MLB Salary Cap—key issues?

[DwaininAztec]

From https://www.thetribune.ca/sports/mlb/#: ... not%20more I got this info:

"Under the new collective bargaining agreement (CBA) negotiated in 2022, each MLB team pools 48 per cent of local revenues with the total amount split equally between all 30 teams. This results in each team taking in 3.3 per cent of the total—an estimated $110 million USD, if not more. Teams also receive a share of national revenues, totaling around $90 million USD per team. The goal of revenue sharing is to allow small market teams to compete with big market teams like the New York Yankees and the Los Angeles Dodgers that bring in more money from ticket sales and merchandise. However, nutting has inspired many teams to exploit loopholes in this system, pushing revenue sharing money into other areas without improving their on-field product by increasing payroll. "

I have been advocating sharing the largest pool of money - TV/cable/streaming - by splitting it on a game by game amount. Averaging out the income over 162 games, add it together for that game, home team takes 60% while visitor gets 40%.

I also think any deferred salaries need to be averaged over the length of the contract and figured into the team total.

[Red Bird Classic]

Let’s start the discussion, because it is going to be a tough negotiation. I picked 4 key issues.

Hard cap vs soft cap.
A hard cap like what the NFL has would be difficult to accomplish, so maybe a fall back is a soft cap with certain exemptions and penalties for exceeding the soft cap.
Level would likely be around $275 to $300 million.

Floor
Ideally about 60% of the cap or higher. This would mean around $150 to $180 million.
This would be great for baseball competitiveness.

Revenue sharing
If we think the cap will be a hard sell to the players, imagine selling the minimum floor to owners, especially since it would have to include revenue sharing. Key concept would be to assure each team has minimum income to meet the floor. Identification of owners' $$ that should be shared will be difficult.

Contracts
Players will want a minimum salary, and owners will want limits on years of contracts, bonus $$, deferred $$, and guarantees/buyouts.

This is my list of the most significant issues that will need to be addressed.

What do Cards talk members think?

Opti

Key issue is 100% full revenue sharing must come first to establish where that cap and floor should be set with equal revenues established. The lowest floo of any professional sport is 85%

100 percent revenue share is a Non-Starter

Any significant form of revenue share outside of weights being applied is also a Non-Starter.

Not all have equal initial investments. Many have decades worth of deferred capitalization/maintenance/operations and have simply been pigs at the trough.

Yanks and Dodgers aren't going to simply give up their hard earned profits and a large portion of their potential Net Worth for the benefit of the Pittsburgh's of the Union. They will support contraction, relocation and expansion elsewhere before giving in.

A Cap they will support. With a floor as well. But 100 percent Revenue Share. Not happening.

Don't know about 100%, but you simply can not have a cap/floor system without a lot more revenue sharing. TV revenue at minimum.

Taking about a cap without revenue sharing is just a waste of time.

First, the owners must make some kind of deal between themselves to shrink the revenue disparity. Then they can ask players for a cap/floor system.

Any other kind of talk is just silly.

I fully support forms of revenue share. But needs to be fair and not something that can be gamed.

Where and how deep is where it gets interesting.

Home Stadium. Home Team keeps all. Build a good team, people come to the park to see you, you earned it. And all that goes with it. Parking concessions yada yada yada.

Broadcast Rights.
Local. Home Team keeps.
National. 100 percent revenue share.
Ditto for radio and streaming.
Mdse outside of team and stadium stores is 100 percent revenue shared.

What else we got???

I think what you suggest is pretty close to what we have now, and that's not working.

The biggest difference is the local broadcast rights: The Dodgers, for example, bring in between $240-$280 million a year in local TV money each season; while the Cardinals bring in about $70 million, and the Pirates about $25-million.

SO the Dodgers have 10 times the TV money earned by the Pirates. That just won't work if you want to have a competitive league.

[opti mist]

CT'ers have a good grasp on the issues.

Looking for middle ground here, I see.......

Soft cap with major penalties for exceeding.

Incremental increases in revenue sharing.

Hard floor set at 1.5x $$ received in revenue sharing.

Some bargaining on players' salaries and guaranteed contracts.

Discussions will be contentious.

Opti

[CCard]

Let’s start the discussion, because it is going to be a tough negotiation. I picked 4 key issues.

Hard cap vs soft cap.
A hard cap like what the NFL has would be difficult to accomplish, so maybe a fall back is a soft cap with certain exemptions and penalties for exceeding the soft cap.
Level would likely be around $275 to $300 million.

Floor
Ideally about 60% of the cap or higher. This would mean around $150 to $180 million.
This would be great for baseball competitiveness.

Revenue sharing
If we think the cap will be a hard sell to the players, imagine selling the minimum floor to owners, especially since it would have to include revenue sharing. Key concept would be to assure each team has minimum income to meet the floor. Identification of owners' $$ that should be shared will be difficult.

Contracts
Players will want a minimum salary, and owners will want limits on years of contracts, bonus $$, deferred $$, and guarantees/buyouts.

This is my list of the most significant issues that will need to be addressed.

What do Cards talk members think?

Opti

Personally, I believe in No cap. Intense revenue sharing and luxury tax should get the job done. Salary caps only benefit ownership and that's why most players are against them. You either have a free-ish market or you're akin to a slave. When an ownership can institute rules that keep wages down its corruption at its most vile. "But it's for the good of the game." bull[shirt] it is. It's just another propaganda tool that filthy rich owners try to use to keep wages down. It's not the ballplayers that need to be controlled, it's the owners that cant' control themselves. The economy isn't suffering because the poor need help, it's because the filthy rich can't be satisfied.

[opti mist]

Luxury tax fits my definition of a "soft cap."

Opti

[ramfandan]

One thing the owners have wanted is an International Draft .. the players have been opposed to that but in last bargain it appeared players may be willing to do that IF the owners would drop the Qualifying Offer thing for players reaching free agency. Players feel that the QO often deprives them of going to any team as a free agent for some interested clubs do NOT want to give up a draft choice for signing the free agent. THus the player loses suitors for his services in many cases.

To get some kind of cap etc. there would need to be a big offset by owners. What about this ? Tell the players they can reach free agency n FIVE years vs. 6 years as they have it now. That would make players stand up and take notice. It would mean millions of dollars more in their pay if a good player can reach free agency a year sooner. Owners have NOT wanted to broach that . They have been hard nosed to keep it at 6 years .

You need a quid pro quo in negotiations. You want the players to agree to some kind of cap etc. then offer them a shorter period to reach free agency. Bet the owners would say NO in a heartbeat.

[Red Bird Classic]

One thing the owners have wanted is an International Draft .. the players have been opposed to that but in last bargain it appeared players may be willing to do that IF the owners would drop the Qualifying Offer thing for players reaching free agency. Players feel that the QO often deprives them of going to any team as a free agent for some interested clubs do NOT want to give up a draft choice for signing the free agent. THus the player loses suitors for his services in many cases.

To get some kind of cap etc. there would need to be a big offset by owners. What about this ? Tell the players they can reach free agency n FIVE years vs. 6 years as they have it now. That would make players stand up and take notice. It would mean millions of dollars more in their pay if a good player can reach free agency a year sooner. Owners have NOT wanted to broach that . They have been hard nosed to keep it at 6 years .

You need a quid pro quo in negotiations. You want the players to agree to some kind of cap etc. then offer them a shorter period to reach free agency. Bet the owners would say NO in a heartbeat.

Having free agency sooner would help high-end players, but the cap would hurt everybody else. In a union everybody gets to vote so the players would reject that deal.

Baseball's problem is the revenue disparity between teams. A cap won't fix that.