The MLBPA, the labor union for Major League Baseball (MLB) players, has gone back and forth with the league in a spar potential salary cap proposals as part of collective bargaining agreement (CBA) negotiations, a move that possibly pre-empts a disastrous 2027 lockout.
Initially, the MLBPA attempted a proposal that included a soft salary floor of $150 million, an increase in the threshold of the first Competitive Balance Tax (CBT) tier up to $300 million (currently $237 million), and a minimum salary increase from $780,000 to $1.5 million.
This was quickly rejected by MLB, which tabled a counterproposal featuring a hard salary limit of $245.3 million (including benefits), and conversely a hard salary floor of $171.2 million.
The MLBPA is adamant in its rejection of anything approaching a salary cap, something which the MLB has not even bothered to propose since 1994, which was also the last time the MLB suffered a lockout.
Through that proposal, revenue sharing between the league and the players would be increased to 50%, though this means that players would effectively take home less money in years where revenue may fall, especially given that, unlike the other major leagues, MLB contracts are practically all fully guaranteed.
That proposal too will be rejected, as will many others by both sides as the hope to reach a deal in advance of the 2027 campaign. If a CBAA deal is not struck by then, a lockout may be unavoidable.
MLB is the only one of the four US major sports leagues (NFL, NHL, NBA, MLB) to not enforce a salary cap, nor does it enforce a spending floor, which in recent years means that a large gap has developed between high-spending teams like the champion LA Dodgers (which has a payroll of around $420 million), and the low spenders like the Miami Marlins (payroll c.$78 million).
With the league’s proposal, over half of all teams would fall afoul of either the cap or the floor, which would lead to massive player and wealth redistribution.
With the MLBPA’s proposal, however, the league may find it hard to maintain a competitive balance among franchises, a factor that is harming franchise values, particularly at smaller-market teams.
