From a practical perspective, given that the devil is in the details and the details are still in flux, I wouldn't trust what either side says about how the opposing proposals affect them. There is no circumstance where the MLBPA was going to say the owner's proposal is fair/good, no matter what it said. Same for the owners in reverse. But solidifying that number - and getting both sides to an agreement of what % of revenue is fair for players to get seems to be the key to unlocking a deal. Owners aren't going to go for a deal that continues the current disparities. And players aren't going to take less money. But if you get this % to a fair one, both sides can then build details around that. edit: even if they do ultimately like a proposal and are closing in on a deal, they are going to be yelling at each other and accusing each other of bad-faith proposals until the very last viable day. We saw something similar in the WNBA just a few months ago.
Agreed. And as I said above (unlike previous work stoppage eras) there is just much for visbility/tranparency now where its hard for either side to flat-out lie and not get fact-checked in real time. Very similar corollaries to how government is currently attempting certain maneuvers, but the public gets wind and communication travels far easier now (still need leakers), and certain claims/ventures/actions are DOA or flat-out denied by some as being attempted before they reach fruition. Also cancel culture now much more of an established premise (whether fair or not), and consensus sides take hold sooner than ever and right now its overwhelmingly on the side of the owners.
The players union is the same greedy mob as the rest of the billionaire class in this country. I don't believe for one second that a cap and floor would hurt overall player revenue, but I do believe it would lower the earning potential of the richest players, which is their primary concern. Team control seasons is the real thing the union should be attacking, but the "pot of gold" strategy has been their only concern for decades now so I'm sure it's still a backseat issue. Ultimately, I am on the owners side if greatly raising the salary floor is part of the deal. The biggest issues in regards to salaries right now are the Dodgers monopolizing stars and the "small market" owners crying poor and refusing to spend. However I am sure there is shady math involved with what owners would consider the floor.
https://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2026/06/beyond-the-cap-part-1-why-the-cap-is-the-wrong-fight.html Very good take on the CBA/salary cap by former Mets interim GM. I think his proposal makes a lot of sense.
Basically, the current proposal is that the large markets and small markets agree that the large markets should give the small markets more money, that better competition is good for baseball, the small markets agree to spend more on players, the large markets agree to spend less, and while keeping total amount of money to the players the same ratio to revenues as previously. I expect there will be some major concessions in the negotiations. This proposal basically includes a mechanism to divert all the money going from large markets to the players, instead of the small markets, to remove the largest mechanism for forcing more competition, and agrees that the small markets will spend more. MLB is headed for a lockout because small-market owners are tired of making chump change while the large markets and players make a lot. I think the centralized revenue sharing plan is a huge chunk of money. That said, that is a high floor. My guess is that small markets expect to make better revenue if there is a cap that keeps payroll differences close. My guess is that we end up with revenue sharing, no cap, a much lower floor than current proposal, and increased luxury taxes, and we end up having this conversation in 5-7 years.
Or both owners and players dig in their heels and baseball goes the way of boxing and horse racing. Both of those were huge nation wide popular sports 50 years ago. I know Muhammad Ali and Secrateriat. I don't know a single current boxer or race horse.
I expect players to dig in their heels about the cap, and the small market owners to dig in their heels about the floor if there isn't a cap. In horse racing, not many kids ride horses. On boxing, there is a general trend against brain injuries that affects everyone except football. Well, even football has dropped a while back in kid participation, but I think it has stabilized at least in Texas. On baseball, people were saying it was dying over 100 years ago. I don't expect baseball will die anytime soon even if it is just not that high up in the entertainment list.
The article highlights one of the things I think owners don’t want to admit, which is that the franchise appreciation is a huge source of eventual revenue for them. They want to focus on cash flow as the revenue for negotiations, but the bottom line is that the owners are making an absolute killing on franchise values.
And so is baseball from what I understand. But I don't think there are as many horseracing " fans" as there were 50 years ago. Its not longer about the sport it's about the gambling. Maybe it always was.
I'm not sure this is actually the case when compared to other investments and inflation. Take the Padres, for example, who were mentioned in that article. Estimated value is $3.9 billion. They were worth $800 million in 2012 when they last were sold - that's an impressive 387% increase but just an annualized return of about 10% per year. The S&P 500 was at 1300 on Jan 1st, 2012. It's at 7511 today, an increase of 477%. Despite the eyepopping number, the franchise value didn't even keep up with basic passive and 100% liquid investments, let alone riskier or less liquid stuff. These franchises have to make money along the way to justify them as investments.
I can almost assure you it was always about gambling lol The Kentucky Derby is still extremely popular as well.
The seller of the team makes the money, but the new owner is the one who ponies up the money to pay off the old owner. I don't see the sale price of teams as something to be included as baseball revenue when determining what players make. The two are related, but I don't think an owner should have to sell to make money.
I live 30 minutes from Saratoga. That place is crazy in the summer. Big time entertainers plan their tours around the Saratoga meet. Saratoga Performing Arts Center is an amazing venue and Saratoga race course is awesome as well reminds me of a British soccer stadiums in smaller towns cut right into the middle of the city.
Then you’re buying into the narrative the owners want to craft. Wealth created from increased franchise values is real, and I believe the players have a meaningful role in generating that value and thus it should be factored into CBA negotiations.
... at a rate lower than the S&P 500. Maybe players should lose money in the CBA since owning a sports franchise underperforms easier and simpler investments.
You’re wrong…again.https://www.forbes.com/sites/justinteitelbaum/2026/03/20/baseballs-most-valuable-teams-2026/
https://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2026/06/beyond-the-cap-part-2-the-move-nobody-is-talking-about.html Part 2. His first idea of counting operations expenses toward payroll is stupid in my opinion. It might work to address competitive balance but neither side (owners/players) really benefit from it financially. His idea of having a % of a team sale go to the players is noble but I wouldn’t blame the owners for dismissing it out of hand, which they would. Although that might be something the players could trade for a hard cap. His idea of increasing player minimum salaries and pushing up arbitration are good ideas to address payroll floors. I also like his idea to get rid of compensation picks and QO pick penalties. I still think the best realistic outcome is to make the soft cap more firm (increased draft pick penalties and higher tax amounts for going over, especially for going over multiple years), while creating a penalty system to penalize teams that don’t spend (soft floor). But I think the idea of sharing local tv revenue is the main thing that will address competitive balance. I still think free agency and arbitration should be based on age instead of service time. That would eliminate service time manipulation. I also think once that is in place they could do away with limiting option years and the Rule 5 draft. That would dramatically reduce all the roster manipulation with guys bouncing around to 6 different teams in a season. But I doubt either of those things are implemented because they don’t carry much financial weight.
Using Forbes MLB data and S&P data for 2012 through 2022 as that is easy to obtain for all teams at once. MLB 11.6% S&P 10.4% Seems pretty close. Players should invest their money in MLB teams or the S&P if they want a piece of purchase price when sold. Owners get money from what they sell. Not sure why MLB should be treated like other industries, investments. That said, if one has the view the owners are getting too much money out of sale, or from cashflow, I would say it should go to other workers over the players or back to the fans. Personally, I am pro-fan. The players position always seems anti-fan to me as they fight a salary cap.
