There's little use debating the need for economic reform within Major League Baseball.
The gap between the biggest and smallest payrolls on opening day was a tick below $258 million. Juan Soto ($61.9 million) makes nearly as much as the Marlins' entire payroll ($64.9 million), while the deferments in Shohei Ohtani's $700 million mega-extension raised plenty of eyebrows. Television contracts are wildly different, the Dodgers procuring around 14 times more revenue than the Pirates.
Pittsburgh Pirates owner Bob Nutting argued that revenue disparity is what contributes to the vast payroll differences, a statement that I can't imagine sits well with fans. He also cited his own experience when I asked why he continues to own the team.
"I'm uniquely positioned to have a louder voice for Pittsburgh, as we're heading into the next [collective bargaining agreement]," Nutting said. "I don't think a new owner would have the same standing or ability to advocate for the kind of changes that we need."
People are also reading... Update: 2 students dead after 'targeted and isolated' incident, UW-Platteville says One & Only restaurant on Madison's Near West Side closing after 2 years Update: 1 still missing, 3 safe after sailboat overturned on windy Lake Monona Friday night UW-Platteville deaths being investigated as murder-suicide Madison's new homeless shelter will open, but costs could keep it from being a 24/7 facility Dodge County tornado causes significant damage, but only minor injuries Photos: Baseball-size hail breaks windows in Wisconsin city Former Reedsburg woman has no regrets about fleeing family 63 years ago Madison School Board votes down staffing amendments for 5 schools Chris Taylor announces run for Wisconsin Supreme Court as liberals look to expand majority Baffled residents of Eau Claire assess hail damage Ha Long Bay reopens on Williamson Street after a year, reveals its brighter look Madison home values see smallest jump since 2020 as sale numbers drop Southside's former principals are still being paid. For doing what? The district won't say Capitol Lakes plans more independent senior housing in Downtown Madison
MLB certainly needs change, and surely Nutting wouldn't mind some measure of it. But I have a tough time picturing the Venn diagram where all of that exists, at least in terms of a salary cap and floor and revamped revenue sharing.
There are just too many competing objectives, which I'll explain. What should be seen as intriguing, though: incentivizing the revenue sharing funds the Pirates and other small-market MLB clubs receive when the CBA expires in December 2026.
While it's hard to fathom MLB entertaining the idea of a relegation-based system that exists in soccer, this is another way of accomplishing the same thing and expecting results out of teams that accept revenue-sharing funds.
One concrete example: If a team goes a certain number of years without making the postseason or attaining a certain winning percentage, those funds take a hit for a year or until previously established benchmarks are met, at which point the counter would reset.
Another I had posited to me by an agent recently went something like this: If your payroll is in the bottom 10 and you haven't had a winning season in three years, you're forced to pay some sort of financial penalty.
Do I think either will happen? Probably not. But there's more MLB can and should do.
Under this scenario, I'd also have zero problem with revamped revenue sharing -- in other words, more money flowing from the rich teams to the poor ones, relatively speaking. And absolutely attach strings. The goal should be to prioritizing winning.
The Mets ($322.6 million opening day payroll), Dodgers ($319.5 million), Yankees ($284.8 million) and Phillies ($284 million) certainly have the money, maybe residing in the cracks of their couches, though I don't begrudge them for playing within the confines of the rules.
I just think the rules could be better.
MLB should examine best practices from the NFL, NBA and even the NHL to find a way to make a cap-and-floor system work. There's a way to do it where the best players get paid, the game is more popular because there's actual parity, and owners rake in money because the product dominates our sporting landscape.
It's just hard to see that ever actually happening.
The MLB Players Association has an incredible amount of solidarity. The dominant sentiment has long been to resist a salary cap. Meanwhile, commissioner Rob Manfred talked earlier this year about a lockout as leverage in negotiations, teasing a strike.
It wouldn't come as a shock if it happened. But how much can anyone realistically expect things to change?
From an ownership side, small-market teams will want a hard cap and revamped revenue sharing. They'd maybe begrudgingly accept a floor.
The heavy financial hitters won't want to be told how much to spend any more than already happens with the Competitive Balance Tax (CBT) threshold. Their mandate would be a floor, and it's hard to fathom why they'd agree to a cap while directing more money toward smaller markets.
No, the scenario that pleases the greatest percentage of those involved is probably, and unfortunately, some measure of the status quo.
Where big-spending owners funnel money to the little guys for the right of most times clobbering them. Well-run organizations such as the Rays, Guardians or Brewers occasionally find ways to punch back against the system.
But there's still nuance here that I hope both sides will be able to see, subtle tweaks that could simultaneously improve the on-field stuff while not upsetting the financial apple cart.
Another example: Afford small-market clubs additional incentive for making the postseason, perhaps a draft pick at the end of the first round each time you do it.
It's cheap labor, a premium pick, gold for those running small-market teams. Perhaps it functions as a carrot to go for it now.
It's certainly not a blanket fix, but a subtle tweak, a way to force teams receiving revenue-sharing funds into a decision. Either spend it on major league players or be damn sure the processes you're addressing are sound.
After all, everybody wins when things are more competitive. If the product rocks -- the pitch clock and other recent rule changes have helped -- and overall interest peaks, everybody wins.
You know, like the NFL.
It's what MLB used to be, and I'm not sure baseball will ever regain its top perch, the sport's uneven financial landscape too much of a turnoff (unless you're a fan of one of the big boys).
But there are reasonable wins available in the next CBA, stuff that I hope Nutting and others see as benefits to the game and its players.
Let the CBT threshold continue to function as a soft cap, but advocate for additional revenue-sharing funds.
At the same time, incentivize owners -- either positively or negatively -- to redirect those dollars toward winning now.
It's not perfect, I understand. But it would represent at least some improvement over what we have now.
-- Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
Be the first to know
Get local news delivered to your inbox!
Sign up! * I understand and agree that registration on or use of this site constitutes agreement to its user agreement and privacy policy.