It’s a widespread expectation in and around that there will be a work stoppage at the end of the 2026 season.
The between the Players Association and the leagues owners expires in early December, and unlike some labor talks, there are significant questions both sides want to address before a new deal is reached.
Those negotiations have actually already started, with the two sides meeting in New York City to set the table for further conversations. While initial reports suggested that these conversations would be mostly speculative, there’s now some detail coming out about where both sides are in the negotiations.
ZERO BS. JUST DAKICH. TAKE THE DON’T @ ME PODCAST ON THE ROAD. DOWNLOAD NOW!
ESPN reported on Wednesday that the its first proposal on how to adjust baseball’s financial situation moving forward. And unsurprisingly, the ownership side doesn’t seem very happy about it.
ESPN’s Jeff Passan’s post said that the players’ first proposal focuses on one of the biggest problems plaguing the league right now: cheap owners refusing to spend money on their teams. Instead of a salary cap that limits earnings, they’ve proposed a “competitive-integrity tax.”Â
For teams like the Miami Marlins, Pittsburgh Pirates, Tampa Bay Rays, Milwaukee Brewers and Cleveland Guardians who look to limit spending and maximize profits, MLBPA wants to essentially force owners to try to compete. Any team that doesn’t reach $150 million in player payroll would be subject to a tax.
That’s the biggest topline proposal. The others would increase the minimum salary from $780,000 to $1.5 million, and raise the first threshold in the competitive balance tax from $244 million to $300 million. Essentially allowing teams to spend more money on players before getting punished for it.
Other details Passan reported included adjusting the existing revenue-sharing distributions. Local television rights, which have become a point of contention for smaller markets, would go up. But the distribution of money brought in from a team’s home stadium would go down. The idea there being that it would incentivize owners to, you know, try to win more games.
More wins mean more fans buying tickets, which under this proposal would mean more revenue staying put. While increasing the distribution from local TV rights would remove some of the advantages teams like the or New York Yankees have over smaller markets.
There’s another revenue-sharing side to the proposal. The players want to punish teams that bring in revenue-sharing dollars and refuse to spend it. Something that’s already written into the rules, but is almost completely ignored by Commissioner Rob Manfred. If they don’t reach certain payroll levels, revenue-sharing teams would forfeit a percentage of their distribution money. But those that win more games would receive more money. Incentivizing small-market teams to spend more and try to win.
All of this sounds reasonable enough; it penalizes cheap owners, takes more money away from big teams like the Los Angeles Dodgers and Yankees, and incentivizes winning. Sure enough, the owners’ side hates it, and is already weaponizing misplaced fan sentiment to start its arguments.
Here’s where the issues start, though. MLB spokesman Glen Caplin issued a statement in response, saying, “We appreciate the union making a set of proposals and we look forward to continuing the bargaining process and working towards solving the competitive balance problem our fans are telling us needs to be addressed.
“We understand their proposals are designed to benefit players. Unfortunately, they do not address and in fact exacerbate the competitive balance problem our fans are telling us we must address. The MLBPAs proposal would reduce the amount transferred to lower-revenue Clubs, weaken the Competitive Balance Tax, and lea
