How MLB’s Next CBA Could Reshape the Future for the Minnesota Twins

[Cody Christie]

Image courtesy of © Brett Davis-Imagn Images

Major League Baseball is inching toward a critical crossroads. The current Collective Bargaining Agreement expires at the end of the 2026 season, and both the league and the MLB Players Association are preparing for a heated negotiation cycle that could spill into the 2027 campaign. That uncertainty has many players, owners, and fans bracing for the possibility of another lockout. Long-standing debates over a potential salary cap, competitive balance, and revenue distribution sit at the core of the tension.

Twins fans are watching closely because the next CBA could bring changes that reshape the franchise’s future. While a lockout would be painful in the moment, the resulting agreement might benefit mid-market clubs like Minnesota in surprising ways.

Salary Cap and Salary Floor Possibilities
For decades, the Twins have lived in a league that rewards massive spending. The Dodgers, Yankees, and Phillies regularly show what happens when a team pours resources into the roster. Their path to October often looks much smoother than the one available to teams operating on tighter budgets. Outliers break through from time to time, but the numbers are clear. World Series contenders tend to come from the top of the payroll rankings.

Owners are again pushing for a salary cap, an idea players continue to reject. But if the topic gains traction, it would come with a salary floor. That part of the conversation matters deeply for Minnesota. A salary floor would force the Twins to invest a certain amount in payroll each season. Fans frustrated by dips in spending would welcome the mandate because it would align payroll with competitive goals rather than fluctuate with market conditions or ownership preferences.

A cap system would introduce new rules and restrictions, but for a franchise that rarely pushes past the middle of the spending pack, the ceiling matters far less than the floor. A consistent spending baseline could help the Twins maintain depth and avoid seasons where their roster relies too heavily on luck.

Television Revenue and the Shift from Regional Networks
The collapse of regional sports networks has hit several clubs hard, and the Twins are among the most affected. The move to Twins.TV last season brought greater accessibility for fans but created financial uncertainty. Under the old RSN model, teams received guaranteed broadcast revenue. Under the new setup, Minnesota likely saw a significant drop in media income.

This is why league-wide media restructuring could be a massive win for the Twins. MLB is pushing toward a more unified national broadcast approach, and major platforms like ESPN and Netflix have shown interest. If the league can bundle local rights into a national package and distribute revenue more evenly, mid-market teams would benefit immediately.

For the Twins, that could mean restoring lost revenue and creating long-term financial stability. In a sport where media money drives payroll decisions, a stronger national model would give Minnesota far more flexibility.

Competitive Balance and a Changing League Structure
Competitive balance is the heartbeat of CBA negotiations. Every issue, from revenue sharing to expansion, connects back to leveling the field between massive and mid-sized markets. MLB could pursue several structural changes, including a salary floor, a stricter cap system, realignment, or expansion.

As previously mentioned, a salary floor would help the Twins by requiring low-spending clubs to increase investment. A tougher cap-and-tax system could prevent large market teams from hoarding talent. These changes would give Minnesota a more realistic chance to compete consistently with baseball’s financial heavyweights.

Realignment is more complicated. The Twins currently benefit from the softest division in the sport. Realignment could tighten competition and make postseason paths more challenging. Expansion adds more teams to the mix and could redistribute talent and revenue in unpredictable ways.

Even with these risks, most competitive balance changes tend to benefit clubs in markets like Minnesota. Anything that narrows the economic gap between teams increases the Twins’ chances of building sustainable success.

A More Stable Economic Landscape and the Future of Twins Ownership
There is another angle that Twins fans should not overlook. A stronger and more stable economic environment for baseball could influence the ownership landscape. The Pohlad family has already explored selling minority stakes in the team. If MLB’s next CBA creates firmer financial footing with stabilized media revenue, more explicit payroll rules, and healthier league-wide structures, the incentive to sell could grow.

Prospective buyers want predictability. They want guaranteed revenue streams, consistent league policies, and less volatility in the economic model. A post-CBA environment that offers exactly that may open the door for a more serious ownership shift. While the Pohlads have been steady owners for decades, many fans believe a fresh ownership group could bring greater ambition and investment.

If the next CBA pushes baseball toward long-term stability, it could create the conditions needed for the Pohlads to finally move forward with a sale. That possibility alone gives Twins fans another reason to watch these negotiations closely.

The next CBA carries enormous implications for the Minnesota Twins. A salary floor could guarantee more consistent spending. A revamped national media model could replace lost revenue and stabilize payroll capacity. Competitive balance reforms could limit the overwhelming advantages enjoyed by the sport’s richest teams. Realignment presents risks, but the overall picture still tilts in Minnesota's favor. Add in the potential for a more stable economic environment to spark real ownership change, and the Twins could emerge from the next CBA in a significantly stronger position. 

The road to 2027 may be bumpy, but the destination could offer real hope for the franchise’s future.

Will the next CBA help mid-market teams like the Twins? Leave a comment and start the discussion.

 

View full article

[CRF]

MLB desperately needs a salary cap more than anything else, but it'll be next to impossible to get there. There's going to be a very long lockout/strike after next season. The game may never recover from it. 

[DJL44]

I still don’t think MLB is willing to lose $10 billion dollars in 2027 to get a salary cap. It would save the teams about $400M a year in spending on the players. That’s about a 4% rate of return, or less than they have seen in team appreciation. Plus, the Yankees, Dodgers, Red Sox, Cubs and Phillies would capture nearly all of the benefit. Why would the Pohlads and Bob Nutting give up their profit and give it to the Yankees and Dodgers?

MLB doesn’t need a salary cap. It needs a different revenue sharing system. Share all of the media dollars and none of the in-person attendance dollars. Give teams $$ incentives to get people to the ballpark. The teams with the fewest people in the stands shouldn’t be the most profitable.

[Reptevia]

This will be a mess. 

[Nashvilletwin]

Each side - players and owners - will have their own significant internal divisions to deal with initially.

On the players side, the “stars” have historically won the argument against the cap given their political power within the players association.  However, given the meteoric rise of salaries at the top end clearly at the expense of those players at the bottom and middle - for whom a floor would certainly be beneficial - it may be difficult for the players to present a United front.

On the owners side, the big market owners have carried the day as well in the past.  But the growth rates in franchise values between the top few and the rest has grown significantly wider. Most owners, like the Pohlads, have seen what the cap and floor model in the NFL has done for the franchise values of smaller market owners (as well as the competitive balance of the league) and will rightly push hard for a cap giving a floor in return.

You may see some strange bedfellows emerge among the participants in these negotiations with the rank and file players joining the smaller market owners to push for a cap as long as the floor is high enough.

Grab your popcorn and plenty of it.  It’s going to be a long movie.  One reason will be that the smaller owners will gladly trade lost near term revenues for an immediate spike in their franchise values.  Which is precisely why the Pohlads are waiting to sell.

[DJL44]

12 minutes ago, Nashvilletwin said:

given the meteoric rise of salaries at the top end clearly at the expense of those players at the bottom and middle - for whom a floor would certainly be beneficial - it may be difficult for the players to present a United front.

There is no evidence for this assertion. The union continually pushes the best players to go to free agency in order to drive up salaries. Higher star salaries drive higher arbitration awards. The Twins aren't going to double Mickey Gasper's salary because Pablo Lopez had to take a smaller contract.

12 minutes ago, Nashvilletwin said:

On the owners side, the big market owners have carried the day as well in the past.  But the growth rates in franchise values between the top few and the rest has grown significantly wider. Most owners, like the Pohlads, have seen what the cap and floor model in the NFL has done for the franchise values of smaller market owners (as well as the competitive balance of the league) and will rightly push hard for a cap giving a floor in return.

The cap and floor model is not why the NFL has been successful. The 100% sharing of media money is what drives the success in the NFL. If MLB tries to institute cap and floor without changing revenue sharing it will destroy the small market teams and make the largest teams even more profitable. OTOH - if the MLB owners change the revenue sharing formula, then there is no need for a salary cap.

Here's the fun part - there is no reason for a lockout to change the revenue sharing formula. The players don't really care how the owners divide the revenue amongst themselves.

[TNtwins85]

Everyone around here consistently thinks that the Twins are gonna come out of this salary cap/ salary floor situation showered in gold but they forget one thing. If everyone is spending the same that creates more competition. Which means you’re not gonna have your teams to beat up on. With a salary cap there’s gonna be less incentive for teams to lock up and sign players to massive long term deals which means more player movement. Your jersey of X star player will be less relevant. Which also means your star player probably gets traded away to maximize the cap/floor. Teams at the top of the cap take advantage of teams with more cap by unloading high priced aging players to sign younger players. If teams like the bottom dwellers are going to spend like the middle tier teams it creates less spots for younger more exciting players which ultimately makes the game “older.” Unless the drafting and development structure is also changed it could lead to longer term irrelevance. There won’t be a super rookie who can come in and jumpstart a franchise right away like the NFL/NBA as it still takes years in the baseball structure. It will create less avenues for younger players to come in. Also, just like in the NFL and NBA you’re still gonna have teams like the Arizona Cardinals, the Lions until recently and the Browns. Teams like the Clippers, the Hornets/Bobcats and yes until recently 20 some years of irrelevance from your own Minnesota Timberwolves in the NBA. With that in mind if the structure is somewhat the same which is what everyone seems to want it seems teams on the wrong side of the coin seemed to be forever mired in decades of terribleness. Even in this magical Narnia scenario where everyone thinks that their team comes out better there still seems to be teams that never cross that threshold and feed off the bottom for 5,10,15 years. That could be the Twins. It could make it harder for teams to rebuild with younger players and accomplish a turnaround as their forced to sign players to simply be over the floor. All I’m saying is that everyone seems to look at a cap/floor as something that helps the Twins, but maybe they turn into the Browns and the Timberwolves. Then what do you do? Shout from the mountains that the system isn’t fair once again? Once the genie is out of the cap/floor lamp you’re never putting it back in. Be careful what one wishes as your Twins could become the Browns. Good run teams will still be good run teams and badly run teams may be really bad for decades as evidenced in the other sports. The Phoenix Coyotes were once a team as well. With all the praising of the cap/floor system your Twins could become the next Browns, Lions, Clippers or Timberwolves and an ownership group will convince the league that baseball is unsustainable in Minnesota. Also, new owners can always be worse. That’s a thing. Just as this could be a great thing for the Twins it could be a nail in the coffin for Minnesota baseball. A massive change in a CBA creates changes good and bad. The league and MLBPA will always sell you the good but they will never tell you the bad. Especially when professional sports more and more mirrors large corporate America. 

[mluebker]

“Competitive balance is the heartbeat of CBA negotiations.”

Never going to have that as long as there are big and small market teams.

Maybe it’s time to split MLB into two divisions by team salary, the Haves and the Have Nots. Each just plays among themselves. Then at the end of the season, the six worst Haves teams are out of the playoff picture and the six best Have Nots take their places and the playoffs begin.

It’s a terrible idea, but at least it would mean more small-market and low salary teams in the postseason. And it’s probably no more unfair than the current system.

[JD-TWINS]

1 hour ago, CRF said:

MLB desperately needs a salary cap more than anything else, but it'll be next to impossible to get there. There's going to be a very long lockout/strike after next season. The game may never recover from it. 

Overall, very upbeat……….”the game may never recover from it…..” ????? Seriously?

[JD-TWINS]

1 hour ago, DJL44 said:

I still don’t think MLB is willing to lose $10 billion dollars in 2027 to get a salary cap. It would save the teams about $400M a year in spending on the players. That’s about a 4% rate of return, or less than they have seen in team appreciation. Plus, the Yankees, Dodgers, Red Sox, Cubs and Phillies would capture nearly all of the benefit. Why would the Pohlads and Bob Nutting give up their profit and give it to the Yankees and Dodgers?

MLB doesn’t need a salary cap. It needs a different revenue sharing system. Share all of the media dollars and none of the in-person attendance dollars. Give teams $$ incentives to get people to the ballpark. The teams with the fewest people in the stands shouldn’t be the most profitable.

The spending from Teams on players to satisfy fans desires and thus getting more people in the seats seems like $$ spent on  diminishing returns.

If Teams spends $40M more on salaries and each fan brings $75 of revenue/game…….they need 533,000 more in attendance than current norm just to break even.

Sharing a baseline 60% works for sure & is needed but maybe results (where Team finishes) skews how much of the remaining 40% of MLB revenue the organization gets at end of the year. “Some split” that would incentivize each Team to spend to ultimately better their bottom line.

[TJSweens]

1 hour ago, CRF said:

MLB desperately needs a salary cap more than anything else, but it'll be next to impossible to get there. There's going to be a very long lockout/strike after next season. The game may never recover from it. 

Revenue stability and sharing is an even greater need, but salary cap is also a big issue. Baseball's revenue streams are volatile and eroding. There is a widening gap between the haves and have nots that is hurting interest in mid and small markets.

[TNtwins85]

28 minutes ago, DJL44 said:

There is no evidence for this assertion. The union continually pushes the best players to go to free agency in order to drive up salaries. Higher star salaries drive higher arbitration awards. The Twins aren't going to double Mickey Gasper's salary because Pablo Lopez had to take a smaller contract.

The cap and floor model is not why the NFL has been successful. The 100% sharing of media money is what drives the success in the NFL. If MLB tries to institute cap and floor without changing revenue sharing it will destroy the small market teams and make the largest teams even more profitable. OTOH - if the MLB owners change the revenue sharing formula, then there is no need for a salary cap.

Here's the fun part - there is no reason for a lockout to change the revenue sharing formula. The players don't really care how the owners divide the revenue amongst themselves.

As long as the owners and star players make the most money they don’t care. Both sides are selling a bag of goods to the media and fans without actually fixing the structure which is probably more complicated but fixable without the magic bean of a CAP/FLOOR. Lol, when you look through the veil a cap/floor system doesn’t address many things in the game. The disparity could be fixed with a different draft compensation system along with a development mandate. Which would incentivize lower market teams to collect and develop younger talent. Shifting money from old players to young talent while also implementing an international draft for players who are 18 and not 16 would push younger more accurately scouted talent to the lower market teams. This is a talent issue. Not a money issue. It can be fixed by fixing who receives the most young talent as that’s the real currency of the league. “Young” talent. That’s not what owners or rich players want. To them they sell a “ Who gets the money” bag of tricks and sell it in the media and that gets repeated until fans start garbling the same message. I believe this can be fixed but my definition of fixing the game and the players/owners definition are massively different. 

[TNtwins85]

1 minute ago, TJSweens said:

Revenue stability and sharing is an even greater need, but salary cap is also a big issue. Baseball's revenue streams are volatile and eroding. There is a widening gap between the haves and have nots that is hurting interest in mid and small markets.

The question is does money solve that whole equation or could young talent solve that equation? 

[bean5302]

2 hours ago, CRF said:

MLB desperately needs a salary cap more than anything else, but it'll be next to impossible to get there. There's going to be a very long lockout/strike after next season. The game may never recover from it. 

The MLBPA is vehemently opposed to cap to the point of single minded focus. Even broaching the topic would take a lengthy strike. Aside from that, I don't think the Twins are at a major competitive disadvantage. MLB continues to be the most competitive sport among the big 4, all without a salary cap. Salary caps just make teams with good and bad leadership more extreme in the success/failure, IMHO.

[bean5302]

So long as the Pohlads remain the owners, and remain unwilling to hold leadership accountable, this team doesn't have a snowballs chance in the fiery afterlife of making it to the World Series. The problem is Falvey and beyond that, the Pohlads themselves.

[Fatbat]

1 hour ago, Reptevia said:

This will be a mess. 

Definitely messy! Lots of changes in the next few years. Hopefully MLB comes out more competitive and appealing to more fans (kids).

[Parfigliano]

59 minutes ago, DJL44 said:

There is no evidence for this assertion. The union continually pushes the best players to go to free agency in order to drive up salaries. Higher star salaries drive higher arbitration awards. The Twins aren't going to double Mickey Gasper's salary because Pablo Lopez had to take a smaller contract.

The cap and floor model is not why the NFL has been successful. The 100% sharing of media money is what drives the success in the NFL. If MLB tries to institute cap and floor without changing revenue sharing it will destroy the small market teams and make the largest teams even more profitable. OTOH - if the MLB owners change the revenue sharing formula, then there is no need for a salary cap.

Here's the fun part - there is no reason for a lockout to change the revenue sharing formula. The players don't really care how the owners divide the revenue amongst themselves.

The TC should DFA Gasper.

[TNtwins85]

1 hour ago, Reptevia said:

This will be a mess. 

Oh it will be a mess! And it will be an unwarranted mess when logically it “could” be fixed without making a mess. But, it will be driven solely by the owners/players greed for who gets the money when the incentive structure should be centered around young talent. It is unlikely that young players will derive anything of substantial worth out of this deal just has always been the case. Once again big money to established players will flow to them and their middle and lower tiers buddies and less spots and money for younger talent. The owners will get more in their pocket by not having to spend as much and the revenue structure that will be changed lets them get more. Essentially the game will not change really.

[TNtwins85]

9 minutes ago, bean5302 said:

So long as the Pohlads remain the owners, and remain unwilling to hold leadership accountable, this team doesn't have a snowballs chance in the fiery afterlife of making it to the World Series. The problem is Falvey and beyond that, the Pohlads themselves.

Good run teams will still be good run teams. Badly run teams could be mired more deeply to the bottoms of the league. A cap/floor system guarantees nothing but money to aging middle and lower tiered players and more money in owners pockets. 

[TNtwins85]

16 minutes ago, bean5302 said:

The MLBPA is vehemently opposed to cap to the point of single minded focus. Even broaching the topic would take a lengthy strike. Aside from that, I don't think the Twins are at a major competitive disadvantage. MLB continues to be the most competitive sport among the big 4, all without a salary cap. Salary caps just make teams with good and bad leadership more extreme in the success/failure, IMHO.

Yes!!!! It would guarantee it instead of providing a clear path out of mediocrity. A few terrible owners and bad teams are gonna drive the whole league into a lottery of decades of haves and have nots. No guarantee the Twins become a “have” in that system.

[tony&rodney]

1 hour ago, DJL44 said:

Here's the fun part - there is no reason for a lockout to change the revenue sharing formula. The players don't really care how the owners divide the revenue amongst themselves.

This is a point understood by both the ownership groups and the players. 

To me, it seems next to impossible that a lockout of any significance takes place, maybe two weeks delay that pushes camps and the season back two weeks into mid April. The players are well-positioned and fortified for any eventuality. The owners would lose quite a bit of money and just cause harm to the game which can always cause a dip in revenues. All in all ownership has to solve their problems amongst themselves. The player salaries are not much of a factor. A cap won't happen.

Hopefully, the MLBPA pushes the narrative that baseball is thriving and their guys need to stay out of the news as much as possible. Hopefully, the owners recognize that the solutions to their issues is wholly within revenue distribution. There may be some unfortunate statements that come out by each side but the more cordial the negotiations, the better for public relations.

I expect very little change to the status quo. There will be changes to revenue sharing due to how revenues are categorized and collected and perhaps a few changes to eliminate the toying around with the days players are kept in minor leagues in order to add an additional year of control. 

[Senior Softball Guy]

Tear the whole thing down. Create a new league with a $500,000 salary cap. The Ohtanis and Judges won't play for that and the talent level would decline, but soon enough you will always fill the rosters with young athletes willing to play baseball for $100,000. When the super payed stars get tired of sitting around the house and coaching the little leaguers they will come back. I love watching players playing for the love of the game. 

[TNtwins85]

33 minutes ago, Fatbat said:

Definitely messy! Lots of changes in the next few years. Hopefully MLB comes out more competitive and appealing to more fans (kids).

Maybe. That’s not the focus though. In what article anywhere on this subject have you heard anything about fans/kids? Nowhere. The answer is nowhere. Which means they’re not thinking about what’s best for the fans, the kids or the game(young talent we could say).  It’s what’s best for the players (high, middle and lower tiered especially) and the owners. Anything else is an after effect. Tell me when the last time was that a multi billion dollar conglomerate came and asked you what you thought about something……

[TNtwins85]

6 minutes ago, Senior Softball Guy said:

Tear the whole thing down. Create a new league with a $500,000 salary cap. The Ohtanis and Judges won't play for that and the talent level would decline, but soon enough you will always fill the rosters with young athletes willing to play baseball for $100,000. When the super payed stars get tired of sitting around the house and coaching the little leaguers they will come back. I love watching players playing for the love of the game. 

Would definitely lead to more than one league. This was tried numerous times in the late 1800’s/early 1900’s. Go watch Ken Burn’s “Baseball”. Definitely a good watch to understand the business structure of the game today.

Edited November 29, 2025 by TNtwins85
Unspecific dates

[Blyleven2011]

2 hours ago, Reptevia said:

This will be a mess. 

With Manfred running the show for the owners , I have to agree , it will be more of a mess  ...

[DannySD]

The media rights money is the biggest issue. Redistribute that better so small teams can at least keep some of their homegrown players, and the capless structure should still work. 

[TJSweens]

1 hour ago, TNtwins85 said:

The question is does money solve that whole equation or could young talent solve that equation? 

The answer is both. Teams will not succeed if they can't draft and develop talent. A more equitable distribution of money gives them a chance to keep those players instead of selling them off because they are too expensive.

[DJL44]

38 minutes ago, JD-TWINS said:

Sharing a baseline 60% works for sure & is needed but maybe results (where Team finishes) skews how much of the remaining 40% of MLB revenue the organization gets at end of the year. “Some split” that would incentivize each Team to spend to ultimately better their bottom line.

They already share a baseline 48% of revenue but it's all put into a pool and divided out evenly. There needs to be incentives for attendance. I think they need to share all of the money from media 100%, just like they would if they had a national contract like the NFL. Let the league sell media rights. In exchange for that, remove the revenue sharing for the in-person attendance. Large market teams will still do better than small market teams (it's actually a bad idea for MLB to minimize revenue in large markets) but teams who sell out the stadium will do best of all.

Attendance is driven mostly (but not entirely) by winning. To win you need to either run your organization well or spend a ton of money. 

Major League Baseball Finances: What the Numbers Tell Us | Elliot Morss

According to that source, teams make $4.3B in TV money and $2.3B in attendance money. Other sources have total revenue at $12B for the whole league. There is $2B in leaguewide sponsorship money. 

MLB Revenues Hit Record $12.1 Billion In 2024

There is a $90M gap between the Twins TV revenue sharing money and the Dodgers. There is only a $60M gap between their attendance revenue. The Twins can't put themselves in a bigger market to get a better TV deal, but they can figure out how to get people to attend games.

Top teams by TV revenue

Dodgers

Angels

Yankees

Red Sox

Mariners (but Root Sports just ended which will move them back to the pack)

Cubs

Top teams by attendance revenue

Dodgers

Cardinals

Yankees

Cubs

Angels

Rockies

Net winners of changing to sharing 100% of TV money and 0% of attendance money

Cardinals +30M

Rockies +28M

Brewers +25M

Braves +15M

Padres +10M

Twins +9M

Net losers

Dodgers -51M

Angels -22M

Mariners -20M

Tigers -14M

Orioles -12M

White Sox -9M

The Dodgers are still #1 in revenue and Marlins are #30 but the gap shrinks by $50M.

[DJL44]

43 minutes ago, Senior Softball Guy said:

Tear the whole thing down. Create a new league with a $500,000 salary cap. The Ohtanis and Judges won't play for that and the talent level would decline, but soon enough you will always fill the rosters with young athletes willing to play baseball for $100,000. When the super payed stars get tired of sitting around the house and coaching the little leaguers they will come back. I love watching players playing for the love of the game. 

Ohtani would stay in Japan and make millions. Judge would head over there too. Japan would have the best baseball league in the world and MLB would be a feeder program for the Japanese leagues.

[Doc Lenz]

1 hour ago, Parfigliano said:

The TC should DFA Gasper.

Or Gasper should pay the Twins to be on the roster.