It's a long article, but well done at bringing up all of the various sides to the issue of overall parity and payrolls.

Is MLB Parity Possible Without A Salary Cap? - MLB Trade Rumors

Evan Drellich of The Athletic spoke to a source who made it clear ownership will push for a salary cap during upcoming CBA negotiations.  But according to Drellich’s colleague Ken Rosenthal, a salary cap is “considered highly unlikely by many in the sport” and “many player agents and club executives are skeptical games will be lost” in 2027.

Even if this round of negotiations doesn’t result in a cap, I think it’ll happen in my lifetime.  If necessary, MLBTR can adapt to that new world and hopefully become experts in explaining salary cap nuances.

The purported goal of ownership is not to get a salary cap, though.  It’s said to be parity, or competitive balance.  That doesn’t mean every team has an equal chance to win each year or dynasties are impossible.  It does mean that all 30 teams have roughly the same ability to sign top free agents and retain their own stars.  I think fans want a small market team like the Pirates to have about the same chance as the Dodgers to sign Kyle Tucker, to be able to keep Paul Skenes.  Perhaps they want a world where teams can differentiate from each other based on drafting ability, player development, shrewd trades, and the intelligence of their allotted free agent signings, but not so much on payroll.

....

But in the name of fairness and competitive balance, why is it that no real penalties exist for running extremely low payrolls?

As Rosenthal and Drellich noted in November, “If a team’s final luxury-tax payroll is not one and a half times the amount it receives in a given season from local revenue sharing, it will likely stand a better chance of losing a grievance for not properly using its revenue-sharing money to improve on-field performance, which the CBA requires.”  They go on to add that “the Marlins were expected to be among the highest revenue-sharing recipients at roughly $70 million if not more,” which would necessitate a $105MM CBT payroll.

The CBA specifically says, “each Club shall use its revenue sharing receipts (including any distributions from the Commissioner’s Discretionary Fund) in an effort to improve its performance on the field.”  If a team falls short of the 1.5x threshold and the MLBPA files a grievance, it’s on the team to demonstrate that it did use its revenue sharing funds to improve on-field performance.

The Marlins ran the game’s lowest CBT payroll in 2025 at about $87MM.  Their 2026 CBT payroll is around $80MM right now.  The MLBPA’s grievances on this seem to go nowhere, lingering for years and getting settled in CBA negotiations.  I’ve seen no evidence a team has been penalized in any way for failing to meet the 1.5x floor called for in the CBA.  One can imagine that if low-spender penalties had been added in 1997 when the luxury tax came into being, certain ownership groups would not have purchased teams and other, better ones might have come in.

---

The article continues at the link above. The Marlins came up a lot given that we're reportedly receiving around $70M in revenue sharing, yet not spending the required 1.5x that on payroll (the team always argues they're putting money into improving drafting, minors etc.)

23 hours ago, rmc523 said:

The Marlins came up a lot given that we're reportedly receiving around $70M in revenue sharing, yet not spending the required 1.5x that on payroll

I’m new here and my interest in baseball faded for a long time due to the financial structure for the haves and have nots.

I’d eat whatever work stoppage it requires to get a cap. If there’s a cap, a floor isn’t needed IMO

1 minute ago, RaylanGivens said:

I’m new here and my interest in baseball faded for a long time due to the financial structure for the haves and have nots.

I’d eat whatever work stoppage it requires to get a cap. If there’s a cap, a floor isn’t needed IMO

Welcome! I understand where you're coming from. However, a floor is going to be one of a few requirements by the players to concede the cap, more than likely. Can't continue having owners being so unwilling to spend and be uncompetitive. If they're going to cap potential earnings, they have to raise the minimums to balance it out.

1 minute ago, Michael said:

Welcome! I understand where you're coming from. However, a floor is going to be one of a few requirements by the players to concede the cap, more than likely. Can't continue having owners being so unwilling to spend and be uncompetitive. If they're going to cap potential earnings, they have to raise the minimums to balance it out.

Thanks! Really happy to be here and look forward to easing into the community.

And I am fine with a floor. I just believe a cap puts the pressure on owners to get there, but I have no reason to fight a floor, if that makes sense

Edited January 25Jan 25 by RaylanGivens

49 minutes ago, RaylanGivens said:

Thanks! Really happy to be here and look forward to easing into the community.

And I am fine with a floor. I just believe a cap puts the pressure on owners to get there, but I have no reason to fight a floor, if that makes sense

It could but I do worry they'll look at it and try to compete to see how far below the cap they can stay, while staying competitive - which some teams have!

Suppose they could offer alternative incentives to spending and extending their homegrown stars rather than a flat "floor" - but personally I'd just like to see that payroll disparity start disappearing. Make owners invest in their teams and certainly it'll come back to them. And if not, sell. Haha.

12 minutes ago, Michael said:

It could but I do worry they'll look at it and try to compete to see how far below the cap they can stay, while staying competitive - which some teams have!

Suppose they could offer alternative incentives to spending and extending their homegrown stars rather than a flat "floor" - but personally I'd just like to see that payroll disparity start disappearing. Make owners invest in their teams and certainly it'll come back to them. And if not, sell. Haha.

Yeah, I definitely see your point. They need to make the revenue a lot closer to even as well.

Now, someone like Sherman can harp on competitive disadvantage and it’s not false, even if it is an excuse. With a cap, the excuse should disappear.. but you’re probably right, that it won’t

Some people think a salary cap wouldn't help. I really want to disagree with them, but they sound like they know what they're talking about: https://www.forbes.com/sites/maurybrown/2025/04/30/the-illusion-that-a-salary-cap-in-major-league-baseball-will-create-parity/

Here's another article on the subject from ESPN.com from 4 days ago: https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/47620464/mlb-2026-kyle-tucker-los-angeles-dodgers-free-agency-labor-cba-offseason

Would love to see a floor of around 120mil (mostly to make Bruce sweat) and I'd also like to have a cap - although not sure what that cap would be.

As for the floor there could be some wiggle room like maybe once every 6 years or so you could dip below for a teardown season but you'd have to be back over the floor or increase payroll by 30% the following year after the teardown (whichever is the lesser number) and then the following be over the floor again no matter what or lose all revenue sharing.

I didn't use to favor a cap but the Doyers thing is disgusting at this juncture and unaffordable for all teams save for a handful.

Crazy paragraph....

Texas won the World Series as a No. 5 seed against No. 6 seed Arizona in 2023, the last time the Dodgers lost in the postseason. They responded over the next two-plus years by signing Ohtani, Yoshinobu Yamamoto, Tucker, two-time Cy Young winner Blake Snell, right-hander Tyler Glasnow, utilityman Tommy Edman, reliever Tanner Scott, three-time reliever of the year Edwin Díaz and Japanese sensation Roki Sasaki for a combined $1.8 billion. The guarantee to those nine players is more than the Rays, Marlins, Pirates and A's have each spent in the entirety of the 21st century.

8 minutes ago, hovertical said:

Would love to see a floor of around 120mil (mostly to make Bruce sweat) and I'd also like to have a cap - although not sure what that cap would be.

As for the floor there could be some wiggle room like maybe once every 6 years or so you could dip below for a teardown season but you'd have to be back over the floor or increase payroll by 30% the following year after the teardown (whichever is the lesser number) and then the following be over the floor again no matter what or lose all revenue sharing.

I didn't use to favor a cap but the Doyers thing is disgusting at this juncture and unaffordable for all teams save for a handful.

I think they need to actually enforce the revenue sharing rules. The Marlins, for instance, are basically ignoring the requirement of revenue sharing (I can't remember what the rule is, but you're supposed to spend X% of what you receive), and there's only ever the "threat" of a grievance, which itself has no teeth.

Meanwhile, teams on the bottom can claim they're investing in infrastructure and facilities to skirt around those requirements, and nothing happens.

While the Dodgers (or Mets, etc) ability to spend billions on players is obnoxious, does a cap only result in them investing a TON more money in the pipeline (draft, minors, etc) instead of on particular players?

39 minutes ago, rmc523 said:

I think they need to actually enforce the revenue sharing rules. The Marlins, for instance, are basically ignoring the requirement of revenue sharing (I can't remember what the rule is, but you're supposed to spend X% of what you receive), and there's only ever the "threat" of a grievance, which itself has no teeth.

Meanwhile, teams on the bottom can claim they're investing in infrastructure and facilities to skirt around those requirements, and nothing happens.

While the Dodgers (or Mets, etc) ability to spend billions on players is obnoxious, does a cap only result in them investing a TON more money in the pipeline (draft, minors, etc) instead of on particular players?

I don't fault the Dodgers for spending money. It's not against the rules and if you're a fan of them then it must be amazing. But half a billion is not sustainable for all but a few teams.

I would love to see them enforcing revenue sharing too and I do not understand at all why they don't. I sure AF wouldn't want my money as an owner going to a slimy pos like Bruce who doesn't care and doesn't invest.

Salary floor would take care of that revenue sharing issue though too and they could see it at a level that only allows serious owners into their club who aren't just there to run a franchise as their personal ATM machine.

Edited February 25Feb 25 by hovertical

Interesting twist to all of this.....

https://www.cbssports.com/mlb/news/mlb-players-association-tony-clark-resigns/

Tony Clark, executive director of the MLB Players Association, is expected to resign, The Athletic reported Tuesday. The stunning news comes just months before the current Collective Bargaining Agreement is set to expire on Dec. 1.

"You definitely don't want things to be a distraction going into December," Marcus Semien, a member of the MLBPA's executive subcommittee, told reporters, including the New York Post, on Tuesday, adding Clark did not discuss his resignation with union leadership ahead of time. "So that's all I can really say. Maybe (that is) why this is happening now."  

Clark and the MLBPA are under federal investigation by the Eastern District of New York. Prosecutors are looking into whether a licensing company co-founded by the MLBPA and the NFL players' union, OneTeam Partners, was being used to financially enrich the union leaders. The full scope of the investigation into the company is unclear.

6 hours ago, rmc523 said:

Interesting twist to all of this.....

https://www.cbssports.com/mlb/news/mlb-players-association-tony-clark-resigns/

Tony Clark, executive director of the MLB Players Association, is expected to resign, The Athletic reported Tuesday. The stunning news comes just months before the current Collective Bargaining Agreement is set to expire on Dec. 1.

"You definitely don't want things to be a distraction going into December," Marcus Semien, a member of the MLBPA's executive subcommittee, told reporters, including the New York Post, on Tuesday, adding Clark did not discuss his resignation with union leadership ahead of time. "So that's all I can really say. Maybe (that is) why this is happening now."  

Clark and the MLBPA are under federal investigation by the Eastern District of New York. Prosecutors are looking into whether a licensing company co-founded by the MLBPA and the NFL players' union, OneTeam Partners, was being used to financially enrich the union leaders. The full scope of the investigation into the company is unclear.

On 2/17/2026 at 4:40 PM, Admin said: