players from the other three majors do better than BB players.”
I disagree.
You’re right.
I WILL have to wait a long time for you to make an actual case against a cap. Becaise you can’t.
Just typing “it’s bad” is ridiculous
Nutting DOES suck, but SECOND wealthiest?
Come on!
The Mets and Dodgers have the most money.
You’re implying that Bob Nothing has more than the Yankees, Phillies, Braves, Red Sox…
Ridiculous.
All I can is repeat what Forbes reported. And yeah, apparently Nutting does have more wealth than those owners.
GSP
“I WILL have to wait a long time for you to make an actual case against a cap. Becaise you can’t.”
It limits the amount of money that goes to the players
Have you never come across this before
I think a cap is needed badly. I don’t think the owners have the balls to make it happen though. Two different things. The owners are so dumb they will probably give in to most of the crap the players are asking for. I love the idea of a union and think unions are great but they always have to ask for more, more, more even when they have given their members more than they can ever dream of and are very well off. A fair salary and member safety should be the basis of a union.
br
And ANOTHER “fan” who seems like they hate the players
“they always have to ask for more, more, more even when they have given their members more than they can ever dream ”
Have you seen how much the owners have?
Do you want them to have more?
Why don’t you have these same feelings about these billionaires asking for more?
JuanUribeJazzHands
No lol! No hate for the players here just the reality that if you create a business and hire employees and are taking a chance that that business could fail and you could lose your initial up front money it is not your employees right to get half the profits. It is none of the employees business how much money the owner is getting but the owner should make sure his employees are being well compensated and taken care of which doesn’t always happen in the world of business. A union is needed if the owner is not looking after their employees but a union leader needs to be able to say to it’s members “We are now being taking care of by our employers so lets just ask for a cost of inflation increase.”
br
Counter argument
Profit is theft.
Let the owner pay themselves a nice comfortable salary and distribute the rest to the people earning the money.
No Troy. I said exactly what it is. If you’re not on the side of fans affording to take their family to games then you’re not on the morally correct side.
On another note, you have no clue what it takes to run a proper organization or what side morality looks like.
i_h
“If you’re not on the side of fans affording to take their family to games”
How would you have this happen?
Do you support this with all products? Diamond spoons? Lamborghinis? Yachts? Antarctic cruises? Picasso paintings?
its_happening
If you’re not on the side of fans affording to take their family to games then you’re not on the morally correct side.
==============
LOL! What’s next? I can’t afford 1995 low-mileage Porsche 928 in pristine condition is the next moral dilemma?
Blaming the union for the owners’ greed during a cost of living crisis is exactly what the billionaires want you to do.
Are you a scab or are you a man?
Jazz hands thanks for unblocking me. Not sure what I did to have you deep in your feels. I think the answer is obvious; the escalating costs means fans have to make a decision for themselves.
Put it this way, what would it take to drive down the cost for an average family to attend games? What would need to happen for the fans to make that happen? Answer that, and you have your answer. To compare baseball to luxury items is laughable, really.
Joe Brady: the word moral was said by Troy if you bothered reading the entire thread. As for the rest of your usual ignorant statement, what is the problem with fans deciding to choose themselves and their hard-earned dollar over handing it to owners and players? Why does that seem to offend you?
Troy, who blamed the union? Can you read? You bring up morality and your solution is choose the players? Did it ever occur to you that there is a third option? That is the point, and yet you somehow came up with this argument? Please go back to the drawing board.
its
“Not sure what I did to have you deep in your feels”
I don’t remember muting you, or unmuting you, I don’t remember you at all, but dumb [stuff] like this
“To compare baseball to luxury items is laughable, really.”
And this
Or not answering direct questions is probably why
I’ll ask again, how would you make games more affordable for fans?
And does this apply only you baseball? Or do other discretionary purchases apply as well?
Blaming the union for the owners’ greed during a cost of living crisis
================
Are the owners or players having a cost of livings crisis?
its_happening
what is the problem with fans deciding to choose themselves and their hard-earned dollar over handing it to owners and players?
====================
Where did I (or anyone) say that fans shouldn’t be able to choose how to spend their hard-earned dollars? That makes no sense.
So you’re a scab, not a man. Got it.
Who sets the price of beer, the players or the owners, Joe? And if by chance you think any team is losing money, then why have they literally never opened their books?
Morality died a long time ago
It’s not labor versus capital; that statement alone is already biased and wrong.
It’s labor versus management. They’re BOTH capitalist, seeking to extract as much to their side as possible.
In a perfect world, “from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs”. But this isn’t a perfect world; in the real world, the more selfless will happily sign up for such a thing, but the more selfish will then seek to take advantage of the resulting system. The best we can do is work to keep things out in the open and empower ALL parties so that they can serve as check and balance. It isn’t tidy or feel-good, but it works.
When it comes to labor versus management, the closest to a moral outcome is to keep them in a deadlock. We have seen the ugliness of too much power on the side of management (as that was the norm in the earlier industrial period), but we have also seen in certain specific industries how damaging it can be when labor gains too much ground. Labor will stack the deck and/or extract beyond what is merited just as much as management will, and there is no moral win there.
“Both sides” only benefits the class which already has power. Your idea that labor ever tries to “extract beyond what is merited” shows that you’ve fallen for billionaire propaganda.
Labor in baseball is not just the means of production but the product itself. They are entitled to as much of the profits as they can get, and then some.
Here we go.
Lets just hope that the 2028 season is still on the table. 2 consecutive years of no baseball would be dire.
Well sure, but on the bright side, during a lockout the Cubs would find it difficult (but probably not impossible) to rack up a a few more multi-game losing streaks, and Happ would have to take all of his requisite daily quota of called third strikes in a backyard batting cage. But lets be honest here; the real loser of any lockout will be Jed Hoyer. With players locked out, how will he fulfill his fetish for signing soft-tossing, aging, 2.82 WHIP, and 5.78 ERA relievers?
Thoughts and prayers.
Ain’t no time to hate.
This really is just blah blah blah.
If you’re the owners, you know it will take a two year lockout to break the players union. The only risk to the owners will be losing the current national/network TV contracts. ESPN, FOX, Turner and NBC might stick with the owners for a year. But, if by April of 2028, there is no progress with both sides holding firm, the TV partners will cut ties with MLB, likely sign on for spring football (an expanded UFL) and NASCAR to fill their empty weekend programming slots.
Should that occur, both sides will lose. And baseball will slip farther from the public’s interest.
No matter how much you provide fearmongering hyperbole and how much you soft-promote it, your “expanding UFL” won’t take over
🙄🙄🙄
ctbronx7
Media is always desperate for content and sports is the most popular content. There will always be someone willing to pay up. I’m sure they have already put in language in their contract to take care of any lockout.
And if you don’t think Apple, Netflix, Amazon and the other streaming services wouldn’t pounce you’re not paying attention.
After the Braves win this year I say just shut it all down and Braves will be the last champion standing
Works for me.
Losing the 2027 season would be dire. Baseball is not only not as popular as it was during the 90’s debacle. Ticket prices are prohibitive and they don’t have anything like the Sosa/McGwire home run chase that will peak interest to draw fans back.
No deal without Salary Cap. I don’t care if they use minor leaguers instead of major leaguers.
100%. The league needs a hard cap and floor.
why? why does there have to be a Salary Cap?
Because their team owners are cheap.
Because $12 for a beer is enough. If you think the money comes from the owners and not from us you’re delusional.
And if you think a salary cap is going to bring down the cost of beer, you’re delusional.
So that each team can compete for free agents on a level playing field. This sport loses its appeal when the top players routinely sign with LA or New York. Smaller market teams should at least have the same shot as those bigger markets.
Top players have been signing with New York since the beginning of the sport, and in LA too since the arrival of Free Agency. This is nothing new.
You think $12 a beer is delusional? Having to have 10 different streaming services to watch 1 team is outright robbery.
Baseballfan – I dont blame you because this thought is so ubiquitous, but every team can afford every player. However, small markets play in the shallow end because the percentage of profits is higher that way. By getting better players you get more revenue. But, if you can make profits of 20% on $100m, why would you take profits of 15% on $120m???? The fans would appreciate it because it is most likely a better product on the field, but the ownership groups (and their private equity partners) wouldnt
Because some teams have payrolls 6 times larger than other teams.
The NFL and NBA have salary caps and its increased parity in those leagues. Meanwhile MLB has the same handful of teams spending half a billion dollars every off-season.
@walterpatrick – There was a time the only way you could watch every game for your team was to buy tickets both home and away and go see them in person. People today think they have a constitutional right to watch every game on television.
For example, in 1982 only 60 Milwaukee Brewers games were televised in market (plus a small handful of national games). So maybe 65-70 games total.
Then don’t drink beer.
Beer was 18.99 for bad domestic beer at Camden Yards maybe 2-3 years ago.
Because the principle works in other sports
How do the NFL & NBA have more parity? Teams making the playoffs and winning championships is roughly the same between the three sports. Each sport also has similar amount of teams unable to win it all, or rarely/never making the playoffs. Perhaps it’s not about the salary cap but about the way an organization is run.
That doesn’t make it right.
Because Dodgers
Tom – Totally, the Dodgers are run better than every other team… because they can pay more than everyone else. Solid logic.
If fans are willing to pay $12 for a beer, owners will continue to charge $12, whether there’s a cap or not.
A. Consider yourself lucky if your home stadium is still only charging $12 beer.
B. You’re delusional if you think owners are going to lower the cost of beer because of a salary cap. They’re using you and you’re falling for it.
Chester—one example doesn’t prove anything. The Tampa Bay Rays have consistently been a very good team without the resources of the Dodgers. The Mets have tons more resources than the Rays, yet are a consistently horrible run organization.
In the NFL, where money is essentially even, why are the Cleveland Browns a complete joke, yet teams like the Eagles, Patriots, Rams, etc., are consistently good?
In some cases money can be a reason, but how your organzation operates has just as big an influence.
Wow, you mean the $16.99 (plus tax — another racket) the Yankees charged for Stella is a bargain?
And you don’t think the small market teams don’t have a chance? All they have to do is offer more in a contract and the players will flock to the small markets. It’s relatively simple yet relative to what the small market team owners are willing to offer.
Tom – I agree. Why not make how your team operates the ONLY reason though? Why allow a giant advantage for a few teams?
You really think a Cap going to do that.? LoL
Chester — because not everything in life has to be “fair” or “equal”. There’s a reason why certain teams have more revenes/money to spend. They have more fans, and those fans support them more. The Dodgers draw 50,000 fans a night. If the Rays or Pirates filled their ballparks to capacity every night, they’d be able to spend significantly more money too.
And if all three teams were suddenly put up for sale, the Dodgers would likely clear $10B while the Rays & Pirates would struggle to clear $4B combined, so why would/should the Dodgers ownership subsize other businesses?
Dang. Where’s everyone getting these $12 beers? $22 at Oracle 😥
Tom – revenue disparities are not due to fan attendance. That’s absurd. So is arguing that “life isn’t fair.” Not having a level playing field is a great way for some teams to stop worrying about winning and merely focus on maximizing profits, which is terrible for a product built on the foundation of live competition.
Yes Tom that’s true, top players have always signed with the big markets. The big markets have won more than their fare share of World Series too. All the while small market teams have scratched just to make the playoffs. Small market fans also rarely get to keep their stars which keeps them small because the fans don’t come to the games
Every owner is rich enough and every team makes enough revenue or has enough revenue from revenue sharing, it’s the small market teams’ faults for not spending more.
elm
“Because $12 for a beer is enough. If you think the money comes from the owners and not from us you’re delusional.”
Tell me you never took econ 101 without telling me
Supply and demand controls prices. Revenue drives salary. Salary doesn’t drive prices
bf90
“So that each team can compete for free agents on a level playing field.
Or, instead of intentionally restricting player salaries, which is the REAL motive behind a salary cap, increase revenue sharing and force the low payroll teams to increase spending
Comparing MLB to the NFL and NBA isn’t apples to apples. NFL success banks heavily on the QB. NBA success banks heavily on 2-3 really good players. MLB is more of a team sport. From a pitching perspective alone, you need at least 3 really good starting pitchers, plus a good bullpen. Lineup needs at least 6 really good players to really compete for anything. Imagine if an NFL QB only played in every 5th game.
Chester Copperpot
Tom – revenue disparities are not due to fan attendance.
==================
Not to be mean-spirited, but that’s insane. Sportico listed the top-10 teams in ticket revenue per game, and the LAD and NYY were listed as $4.29M per game and $4.11. The Rangers and Mets were 9th and 10, with slightly half of that. That means a difference > $2M per, or maybe $85M-90M for the season.
They didn’t list the lower-ranked teams, but the top teams might have a $300M advantage over a team like TB. To suggest that revenues have nothing to do with revenue is among the craziest things I’ve heard recently.
Only $12, come to Chicago.
I can’t believe how many delusional fans are out there.
If fans are willing to pay $12 for a beer, owners will continue to charge $12
=================
And that, my friend, is the same everywhere in the world. Every business charges whatever the market will bare. And every person in here would likely do the same.
Revenue drives salary.
==================
No. In a free market, demand drives salary. One of my employers did extremely well. But them doubling their revenue made no difference on how much they paid the accountants they hired. If the price for a local CPA with 5 years of experience was xyz, that’s what they paid.
increase revenue sharing and force the low payroll teams to increase spending
==================
That’s kind of meaningless. At the end of the day, both sides are fighting for a percentage of the gross. If the players want a minimum payroll, they will have to offset that someplace else.
So every team can afford $700 million for Soto and Ohtani? The LA and NY markets are NOT an unfair advantage?
If not, let’s enjoy the Long Beach Brewers, the Long Island Reds and a long, long offseason.
JB
“If the players want a minimum payroll, they will have to offset that someplace else.”
That’s what the MLBPA proposal of trying to do with the minimum salary tax
Demand = Revenue=Higher Salary all paid for by the fans. 100% Owners don’t use any of their personal money at all. They just used their money (collateral not their actual money) to buy a business.
“Demand = Revenue=Higher Salary all paid for by the fans. ”
Yes. Businesses make money from their customers
MLB customers spend billions every year on the product
Because the business makes so much, they can afford to pay their employees
This is better than companies that make billions and don’t pay their employees. Can anyone think of any business like that?
Chester — how are revenues not a result of fan support? The more fans you have, the more people buy tickets, purchase merchandise, buy concessions, purchase streaming services and support the team through TV viewing. Yes, the Dodgers are in a bigger market with more people to support them, but if a smaller city like Cincinnati can achieve support from a larger percentage of people in the area, they’d generate more money.
” to stop worrying about winning and merely focus on maximizing profits”
welcome to business 101, which is what professional sports is…a business. Nearly every team in the league, Dodgers included, value profit over winning.
@JoeBrady…you missed my point. While I said “fill their ballparks” I wasn’t just talking about ticket sales, I was talking about the overall support of a team…attendance, merchandise, and—most importantly—TV viewing habits. More people watch Dodger games. More people watch Phillies games. They have a larger pool to choose from. So smaller market teams like the Rays, the Reds, etc., need to do something to garner a larger percentage of the people in their market to complete in all of these aspects to compete. In the business world—which is what professional sports is first and foremost—you need to find ways to maximize your revenue and not beg other businesses for a handout or to change their business model because yours is unsuccessful due to a variety of reasons.
Joe Brady- The Mets average 35k fans a night and cannot compete with LA. Are you saying the answer is for every team to sellout 50k a night like the Dodgers? If so, you have to understand teams like KC, CIN, etc will NEVER be on a level playing field merely due to market size. That seems wildly unfair in a sport built on competition.
The Dodgers have won the NL West every year except 1 Wild Card, since the Guggenheim Group started peeing away money like a fountain. And the Yankees haven’t had a losing season in 34 years.
Tell us how that’s fair.
That’s what the MLBPA proposal of trying to do with the minimum salary tax
==================
So the union wants to double the salary cost for MLB teams, and to make up for it, they also want to tax the teams?
Because the business makes so much, they can afford to pay their employees
==================
If my price tag when I worked for Corporate America was $150k, for example, and they doubled their profits, the price tag on the next accountant would still be $150k.
Sad.Sox 3 (Skenes in 2027)
Baseballfan – I dont blame you because this thought is so ubiquitous, but every team can afford every player.
================
Any single player? Sure. But if a small market team pays $51M to Soto, they will have to cut back a huge amount on other positions.
you need to find ways to maximize your revenue and not beg other businesses for a handout
================
Everyone wants to maximize their revenue. But Cleveland is never, ever going to have the market size of NY. When I use to renew my Yankee tickets, I watched the woman next to me upgrade her tickets and wrote the guy a $67,000 check. You’re not likely to see a lot of that in Cleveland.
Obviously not every team can sell out 50k, and obviously that causes competitive issues. What BB needs is for the players to get a percentage of the gross. Their union keeps crying ‘no cap’, but imho, that seems quite counterproductive.
FB players get 48%. The NBA is 49-51%. Hockey players get 50%. BB is maybe 44-47%?
If the players accepted a %, the rest is easy. Share all TV revenue, and let teams develop their local markets to the best of their ability. The floor and ceiling wouldn’t matter too much to the players since they would get their $6B no matter what.
JB
Owners don’t want to open the books
Wonder why
Why would they open their books? This is one of the reasons why neither side is interested in a cap. The owners are probably making a lot of money not necessarily related to the team.
But if the players took a % of the gross, the owners would be required to open their books.
JB
“But if the players took a % of the gross, the owners would be required to open their books.”
Ownership proposed a 50/50 split
Tom – how in the world is KC supposed to compete with LA for ticket sales, merchandise, TV viewing, etc when LA just bought the most marketable player in sports and it didn’t prevent them from doing ANYTHING else they wanted to. Apparently CIN should’ve offered Ohtani $700M and also got Kyle Tucker and Edwin Diaz, etc. Then they would make money like LA? Nonsense.
I truly believe you’re just not wanting to see the problem.
No, I see the problems clearly, I just don’t think they’re the biggest issues facing MLB teams. There is a clear revenue and spending disparity between teams, no doubt. Obviously Cincinnati/KC cannot afford to spend on Dodger-level, but I doubt they’re doing everything they can to maximize their revenue in the hopes that MLB will force richer teams to pay them.
Any team in baseball could have afforded Ohtani’s contract…if they do what the Dodgers did with it. Market him like crazy and make a ton of money off him. Invest the deferred money and make cash on that too. However, Ohtani was never going to sign with a team outside of the West Coast.
All that being said, teams do not need to spend on Dodger-level to compete. Can the Reds & KC spend more? Likely. Could they work to generate more? Just as likely. But most of them want to sit back and complain about how unfair it is and demand that the sport hurt the successful businesses because they’re not as successful.
Baseball is a successful business. Them companies involved in the business generate profits. Some companies do more and are more successful. Will they ever all be on a 100% even playing field? No. But maximize what you can.
A salary cap would do absolutely nothing. Ohtani makes over $100 million in endorsements, so he would still take a sweetheart deal to play with the dodgers. And other players know they can get endorsement money by playing with a winner so they’ll all go to the big market highly marketable teams to earn their $ off the field. That’s not conjecture it happens in the other sports which is why they have even worse parity than mlb
There will never be a salary cap in MLB. The cheap owners don’t want to have a minimum they have to spend every year.
Last time the owners proposed a floor WITHOUT a hard ceiling, and it was the players association that rejected it.
Any salary cap is going to be high enough to allow teams like the Dodgers and Mets to continue to outspend everyone so a cap may be effectively pointless. A floor of at least $150 million should be in place though
Minor leaguers are part of MLBPA. They’re not crossing the picketline.
If the salary cap is the sticking point
I’m fine accepting a minimum spending floor and limited deferrals (10% of first tax apron)
Also harder penalties for going past 1st 2nd 3rd
The Rangers don’t have to worry about that cause they can’t get anyone to 3rd. 3rd base that is!
Sf – now that minor leaguers have joined the mlbpa, I dont know that they cross picket lines to play
No deal with one. That is completely guaranteed. Sad how many fans are being fooled into thinking the owners are pushing for a cap to improve competitiveness, when the only reason is to improve profitability.
So, don’t be their dupe. Try, at least.
Larger markets produce both competitiveness and profitability, but neither directly causes the other. Since market size can’t be changed, you need different ways for smaller market teams (whether competitive or not) to be profitable. Moving some of the large market profits to smaller markets is one way, and the only way to do that without making the large markets unprofitable too, is to limit their spending.
The problems with this analysis are: (1) every team is profitable, and (2) no team is forced to spend.
The more profits one makes, the more they can reinvest in a competitive team. Who is to say that small market teams aren’t profitable? You’re completely ignoring rising individual team valuations where large market teams are big contributors in making the entire MLB ecosystem more valuable every year.
Yep. One of the dirty little secrets of MLB is the large contract, marketable stars signed by the most flush teams make money for all the owners. Now, what are we as fans to do with this piece of information?
The fact they don’t increase investment in the team indicates they aren’t profitable. They also indicate as much verbally, despite the fact they have big massive egos which would be hurting like hell as they say it.
Rising valuations don’t help the short term flow of cash that enables fa spending. You are expecting them to spend the capital asset gain before it is realised ?
Are you not familiar with leveraging paper wealth to borrow cash? See the Padres of recent years.
I’m familiar. It’s just not smart. You are frittering away your ultimate payday for operating costs. Why do you think the Padres decided to sell ? They couldn’t borrow more and had to replace it with their own cash. Not too many lining up for that strategy.
No team owner has claimed to be unprofitable since the 2020 pandemic season, and those claims were always doubtful since they were never backed up with evidence. Franchise values will not increase if profitability isn’t increasing. This is Finance 101.
Yes they have. Giants. Break even. Not profitable. Tell us all the time. Evidence. There’s been a few others that have stated similar but I’d have to google and refresh the memory. Theres also the pirates investigative journos who spent months on it and found zero profit. On top of that, 10 teams are under 130m and are all but stagnant in terms of payroll. Not 1 or 2. 10. That’s a lot.
Have you got any contrary evidence other than the very loose franchise values are increasing ?
Forgot big Steve. I think the quote was “losing a significant amount”
I’m not seeing you posting any evidence of your claims. The reality is team finances are not public. Pretty much all we can gather publicly is the sale price of franchises, when they occur. And since gravity is still a thing, franchises don’t increase in value if their profitability doesn’t.
Ha ha. Ok.
I forgot peoples word doesn’t matter over there. Especially if it contradicts an existing belief. No problem. It’s not evidence if you say so. Im sticking with my logic. Half the team’s financial position leaves their fans with very little to get excited about. 1/3 might as well find another sport. Personally, i think thats an awful situation. Personally, i think the owners of those teams would love to change that for their fans. It’s the most logical option in my world.
Ha ha I can see how you are taking my word over there when it contradicts an existing belief. Never mind how that’s supposed to work.
The big mistake you’re making is in thinking that team owners have the same priorities as fans. It’s the difference between a business and entertainment. The setup of the baseball business essentially guarantees that every owner makes a return on their investment, and believe it or not this is their priority.
Bottom line, the owners have the financial system they want because they created it. Does it stink for a lot of fans? Sure. But don’t complain to me about it. I’m just telling you what it is not endorsing it.
Seam
“the only way to do that without making the large markets unprofitable too, is to limit their spending.”
Capping their spending, of course, is not the only way to do that.
Blue.
The owners words are worth more than yours. They are there. That’s the difference. They are talking from knowledge. You aren’t. You are guessing. I can’t believe you think your word is better than theirs on the matter. Ego. That’s your big mistake.
Nope. They want to win. Just like fans. That’s logical. You aren’t buying a team otherwise. You are buying what’s the best investment. That’s not baseball.
Um, what?
You conspicuously haven’t quoted a single owner, and no matter what they say publicly, be sure it’s first and foremost in their own interests as owners, not yours as a fan. If you believe they buy these franchises as hobbies, instead of businesses to make money, then I don’t know what anyone can say to convince you. Either way, reality hasn’t changed.
Ha ha. Conspicuously ? You saying I’m making it up ? Umm…..fark off.
Why do you want to convince me ?
Answer. Ego.
No. Reality hasn’t changed. Owners want to win but the rules of entering the club, and common sense, say you need to do it with fiscal responsibility. That’s what they do imo. The priority is to win while showing fiscal responsibility. Fiscal responsibility is different to making profit. It’s about not digging a hole for the org and MLB monitors that closely. Ex POBO told me all about it. I believe him. He was there for a long time. The current reality for half the teams is that they can’t do both and fans are the ones hurting. Change is required. Don’t care how. Dont care about the ridiculous team player rubbish. I care about competition and everybody getting a thrill every know and then.
Sense is not so common. You just proved it.
Oh. Did I ? Which part oh great one ?
Thanks for that feedback. I’m good. Very happy with my common sense. Pretty good with listening to people who are there, or have been there, as well. You should try that one just for giggles. Just push the ego aside for a second or two.
Sure. You just need to show me the evidence.
Love it when Dodgers fans condescendingly explain to Pirates/Marlins/Guards fans that they just have to deal with grotesque salary imbalance, or else they are anti-labor.
No one’s buying it anymore man.
The lack of care about the plight of the less fortunate baseball fan is astounding. Not much community in baseball fandom.
This comment only goes to proving that you have no idea what I am talking about.
A salary cap has nothing to do with team competitiveness and everything to do with profit, and this is why the owners want one. You can accept this or not, but it will still be true.
Nope cap or bust
Hope you enjoy watching basketball.
Of course a Giants fan says this. They field nothing but minor leagues and no one watches them anyways. They want that for allow us.
There will no salary cap or salary floor. Only way small market teams can survive with a $150m floor is with large market teams basically subsidizing the small market teams. And that battle will make the battle between owners and players look like like a flag football game. The biggest reason why caps/floors work in other sports is because lowest payrolls are 85-90% of the largest payrolls. That model doesn’t exist in MLB and never will. More stringent penalties/loss of draft picks and some minor tweaks is the likely result of this… hopefully without loss of games.
They tried that back in 1995. Some of yall need to learn your history.
I don’t care if they use us. It needs to happen
Wow
The MLBPA made its first proposal to MLB today in collective bargaining. Among the topline issues:
– A “competitive-integrity tax” for any team that does not spend $150M
– Increase minimum salary from $780,000 to $1.5M
– Increase in base CBT threshold from $244M to $300M
Looks reasonable to me. Impossible to ask the union for a salary cap.
🤣
Two of those things they are definitely not getting. Doubling league minimum salary is probably not happening and an increase in CBT would only benefit a handful of teams that already don’t care about paying it. Taxing the team’s that don’t spend is interesting though because we’ve heard for years and years about how the owners don’t use their revenue sharing dollars on the roster on the field
I am surprised they didn’t ask for a salary floor.
The union opposes a salary floor.
That union does not oppose a salary floor, it just wasn’t part of their proposal.
They’re going to oppose a floor, or not put one in any proposal, but a floor comes with a ceiling, and that’s not happening.
WBWR
“I am surprised they didn’t ask for a salary floor.”
That would open the door for a cap
Tax the top and bottom makes more sense
Yeah that is true. Better not even make it an option if it means a cap. From the player perspective anyhow. Taxing the bottom and top is more realistic anyhow.
There are players in the ML not worth $150K, let alone $1.5MM. Scaling up payroll is a proven failure- particulaly at providing a quality product.
cg
“There are players in the ML not worth $150K, let alone $1.5MM.”
Show your work
All HEAVILY tilted toward the large market teams. I think they’re trying their old formula of linking up (quietly) with the Dodgers and Yankees et al to outflank the small market teams. But I suspect it won’t work this time.
A salary floor in exchange for a salary cap seems fair and the most healthy thing for the sport to ensure parity across the league
There already is parity across the league…
– Increase minimum salary from $780,000 to $1.5M
===================
A 100% increase in salary in one year looks reasonable to you?
JB
“A 100% increase in salary in one year looks reasonable to you?”
:looks at MLB revenues:
Yes
If I were to get my salary doubled every year, in 15 years, I would own the entire world.
I can’t see minimum salary doubling. nfw. There are ways for the young stars to make more money if they are good.
I’m sure the owners will be fine w/it. Play ball! 🤣
Bring back the laughing emojis! No baseball in 2027. This will be the end and all over greed.
Stop watching baseball if you hate it so much.
How many times do I have to tell you that?
yep…the players are sooo under paid!!!! LOL!
Compared to the billionaire owners who do nothing and watch their franchise accrue hundreds of millions over the years… yeah, the players are underpaid. Or more specifically, most players (especially minor leaguers and pre-arb MLB players) are underpaid. Hard to argue a guy like Soto is underpaid, but 99% of professional players make peanuts compared to the stars and a speck of a peanut compared to the owners… who do nothing
Too bad the MLBPA doesn’t care about minor leaguers…
A potential massive increase in league minimum salary says otherwise…
Minor leaguers are part of the union now.
“Compared to the billionaire” is that how were doing things now? I’m not a billionaire, so they should charge me more so the millionaires can get more millions? Failure in oppression olympics logic.
Regardless of what the millionaires make, the billionaires are going to charge you more. Because they can.
The question isnt “how much will the fans get charged?”, because the answer to that will always be “as much as they can bear.” The question is “how much of what we charge the fans do we keep, and how much do we have to cough up in labor?”
If you dont like what youre being charged, I’ve got news for you, a salary cap isnt going to change that. If you want it to change, you, and as many people as you can rally, have to stop paying what they’re charging you. Until the fans speak with their wallets, nothing is going to change in terms of the price gouging.
True, but allow me to boil this down a bit:
Nobody but a fool will charge you less for something than you are willing to pay, and the owners of MLB are no fools.
“If you don’t like what you’re being charged, I’ve got news for you, a salary cap isn’t going to change that.”
Yes it will. It will slow down the bleeding of cash from our wallets to enjoy baseball.
So player salaries don’t matter at all, billionaires are going to charge more regardless, so I should be happy millionaires are making more millions? Okay bud.
CC
“So player salaries don’t matter at all”
Correct
“billionaires are going to charge more regardless”
Correct
“so I should be happy millionaires are making more millions?”
Would you prefer that billionaires make more millions?
I like the players more than the owners, and think, as the people doing the work, they deserve the money.
But if you want the owners to get more, that’s your prerogative, I guess.
This is the problem with trying to reduce the issues to the “millionaires vs. billionaires” cliche, as if you have to side with one or the other. Baseball is a multi-billion dollar industry, and it is that because we, the fans, willingly pay that much collectively to watch it. This is the pie. The conflict is entirely over how the pie is sliced between the owners and players. Fans don’t get a slice of the pie. We pay for it.
BlueSkies_LA
Yes! The fans pay for all of it but half the fans are too stupid to realize it so nothing will be done about it. It’s too bad because it is such a great game. Half the fans being stupid is a commonality with regards to America’s pastimes.
They do nothing but watch their franchise accrue value.
Yeah. No work involved in that process. Just sitting and waiting…….
Crazy talk. For the overwhelming majority, being an owner would be a
labour intensive nightmare. No escaping it. Sh@t to worry about every single day. No thanks.
They objectively are, relative to total revenue. They are being paid less than they were ten or twenty years ago.
The owners are so over paid!!!!
Steroids had to bring fans back after that 94 mess. What will they think of to bring fans back in 28-29?
Banana Ball vs MLB exhibition games
It will obviously be the first non-human player (since aliens are going to be publicly acknowledged within weeks). I hear there’s a LH hitting third-baseman from Reticuli 7 that routinely smacks the ball 7 Parsecs and runs 1st to 3rd in 2.4 nano seconds.
Caitlin Clark signs with the LA Dodgers
Doubtful. Caitlin Clark was at the SF/AZ game today wearing a Giants’ cap.
Jean,
Sorry for her loss(es)…
cocaine beer
You’re not gonna get nearly as many likes as you should for that one.
Steroids. The answer is always Steroids.
If that’s what the players are expecting, it will be a long lockout.
There will be a lockout, but no games will be missed. MLB and MLBPA are not that stupid. It’s all for show. They’re all making way too much money to annoy its revenue supplies by missing games.
When they get the deal done sometime in early February, it’ll look very similar to what the last deal was.
*Owners will kick can down the road on the Salary Cap (for them, hopefully to a time when they have their precious media deal that involves multiple teams & can sell a rights deal to networks)
*Luxury Tax Bases & Financial Penalties will increase
*Some kind of tax/penalty on low-spending clubs (either a direct tax, a loss of revenue sharing, or penalties on draft picks)
*A limit/tax on deferred compensation
*Higher minimum salaries
Then they’ll call it a day and move on for a few years. Everyone will make money. Some will spend it, some won’t.
They’ve been “that stupid” multiple times in the past. And that’s when they were the most popular sport in the U.S., or at worst #2.
The NFL has led pro sports in revenue since the 1970s.
And? What does NLF revenue have to do with an MLB CBA?
I think they learned their lesson in 1994/1995. Doubtful any games are missed.
“They’ve been “that stupid” multiple times in the past.”
Have they though? The last time games were lost and not made up by rescheduling was 31 years ago. No games have been permanently lost to a work stoppage since 1994-95.
Only 2 other work stoppages cost games from being played; 1972 and 1981. 3 times in the last 54 years is technically multiple times, but hardly qualifies as a significant recurrence. The fact that they tried so hard to not lose games in 2022 sounds like they’ve learned that lost games hurt financially, and want to avoid a repeat.
Once they have a common media package with most of the teams in it they can sell it easier and make more money from it. Those centralized revenues will make things more level across the league and allow a drift toward the model the other sports use.
Seems like a reasonable jumping off point for the negotiations. Split the difference in the asks versus the baseline and subtract a premium for no cap. I think that is where we will end up.
Interesting that the MLBPA is proposing “more” revenue sharing so that “teams are guaranteed to have at least $240m in revenue.” What that tells me is the union is admitting that some teams have significantly LESS than $240m in revenue, which even at the 55% rule (55% of revenue goes to player payroll) those teams would max out below the $130m a year range. That is actually a huge admission and basically confirms what the small market teams have been saying. $240m is probably less than a quarter of what the Dodgers bring in.
MLBPA and high-payroll teams have never denied revenue disparity across the league. There’s no “gotcha” moment here as some of these teams continue to pay their respective luxury tax.
I think it will shock a lot of the Dodger/Yankee stans that it is, in fact, true that some teams’ maximum, red-line spending is currently in the $120m or less range. Exactly as the owners have said for years. And I’ll bet some of those teams currently spend more than that, therefore losing money.
No one is going to take advice/opinions from an infamous bootlicker like yourself, Seamaholic/Seamaholic 2
I agree, except for the specific dollar value which is likely closer to $150-175m.
That’s why I muted seamaholic and It’s not happening. Wait why am I seeing posts from those doucebags!
According to the internet (so it must be true), the A’s have the lowest revenue, about 250M (2024). So they’re all well beyond 240M, most of them 300s and 400s.
I think you’ll find that the proposal here is a minimum of 240M from the funds *dispersed centrally*. That’s allegedly about 100M, plus about 90-100M each from central TV deals currently. Every team is already getting ~200M, plus everything they don’t have to share. Even Miami was at 307M.
So the proposal is asking for an extra 40-50 per team.
Minimum team salary of 36 Mil?
Baseball was ruined with deferred salaries, opt outs and the lack of a salary floor. The cost of tickets is so high that I haven’t been able to take my family of 3 to a MLB game for 5 years. I refuse to purchase tickets on a credit card and I am not spending $100.00 per person for a game that is more enjoyable when watched on TV.
Agreed Dogs.
What team do you root for? In Cincinnati, you can buy 6$ tickets (nose bleed)…park in a cheap garage for about 8$ (NKY – 24 hr parking after 6pm), ride the TANK bus from the garage to stadium and back for 2$ each way. And you can bring in your own food and drinks. I highly doubt they are the only MLB team that is offering low budget deals.
mrkinsm — Yeap. Baltimore got $9.00 tickets, and you can bring in food too.
D.C. has 7-9$ tickets every game, walk up only.
NYY against the Guardians has decent tickets for $17. That’s NYC’s hourly minimum wage.
You can sit in the lower bowl at most stadiums for less than $100 per ticket, let alone nosebleeds.
Ticket prices are not a deterrent for me, but I go to very few games because I hate the hassle. I haven’t been to a game since 2022. Driving time, traffic, lining up to be strip searched before entering, crowds, blaring music. No thanks. Like you I watch from the comfort of my home. And I like it that way.
MLB needs a salary cap. Make the playing field even for every team.
You still think the owners who don’t spend are now going to spend if there’s a cap.? Crazy
First salvos are a wish list, of course. I do think we miss about a month or two however.
Best guess is a floor, and a soft cap (obviously not called a cap at all) which would apply towards free agents added to existing roster, and some sort of exemption for homegrown players.
Either way money has already ruined the sport, so its really only toying around the edges
An exemption for homegrown players is a free ride for big markets and will only make it worse. This way they can pay their own players and buy even more of the small market players. All while paying less in tax
Agree. Sharing more money would allow smaller revenue teams to afford their homegrown players without granting more freedom to the rich teams. Affording players is just a matter of shuffling the money and letting teams choose where to spend it. The thumb on the scale is penalties for spending too much or too little.
If MLB imposes a cap, I hope NPB overtakes it as the premier world baseball league and destination. Cap cuts would be terrible for the sport. Any owners in favor of this are just looking to sell – why cater to people who are looking to end their association with the sport?
Literally every other top league has caps. Including even Euro soccer, where it takes the form of “spending responsibility rules.” Ironically, the one exception is the NPB, where the same teams win year after year after year.
Look how many teams win and make the Stanley Cup/Super Bowl “every year after year” in the NHL and NFL compared to MLB, bootlicker
European soccer doesn’t have a cap. If you are just referring to UEFA competitions (e.g. the Champions League) then it does have a squad cost calculation based on 70% of operating revenue. Based on your other points I’m not sure you’d agree with that as it would allow bigger market clubs to spend much more than smaller. You could always copy soccer and add relegation though, that would force people to spend.
That minimum salary is never happening, same with arbitration changes. MLB have players by the balls with arbitration. Most teams have control of players well into their decline phase (age 31-32) which severely limits any MLB player from making money in free agency. It’s one of the saddest elements of how baseball works. It’s the same problem with running backs in the NFL, except it applies to every player in the MLB.
The correct incentive would be to make arbitration/control completely age-based while eliminating the 3-year college rule, letting players declare for the MLB draft at any time. This incentives teams to aggressively promote prospects, and rewards teams with good player development who can get players ready for the league at a young age.
Some baseball players are drafted at age 19 or 20 like when the White Sox drafted Tim Anderson.
The union would hate that, as it would directly affect the market-rate veterans they run their union for (and by). Roster spots would get sucked up by 22 year olds, taking those spots away from 30 somethings.
The owners will find this laughable, and submit equally ridiculous proposals that will be scoffed at. Meanwhile, the clock will just keep ticking.
That’s what the anti-integrity tax is for. by doing it this way instead of an absolute floor you will allow teams to rebuild every now and then that could be good for the sport too.
can someone explain to me why, in a league that has a salary cap (NFL), 11 guys already make over $50M a year, yet in a league without a salary cap, only 2 guys are making over $50M a year? how will a cap suddenly make it more possible for the Rockies to sign Tucker this last offseason?
NFL doesn’t have fully guaranteed money, and they often use “dummy years” to offset those numbers
I’m not really sure what that means but, in essence then, the cap doesn’t really solve these issues. there are still have- and have-not teams, right? and they still have players making similarly huge salaries as our current non-cap system has. so what would this solve?
MLB contracts actually get paid out. A lot of the NFL deals are for show since the unfruitful back ends can be cut whenever the team feels the need. $400m in baseball is $400m, but in football you can promise the moon and know that you won’t be paying it if you don’t want to.
It won’t. It’s low hanging fruit for fans to feel it will create more parity, but it won’t in practice. Rockies, Pirates, Reds, A’s, Rays, etc., won’t spend anyway. They will remain at or near the minimum despite increased revenue. Fans also argue that it will lower concession prices, but it won’t. They will continue justifying increased prices as long as fans spend their money.
OTOH, look at what a cap has done in sports like the NFL and NBA, and I argue it has made them worse overall.
The NBA is borderline unwatchable. No idea how much it relates to the salary cap but I do get the sense that it creates the possibilities for “super teams” that MLB hasn’t really developed. maybe that’s the structure of the game more so than the salary stuff, but either way, I hate it.
The NFL I think has been shaped most by its revenue sharing, honestly. MLB needs to figure that out, particularly when it comes to media deals. my Pirates are on Apple TV again this week and I am livid.
Big difference All NFL games are on National Networks. NBA,NHL and MLB are on both National and Regional and they don’t share regional $$$
You should be. The Pirates are a train wreck.
Yes, at 2 games over .500 and scoring the fourth most runs in MLB. Can’t think of a better descriptor than “train wreck.”
Some people don’t believe the Pirates can turn it around, so give them some time.
The NFL and NHL have both a cap and a floor. People always forget about the floors.
Those systems allow a kid in KC or Green Bay to love their local team and have genuine championship dreams. Can’t say the same for baseball fans in those cities.
A true cap would prevent the concentration of talent like we see in LA right now and on some of the Yankees teams of the past.
But a cap/floor combination would give small market fans a reason to believe again.
Among the many things the NFL has done very right is avoid the glamour team problem that haunts the NBA (NFL free agents will nearly always go to the highest bidder), while taking extreme measures to maximize upward (and downward) mobility for teams. Part of that is the fact that the draft is so important because player lifetimes are so short. Part is the short schedule, allowing schedules to be heavily unbalanced. A huge part is the centralized nature of league revenues, allowing the league to make every team about equally wealthy. But a big part is a hard cap well below team revenues. You’re a good free agent, and the Panthers or the Jags are the only team offering big money, guess where you’re going. In the NBA you wouldn’t consider going there. In MLB there’s no way the Pirates and Rockies would be the only teams offering big money.
“A huge part is the centralized nature of league revenues, allowing the league to make every team about equally wealthy. But a big part is a hard cap well below team revenues. ”
——————————————————————-
This last thing is the key. When there’s only one money river and you can share that money pretty evenly to pay bills and there’s still so much extra that everyone still makes bank you can get owners to agree. But MLB has some revenue streams that are not common and the few owners of those are so much wealthier than the others that they’re never giving them up.
Agree 100%
A cap and floor makes it worse, and revenue sharing won’t help unless these cheapas teams start spending more. Spend more, not less.
Astros71
A cap and floor makes it worse, and revenue sharing won’t help unless these cheapas teams start spending more.
================
So if a team spending $100M is forced, by a cap, to spend $150M, does that not force teams to spend more? It sounds like they are spending an additional $50M.
Caps force you to spend less, not more.
I think you’re confused. Floor would force you to spend more.
SandlotBenchWarmer, There isn’t a single reason for being for, or against, a salary cap. For some it’s not about money at all, but about competitive balance. But for the players it’s seen as a limit on payroll. There isn’t even unanimity among the owners for one. The big market clubs probably don’t really want a cap.
The NFL is hugely more popular than MLB, with a much a greater revenue stream, so comparisons about salary are difficult.
The revenue is different, yes, but my understanding is that the NFL salary cap is somewhere near $250M per team, which would likely be around the same if not lower than what the MLB’s proposed salary cap is. And that is $250M for a 53-man roster. MLB’s would be $250M-$300M for a 40-man roster. And from what I’ve read (I’m not an NFL fan so I’m not as well versed) they get around this cap with dummy years much like MLB gets around salary limitations with deferred money.
You’re right though that it’s complex and reasons for and against it. I think the competitive balance argument is a tough one to make though. The NFL has competitive balance in part from their cap but that hasn’t necessarily translated into more teams winning the Super Bowl. Six unique teams have won the Super Bowl in the last ten years–the same number as unique MLB teams who’ve won the World Series. The NBA has only had seven, as has the NHL. Looking at teams who’ve made the playoffs, all but five MLB teams have been in the playoffs since 2021 (and one of those teams won the 2019 WS, so fans can’t be that sour). All but four NFL teams have been in the playoffs since 2021, same with the NHL, and all but one in NBA. What’s amazing about this is that the MLB has the fewest teams make the playoffs each year (12, versus the NFL having 14, and the NBA and the NHL having 16–I don’t know how the NHL can claim competitive balance with their cap system when, despite having the most teams making up their playoff bracket, there are still four that haven’t made it in 5 years).
I’m not entirely sure the competitive balance is a unique MLB problem. The leagues that have caps suffer from the same problem, I think.
I mostly agree, and appreciate the research. But I still think NFL and MLB salaries aren’t a good comp. Not only is the NFL roster abut 33% larger, and the NFL’s revenue stream about 45% greater, but the biggest factor is the guaranteed/nonguaranteed contracts. The NFL teams can simply release a guy and walk away from the money remaining on the contract. MLB teams can’t do that
Very true and good points
I think some of the PA’s asks were extreme but they have the right idea.
I agree about the asks, but this is the first proposal where you ask for the moon, willing to negotiate to some more reasonable middle ground. But yes, the right idea.
The big difference between the major points in the MLb proposal, and the MLBPA proposal, is that aspects of what MLB set out are actually good and an improvement for players.
I struggle to see anything at all in thr MLBPA proposal that benefits MLB/teams/owners at all.
I detect some bias. The biggest thing in the league’s proposal is a salary cap which does not benefit the players in any way.
You see the league’s proposal as reasonable, because it represents things you particularly like, not because of any actual fairness.
In truth, a salary cap would be the single biggest change in the financial structure of MLB since free-agency 51 years ago. And yet the players asking for things that all unions ask for in an initial offer, to later to be negotiated to terms more acceptable to both parties, is somehow beyond the pale.
You’re losing the forest for the trees.
The salary cap is attached to the players receiving an equal split of revenue, on par or more generous with the other professional sports leagues.
Meaning the better the league does, the better players do.
I’d say you’re the one not seeing the big picture. The league is not only asking for the moon, but the sun and stars as well. The owners want the players, as well as gullible fans, to believe that the players will benefit from having a cap. They also have a bridge in Brooklyn they’re willing to let go for cheap.
The owners have always wanted a cap to keep salaries in check. No players and most fans understand that a cap benefits the owners. I agree, the better the league does, the better players do, but that’s true whether there’s a cap or not. With billions in revenue coming in every year, without a cap, the league is doing fine.
LOL Good Luck…..
Informal introductions. Is that when the butler doesn’t announce you?
I am not smart enough to understand how any of this stuff works, but the line that caught my attention in the story is that the league will submit a counter proposal the next day. How is one day long enough to review a multi-million dollar proposal and then offer a counter to said proposal? If this is the rate at which both sides will negotiate, then a new CBA should be agreed upon by the middle of June. 🙂
The league isn’t responding to this offer directly, they’ll be submitting their own wish list. Then the two sides will go from there.
Because it’s all about posturing, positioning, and talking past each other. Baseball runs smack into this crisis every five years because neither side knows any other way of doing business.
This.
Owners will definitely propose a salary cap system and there will be a long, drawn out negotiation over the details of that between the MLBPA and the owners over the next year or so following this season
The game is already suffering from the low runs scored and boring style of play that favors pitchers at the moment. Now it will suffer much more once this lockout begins
“The game is already suffering from the low runs scored and boring style of play”
Huh?
You do know that you can just go look up runs scored by year….right?
baseball-almanac.com/hitting/hiruns4.shtml
Here you can see evern more stats
baseball-reference.com/leagues/majors/bat.shtml
What are you talking about with suffering with low runs?
They’re boring runs though. Three true outcomes is bluh. Strikeouts and walks are the most boring plays in the sport. A liner in the gap, or even a bunt, is more fun than a home run too imo. They had to change the rules and size of the bases to bring some excitement back into the game
How is the game suffering?
Attendance is going up. So is viewership. How live games are being viewed is shifting to streaming and mobile devices. Its still rising. Revenue continues to go up.
I just don’t see the suffering.
Population is up. The question is, how much of a percentage of the potential audience you capture and get involved.
By that metric, baseball falls further and further behind every year.
Fake round numbers for ease of example: if population went from 100m to 200m, and, viewership went from 80m to 100m you would see just the type of false growth youre advocating. You could say viewership was up 20m or 25% and be true. But you could also say viewership declined from 80% of market to 50% of market, which would represent a massive decline while still making more profit.
This is an issue of haves vs have nots… if youre not well off, or somehow supported by others, you can watch free NFL and NBA games. But very very few MLB games are on network TV for free anymore.
And, network TV games were still ad supported. Its just now they trick people with disposable income into paying to watch ad supported games elsewhere.
News flash. A lot of america doesnt have the spare income to buy 5 streaming packages for a cpuple hundred a year total.
MLBTR tends to be a bit more white collar and higher income than America as a whole.
Attendance is up. The supply of seats available for purchase stayed the same. Population changes are irrelevant.
Viewership increased. More people are buying those streaming packages.
Population growth in the US was 0.5%. Baseball attendance and viewership grew more.
Thats not true.
Just look at the Atlanta Braves alone.
Turner field had a *baseball* seating capacity of 49586.
Sun trust park has a *baseball* seating capacity of 41084.
The new ballpark has 82% of the capacity of the old park, in its baseball configuration (concerts and other sports vary of course, but those are the published numbers for baseball games.)
As stadiums are rebuilt or renovated capacity changes, and, teams have been reducing excess capacity in favor of more luxury boxes, private suites, event spaces, etc.
You just proved my point. While the supply of available seats declined, attendance grew.
No I did not.
You claimed population is irrelevant. It is not.
You also do not account for changes in population over decades let alone single years. More than 0.5% of the national population grew through illegal entries that are still here over the prior senile president’s term alone, ignoring births and legal immigration vs death.
You provided absolutely no data what-so-ever to refute that the number of fans as a percentage of population declined, which is the key to long term growth.
Bring documented and accepted facts and figures supporting your assertions if you want to continue the conversation, but, ive seen your type here before and see a dead end conversation
It is an opening salvo and needs to be read accordingly. You over shoot the first offer to give room to compromise. But the major issues are addressed.
More revenue sharing – love it
Salary floor of some sort – love it
But to create parity the luxury tax needs to have teeth to it. It currently does not.
Get rid of the deferral loophole (yes, I understand the accounting)
Keep the thresholds close to what they are now and have them gradually increase over time in relation to revenues.
Also have the floor increase over time in relation to revenues.
Sigh … I know you say you understand the accounting, but evidently you do not. Deferrals are tax avoidance schemes for players, not teams. Teams don’t care. The fact that the Dodgers do it more than anyone is only because they are in a high-income tax state.
Ahh, the smart alek sigh.
Deferrals save franchises tons of money in luxury tax payments. It is a huge benefit. The reason the Dodgers do it the most is because they want to invest in players not luxury tax. These guys will all be hit with the highest federal and state tax rates when they collect their money.
If the goal is to create more economic parity, then taking the total dollars divided by the years the player will actually play will generate more luxury tax funds that can be used by smaller market teams on the condition they are used on payroll.
Nobody is saying the players can’t choose to be paid out over a longer period of time.
But you can’t say the luxury tax has any teeth when a $700 million contract is taxed at about 60% of that amount simply because a player chose to spread his payments out.
“But you can’t say the luxury tax has any teeth when a $700 million contract is taxed at about 60% of that amount simply because a player chose to spread his payments out.”
This implies that you actually don’t understand the accounting of deferrals for the time value of money.
Yes, the money paid out in 2038 will have less value than money paid in 2025. Everyone gets that.
What can’t be disputed is a $700 million outlay is being taxed at less than $500 million. And yes, I realize $700 million down the road is worth about $500 million today.
If you can avoid the luxury tax by spreading out the payments the luxury tax has no teeth. It defeats the competitive balance aims of the luxury tax.
Completely agree. Let teams defer money, but it shouldn’t be a way to dodge the CBT.
Sorry but this is total BS.
The discussion isn’t about team income tax avoidance, it’s about luxury tax avoidance.
Yes the players benefit from deferrals due to the time value of money but eventually they pay income taxes on the full dollar value of their contracts across the years they are paid.
But for the teams the luxury tax is only paid on the net present value of their contracts across the contract’s stated length.
Shohei eventually pays income tax on all $700 million of his 10 year deal, mostly after those 10 years, and lives well mostly off his endorsement income during those 10 years.
The Dodgers pay luxury tax on the NPV of ~ $46 million (or whatever it is) for the 10 year contract length only, so $240 million or so is never subject to luxury tax.
Sorry that is tax avoidance. Not income tax avoidance, but it is luxury tax avoidance within the current rules of the system. The beneficiaries of deferrals are the lux tax paying teams (or rarely others seeking to “kick the financial can down the road”). That’s why the great bulk of salary deferrals are by teams in luxury tax territory. Hence the competititive balance concern with it.
Ohtani only got $700 million because of the deferrals. Everyone (including this site) predicted a contract of around $500 million, which is closer to what the net present value of his contract was after deferrals are factored in. That still shattered the previous MLB record contracts.
The $700 million is more of a shock value total, not in line with contract precedents or comps at that time.
“1. Shohei Ohtani. Twelve years, $528MM
Tim Dierkes’ prediction: Dodgers / Anthony Franco’s prediction: Dodgers / Darragh McDonald’s prediction: Dodgers”
But he did receive $700 million and he will play for 10 years.
Ohtani will pay income tax on a full $700 million.
The Dodgers will pay luxury tax on a little over $500 million.
So the Dodgers are the biggest winners here.
If the union’s goal is to avoid a hard cap by increasing economic parity, closing this loophole would help accomplish that goal while only really impacting a handful of clubs.
Again the focus on $700 is myopic, ignoring all the intricacies of time value on money agreed upon by economists, players, teams, agents and the union.
The Ohtani contract is an extreme outlier and no other player is likely to defer 97% of their contract for a decade.
The Dodgers have shown they don’t care about the luxury tax and that contract has been reported to have generated surplus value on its own already.
Players and teams both like deferrals.
Focusing on the money actually being paid is not myopic.
If the Dodgers don’t care about the luxury tax then increasing the amount they pay and putting that towards economic parity will not bother them.
The collective luxury tax avoided between the Ohtani, Freeman, Betts, and Tucker deals could fund an entire roster.
This really is remedial economics and you refuse to grasp it.
Only fans have a problem with this. This level of asset management takes place in a lot of different places without being reported to impassioned spectators.
We both agree on the basic economic theories. We both understand time value of money.
The question is does valuing a contract using those economic principles create a significant advantage to the big market teams?
And the answer to that is 100% yes.
So if the goal is to increase revenue sharing and give smaller market clubs more resources to sign players, revamping the current luxury tax calculations (although done on solid accounting principles) would help accomplish that goal.
Teams would still benefit from a cash flow perspective if they deferred money. But no longer save on the luxury tax.
HalosHeavenJJ
Focusing on the money actually being paid is not myopic.
================
How about you lend me $1M, and I will repay you $10M, but only $1,000 per year?
Yes, at a certain point of lunacy it is myopic.
In this case there is no immediate benefit to me. In the case of luxury tax avoidance there is an immediate, multimillion dollar benefit to a team. And I am focusing on the immediate benefit.
I did a poor job of explaining myself in my comment above.
My understanding is that long-term deferrals are considered speculative income, and not deemed earned until finally paid.
If the player moves to a tax free jurisdiction in the interim, he pays no income tax on the money
That is a team benefit, to afford to make such massive offers and escrow the money, as well as pay any coverages if it fails to grow as expected.
A salary cap doesn’t solve any problems. A more aggressive revenue sharing system would solve SOME of the problems that people think a salary cap would solve.
The teams that are unsuccessful now are unsuccessful because they’re stupid, not because they’re broke. Tampa Bay Rays for example would have a lot more success if they tried selling tickets with a real stadium in a real city. Oakland A’s insist on a state that already has 3 other baseball teams, in a sport with only 30 teams. Put another way, 10% of the entire MLB is competing with the Oakland A’s. That’s just stupid business.
Higher revenue sharing would help make up for the stupid. A lower cap would just reduce the leeway they have for being stupid.
This is a good point. A cap and floor system has not prevented the Browns, Raiders, and Jets from sucking for years on end.
Bad owners will still hire poor front office people and coaches.
A more fair economic system would help give teams a more equal opportunity. It would not ensure a more equal outcome.
2 separate issues entirely.
Just because the owners and management of the Browns, Raiders, and Jets are awful. Just imagine how bad they would be if they only spent half the other teams.
So, in your world, the fact that team revenue is an absolute perfect correlation with market size is just some sort of coincidence. Also remarkably coincidental is the fact that all the smart teams happen to be in big markets. Incredible.
Good job making up facts. Answer me this, if market size is everything then why are the Yankees twice as valuable as the Mets? Why are the Dodgers twice as valuable as the Angels? Why are the Cubs twice as valuable as the White Sox?
Why are the Red Sox top 3 in valuation when Boston isn’t even top 20 in population? Did you know that Houston and Denver are actually both larger markets? Probably not, because you haven’t done any actual thinking or research, you’re just writing sassy comments for validation.
forbes.com/sites/justinteitelbaum/2025/03/26/baseb…
britannica.com/topic/Whats-the-largest-US-city-by-…
Team value does not equal team revenue.
Population does not equal revenue potential. Media market has far more to do with that.
All this would be ok with a cap.
We also want the moon.
At be least the players recognise there’s an economic imbalance on the mlb side that needs correcting. No mention of “cheap” or “profit hoarding” at all. Nice mature start. Well done boys ! Getting rid of Tony might have made a difference.
I like the idea of the hard cap and the higher salary floor because in theory it can contribute to parity or at least help attempt it and then there should be a way to do it so the same pool of total money still exists. I like the idea of the Rays signing Max Fried because they have to sign somebody and it might as well be the fun exciting players that make MLB fans and TB fans want to watch their games more too.
I will say where we are in the AL does not feel so bad this year from a competitive angle but not sure the model works long-term. Maybe its just a little bit of luck that has the Athletics hanging in with the Mariners and the Rays ahead of the Yankees and the White Sox and Twins within striking distance of the lead in the AL Central, most teams not too far back from a playoff spot.
I think the problem with the current setup is some teams can fail with personnel and manage, still contend because they have or can buy so many plan Bs. Other teams a mistake or two can be a dagger. It would seem more fun and interesting to me if that was more balanced in that sense.
I really like the ideas about continued disincentivizing of tanking. For me, that was one of the bigger problems with the game.
You like the idea of a hard cap, and so do a lot of others. But the problem is the players will never agree to one. It’s the hill they’ll die on. Since the only way for there to be one is for the owners to unilaterally impose one. It comes down to a choice of baseball without a cap, or no baseball at all.
Only need 3 little letters to describe this proposal…DOA
I guess you only have one chance to insult the other side with your initial offer.
If the other side isn’t insulted with an opening proposal which this is, then you’re not doing it right.
Ha ha ha. America.
Yes. Apparently so. I wouldn’t recommend it as a strategy.
I’d want everything to go my way too but if they can get rid of that ridiculous “qualifying offer” garbage that would be great.
I’m definitely not optimistic. Are the players serious with their requests?
I would guess they’re not sure. In past negotiations, they have used the fact that the large market teams are basically on their side to outflank all the other teams and MLB, and push through favorable outcomes. It started to break down last time, when the smaller market teams got pretty ornery. They’re on the warpath now, and I’m not sure the Dodgers and Yankees et al are gonna stand with the players again, and neither is the union sure. So they’re throwing maximum stuff at the wall to see what the reaction is.
One of the biggest signs I saw last year was when Dave Roberts said he was in favor of a salary cap. That wasn’t his personal opinion I bet. He’s way too smart to do that. That was his bosses.
Full context matters. This is Dave Roberts’ quote:
“You know what? I’m all right with [a salary cap]. I think the NBA has done a nice job of revenue sharing with the players and the owners. But if you’re going to kind of suppress spending at the top, I think that you got to raise the floor to make those bottom-feeders spend money, too.”
At this point 10 teams are projected to pay or be very close to paying luxury tax in 2026. Only 6 teams payrolls are under $100 million for the 26 man OD active roster.
Sorry Seam but it isn’t just the Dodgers & Yankees that are the problematic owners for those at the payroll bottom. They are the revenue dominant clubs but it isn’t 28 against 2 anymore.
Haha. Players worked long and hard on this one. Let’s see what the owners worked hard on. I’m sure it will be laughable
Owners have lost control. Even though they own the team/company the millionaires tell them when and how high to jump. It will eventually kill the sport.
We watch the players, not the owners, Thomas
I got bored just reading the headline. I really do not care about the CBA from either side. I think they are all just too greedy. I just want to watch baseball and talk about baseball. I have zero interest in the business side of things.
Fans are never in the conversation
Put a cap on deferrals at the bare minimum and make it whatever the Dodgers have already pushed into future seasons, and/or get rid of them completely.
MLB players and owners would be another level of stupid if they let a lockout or strike last enough into the regular season where games get canned. The sport is the most popular it has been in ages because of the current stars and other events like the WBC. Attendance has not only rebounded to pre-COVID levels, but is even exceeding that. Average amount of fans per game might reach 30K for the first time since 2016 within the next year or so. They deserve to lose at least some of that goodwill if they don’t get something done before the start of next season.
so the union is signaling they’ll agree to a cap at 244 mil if the floor is 150 mil and the cap and floor escalate every year.
i’m a little shocked they didn’t take a harder stance on team-controlled contracts (first 6 years of the career)
The MLBPA is asking for the first tier of the CBT to be $300 million with tiers going up much higher than that.
In no way does that indicate they would accept a cap of $56 million less than the lowest tier of the CBT.
A salary floor won’t work under MLB’s current pay structure. When young, pre-arb stars are still making (basically) the minimum a floor just seems to tell teams to grab the aging has-been over going with a promising young player already in your system. In other major sports top picks/prospects are making significantly more vs the league (or position) average. Instead, we get players like Elly De La Cruz and Paul Skenes making peanuts.
That’s pretty much the point (or one of them). The good prospects get plenty of MLB playing time either way, while the lower tier veteran free agents are currently getting squeezed out in favor of the more marginal prospects who are both cheaper and a lot younger, even though those vets are often very well deserving of a roster spot on some team.
Meanwhile, many of those prospects could reasonably spend an extra year or so learning in the minors or riding the MLB-AAA shuttle without any issues aside from the lost MLB service time.
For the 5 years of team control to players at least 30, does this apply to players that are only called up after age 30? Or if a guy is set to hit free agency for the first time after age 30? So essentially anyone older than 25 when they are called up?
Players sound mostly reasonable, so of course the owners will hate this. maybe 1/3 or 1/2 of their proposed salary increases and the owners might sign. Unless they want to destroy the game for a salary cap.
There are some good things in this Proposal by the MLBPA & there are some that are non starters.
I Do like the $150 Requirement for Payroll with a penalty for teams that don’t reach that mark.
I don’t see the Super 2’s going from 22% to 44% & I don’t see the Minimum Salary going to $1.5 Mil.
The big increases in the Competitive Balance Tax will benefit teams like the Dodgers & other big market teams.
I Don’t think the MLB proposal for a Salary Cap will happen & I won’t be surprised if the MLB Proposal will also include a big change to the Deferred Money allowed in Contracts
In addition to those ridiculous salary and CBT hikes, I can’t see a number of low market teams being able to reasonably afford $150M payrolls in the near future even with increased revenue sharing. I do like the idea of this CIT as a soft floor, but they need to make it reasonable.
What teams specifically do not have enough revenue to have a $150 million payroll?
Owners should jump right on this. The players have not asked for enough. Owners of course will whine and propose a stupid useless salary cap. F u owners.
Does a salary cap/floor guarantee “competitive balance?” Probably not in the short term but potentially in the long term. Whatever the answer is to baseball’s problems, hopefully both sides agree that “competitive balance” will eventually be key in coming to a resolution.
I’m not sure why the union would choose to propose this, or at least make it public. No one will understand the idea of doubling salaries. Whatever the league offers will almost definitely look fair.
Exactly my thoughts. Why be the first mover on public negotiations when you’re starting off like this?
If I were the owners, I’d put out a semi-fair offer, bring more aggressive on the issues I favored, and more generous on the issues I didn’t care about. If MLB is offering 3% raises, and the players was 20% raises, the optics favor the owners.
So long as everyone understands that this is a first proposal and is designed the “push the envelope” and see how elastic owners may be. The reality is the MLBPA is unlikely to see most of these in the final draft of the next CBA.
Why? The expiring CBA was structured around the promise of the large surge in media-rights revenues teams were getting from the regional sports networks. In the meantime, aggressive cord-cutting by consumers left the RSNs without the necessary revenue streams to make their payments to the teams. The Diamond Sports meltdown is a prime example and left several teams without a significant chunk of their revenues.
The new normal has to be structured on more modest media right projections that are centered upon whatever success MLB has in expanding and enhancing streaming media while it manages much of the traditional TV carriage options for teams via ESPN-managed MLB.TV.
A two-team expansion may provide a cash infusion from expansion fees to existing franchises, but that would be very temporary.
You are correct, of course, but keep in mind that the Diamond Sports meltdown wasn’t directly due to cord-cutting but because they foolishly made a debt-leveraged buyout in the first place with the cord-cutting then being the nail in the coffin. Such a collapse among the remaining RSNs is unlikely to happen again. If some of them do end up selling their contracts for streaming in the future, it won’t be at such huge losses for their respective teams.
When the expiring CBA was signed both Manfred and Clark spoke of the impending doom of the RSN model. Manfred talked about it with a smile knowing that meant more central control for MLB and more negotiating power. Broadcast revenue has not dropped.
I know people start high in negotiations but this mlbpa proposal is a non-starter and I hope they know that. I am not with the owners either but what exactly are they giving up in that proposal?
This is an excellent first salvo by the players in what will be a long, contentious battle.
Bottom line: The MLBPA wants A TON more revenue going to the players. Traditionally, the player/team revenue breakdown is close to 50/50, but changes this big would put that percentage significantly more on the players’ side of the ledger, even for a bold opening offer. The owners are certainly not going to accept anything near this kind of offer.
The revenue split went up for players in the current CBA to 41%. It was 37% in the previous CBA.
The owners are not going to accept this offer en masses. This is the start of negotiations. Not the end.
I would like to see:
-Soft floor- competitive integrity tax 10% for first 10M under 100M, 20% for 2nd 10M (Payroll 80-90M). The floor increases by 1M each year. Disqualifies them from receiving CBT if 2 yrs under in a row.
-CBT can only be used towards extensions (can be saved for 3 years- but not withdrawn without being used)
-Competitive Media Tax – 20% of media revenue equally shared. I would also have this go into an extension only pool – we need players to be able to stick with teams longer. ( A big wish of the fans – to be able to keep good players)
-Minimum salary increase by $20k/ yr
-Competitive Player Tax – 1 % on income over 15M/yr – split among lowest 200 players
-No contracts with payments beyond 3 years of last game played
-Maybe extra draft pick or international pool allowance for teams that spend 2x or 3x their media revenue on Salary
-most of these incentivize teams towards creating other revenue streams
Schedule changes
– 16 in-division games with each in-division foe – one 5 game series – home/away, one 3 game series home/away ( 5 game series make more sense for travel and whole pitcher staff)
– one 5 game series again out of division in-league rivals
-one 4 game series for each out of league opponent ( Some of these will be considered flex series)
-this adds up to 174 games – leaving 7 games for a mid season round robin tournament
-Bottom 8 (Split to 2 locations for first 3 and second 3 days)
– Winner gets Draft pick slot for tourney winner- or draft allowance money addition (Financial incentives for players)
-Mid 8 group 1 (5th round-Draft pick allowance)( Home field for flex series)(Financial incentives for players)
-Mid 8 group 2 (5th round-Draft pick allowance)( Home field for flex series) (Financial incentives for players)
-To 6 with tournament game ( extra challenges in playoffs) (Home field for flex series) (International draft money incentive) (Financial incentives for players)
I think Round robin would be fun for fans and for teams – 3 games per day at hosting parks. This could also be incentives for teams to place high in attendance – as they will be given more chance to host.
Too much to unpack GoFight Win And too late in the day e in the day to even try…..Let’s go back to the 1977 version of Free Agency. Remember that?
After the World Series
All 30 teams have a draft of the players declared free agents.
They can only sign the players they draft.
You draft as many as you like. Or you don’t have to draft any players
To be honest, I expected worse. I don’t see anything in there that can’t be compromised. Gotta have a tax threshold for owners who just don’t wanna spend money. Having $87 million payrolls is a joke. All things being equal I would love to see payroll taxes below 150 and above 300.
I would think the QO thing instead of a final arb year could hurt some star players who’d make more in their final arb year than that
Not many star players that go into their final year of arbitration when they are over 30 years old. I can’t think of one off the top of my head.
The lack of math skills and logic among some fans is astounding.
Just what I suspected. There will be no salary cap because owners of small market teams don’t care about winning. They make more money by sitting back and watching the big boys dominate.
There will be no salary cap because owners of small market teams don’t care about winning. Why would small-market teams care about a salary cap?
That should’ve been:
“There will be no salary cap because owners of small market teams don’t care about winning.”
Why would small-market teams care about a salary cap?
A part of me wants a salary cap just to sit back and watch small market fans continue crying when their teams still can’t compete and they are paying twice the price for a hot dog.
I feel this the mlbpa intentionally setting the bar high for a salary cap.
The union wants to create a situation where the owners either drop the SC or try to buy it out with extreme offers.
The players know their demand can only go down from the initial demand and that this time owners are serious about a SC so they need to avoid getting pushed into defense and towards a lockout early.
This might still happen down the road but the players still want to make the owners worried about defense a little
I think they should be ok without a salary cap.. It’s part of what makes baseball fun.. playing against the rich teams and being a financial underdog. I think MLBPA is setting the bar high for room for negotiations.
Here is my proposal
-Soft floor- competitive integrity tax 10% for first 10M under 100M, 20% for 2nd 10M (Payroll 80-90M). The floor increases by 1M each year. Disqualifies them from receiving CBT if 2 yrs under in a row.
-CBT stays at the same level but higher percentage than 65% on max overage, maybe 75% once you get to 350M Salary, revenue sharing can only be used towards extensions (can be saved for 3 years- but not withdrawn without being used)
-Competitive Media Tax – 20% of media revenue equally shared. I would also have this go into an extension only pool – we need players to be able to stick with teams longer. ( A big wish of the fans – to be able to keep good players)
(A gap of 20M – 250M in media revenue is too big)
-Depending on the percentage here, You could also add this to the Minimum-soft floor. (20% could add 5-6M to the bottom 3rd Media Revenue)
-Minimum salary increase by $20k/ yr (1.5M is too big of a jump and would change the arb tables and kill the small market.)
-Competitive Player Tax – 1 % on income over 15M/yr – split among lowest 200 players
-No contracts with deferred payments beyond 3 years of last game played
-Maybe extra draft pick or international pool allowance for teams that spend 2x or 3x their media revenue on Salary
-most of these incentivize teams towards creating other revenue streams
Schedule changes
– 16 in-division games with each in-division foe – one 5 game series – home/away, one 3 game series home/away ( 5 game series make more sense for travel and whole pitcher staff)
– one 5 game series again out of division in-league rivals
-one 4 game series for each out of league opponent ( Some of these will be considered flex series)
-this adds up to 174 games – leaving 7 games for a mid season round robin tournament
-Bottom 8 (Split to 2 locations for first 3 and second 3 days)
– Winner gets Draft pick slot for tourney winner- or draft allowance money addition (Financial incentives for players)
-Mid 8 group 1 (5th round-Draft pick allowance)( Home field for flex series)(Financial incentives for players)
-Mid 8 group 2 (5th round-Draft pick allowance)( Home field for flex series) (Financial incentives for players)
-To 6 with tournament game ( extra challenges in playoffs) (Home field for flex series) (International draft money incentive) (Financial incentives for players)
I think Round robin would be fun for fans and for teams – 3 games per day at hosting parks. This could also be incentives for teams to place high in attendance – as they will be given more chance to host.
CBT- the app soft caps, should each increase at 2-3% each year for basic inflation. Players will be getting more money through soft floor, and more competition for free agents. Lower market teams will get more through the revenue sharing leading to better products on the field, and being more competitive. Everyone wins when more teams are competitive- National media contracts go up. Players at every level win a little. I realize the 1% players tax would never get approved, but if they are doing it to the high earning teams, why not do it to the high earning players.
The round robin tournament brings in extra money and excitement for everyone. National Media would also likely be paying more.
@gofundWhy did you post the something twice and give yourself a thumbs up?
Baseball is pushing the regular fans away from the game. This sport is in dire need of a salary cap. I’m comfortable financially to go but many of family can’t do it. It’s a shame that it’s like this. 162 games. They should be able to afford the average family to go with mom and dads combined whole week salary.
They should be able to afford the average family to go with mom and dads combined whole week salary.
==================
It’s a nice idea, but the amount teams charge for tickets is not closely related to how much they spend on players.
And tickets aren’t as expensive as you think. Cleveland at Yankee Stadium on June 2nd are $17 each, and you can bring in soda and snacks.
Attendance at games is growing. Viewership is growing. MLB is doing quite well.
If you think and believe your ballpark prices is affected by player salaries, you shouldn’t have the right to have a family; let alone partake in a functional society.
lol really? The 10 highest payrolls in baseball have the 10 highest ticket prices. On average if 17% higher than the other teams. So wanna try that again?
Kid, that is not even close to true. That was a really pathetic attempt at justification.
Pretty clear that most folks here have no idea how negotiations work. This initial labor proposal is not going to be accepted, just like the billionaire response won’t be.
n1120a
Pretty clear that most folks here have no idea how negotiations work.
=================
That sounds pretty far-fetched to me. I’d bet that the majority of the posters in here have negotiated for a house, and certainly for a car. Union contracts are obviously more complicated, but the concepts of negotiations are not unknown.
Where is Bowie Kuhn when you need him?
Bowie Kuhn was a idiot
Good sign if the owners respond earlier than last time.
Only the ownership can address the disparity in revenue that is causing inability of low revenue teams to consistently compete with the likes of the Dodgers and Yankees. The only answer greater revenue sharing. A cap won’t help make MLB teams more consistently competitive. It would just enrich ownership.
Baseballisthebest
Only the ownership can address the disparity in revenue
=======================
The players could easily address this. Have a cap and a minimum for every team, with enough revenue sharing to provide baselines for competitive teams.
The NFL prints money and the players are doing fantastic. Baseball should follow their model.
Not possible for a cap to help the revenue disparity. Only greater revenue sharing can do that and only the ownership groups can do that. All a cap does is enrich the ownership groups and lower the percentage of revenue going to the players. Even if there was a corresponding salary floor, it would have to be high enough to ensure a 50% split of revenue. With over $13 billion in revenue it would have to be around $200 million which would require much more revenue sharing to be possible for Miami, Cleveland, Tampa, or Pittsburgh. The solution is not a cap, its revenue sharing.
The NFL has only national media contracts. The NFL has completely open financial records with the players union.
The NFL guarantees players 48-50% of revenue for the sport.
The NFL has 17 games per team per season.
MLB has none of those things.
Its not an apples to apples comparison.
MLB is doing well as increasing attendance, viewership, revenues, and team values demonstrates.
For more teams to be competitive on a consistent basis they need:
Greater revenue sharing. You cannot have the Dodgers and Yankees at $750-800 million in revenue and expect the bottom 5 teams in revenue, that are all under $350 million, to compete on a regular basis.
A salary floor. One that is at a minimum relatively close to 50% of average revenue for an MLB team and that has real and spelled out penalties for violation. We have had teams violating the spirit of the current revenue sharing system, pocketing the money the big market teams contribute instead of spending it in an attempt to contend, almost since the system was put in place in 1996.
Ownership groups would need to allow greater transparency in the finances of their teams.
Players would need to allow minor league salaries/benefits and draft/international free agency signing bonuses tp be included in total salaries and benefits calculations.
That is a start.
I wrote a 55,000 word treatise, about 140 pages, on this subject for lobbying efforts. I can expand on the subject far longer than this site would allow or any non-attorney would read.
The NFL has only national media contracts. The NFL has completely open financial records with the players union.
The NFL guarantees players 48-50% of revenue for the sport.
The NFL has 17 games per team per season.
MLB has none of those things.
==================
But they are easily accomplished.
MLB is already headed in the direction of owning all media.
And obviously, MLB would have to open their books.
And the 48-50% threshold can be accomplished in exchange for the forever deal.
And the number of games doesn’t matter.
If they were easily accomplished, they would already be done.
I doubt the players union even thought about the impact of ticket prices IF their demands were even closely met. Maybe they should have thrown in weekends and holidays off or maybe get paid time and half for “working” on these days.
There will be no impact. Ticket prices are related to supply and demand. Supply is finite and demand is growing.
Demand is not growing for tickets, next time you are watching a Monday – Thursday MLB game and the camera pans to the crowd, look at all the empty seats …. Friday, Saturday and Sunday games seem to get more people attending as form of entertainment / date nights, more so than a passion to watch baseball.
Attendance is growing so by definition demand is growing.
You can only hope that this will be more damaging than the 90’s. There is no white knight on a horse, like the Sosa/McGwire chase to bring fans back this time. Ticket prices are more prohibitive now as well and families are struggling financially. The average family is not going to be as forgiving of millionaires fighting billionaires when they are struggling to purchase basic necessities.
You hope both sides realize the consequences of going to a lock out.
TBH. The Sosa/McGwire did nothing for me. I was already die hard Baseball fan. The fact is MLB overlooked the fact both were using drugs to bulk up. McGwire lived in Huntongton Beach as I did. He worked out at the same 24hour fitness as I did that previous Winter. located at Springdale and Warner in HB.
League minimum is high enough. They should be looking at increases during pre-arb more than raising the league minimum. Pre-arb guys deserve a raise if they can prove they belong.
Why is it high enough? The total revenue of the sport keeps increasing. Should minimum salaries increase to keep pace?
Do you prefer that money just go to increase the profit percentage of ownership groups?
To make it simple, both sides should target a payroll increase commensurate with baseball’s revenue increase. If revenue is 15% higher than it was 5 years, so should payroll.
A bunch of very greedy people (owners, players, sponsers, etc.) trying to convince their customers that they are not a bunch of very greedy people and doing all this at the expense of the future of their business.
I like the majority of the changes, but it seems like there are actually less harsh penalities for spending over the salary cap. The Dodgers have shown that to them it’s just money, and there needs to be actual penalities besides monetary tied to going so far over.
Unless they institute a hard cap, or institute actual penalities for going so far over, the deal should be DOA
I would like to take a moment to thank the following teams.
Mets – For proving spending doesn’t equal winning.
Brewers, Rays, Guardians, A’s – For proving small payroll doesn’t equal having a bad team.
Apparently the majority of commentors here don’t understand negotiating or the art of the deal. Perhaps you should read our Presidents fantastic book about making deals. Always start high with demands and work on the deal from there. I’m sure the leagues first offer with be just as outlandish when it comes out tomorrow.
BHIA
“Apparently the majority of commentors here don’t understand negotiating or”
Economics
And you do?
He didn’t write the book. A ghostwriter did.
Was it a real ghost?
I think Tony Schwartz is still alive. Trump didn’t write a single word of that book.
I don’t understand those people saying that a salary cap is only for the purposes of lining owner’s pockets and doesn’t create parity. How can you make that claim when you simply have to look at teams from New York, Boston, or Los Angeles in all of the major sports?
When was the last time the Giants or Jets were good? What about the Rams or Chargers? Yes, the Rams are good now and the Giants were last decade, but that’s what parity is all about. The Patriots got fortunate with Brady, but sucked before that. The cap allows teams like the Bills to keep Josh Allen. If no cap, Josh Allen, Aaron Rodgers, and Joe Burrow just sign with the big market teams when their rookie contracts are up.
What about the Knicks, Nets, Lakers, or Clippers? The cap in the NBA encourages players to resign with their teams. You think OKC or Cleveland are in the conference finals if not for a cap? Maybe OKC because their guys were drafted, but they wouldn’t be a potential dynasty because everyone would leave for the highest bidder.
What about the Rangers, Islanders, Devils, or Kings? The big market teams just aren’t dominant in other leagues like they are in MLB.
Now compare that to the Yankees, Red Sox, and Dodgers. They make the playoffs (most) every year. Why? Because they can simply buy their way out of their mistakes. You can fool yourself as much as you’d like, but a $30M salary in New York is much different than a $30M salary in Milwaukee or Cleveland. And because those teams cannot afford their own free agents, their window is much shorter than the big spenders. So yes, small market teams CAN compete if everything falls into place. Then they have about 5 years before they have to do it all over again and hope everything once again falls into place. The big market teams just sign guys who are already established and if it doesn’t work out they just try again. Yes, I know, the Mets are an example of how this doesn’t always work. But if Cleveland or Milwaukee did what the Mets did and failed, they’d be put back a decade or more. A cap (and an accompanying floor) is absolutely needed and is worth losing the 2027 season over in my opinion. The payroll disparity is just too big.
All this other stuff about opening the books and a 50/50 split can accompany the cap/floor, but the cap/floor is a necessity.
No matter how long your comment is, there won’t be a salary cap.
I’ve been noticing it’s almost always the Guardians fans who are bloodthirsty over this issue lol
That must mean there’s a lot of Cleveland fans out there I guess.
The reason my post was that long is because I was actually making my point. You should try it sometime. lol
League proposal is out. A pretty mild cap and floor proposal with high floor and low cap, plus a firm commitment to a 50/50 revenue split with players. And the big one that I’m really surprised they got approval for from the big market teams: 100% centralization of local TV revenue, to be distributed equally. Maybe the Dodgers are getting so much revenue from international (i.e. Japanese) media that it doesn’t matter as much.
I assume this is all firmly opposed by the PA. So here we go. I think the league has in mind giving up one of their big proposals to get the other. I think for symbolic purposes they end up giving up on the cap and floor, and get the centralization of local TV, which is the thing they most want.
There is nothing in the ownership proposal regarding MLB managed media and nothing regarding financial transparency. Can’t have a 50/50 split without transparency. The hard cap the owners offered is the same as the first tier of the CBT in 2026, so a total joke.
I wish I knew what the best way for this turn out could be.
Nothing will ever change until the people who have the ability to change the process actually realize that they in fact are the ones with the power. Do you really think that whether there’s a cap or floor or anything else it will actually be the players or owners that suffer? It will be the fans who foot the bill with increased ticket prices, streaming fees, etc. it’s there reward for paying the cost of the stadiums that they play on. The owners don’t provide the field in most cases it’s the public. Neither one gets paid unless the fans pay the price. If there is ever going to be change the fans have to dig in and shrug their shoulders when these prima donnas threaten the loss of the season. Never going to happen and eventually there will be two leagues. The mega payroll teams and the poor sisters teams. Then you’ll have competitive balance.
If you’re say the fans have the power by boycotting your mistaken.Prove to me they do.
Owner- Dont attend my teams games or give me a new ballpark to play in? Fine when the lease is up I’ll relocate. They’re are plenty of cities out there that will.. Memphis,Portland and Salt Lake City all want a MLB team. As well as Montreal and a few others.Ask Oakland if you don’t believe me.
You’re assuming I’m referring to the lower rung teams only. What if Portland,Memphis and Salt Lake City fans and public tell the owners to build your own ballparks or lower prices. What would happen when they have no other city to run to? To be sure the theory of boycotting would have to be full scale to work. New York, LA, Boston, etal would have to join the resistance. Is that a pipe dream? Of course. The fans do have the power. They just have to be united in total not in poorer cities. If this current structure continues to spiral, Oakland wouldn’t have a team anyway in ten years And you can throw in Tampa, Cleveland, Miami, Pittsburgh, Kansas City and others. It’s an inevitable outcome.
Original Angels owner Gene Autry had it right . He told his fellow owners never let players have the choice to go to arbitration. Arbitration drove up the players salaries faster than anything. And us fans are the ones stuck paying higher ticket prices.Even with teams like the Dodgers and Yankees who both have massive TV Contracts still charge a lot for a ticket because they can. They do always put a good product on the field. Some owners won’t or don’t spend the money. No matter how poorly they’re managed the team increases in value
I haven’t read any of the responses; but it always seems to be the case with these negotiations that the owners tend to threaten lockouts. Yes, the players are asking for the moon. But there are many owners that just stash away money rather than investing in their team. My guess is that there are a dozen owners who just stash the cash. With all the money spent by the Dodgers ownership for promotion, player salaries, etc., they had over a BILLION dollars in revenue last year. Did I hear that correctly? I’m sure someone here knows. “You have to spend money to make money.” That is the old adage. But at this current time; a lot of owners don’t want to do that. To me, the writing is on the wall for MLB. After the last World Series, with big television viewership (and BIG international viewership), the time is now for a contract that is signed quickly. There needs to be some true negotiating between both sides. Obviously, the players are over the top in what they are asking for. Free agency, for one, should stay as it is. Seven years is a good number for years of service. Yes, increase the minimum salary a hair. Not a bunch. Put more on the pension side of things. Another thing would be to force the teams who are given money from the teams going over the cap to spend that money entirely on free agents. Not sure if they do that now. Also, how about the TV revenue being shared not in a pot for all teams; but equally between the two teams playing each particular game. Anyway, just a few thoughts.
MLBPA seems like it is just raising pay rather than ‘fixing’ the problems.
Raising Minimum salary is reasonable but double is outragious.
Non-rookie minimum 1m base + mandatory performance bonuses that could take a player to league average salary if they have an MVP type season with the following seasons begin with a higher rate, if their are more seasons.
Rookie contracts similar 1m have their base rate go up 250k per year. Trash Arbitration and add mandatory performance bonuses. base pay the following year is at or near the previous years pay including bonuses OR the standard 250k.
Get rid of super 2 all togeather, set rookie contracts to a flat 7 years after the player has been on the 25man for 10 games. excluding the september call ups. OR until age 30. this will incentivize teams who have good prospects to call them up before age 23.
The flat 150M competetive integrity tax is.. well horrible. Instead set a semi-hard floor at a percentage of the previous years league average. Something like 75% If league average is 150 then league min is ~110m. Cap league at 75% over ~260m (if my math is near correct) Penalties calculated after the season and including a large portion of any bonuses paid. Maybe make a mandatory increase in salary minimum of so many million if the league average does not increase that year while also having the league average floor being no less than the previous year.
100% tax on over/under with repeat offenders progressivly giving up draft picks and progressivly having their ceiling/floor decreased/increased. Tax distributed evenly to all teams that are dramatically over or under. Have the revenue sharing do the similar.
Find a way to make it eaiser for teams and players stick with the team they got called up with. Maybe a break on the ceiling/floor or maybe some of the tax money from the team side. Maybe increased bonus percent for the player side. I do not know, something better than the QO.
Change the pitch clock giving batters and pitchers more leanancy. Modify ABS to one challege per at bat while keeping it if the challenge succedes.
Have the CBA auto renew while allowing for minor changes in to the percentages.
While I think the MLBPAs summary here is out of this world.. it does fit the ‘big ask’ as an initial proposal to get the ball going.
Trump needs to get involved!!🤷🏼♀️😁😁