MLB Does Not Have a Spending Issue — MLB Has an Accountability Issue.
- Gary Prtune
- 2 hours ago
- 3 min read
A desire to level the competitive edge makes sense — who wants to watch or play for a team that refuses to participate?
I certainly don’t. A salary cap won’t level that field. A revenue-based salary minimum will.
A salary cap is coming, but it will not affect competitive disparity
Before we go any further, we must understand and accept the impending salary cap in the 2027 MLB/MLBPA collective bargaining agreement (CBA). The CBA is the negotiated and accepted operating agreement between the employers (MLB owners) and the employees (MLBPA, the players' union). Owners will, without a doubt, stand firm on the demand for a salary cap. However, it has absolutely nothing to do with competitive balance and everything to do with asset evaluation.
Simply put: if you can’t predict next year’s expenses, you can’t accurately value your company. A salary cap will allow owners to have a hard number, a max expenditure on payroll, and that will solidify that evaluation. The cap is coming, or we don’t have MLB games in 2027. For additional background, Forbes has reported on the business rationale for a salary cap and its likely effects.
Why the lack of spending is the issue, and why a cap can’t fix it. To draw talent, you have to offer two things. A reasonable expectation of competition and the money to pay for it. Without either of those elements, there just isn’t enough incentive for a free agent to stay or come to a new team. Regarding the willingness to pay for it, the idea that “small markets” can’t afford to keep up is a complete fallacy! The owners just need to be willing to reinvest the revenue the team generates back into the team. The same team that made that money, money from the very community that supports that team. Let’s compare numbers from 2025.
2025 Payroll Ranked by Percentage of Revenue Spent:
Top 5 teams:
1. New York Mets, $400M at 90% of 2024 revenue
2. Los Angeles Dodgers, $549M at 73% of 2024 revenue
3. Toronto Blue Jays, $277M at 71% of 2024 revenue
4. Philadelphia Phillies, $349M at 67% of 2024 revenue
5. Arizona Diamondbacks, $219M at 66% of 2024 revenue
Bottom 5 teams:
30. Miami Marlins, $86M at 27% of 2024 revenue
29. Chicago White Sox, $87M at 31% of 2024 revenue
28. Tampa Bay Rays, $100M at 33% of 2024 revenue
27. Pittsburgh Pirates, $112M at 34% of 2024 revenue
26. Chicago Cubs, $213M at 36% of 2024 revenue
*Payroll values sourced from USA Today.
Total dollars spent are relative and ultimately irrelevant. If we set the Marlins, White Sox, and Rays payroll at 70% of 2024 revenue, they would rank 8th, 11th, and 10th in 2025 payroll, respectively. This means they have the money; they just need someone to tell them to spend it.
The Takeaway
As a fan with deep ties to two cities and an appreciation for many more, I want to see the issue resolved just as much as everyone else. I personally expect the cap to be high enough that it won’t matter. It is a revenue-based floor that is necessary to compel the noncompetitive owners who still made at least $257M (the homeless Athletics) in 2024 to attract talent and field a competitive team worth watching. The salary cap is coming, or we don’t get baseball in 2027.
As much as I have explained why it won’t affect the game and as much as I advocate for athletes’ right to demand as much money for the value of their unique talents, I have accepted this reality. Owners treating teams as assets in investment portfolios, ignoring the passion of fans who create the value of those assets, and not giving talent a reason to want to play in their stadiums are the issues here. Simply put, a salary cap isn’t great for the athletes, and a revenue-based salary floor at no less than 50% of the previous year’s revenue is the most effective way to fix the issue, as 47% of 2024 revenue was the average spent on payroll in 2025.
My question for you:
What could your favorite team look like if it spent no less than 50% of the 2025 revenue on payroll in 2026?