A Right-Sized Reckoning Is Coming for Major League Baseball

[Fatbat]

Does anyone think that salaries may stagnate for a few years? 

[Patzky]

3 hours ago, DJL44 said:

It's even more expensive to have TWO crews follow a team around. This is one of the first costs I see getting cut - MLB will likely shrink to a single broadcast crew for each game. Each team will provide one on-air announcer for the booth and the video crew will be locals.

Indeed, an Oracle and Wrigley and Target video and production crew could optimize viewing angles and even the ambient sound levels and programming in a stadium they were dedicated to working. Local announcing talent for each team could float.

[Mike Sixel]

27 minutes ago, jmlease1 said:

Sports franchises are different though: there's far more profit to be had from the appreciation of the asset than from the operating of the business, which makes it different than almost any other business. It's why the Boston Celtics are going up for sale this year: it doesn't matter if they've lost $200M operating the franchise (they probably haven't), they're about to make $3B on the sale.

They aren't selling it for 3B if they are losing money every year.....

[Mike Sixel]

16 minutes ago, Fatbat said:

Does anyone think that salaries may stagnate for a few years? 

I think the mediocre veterans will continue to get squeezed by most teams. Overall? I don't think so, but it's possible. 

[The Great Hambino]

16 minutes ago, TheLeviathan said:

Honestly, no.  It's not.  I'm not sure where you got the 37M from, but that's not doable.

The Padres have a seriously engaged fan base and got to 40,000.  The Twins won't achieve 12 times that many fans.

This is year one of an entirely new method of distributing baseball broadcasts.  We didn't wake up one morning with a fully-formed cable television system in place where we could pay one price to see all* the games we wanted.  It took decades to grow from something incredibly niche into the dominant form of television consumption.

Cable isn't dead, but it is in hospice care.  Certainly a streaming or hybrid streaming/OTA/cable/satellite model can't currently match the revenue available from a 2024 RSN contract.  But you know what else can't?  A 2025 RSN contract.  Diamond's bankruptcy proceedings have confirmed that.  So TV revenue is dropping one way or another.  Given that, does it make more sense to get out on the front end of a new, growing model where you retain control of the terms of how your product is delivered, or do you continue to tether yourself to a model where revenue decline is a certainty and you lose control of the delivery?  St Peter can talk all he wants about how there's nothing they could do in the Bally/Comcast dispute, but they did choose to grant Bally that power in the first place.

Making any sort of long-term commitment to the RSN model would be like going all in on railroads in 1948

 

 

*In case some Captain Pedantic wants to swoop in here, I know it's not literally all the games, but it's basically all of them

[TheLeviathan]

2 minutes ago, The Great Hambino said:

This is year one of an entirely new method of distributing baseball broadcasts.  We didn't wake up one morning with a fully-formed cable television system in place where we could pay one price to see all* the games we wanted.  It took decades to grow from something incredibly niche into the dominant form of television consumption.

Cable isn't dead, but it is in hospice care.  Certainly a streaming or hybrid streaming/OTA/cable/satellite model can't currently match the revenue available from a 2024 RSN contract.  But you know what else can't?  A 2025 RSN contract.  Diamond's bankruptcy proceedings have confirmed that.  So TV revenue is dropping one way or another.  Given that, does it make more sense to get out on the front end of a new, growing model where you retain control of the terms of how your product is delivered, or do you continue to tether yourself to a model where revenue decline is a certainty and you lose control of the delivery?  St Peter can talk all he wants about how there's nothing they could do in the Bally/Comcast dispute, but they did choose to grant Bally that power in the first place.

Making any sort of long-term commitment to the RSN model would be like going all in on railroads in 1948

 

 

*In case some Captain Pedantic wants to swoop in here, I know it's not literally all the games, but it's basically all of them

To be clear...I'm not arguing against going away from the RSNs.  I have been advocating for that on this board for like 10 years now.  Especially against continuing with Bally's.  

I'm just making sure no one has pipedreams of reclaming that sweet, sweet 60M again.  We won't, I think the odds of 20M are remote.

The best thing that could happen is MLB wakes up to the barbarians at their gate and decides to stick their foot in the ground and change the way they share revenue for the long term.

[tony&rodney]

2 hours ago, BH67 said:

Like Northwest Airlines in the early 1990s? How much would that lack of a subsidy have hurt Minnesotans? It surely helped Delta maintain MSP as a hub airport.

Yes, one and the same description of the Pohlads. Many people here are upset about how the team is managed as a business. Then comes this description of why revenue issues are serious, and dozens of comments here seek solutions that are innovative but not easily or quickly achievable. Impatience with the status quo needs be leavened by the economic realities of the sport, however unpopular that is to note.

Things are what they are and hopefully solutions will emerge that allow normal people to enjoy baseball. We can be certain these things are out our hands, or at least mine.

Don't use Pohlad's purchase of the Twins or NWA as examples though. There were four other organizations willing to buy the Twins. MLB only approved Carl. $5M down with four more equal payments of $5M in the next years and a balloon of $7M ($32M total). It was a deal others would have liked to get in on in 1984. I have no rancor, whatsoever, towards the Pohlads but they were never saviors in my world.

NWA is what happens when government fails ... you get corporate raiders and carpetbaggers like Al Cecchi. He tore down a really successful company. He wasn't alone either.

I just enjoy baseball. It has been a real treat to see two fun teams (Detroit and Kansas City) win their recent series. The best I can offer on the revenue and media morass in MLB is whatever. What did people expect from an old boys club headed by the Manfred man?

[Linus]

I guess I am echoing RB here but I think an equally big problem for MLB is the declining interest in baseball. My son is in his 20s and none of his friends have even the slightest interest in baseball. In my neighborhood there are a bunch of kids and they are nuts for soccer but not one of them plays Little League. I think MLB has taken a short term profit only view and lost too many fans. Especially when TV has been a problem and how hard it was to be interested in baseball before the pace of play rules. It was unwatchable. 

[ashbury]

41 minutes ago, TheLeviathan said:

The best thing that could happen is MLB wakes up to the barbarians at their gate and decides to stick their foot in the ground and change the way they share revenue for the long term.

The ecosystem has been in place for many decades by now, and the present big-market owners paid a lot more for their franchises than folks like the Pohlads did.  If the Pohlads now want even-steven revenues, they're going to have to do something to make those other owners whole.  Much wailing and gnashing of teeth will ensue.

Small markets giving an infusion of capital to big markets.  I'm sure that will have no impact on payrolls.

This Can Only End Well

[TheLeviathan]

3 minutes ago, ashbury said:

The ecosystem has been in place for many decades by now, and the present big-market owners paid a lot more for their franchises than folks like the Pohlads did.  If the Pohlads now want even-steven revenues, they're going to have to do something to make those other owners whole.  Much wailing and gnashing of teeth will ensue.

Small markets giving an infusion of capital to big markets.  I'm sure that will have no impact on payrolls.

I don't know how that path is going to be paved.  It's a huge issue that has only been allowed to fester.

I don't have a lot of optimism for the ideal end to this problem.

[Jocko87]

3 hours ago, Woof Bronzer said:

The greedy, cheap, horrible Pohlads got a half billion dollar handout from the community.  The community has invested in this team. 

The Pohlads have made $1.5 billion on the value of the franchise no matter how poorly they perform.  Normal businesses don't operate this way.

Professional sports are not like other businesses.  

Now do literally every other major development in whatever city you want.  This isn't how these numbers work. 

[Jim wyllie]

Perhaps the reckoning a d right-sizing will force the players union's hand to consider a salary cap at last

[Fatbat]

1 hour ago, Mike Sixel said:

I think the mediocre veterans will continue to get squeezed by most teams. Overall? I don't think so, but it's possible. 

Agreed.  The big$, long term contracts won’t be given to as many guys this offseason outside of a select few.  I hate to say it but I fear the Pohlads becoming even cheaper. 

[chpettit19]

46 minutes ago, Bigfork Twins Guy said:

Maybe those owners in big markets will get the idea when teams start to contract.  They need a wake-up call for sure.

Contraction would be quite the turnabout from their openly stated plans to expand in the coming years. They've been pretty open about their plans to add 2 new teams once Oakland and Tampa figure out their stadiums. Both of those teams have figured out their stadiums. We're likely getting 2 new MLB teams in the next 5 years. It's another example of them wanting the money right now as the expansion fees for new owners will be substantial. But contraction isn't something on the horizon right now. Always a chance they screw this whole thing up so bad it happens, but teams are still selling for billions of dollars and plenty of billionaires still want to get their own team so there's got to be some sustainability seen by these people.

[Woof Bronzer]

2 hours ago, Mike Sixel said:

They aren't selling it for 3B if they are losing money every year.....

According to Forbes the least valuable franchise is worth $1b (Marlins).  The freaking A's are worth $1.2b.  I know it's just Forbes but still.  It's really hard to tank the value of a pro sports team.

[snellman]

10 hours ago, jmlease1 said:

There's going to be a real danger of actually having a problematic tier system within MLB related to revenues where teams like the Yankees, Dodgers and a small handful of others (maybe Mets and Cubs?) are operating with revenues that are far and away beyond what any other club is generating locally that gives them the ability to not have to change their models significantly when everyone else is cutting back substantially. You'll have a large chunk (15-20) teams that function somewhat in the same ecosphere for payroll, and then a handful of teams that are flipping out non-competitive payrolls. but what's problematic is those structures, especially at the top can ossify.

Look at what's happening in the Premier League, where clubs like Manchester City, Chelsea, Tottenham, Liverpool, Manchester United, and Arsenal live in an entirely different world of revenue generation, in part because they've been so consistently in the top 6 of the Premier league for so long, elevating their status locally, regionally, nationally, and internationally and drastically increasing their ability to generate sponsorship and merchandising revenue, not to mention match-day revenue. The attempts at financial fair play rules imposed to stop another Citeh coming in and buying their way up the top and staying there until their revenues catch up have also made it safer than ever for those "big clubs" to stay at the top, no longer fear relegation, etc.

How do you manage baseball if the Yankees and Dodgers are always so much more successful than everyone else? or is MLB fine with that? Do they think that expanded playoffs with short series at the start provides enough upset potential that it doesn't matter if a big market big money team wins 110 games?

I have said this over and over, I will never understand why the MLBPA is not open to a salary cap and a salary floor. Wait, I know why. No matter what they say about caring for all players, they only care about the top 1% that gets the 10 year 400 million deals.  A cap and floor would make the game in general so much more even and better, but unfortunately we will never see it.

[DocBauer]

As a reminder, I work for a computations company. Not the biggest like Comcast, or Time Warner, but big enough to matter. 

The cable cutting is very real, and growing weekly, monthly, etc. Smaller companies across the country have already dropped TV service to their customers, or have advised them to seak alternatives by the end of this year, or early next year.

I brought this up early in the year, and offseason after cost cutting announcements, because it's real. It's entirely possible the MAJOR markets such as LA, Chicago, Boston, Philadelphia, Atlanta, and even NY, will also be pinched in the future. But for the NOW, they have enough of a population base that they may not be affected substantially for at least a few years.

I'm NOT excusing Twins ownership from ADVANCING payroll year to year before the inexcusable bombshell of lowering payroll this season, and completely BLOWING viewership across the Midwest and alienating and basically pissing off a huge chunk of their fan base. And im also NOT patting myself on the back for being an oracle of "what is to come". But I've said before, and agree with the OP, that there is a financial reckoning coming for MLB.

I don't want baseball to decline, much less die. But as much as the Twins are going to be squeezed by the whole Bally debacle, and the impending changes, it's potentially worse for other teams. I believe the Rangers were getting something like $65-70M from Bally/Diamond Vision? Well, that's now gone or close to being gone.

And I'm NOT feeling sorry or have empathy for $B owners who NEVER open their books...other than the Braves and the Jay's due to being publicly owned and being forced to...who look at profit in what is almost certainly a very small portion of their enterprises by owning an ENTERTAINMENT franchise like a MLB team. I excuse none of them. But when the Golden Goose suddenly passes away, there is going to be a major shift in how EVERYTHING works in MLB.

It began in 2023, increased in 2024, will gain momentum, and will only be heavier in 2026 and beyond.

What has CONTINUED to frustrate and confuse me to exasperation the past few years is that NEITHER the MLBPA OR MLB ownership has EVER been progressive or smart enough to recognize what is and has been happening!

Is it just "tradition" going back to mid 20th century that baseball owners should grapple for the last remaining $ available on a yearly basis? I mean, teams have changed ownership multiple times over the decades, but their remains a foul stench of obtuseness to me. And the union...despite some recent changes to assist MILB in $ and benefits...has still been more concerned about escalating salaries for STAR players and less concerned about the rank and file players.

Meanwhile, the NFL, decades ago the 2nd child of professional sports, created an even financial platform the last 20-30 years...with different FA tweaks...to assure that every organization had an even playing field in regard to what was on the field. NOT PROFITS! There's still enough local broadcasting and merchandise sales, and home ticket sales, etc, to make as much $ as possible. But the ON THE FIELD TEAM has a minimum and maximum to adhere to. (The NBA is similar, but they also have a couple loopholes here and there for teams to play with).

Basically, every NFL team has to play on the same field, pun only partially intended. And it's up to ownership, the FO, and the coaches on the field to build the best team you can. If you stink at it, you stink. If you do good, you win. If you do either consistently, we'll, you're consistent either way. But it ALSO allows teams to make changes, make moves, make turnarounds, and suddenly be relevant again.

As has been pointed out by others, MLB has guaranteed contracts. The NFL does not. But as also pointed out, more and more, the NFL is guaranteeing percentages of contracts. 

Again, what's baffling to me is that neither side of ownership and the MLBPA seem to be able to recognize that the world they WANT to embrace just doesn't exist any longer. It's actually quite likely there will be legal action in the near future from the union as to collusion of the owners suddenly holding down salaries since for MOST teams they are going to see a RAPID reduction in viewership income UNTIL/UNLESS streaming services start to "pick up the bill". But that's going to take time.

MAYBE that FORCES MLB owners to finally open their books. Maybe not. But even if they do, it doesn't change the financial fact that the world and the viewership world is changing fast and drastically. 

Yes, I'm being long winded, but all of this is a reality coming to a ballpark near you SOON.

In the next 2 years, or less, you will see litigation from the players union for collusion that might not swept under the rug again. What BOTH SIDES could do is FINALLY sit down and HONESTLY put forth a plan where revenue sharing is UNIVERSAL. The 5 or 6 top market teams will BALK at that initially, UNTIL/UNLESS they realize they would be facing a potential year long strike, as well as time spent in Congress debates. At that point, each side...baseball gods be praised...will decide a floor, and a cap, like the NFL, will make sense for EVERYONE, rather than see MLB torn down.

AT THAT POINT, teams will have a 3-5 year time frame to "grace in" existing contracts on the books to comply with the new parameters.

From then on, every team, similar to the NFL format, will have an equitable chance to compete based on how well they run their organization. And the league, as a whole, will HOPEFULLY, build up the league as a WHOLE for public fan support and viewership. And EVERY team, like the NFL, will still have opportunities to make as much $ as they can from merchandising and every other advertising format and stadium naming and other options as they can.

This MIGHT sound long range, but it's not. There is a major change coming to MLB whether we like it or not. The question remains, are the parties involved smart enough to figure it out before it's too late?

[Fire Dan Gladden]

28 minutes ago, DocBauer said:

As a reminder, I work for a computations company. Not the biggest like Comcast, or Time Warner, but big enough to matter. 

The cable cutting is very real, and growing weekly, monthly, etc. Smaller companies across the country have already dropped TV service to their customers, or have advised them to seak alternatives by the end of this year, or early next year.

I brought this up early in the year, and offseason after cost cutting announcements, because it's real. It's entirely possible the MAJOR markets such as LA, Chicago, Boston, Philadelphia, Atlanta, and even NY, will also be pinched in the future. But for the NOW, they have enough of a population base that they may not be affected substantially for at least a few years.

I'm NOT excusing Twins ownership from ADVANCING payroll year to year before the inexcusable bombshell of lowering payroll this season, and completely BLOWING viewership across the Midwest and alienating and basically pissing off a huge chunk of their fan base. And im also NOT patting myself on the back for being an oracle of "what is to come". But I've said before, and agree with the OP, that there is a financial reckoning coming for MLB.

I don't want baseball to decline, much less die. But as much as the Twins are going to be squeezed by the whole Bally debacle, and the impending changes, it's potentially worse for other teams. I believe the Rangers were getting something like $65-70M from Bally/Diamond Vision? Well, that's now gone or close to being gone.

And I'm NOT feeling sorry or have empathy for $B owners who NEVER open their books...other than the Braves and the Jay's due to being publicly owned and being forced to...who look at profit in what is almost certainly a very small portion of their enterprises by owning an ENTERTAINMENT franchise like a MLB team. I excuse none of them. But when the Golden Goose suddenly passes away, there is going to be a major shift in how EVERYTHING works in MLB.

It began in 2023, increased in 2024, will gain momentum, and will only be heavier in 2026 and beyond.

What has CONTINUED to frustrate and confuse me to exasperation the past few years is that NEITHER the MLBPA OR MLB ownership has EVER been progressive or smart enough to recognize what is and has been happening!

Is it just "tradition" going back to mid 20th century that baseball owners should grapple for the last remaining $ available on a yearly basis? I mean, teams have changed ownership multiple times over the decades, but their remains a foul stench of obtuseness to me. And the union...despite some recent changes to assist MILB in $ and benefits...has still been more concerned about escalating salaries for STAR players and less concerned about the rank and file players.

Meanwhile, the NFL, decades ago the 2nd child of professional sports, created an even financial platform the last 20-30 years...with different FA tweaks...to assure that every organization had an even playing field in regard to what was on the field. NOT PROFITS! There's still enough local broadcasting and merchandise sales, and home ticket sales, etc, to make as much $ as possible. But the ON THE FIELD TEAM has a minimum and maximum to adhere to. (The NBA is similar, but they also have a couple loopholes here and there for teams to play with).

Basically, every NFL team has to play on the same field, pun only partially intended. And it's up to ownership, the FO, and the coaches on the field to build the best team you can. If you stink at it, you stink. If you do good, you win. If you do either consistently, we'll, you're consistent either way. But it ALSO allows teams to make changes, make moves, make turnarounds, and suddenly be relevant again.

As has been pointed out by others, MLB has guaranteed contracts. The NFL does not. But as also pointed out, more and more, the NFL is guaranteeing percentages of contracts. 

Again, what's baffling to me is that neither side of ownership and the MLBPA seem to be able to recognize that the world they WANT to embrace just doesn't exist any longer. It's actually quite likely there will be legal action in the near future from the union as to collusion of the owners suddenly holding down salaries since for MOST teams they are going to see a RAPID reduction in viewership income UNTIL/UNLESS streaming services start to "pick up the bill". But that's going to take time.

MAYBE that FORCES MLB owners to finally open their books. Maybe not. But even if they do, it doesn't change the financial fact that the world and the viewership world is changing fast and drastically. 

Yes, I'm being long winded, but all of this is a reality coming to a ballpark near you SOON.

In the next 2 years, or less, you will see litigation from the players union for collusion that might not swept under the rug again. What BOTH SIDES could do is FINALLY sit down and HONESTLY put forth a plan where revenue sharing is UNIVERSAL. The 5 or 6 top market teams will BALK at that initially, UNTIL/UNLESS they realize they would be facing a potential year long strike, as well as time spent in Congress debates. At that point, each side...baseball gods be praised...will decide a floor, and a cap, like the NFL, will make sense for EVERYONE, rather than see MLB torn down.

AT THAT POINT, teams will have a 3-5 year time frame to "grace in" existing contracts on the books to comply with the new parameters.

From then on, every team, similar to the NFL format, will have an equitable chance to compete based on how well they run their organization. And the league, as a whole, will HOPEFULLY, build up the league as a WHOLE for public fan support and viewership. And EVERY team, like the NFL, will still have opportunities to make as much $ as they can from merchandising and every other advertising format and stadium naming and other options as they can.

This MIGHT sound long range, but it's not. There is a major change coming to MLB whether we like it or not. The question remains, are the parties involved smart enough to figure it out before it's too late?

I don't think MLB is here due to lack of intelligence or foresight.  I think they are here because the richer teams currently have no incentive to change (currently, mind you) as they have the best of both worlds: regular success and large revenue streams.  Also, owners have to approve all sales, so they determine who gets to join the club, denying any real change proponents (Mark Cuban...).

As long as teams like Tampa, Miami, even Oakland continue to exist and be profitable or increase in value, things will never change on a league-wide scale.  I fear the only real change will come when teams are truly losing money AND overall value with contraction a real issue (not a political one like our good friend Bud tried to push).  By then it may be too late.

The reason you will never see a salary cap has to do with trust, both amongst the owners and between the owners and players.  It would require ALL teams to open their books to each other and (to an extent) the MLBPA to ensure that a negotiated cap is "fair".  That will never, ever happen.

Holy cow is this going to be a depressing offseason...

[dxpavelka]

Until owners AND players agree to a revenue sharing / salary cap model I will have NO sympathy for anyone other than the fans.

 

[DJL44]

The MLB minimum salary already sets the floor. If you want a minimum salary of $2M I'm sure the players would agree to that.

The players would make less money with cap and floor than they do now. That's why they haven't agreed to it. 

Fix the revenue sharing incentives so winning is more profitable than losing and filling the stands is a priority.

[TheLeviathan]

4 minutes ago, DJL44 said:

The MLB minimum salary already sets the floor. If you want a minimum salary of $2M I'm sure the players would agree to that.

The players would make less money with cap and floor than they do now. That's why they haven't agreed to it. 

Fix the revenue sharing incentives so winning is more profitable than losing and filling the stands is a priority.

A true floor would address middle tier of salaries.  It's why you see a lot of roleplayers in the NHL and NBA making significant money.  The only players who would actually make less in a salary cap world are the super elite guys.  Even then, like in the NHL and NFL, they just pay those guys and figure out the rest later.

Media revenues should not be dependent on winning.  You could do away with revenue sharing entirely if you just pooled media money and split it evenly.   It is THE driving force of inequity in baseball. 

[chpettit19]

12 hours ago, DocBauer said:

As a reminder, I work for a computations company. Not the biggest like Comcast, or Time Warner, but big enough to matter. 

The cable cutting is very real, and growing weekly, monthly, etc. Smaller companies across the country have already dropped TV service to their customers, or have advised them to seak alternatives by the end of this year, or early next year.

I brought this up early in the year, and offseason after cost cutting announcements, because it's real. It's entirely possible the MAJOR markets such as LA, Chicago, Boston, Philadelphia, Atlanta, and even NY, will also be pinched in the future. But for the NOW, they have enough of a population base that they may not be affected substantially for at least a few years.

I'm NOT excusing Twins ownership from ADVANCING payroll year to year before the inexcusable bombshell of lowering payroll this season, and completely BLOWING viewership across the Midwest and alienating and basically pissing off a huge chunk of their fan base. And im also NOT patting myself on the back for being an oracle of "what is to come". But I've said before, and agree with the OP, that there is a financial reckoning coming for MLB.

I don't want baseball to decline, much less die. But as much as the Twins are going to be squeezed by the whole Bally debacle, and the impending changes, it's potentially worse for other teams. I believe the Rangers were getting something like $65-70M from Bally/Diamond Vision? Well, that's now gone or close to being gone.

And I'm NOT feeling sorry or have empathy for $B owners who NEVER open their books...other than the Braves and the Jay's due to being publicly owned and being forced to...who look at profit in what is almost certainly a very small portion of their enterprises by owning an ENTERTAINMENT franchise like a MLB team. I excuse none of them. But when the Golden Goose suddenly passes away, there is going to be a major shift in how EVERYTHING works in MLB.

It began in 2023, increased in 2024, will gain momentum, and will only be heavier in 2026 and beyond.

What has CONTINUED to frustrate and confuse me to exasperation the past few years is that NEITHER the MLBPA OR MLB ownership has EVER been progressive or smart enough to recognize what is and has been happening!

Is it just "tradition" going back to mid 20th century that baseball owners should grapple for the last remaining $ available on a yearly basis? I mean, teams have changed ownership multiple times over the decades, but their remains a foul stench of obtuseness to me. And the union...despite some recent changes to assist MILB in $ and benefits...has still been more concerned about escalating salaries for STAR players and less concerned about the rank and file players.

Meanwhile, the NFL, decades ago the 2nd child of professional sports, created an even financial platform the last 20-30 years...with different FA tweaks...to assure that every organization had an even playing field in regard to what was on the field. NOT PROFITS! There's still enough local broadcasting and merchandise sales, and home ticket sales, etc, to make as much $ as possible. But the ON THE FIELD TEAM has a minimum and maximum to adhere to. (The NBA is similar, but they also have a couple loopholes here and there for teams to play with).

Basically, every NFL team has to play on the same field, pun only partially intended. And it's up to ownership, the FO, and the coaches on the field to build the best team you can. If you stink at it, you stink. If you do good, you win. If you do either consistently, we'll, you're consistent either way. But it ALSO allows teams to make changes, make moves, make turnarounds, and suddenly be relevant again.

As has been pointed out by others, MLB has guaranteed contracts. The NFL does not. But as also pointed out, more and more, the NFL is guaranteeing percentages of contracts. 

Again, what's baffling to me is that neither side of ownership and the MLBPA seem to be able to recognize that the world they WANT to embrace just doesn't exist any longer. It's actually quite likely there will be legal action in the near future from the union as to collusion of the owners suddenly holding down salaries since for MOST teams they are going to see a RAPID reduction in viewership income UNTIL/UNLESS streaming services start to "pick up the bill". But that's going to take time.

MAYBE that FORCES MLB owners to finally open their books. Maybe not. But even if they do, it doesn't change the financial fact that the world and the viewership world is changing fast and drastically. 

Yes, I'm being long winded, but all of this is a reality coming to a ballpark near you SOON.

In the next 2 years, or less, you will see litigation from the players union for collusion that might not swept under the rug again. What BOTH SIDES could do is FINALLY sit down and HONESTLY put forth a plan where revenue sharing is UNIVERSAL. The 5 or 6 top market teams will BALK at that initially, UNTIL/UNLESS they realize they would be facing a potential year long strike, as well as time spent in Congress debates. At that point, each side...baseball gods be praised...will decide a floor, and a cap, like the NFL, will make sense for EVERYONE, rather than see MLB torn down.

AT THAT POINT, teams will have a 3-5 year time frame to "grace in" existing contracts on the books to comply with the new parameters.

From then on, every team, similar to the NFL format, will have an equitable chance to compete based on how well they run their organization. And the league, as a whole, will HOPEFULLY, build up the league as a WHOLE for public fan support and viewership. And EVERY team, like the NFL, will still have opportunities to make as much $ as they can from merchandising and every other advertising format and stadium naming and other options as they can.

This MIGHT sound long range, but it's not. There is a major change coming to MLB whether we like it or not. The question remains, are the parties involved smart enough to figure it out before it's too late?

December 2026 is when the current CBA runs out. That's when we really get to see what this league (MLB and MLBPA) is capable of. The 2027 season already feels like a long shot. Unless they start really putting work into what the future of this league looks like soon.

[Riverbrian]

13 hours ago, snellman said:

I have said this over and over, I will never understand why the MLBPA is not open to a salary cap and a salary floor. Wait, I know why. No matter what they say about caring for all players, they only care about the top 1% that gets the 10 year 400 million deals.  A cap and floor would make the game in general so much more even and better, but unfortunately we will never see it.

To my understanding.

The Owners would sign up quickly for a cap. The Players are strongly against it. 

The players would quickly sign up for a floor. The Owners are strongly against it. 

And therefore... We have what we have. Year after Year after Year after Year. 

[Dave Borton]

MLB is notoriously slow to action like many other institutions.

What they need to do is sit down with Tony Clark and suggest that four of the most strategic thinking players reps and he join Manfred and four progressive owners to dream a 5- and 10-yr plan for MLB. 

The game is fading in popularity. It has the oldest demographic in all of sports. How do they shift their own thinking from a perceived captive audience and instead deal with reality. Not about expansion but to solidify the entertainment value and sports quality of the game..

Deal with economic reality but dream. Look forward rather than using myopic, parochial view.

[Squirrel]

13 hours ago, snellman said:

I have said this over and over, I will never understand why the MLBPA is not open to a salary cap and a salary floor. Wait, I know why. No matter what they say about caring for all players, they only care about the top 1% that gets the 10 year 400 million deals.  A cap and floor would make the game in general so much more even and better, but unfortunately we will never see it.

Just to clarify … the players don’t want to consider a cap because owners won’t consider a reasonable floor. I’m sure there’s a compromise in there somewhere, but owners need to be more transparent about the money. They don’t want to be. Thats more of the problem.

[The Great Hambino]

1 hour ago, Squirrel said:

Just to clarify … the players don’t want to consider a cap because owners won’t consider a reasonable floor. I’m sure there’s a compromise in there somewhere, but owners need to be more transparent about the money. They don’t want to be. Thats more of the problem.

I believe during the last CBA negotiations the owners proposing a floor somewhere between 34-56% of the cap, depending on what you want to call the cap in a tiered luxury tax system.  The NFL, NBA, and NHL have floors between 74% - 90% of the cap.  There certainly would be a need to really ramp up revenue sharing to get in that range (plus other things like increased minimum salaries, maybe fewer arb years), but this shows why the players don't trust that increased revenue sharing will be reinvested into player salaries.  And I can't blame them.

[TheLeviathan]

2 hours ago, Squirrel said:

Just to clarify … the players don’t want to consider a cap because owners won’t consider a reasonable floor. I’m sure there’s a compromise in there somewhere, but owners need to be more transparent about the money. They don’t want to be. Thats more of the problem.

Their anti-trust exemption should be predicated on full financial transparency.  It's absurd that it isn't.

[P Meyer]

On 10/3/2024 at 9:01 AM, nicksaviking said:

Can't agree with this. The revenue from sports betting is insane, the billionaire's would happily take this income regardless of the health of their sport. The NFL owners are thriving and they're the ones pushing the sports betting the hardest.

Yeah...I have a tough time understanding how sports gambling hurts baseball revenue and interest.

[P Meyer]

I feel like the Twins organization making market-size excuses is a tradition for as long as I can remember. No one cares what your payroll is if you are a contending team. If you want to contend for as cheap as possible then you probably need to invest in ways/people to ensure you get the most out of your young and inexpensive talent.

[purplesoldier4u]

On 10/3/2024 at 9:39 AM, Brock Beauchamp said:

The cash cow is gone.

The cash cow is never gone, look at the NFL and NBA. MLB needs to change and the first place to start in to cut the season down to about 120 games and make sure the right owners are with teams in the right markets.

 

That being the case, MLB teams still bring in a $100+ million in national revenue alone, but due to a few large market teams not wanting to share, the national deals will never explode like other leagues; hell, even the NHL is finally beginning to understand that