Rob Manfred spoke with reporters after this week’s quarterly owners meetings. Jorge Castillo of ESPN, Ronald Blum of The Associated Press and Evan Drellich of The Athletic were among those who relayed the commissioner’s comments.
Manfred spoke publicly for the first time since the league and Players Association exchanged initial economic proposals last week. Those were worlds apart, with the most notable development being MLB’s first official proposal for a salary cap since the 1994-95 players strike. The league proposed a $245.3MM cap and $171.2MM floor. That would come with a 50-50 revenue split between players and ownership, which requires holding some of players’ salaries in escrow in case the league underperforms projections.
[Related Podcast: CBA Standoff Begins]
MLBPA executive director Bruce Meyer unsurprisingly blasted the proposal on Monday, reiterating the union’s opposition to a cap — which he called “a form of institutionalized collusion.” Manfred didn’t directly respond to Meyer’s comment but took his typical approach, framing it as a competitive balance issue.
“We have tried mightily over several rounds of bargaining to use a competitive balance (luxury) tax to address competitive concerns,” Manfred said. “And sometimes you’ve got to admit you failed.” Manfred didn’t expressly state that a cap was the only solution but implied that drastic changes were necessary.
“We made a proposal on one set of topics. At the outset of negotiations, I went and said myself, ‘We’re open to whatever ideas people have, but we need a realistic framework that addresses the fans’ concerns about competitive balance.’ You just can’t ignore that financial penalties have not gotten it done for us.” The luxury tax has been in place since 2003.
That’s a standard talking point for the league. The union’s initial proposal called for more revenue sharing and a “competitive integrity tax” penalizing teams that spend less than $150MM on payroll. The union favors maintaining the luxury tax setup and proposed raising the base threshold dramatically to $300MM.
Of course, both sides are going to push for competitive balance measures that are in their favor on revenue split. Fixing spending on players would also go towards owners’ goals of escalating franchise values. It’s debatable whether either really cares about competitive balance, though that’s obviously a primary concern for many fans — especially those of smaller-market clubs.
An offseason lockout seems inevitable once the current bargaining agreement expires on December 1. The 2021-22 lockout lasted 99 days and narrowly avoided the cancelation of games. “Of course I do,” Manfred replied when asked if he was worried about a more disastrous work stoppage like the ’94-95 strike. He declined to answer a question about whether the league’s desire for a cap would make an extended lockout worthwhile, saying he wouldn’t “speculate about work stoppages.”
There’s no incentive for Manfred to answer that question. The extent of both sides’ willingness to tolerate a lockout that’d cost them game revenue is a pivotal piece of information that neither will disclose publicly. It behooves both parties to stress their resolve more generally.
The commissioner also touched on a few non-CBA topics. He provided an update on the sale agreement that values the Padres just shy of $4 billion. That’s still pending approval from the other 29 owners. Manfred said that’s “not ready for a vote today” but is likely to come up at some point this summer. He also touched on expansion, noting that’s a topic which will be on the back burner until a new CBA is in place.
“No sir,” said the horse. “I don’t like it. I don’t like it one bit.”
A salary cap? A Three hundred million luxury tax threshold?
Well, at least they are talking, but have serious talks, with serious suggestions.
They don’t need to reinvent the wheel here. It’d be nice to have a hard cap and floor but there’s alternatives to ensure baseball gets played
The cbt system is fine but needs tweaking
Mainly
Eliminate or cap deferrals per year (I’d argue 10% some might say 25% of first tax apron)
Increase penalties for going over tax aprons. Eliminate the whole first time offender second time offender. It needs to be hard penalties each year
250 mill first apron
300 mill second apron – penalties 75% tax on all overages, loss of 3rd round draft pick, lose 25% IFA money
350 mill third apron – penalties 100% tax on all overages loss of 2nd round draft pick, lose 50% ifa money
Teams can go over but they need to be punished by loss of draft picks and ifa money. Makes 0 sense teams can outspend defer and still hold regular draft and ifa spending periods.
There needs be a floor – 150 mill. Penalties for failing to reach said floor include fines based on how far below you are, draft picks being knocked back 5 10 even end of round slots , loss of revenue sharing. Sure you can under spend by you’re gonna pay taxes and have your benefits affected.
Increase vet minimum
Increase minor league salaries
Profit sharing should be 60 owners and 40 players or 55 45 since we are asking owners to increase spending at the floor level, increase vet minimum, increase minor league salaries so there has to be some trade off from the MLBPA side. I can’t think of anything except reducing their pie share
I like a lot of your suggestions. Id like to add a penalty for not reaching the minimum. Let’s say you’re 25 million short. Well now you gotta divy up 25 million to every 40 man on the roster. So bonus money for the players who had to be part of that team.
I love it let’s include it
owners would love this, especially 60/40. any time you introduce aprons it benefits ownership.
There is no floor without a cap. I don’t know how many times people can be told this. Even with sharing evenly 100% of local TV money which should be part of it. No more sweetheart deals on the side.
Why does the floor need a cap. The whole point of the floor is to ensure teams are actually reinvesting in the team. If a team wants to spend more than the floor, good for them!
If you don’t think the above scenario would in essence create a salary cap you’re nuts. No team will forfeit 50% of their IFA… would even hurt severely to lose 25%. Only thing I didn’t see was increased revenue sharing ..which would be needed.
Put simply, it is because the owners will never agree to a floor unless there is also a cap. So there’d never be an agreement reached.
You’ll either get both or neither.
I like a lot of these ideas, but I’d go harsher with the penalities at that second apron and above. Limit the funds they can spend on incoming players, if they make trades they need to have more money going out than coming in, can’t sign free agents to deals above 1 year / league minimum, etc. If the penalty is an actual penalty, teams will try to get under – like the Boston Celtics this year in the NBA. They still did well after the JT injury and trading away a ton of assets to get under the second apron.
Profit sharing? These discussions are about gross revenue, not profits.
Hey Rob,
I suggest a league wide Ohtani lockout bobblehead giveaway once the new CBA is ratified.
Maybe defer receiving the bobblehead in honor of those who can’t understand deferrals.
Piece of metal
Just get a Cap! Fans dont care how long it takes. Lock them out for 5 years if necessary, but get the Cap
Fans of hockey, that is.
Caps are available for purchase at the Dodger stadium gift shops. Shipping is extra.
Previously Manfred said the spending by Los Angeles was good for baseball now he’s suddenly concerned about what the fans think regarding competitive balance.
The difference is now he is getting pressure from most of the owners to fix the competitive balance problem he allowed to fester all these years.
“It’s debatable whether either really cares about competitive balance”
Really, it’s hard to discuss the bargaining meaningfully without accepting the fact that neither side does. It’s never been more than a smokescreen for either.
Yep. Here we go again, but at least this article acknowledges something we should all already know to be true: that neither the owners nor the players care much about competitive balance. Not that this knowledge will change the discussion any.
I do not agree with this at all. I’m certain some owners and lots of players do care about competitive balance.
Ticket price cap before a salary cap if you care about your fans
bro, cmon. we all know beer and ticket prices will plummet if a cap is instituted.
How would they even make money selling only slightly overpriced products to large groups of people? Profit margin on a $2 beer is only 10x wholesale.
People need to think about how many Steinbrenners and Guggenheim execs will starve because of these communist price controls.
Relegation!
Super League!
As usual Manfred lied. The cap and floor as proposed would place the players with a lower percentage of revenue than the 41% they had in 2025. Since revenue has grown in 2026 according to Manfred and will likely grow more in 2027 and will absolutely skyrocket in 2029, his statements are flat out lies.
If its about competitive balance, then the answer is easy. More revenue sharing between the teams including 100% revenue sharing from media. That is something the owners can do themselves without the involvement of the players.
Since they are not doing that or even offering that, the cap and floor have nothing to do with competitive balance. We have already seen that a cap and floor has not created competitive balance in any other sport since baseball has had the highest percentage or teams play in and win the championship this century.
The league’s proposal sets a 50/50 split of standardized baseball revenue with commitments to higher total player compensation and equal sharing of future growth, rather than any cut below prior levels under different definitions. Revenue percentages depend on accounting choices, which is why the offer pairs the split with a cap and floor that narrow payroll gaps and force broader investment across markets. Greater media revenue centralization is included to fix blackouts and expand the shared pool, but redistribution alone cannot prevent high-revenue teams from dominating talent without spending limits. The cap and floor together curb hoarding at the top while requiring minimum investment at the bottom. Other capped leagues show imperfect parity because execution still varies, yet they limit extreme concentration better than uncapped systems, and MLB’s recent championship variety could extend further with these tools rather than allowing resource gaps to grow. The package links enhanced sharing with spending discipline to keep more teams competitive as revenues rise.
Get him into Cooperstown now
We have seen in any other sports league, most more popular than baseball right now, they have a cap and a floor and players are still making loads of cash. Not just on the field either. Fans go into a season knowing they have a chance at their teams greatness unlike baseball where only about a dozen teams do. You can’t ever guard against bad management.
Of course large market fans don’t want to lose their extreme advantage and don’t care about the long term health of the game. If there are only eight teams eventually or the game dies in the future, they could care less.
All of the other sports organizations only play 82 games (or much less in the NFL), carry fewer players on their roster, and don’t have 4 minor league teams behind each major league team organization.
I’m a Phillies fan and I’d like to see more competitive balance. Even we are $100 million short of the Dodgers. And not as good.
Didn’t like the “editorializing” in this piece. The writer shouldn’t just imply that neither side cares about competitive balance. I’d wager many owners outside of LA do, given the Dodgers’ unending ability to spend and defer. I’d guess many small market players do too.
Support Labor! Not Management oligarchs! No salary cap!
I don’t like this salary floor.
1. 12 teams are under this threshold. Too many teams need to increase their payroll to get up to it. The teams that can’t afford to raise payroll because they’re in a small market or can’t get enough attendance will have to raise prices of tickets, merchandise, food, etc to pay for it. The fans are taking on the money for the floor, not the owners.
2. More money spent doesn’t mean money spent well. Just look at the Mets. In theory it will make the team “more competitive”, but it doesn’t necessarily accomplish that.
Fact is competitive balance isn’t a motivating factor on either negotiating side ..they don’t care about it. Now we can hope the eventual results lead to better competitive balance. And the sooner the owners realize a hard salary cap/floor isn’t the only way to accomplish this the better for everyone.