Ideas to avoid a work stoppage in 2027.

Until they happen again in a decade or so?

 

It seems like every 20-30 years, there's a big one and then they just have the usual griping every 5-10 years when CBA's expire.

The NBA had big ones in 1999 and 2011 and it's been fine since.
The NFL had big ones in 1982 and 2012.
MLB had one in 1981 and 1994.

MLB is due for one. These things suck but ultimately they give the leagues a chance to fix a lot of structural issues that develop over 20-30 years of bandaid solutions. I think it's better to do it and get it over with rather than agree to a crappy agreement every 5 years that everyone spends the whole time complaining about. They affect the league's popularity for a bit but ultimately it recovers - and hopefully with a system that more people are happy with.

 

A cap is absolutely necessary and if they have to lose the whole season, then so be it. By all reports that have come out the last few weeks, it seems the owners are fully committed to a cap and therefore a floor as well. This will help all owners in some way and will be good for the overall health of the game. The players will have their own demands of course, and the owners should be willing to give the players a lot as long as they can get the cap and floor. Fan engagement in the game is at a great spot, so you hate to lose a whole season and that momentum. But I have no doubt that they would quickly get the fans back even if they lose a whole season. Not to mention the fact that fans will feel more engaged if there is a cap/floor and they finally feel that there is an even playing field. I will be very disappointed in any result other than a hard cap and a floor.

 

I want work stoppage. I hate the Dodgers. I'm in for anything to stop watching those moose knuckles win another one.

 

IMO you have to have some type of cap, you can't have some clubs spending a ridiculous amount of $$ and other teams like the Royals not spending enough, you need a floor and a ceiling...........I have a feeling there will be a large amount of the season lost and while it will suck it's almost necessary to right the ship

 

The primary purpose of revenue sharing is to make the owners of the lowest revenue teams money. Basically, rich teams are making so much money that revenue sharing is the rich teams paying off the poor teams to keep playing games so rich teams can make a ton of money and poor teams can make some. Your proposal addresses parity, but not the owners of small market owners that want to make money.

 

I think the NBA model is probably the cleanest long-term solution for MLB.

Tying total player salaries directly to basketball-related income (BRI) largely removes the big market vs. small market argument from labor negotiations. The players get a fixed percentage of league revenue, and the fight shifts to how that money is distributed among teams and distributed among players — not whether players are “taking too much” or owners are “crying poor.”

The NFL model works for football largely because national broadcasting revenue is centralized and evenly distributed. MLB doesn’t have that structure — local TV revenue is wildly unequal — so copying the NFL system wouldn’t translate cleanly.

If MLB instead agreed on a clearly defined “baseball-related income” pool and locked in a fixed percentage for players, future CBAs would become more mechanical. Negotiations would be about allocation and competitive balance mechanisms, not about trying to manipulate individual CBA levers to indirectly change the total labor share.

Cap or no cap is almost secondary. The key is agreeing on the total pie first. Once that’s settled, the pie is split to the owner's side and players' side. The owners are arguing amongst themselves over their slices and the players are arguing amongst themselves over their slices.

 

Interestingly, MLB continues to insist that they will have control of all TV rights by 2028. I think they now control about half the teams' rights, but how they plan to get teams like the Dodgers and Yankees out of their situation, I have no idea.

 

Baseball is a sport. MLB is a business that exists to use a sport to make money.

Parity is theoretically good for business, but that's the only reason any league strives for it.

 

There should be fixes for parity.
There should be fixes for players.
There should be fixes for owners.

MLB's primary purpose is to make the MLB owners money by providing games. Players play in the MLB to make money. A solution that only focuses on parity and ignores both or either the owners and players desire to make money is just not viable.

 

Has MLB said it will have control by 2028, and that the revenue from that control will be distributed evenly among the teams?

I just don't see the Dodgers being willing to give up the ~$4.5B they have left on their TV deal so they can receive an average amount of regional TV money (about $1B for that time span) without receiving a ton of money comparable with what they would be giving MLB. Numbers are approximate.

If MLB gets it, and revenue sharing is fixed with this deal, sure, NFL model might work.

 

True. Though there is only so much that can be squeezed out of some markets. Small market owners still want profits, and have the ability to stop any deal. They've used this power to get revenue sharing for themselves. The owners use a lot of this money to improve team to improve revenue, but it is on a case by case basis, and it depends on the individual finances of each team.

The thought that the money in revenue sharing should go only to the players is fan fiction.

 

But baseball is having record revenues and a growing fanbase despite a lack of parity right now. So it's harder to argue parity is necessary for baseball to succeed.

 

Manfred keeps referring to MLB's intent to control all media deals in 2028 as part of MLB's larger strategy but I agree - I see no reason the Dodgers or other teams would agree to that. Maybe they could do it if they share those rights unequally? Not sure.

Here is a recent article about the Dodgers' deal with the blurb at the end about this issue;

Q&A: What's the deal with the Dodgers' TV deal? Is MLB giving them special treatment? - Yahoo Sports

In 2028, when MLB national TV contracts expire, Commissioner Rob Manfred would like to offer traditional networks and streaming services the chance to bid not just on national broadcasts but on an all-baseball, all-the-time outlet where fans could watch any team, wherever they lived, and with no blackouts. With that, the league believes, it could strike gold — and then share the wealth among all 30 teams.

That would require teams to turn over their local broadcast rights to the league. The Dodgers’ local television revenues provide a massive competitive advantage. It’s hard to imagine Walter (and owners of other big-city teams with similar TV riches) surrendering those riches without the league offering him something significant in return.

Like what?

Perhaps a chance to exempt the Dodgers from sharing ticket revenue, or to secure the Japanese television rights now controlled by MLB. Maybe the league would buy SportsNet LA. Could be anything. But that is a 2028 issue. First up is collective bargaining, and the possibility of owners shutting down the sport next winter in pursuit of a salary cap.

Manfred: MLB has agreements in principle on new rights deals - Sports Media Watch

Manfred said he expects that rights to all 30 clubs will be available to include in a potential centralized option in 2028. That would mean teams like the Yankees, who own their own RSN, would have to be willing to in some way cede full control of their local rights. Manfred did not say exactly how MLB would get owners to go along with such a plan. “The best I can do for you on that right now is to say we’re not going to centralize local media as a standalone deal. There will have to be other gives and takes, that make sense for all the clubs.”

 

The fact that the timing this giant potential media rights change and the CBA don't line up seems problematic to me. It seems like both sides need to know the media/revenue landscape to make a good CBA deal, so if I were either side, I'd consider asking for a one year extension of the current system to get through 2027 so MLB can figure out the media setup. For the owners, they need to know their revenues to know what's best for player salaries. If the pie is going to grow much larger or get more evenly distributed, players would want to know that too.

 

I'm guessing the fines would be about 20% of the profits for some of the small market teams.

Would players be willing take a salary cap that limits their total salaries to 80% of what they were making? If no, the small markets are justified for not wanting their profits slashed by 20%.