Even though developmental expenses are high for MLB (is NHL and NBA scouting cheap?) MLB teams have to put much more money into development of players than other sports do. No, the scouting isn't cheap, but I would guess that there is much more scouting involved in baseball than other sports. I doubt to many of the other sports, except hockey, scout at the high school level as extensively or run player development programs in other countries. There is a big difference in how the sports are run so talking about how baseball has a smaller percentage of their expenses in MLB player contracts is really misleading. If they included money for all the minor league players(including signing bonuses) then there might be a good basis for comparison. Not overpaying for mediocrity is just a good business decision. I have no problem with the Yankees spending their money however they want. I have a problem with the lack of revenue sharing. Edit: It also doesn't seem reasonable to expect player salaries to increase with revenues when MLB is having record breaking years in attendance year after year. I could be wrong, but I think the average age of players is going down as well. Something to check into. If the average age is going down it seems likely that instead of signing that aging veteran to sit on the bench, teams are opting for a young cheap player instead.