For the purposes of this site, I’ve been mostly ignoring the coming end to MLB’s union contract (and expected lockout) following the 2026 season, in part because it’s a bit tangential to Field of Schemes’ coverage area and in part because it’s just too damn depressing to think about how I’m going to spend my time next spring. (Watch the MLS transition season? Shoot me now.) Money stuff is money stuff, though, and as Marc Normandin pointed out in his newsletter yesterday, team owners’ stadium revenue strategies are affecting how they’re thinking about revenue sharing with players:
I believe there are owners who genuinely want a [salary] cap. I also believe there are owners who have not fully considered what having a cap would mean for them, in terms of having to argue with the MLBPA again and again about what actually constitutes baseball revenue. To go back to the WNBA again for a second, there has been a salary cap in place there for ages, and now that the players are in a position where they have more bargaining power, the two sides are arguing about what should count as revenue toward revenue sharing. There is much more money involved in MLB’s side, and just as significant of a grift — hello, baseball stadiums that are also real estate bonanzas of “non-baseball” revenue.
That’s a bit in the weeds if you don’t regularly follow sports CBA negotiations, but rather than me try to explain it, let me get Normandin to do so, since he’s the expert. Hey, Marc, get over here a minute!
Can you explain, briefly if that’s possible, what the pros and cons of a salary cap are for baseball owners?
MN: The pros are pretty simple. Owners will say that a cap would level the playing field, even though the parity of MLB is no worse and in some cases better than that of capped leagues, but the actual reason for one is to slow or outright inhibit spending. And with it, the expectation of spending to compete. It maybe wasn’t noticed enough in the negotiating for the existing CBA, but the owners offered a salary floor of $100M and a cap of $180M attached to it before dropping the subject.
My guess as to the low floor and ceiling there is less “this is the cap the owners expect to institute” and more checking the temperature on the Players Association in general. It’s either that or the owners don’t understand how a salary cap is actually calculated, based on revenue, which is where the con lies. The books are never opened for a reason, and MLB teams insisting that real estate revenue made at a baseball stadium isn’t baseball revenue is another reason to keep them closed. Having to open the books and argue about what is or isn’t revenue would take longer than the rest of bargaining combined, and it’s not even clear if the owners would agree with each other, never mind the players, about what constitutes baseball revenue.
So do you have a sense whether team owners have been hot for “non-baseball” revenue from mixed-use districts like the Atlanta Braves‘ Battery because that revenue is easier to hide from players (and other owners)? Or do they just want them because they’re free money, but then it becomes a reason to keep the books closed? (Also, wondering if you know how this works for, say, the NFL, which both has a salary cap based on total team revenue and is equally gung-ho about turning stadiums into real estate deals.)
MN: Being able to hide it is a plus, but that there’s simply more of it is a win, too. Get a city/county/state to pay for the land and the stadium, build a mall there financed with the kind of low-interest loans a billionaire can take out, profit. It’s a great deal for everyone involved besides the taxpayers, as you know!
The NFL breaks things into three sections (league media, postseason/NFL ventures, local) with the percentages going into sharing varying for each. Concerts held at NFL stadiums don’t count towards local revenue, though, so I imagine the league has successfully argued itself out of counting real estate around stadiums as football revenue.
Of course, the NFLPA hasn’t exactly covered itself in glory over the years, so “well the NFL does it this way” might not be a convincing argument in the MLBPA’s eyes.
Do any of these revenue-sharing machinations have anything to do with teams like the Pirates and A’s signing actual players to actual contracts all of a sudden? I know they have a reason to try to avoid grievances for cashing their revenue-sharing checks and never spending them, but this seems like more than the token efforts of the past where they’d sign a guy or two with plans to trade them come July.
MN: My read on this uptick in activity — from two organizations that literally could not be threatened into spending by the PA for years — is that they know it’s likely revenue-sharing is going to see an increase in the near future, via the next CBA. Which is not a move that requires a cap, either, as the existence of revenue-sharing in the present reminds.
But like in the late-90s and early aughts, the newer (or just more successful) streams of revenue some teams have access to and others do not in the same quantities means a rebalancing is in order. Bud Selig had to convince George Steinbrenner to agree to a system The Boss felt was socialist, but he got there. Rob Manfred probably has it a lot easier since the system is already in place and just needs redefining by nationalizing, as it were, local revenue streams to the same degree that the NFL has to eliminate some portion of the advantage that the Dodgers et al have. While (at least in theory) inspiring teams like the Pirates and A’s to spend their newfound funds, too. The Dodgers and Yankees and so on aren’t agreeing to a new system where they cut checks to teams that won’t use them, so this is teams showing they can be trusted with very large bags of money they otherwise won’t have access to.
So this gets us back to the central contradiction of revenue sharing of any kind: It makes it easier for small market teams to compete with big market teams if they want — but any leveling of the playing field also means that teams can be a lot more footloose, because it doesn’t matter if they play in Green Bay if they still get a cut of those national checks. Obviously we don’t know how revenue sharing will look exactly under a new CBA, but do you see a real possibility of a kind of NFLization of MLB, where market size doesn’t matter as much either for competitiveness or for relocations?
Or to put it way more simply: Does any of this make it more likely that the A’s will move to Las Vegas?
MN: Someone would still have to foot the Vegas stadium bill, and it sure doesn’t seem like it will be John Fisher. But hey, MLB already waived the relocation fee for the A’s, maybe they will let him off the hook with the stadium costs, too.
You bring up a good point related to that, which is that this opens up the possibility for some new markets that previously had limitations, which in turn would mean expansion is finally on the table again and the expansion fees that come with it, never mind the larger shared revenue pools that can come with additional broadcasting deals, gates, merch sales, etc. Revenue-sharing getting a huge revision would impact so much on its own, which is another reason the cap talk just doesn’t seem realistic to me. Not when there is a solution that wouldn’t endanger 2027, or the broadcasting negotiations of 2028, and requires full player buy-in, too.
Thanks! Still more reasons to dread next spring, just what I needed!
