But, Billy, reality is you\u2019re touching on something that will be the crux of the league\u2019s push for a cap. If MLB is going to flip players to its worldview, it has to convince some of them that a cap is actually good for them.<\/p>\n
It\u2019s trying.<\/p>\n
And the union, as you\u2019ll glean from the following quote, has to continue to demonstrate to players that there are better ways to achieve the changes players want than what the league is peddling.<\/p>\n
\u201cOur priorities are to increase compensation and opportunity for players at all levels and in all categories,\u201d Bruce Meyer, the interim head of the Players Association, said in response to this question. \u201cIn the last round of bargaining, the players who benefited the most monetarily were the youngest players, not the stars, because the union fought and achieved record increases in minimum salaries and for the establishment of the new pre-arb bonus pool.<\/p>\n
\u201cOur current proposals continue to provide record increases in the minimum salary and pre-arb bonus pool for the youngest players, would result in more money for arbitration-eligible players, and would incentivize and reward teams who compete, benefitting free agents of all types.\u201d<\/p>\n
How united are the 30 ownership groups on the strategy for this lockout? The small and large market teams have radically different incentives, and are very differently situated in what they have to lose or gain. A small-market team like the Rays could wind up having to spend *more* to hit the floor. How long into the winter and spring will the owners remain in lockstep? \u2014\u00a0Alex R.<\/p>\n
Let\u2019s take the second part of your question first, about smaller markets spending to the floor.<\/p>\n
In the big picture, a salary cap benefits all teams. Franchise values would go up across the board. But there are two other effects: cost savings and redistribution.<\/p>\n
As the league proposed it, a cap would reduce overall player compensation. Between MLB player salaries and amateur signing bonuses, players in 2026 will receive more than 55 percent of the pie, the union estimates (which is a slightly higher estimate than the union offered earlier this year).<\/p>\n
MLB\u2019s cap proposal would drop the players\u2019 percentage, so teams would save overall. Then, from there, the money gets moved around in a cap system. All local TV income would be newly shared equally. That would allow the Rays and other small-market teams to reach the floor.<\/p>\n
Keep in mind: if a cap was an awful outcome for a bunch of small-market teams, MLB wouldn\u2019t have proposed it.<\/p>\n
Now, let\u2019s talk about unity.<\/p>\n
At every moment in this negotiation, both sides are incentivized to project only strength. It\u2019s expected that players and owners will say things like, \u201cwe\u2019ve never been more united.\u201d Why would they say anything different? (And if they did say something different, well, make sure to let me know.)<\/p>\n
Which means, when you hear things like, \u201cwe\u2019ve never been more united,\u201d it could be true \u2014 but it\u2019s not true just because someone said it. They\u2019re always going to say as much.<\/p>\n
So, are the owners really united?<\/p>\n
They seem to be,\u00a0yes, but here\u2019s the rub: it just doesn\u2019t mean much right now.<\/p>\n
The owners might believe with every bone in their collective bodies that they are willing to miss an entire season or more \u2014 whatever it takes to get to a salary cap. The players, too, might believe the same on their end, that they\u2019ll fight as long as they need.<\/p>\n
But what matters is how they\u2019ll feel when checks are on the line. At that point, the sides will have to stay strong every day. And no one actually knows whether they will.<\/p>\n
So much vitriol will be directed at both sides if games are missed. Fans, media partners, sponsors and politicians (likely including the president) will be hammering away at players and owners to get a deal done. Everyone\u2019s bank accounts will start to ache, even with funds put aside.<\/p>\n
Heck, financial situations can change independent of a lockout: ask Los Angeles Dodgers owner Mark Walter.<\/p>\n
Bottom line: It\u2019s one thing to say you\u2019ll miss games, and another to actually do so.<\/p>\n
History says owners will cave on a cap before the players do. Could this time be different? I don\u2019t know, and right now, neither do they.<\/p>\n
How will a lockout affect the service time of players? If the lockout does go through all of 2027, do players not accrue any service time or will that be something that is negotiated\/resolved when a deal is ultimately reached? If it\u2019s a shortened season, will whatever amount of games played still count as one year? \u2014\u00a0Julian M.<\/p>\n
This would be negotiated. Naturally, the union would fight to have players receive as much service time as possible, and the league would want the opposite.<\/p>\n
It also becomes a form of leverage. For example: If we\u2019re in late February without a deal, on the cusp of missed games, MLB might say, \u201cwe\u2019re not going to give you service time for games you miss,\u201d trying to pressure a deal right then. But that doesn\u2019t necessarily mean the sides would not work out a retroactive grant if games were canceled.<\/p>\n
For what it\u2019s worth, players did retroactively receive<\/a> service time following the 1994-95 strike.<\/p>\n How likely is it that this will end up being like the last lockout? Maybe the season starts late but they still play 162 by using doubleheaders and adding some extra days at the end? \u2014\u00a0Cameron K.<\/p>\n I know this won\u2019t be satisfying, but anything is possible.<\/p>\n If you look at what has happened historically, there\u2019s definitely reason to think they\u2019ll find a way to play a full season. They did last time, as you point out. And there hasn\u2019t been a formal stoppage that\u2019s cost the sport games in more than 30 years, since the 1994-95 strike, which is\u00a0something commissioner Rob Manfred himself touts. So recent history says \u2014 in Jeff Goldblum\u2019s voice \u2014 baseball finds a way.<\/p>\n (I say there hasn\u2019t been a \u201cformal\u201d stoppage because some industry folks point out that the contentious negotiations over the shortened 2020 season functioned basically as a work stoppage, but that was a unique circumstance during the coronavirus pandemic.)<\/p>\n But let\u2019s go beyond the history lesson, since every negotiation is different. We arrive at a discussion of incentives.<\/p>\n The damage to the sport, in terms of lost revenues and fan disengagement, rises the more games that are missed. Missing, say, 30 games would likely not be as damaging as missing half a season, or a whole season.<\/p>\n Everybody involved here likes to make money, and they make money by playing the games. But there\u2019s also potentially big financial gain for the owners in a cap system.<\/p>\n The owners could be comfortable taking a shot to see if players cave relatively quickly, to see if this group is less willing to fight than players of yore. Hypothetically: What\u2019s 15 or 30 games missed to the owners if it produces the salary cap that owners have always wanted? And if it doesn\u2019t work, maybe the owners say OK, we tried, let\u2019s go play and get our TV rights fees.<\/p>\n And then there\u2019s the scariest scenario for fans, which comes if owners do decide to sit out for a long time to get a cap \u2014 and the players are willing to go toe to toe.<\/p>\n One more thing to keep in mind is that the calendar will sneak up. For example: If we\u2019re in March and no deal is in place, April starts to fall away fast.<\/p>\n That\u2019s because the season can\u2019t start the moment a deal is reached. There would have to be at least a shortened spring training.<\/p>\n And here\u2019s an added wrinkle: If the owners back off a salary cap, it would probably take some time for the sides to hash out a revision to the current system.<\/p>\n The MLB Players Association\u2019s eight-member executive sub-committee is comprised of Chris Bassitt, Jake Cronenworth, Paul Skenes, Brent Suter, Pete Fairbanks, Cedric Mullins, and Tarik Skubal. None of these players came up through the international system. Those players have considerably different life experiences and paths to the Major Leagues. Is this going to be a blind spot for the PA? How might the owners try to exploit this? \u2014 Jay O.<\/p>\n Jay, you forgot to list Marcus Semien on the subcommittee! We won\u2019t tell him, though.<\/p>\n On to your question. The bottom line is that some Latin American players and agents do not feel as connected to the process as their U.S.-born peers. It\u2019s a problem, but not a simple one to solve.<\/p>\n \n Marcus Semien is, in fact, a very important member of the union. (Justin Berl \/ Getty Images)<\/p>\n Jorge Castillo at ESPN did a good story on this subject<\/a> recently that you should check out.<\/p>\n The eight-player executive subcommittee isn\u2019t the end-all be-all for union decisions. A new bargaining agreement would be voted on by 38 players who collectively are known as the executive board. That\u2019s the eight on the subcommittee, plus 30 reps from each team.<\/p>\n All 38 are supposed to consider input from players broadly. Yet, even in that wider group of 38, there\u2019s only one Latin American player, Pablo L\u00f3pez of the Minnesota Twins. That\u2019s suboptimal, to put it lightly.<\/p>\n Part of what\u2019s tricky is that players have to volunteer for these board positions.\u00a0The union can\u2019t force players into them. Education and language barriers play a role. But that doesn\u2019t mean the union also cannot do more than it does presently to encourage participation.<\/p>\n Meyer, of the union, provided the same statement to The Athletic that he gave to ESPN:<\/p>\n \u201cThe Players Association regularly solicits and receives input from players across our entire membership, at all levels and backgrounds, and not limited to players on our executive board,\u201d Meyer said. \u201cOur positions at the bargaining table are a direct reflection of that feedback, including on international issues.<\/p>\n \u201cWhile our elected positions are open to all players, we view representation as far more than just a title on an executive board. In that spirit, our player services staff and leadership are in constant communication with players on issues big and small, and ahead of the last negotiations, we sought and received input in numerous ways from Latino players on international market proposals and other issues.\u201d<\/p>\n The union has not agreed to an international draft so far because it believes the league\u2019s offers for that system haven\u2019t done enough for the players who go through the system.<\/p>\n What\u2019s the upshot of all this? It\u2019s something to watch.<\/p>\n In labor relations, solidarity is everything. If the league can successfully divide different groups of players, or if the union can\u2019t successfully unite various factions, players overall will have a tough go.<\/p>\n Are MLB teams actually losing money? And if some do lose money year to year, are the losses so severe that they make the appreciation of the value of the franchise not worth the investment? Are they losing money because they\u2019re poorly run? I\u2019m trying to understand why the owners are taking such a hard line. \u2014\u00a0Michael M.<\/p>\n Franchise values consistently go up in baseball and other sports leagues. But baseball owners have not seen their assets appreciate<\/a> in the same way as owners in other leagues with a cap system. That\u2019s a big part of MLB\u2019s push for a cap.<\/p>\n Now let\u2019s talk about annual profits. While the books for most teams are not open to the public, some teams do lose money on an operating basis.<\/p>\n The Mets are one such club. Their owner, Steve Cohen, who is an incredibly wealthy man, can afford those losses, in the sense that he has plenty of personal funds he can put into the team without going broke.<\/p>\n But, he and other owners don\u2019t like having to cut a check annually to sustain their business, regardless of what they can cash out for down the road. That\u2019s not how it should work, they believe.<\/p>\n Some on the players\u2019 side will argue that because the club values continue to appreciate, annual operating losses are less important. Others, on management\u2019s side, will say that\u2019s hogwash. Another one to make up your own mind about.<\/p>\n What makes the conversation more complicated, though, are the ancillary businesses. Teams build real-estate developments around their ballparks. Some of them own their TV networks. Cohen is building a casino.<\/p>\n Those operations provide additional revenues that rely, to varying degrees, on the baseball team\u2019s existence \u2014\u00a0but are not reflected in the team\u2019s financial statements. A team might be losing money, but the overall enterprise it sits in the middle of might well be profitable.<\/p>\n Detailed financial information would really be a help. But even without it, there seems to be some truth to the idea that if these teams were terrible businesses, they wouldn\u2019t be sold for billions of dollars.<\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/08\/GettyImages-2288915213-scaled.jpg\")
<\/p>\n