Cardinals1964 wrote: ↑22 Jan 2026 19:42 pm
Not this again.
I’m always amused by those who are so cavalier about other people’s money…
There’s a recent umpteen page thread on this same subject. Nothing will be solved here. Got people that can’t pay their rent, telling billionaires how to spend money.
Hey it’s all on them. If they don’t want to spend let them continue to loose $ and cut payroll again and again until the franchise also starts to loose $. No new taxpayer $ for stadium upgrades. Then in 20 years see where it’s at. It’s their choice. Spend for attendance or let the sport die.
It won’t die. I like the thought of seeing in 20 years. A guaranteed 20 year life contract. I’ll take it.
Maybe the MLB will resemble AAA and then there will be 10 real MLB teams in a champions bracket like soccer. Either way there won’t be a salary cap until those top 10 marbles allow full revenue sharing so the cap and floor can be calculate correctly
How would you suggest that a floor works? A suggestion of a floor is quite silly. That’s what the minimum wage is for. How can a team be forced to spend a minimum if the available players aren’t worth it or they don’t want to sign with you?
3 other leagues have figured it out without a problem. There are only so many roster spots so players will have to sign elsewhere whether they want to or not.
3 other leagues with a cap and floor has punished middle journeyman talent.
Pay your top talent as much as you can. Pay your lesser talent as little as possible. No room for journeymen.
Why would I pay a utility guy $10 million to make the floor when I could pay a rookie $1 million? I’d save $9 million to go after higher level talent. This is a real problem in one of the other major sports.
No it hasn't, if anything it has kept them in the league longer because they are affordable and consistent. You know exactly what you are going to get with them.
Who has been squeezed out are vets who no longer produce at their previous levels and still want to be paid like they are.
Youboughtit wrote: ↑22 Jan 2026 19:00 pm
Professional sports are a hobby for them. Much like hunting or any other sport for the average human. All hobbies are fun and not designed to generate profits. These owners have hundreds of businesses that generate their wealth. I think if you asked any of them prior to buying a team that is how they envisioned it. I beleive what changes is 30 smart guys get it a room and it changes from sport to business. All of the sudden every one of them wants to be the “smartest guy in the room”. Until that changes the fans pay the freight. MLB has an ownership problem except a few at the top.
Loosing $100m per season on a hobby that value increases $200m should not be a problem
They have a sickness and they can never gather enough in to alleviate it. Just like it's been said the psychiatrist's say that CEO's of large corporation have many similarities to psychopath's. It's what drives their success, but the cost in soul and empathy is debilitating in every day life. You can't look at Elon Musk and think of him as a well formed person. He's got many screws loose, but like a lot of billionaires, he got his leg up and used it to the detriment of others.
Youboughtit wrote: ↑22 Jan 2026 19:00 pm
Professional sports are a hobby for them. Much like hunting or any other sport for the average human. All hobbies are fun and not designed to generate profits. These owners have hundreds of businesses that generate their wealth. I think if you asked any of them prior to buying a team that is how they envisioned it. I beleive what changes is 30 smart guys get it a room and it changes from sport to business. All of the sudden every one of them wants to be the “smartest guy in the room”. Until that changes the fans pay the freight. MLB has an ownership problem except a few at the top.
Loosing $100m per season on a hobby that value increases $200m should not be a problem
They have a sickness and they can never gather enough in to alleviate it. Just like it's been said the psychiatrist's say that CEO's of large corporation have many similarities to psychopath's. It's what drives their success, but the cost in soul and empathy is debilitating in every day life. You can't look at Elon Musk and think of him as a well formed person. He's got many screws loose, but like a lot of billionaires, he got his leg up and used it to the detriment of others.
It’s interesting to hear the difference from Dewitt. When he bought the team he was far less wealthy and ready to spend to win. Now he has a profit first menatality. What changed? I beleive it is being in a group of 30 and wanting to be the wealthiest instead of winning. He’s now more motivated to move up the wealthiest owners list than the winningest team list.
Cardinals1964 wrote: ↑22 Jan 2026 19:42 pm
Not this again.
I’m always amused by those who are so cavalier about other people’s money…
There’s a recent umpteen page thread on this same subject. Nothing will be solved here. Got people that can’t pay their rent, telling billionaires how to spend money.
Hey it’s all on them. If they don’t want to spend let them continue to loose $ and cut payroll again and again until the franchise also starts to loose $. No new taxpayer $ for stadium upgrades. Then in 20 years see where it’s at. It’s their choice. Spend for attendance or let the sport die.
It won’t die. I like the thought of seeing in 20 years. A guaranteed 20 year life contract. I’ll take it.
Maybe the MLB will resemble AAA and then there will be 10 real MLB teams in a champions bracket like soccer. Either way there won’t be a salary cap until those top 10 marbles allow full revenue sharing so the cap and floor can be calculate correctly
How would you suggest that a floor works? A suggestion of a floor is quite silly. That’s what the minimum wage is for. How can a team be forced to spend a minimum if the available players aren’t worth it or they don’t want to sign with you?
3 other leagues have figured it out without a problem. There are only so many roster spots so players will have to sign elsewhere whether they want to or not.
3 other leagues with a cap and floor has punished middle journeyman talent.
Pay your top talent as much as you can. Pay your lesser talent as little as possible. No room for journeymen.
Why would I pay a utility guy $10 million to make the floor when I could pay a rookie $1 million? I’d save $9 million to go after higher level talent. This is a real problem in one of the other major sports.
No it hasn't, if anything it has kept them in the league longer because they are affordable and consistent. You know exactly what you are going to get with them.
Who has been squeezed out are vets who no longer produce at their previous levels and still want to be paid like they are.
I think you’re guessing at that.
Salary caps/floor Impact on Journeyman Talent:
Cost vs. Value: Teams often prefer cheaper rookie contracts or minimum-salary veterans over journeymen, who occupy valuable cap space without being franchise cornerstones.
Cap Management: Teams frequently restructure contracts of top stars, converting salary to bonuses, which creates "dead money" and necessitates shedding middle-tier, veteran contracts to stay under the cap.
Rookie Wage Scale: The rookie wage scale has changed the economics, favoring young, cost-controlled talent over experienced, mid-tier veterans.
Floor Constraints: While the 90% floor requires minimum spending, teams often prefer to spend that required money on top-tier talent rather than spreading it across multiple veteran journeymen.
Youboughtit wrote: ↑22 Jan 2026 19:00 pm
Professional sports are a hobby for them. Much like hunting or any other sport for the average human. All hobbies are fun and not designed to generate profits. These owners have hundreds of businesses that generate their wealth. I think if you asked any of them prior to buying a team that is how they envisioned it. I beleive what changes is 30 smart guys get it a room and it changes from sport to business. All of the sudden every one of them wants to be the “smartest guy in the room”. Until that changes the fans pay the freight. MLB has an ownership problem except a few at the top.
Loosing $100m per season on a hobby that value increases $200m should not be a problem
This has been my focus too in another thread.
I'm not carrying billionaires water for them when they're the one's who've caused this problem by handing out stupid contracts to good but not great players and insane amounts of money (Ohtani/Soto) to the stars.
The one thing I do want to see capped though is deferred money which has given the Dodgers a huge advantage that the Guggenheim guys have beautifully exploited.
Other than that I'm not holding a pity party for any billionaire owners.
JMO
Even that seems ok to me considering the huge growth in franchise value. It is increasing more than interest would so the Dodgers for example are just using the Billions of dollars the franchise will be worth after winning 5-10 more WS now
I don't believe there is any direct relationship between winning championships and the ultimate value of a team.
For example, the Dallas Cowboys are still the highest valued sports franchise ($13 billion) and they haven't won a Super Bowl since 1996.
Salary cap league, you’re not comparing apples to apples.
Cardinals1964 wrote: ↑22 Jan 2026 19:42 pm
Not this again.
I’m always amused by those who are so cavalier about other people’s money…
There’s a recent umpteen page thread on this same subject. Nothing will be solved here. Got people that can’t pay their rent, telling billionaires how to spend money.
Hey it’s all on them. If they don’t want to spend let them continue to loose $ and cut payroll again and again until the franchise also starts to loose $. No new taxpayer $ for stadium upgrades. Then in 20 years see where it’s at. It’s their choice. Spend for attendance or let the sport die.
It won’t die. I like the thought of seeing in 20 years. A guaranteed 20 year life contract. I’ll take it.
Maybe the MLB will resemble AAA and then there will be 10 real MLB teams in a champions bracket like soccer. Either way there won’t be a salary cap until those top 10 marbles allow full revenue sharing so the cap and floor can be calculate correctly
How would you suggest that a floor works? A suggestion of a floor is quite silly. That’s what the minimum wage is for. How can a team be forced to spend a minimum if the available players aren’t worth it or they don’t want to sign with you?
3 other leagues have figured it out without a problem. There are only so many roster spots so players will have to sign elsewhere whether they want to or not.
3 other leagues with a cap and floor has punished middle journeyman talent.
Pay your top talent as much as you can. Pay your lesser talent as little as possible. No room for journeymen.
Why would I pay a utility guy $10 million to make the floor when I could pay a rookie $1 million? I’d save $9 million to go after higher level talent. This is a real problem in one of the other major sports.
No it hasn't, if anything it has kept them in the league longer because they are affordable and consistent. You know exactly what you are going to get with them.
Who has been squeezed out are vets who no longer produce at their previous levels and still want to be paid like they are.
I think you’re guessing at that.
Salary caps/floor Impact on Journeyman Talent:
Cost vs. Value: Teams often prefer cheaper rookie contracts or minimum-salary veterans over journeymen, who occupy valuable cap space without being franchise cornerstones.
Cap Management: Teams frequently restructure contracts of top stars, converting salary to bonuses, which creates "dead money" and necessitates shedding middle-tier, veteran contracts to stay under the cap.
Rookie Wage Scale: The rookie wage scale has changed the economics, favoring young, cost-controlled talent over experienced, mid-tier veterans.
Floor Constraints: While the 90% floor requires minimum spending, teams often prefer to spend that required money on top-tier talent rather than spreading it across multiple veteran journeymen.
Thats the reality.
As long as companies have budgets somebody, often mid-range get squeezed.
They'll make budget or get somebody who can meet it.
Bringing up the minimum wage player has been happening for a long time
and some were not close to ready.
In entertainment, yes stars get paid. A floor with the Cardinals this season, might have resulted
in one of the purged staying or a contract coming back from Boston or AZ.
I doubt that there is a real answer for the issue. Teams in it chase those players and
that's it. Open to hearing ideas if you have any.
mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑23 Jan 2026 10:53 am
I don't believe there is any direct relationship between winning championships and the ultimate value of a team.
For example, the Dallas Cowboys are still the highest valued sports franchise ($13 billion) and they haven't won a Super Bowl since 1996.
I have to disagree matt.
Championship are indeed a financial catalyst shinning a light on a team's brand and marketability, which leads to a higher team valuation from increased ticket sales, merchndising, ad revenue, ect...........
And let's not forget the Cowboys did win three Super Bowls in the mid 90's, not just that one in 1996.
They're still one of the, if not the, highest TV draw in the NFL.
Do people forget mlb has revenue sharing. Not just luxury tax. I tend to forget that.
Major League Baseball (MLB) has a significant revenue-sharing system where teams pool and redistribute a large portion of their local earnings (around 48%) to create a more level economic playing field, ensuring smaller market teams can compete with larger ones like the Yankees or Dodgers. This pooled money is then split evenly among all 30 teams, alongside national revenue shares, providing substantial income to all clubs to help cover player payroll and operational costs.
How it Works:
Local Revenue Pool: Teams contribute roughly 48% of their local revenue (from tickets, concessions, local TV deals, etc.) to a central fund.
Even Distribution: This combined pool is then divided equally among all 30 teams, meaning even the wealthiest teams pay in more than they get back, while smaller teams receive more than they contribute.
National Revenue: Teams also share national revenues (like national TV deals), adding to the overall funds distributed.
Goal: The system aims to reduce economic disparities, allowing teams in smaller markets (like the Royals or Brewers) to remain competitive.
Cardinals1964 wrote: ↑23 Jan 2026 14:54 pm
Do people forget mlb has revenue sharing. Not just luxury tax. I tend to forget that.
Major League Baseball (MLB) has a significant revenue-sharing system where teams pool and redistribute a large portion of their local earnings (around 48%) to create a more level economic playing field, ensuring smaller market teams can compete with larger ones like the Yankees or Dodgers. This pooled money is then split evenly among all 30 teams, alongside national revenue shares, providing substantial income to all clubs to help cover player payroll and operational costs.
How it Works:
Local Revenue Pool: Teams contribute roughly 48% of their local revenue (from tickets, concessions, local TV deals, etc.) to a central fund.
Even Distribution: This combined pool is then divided equally among all 30 teams, meaning even the wealthiest teams pay in more than they get back, while smaller teams receive more than they contribute.
National Revenue: Teams also share national revenues (like national TV deals), adding to the overall funds distributed.
Goal: The system aims to reduce economic disparities, allowing teams in smaller markets (like the Royals or Brewers) to remain competitive.
There are caps in what is shared in the case of LAD.
Huge considering all involved including Japan.
If teams own a network, it is called an investment, not all revenue.
It creates some large loopholes in a system at first blush looks more fair
than it might be.
However, that said, they did create a portion of the situation.
What they didn't create is their region. 20 million population is better
than 2 million. Getting 52% of a billion after those loopholes are applied is better
than 1/30th of 48% and that the payer also gets 1/30th 48%. Kind of a wash there
isn't it?
Youboughtit wrote: ↑22 Jan 2026 19:00 pm
Professional sports are a hobby for them. Much like hunting or any other sport for the average human. All hobbies are fun and not designed to generate profits. These owners have hundreds of businesses that generate their wealth. I think if you asked any of them prior to buying a team that is how they envisioned it. I beleive what changes is 30 smart guys get it a room and it changes from sport to business. All of the sudden every one of them wants to be the “smartest guy in the room”. Until that changes the fans pay the freight. MLB has an ownership problem except a few at the top.
Loosing $100m per season on a hobby that value increases $200m should not be a problem
Cardinals1964 wrote: ↑22 Jan 2026 19:42 pm
Not this again.
I’m always amused by those who are so cavalier about other people’s money…
last I checked no one was whining but some fans that think the owners owe them a team with a $500 million payroll.
the idea that a business "owes" anything is amusing in itself
Don't be a contrarian, guy. Of course fans expect their owners to support and field a quality product. It is entertainment. That's what sports are. You know that.
Youboughtit wrote: ↑22 Jan 2026 19:00 pm
Professional sports are a hobby for them. Much like hunting or any other sport for the average human. All hobbies are fun and not designed to generate profits. These owners have hundreds of businesses that generate their wealth. I think if you asked any of them prior to buying a team that is how they envisioned it. I beleive what changes is 30 smart guys get it a room and it changes from sport to business. All of the sudden every one of them wants to be the “smartest guy in the room”. Until that changes the fans pay the freight. MLB has an ownership problem except a few at the top.
Loosing $100m per season on a hobby that value increases $200m should not be a problem
This has been my focus too in another thread.
I'm not carrying billionaires water for them when they're the one's who've caused this problem by handing out stupid contracts to good but not great players and insane amounts of money (Ohtani/Soto) to the stars.
The one thing I do want to see capped though is deferred money which has given the Dodgers a huge advantage that the Guggenheim guys have beautifully exploited.
Other than that I'm not holding a pity party for any billionaire owners.
JMO
Even that seems ok to me considering the huge growth in franchise value. It is increasing more than interest would so the Dodgers for example are just using the Billions of dollars the franchise will be worth after winning 5-10 more WS now
I don't believe there is any direct relationship between winning championships and the ultimate value of a team.
For example, the Dallas Cowboys are still the highest valued sports franchise ($13 billion) and they haven't won a Super Bowl since 1996.
Salary cap league, you’re not comparing apples to apples.
The Ciwboys were the main reason fir an NFL salary cap. Early 90s, they were signing other teams starters, for depth. Because they could, and other teams couldn't match it.
Why they haven't won a SB in so long? Their owner wants to be GM as well.
Cardinals1964 wrote: ↑23 Jan 2026 14:54 pm
Do people forget mlb has revenue sharing. Not just luxury tax. I tend to forget that.
Major League Baseball (MLB) has a significant revenue-sharing system where teams pool and redistribute a large portion of their local earnings (around 48%) to create a more level economic playing field, ensuring smaller market teams can compete with larger ones like the Yankees or Dodgers. This pooled money is then split evenly among all 30 teams, alongside national revenue shares, providing substantial income to all clubs to help cover player payroll and operational costs.
How it Works:
Local Revenue Pool: Teams contribute roughly 48% of their local revenue (from tickets, concessions, local TV deals, etc.) to a central fund.
Even Distribution: This combined pool is then divided equally among all 30 teams, meaning even the wealthiest teams pay in more than they get back, while smaller teams receive more than they contribute.
National Revenue: Teams also share national revenues (like national TV deals), adding to the overall funds distributed.
Goal: The system aims to reduce economic disparities, allowing teams in smaller markets (like the Royals or Brewers) to remain competitive.
There are caps in what is shared in the case of LAD.
Huge considering all involved including Japan.
If teams own a network, it is called an investment, not all revenue.
It creates some large loopholes in a system at first blush looks more fair
than it might be.
However, that said, they did create a portion of the situation.
What they didn't create is their region. 20 million population is better
than 2 million. Getting 52% of a billion after those loopholes are applied is better
than 1/30th of 48% and that the payer also gets 1/30th 48%. Kind of a wash there
isn't it?
Your last sentence. If all teams make the same amount of money it would be a wash. If 48% of what you made was $10 and mine was $1. We’d each get $5.50. Not a wash.
This is why I prefer sports where the owners treat it as a hobby/dck measuring contest and not as a business. If you’re ok with your owner treating it strictly as a business then shut up about the losing bc that’s beyond secondary.
Cardinals1964 wrote: ↑23 Jan 2026 14:54 pm
Do people forget mlb has revenue sharing. Not just luxury tax. I tend to forget that.
Major League Baseball (MLB) has a significant revenue-sharing system where teams pool and redistribute a large portion of their local earnings (around 48%) to create a more level economic playing field, ensuring smaller market teams can compete with larger ones like the Yankees or Dodgers. This pooled money is then split evenly among all 30 teams, alongside national revenue shares, providing substantial income to all clubs to help cover player payroll and operational costs.
How it Works:
Local Revenue Pool: Teams contribute roughly 48% of their local revenue (from tickets, concessions, local TV deals, etc.) to a central fund.
Even Distribution: This combined pool is then divided equally among all 30 teams, meaning even the wealthiest teams pay in more than they get back, while smaller teams receive more than they contribute.
National Revenue: Teams also share national revenues (like national TV deals), adding to the overall funds distributed.
Goal: The system aims to reduce economic disparities, allowing teams in smaller markets (like the Royals or Brewers) to remain competitive.
There are caps in what is shared in the case of LAD.
Huge considering all involved including Japan.
If teams own a network, it is called an investment, not all revenue.
It creates some large loopholes in a system at first blush looks more fair
than it might be.
However, that said, they did create a portion of the situation.
What they didn't create is their region. 20 million population is better
than 2 million. Getting 52% of a billion after those loopholes are applied is better
than 1/30th of 48% and that the payer also gets 1/30th 48%. Kind of a wash there
isn't it?
Your last sentence. If all teams make the same amount of money it would be a wash. If 48% of what you made was $10 and mine was $1. We’d each get $5.50. Not a wash.
What they split comes back in 30 equal portions which doesn't make a gain for one team over another.
Since teams make actually not be putting in 48% and thus keeping more than 52% there's not much of a closing of the wide gap.
If LAD made $1B, and the cap that they need to add to the pot is $100M instead of $480M then they split that $100M 30 ways each team gets $3M.
In a 2 team example with St louis having $300M in revenue they get $303M, while LAD still has $903M.
It works more like a subsidy than revenue sharing, IMO.
Cardinals1964 wrote: ↑23 Jan 2026 14:54 pm
Do people forget mlb has revenue sharing. Not just luxury tax. I tend to forget that.
Major League Baseball (MLB) has a significant revenue-sharing system where teams pool and redistribute a large portion of their local earnings (around 48%) to create a more level economic playing field, ensuring smaller market teams can compete with larger ones like the Yankees or Dodgers. This pooled money is then split evenly among all 30 teams, alongside national revenue shares, providing substantial income to all clubs to help cover player payroll and operational costs.
How it Works:
Local Revenue Pool: Teams contribute roughly 48% of their local revenue (from tickets, concessions, local TV deals, etc.) to a central fund.
Even Distribution: This combined pool is then divided equally among all 30 teams, meaning even the wealthiest teams pay in more than they get back, while smaller teams receive more than they contribute.
National Revenue: Teams also share national revenues (like national TV deals), adding to the overall funds distributed.
Goal: The system aims to reduce economic disparities, allowing teams in smaller markets (like the Royals or Brewers) to remain competitive.
There are caps in what is shared in the case of LAD.
Huge considering all involved including Japan.
If teams own a network, it is called an investment, not all revenue.
It creates some large loopholes in a system at first blush looks more fair
than it might be.
However, that said, they did create a portion of the situation.
What they didn't create is their region. 20 million population is better
than 2 million. Getting 52% of a billion after those loopholes are applied is better
than 1/30th of 48% and that the payer also gets 1/30th 48%. Kind of a wash there
isn't it?
Your last sentence. If all teams make the same amount of money it would be a wash. If 48% of what you made was $10 and mine was $1. We’d each get $5.50. Not a wash.
What they split comes back in 30 equal portions which doesn't make a gain for one team over another.
Since teams make actually not be putting in 48% and thus keeping more than 52% there's not much of a closing of the wide gap.
If LAD made $1B, and the cap that they need to add to the pot is $100M instead of $480M then they split that $100M 30 ways each team gets $3M.
In a 2 team example with St louis having $300M in revenue they get $303M, while LAD still has $903M.
It works more like a subsidy than revenue sharing, IMO.
I don’t know if you’re talking about luxury tax. That is not the revenue sharing. In your example if the Dodgers made $1 billion they would put in $480 million to the pot. If the Cardinals made $500 million they would put in $240 million into the pot. Then you add that together and split it. So the Cardinals will get $360 million. When they only put in $240 million. How can you not see that it isn’t a wash. The Dodgers lose $120 million. The Cardinals gain $120 million. Why even bother doing it at all if it was a wash.?
You are using a two team example and then divide it by the other 30 teams. That’s not how it works.
