I disagree that lack of parity is the result of disparity in revenues. Sure, the Dodgers may have the best record and the largest payroll in baseball, but many of their important pieces were not originally acquired via big bucks spent in free agency. For example, Justin Turner, Chris Taylor, and Tyler Anderson were all originally picked up off the scrap heap. Other main pieces were drafted/signed and developed by the organization who were less heralded prospects as amateurs, such as Julio Urias, Walker Buehler, Gavin Lux, Cody Bellinger, Tony Gonsolin, etc. They have other main pieces such as Trea Turner and Mookie Betts that they got via trade by dealing from the depth of their excellent farm system, despite having unfavorable draft placements over the entire last decade. I would argue the disparity is instead the result of how teams are spending their revenues on player development staffs and technology, coaching, and front office employees. There are also many examples of teams that are annually competitive despite having low revenues, and teams that are hit and miss when it comes to competitiveness despite having revenues in the upper echelons, and it generally boils down to how well teams have developed their own players. Increased revenue sharing might help, but I don't think it will have as big of a result as some think as long as certain organizations are unwilling to adopt modern player development philosophies or are unable to attract the best coaches and analysts.