Labor Discussion - Salary Cap, Local TV Sharing

[Jopal78]

1 minute ago, Brock Beauchamp said:

I agree that it's difficult to untangle but disagree that the ship has sailed. The more stratified the TV situation becomes, the more likely it becomes we will see increased revenue sharing.

If 24 owners agree on something, they can do damned near anything they want. And the smaller the high-TV-revenue pool becomes, the more likely it is 24 out of 30 will agree on change.

Anything is possible, but if you think Bill DeWitt would vote to share his market revenue with Attanasio without the Yankees, Dodgers, and Red Sox sharing with him you’re dreaming

[Brock Beauchamp]

45 minutes ago, Jopal78 said:

Anything is possible, but if you think Bill DeWitt would vote to share his market revenue with Attanasio without the Yankees, Dodgers, and Red Sox sharing with him you’re dreaming

That's my point, if 24 owners agree on terms they can force the remaining six to share more revenue.

If baseball is mucking around with trying to get teams like the Twins, Cardinals, Rangers, etc. to share more, they're going about it all backwards. All of those teams are contracting payroll because of the TV situation.

[Jopal78]

2 hours ago, Brock Beauchamp said:

That's my point, if 24 owners agree on terms they can force the remaining six to share more revenue.

If baseball is mucking around with trying to get teams like the Twins, Cardinals, Rangers, etc. to share more, they're going about it all backwards. All of those teams are contracting payroll because of the TV situation.

My point is, someone will always pay money to broadcast baseball games. The rate they pay may fluctuate as technology changes how the game is consumed, but there is zero chance teams won’t have someone paying them for rights.

Secondly, a team doesn’t have to be in a major market to have a competitive advantage financially over the teams they’re competing against. 

DeWitt can afford to hire better players than Attanasio can because the Cardinals media market is huge geographically. He might be cutting payroll in 2025 because he doesn’t have the horses to compete with Milwaukee but that doesn’t mean there’s an interest in ceding that competitive advantage in the future. 
 

Same for the Tigers, in the long run the Ilitch family has no interest in making their path in the AL Central more difficult by giving the Twins, Guardians and Royals more resources. 
 

Eating the rich always sounds good, but I think you’re over estimating how willing the middle market clubs (which make up most of MLB) would be to change their status quo financially. 

[Playing Catch]

1 hour ago, Jopal78 said:

Same for the Tigers, in the long run the Ilitch family has no interest in making their path in the AL Central more difficult by giving the Twins, Guardians and Royals more resources. 
 

Eating the rich always sounds good, but I think you’re over estimating how willing the middle market clubs (which make up most of MLB) would be to change their status quo financially.

I think your logic is sound, but I disagree as the current built-in competitive advantages that the biggest central clubs have over the Milwaukees and Kansas Citys are dwarfed by the advantage that the elite coastal teams have over the Cardinals/Tigers.

[owbc]

1 hour ago, Playing Catch said:

I think your logic is sound, but I disagree as the current built-in competitive advantages that the biggest central clubs have over the Milwaukees and Kansas Citys are dwarfed by the advantage that the elite coastal teams have over the Cardinals/Tigers.

Right, so to me the question becomes how long the middle market fans put up with the current situation. We’ve seen this in the NL Central — the Brewers are better run than the Cubs/Cardinals, so as the spending gap has shrunk, we’ve found our way to the top. 
 

I get the impression that those fans are not going to tolerate the status quo, which is likely that the Brewers continue to rack up division titles, with no ability for the mid-markets able to spend their way ahead of us because 5 teams are hogging all of the good free agents and leaving scraps for everyone else. I guess we’ll see though. 

 

[markedman5]

https://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2025/01/rangers-announce-creation-of-rangers-sports-network.html

[markedman5]

https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/mlb/columnist/bob-nightengale/2025/02/18/milwaukee-brewers-spring-training-payroll-mark-attanasio/79094893007/

[JosephC]

The media really blows it when discussing this issue.  To illustrate the problem, they shouldn't be talking about how much money the Dodgers are spending on players, they should be pointing out how much money the Dodgers are throwing away based on the size of their payroll.

Currently Cots has the Dodgers 2025 luxury tax payment as $152,869,222.

Current projected 2025 opening day payrolls (with almost all of the noteworthy free agents already signed)-

1.  Seattle Mariners - 152.3 million

2.  Minnesota Twins - 149.6 million

3.  St. Louis Cardinals - 146.7 million

4.  Detroit Tigers - 145.7 million

5.  Kansas City Royals - 128.3 million

6.  Colorado Rockies - 126.1 million

7.  Cincinnati Reds - 114.7 million

8.  Milwaukee Brewers - 108.2 million

9.  Washington Nationals - 107.8 million

10.  Cleveland Indians - 99.7 million

11.  Pittsburgh Pirates - 85.4 million

12.  Tampa Bay Rays - 81.7 million

13.  A's - 76.8 million

14.  Chicago White Sox - 74.4 million

15.  Miami Marlins - 69.4 million

It's not just a handful a cheap owners anymore.  The Dodgers luxury tax payment could be more than the payroll for half the teams in the league.

[treego14]

7 hours ago, markedman5 said:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/mlb/columnist/bob-nightengale/2025/02/18/milwaukee-brewers-spring-training-payroll-mark-attanasio/79094893007/

Fix it, MLB!

The Big Leagues are the Rig Leagues!

The fans should boycott the MLB until they make the league fair!

[Paulus8]

These articles (there’s a Rosenthal article in the Athletic along these lines) make the mistake of comparing the Brewers to the Dodgers or even the Cubs. The comparison is why can’t they spend with Kansas City or Minnesota? The Brewers don’t need to spend another $100M. Just another $20-40M might change the ceiling of an already good team. It doesn’t even have to be every year, just when you have a good shot like this year. 

[Marc Newfield of Dreams]

19 minutes ago, Paulus8 said:

The comparison is why can’t they spend with Kansas City or Minnesota? The Brewers don’t need to spend another $100M. Just another $20-40M might change the ceiling of an already good team. It doesn’t even have to be every year, just when you have a good shot like this year. 

Don't be ungrateful for the summers of entertainment and passion and a way for families to come together that Mark so generously provides.

[Paulus8]

I enjoy the summers. I’d like to enjoy the falls a little more too. 

[JosephC]

47 minutes ago, Marc Newfield of Dreams said:

Don't be ungrateful for the summers of entertainment and passion and a way for families to come together that Mark so generously provides.

Is it Mark's job to win a World Series?  Frankly, he sounds like a guy who is pretty happy to have just gotten another free 440 million of taxpayer money (maybe 500 million as the details are still a bit murky on where the last 60 million is coming from), and is now content to "provide entertainment" instead of "winning."

Really an insult to taxpayers who have been told for decades that costly stadium upgrades are necessary to stay competitive, and then after getting a boatload of free money to question whether his goal is to win a World Series or simply to provide entertainment for families.

[endaround]

"We need more revenue sharing in MLB!"

Dodgers add $150 million in taxes to share

"Not like that!"

[tmwiese55]

4 minutes ago, endaround said:

"We need more revenue sharing in MLB!"

Dodgers add $150 million in taxes to share

"Not like that!"

Well, I don't know for sure but for round numbers lets say 20 teams get that money due to not being taxpayers (it might actually be more).  That's only 7.5 mil per team, which is a drop in the bucket.   That's nothing compared to how the other leagues share the revenue by all.    Add in a few mil by the other payers and its still not making a dent in the discrepancies. 

ETA: Quick google looks like 311 mil total split between 21 teams.  So about 15 mil per team last year

[tomwopat]

2 hours ago, Paulus8 said:

These articles (there’s a Rosenthal article in the Athletic along these lines) make the mistake of comparing the Brewers to the Dodgers or even the Cubs. The comparison is why can’t they spend with Kansas City or Minnesota? The Brewers don’t need to spend another $100M. Just another $20-40M might change the ceiling of an already good team. It doesn’t even have to be every year, just when you have a good shot like this year. 

I'd love to see a metric like average revenue per user (ARPU) that might give some nuance to the public attendance numbers. We already know that our TV revenue is among the lowest, but my guess is that the revenue per fan or ticket sale is pretty low as well.

My guess is that the biggest factor is that Milwaukee is well below other small markets like KC or MSP in measures like GDP  https://www.statista.com/statistics/248083/real-gross-domestic-product-gdp-of-the-united-states-by-metropolitan-area/, there's simply less money around to spend, both by individuals and businesses.

Fans of the Marlins, Mariners, and Twins have more of a right to be outraged, owners sitting on goldmines who are either pocketing the profits or too incompetent to convert the opportunity to revenue. Twins in particular, who had a history of success, a loyal fanbase, yet had a billionaire owner threatening to have the team contracted to get a free stadium.

[nate82]

One large market team down.  The Mets will be streaming their games through MLB Media and there will be no blackouts for the Mets in New York, Connecticut, New Jersey and parts of Pennsylvania.  Currently the Dodgers, Phillies, Astros, Mariners, Giants, Orioles and Nationals do not have a streaming option.  I wouldn't be surprised if a few of those teams join MLB Media instead of building their own streaming option.  Financially it makes more sense to work with someone who already has the infrastructure built to do this and MLB Media already has it built and is probably the best of all sports streaming.

Article from the Athletic where the Mets (SNY) chose MLB Media over developing their own. 

https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/6143098/2025/02/18/mets-sny-streaming-blackout/

[Jopal78]

7 hours ago, endaround said:

"We need more revenue sharing in MLB!"

Dodgers add $150 million in taxes to share

"Not like that!"

It’s all just a tired exercise at this point. Attanasio and his partners are pleased as punch that their investment has quintupled since they bought it. Funneling their own money into payroll isn’t going to markedly increase the value of the team, so there’s no real incentive for them to do it. 
 

For certain they know exactly to the dollar the relationship between wins on the field and baseball revenue generated, and In the last 20 years they likely have squeezed nearly every last source of revenue from the market with the virtual golf, wedding receptions, conferences concerts, etc.  

The Steinbrenner super fan as owner who is determined to win no matter the price is mostly a myth. The folks who own teams now are all money managers who are there not to drain revenue from  teams into their own pockets, they are all already fantastically wealthy. Rather they are there for the return on the investment and setting up avenues to transfer their generational wealth to their families while limiting tax obligations.  
 

Just the way it is. 

[markedman5]

 

[MVP2110]

Thought we learned a long time ago that we can't trust Bob Nightengale

[Austin Tatious]

3 hours ago, markedman5 said:

 

Is Mike the son?  I totally believe his account.  His explanation makes sense and is consistent with what the organization has said for years as to their strategy.  

[nate82]

I don't think you can trust a single word out of Nightengale's mouth and you need to dissect it 100 different ways just to find the truth.  

 

[JosephC]

5 hours ago, MVP2110 said:

Thought we learned a long time ago that we can't trust Bob Nightengale

Yeah, like after the 2022 season when Nightengale reported the Brewers were going to cut the opening day payroll.  Just about everyone on this very board went nuts saying Nightengale had no credibility.  And yep, Attanasio whacked about 13 million off the opening day payroll (and currently has whacked another 14 million off this year...although my gut feeling is they will be adding some payroll before the season via trade).

Unreliable Bob Nightengale seems to have some credibility when it comes to the Brewer's payroll.

[JosephC]

7 hours ago, Jopal78 said:

It’s all just a tired exercise at this point. Attanasio and his partners are pleased as punch that their investment has quintupled since they bought it. Funneling their own money into payroll isn’t going to markedly increase the value of the team, so there’s no real incentive for them to do it. 
 

For certain they know exactly to the dollar the relationship between wins on the field and baseball revenue generated, and In the last 20 years they likely have squeezed nearly every last source of revenue from the market with the virtual golf, wedding receptions, conferences concerts, etc.  

The Steinbrenner super fan as owner who is determined to win no matter the price is mostly a myth. The folks who own teams now are all money managers who are there not to drain revenue from  teams into their own pockets, they are all already fantastically wealthy. Rather they are there for the return on the investment and setting up avenues to transfer their generational wealth to their families while limiting tax obligations.  
 

Just the way it is. 

For the record, I think Jerry Jones is a dick and overall he's not great for the Cowboys.  But historically, Cowboy fans love him.  Even when they are upset when the Cowboy's season is over, they always seem to revert back to "Jones is the best owner" attitude a few weeks later.

I don't agree, but I understand it.  At least with Jones it's obvious that he is desperate to win.  I will give him that.  He just has to realize that he and Jr are just not good enough NFL GMs.

But as far as pretty much all other sports owners (not every single one of them, but certainly at least 90% of them), their priorities as franchise owners goes something like this-

#1 - How much free money can I suck out of taxpayers?

#2 - How much more free money can I suck out of taxpayers?

#3 - Bow to the networks and do whatever they want because as TV money goes, that's how our business goes.

#4 - Don't do anything to tarnish my image, as getting in hot water with the other owners could get me kicked out of the cash cow club.

#5 - What was my profit margin this year?

#6 - Circle back one more time just to make sure I've gotten every last free penny I can via government handout.

#7 - I think I want to try and put a championship caliber team on the field this year.

 

[Matt]

2 hours ago, JosephC said:

But historically, Cowboy fans love him.  Even when they are upset when the Cowboy's season is over, they always seem to revert back to "Jones is the best owner" attitude a few weeks later.

I don't agree, but I understand it.  At least with Jones it's obvious that he is desperate to win.  I will give him that. 

Sorry, but I don't think any of that is remotely true? Cowboy fans have been screaming about his personnel moves for 30 years, and there's zero evidence that Jones cares about winning. If he did he would hire the best GMs and the best coaches. His entire thing is about being a talking point on Tuesday morning.