Some owners call for salary cap

[paulcoates]

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=3833716

You will probably see at least a 2 year complete baseball stoppage if this were to happen, however in the end, it would be worth it.

Personally, if there is a salary cap though, there needs to be a salary floor also.

[byrdz]

"Some" owners are the ones that have little money and lose out on players due to the better funded teams snatching them up. This will be a battle of the have and have nots.

[GeorgiaBird]

I fail to see how it would be worth it. The system we have now, despite the headlines, is simply not broken. And a cap is no answer, especially not in a sport like baseball where so much of revenue is local. (But I would note, even in the NFL, where revenue is much more centralized, notice how the owners are opting out of their contract and giving up the salary cap for a year? What does that say about its effectiveness?)

At the end of the day all a salary cap would do is ensure that "excess" revenues would end up in the pockets of owners, instead of players. Makes a lot of sense if you are an owner, but not a problem solver if you are a fan.

[Mad Mark]

1) The vast majority of sports team owners are greedy bastards.
2) Salary caps transfer money from the players to the owners.
3) Revenue sharing transfers money from (relatively) richer owners to (relatively) poorer owners.

Therefore, MLB's owners love to cry about salary caps, but rarely have much to say about additional revenue sharing.

In the NFL, revenue disparities are beginning to emerge on those areas not touched by revenue sharing (luxury boxes, primarily). Teams like Washington and Dallas, with money to spend but no place to spend it, chafe against the top of the cap. Teams like the Bengals, with significantly less unshared revenues, chafe against the bottom of the cap.

Yet again, let me reiterate: share at least 75% of all local revenues in MLB, and no salary cap. I don't know about the owners of the A's or Brewers, but I, for one, have no desire to make the Yankee$ more profitable...no matter how much of a drag I'd like to put on their spending.

[Flip217]

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=3833716

You will probably see at least a 2 year complete baseball stoppage if this were to happen, however in the end, it would be worth it.

Personally, if there is a salary cap though, there needs to be a salary floor also.

Why would there be a two year baseball stoppage?

[DrungoHazewood]

Why would there be a two year baseball stoppage?

Because the MLBPA realizes that a cap is simply a transfer of money from players to owners all wrapped up in a public relations disguise of greater parity and fairness.

Caps do little to balance out competitiveness. They're great at limiting payrolls. NCAA sports teams have very hard caps (an owner's dream - at zero!), and there's much more competitive imbalance in the ACC or the Big Ten than in major league baseball. Before free agency major league baseball essentially had a cap - the owners told the players exactly what they'd be getting (a tiny fraction of team revenues) and the Yanks dominanted the pre-1974 era more than they do today. MLS has a cap and DC United wins the league every three years on average.

Revenue disparities are what drive competitive imbalances. The Yankees will always find ways to make their $500M revenues translate to more wins. If you tell them they can only spend $150M on payroll, they'll spend $350M on international signings, Boras clients, infrastructure, training facilities, video systems and the like. The Redskins hate the cap because they have nowhere to spend Dan Snyder's billions. But baseball teams have vast scouting and development and minor league systems always willing to take a huge infusion of money and spit out tangible, almost immediate gains.

The real problem is that teams are allowed to exist in situations where they can exploit markets 10 or 20 times the size of their competition and only share a tiny fraction of that wildly imbalanced market with the other teams that are necessary for their league to exist.

To me there's only two choices to fixing this:

a) Allow teams to move where ever they want, and free up the expansion process so that large markets are divided up to the extent that all teams draw from comparable pools.

b) Change the revenue distribution system to be more equitable.

(a) ain't happening. (b) is slowly happening through shared merchandising and MLBAM revenues and the like, and is probably our best hope for some meaningful change. Not that we have a terrible situation right now, anyway.

[Mad Mark]

That Drungo...he says what I say...just better, and more factual-like!
:wedge:

D:
Do you see any evidence of a move towards more revenue sharing or a higher luxury tax in the next CBA, or will it die in a perfect storm of large-market owner and union opposition?

[srock]

To me there's only two choices to fixing this:

a) Allow teams to move where ever they want, and free up the expansion process so that large markets are divided up to the extent that all teams draw from comparable pools.

b) Change the revenue distribution system to be more equitable.

(a) ain't happening. (b) is slowly happening through shared merchandising and MLBAM revenues and the like, and is probably our best hope for some meaningful change. Not that we have a terrible situation right now, anyway.

I can think of a third option, viable, but not practical short of MLB collapsing and a new pro league starting with a entirely new structure.

Follow the European Soccer model. Three or four levels of professional play and the best teams move up the worst teams move down.

This puts the best run teams in the best markets in the same league and the lesser teams in lesser leagues. The competition for each league should turn out fairly balanced.

Of course this completely destroys the minor league system we have in place. Norfolk and Bowie would be separate organizations instead of Orioles affiliates.

As I say in the beginning, this is highly unlikely unless MLB is replaced by a new pro league.

Short of such a monumental shift, I agree that the current revenue sharing path is the best way to go. I would like to see the sharing increased faster and the rules about spending the money on players strengthened. Maybe a hard rule where a certain percentage of revenue has to go into player salaries or something. Admittedly, a complicated endeavor.

[Flip217]

I'm not really disagreeing w/ you or trying to take you to task here, but I have a couple more questions, if you please....


Because the MLBPA realizes that a cap is simply a transfer of money from players to owners all wrapped up in a public relations disguise of greater parity and fairness.

Is this necessarily the case? What if the proposal included a cap and a floor (or should that be ceiling and floor? Or cap and shoes?) If you were making teams that are notorious for not really spending what it takes to be competitive to cough up more dough, isn't more money going to the players? I think my point is that wouldn't the details of any sort of salary restriction affect your point that "a salary cap takes $ from players and gives it to owners".


Caps do little to balance out competitiveness. They're great at limiting payrolls. NCAA sports teams have very hard caps (an owner's dream - at zero!), and there's much more competitive imbalance in the ACC or the Big Ten than in major league baseball. Before free agency major league baseball essentially had a cap - the owners told the players exactly what they'd be getting (a tiny fraction of team revenues) and the Yanks dominanted the pre-1974 era more than they do today. MLS has a cap and DC United wins the league every three years on average.

Are these really good comparables? As far as the NCAA goes, I'm not sure you can compare a student athlete deciding where to play for two or three or four years to a professional athlete and his career decisions; I'm not sure the competitive imbalance can be attributed to schools having a "very hard cap". Anyway, schools do spend varying amounts on other things that matter to a student athlete, plus there's reputation involved, scholarships, etc.

As for MLS there's been, what -- 12 seasons? Can you use that small of a history of a salary-capped league as evidence that caps don't work?

That's all -- as usual you make some very good points and are again demonstrating your creative thinking. You get a Gold Star for your work today -- go home and have your parents put it on the fridge.

[RShack]

Some owners calling for a salary cap?
Who woulda thunk it.

Blame the players for their own failure to reach a sensible arrangement among themselves.
This kind of BS is how they created the mess they're in, and then caused strikes in which they got beat every time.

[paulcoates]

regardless of whether it makes the owner richer, it does even out the playing field and I don't really see a problem with it. Yeah, some owners may get rich, but teams like KC, Pittsburgh, Oak - they may end up going out of business by either:

a)a protracted work stoppage (bankruptcy)
b)or they can't afford the salary floors. In which case they would either go under or move somewhere more viable.


And a work stoppage, in my mind would definitely last at least 1 full year. Without a doubt. No way Fehr is allowing this to happen without a fight.

[Camden_yardbird]

After reading Drungo's post and having my own thoughts I think the best thing for the league and competitive balance is stronger revenue sharing, but with more. I would think something like this would work.

1) More revenue sharing

2) A salary floor tied to the percentage of revenue sharing. If teams are getting money from other teams they should be required to spend it, at least the amount they recieve + a certain amount of their own money.

3) Do away with the unbalanced schedule. This one really gets me. The only justification is really just to get more revenue from NY/ Boston games. The Orioles having to play those teams so many times is really unbalancing.

I think these three things could really equal some things out.

[DrungoHazewood]

I can think of a third option, viable, but not practical short of MLB collapsing and a new pro league starting with a entirely new structure.

That's the key here - promotion/relegation can only happen in an open league structure, where teams are independent entities. You might be able to form some kind of a promotion/relegation scheme in college sports. In the NCAA teams or schools are the top of the heap, and leagues fight for the good teams. It's fairly common for teams to switch leagues, although not in a European-style system.

In North American pro sports almost all leagues (or as far as I know, all pro leagues) are closed. You pay an entry fee to get in, and unless you throw the season or have your competition killed off by snipers you're in forever. The league is clearly more powerful than the teams, and the teams/owners depend on the leagues for the stability and structure to keep their market values high. They also depend on the stability and power of a closed league to extort tax money out of their communities.

There are good and bad points for both types of league. But once you have one type it's nearly impossible to switch to another.

US pro sports switch styles when the entire existing system is on the brink of total collapse, and not a minute sooner.

[DrungoHazewood]

Is this necessarily the case? What if the proposal included a cap and a floor (or should that be ceiling and floor? Or cap and shoes?) If you were making teams that are notorious for not really spending what it takes to be competitive to cough up more dough, isn't more money going to the players? I think my point is that wouldn't the details of any sort of salary restriction affect your point that "a salary cap takes $ from players and gives it to owners".

I suppose a cap + floor is better than a cap alone, but the floor is probably going to be set at a level that most teams meet anyway (if not you'll have teams that can't meet payroll), and the cap is still going to be a transfer of money from players to owners. What the owners do with that is up to them, but that's still the effect.


Are these really good comparables? As far as the NCAA goes, I'm not sure you can compare a student athlete deciding where to play for two or three or four years to a professional athlete and his career decisions; I'm not sure the competitive imbalance can be attributed to schools having a "very hard cap". Anyway, schools do spend varying amounts on other things that matter to a student athlete, plus there's reputation involved, scholarships, etc.

As for MLS there's been, what -- 12 seasons? Can you use that small of a history of a salary-capped league as evidence that caps don't work?

The higher the floor and the lower the cap, the less salary matters. The Utopian ideal here is that when money doesn't matter you just have to be smart to win. Isn't that everyone's goal - the smarter the team, the better chance you have to win? No more buying championships, right?

My point is the Utopians have it all wrong, as usual. In the NCAA I'd argue that Oklahoma and USC and Florida aren't smarter than everyone else, and they're not allowed to spend more on salary than everyone else... but they still win more than everyone else. They win all the time. If Florida goes 9-3 it's a terrible disappointment. They do this by having amazing facilities, and a coaching staff that is better paid than many NFL teams, and by flying charter planes to all of their games, and telling recruits that all they have to do is come to Florida and they'll get to use and play in these facilities and win 11 games a year and be famous and become NFL stars. And the teams that have always had these advantages become destinations for top athletes.

Just as Michigan and Penn State and Notre Dame still attract tons of top recruits and win most years, the Yanks and Red Sox will, too.

Payroll caps divert revenues elsewhere. They don't divert legends and mystique and winning and tradition. They don't keep you from building gold-plated 100,000 seat stadiums with 87 luxury boxes. And they don't keep you from building a player development system that puts Branch Rickey to shame.

It's the revenues. Everything else is window dressing and slights of hand by the owners.

[DrungoHazewood]

To me there's only two choices to fixing this:

a) Allow teams to move where ever they want, and free up the expansion process so that large markets are divided up to the extent that all teams draw from comparable pools.

b) Change the revenue distribution system to be more equitable.

(a) ain't happening. (b) is slowly happening through shared merchandising and MLBAM revenues and the like, and is probably our best hope for some meaningful change. Not that we have a terrible situation right now, anyway.

Actually, there's a third choice, although it's exceptionally unlikely: Lop off about 20 teams and divide the country into 10 zones of roughly equal wealth/income/market size. Have a Super League that could, in theory, divide up MLB's $6B revenues 10 ways instead of 30. Everyone gets rich. Well, everyone except the bottom 2/3rds of players who end up in the minors or unemployed. The contracted owners get a hefty fee to go away, the remaining owners get a huge piece of baseball's monopoly, and the remaining players get paid even more than today.

Of course attendance would be much less and a lot of fans would be turned off by what would appear to be a bold-faced moneygrab by the most powerful franchises. But it would solve the problem of revenue disparities.