Salary Cap

[landoc88]

Can't get here faster for small market teams fast enough.

[MrTPlush]

Small markets? This is starting to become a situation where even mid-markets are starting to lag behind a bit.

2025: $5.65 billion in team payroll (only est. I found)

2019: $3.98 billion

$1.67 billion difference

That 6 year difference is comparable to the change from 2006-2019.

The sad reality, the wealth gap is irrelevent and I doubt many owners care. As long as the overall wealth is increasing they are happy.

 

[jay87shot]

I agree, I am glad someone else started this. By my count the Dodgers currently pay 365 million a year (avv) to non arbitration players (near $400 with arby) 14 players over 10 million per year compared to our 2, 7 players over 20 per 1 to our 1. Basically the only home grown talent is Will Smith, Kershaw, Pages, Sheehan, Dreyer, Vesia, Caperius. If you want to give them credit for the development of Max Muncy I would be ok with that.

I just don't see how they can't put in  better salary cap, on top of that they should also put in a salary floor so teams like the Pirates, A's, and Marlins (among others) aren't consistently ripped off by cheap ownership. Maybe put in a rule where owners who make over a certain amount in profit lose portions of there revenue sharing.

[jay87shot]

37 minutes ago, MrTPlush said:

Small markets? This is starting to become a situation where even mid-markets are starting to lag behind a bit.

2025: $5.65 billion in team payroll (only est. I found)

2019: $3.98 billion

$1.67 billion difference

That 6 year difference is comparable to the change from 2006-2019.

The sad reality, the wealth gap is irrelevent and I doubt many owners care. As long as the overall wealth is increasing they are happy.

 

I don't know what percentage of owners are needed to pass things but my guess is that around 15-20 teams would probably be in favor of a more firm cap just because there are around that many teams that won't likely be over the cap. So even though the Dodgers, Yankees, Phillies, Mets of the world will be super against it I do think there is a decent chance the votes could be passed. 

[biedergb]

8 minutes ago, jay87shot said:

I agree, I am glad someone else started this. By my count the Dodgers currently pay 365 million a year (avv) to non arbitration players (near $400 with arby) 14 players over 10 million per year compared to our 2, 7 players over 20 per 1 to our 1. Basically the only home grown talent is Will Smith, Kershaw, Pages, Sheehan, Dreyer, Vesia, Caperius. If you want to give them credit for the development of Max Muncy I would be ok with that.

I just don't see how they can't put in  better salary cap, on top of that they should also put in a salary floor so teams like the Pirates, A's, and Marlins (among others) aren't consistently ripped off by cheap ownership. Maybe put in a rule where owners who make over a certain amount in profit lose portions of there revenue sharing.

In reality the Dodgers are a well run team, who also has deep deep pockets, they have made good trades, good IFA signing and drafted/developed well, but also have a LOT of wiggle room and ability to have a deep line up when you can hand out blank checks to any baseball players, and also generate half of Japan's GDP.

If the Brewers leadership had to ability/willingness (some of both?) to spend up to $150-200 million per year then you have another bat and another arm that could be a difference (imagine Adames and another SP on the current squad and the line ups don't look as bad).

But yeah that payroll is way too much. And then Mets, Padres, Red Sox, Yankees leading the charge as teams who can just bloat the payroll when they want to. And glad you mentioned the bad teams not spending as another big problem too. Those owners just have a cash cow that they can ignore and still profit.

[alwz4gbp]

Yes, there absolutely needs to be a salary cap and floor.  However, we better be ready to be without baseball for a good long time, cuz the players union will fight that to the death.  If it were to happen, the Dodgers, Mets, Yankees etc, would all sign massive long term extensions to everyone that they could get their hands on and demand that they be "grandfathered" in.  That would be a mess.  There is certainly no easy solution.  I'd be willing to forego a season, if it meant that well run organizations like the Brewers could play on a level playing field with those guys.  2/3 or the league essentially being farm teams for the top 10 teams is getting old.  

[MrTPlush]

45 minutes ago, jay87shot said:

I don't know what percentage of owners are needed to pass things but my guess is that around 15-20 teams would probably be in favor of a more firm cap just because there are around that many teams that won't likely be over the cap. So even though the Dodgers, Yankees, Phillies, Mets of the world will be super against it I do think there is a decent chance the votes could be passed. 

A lot of issues though:

1) Players union would have a fit. And what exactly would they gain? Is a salary floor really a huge gain to the players union? You would have completely abolish arbitration all together I would think.  Three years and then FA. Probably have to fix service time manipulation. Maybe league expansion could be a bone to throw?

2) Would there actually be a majority to support it? The Top 10 teams probably love having an unfair advantage and want it to stay. There would be at least 5 cheapo owners that love not spending money. In reality there are probably 5-8 teams that try hard, maybe would spend more if it was fair, and would welcome it.

3) Do the majority of casual fans even care? Baseball got saved when they did all the stuff to shorten games and make them less insufferable to watch. So far viewership and attendance seem fine (though flat). Im actually a bit shocked considering how non accessible games became for casual watchers due to the RSN debacle

 

[owbc]

I’m opposed to a cap. I would rather have more revenue sharing. This deferred contract nonsense also needs to be stopped and all TV dollars including local TV revenue should go into the same pot that is distributed equally. All international players should have to enter through the draft, not go to their team of choice. 

The Brewers will not benefit from a system that forces other small market teams to spend more money. They are thriving in the current system. It will not help us if the Pirates are forced to compete. Let them continue to languish in last place, it isn’t our problem. 

Their failed strategy of being overly aggressive against LA’s starting pitchers is more to blame for the current situation than any salary-related discrepancies. 

[Cool Hand Lucroy]

39 minutes ago, owbc said:

I’m opposed to a cap. I would rather have more revenue sharing. This deferred contract nonsense also needs to be stopped and all TV dollars including local TV revenue should go into the same pot that is distributed equally. All international players should have to enter through the draft, not go to their team of choice. 

The Brewers will not benefit from a system that forces other small market teams to spend more money. They are thriving in the current system. It will not help us if the Pirates are forced to compete. Let them continue to languish in last place, it isn’t our problem. 

Their failed strategy of being overly aggressive against LA’s starting pitchers is more to blame for the current situation than any salary-related discrepancies. 

This is very thoughtful.

Many ways to skin the cat competitive balance wise. It can't all be reduced to cap/floor. The issue right now is that players are receiving around 50% of league revenue in salary, but the distribution curve for that is obviously weird. A pre-req for a labor agreement should be revenues remaining split 50-50. If a cap doesn't shift that balance, the union's resistance to it is a bit harder to defend, but there are also non-cap ways to maintain that ratio and restore some balance via revenue sharing and some of these other things you mention.

Theoretically, this CBA negotiation shouldn't be that hard. The problem is, these sides REALLY don't trust each other. That, more than anything, is going to make things very difficult. 

If I'm the players, my biggest concern is leverage. I don't think they have that much. They'd probably play with a temporary CBA and be very reluctant to strike. The owners are the ones floating lockout because they always have the leverage in these situations, and fan sentiment, even in a fairly progressive baseball media sphere, is going to have a healthy anti-players contingent. 

Brewers have been good at drafting and developing young players and transforming pitchers lately. They keep doing that, the economic moves will sort themselves out. 

[tmwiese55]

Yes, I think a hard cap or even one like the NBAs is probably an automatic No from the players.    So your solutions are probably on continuing to crank up penalties on the top teams for spending above X amount, and it compounds more and more as time goes on. Perhaps there's 2-3 tiers of that as well, like the nba.  Along with that some kind of min spend rule or else you don't get a cut of the share.

The deferred payments have to be addressed.  Sharing of local TV money should be shared. Not sure how it is now, but if its fully not shared at all right now perhaps you have to start with a partially sharing it and then gradually moving to sharing more at the next CBA, and so on.    I'd toss those out as 3 realistic things that could be addressed at next cba

[BarremlensTSSC]

2 hours ago, jay87shot said:

I don't know what percentage of owners are needed to pass things but my guess is that around 15-20 teams would probably be in favor of a more firm cap just because there are around that many teams that won't likely be over the cap. So even though the Dodgers, Yankees, Phillies, Mets of the world will be super against it I do think there is a decent chance the votes could be passed. 

It's just a CBA vote.  But they can't do a cap (or a floor, which is important) without the union agreeing to it.  Otherwise it's an illegal restraint on commerce/trade.  The union has never indicated any willingness to agree to a hard cap, although they have agreed to the luxury tax thresholds currently in place which is a form of soft cap.

[BarremlensTSSC]

1 hour ago, owbc said:

I’m opposed to a cap. I would rather have more revenue sharing. This deferred contract nonsense also needs to be stopped and all TV dollars including local TV revenue should go into the same pot that is distributed equally. All international players should have to enter through the draft, not go to their team of choice. 

The Brewers will not benefit from a system that forces other small market teams to spend more money. They are thriving in the current system. It will not help us if the Pirates are forced to compete. Let them continue to languish in last place, it isn’t our problem. 

Their failed strategy of being overly aggressive against LA’s starting pitchers is more to blame for the current situation than any salary-related discrepancies. 

It's not an either/or situation.  A cap, whether it's an NFL style hard cap or an NBA style cap/tax/exception structure would come with broader revenue sharing.  Without some kind of spending/salary drag the large market teams won't expand revenue sharing because it's contrary to their interest.  I agree universal or at least much broader revenue sharing is probably more important to the Brewers than a cap, but you literally can't get one without the other.

[MrTPlush]

1 hour ago, owbc said:

Their failed strategy of being overly aggressive against LA’s starting pitchers is more to blame for the current situation than any salary-related discrepancies. 

The current issue is most certainly tied to the Dodgers trotting out a 5/$136mil pitcher, then a 12/$325mil pitcher (with zero MLB experience for that contract), then a 10/$700mil pitcher, and then a 4/$115mil pitcher. ALL of which were not originally Dodgers prior to those contracts.

It is pathetic. 
 

It was sad back in the day when rich teams could afford a player we couldn’t. Now they can afford to pay an entire rotation of aces and we can’t afford to pay one.

[Turning2]

There is only one fix to this. But enough fans won't do what is necessary. I got tired of the MLB economics even before the nightmare of the modern CBA's. I turned my back on MLB around the late 80's. Only saw passing headlines about the Brewers and state of baseball. Totally missed the other two NLCS series. Couldn't care less. I drew my line in the sand. Nothing changed. It actually got worse. I finally decided, if you can't beat them, might as well join them enough to enjoy the game again - that was just after the Hader trade I started following again. Imagine if millions of small market fans could muster the same determination all at the same time for even just a few years let alone decades. The big markets depend on the small market fans to fuel this nonsense. If small market teams went bankrupt from fan disinterest, it would leave MLB with about 7-8 teams. There is no way they make the exorbitant, inequitable revenues in that model that they do now on the backs of small market fans. 

[owbc]

29 minutes ago, Turning2 said:

There is only one fix to this. But enough fans won't do what is necessary. I got tired of the MLB economics even before the nightmare of the modern CBA's. I turned my back on MLB around the late 80's. Only saw passing headlines about the Brewers and state of baseball. Totally missed the other two NLCS series. Couldn't care less. I drew my line in the sand. Nothing changed. It actually got worse. I finally decided, if you can't beat them, might as well join them enough to enjoy the game again - that was just after the Hader trade I started following again. Imagine if millions of small market fans could muster the same determination all at the same time for even just a few years let alone decades. The big markets depend on the small market fans to fuel this nonsense. If small market teams went bankrupt from fan disinterest, it would leave MLB with about 7-8 teams. There is no way they make the exorbitant, inequitable revenues in that model that they do now on the backs of small market fans. 

Nobody is losing money. The Marlins fielded a team of entirely players making league minimum salary and have virtually no fans or interest in what should be one of the biggest baseball markets in the US. The A's and Rays are playing in minor league stadiums. The Pirates haven't cared about winning for decades. All of these teams are doing fine financially. 

The revenue sharing that we have now only perpetuates this problem, since all you have to do to make a profit is keep your payroll down and MLB will write you a check for $50 million every year. 

The Brewers are beneficiaries of this system, along with every other team that has ownership and management that is competent and cares about winning. We do not need changes that reward poverty. We need changes that reward smart decision making and winning. We need to ban the financial manipulation that the Dodgers engage in. 

[Fear The Chorizo]

If a salary cap isnt going to happen and the luxury tax is what we are left with, then I think they need to adjust how deferred contracts count towards the luxury tax.  Feel like paying $68m of actual dollars to ohtani 10 years from now and just pay him $2m now per season?  Fine, go ahead - but the luxury tax value for the years he plays under that contract need to be dollar for dollar (i.e., luxury tax amount is $70m, not the $38ish Million it currently is calculated to be.  Force the Dodgers to have to pay the full luxury tax penalties real-time for the caliber of the roster they have on the field competing against everyone else.

 

Oh, and also - if a team exceeds the luxury tax two consecutive seasons over any part of the previous 5 years, they arent able to bid on international pro players fees coming over from Japan/korea/elsewhere via the posting fee process.

 

Also, TV money has to be shared across MLB - teams should not get built in revenue advantages via broadcast dollars simply by playing in a large city compared to a small one.

[Turning2]

1 hour ago, owbc said:

Nobody is losing money. The Marlins fielded a team of entirely players making league minimum salary and have virtually no fans or interest in what should be one of the biggest baseball markets in the US. The A's and Rays are playing in minor league stadiums. The Pirates haven't cared about winning for decades. All of these teams are doing fine financially. 

The revenue sharing that we have now only perpetuates this problem, since all you have to do to make a profit is keep your payroll down and MLB will write you a check for $50 million every year. 

The Brewers are beneficiaries of this system, along with every other team that has ownership and management that is competent and cares about winning. We do not need changes that reward poverty. We need changes that reward smart decision making and winning. We need to ban the financial manipulation that the Dodgers engage in. 

That's the point, the teams aren't losing money. If the fans stopped spending money, it would force change. If the Marlins' only revenue source was from revenue sharing and absolutely zero from tickets, merch, concessions etc, they would fold as a team. MLB INC wouldn't allow the embarrassment of no fans in the stands for long, and the big market ownerships would eventually balk at sharing revenue with them.  I know that's all pipe dream stuff, but that's the only solution. It would require fans getting balkanized in unison, which will never happen. 

[adambr2]

I know a salary cap works for the NFL, but I don’t think MLB will ever get one through the MLBPA. 

I think revenue sharing is the key. If every owner is pulling from the same pot, “small market” becomes much less of an issue. I mean, the Green Bay Packers are by far the smallest market in professional sports, and it’s not like they don’t make enough money to support a $200M payroll. 

I also think there should be better regulation on what percentage of revenue is going to payroll. For the Brewers, it’s about 40%. But there are teams as high as 90% and teams as low as 20-30%. Why the disparity?

I’m not saying every team should be exactly the same, but there shouldn’t be such a wide range. 

Finally, the deferral loopholes need to be closed. Either limit it or in some way regular it better, like charging part of the future deferrals to the present and charging the future inflation adjusted amount. 

[SeaBass]

4 minutes ago, adambr2 said:

I know a salary cap works for the NFL, but I don’t think MLB will ever get one through the MLBPA. 

I think it's possible but it's going to take a lot of pain to get there. A lot. The owners are going to have to hold strong and take the heat from the press and angry fans. That definitely makes it an uphill battle.

I don't know how it's going to look. I wonder if the owners have the stomach for an extended stoppage how long will they be able to keep it up. There's already speculation that it could cancel an entire season. What if it goes longer? I think the players right now are chill with waiting out a season to stick to their guns. Will the owners look to put scabs on the field? I have to think that could potentially happen.

It's going to be interesting, that's for sure.

[adambr2]

56 minutes ago, SeaBass said:

I think it's possible but it's going to take a lot of pain to get there. A lot. The owners are going to have to hold strong and take the heat from the press and angry fans. That definitely makes it an uphill battle.

I don't know how it's going to look. I wonder if the owners have the stomach for an extended stoppage how long will they be able to keep it up. There's already speculation that it could cancel an entire season. What if it goes longer? I think the players right now are chill with waiting out a season to stick to their guns. Will the owners look to put scabs on the field? I have to think that could potentially happen.

It's going to be interesting, that's for sure.

Salary cap could also be a “careful what you wish for” situation. 

Gaining a salary cap but having free agency reduced from 6-7 years to 3-4 could be massively detrimental to teams that rely heavily on scouting and development.

[Ignitor 4ever]

52 minutes ago, adambr2 said:

Salary cap could also be a “careful what you wish for” situation. 

Gaining a salary cap but having free agency reduced from 6-7 years to 3-4 could be massively detrimental to teams that rely heavily on scouting and development.

This has been my concern with a salary cap. Right now, player control and arbitration does help a team like the Brewers to keep young talent around for at least a few years. That would likely be out the window with a salary cap, or at least greatly reduced. The cap is probably going to still be well above what the Brewers are able/willing to pay so the bigger market teams will still have the same advantage over us but now we have less control over the players.

Revenue sharing seems to be the better avenue. Have all TV revenue shared equally among the teams, or at least a much higher percentage of revenue shared among the teams. I think right now it is 48% of local revenue is shared. The owners still make money as do the players (no cap). Have all of the small and mid market owners band together.

[pitchleague]

These are just my thoughts.  I doubt any traction could be made on these ideas, but in a perfect universe, I'd love to see some these implemented:

--A salary floor.  Make teams pay "competitive" salaries and get more competitive teams as a result (maybe?  Hopefully??)

--A salary cap is NOT ever going to happen at this point.  I would settle for some actual damaging punishments for those teams that do go over the supposed luxury tax threshold.  And I'm talking DAMAGING:  1000%+ penalty per dollar (?) over this threshold.  Plus automatic loss of draft picks, starting with a first round pick for even $1 over the threshold, a second rounder once you go over $1,000 over the threshold, a third rounder if you go over $10,000, etc. etc.   Just make it REALLY painful for a team to be paying so much money to players.

--Revenue sharing of TV/radio/Internet money.  I would also be fine with MLB taking over all broadcast rights themselves and sharing the money that way.  Team-owned broadcast channels would go away.

--Have all players worldwide subject to the MLB draft if they want to come to America and play in the MLB.

--Get rid of the deferrals.  Immediately.  No grandfathering in, either.  Sorry, Dodgers, you'll need to start paying Shohei and everyone else their actual salary each season.

--Perhaps get rid of arbitration and make free-agency start after 5 complete MLB seasons.  

 

Again, I am perfectly well aware that probably NONE of these things would be agreed upon.  I bemoan the likely fact that MLB could shut down in 2027, just when more of our Brewers prospects should be up and strengthening our team.  And if baseball were to disappear for an entire season (or longer?) how many fans will they lose?  Would the revenue streams that the owners/players depend on in today's game even exist in 2028 or 2029 if the fans say, "heck with it, I found other things to do with my money instead of giving it to you" ?

I, myself, will always love baseball no matter what happens.  I might not go to as many games, buy merchandise, etc. but I'd still pay attention and hope that they can get things fixed.

My worst fear is that nothing is really accomplished and they sit out for a season or longer only to sign an agreement for 5-6 years that really accomplishes very little or nothing.

 

 

[LouisEly]

My issue is that they have to do something to stop the ability to create these "super teams".  Elimination of deferred compensation (at least, forcing it to count against the cap while the player is playing) and hard penalties for going over the luxury tax are a good start.  Revenue sharing will be needed, but have to have real penalties for going over the luxury tax.

If the owners want to get the fans on their side, they first need to start doing what some franchises have done - concession prices for the every-day person.  $2 sodas/hot dogs/popcorn, $5 brats/burgers/basket of fries, etc.  If fast food restaurants can make a profit at those prices, so can teams.  At the worst, they have to look at basic concessions as loss-leaders.  Charge a premium for premium food and premium alcohol that wealthy fans won't care about paying for.

Once they get the fans more on their side from a cost to attend standpoint, then they can lockout.

[Baldkin]

What would need to happen for a salary cap to come into place:

1) Owners would need to open up the books (never happen)

2) Wealthy teams would have to share more revenue (never happen)

3) Players would have to be ensured a percentage of total team revenue (ticket sales + tv) every season (this is how it works in every other sport - MLB Owners would never agree to it)

4) Arbitration/player control would have to be massively reworked

 

[FidoMcCokefiend]

On 10/15/2025 at 8:47 AM, jay87shot said:

on top of that they should also put in a salary floor so teams like the Pirates, A's, and Marlins (among others) aren't consistently ripped off by cheap ownership.

And, that's (well one of many reasons) why you'll never get a salary cap in MLB. There is no way enough owners want one either.