RealGM

Since the MLB boards are dead, I'm posting this here.

The MLB CBA expires at the end of 2026. Owners are talking about a salary cap -- MLB is the only North American sport without a salary cap while the MLBPA apparently are vehemently against it.

In fact, players didn't want to hear Manfred discuss the topic recently.

The confrontation came in a meeting -- one of the 30 that Manfred conducts annually in an effort to improve his relations with every team's players -- that lasted more than an hour. Though Manfred never explicitly said the words "salary cap," sources said the discussion about the game's economics raised the ire of Harper, one of MLB's most influential players and a two-time National League MVP.

Ahead of the expiration of the collective-bargaining agreement between MLB and the MLB Players Association on Dec. 1, 2026, multiple owners have stumped for a salary cap in baseball, the only major men's North American sport without one. The MLBPA vehemently opposes a cap, which it argues serves more as a tool to increase franchise values than to lessen the game's large disparity between high- and low-spending teams.

Quiet for the majority of the meeting, Harper, sitting in a chair and holding a bat, eventually grew frustrated and said if MLB were to propose a cap and hold firm to it, players "are not scared to lose 162 games," sources from the meeting told ESPN. Harper stood up, walked toward the middle of the room, faced Manfred and said: "If you want to speak about that, you can get the f--- out of our clubhouse."

Manfred, sources said, responded that he was "not going to get the f--- out of here," saying it was important to talk about threats to MLB's business and ways to grow the game.

Before the situation further intensified, veteran outfielder Nick Castellanos tried to defuse the tension, saying: "I have more questions." The meeting continued, and Harper and Manfred eventually shook hands, sources said, though Harper declined to answer phone calls from Manfred the next day.

"It was pretty intense, definitely passionate," Castellanos told ESPN. "Both of 'em. The commissioner giving it back to Bryce and Bryce giving it back to the commissioner. That's Harp. He's been doing this since he was 15 years old. It's just another day. I wasn't surprised."

When reached by ESPN, Harper declined to comment. Manfred declined to comment through a league spokesperson.

After a "pretty intense" exchange between Bryce Harper and commissioner Rob Manfred during a team meeting in the Phillies' clubhouse, the two eventually shook hands, but Harper declined to answer calls from Manfred the next day, sources told ESPN.

Though he has not been outspoken on labor issues in previous years, the 32-year-old Harper, who is represented by agent Scott Boras, personified the union's perspective on the prospect of a capped system. At the All-Star Game in Atlanta earlier this month, MLBPA executive director Tony Clark called salary caps "institutionalized collusion," and in a February interview with ESPN, he said: "We always have been and continue to be ready to talk about ways to improve the industry, and we do a lot of things with the league to do exactly that. You don't need a salary cap to grow the industry."

https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/45842533/sources-phillies-bryce-harper-tells-mlb-boss-get-clubhouse

There is far more disparity in MLB payrolls than NBA payrolls.

For instance, Dodgers and Mets have the highest payrolls at $340 and $333 million whereas the lowest payroll teams are the White Sox, A's and Marlins at $78, $77 and $68 million respectively. So there's almost a 5 to 1 ratio between the highest payroll team and the lowest payroll team.

https://www.spotrac.com/mlb/payroll

In the NBA, the highest payrolls for the 2025-26 season are the Cavs at $224.6 and Celtics at $205.9 million and the lowest payrolls are the Wizards, Jazz and Nets at $135.4, $133.25 and $114.3 million for active players. That means Cavs have less than a 2-1 ratio over the Nets.

https://www.spotrac.com/nba/cap


The MLBPA accuses the owners of pushing for a salary cap to boost team valuations. It's not clear that a salary cap, if it led to more parity, would make the sport more popular, possibly leading to more lucrative TV contracts and more revenues.

ESPN is willing to walk away from MLB TV rights unless they can negotiate for much lower fees, so while the biggest stars like Ohtani and Judge are on two of the highest-spending teams in the sport, it's not clear that they make the sport overall more popular. No doubt the Dodgers and the NY teams are probably getting great local TV ratings and attendance.

But most of the other teams can't spend over $300 million to try to compete for WS rings.

Also not clear if a salary cap would make the sport more popular either. When superstars of the sport sign 10 or 15 year contracts worth well over $500 billion, does it make the sport more or less popular?

Do fans of teams who can't sign the biggest free agents every year like the Dodgers and the NY teams still remain interested in the sport?

The cheap owners really should wanna keep it the same! Because with a salary cap limit, would also come a salary cap floor

The league NEEDS a cap floor at a minimum, but a cap ceiling isn't ever going to work. And that's why we have the pure nonsense that is the payroll of the Dodgers and deferred money contracts to the tune of hundreds of millions.

The poverty Tampa Bay Rays just sold for 2 billion dollars. Everyone involved with the MLB, with the exception of fans, love the way things are going. A few owners are willing to spend, a few are willing to suck and reap the benefits of sharing, players love signing half a billion dollar contracts.

The only losers are fans of teams like the Marlins and Rockies, but who cares about them I suppose. Everyone else is eating good.

Jeff Passan was talking about the last time baseball seasons were disrupted back in the 1994 and 1995 seasons.

The owners also wanted a salary cap back then. The players went on strike in mid August and eventually over 900 games were canceled including the playoffs and World Series.

Then the 1995 season was delayed by a month, leading to a 144-game season for 1995.

Aug. 12, 1994 – Players strike after beginning the 1994 season without a labor agreement in place.
Sept. 14, 1994 – acting Commissioner Bud Selig cancels remainder of 1994 season, including playoffs and World Series.
Dec. 6, 1994 – Owners’ lead negotiator Richard Ravitch resigns.
Dec. 14, 1994 – Negotiations led by federal mediator Bill Usery break down.
Dec. 23, 1994 – Owners unilaterally implement a salary cap system.
Jan. 5, 1995 – In wake of owners’ decision to implement rules unilaterally, MLBPA Executive Director Donald Fehr declares all 895 unsigned players to be free agents.
Jan. 13, 1995 – Owners’ executive council approves use of replacement players.
Feb. 11, 1995 – Owners withdraw the salary cap system but unilaterally eliminate some elements of the expired 1990-1993 labor agreement, including salary arbitration, individual bargaining between clubs and players and the anti-collusion provisions of free-agency rules.
March 27, 1995 – National Labor Relations Board files a complaint in federal court charging that the owners had not bargained in good faith when they unilaterally implemented rules altering the previous Basic Agreement.
April 2, 1995 – Players end strike and return to work without a new collective bargaining agreement after federal judge Sonia Sotomayor issues an injunction restoring the terms of the expired 1990-1993 CBA.
April 27, 1995 – Opening Day for 144-game 1995 schedule.

https://legacy.baseballprospectus.com/compensation/cots/league-info/cba-history/


The top salaries were only a fraction of the top salaries today with only a few dozen players earning over $1 million. But fans blamed the “greedy” players for the strike and the cancellation of the 1994 post-season.

People are mostly going to think of the 9-figure contracts but tons of players don’t make over a million for years. Typically by the time a good player reaches free agency, they’re in their late 20s, probably having played professionally for about a decade, including the minor leagues.

I don't know enough about it, but man Harper always comes off as a petulant child in every situation.

The NFL PA should be the ones striking. Biggest league in the world but can't get contract guarantees and owners keep forcing them to play more games on less rest.

Another article on the impending CBA negotiations after 2026. Dodgers will spend over $507 million this year between payroll and luxury tax penalties. That is almost as much as the 6 lowest payroll teams.

The 8 teams paying luxury taxes will make the playoffs leaving only 4 spots for the other 22 MLB teams. The possibility is that the 2027 season will be locked out, which could be disastrous for a sport trying to increase TV revenues and potential expansion from 30 to 32 teams.

The war between the owners and the MLBPA will be over a salary cap. All other US team sports have salary caps and salary floors. Comparisons to the capped sports illuminate the differences between sports.

Look at the three capped sports. They've gone backward in terms of revenue split. In the NFL's initial collective bargaining agreement with a cap in 1994, the players received 64% of revenue. Today it's 48%. Basketball (1984) and hockey (2005) started at 57%. Now it's 51% in the NBA and 50% in hockey.

https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/46294140/mlb-labor-negotiations-salary-cap-baseball-talks-2027-season-lockout

On the other hand, MLB franchise values haven’t increased like the franchise values in the NFL and the NBA. Meanwhile fan perception of the lack of competitive balance is clear.

MLB Trade Rumors ran a two-question poll for its readers. The first asked: "Do you want a salary cap in the next MLB CBA?" After more than 35,000 votes, the results -- however skewed by the frustration over the Dodgers' spending and use of deferred money -- were overwhelming: 67.2% said yes. The second question painted an even darker portrait: If it meant the implementation of a cap, 50.2% of respondents said they were willing to lose the 2027 season.

Owners just think that they can’t compete with the spending of the Dodgers.

MLB's argument for a cap starts with shrinking the economic disparity to foster fairness regardless of market size and revenue. Payroll correlates more strongly with winning in baseball than in any of the capped sports, and this reality alarms league officials.

"How do we compete?" one midsized-market team president said. "We try to do everything right. We draft well. We develop well. And then we get the s--- kicked out of us by clubs that buy their players. It feels like the game is rigged."

One of the things the MLBPA keeps asking for if this were to happen is know all the teams financials and revenue info. The only info they really know about revenue is by what the Braves have to announce as they are owned by a public company. The MLB doesnt need a salary cap, they need a floor more as teams like the Pirates, Marlins, Tampa just dont spend. I suspect there may not be baseball in2027.

BigGargamel wrote:The poverty Tampa Bay Rays just sold for 2 billion dollars. Everyone involved with the MLB, with the exception of fans, love the way things are going. A few owners are willing to spend, a few are willing to suck and reap the benefits of sharing, players love signing half a billion dollar contracts.

The only losers are fans of teams like the Marlins and Rockies, but who cares about them I suppose. Everyone else is eating good.

Don't forget Pittsburgh. They're nothing more than a farm team that NYY and Dodgers pick which players they want to trade for. Paul Skenes can't wait to get the hell out of there. The owner is nothing more than a cheap bastard whose biggest concern is becoming richer, not fielding a competitive team. I feel sorry for the fans who still go to games and support the team.

Nice time see low budget Brewers having the best record in the league this season.

The4thHorseman wrote:

BigGargamel wrote:The poverty Tampa Bay Rays just sold for 2 billion dollars. Everyone involved with the MLB, with the exception of fans, love the way things are going. A few owners are willing to spend, a few are willing to suck and reap the benefits of sharing, players love signing half a billion dollar contracts.

The only losers are fans of teams like the Marlins and Rockies, but who cares about them I suppose. Everyone else is eating good.

Don't forget Pittsburgh. They're nothing more than a farm team that NYY and Dodgers pick which players they want to trade for. Paul Skenes can't wait to get the hell out of there. The owner is nothing more than a cheap bastard whose biggest concern is becoming richer, not fielding a competitive team. I feel sorry for the fans who still go to games and support the team.

Nice time see low budget Brewers having the best record in the league this season.

Hope the Brewers win in October but I suspect the teams with more expensive rosters may get hot in the playoffs.

wco81 wrote:Do fans of teams who can't sign the biggest free agents every year like the Dodgers and the NY teams still remain interested in the sport?

It's been like this throughout the history of MLB. DIdn't the Red Sox sell Babe Ruth to the Yankees to pay their bills?

In Cleveland we always told ourselves the fans would show up for a winner and then things would be different, but then in the 90's when the Indians went to the World Series and built up an amazing team of stars we saw them lose those stars because simply filling the stadium game after game wasn't enough compared to what the Yankees and Dodgers rake in.

The Guardians are currently on another one of their late season insane runs to try to make the playoffs and I haven't bothered to watch a single game even though T-Mobile gave away free MLB viewing. Maybe I'll check out some playoff games, maybe not.

It's just too depressing knowing that no matter how well run, clever and fun the team is, they'll need a miracle to make it to the World Series; they may even have to beat their former Cy Young winner Shane Bieber they had to give away to get there; and even if they somehow do, they'll be forced to start selling off their stars again.

I can't even say at this point, but a salary cap could be too little too late.

wco81 wrote:There is far more disparity in MLB payrolls than NBA payrolls.

For instance, Dodgers and Mets have the highest payrolls at $340 and $333 million whereas the lowest payroll teams are the White Sox, A's and Marlins at $78, $77 and $68 million respectively. So there's almost a 5 to 1 ratio between the highest payroll team and the lowest payroll team.

https://www.spotrac.com/mlb/payroll

In the NBA, the highest payrolls for the 2025-26 season are the Cavs at $224.6 and Celtics at $205.9 million and the lowest payrolls are the Wizards, Jazz and Nets at $135.4, $133.25 and $114.3 million for active players. That means Cavs have less than a 2-1 ratio over the Nets.

https://www.spotrac.com/nba/cap


The MLBPA accuses the owners of pushing for a salary cap to boost team valuations. It's not clear that a salary cap, if it led to more parity, would make the sport more popular, possibly leading to more lucrative TV contracts and more revenues.

ESPN is willing to walk away from MLB TV rights unless they can negotiate for much lower fees, so while the biggest stars like Ohtani and Judge are on two of the highest-spending teams in the sport, it's not clear that they make the sport overall more popular. No doubt the Dodgers and the NY teams are probably getting great local TV ratings and attendance.

But most of the other teams can't spend over $300 million to try to compete for WS rings.

Also not clear if a salary cap would make the sport more popular either. When superstars of the sport sign 10 or 15 year contracts worth well over $500 billion, does it make the sport more or less popular?

Do fans of teams who can't sign the biggest free agents every year like the Dodgers and the NY teams still remain interested in the sport?

So first let me say I think this is worth discussing on an NBA board because it can help us better understand labor negotiations in our sport of choice among other things.

To your question at the end:

A critical part of why MLB fans haven't traditionally been that bothered by the lack of salary parity, in my assessment, is that there's so much randomness in the game that it's rare to see dynastic runs. I believe no team has won back-to-back since Torre's Yankees ending in 2000, and the Yankees themselves have only won once in the time since despite always having the financial & brand advantage they had then and now.

The randomness of the game is related to, but not the same thing as, the relative lack of impact that any baseball player can have in comparison to basketball stars. The fact that being the best baseball player is not nearly enough enough to make a team a contender has a variety of effects.

A good effect is that it keeps baseball fans from falling into the trap of thinking of their sport as an individual sport ("If his team lost, he's not that guy"), and this along a) the discrete nature of the game allowing b) a long tradition of granular box score tracking has helped baseball fans on average be more knowledgeable about the game most other fanbases of major team sports are.

It's also helpful because it's pretty easy to find something to be hopeful about for your hometown team - and here having such a sophisticated minor league system helps.

I'd say a bad effect is that it doesn't allow the MLB to reliably use the playoffs as the same kind of star-promoting showcase than the NBA does.

Now as I say all of that, you mention the Dodgers and Yankees, and I'll say the fact that the two big markets played in the World Series last year is probably seen as an opportunity for the owners to publicly push again for a salary cap. The owners wanting one is not new, but the work stoppage of the '90s really damaged the MLB, and kept them from trying again...for a while.

But I do think we should keep in mind that we have plenty of prior seasons to look at to know that you can't expect buy your way to always winning, despite the fact that 2024's World Series implied otherwise.

One other broad point: There's no doubt that having Ohtani & Judge is helping MLB popularity imho, but the MLB is saddled with a slow product in faster and faster times. Not a lot of people right now are in the habit of tuning in to watch/listen to their favorite team 162 times, 3+ hours a pop, in the span of a bit over 4 months - basketball and hockey have a similar type of problem with too many games that go too long for modern attention spans, but baseball asks for far more time with far less action.

Now, fair to say that none of these sports actually expect this of fans - the way the NFL can - but I would say that to the extent this is true for any given sport, the more the sport's bosses should recognize they're in a precarious place. If and when it leads to an actual contraction of revenue, seemingly solid foundations can be revealed as a cascading house of cards.

I was actually shocked to find out that the MLB is doing as well as it been doing, but I am not those metro areas and I will not go out of my way to go to a baseball in the balls sweaty hot months in Texas. The disparity between salaries with the teams is mind bending. I was under the impression that they have not done good after the strike and after Ken Griffey Jr. Presents Major League Baseball game… lol.

Salary cap seems silly for baseball, but I can see the need for a salary floor. The teams that spend the most aren't always the best, but the teams that spend the least, almost always are the worst.

One of the things mentioned in Passan's ESPN.com article is that Manfred is trying to get a big TV package in 2028.

The idea would be to package together all the local TV rights into a national package and try to sell it to streamers or maybe a network. That "national" package would include the lucrative local deals of the Dodgers and a couple of other big market deals like the Yankees, Cubs, Red Sox.

So it would actually be another form of revenue sharing. A team like the Marlins or the Pirates get a fraction of the local TV money that the Dodgers get, which is worth hundreds of millions a year.

What would be in it for a team like the Dodgers, which already is going to pay over $160 million in luxury taxes this season? Well if the ratings fall and keep falling for every market outside of LA, the sport won't be healthy.

Dodgers want a dynasty in the worst way possible but if it keeps signing 9-figure contracts for the best free agents after every season and they can string together 2 or 3 more WS titles in the next 4-5 seasons, fans of other clubs are going to tune out to the sport.

So we will see if the owners and players get serious about addressing the competitive balance problem or the perception. Players don't want any kind of cap, because it means salaries go down and there might be max contracts like the NBA, which means no more record-setting contracts every offseason.

But there's an inequality in salaries with a big gap between the biggest contracts and the typical pay that average or even above average starters earn. You also have young players not even hitting free agency until their late '20s or around age 30, as the owners will push free agency out for all homegrown players as much as possible, without a cap.

Players love big market teams having way more payroll than small market teams, because players want to live in the big markets

If Minnesota and LA both have the same payroll, lot of players have to move to Minnesota to get paid. If LA has a 4x payroll, a lot of players get to live in LA and still collect the same salary

i dont think they add a cap...but we also cant have teams spending 300-500 million a season and others spending 50-100 million

dballislife wrote:i dont think they add a cap...but we also cant have teams spending 300-500 million a season and others spending 50-100 million

Does the cap really matter. It's not like the highest cap teams are winning championships every year.

JustBuzzin wrote:

dballislife wrote:i dont think they add a cap...but we also cant have teams spending 300-500 million a season and others spending 50-100 million

Does the cap really matter. It's not like the highest cap teams are winning championships every year.

I suppose that depends if you enjoy watching your team develop players for the wealthy teams.