I have not found a thread, so if there is one please delete. Otherwise, thought we could use a central one for the upcoming CBA expiration in a few months. The players sent their first proposal yesterday, and the owner sent their first today…
Major League Baseball owners proposed a hard salary cap to players as part of the next CBA on Thursday, their first firm cap proposal since 1994.
Under the proposal, presented in a meeting with union officials, each team would need to maintain a payroll of at least $171.2 million without exceeding $245.3 million, starting in 2027. That includes player benefits, just as it does under the current competitive balance tax system.
The proposal includes a 50-50 split of league revenues with the players. As those increase, the salary floor and cap would also increase. Additionally, the league is proposing a centralized fund for all local media revenues with money distributed equally among the 30 teams.
If the sides can't negotiate a new CBA before the current one expires Dec. 1, owners are likely to "lock out" the players until a new deal is in place.
The proposal included sharing more local television revenue than the current CBA stipulates, a "competitive-integrity tax" for low-spending teams that mirrors the competitive balance tax for top-spending clubs, a raise of the base competitive balance tax threshold from $244 million to $300 million and nearly doubling minimum salaries.
The union's proposal, sources said, centered on increasing revenue sharing to lower-revenue teams within the current financial structure by escalating the sharing of local television revenue while lowering the sharing of stadium-related revenue to incentivize teams whose success leads to large attendance. Teams would share the first $50 million in local television revenue and two-thirds of every dollar beyond that, then split it evenly under the union's plan.
Each team would be guaranteed a certain amount from central revenue each season, starting with $240 million in the first year, coupled with provisions to encourage spending on major league payroll.
Those include clubs forfeiting revenue sharing if their payrolls don't meet a minimum of $150 million -- 50% of the base CBT threshold -- and providing bonus money for revenue-sharing recipients when they post a winning record or make the postseason.
99.99999% of the time, I'm going to side AGAINST billionaires.
But in this particular instance, I think I want the hard floor / hard cap proposal.
It works pretty well in the other leagues.
Can't lie, I'm kinda shocked the owners would propose a $170 mm floor. There are 15 teams below that right now (acc'd to Fangraphs). I know that no matter what happens there will be clever teams that figure out a way to juke the stats. But as a fan, and one of what is increasingly a small market team, I do want a world where ownership has to try -- which, yes, requires spending money.
Outlaw this deferred money malarkey too so the Dodgers can't just promise every f'n free agent payments until 2070.
The only thing I can get really get behind from the owners proposal is the sharing of revenue from local media and potential salary raises for the league minimum.
Otherwise, the cap is just optics. Under the proposal from the owners, spending would be relatively flat/comparable to what it is now league wide, just reallocation of where the $ is going.
The teams that aren't spending choose to do so. Not because they don't have the means to.
The teams that aren't spending choose to do so. Not because they don't have the means to.
I believe this is only partly true. There is a larger gap of available revenue streams between the large market teams and small market teams in MLB vs. other sports, due to the way the revenue sharing has been agreed upon in the past. So yes, they are all choosing not to spend as much money as they could afford to spend. But I'm willing to bet that the Dodgers pocket more money at the end of the year than the Brewers do, even though both are very well ran organizations on different ends of the spending spectrum.
The owners have to agree with each other to share more revenue. The players have to agree with each other to have greater parity in salaries. If those don't change, even if we get a new CBA agreed to, MLB will still suffer from the same old problems.
The teams that aren't spending choose to do so. Not because they don't have the means to.
I believe this is only partly true. There is a larger gap of available revenue streams between the large market teams and small market teams in MLB vs. other sports, due to the way the revenue sharing has been agreed upon in the past. So yes, they are all choosing not to spend as much money as they could afford to spend. But I'm willing to bet that the Dodgers pocket more money at the end of the year than the Brewers do, even though both are very well ran organizations on different ends of the spending spectrum.
The owners have to agree with each other to share more revenue. The players have to agree with each other to have greater parity in salaries. If those don't change, even if we get a new CBA agreed to, MLB will still suffer from the same old problems.
I agree that in terms of revenue distribution and the issues with RSNs provide parameters to what teams can spend. Like, I believe the Cardinals are handcuffed a bit by the fall of Diamond Sports, but not to the extent they make it out to be.
Not saying you're making this argument, but it's hard for me to buy into the whole small market teams can't afford to spend more trope. The Pirates only spending on payroll being similar to their gameday revenue is an example of teams choosing not to spend.
I think to start, revenue from RSNs has to be distributed. Or MLB can have DTC for its offerings (which it is transitioning towards).
The players need to make some concessions (international draft being one, backing off from demands for guaranteed $ in arbitration).
Yeah, my point is that most ALL teams can spend more. There’s only a couple teams in any given year that deliberately spend into the red. Smaller market teams get villainized for being cheap, but most bigger markets are pocketing the same or more profits.
The Cardinals in particular could spend more, and yes I agree that the precipitous drop in payroll isn’t just the RSN fiasco. It is also the huge drop in attendance, which is more self-inflicted. If BDW3 was a better businessman, he would have better prepared for this mess. But he’s a nepo baby.
Anyway, I’m rooting for neither side. The vast majority of both of them don’t give two [expletive] about the fans’ monetary situation, so why should any of us give a [expletive] about theirs. Like I said, if they want a more competitive and fun sport, they both need to make concessions (and get gambling completely out).
