Imagine this: MLB players, traditionally against salary caps, propose one to the owners. Sounds crazy, right? But what if it could actually benefit them? For decades, players have resisted salary caps, fearing they'd depress their earnings. But what if there was a twist? A salary cap with a salary floor. This means all teams would be required to spend a minimum amount on player salaries.
This idea, as proposed by Patrick Creighton, manager of SB Nation Astros site The Crawfish Boxes, suggests that a salary floor could force some teams to significantly increase their payrolls. Typically, a floor would be set around 90% of the cap. This would level the financial playing field, making success less about simply having the most money and more about having a skilled executive team adept at player evaluation.
Think about the NFL, where national TV revenue is split equally among all 32 teams. This allows smaller-market teams like the Packers and Jaguars to compete. Conversely, big-market teams in New York have struggled for years.
The key to understanding this system lies in how revenue is shared. Other professional sports leagues with caps, like the NFL, NBA, and NHL, give players roughly 50% of league revenue. But MLB is different.
And this is the part most people miss... In 2024, MLB salaries were only 42.1% of revenues, the highest percentage in the last 12 non-pandemic seasons.
Creighton's proposal suggests that if the MLBPA agreed to a cap system with a 50/50 revenue split and a 90% floor, players, as a whole, would actually make more money.
But here's where it gets controversial... The argument is that if players took this position, they would force the owners into a difficult situation. Owners have long desired a salary cap, but they'd likely balk at a 50/50 split because it would require them to spend more than they currently do.
This brings up a crucial point: MLB doesn't have the same level of national TV revenue as the NFL. This means sharing local TV revenue, where the Dodgers' earnings are significantly higher than other teams. Convincing the Dodgers to do this would be a challenge.
Teams like the Marlins, Pirates, A's, and Guardians would be compelled to spend more on players. Interestingly, the Guardians are an outlier, consistently competing despite a smaller payroll. This is a testament to their baseball operations team. Under a salary cap/floor system, every team would need a strong front office, not just the wealthiest teams like the Dodgers.
Creighton concludes that players could gain significant public support by changing their stance on the salary cap, putting the pressure on owners to accept what they've wanted for over 40 years and write a bigger check.
What do you think? Would this strategy work? Do you agree that players could benefit from this approach? Share your thoughts in the comments below!
