MLB Salary Cap—key issues?

[Youboughtit]

I'm 90% sure the MLBPA won't allow any of these -- and will strike for a long time, if not locked out, because "the have" teams won't agree to equality on spending -- or revenue. Players and owners fought this in the last CBA, and the Dodgers and others railed about how they gave too much -- to the other owners, not players!

They've used the luxury tax as a faux-Cap, and although it certainly has affected the spending of most teams, it's not all.

There IS already a lot of revenue per the 2022 CBA, as teams share 48% of local revenues equally shared (over $100M per team) and reallocation of the total national TV and licensing (also over $100M per team), where 'the haves" get less. The "have-not" teams that receive huge dollars from "the haves" don't spend it! This disincentivizes giving the have-nots more when logically viewed by the other owners, players and fans.

So would your cap include a spending floor? The haves owners and players would require this IMHO.

The lowest floor of any professional sport is 82% of the cap. So a 300m cap is a $240m min. But that requires full revenue sharing

[ClassicO]

The other sports have salary caps, yet no other sport has had a different team win the championship ring in 16 of the past 25 years (64% of the time), and 10 of the past 14 (71.4% of the time).

What other sport can come close to that? So be careful what you ask for.

The Cards' problems are not because they can't afford it! They didn't spend money on the minors or the international market, and have dropped badly in MLB roster payroll ranking. And I don't feel sorry for the Pirates and other teams that don't spend the shared revenue they already get.

[ClassicO]

I'm 90% sure the MLBPA won't allow any of these -- and will strike for a long time, if not locked out, because "the have" teams won't agree to equality on spending -- or revenue. Players and owners fought this in the last CBA, and the Dodgers and others railed about how they gave too much -- to the other owners, not players!

They've used the luxury tax as a faux-Cap, and although it certainly has affected the spending of most teams, it's not all.

There IS already a lot of revenue per the 2022 CBA, as teams share 48% of local revenues equally shared (over $100M per team) and reallocation of the total national TV and licensing (also over $100M per team), where 'the haves" get less. The "have-not" teams that receive huge dollars from "the haves" don't spend it! This disincentivizes giving the have-nots more when logically viewed by the other owners, players and fans.

So would your cap include a spending floor? The haves owners and players would require this IMHO.

The lowest floor of any professional sport is 82% of the cap. So a 300m cap is a $240m min. But that requires full revenue sharing

The previous CBA raised the local revenue share to 48% from 31%. Again, they have-not teams get more of the national revenue. Why would the Dodgers agree to anything more than an incremental increase in the local revenue share (which I wouldn't if I were them)?

[Youboughtit]

I'm 90% sure the MLBPA won't allow any of these -- and will strike for a long time, if not locked out, because "the have" teams won't agree to equality on spending -- or revenue. Players and owners fought this in the last CBA, and the Dodgers and others railed about how they gave too much -- to the other owners, not players!

They've used the luxury tax as a faux-Cap, and although it certainly has affected the spending of most teams, it's not all.

There IS already a lot of revenue per the 2022 CBA, as teams share 48% of local revenues equally shared (over $100M per team) and reallocation of the total national TV and licensing (also over $100M per team), where 'the haves" get less. The "have-not" teams that receive huge dollars from "the haves" don't spend it! This disincentivizes giving the have-nots more when logically viewed by the other owners, players and fans.

So would your cap include a spending floor? The haves owners and players would require this IMHO.

The lowest floor of any professional sport is 82% of the cap. So a 300m cap is a $240m min. But that requires full revenue sharing

The previous CBA raised the local revenue share to 48% from 31%. Again, they have-not teams get more of the national revenue. Why would the Dodgers agree to anything more than an incremental increase in the local revenue share (which I wouldn't if I were them)?

It’s not large markets vs the players. It’s all 30 teams and the owners want a cap so the players can and will demand a floor. How do you propose getting the Rays Marlins and As to spend that $240m without full revenue sharing? If the owners want a cap that’s the cost. National TV is 15% of the television revenue. 85-% is the local revenue. That’s what needs shared at 50%. No cap without revenue sharing. They can just leave as is if those few big markets won’t play ball. Let them run the leauge and have $500m payrolls and the other 20 teams can just fold

[ClassicO]

FYI - look at the teams that don't pay a reasonable amount of revenue for payroll. A big problem is that many teams don't pay their fair share to the players now.
What do you think will change that with a cap?

Screenshot 2025-07-28 at 6.38.19 PM.png (255.59 KiB) Viewed 124 times

[Youboughtit]

FYI - look at the teams that don't pay a reasonable amount of revenue for payroll. A big problem is that many teams don't pay their fair share to the players now.
What do you think will change that with a cap?


Screenshot 2025-07-28 at 6.38.19 PM.png

It’s will be forced change with the floor.

[ClassicO]

FYI - look at the teams that don't pay a reasonable amount of revenue for payroll. A big problem is that many teams don't pay their fair share to the players now.
What do you think will change that with a cap?


Screenshot 2025-07-28 at 6.38.19 PM.png

It’s will be forced change with the floor.

What floor = 50% on payroll? That's more than all but 9 teams.
In the political world, there is an expression that "you can't legislate stupidity." This may apply here as well, as I don't see many have-nots suddenly changing. The stupid teams just find a work-around.

[Youboughtit]

FYI - look at the teams that don't pay a reasonable amount of revenue for payroll. A big problem is that many teams don't pay their fair share to the players now.
What do you think will change that with a cap?


Screenshot 2025-07-28 at 6.38.19 PM.png

It’s will be forced change with the floor.

What floor = 50% on payroll? That's more than all but 9 teams.
In the political world, there is an expression that "you can't legislate stupidity." This may apply here as well, as I don't see many have-nots suddenly changing. The stupid teams just find a work-around.

Any cap will have a floor so a $300m cap will have a $240m floor on payroll. Forced to spend

[3dender]

I'm 90% sure the MLBPA won't allow any of these -- and will strike for a long time, if not locked out, because "the have" teams won't agree to equality on spending -- or revenue. Players and owners fought this in the last CBA, and the Dodgers and others railed about how they gave too much -- to the other owners, not players!

They've used the luxury tax as a faux-Cap, and although it certainly has affected the spending of most teams, it's not all.

There IS already a lot of revenue per the 2022 CBA, as teams share 48% of local revenues equally shared (over $100M per team) and reallocation of the total national TV and licensing (also over $100M per team), where 'the haves" get less. The "have-not" teams that receive huge dollars from "the haves" don't spend it! This disincentivizes giving the have-nots more when logically viewed by the other owners, players and fans.

So would your cap include a spending floor? The haves owners and players would require this IMHO.

This is key. There is already modest revenue sharing, there are reportedly even teams who spend less in payroll than they receive in revenue sharing.

You don't need full revenue sharing to establish a floor. You just tell the cheapskate owners to start spending, or sell the team.

And you don't need the floor to be $240M... $150M would be transformative.

[45s]

I'm 90% sure the MLBPA won't allow any of these -- and will strike for a long time, if not locked out, because "the have" teams won't agree to equality on spending -- or revenue. Players and owners fought this in the last CBA, and the Dodgers and others railed about how they gave too much -- to the other owners, not players!

They've used the luxury tax as a faux-Cap, and although it certainly has affected the spending of most teams, it's not all.

There IS already a lot of revenue per the 2022 CBA, as teams share 48% of local revenues equally shared (over $100M per team) and reallocation of the total national TV and licensing (also over $100M per team), where 'the haves" get less. The "have-not" teams that receive huge dollars from "the haves" don't spend it! This disincentivizes giving the have-nots more when logically viewed by the other owners, players and fans.

So would your cap include a spending floor? The haves owners and players would require this IMHO.

This is key. There is already modest revenue sharing, there are reportedly even teams who spend less in payroll than they receive in revenue sharing.

You don't need full revenue sharing to establish a floor. You just tell the cheapskate owners to start spending, or sell the team.

And you don't need the floor to be $240M... $150M would be transformative.

So….

You want to force them to potentially overpay poor players in order to meet a floor….

All that will do is escalate salaries throughout the leagues….

[CrownRoyalCaramel]

I'm 90% sure the MLBPA won't allow any of these -- and will strike for a long time, if not locked out, because "the have" teams won't agree to equality on spending -- or revenue. Players and owners fought this in the last CBA, and the Dodgers and others railed about how they gave too much -- to the other owners, not players!

They've used the luxury tax as a faux-Cap, and although it certainly has affected the spending of most teams, it's not all.

There IS already a lot of revenue per the 2022 CBA, as teams share 48% of local revenues equally shared (over $100M per team) and reallocation of the total national TV and licensing (also over $100M per team), where 'the haves" get less. The "have-not" teams that receive huge dollars from "the haves" don't spend it! This disincentivizes giving the have-nots more when logically viewed by the other owners, players and fans.

So would your cap include a spending floor? The haves owners and players would require this IMHO.

This is key. There is already modest revenue sharing, there are reportedly even teams who spend less in payroll than they receive in revenue sharing.

You don't need full revenue sharing to establish a floor. You just tell the cheapskate owners to start spending, or sell the team.

And you don't need the floor to be $240M... $150M would be transformative.

So….

You want to force them to potentially overpay poor players in order to meet a floor….

All that will do is escalate salaries throughout the leagues….

Then it would be a great time to get rid of guaranteed salaries. Aren’t we all tired of the (bleep) like Mikolas?

[45s]

I'm 90% sure the MLBPA won't allow any of these -- and will strike for a long time, if not locked out, because "the have" teams won't agree to equality on spending -- or revenue. Players and owners fought this in the last CBA, and the Dodgers and others railed about how they gave too much -- to the other owners, not players!

They've used the luxury tax as a faux-Cap, and although it certainly has affected the spending of most teams, it's not all.

There IS already a lot of revenue per the 2022 CBA, as teams share 48% of local revenues equally shared (over $100M per team) and reallocation of the total national TV and licensing (also over $100M per team), where 'the haves" get less. The "have-not" teams that receive huge dollars from "the haves" don't spend it! This disincentivizes giving the have-nots more when logically viewed by the other owners, players and fans.

So would your cap include a spending floor? The haves owners and players would require this IMHO.

This is key. There is already modest revenue sharing, there are reportedly even teams who spend less in payroll than they receive in revenue sharing.

You don't need full revenue sharing to establish a floor. You just tell the cheapskate owners to start spending, or sell the team.

And you don't need the floor to be $240M... $150M would be transformative.

So….

You want to force them to potentially overpay poor players in order to meet a floor….

All that will do is escalate salaries throughout the leagues….

Then it would be a great time to get rid of guaranteed salaries. Aren’t we all tired of the (bleep) like Mikolas?

I agree on guaranteed deals….but a separate issue…

Nobody wants to go to Pittsburgh…..but they are forced to meet the floor…

So they find some bum to play second base….and pay him 20 mil……have to meet that floor

Meanwhile in Stl, Brendon Donovan is up for arbitration…

His agent says…they are paying that stiff in Pittsburgh 20 mil…..my guy Donovan is at least twice as good….we want 40

And the customers in Pittsburgh and Stl pay more for bad baseball

[3dender]

I'm 90% sure the MLBPA won't allow any of these -- and will strike for a long time, if not locked out, because "the have" teams won't agree to equality on spending -- or revenue. Players and owners fought this in the last CBA, and the Dodgers and others railed about how they gave too much -- to the other owners, not players!

They've used the luxury tax as a faux-Cap, and although it certainly has affected the spending of most teams, it's not all.

There IS already a lot of revenue per the 2022 CBA, as teams share 48% of local revenues equally shared (over $100M per team) and reallocation of the total national TV and licensing (also over $100M per team), where 'the haves" get less. The "have-not" teams that receive huge dollars from "the haves" don't spend it! This disincentivizes giving the have-nots more when logically viewed by the other owners, players and fans.

So would your cap include a spending floor? The haves owners and players would require this IMHO.

This is key. There is already modest revenue sharing, there are reportedly even teams who spend less in payroll than they receive in revenue sharing.

You don't need full revenue sharing to establish a floor. You just tell the cheapskate owners to start spending, or sell the team.

And you don't need the floor to be $240M... $150M would be transformative.

So….

You want to force them to potentially overpay poor players in order to meet a floor….

All that will do is escalate salaries throughout the leagues….

No, I want to create actual parity where big FAs will have more options on where to sign, bc those teams will have to occasionally hand out bigger contracts.

[Youboughtit]

I'm 90% sure the MLBPA won't allow any of these -- and will strike for a long time, if not locked out, because "the have" teams won't agree to equality on spending -- or revenue. Players and owners fought this in the last CBA, and the Dodgers and others railed about how they gave too much -- to the other owners, not players!

They've used the luxury tax as a faux-Cap, and although it certainly has affected the spending of most teams, it's not all.

There IS already a lot of revenue per the 2022 CBA, as teams share 48% of local revenues equally shared (over $100M per team) and reallocation of the total national TV and licensing (also over $100M per team), where 'the haves" get less. The "have-not" teams that receive huge dollars from "the haves" don't spend it! This disincentivizes giving the have-nots more when logically viewed by the other owners, players and fans.

So would your cap include a spending floor? The haves owners and players would require this IMHO.

This is key. There is already modest revenue sharing, there are reportedly even teams who spend less in payroll than they receive in revenue sharing.

You don't need full revenue sharing to establish a floor. You just tell the cheapskate owners to start spending, or sell the team.

And you don't need the floor to be $240M... $150M would be transformative.

Depends on the ceiling. Every leauge with a cap has a floor and the lowest % is 82. I went with 80 and a 300m cap which is in line with all other sports

[45s]

I'm 90% sure the MLBPA won't allow any of these -- and will strike for a long time, if not locked out, because "the have" teams won't agree to equality on spending -- or revenue. Players and owners fought this in the last CBA, and the Dodgers and others railed about how they gave too much -- to the other owners, not players!

They've used the luxury tax as a faux-Cap, and although it certainly has affected the spending of most teams, it's not all.

There IS already a lot of revenue per the 2022 CBA, as teams share 48% of local revenues equally shared (over $100M per team) and reallocation of the total national TV and licensing (also over $100M per team), where 'the haves" get less. The "have-not" teams that receive huge dollars from "the haves" don't spend it! This disincentivizes giving the have-nots more when logically viewed by the other owners, players and fans.

So would your cap include a spending floor? The haves owners and players would require this IMHO.

This is key. There is already modest revenue sharing, there are reportedly even teams who spend less in payroll than they receive in revenue sharing.

You don't need full revenue sharing to establish a floor. You just tell the cheapskate owners to start spending, or sell the team.

And you don't need the floor to be $240M... $150M would be transformative.

So….

You want to force them to potentially overpay poor players in order to meet a floor….

All that will do is escalate salaries throughout the leagues….

No, I want to create actual parity where big FAs will have more options on where to sign, bc those teams will have to occasionally hand out bigger contracts.

Can’t create situational parity. The big free agents aren’t avoiding Pittsburgh just because of money….

They are avoiding Pittsburgh because it’s Pittsburgh. The stars will always gravitate to the big markets,,,

But I’m sure a few low level free agents will go to Pitt because they will be overpaid ….which leads back to salary inflation…

[3dender]

I'm 90% sure the MLBPA won't allow any of these -- and will strike for a long time, if not locked out, because "the have" teams won't agree to equality on spending -- or revenue. Players and owners fought this in the last CBA, and the Dodgers and others railed about how they gave too much -- to the other owners, not players!

They've used the luxury tax as a faux-Cap, and although it certainly has affected the spending of most teams, it's not all.

There IS already a lot of revenue per the 2022 CBA, as teams share 48% of local revenues equally shared (over $100M per team) and reallocation of the total national TV and licensing (also over $100M per team), where 'the haves" get less. The "have-not" teams that receive huge dollars from "the haves" don't spend it! This disincentivizes giving the have-nots more when logically viewed by the other owners, players and fans.

So would your cap include a spending floor? The haves owners and players would require this IMHO.

This is key. There is already modest revenue sharing, there are reportedly even teams who spend less in payroll than they receive in revenue sharing.

You don't need full revenue sharing to establish a floor. You just tell the cheapskate owners to start spending, or sell the team.

And you don't need the floor to be $240M... $150M would be transformative.

So….

You want to force them to potentially overpay poor players in order to meet a floor….

All that will do is escalate salaries throughout the leagues….

No, I want to create actual parity where big FAs will have more options on where to sign, bc those teams will have to occasionally hand out bigger contracts.

Can’t create situational parity. The big free agents aren’t avoiding Pittsburgh just because of money….

They are avoiding Pittsburgh because it’s Pittsburgh. The stars will always gravitate to the big markets,,,

But I’m sure a few low level free agents will go to Pitt because they will be overpaid ….which leads back to salary inflation…

There are a lot of players who like to sign big money extensions where they're developed, even if they're smaller markets.

Jose Ramirez... Julio Rodríguez... Bobby Witt... McCutcheon speaking of Pittsburgh...

Salary floor should lead more teams to lock up their homegrown stars to big money.