GatewayRedbirds.com

Major League Baseball owners proposed a hard salary cap to players as part of the next CBA on Thursday, their first firm cap proposal since 1994.

Under the proposal, presented in a meeting with union officials, each team would need to maintain a payroll of at least $171.2 million without exceeding $245.3 million, starting in 2027. That includes player benefits, just as it does under the current competitive balance tax system.

The proposal includes a 50-50 split of league revenues with the players. As those increase, the salary floor and cap would also increase. Additionally, the league is proposing a centralized fund for all local media revenues with money distributed equally among the 30 teams.

If the sides can't negotiate a new CBA before the current one expires Dec. 1, owners are likely to "lock out" the players until a new deal is in place.

The proposal included sharing more local television revenue than the current CBA stipulates, a "competitive-integrity tax" for low-spending teams that mirrors the competitive balance tax for top-spending clubs, a raise of the base competitive balance tax threshold from $244 million to $300 million and nearly doubling minimum salaries.

The union's proposal, sources said, centered on increasing revenue sharing to lower-revenue teams within the current financial structure by escalating the sharing of local television revenue while lowering the sharing of stadium-related revenue to incentivize teams whose success leads to large attendance. Teams would share the first $50 million in local television revenue and two-thirds of every dollar beyond that, then split it evenly under the union's plan.

Each team would be guaranteed a certain amount from central revenue each season, starting with $240 million in the first year, coupled with provisions to encourage spending on major league payroll.

Those include clubs forfeiting revenue sharing if their payrolls don't meet a minimum of $150 million -- 50% of the base CBT threshold -- and providing bonus money for revenue-sharing recipients when they post a winning record or make the postseason.

GeddyWrox wrote: ↑

May 29 26, 12:38 pm

99.99999% of the time, I'm going to side AGAINST billionaires.

But in this particular instance, I think I want the hard floor / hard cap proposal.

It works pretty well in the other leagues.

Lesson wrote: ↑

May 29 26, 3:12 pm

The teams that aren't spending choose to do so. Not because they don't have the means to.

Popeye_Card wrote: ↑

May 29 26, 3:32 pm

Lesson wrote: ↑

May 29 26, 3:12 pm

The teams that aren't spending choose to do so. Not because they don't have the means to.

I believe this is only partly true. There is a larger gap of available revenue streams between the large market teams and small market teams in MLB vs. other sports, due to the way the revenue sharing has been agreed upon in the past. So yes, they are all choosing not to spend as much money as they could afford to spend. But I'm willing to bet that the Dodgers pocket more money at the end of the year than the Brewers do, even though both are very well ran organizations on different ends of the spending spectrum.

The owners have to agree with each other to share more revenue. The players have to agree with each other to have greater parity in salaries. If those don't change, even if we get a new CBA agreed to, MLB will still suffer from the same old problems.