Which Side Budges First?

[Trov]

First off, I hate that the players and owners keep putting their proposals in the media for fans to fight over, because there are no winners for the fans.  We all know there will be a lockout, and the owners want a cap and the players say no way ever. So one side will have to budge.  The owners have already increase the proposed number and giving different things like no more  QO and short time to FA.  Players still say no way ever to a cap, making statement if they agreed the players as a whole would lose out on billions. 

Additionally, the players want the current soft cap they call it, when it really is just a tax limit for teams that want to go over they just have to pay a lot more, to increase, and make basically a floor, that teams that get revenue sharing need to pay the players with it, or it is given up, not sure who gets the money then. Like if say the A's do not spend enough from the revenue sharing, and they do not get to have it, does it just sit in MLB bank account, does it go back to the teams it was taken from, that is not clear from what I have read. 

So who budges first?  Both sides can have a long hold out as the players have a huge war chest, and the owners do not live off the revenue from baseball, but use the "investment" and realize the money when they sell, while making billions off other businesses.  Ultimately, I think the owners could hold out longer than players, mainly the young players that have yet to get their big payday will possibly waste a whole year of earning potential, in a job that you are generally capped to a short number of years to earn.  The lower earning pen guys, back of rotation, bench players that earn around league min will possibly waste a full year of earnings.  Sure, they will most likely be fine, but there will be a whole new crop of players from minors that will be ready to take their jobs when they can. 

The superstar players will always be fine, but will a long stoppage affect the lower rung guys, maybe.  What about the owners though, they have billions from other businesses, but they are business men and women for a reason.  They do not sit on assets and let them lose value.  They do not run businesses to lose money.  Even though they have to sell the team to realize their investment, they still see a loss in value of the team due to long hold out a loss.  Then there is the real money they still need to pay others, that are not the MLB players.  The minor league players still have to get paid, the managers, coaches, front office people, grounds crew, and many other workers and other bills that continue to build up even though games are not played. That money needs to come from somewhere, and normally it comes from earned revenue during the season along with the media deals.

No games, no money coming in, at least not much.  So to pay the people they still have to, they need liquid funds.  Sure the teams will have some on hand, but mostly it will now have to come from liquidating money from their other businesses. Most of these owners do not have that much in cash, but in non-realized stocks.  So to get liquid they either need to sell the stock, or take out loans using the stock as collateral. How much of that are they willing to do before it becomes too much?

I do not know who budges first, but I do think a reasonable compromise is a soft cap, similar to NBA, and not a hard cap like NFL and what owners are proposing.  It is similar to what MLB has now, but with a floor imposed, and owners could still spend over the soft cap to sign their own players, there would just be rules on ability to bring in outside players when over the cap.  

[TheLeviathan]

On 11/4/2026 at 8:11 AM, Trov said:

First off, I hate that the players and owners keep putting their proposals in the media for fans to fight over, because there are no winners for the fans.  We all know there will be a lockout, and the owners want a cap and the players say no way ever. So one side will have to budge.  The owners have already increase the proposed number and giving different things like no more  QO and short time to FA.  Players still say no way ever to a cap, making statement if they agreed the players as a whole would lose out on billions. 

Additionally, the players want the current soft cap they call it, when it really is just a tax limit for teams that want to go over they just have to pay a lot more, to increase, and make basically a floor, that teams that get revenue sharing need to pay the players with it, or it is given up, not sure who gets the money then. Like if say the A's do not spend enough from the revenue sharing, and they do not get to have it, does it just sit in MLB bank account, does it go back to the teams it was taken from, that is not clear from what I have read. 

So who budges first?  Both sides can have a long hold out as the players have a huge war chest, and the owners do not live off the revenue from baseball, but use the "investment" and realize the money when they sell, while making billions off other businesses.  Ultimately, I think the owners could hold out longer than players, mainly the young players that have yet to get their big payday will possibly waste a whole year of earning potential, in a job that you are generally capped to a short number of years to earn.  The lower earning pen guys, back of rotation, bench players that earn around league min will possibly waste a full year of earnings.  Sure, they will most likely be fine, but there will be a whole new crop of players from minors that will be ready to take their jobs when they can. 

The superstar players will always be fine, but will a long stoppage affect the lower rung guys, maybe.  What about the owners though, they have billions from other businesses, but they are business men and women for a reason.  They do not sit on assets and let them lose value.  They do not run businesses to lose money.  Even though they have to sell the team to realize their investment, they still see a loss in value of the team due to long hold out a loss.  Then there is the real money they still need to pay others, that are not the MLB players.  The minor league players still have to get paid, the managers, coaches, front office people, grounds crew, and many other workers and other bills that continue to build up even though games are not played. That money needs to come from somewhere, and normally it comes from earned revenue during the season along with the media deals.

No games, no money coming in, at least not much.  So to pay the people they still have to, they need liquid funds.  Sure the teams will have some on hand, but mostly it will now have to come from liquidating money from their other businesses. Most of these owners do not have that much in cash, but in non-realized stocks.  So to get liquid they either need to sell the stock, or take out loans using the stock as collateral. How much of that are they willing to do before it becomes too much?

I do not know who budges first, but I do think a reasonable compromise is a soft cap, similar to NBA, and not a hard cap like NFL and what owners are proposing.  It is similar to what MLB has now, but with a floor imposed, and owners could still spend over the soft cap to sign their own players, there would just be rules on ability to bring in outside players when over the cap.  

I would rather no cap than a soft cap.  The NBA's system is stifling and beyond stupid.  

Go the NHL route, top to bottom.  That's the way.

[MackMan]

I think the MLBPA budges first and foremost. As an owner, they have been prepping for this for a while. Sadly, with the proposed Floor and Ceiling it is going to help the players that are pre-arbitration eligible, and the lower echelon of players. Yes, it might hamper the higher end earners (Ohtani, Harper, Tucker, Trout, Soto,) from earning long-term expensive deals, it is going to help the players that might be the above average players in a less-than-stellar situation earn more and stay relevant for longer. If the lockout goes as we expect, I wouldn't expect the season to start closer to July or August if at all for a 2027 season. 

Also on another note, a lockout might actually be a good thing for a team such as the Twins. It may create a suitor or more to escalate a sale in the team. 

[DJL44]

If the owners do revenue sharing correctly they won’t need a cap or a floor.

[TheLeviathan]

2 hours ago, DJL44 said:

If the owners do revenue sharing correctly they won’t need a cap or a floor.

With how wealth currently works in our country I do not agree with this assessment.

[nicksaviking]

On 11/6/2026 at 12:09 PM, TheLeviathan said:

With how wealth currently works in our country I do not agree with this assessment.

Right, a more favorable revenue sharing, without salary floors, is going to incentivize some mid-market teams to just pocket more money (there are no small market MLB teams, small markets are Colorado Springs and Tulsa and Chattanooga). For some of these teams, putting a winning team on the field is solely a strategy to attract more fans, thus attract more money. If they're getting more of a revenue share with no strings attached, that incentive may get diluted.

[Mike Sixel]

The owners have caved first every time.... And now private equity is involved....

[TheLeviathan]

5 hours ago, nicksaviking said:

Right, a more favorable revenue sharing, without salary floors, is going to incentivize some mid-market teams to just pocket more money (there are no small market MLB teams, small markets are Colorado Springs and Tulsa and Chattanooga). For some of these teams, putting a winning team on the field is solely a strategy to attract more fans, thus attract more money. If they're getting more of a revenue share with no strings attached, that incentive may get diluted.

I think the top end also causes a problem.  The cap/floor just eliminates weird shenanigans driven by non-baseball factors.

Rev sharing does not do that.

[DJL44]

10 hours ago, nicksaviking said:

a more favorable revenue sharing, without salary floors, is going to incentivize some mid-market teams to just pocket more money

That would be doing revenue sharing incorrectly 

[nicksaviking]

7 minutes ago, DJL44 said:

That would be doing revenue sharing incorrectly 

That’s why there has to be a floor. Everyone knows billionaires on the honor system is a bad idea.

[DJL44]

9 hours ago, nicksaviking said:

That’s why there has to be a floor. Everyone knows billionaires on the honor system is a bad idea.

I didn’t cross check the following AI summary on the revenue breakdown but it seems close to the last time I looked these numbers up.

• Stadium-Related Revenue (39%): This is the largest single share, driven by gate receipts (ticket sales), luxury suites, parking, ballpark concessions (food, beverage), and in-stadium retail. [1, 2, 3]

• Central / National Revenue (26%): Generated collectively at the league level and split equally among all 30 teams. This includes national television and streaming contracts (e.g., ESPN, Fox, TBS, Apple TV+, Roku), MLB.TV, national sponsorships, and official league-wide merchandise licensing. [1]

• Local Television and Media (21%): Rights fees paid by regional sports networks (RSNs) and local broadcast partners to air individual team games (though local TV deals vary drastically by market size, ranging from roughly 12% to 32% per team). [1, 2]

• Advertising, Promotions, and Other (14%): Corporate sponsorships, stadium naming rights, signage, local promotional events, and non-baseball stadium events like concerts.

MLB teams currently share 48% of their local revenue, which is 1/3 TV and 2/3 stadium related. I think they should share 100% of their local media and advertising revenue and close to 0% of the stadium related revenue. They get media revenue by simply existing in a market and is related mostly to TV market size. The stadium related revenues only show up if they draw fans to the ballpark.

Teams that receive revenue sharing are currently not incentivized to maximize ballpark attendance. Every additional fan reduces the size of their revenue sharing check, meaning their is little marginal value per extra fan coming to the ballpark.

Teams that are maximizing attendance only get 52% of that revenue, the other 48% goes to the league.

Now imagine if MLB decided to evenly share the 46% of non-stadium revenue (a number that is quite similar to today’s revenue sharing percentage). Then they incentivize teams to maximize ballpark attendance by sharing 5% of stadium related revenue. Now ALL teams get 95% of the benefit from each additional fan they bring in. It would be an incredibly powerful incentive to put a winning club on the field. TV revenue covers everyone’s expenses, but you only profit if people show up.

Would you still see teams running a minimum payroll? Possibly, but it would hurt their profits and they would eventually sell to someone who sees the full profit potential of the market.

Who benefits the most? Teams like Milwaukee who can produce a winner on a budget. That’s exactly who should be rewarded the most.

[tony&rodney]

47 minutes ago, DJL44 said:

I didn’t cross check the following AI summary on the revenue breakdown but it seems close to the last time I looked these numbers up.

 

• Stadium-Related Revenue (39%): This is the largest single share, driven by gate receipts (ticket sales), luxury suites, parking, ballpark concessions (food, beverage), and in-stadium retail. [1, 2, 3]

• Central / National Revenue (26%): Generated collectively at the league level and split equally among all 30 teams. This includes national television and streaming contracts (e.g., ESPN, Fox, TBS, Apple TV+, Roku), MLB.TV, national sponsorships, and official league-wide merchandise licensing. [1]

• Local Television and Media (21%): Rights fees paid by regional sports networks (RSNs) and local broadcast partners to air individual team games (though local TV deals vary drastically by market size, ranging from roughly 12% to 32% per team). [1, 2]

• Advertising, Promotions, and Other (14%): Corporate sponsorships, stadium naming rights, signage, local promotional events, and non-baseball stadium events like concerts.

MLB teams currently share 48% of their local revenue, which is 1/3 TV and 2/3 stadium related. I think they should share 100% of their local media and advertising revenue and close to 0% of the stadium related revenue. They get media revenue by simply existing in a market and is related mostly to TV market size. The stadium related revenues only show up if they draw fans to the ballpark.

Teams that receive revenue sharing are currently not incentivized to maximize ballpark attendance. Every additional fan reduces the size of their revenue sharing check, meaning their is little marginal value per extra fan coming to the ballpark.

Teams that are maximizing attendance only get 52% of that revenue, the other 48% goes to the league.

Now imagine if MLB decided to evenly share the 46% of non-stadium revenue (a number that is quite similar to today’s revenue sharing percentage). Then they incentivize teams to maximize ballpark attendance by sharing 5% of stadium related revenue. Now ALL teams get 95% of the benefit from each additional fan they bring in. It would be an incredibly powerful incentive to put a winning club on the field. TV revenue covers everyone’s expenses, but you only profit if people show up.

Would you still see teams running a minimum payroll? Possibly, but it would hurt their profits and they would eventually sell to someone who sees the full profit potential of the market.

Who benefits the most? Teams like Milwaukee who can produce a winner on a budget. That’s exactly who should be rewarded the most.

In other words, the owners solve their revenue collection and dispersal issues amongst themselves and a new CBA is finished in December.

[tony&rodney]

Asbury laughed. Is that due to the optimistic December closure of the CBA or from an imagined conversation where there is screaming going on at a conference of the owners?