The formal process of the next collective bargaining agreement has begun. It was reported two weeks ago that the talks had begun 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. 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 and 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 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 a prime 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 a smaller revenue stream that is also not guaranteed, as it’s contingent on how many people sign up.
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 much greater ability to spend. They also put conditions on the money, so that lower-revenue clubs can’t just pocket the money they get from other teams, which is a concern in the current setup.
More to come.
I am not optimistic that this will be settled without a lockout and games cancelled. Millionaires versus billionaires.
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.
This really is just blah blah blah.
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
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.
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
Sf – now that minor leaguers have joined the mlbpa, I dont know that they cross picket lines to play
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.
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.
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
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
cocaine beer
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.
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.
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.
MLB needs a salary cap. Make the playing field even for every team.
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
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?
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 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?
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.
I think some of the PA’s asks were extreme but they have the right idea.
LOL Good Luck…..