- This topic has 174 replies, 22 voices, and was last updated 2 days, 11 hours ago by
.
-
Posts
-
My buddy, who has a buddy that works at GABP in Cincinnati, said that the concession workers, ushers, etc, etc, have already been told they probably won’t be needed until around the time of the All Star Break in 2027.
Not sure if there is any legitimacy here.
r/Esteemed Rat
We are going to have a lockout because these owners, who can sell their teams for upwards of $4 Billion, are too poor to pay their players.
It's going to be a horrible winter ahead. Don't you dare let the owners trick you into joining their side. https://t.co/W0uHCNmY1M
— Nick Pollack (@PitcherList) September 1, 2026
And this is where the real money is made. I wouldn’t be surprised if many teams have a break even operating profit year to year with some gaining a little and some losing a little. But when the team gets sold, the absurd increase in valuation brings a huge windfall to the owner.
However, I’m not crying for the players either. They are very well paid for what they do. It’s enough to heavily incentivize thousands to try to make that a career.
It’s the fans that get left behind again and again in these negotiations.
Jnevel – your point about year to year operational cash flow / profit & loss is the part that most people who have never owned and operated a business with employees do not understand.
An example most can understand is home ownership. If you own a home and have a mortgage and that home appreciates over time then you have equity. The equity is usually the biggest piece of ‘normal’ folks’ net worth but they cant spend those dollars unless they get a second mortgage or do a cash out re-fi – which become liabilities.
jnevel said:
However, I’m not crying for the players either. They are very well paid for what they do. It’s enough to heavily incentivize thousands to try to make that a career.
This same “incentive” argument was used for decades by the owners to justify below minimum wage pay for minor leaguers. “They’d pay for free just for the chance to reach the majors,” they said, while pocketing the vast majority of the profit for themselves.
Owners have a long history of protecting and enriching themselves, which I understand. I’d probably do the same myself, if I was in that situation and could act unchecked as I pleased. The players have to fight for every increase, but without them, there is no game. Do fans watch and go to games because of players or owners?
If anyone is overpaid, who deserves it more – the players who sacrifice to reach the top and then have a relatively short time there, or the owners?
It’s the fans that get left behind again and again in these negotiations.
Of the two sides, which do you think is more responsible for the increase in costs suffered by the fans?
Around 60% of all major league players in any given season make less than $1 million per year.
The unfortunately misguided and incorrect idea that major league players are “greedy” or “overpaid” has no basis in fact and is predicated on seeing player’s salaries as a whole as reflective of a VERY SMALL subset of highly paid players.
On the other hand, owners are vastly wealthier as a group than players. Before Stan Kroenke bought the Angels, Steve Cohen, owner of the Mets, was the wealthiest owner, with a net worth of around $16 Billion dollars.
The highest paid player comes nowhere near that amount of wealth.
By the way, Stan Kroenke is worth several billion dollars more than Cohen.
This whole salary cap is about the owners wanting to boost team valuations. Team valuations seem to be the most important thing in the world to some of the owners. The Angels are selling for $4 Billion. The Lakers just sold for $12 Billion. Granted the Lakers are an iconic franchise but that is still a big gap in the two leagues. MLB owners want to close that gap and they view a salary cap as a way to do it.
As a side note some owners are now complaining about Mark Walter illegally using his insurance company profits to buy the Dodgers but they weren’t complaining at the time of the purchase because when the Dodgers sold for $2 Billion in 2012 it was double over what any team had been sold before.
That was before the other owners learned that the Dodgers would outbid them for most marquee free agents.
I agree about team valuations as a driver.
What is it about LA? The Clippers just got hammered for violating the NBA salary cap by steering money to one of it’s star players off the books. Their owner and top front office are suspended for a year, the team is fined $30 Million, and they lose their number one draft pick for five consecutive years. Ouch!
Second most populous city in the US, in the most populous state in the US.
More people, more hubris.
Of the two sides, which do you think is more responsible for the increase in costs suffered by the fans?
Both! I’m not sure which is more responsible. Probably the owners, but both share equal blame. Both are in a money grab situation because they are playing a monopolized game that is well protected by federal laws. I don’t personally blame them for wanting to make more money. Who doesn’t? But they both have been getting massively inflated increases in earnings for the past 30 years and at some point that has to slow down or fans will mostly quit watching.
The owners deserve the union because of the way they treated players before free agency.
I believe the union has had the upper hand due to fan support and better negotiators.
The biggest looser is the minor leage players and the fans because of the cost of attending games.
I watch two minor league Cardinal games at a time and I am shocked at the attendance at some games. I saw one yesterday where there were there no fans sitting behins home plate. I think ease access to majore league mgames on TV is a contributer to that.
MLB and the MLBPA remain far apart on a salary cap. But an interesting dynamic is emerging in the proposals.
The MLBPA proposed allowing players 30+ with five years of service to reach free agency a year earlier.
MLB accepted the concept in principle.
The MLBPA proposed…
— Michaela Bennett (@MichaelaB_22) September 8, 2026
MLB’s latest CBA proposal could change how teams manage the injured list.
Under the proposal:
10-day IL → 7 days for position players
15-day IL → 14 days for pitchers
60-day IL → 12 weeks (84 days)
That last one stands out.
Teams would gain some short-term flexibility, but…— Michaela Bennett (@MichaelaB_22) September 8, 2026
The next MLB CBA will determine how 780 active roster spots are compensated.
Right now, only 168 of those 780 spots are occupied by players making $10M+.
• $30M+: 19 players
• $20M–$29.9M: 55 players
• $10M–$19.9M: 94 playersThat’s roughly 1 in 5 active MLB players making…
— Michaela Bennett (@MichaelaB_22) September 10, 2026
The only professional sport that doesn’t worry about parity? Does that make sense?
That really isn’t true. The CBT was designed to increase parity. They just didn’t make the penalties tough enough. That could be corrected if both sides keep their heads but instead it appears MLB is going to drive off a cliff.
Whenever the CBA negotiation rolls around, I give some thought to the antitrust exemption. Ever since the Curt Flood Act in the late 90s carved out an exception to the exemption covering MLB compensation related matters, it has been a dormant subject, generating little or no interest. In March of this year, those few weird fans who pay attention to such things found out that dormant doesn’t mean extinct, as a notable change to the landscape occurred. Previously, it would have been accurate to say that a group consisting of 30 billionaire MLB owners enjoyed an exemption to federal law that applied to no one else. Then in March we found out that the exemption applies to “the business of baseball”, not just to MLB. Specifically, the exemption was found to encompass a professional baseball league in Puerto Rico, and its owners. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit had held that the anti-trust exemption applies to “the business of baseball” and not just to MLB. In March, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to review that decision, so it stands. For those interested, the case is Cangrejeros de Santurce, et al. v. Liga de Béisbol Pr., Inc., et al.
I am not saying there is any direct effect, or any effect, on the upcoming CBA goings on. But I am saying the anti-trust exemption is not inert. What has been doesn’t have to be what will be.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.