Labor Discussion - Salary Cap, Local TV Sharing

[wallus]

1 hour ago, sveumrules said:

Looks like the Pohlads will need to find new buyers as the Ishibas are pivoting to increasing their minority share in the White Sox instead.

I'm assuming with all of the website takeovers, Brock is in the running now?

[Frisbee Slider]

There is not much evidence to support the idea that players will accept a salary cap:

https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/45842533/sources-phillies-bryce-harper-tells-mlb-boss-get-clubhouse

[torts]

Cap doesnt solve bad owners, there has to be a floor and penalities for tanking (ie losing picks)

[Cool Hand Lucroy]

1 hour ago, Frisbee Slider said:

There is not much evidence to support the idea that players will accept a salary cap:

https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/45842533/sources-phillies-bryce-harper-tells-mlb-boss-get-clubhouse

I've seen Harper getting a lot of credit for this from writers like Molly Knight and others, all of whom I respect a lot. And I'm with Harper's attitude in spirit.

But we're also losing a ton of nuance here. You can be pro-union in a lot of ways, but the baseball union has taken a position that probably increases wage inequality. Blanket resistance to any kind of cap essentially guarantees that a few players get massive deals from a few, big spending clubs, and the majority of roster spots are "soft-capped" by teams who have to play within a lower budget. I wish more folks would write about how many players suffer from a de facto cap, simply because most teams literally can't spend 400 million on payroll.

Take Mark A. His net worth is 2 billion. That's obviously a ton of dough. But it's not so much that he can just construct a 300 million dollar Brewers payroll and not take on some significant financial risks. I get that the owners are vastly wealthy and often scrimp unnecessarily. But I push back against the idea that baseball teams have unlimited resources because they're owned by financial elites.

Like most things, we're losing nuance in this discussion. I think MLB and its owners  spend their revenue in ways that mostly suck. Lots of players, especially minor-leaguers, have to deal with a lot of garbage and wage suppression. But a salary floor, as Torts said, would help that! A cap would hurt players at the top, but might reduce wage inequality and benefit younger players. The team control period could be shortened again too. The union isn't always right just because it's a union and management are a bunch of rich dudes.

Baseball negotiations just really seem to miss important pieces sometimes. They become a fight between the owners and players who each benefit most from the current system, and a true, utilitarian common good solution (which is something like a salary floor and cap, with concessions around the team control period and a plan for escalating the cap as revenue rises) ends up totally lost. It doesn't seem that hard in the end. But I am sure it will be a painful negotiation process, and maybe we lose games.

[Frisbee Slider]

Does the Tigers #17 and Brewers #24 ranked payrolls affect our judgement about salary cap necessity?

I don’t blame the players for rejecting a salary cap. Especially if owners won’t implement a ‘profit cap’ on how much LA or NY or even Pittsburgh can profit each season.

[JCREW]

I was looking for this thread and couldn't find it. Thanks for resurrecting it, @Frisbee Slider. 

If you look at the vast majority of players, a salary floor would help them greatly. And a salary floor that rises as owner income rises would be even better.

I wonder if players would be willing to have some mix of these (the last four would stand in the place of a salary cap, to give something to the owners):

- Salary Floor at roughly $140MM

- Massive pay increases for minor leaguers

- Raise league minimum salary to $1.5MM

- Arbitration after 2 years

- Additional revenue sharing to support the salary floor

- Additional competitive balance stuff in the draft. 

- A maximum individual salary of $45MM AAV.

- A limit of 3 salaries over $25MM AAV per team. 

- A limit of 6 salaries over $18MM AAV per team.

- A limit of 12 salaries over $12MM AAV per team.

(These last four numbers are mostly pulled out of thin air, and should be nuanced to match reality. They should also all be indexed to league-wide franchise value or franchise income.)

This would put some downward pressure on the extremely high salaries, but would only negatively affect earnings for a few players at the very top of the game.

- The Brewers would basically get to the salary floor just with the proposed increase to league minimum salary for the host first and second year players.

- Basically everyone below MKE on total payroll would have to increase their ARB or FA spending.

- The Mets, Dodgers, and Yankees would be just above some of those salary limits, but would mostly fit within the rules. 

[Frisbee Slider]

30 minutes ago, JCREW said:

Massive pay increases for minor leaguers

- Raise league minimum salary to $1.5MM

- Arbitration after 2 years

It will be interesting to see how much the players union will budge to help the 95% of players that don’t get the bigger free agent deals. 

Juan Soto deserves to get paid what someone’s willing to pay him. At the same time, there are thousands of professional players that will never get to $1 M salaries.

[JCREW]

23 minutes ago, Frisbee Slider said:

It will be interesting to see how much the players union will budge to help the 95% of players that don’t get the bigger free agent deals. 

Juan Soto deserves to get paid what someone’s willing to pay him. At the same time, there are thousands of professional players that will never get to $1 M salaries.

I would rather put a little bit of downward pressure on the Sotos, Ohtanis, and Scherzers of the world if it meant we didn't lose a season of prime Chourio to a lockout/strike. 

[Samurai Bucky]

I asked my friend CoPilot to show me a financial comparison between the Brewers and the Dodgers.  I don't think there is a ledger that shows expenses for travel, minor league clubs, scouts, etc.  

⚾️ 2024 Financial Comparison: Brewers vs. Dodgers

Category	Milwaukee Brewers	Los Angeles Dodgers
Team Valuation	$1.7 billion	$6.9 billion
Revenue	$335 million	$752 million
Operating Income	$24 million	$21 million
Player Expenses	$172 million	$349 million
Gate Receipts	$97 million	$277 million
Payroll (Adjusted)	~$125 million	~$266 million
Revenue Sharing Paid	N/A	$150 million
Luxury Tax Paid	N/A	$103 million

🧠 Key Takeaways

• The Dodgers generate more than double the revenue of the Brewers and spend twice as much on player salaries.
• Despite that, the Brewers had higher operating income, showing strong efficiency for a small-market team.
• The Dodgers paid $253 million in combined luxury tax and revenue sharing, which is more than the Brewers’ entire payroll.
• The Brewers’ win-to-player cost ratio was 134, meaning they outperformed relative to payroll. The Dodgers’ was just 84.

Here are the two clubs compared against the league average:

📊 2024 MLB Financials Comparison

Metric	Milwaukee Brewers	Los Angeles Dodgers	MLB Avg per Club
Team Valuation	$1.7 billion	$6.9 billion	~$2.7 billion
Revenue	$335 million	$752 million	~$403 million
Operating Income	$24 million	$21 million	~$20 million
Player Payroll	~$125 million	~$266 million	~$173 million
Gate Receipts	$97 million	$277 million	~$127 million
Sponsorship	Est. $45 million	Est. $90 million	~$63 million
Attendance	~2.3 million	~3.8 million	~2.37 million

📉 Teams with Operating Losses in 2024

• New York Mets: Lost an estimated $292 million, largely due to massive payroll and luxury tax penalties
• San Diego Padres: Reported a $113 million loss, following aggressive spending and underperformance
• Oakland Athletics: While exact numbers aren’t confirmed, their low revenue and relocation uncertainty suggest they likely operated at a loss

 

[wntrtxn21]

3 hours ago, JCREW said:

I was looking for this thread and couldn't find it. Thanks for resurrecting it, @Frisbee Slider. 

If you look at the vast majority of players, a salary floor would help them greatly. And a salary floor that rises as owner income rises would be even better.

I wonder if players would be willing to have some mix of these (the last four would stand in the place of a salary cap, to give something to the owners):

- Salary Floor at roughly $140MM

- Massive pay increases for minor leaguers

- Raise league minimum salary to $1.5MM

- Arbitration after 2 years

- Additional revenue sharing to support the salary floor

- Additional competitive balance stuff in the draft. 

- A maximum individual salary of $45MM AAV.

- A limit of 3 salaries over $25MM AAV per team. 

- A limit of 6 salaries over $18MM AAV per team.

- A limit of 12 salaries over $12MM AAV per team.

(These last four numbers are mostly pulled out of thin air, and should be nuanced to match reality. They should also all be indexed to league-wide franchise value or franchise income.)

This would put some downward pressure on the extremely high salaries, but would only negatively affect earnings for a few players at the very top of the game.

- The Brewers would basically get to the salary floor just with the proposed increase to league minimum salary for the host first and second year players.

- Basically everyone below MKE on total payroll would have to increase their ARB or FA spending.

- The Mets, Dodgers, and Yankees would be just above some of those salary limits, but would mostly fit within the rules. 

There will never be a salary floor w/o a reasonable salary cap. Unless MLB nearly copies what the NFL model (salary cap and floor), I don't think there is any way of making it close to fair for everybody. Without a reasonable cap under your proposal, small market teams would be forced to massively increase their spending just to stay even to where they are now. Plus they would lose their prized younger players a year earlier. Big spenders could further distance themselves from everybody else.  I don't think a maximum salary could ever be implemented for legal reasons. With an NFL type system, teams could spend their money any way they wanted as long as they were at or under the cap and bad owners would be forced to up their payrolls to at least meet the floor limits. 

[BrewerFan]

6 hours ago, Frisbee Slider said:

Does the Tigers #17 and Brewers #24 ranked payrolls affect our judgement about salary cap necessity?

I don’t blame the players for rejecting a salary cap. Especially if owners won’t implement a ‘profit cap’ on how much LA or NY or even Pittsburgh can profit each season.

To your first point, no, it doesn't. Doing more with less doesn't make me want less. 

And to the second, that's a good piece of leverage, though... I don't think there should be a "cap" on teams who are spending up against the cap. If the Dodgers can charge 5K per ticket and sell 55,000 tickets and make 800M a year on a 250M cap, they should be able to do so... IMO.

 

The spending floor and caps on teams like Pitt are more important to me. 

[JCREW]

2 minutes ago, wntrtxn21 said:

Plus they would lose their prized younger players a year earlier. 

I should have clarified...

2 years pre-arb

4 years of arb control

[mudbutt]

It would be way too messy and nearly impossible to actually implement proper revenue sharing to support a proper floor and cap that’s tied as a revenue percentage like other leagues.  So really the owners want a cap so the big revenue teams spend less of their own revenue percentage on players and take away a chunk of overall money going to players.  The whole system would need a big overhaul to support it properly and the owners know that won’t happen, so they are going to make out like bandits and the players should absolutely be hostile right now.

[BrewerFan]

3 minutes ago, mudbutt said:

It would be way too messy and nearly impossible to actually implement proper revenue sharing to support a proper floor and cap that’s tied as a revenue percentage like other leagues.  So really the owners want a cap so the big revenue teams spend less of their own revenue percentage on players and take away a chunk of overall money going to players.  The whole system would need a big overhaul to support it properly and the owners know that won’t happen, so they are going to make out like bandits and the players should absolutely be hostile right now.

Yes, it'll be messy. It'll probably mean a much shorter season in 2026. That doesn't mean it's not worth doing.

One of the reasons the NFL has just blown past MLB is the inequality. We didn't have the Rooney and Mara's to help ensure the future of the sport...

[mudbutt]

That I agree with but that’s not the owners actual goal.  They just want a cap to restrict the Mets and Dodgers so they can have better optics of keeping more revenue for themselves.  The Brewers will still be vastly outspent and I just hope the tiny concessions won’t make equality even worse.  Like if payrolls are still disparate even with a cap, but there’s concessions to the players in the arbitration system ie automatic free agency at 28, the Brewers are better off in the current system.  I don’t know how you can gain equality without teams sharing their local media contract revenue and that’s not going to happen.

[pitchleague]

2 hours ago, Samurai Bucky said:

I asked my friend CoPilot to show me a financial comparison between the Brewers and the Dodgers.  I don't think there is a ledger that shows expenses for travel, minor league clubs, scouts, etc.  

⚾️ 2024 Financial Comparison: Brewers vs. Dodgers

Category	Milwaukee Brewers	Los Angeles Dodgers
Team Valuation	$1.7 billion	$6.9 billion
Revenue	$335 million	$752 million
Operating Income	$24 million	$21 million
Player Expenses	$172 million	$349 million
Gate Receipts	$97 million	$277 million
Payroll (Adjusted)	~$125 million	~$266 million
Revenue Sharing Paid	N/A	$150 million
Luxury Tax Paid	N/A	$103 million

 

🧠 Key Takeaways

• The Dodgers generate more than double the revenue of the Brewers and spend twice as much on player salaries.
• Despite that, the Brewers had higher operating income, showing strong efficiency for a small-market team.
• The Dodgers paid $253 million in combined luxury tax and revenue sharing, which is more than the Brewers’ entire payroll.
• The Brewers’ win-to-player cost ratio was 134, meaning they outperformed relative to payroll. The Dodgers’ was just 84.

Here are the two clubs compared against the league average:

📊 2024 MLB Financials Comparison

Metric	Milwaukee Brewers	Los Angeles Dodgers	MLB Avg per Club
Team Valuation	$1.7 billion	$6.9 billion	~$2.7 billion
Revenue	$335 million	$752 million	~$403 million
Operating Income	$24 million	$21 million	~$20 million
Player Payroll	~$125 million	~$266 million	~$173 million
Gate Receipts	$97 million	$277 million	~$127 million
Sponsorship	Est. $45 million	Est. $90 million	~$63 million
Attendance	~2.3 million	~3.8 million	~2.37 million

 

📉 Teams with Operating Losses in 2024

• New York Mets: Lost an estimated $292 million, largely due to massive payroll and luxury tax penalties
• San Diego Padres: Reported a $113 million loss, following aggressive spending and underperformance
• Oakland Athletics: While exact numbers aren’t confirmed, their low revenue and relocation uncertainty suggest they likely operated at a loss

 

 

 

 

 

This tells me that the Brewers need to raise ticket prices.  And by a fairly decent chunk of change.  If the Dodgers can get that much in gate receipts, we should at be able to approach the same (they won’t reach it, but they could at least close the gap by a lot.)

[torts]

I don't want a salary cap, let the dodgers spend a billion dollars on a roster, I don't care.  The players getting those massive contracts have earned it, and if some billionaires want to spend their money on over bloated rosters to most likely still lose in the post season, go for it.  Competition and competitiveness comes from forcing cheap owners like the nutting's of the world to invest and spend money.  

[Fear The Chorizo]

6 minutes ago, pitchleague said:

This tells me that the Brewers need to raise ticket prices.  And by a fairly decent chunk of change.  If the Dodgers can get that much in gate receipts, we should at be able to approach the same (they won’t reach it, but they could at least close the gap by a lot.)

Supply and demand dictates that the Dodgers ticket is simply a tougher get than a Brewers one, and therefore they can charge alot more.  LA metro area is more than 10x larger than milwaukee's metro area.  Dodgers stadium also can hold about 15k more fans every game they play

 

If the Brewers dramatically jacked up ticket prices I'd wager their gate receipts would decrease, not increase

[Frisbee Slider]

1 hour ago, BrewerFan said:

One of the reasons the NFL has just blown past MLB is the inequality.

I don’t think it accurate to say the NFL is popular and has a salary cap therefore salary caps are popular.

The NFL’s dominance, both real and imagined, stems from many factors unrelated to salary caps. Plus, there are short term and long term signs of demand waning for the NFL.

Salary caps have not helped the Browns, Lions, Jaguars, Cardinals, Texans, Bears or Jets much in the last 30 years.

[pitchleague]

3 hours ago, Fear The Chorizo said:

Supply and demand dictates that the Dodgers ticket is simply a tougher get than a Brewers one, and therefore they can charge alot more.  LA metro area is more than 10x larger than milwaukee's metro area.  Dodgers stadium also can hold about 15k more fans every game they play

 

If the Brewers dramatically jacked up ticket prices I'd wager their gate receipts would decrease, not increase

I guess I made my comment kinda tongue in cheek, but I concur with your evaluation.

[BrewerFan]

1 hour ago, Frisbee Slider said:

I don’t think it accurate to say the NFL is popular and has a salary cap therefore salary caps are popular.

 

Well, there would be no Green Bay Packers without the cap AND the revenue sharing.

I think it's 100% accurate to say that. 

The Green Bay Packers got a check for 432.5M dollars to START the league year. That's before ANY other money is spent. They can compete at that point.

1 hour ago, Frisbee Slider said:

The NFL’s dominance, both real and imagined, stems from many factors unrelated to salary caps. Plus, there are short term and long term signs of demand waning for the NFL.

It's not imagined and it's not possible without revenue sharing and salary cap. 

I also don't know what signs there are of demand waning for the NFL. 

The World Series had it's BEST rating since 2017 and it averaged 15.8M viewers. 
NFL games that are only available via streaming average 14.8M viewers.
Average Sunday Noon Games average 21M. 
49M people watched the NFL season opener.
 

But lets compare the Super Bowl to the World Series. The pinnicale of each sport;

Sunday’s Eagles-Chiefs Super Bowl 59 averaged a combined 41.7 rating and 127.7 million viewers across FOX, Tubi, Telemundo and Fox Deportes, surpassing Chiefs-49ers on CBS, Nickelodeon and Univision last year (123.7M) to rank as the largest Nielsen-estimated audience on record.

That's compared to 15.8 for the World Series. 

Hell, the NFL Super Bowl Generates more money in ONE game than the NBA Finals and the World Series combined. 

 

2 hours ago, Frisbee Slider said:

Salary caps have not helped the Browns, Lions, Jaguars, Cardinals, Texans, Bears or Jets much in the last 30 years.

I don't know what the point of this is. Poorly run teams haven't won so... ergo the salary cap hasn't helped them?

That's a... kinda silly argument. Take the salary cap away and watch the Giants, Cowboys, Eagles, the Rams... the Bears, they'd just go out and buy the top players. 

 

Keeping Aaron Rodgers in Green Bay? You wouldn't be able to. It'd be like baseball. He'd sign his rookie contract and then hit the open market and he'd have made whatever ALL 30 teams would have deemed him worth. 

I'm kinda at a loss as to how you can look at the NFL's revenue sharing and Salary Cap and argue THAT hasn't contributed to the NFL's popularity. 

The NFL, the GAME would be dangerous without a salary cap. 

 

Imagine having an NFL team spending ~450 MILLION  more than another team. How do you think that'd go? 

The NFL would have had to contract if not for the Mara and Rooney families and it'd be a joke. 

[BrewerFan]

3 hours ago, torts said:

I don't want a salary cap, let the dodgers spend a billion dollars on a roster, I don't care.  The players getting those massive contracts have earned it, and if some billionaires want to spend their money on over bloated rosters to most likely still lose in the post season, go for it.  Competition and competitiveness comes from forcing cheap owners like the nutting's of the world to invest and spend money.  

Yeah, here's the thing that you and obviously the MLBPA is missing. 

They'd make MORE if they had revenue sharing and a cap. 

NBA mandates 50% of revenue go to the players(with the Bird rules, it goes WELL over 50%, but a minimium of 50%). 
NFL- Likewise, it's roughly 48.5%, and it balances out as there are floors, but if you understand the NFL Salary Cap, teams can spend 100M more in cash... as teams like the Saints have been doing for a while now... but eventually that evens out, so we'll just go with the CBA mandated MINIMIUM of 48.5%

MLB-Players get 38-40% of MLB revenue as there's no cap and little revenue sharing. 

So players aren't making more. A FEW select players are getting massive deals. Most players in MLB have to wait until their 30-32 to become Free Agents, the better part of 7 seasons before they reach Free Agency. 

 

So the Dodgers can sign Ohtani to a 700M deal or the Mets can sign Soto to a 765M dollar deal, but overall, they're earning a smaller percentages of MLB Revenues. 

The only difference would be... the Dodgers wouldn't be able to stack their rotation with 5-6 30M AAV Starters and the Brewers or...Pirates would be able to afford to keep some of their stars. 

[Frisbee Slider]

8 hours ago, BrewerFan said:

Well, there would be no Green Bay Packers without the cap AND the revenue sharing.

I only mentioned salary cap.

8 hours ago, BrewerFan said:

Imagine having an NFL team spending ~450 MILLION  more than another team. How do you think that'd go? 

Similar to MLB except aging stars age more quickly in the NFL.

8 hours ago, BrewerFan said:

I'm kinda at a loss as to how you can look at the NFL's revenue sharing and Salary Cap and argue THAT hasn't contributed to the NFL's popularity. 

The NFL seems filled with mediocre teams. Fantasy football, betting and large investments by national tv networks contribute to football having an outsized cultural place on Sundays. None of those things rely on a salary cap.

 

8 hours ago, BrewerFan said:

I don't know what the point of this is. Poorly run teams haven't won so... ergo the salary cap hasn't helped them?

I just named 25% of the league that has had little success in three decades in spite of the NFL’s equality. I could probably add more teams to the list.

 

8 hours ago, BrewerFan said:

I also don't know what signs there are of demand waning for the NFL. 

10% decline in wild card viewership. Regular season declined, too.

29% decline in youth tackle football

CTE is a problem, as well.

 

NFL is more popular than MLB in terms of revenue and viewership. To me, it doesn’t mean baseball should copy football.

I appreciate reasonable people can disagree 🙂

 

 

[Playing Catch]

I think this row between Manfred and Harper will end up being a good thing for all parties. It's usually pretty typical for owners and players to begin the media-phase of negotiations with the hottest of buttons.

Manfred talking salary cap (and a lockout of doom) is exactly what they should be doing right now... "Hey everyone! Look over here! We're baseball and we don't even HAVE a salary cap, like other sports! Look how unequal the payrolls are!"

And Harper screaming, "Never! We'll NEVER accept a salary cap! Don't even use those words!!"

It allows for both owners and players to compromise and come together in the middle.

Fans and players get to brush up on, and take stock of, the current situation, and formulate an opinion, which for most people probably lies somewhere in the middle...

"As an average player on an average team, I sometimes get frustrated my team won't sign me to a longer-term extension with guarantees... wait, HOW much more does Harper make than me??"

The mechanisms for a healthier landscape are already in place. They probably just need to make some adjustments with those current mechanisms.

- Improve payroll tax revenue sharing in some capacity to help teams with the ability to compete for free agents
- Adjust arbitration system in some capacity to help mid-tier teams hang on to players AND give more money to those players.
- "Unused" shared revenue goes back to the players in the form of benefits for 40-man roster/minors/improved minors infrastructure.

The game is really, really healthy in myriad ways, and I think all sides will come together to adjust what is working instead of getting into some kind of protracted labor fight.

[CheeseheadInQC]

12 hours ago, BrewerFan said:

Well, there would be no Green Bay Packers without the cap AND the revenue sharing.

I think it's 100% accurate to say that. 

The Green Bay Packers got a check for 432.5M dollars to START the league year. That's before ANY other money is spent. They can compete at that point.

It's not imagined and it's not possible without revenue sharing and salary cap. 

I also don't know what signs there are of demand waning for the NFL. 

The World Series had it's BEST rating since 2017 and it averaged 15.8M viewers. 
NFL games that are only available via streaming average 14.8M viewers.
Average Sunday Noon Games average 21M. 
49M people watched the NFL season opener.
 

But lets compare the Super Bowl to the World Series. The pinnicale of each sport;

Sunday’s Eagles-Chiefs Super Bowl 59 averaged a combined 41.7 rating and 127.7 million viewers across FOX, Tubi, Telemundo and Fox Deportes, surpassing Chiefs-49ers on CBS, Nickelodeon and Univision last year (123.7M) to rank as the largest Nielsen-estimated audience on record.

That's compared to 15.8 for the World Series. 

Hell, the NFL Super Bowl Generates more money in ONE game than the NBA Finals and the World Series combined. 

 

I don't know what the point of this is. Poorly run teams haven't won so... ergo the salary cap hasn't helped them?

That's a... kinda silly argument. Take the salary cap away and watch the Giants, Cowboys, Eagles, the Rams... the Bears, they'd just go out and buy the top players. 

 

Keeping Aaron Rodgers in Green Bay? You wouldn't be able to. It'd be like baseball. He'd sign his rookie contract and then hit the open market and he'd have made whatever ALL 30 teams would have deemed him worth. 

I'm kinda at a loss as to how you can look at the NFL's revenue sharing and Salary Cap and argue THAT hasn't contributed to the NFL's popularity. 

The NFL, the GAME would be dangerous without a salary cap. 

 

Imagine having an NFL team spending ~450 MILLION  more than another team. How do you think that'd go? 

The NFL would have had to contract if not for the Mara and Rooney families and it'd be a joke. 

Maybe it would be different if the TV deals were set up differently, but outside of the Cowboys, who basically print money but don’t really act like it lately, I don’t know if the Packers would be at that big of a disadvantage these days. One estimate I saw had them 10th in revenue.