Major League Baseball officials have discussed the possibility of capping teams’ spending in off-field areas such as technology, player development and scouting, report Evan Drellich and Ken Rosenthal of the Athletic. MLB’s owners and league officials are convened in New York this week for a quarterly meeting, though they haven’t announced any changes to this point.
A league official downplayed the possibility of staff restrictions, telling Drellich and Rosenthal that MLB’s focus is on technology. “There is nothing happening on (the staffing) front,” the spokesperson told The Athletic. “What we are focused on is gathering information on vendor costs to find potential cost savings through efficiencies and to ensure equal access to all technology.”
Nevertheless, Drellich and Rosenthal hear that some high-ranking league personnel have indeed kicked around the idea of limits on spending for non-playing staff. That’d be a divisive provision that could impact job security for front office members were it to gain traction.
MLB could frame such a limitation as a competitive balance measure. Smaller-market clubs could argue that revenue disparities among organizations affords larger-market franchises more leeway in bolstering areas such as scouting, analytics and player development — all of which should have trickle-down effects in the on-field results. Limiting spending on non-playing personnel, one could argue, would prevent higher-revenue franchises from leveraging their financial might to gain those advantages.
However, there’s a reasonable case that capping non-playing spending actually reduces the ability for lower-revenue clubs to compete with bigger-payroll rivals. Investment in front office and player development staff generally costs a fraction of teams’ spending on players. For some smaller-market owners, unrestricted spending on non-playing talent can be a means of limiting the advantage for higher-revenue franchises with more leeway on player payroll.
A potential provision that’d force teams to cut costs in non-playing capacities is surely appealing to some on the league side. Each collective bargaining negotiation brings some chatter about MLB potentially pursuing a salary cap. The Players Association has steadfastly refused to entertain that, though. That’s not likely to make it out of collective bargaining anytime soon, but the MLBPA doesn’t represent an obstacle for the league in limiting non-player spending.
Most front office personnel aren’t unionized. As Rosenthal and Drellich point out, the Congressional antitrust exemption for MLB would likely be the basis for a potential limit on front office staff. Whether the league would consider possible litigation, increased scrutiny regarding the exemption, and/or adding an incentive for non-playing personnel to consider unionization efforts of their own — R.J. Anderson of CBS Sports examined that possibility in depth last month in a piece that’s worth a read for those interested in the topic — remains to be seen.
Manfred hates nerds, confirmed.
A’s requested this meeting
I like the idea. I would prefer a salary cap and salary floor so that all 30 teams spends (close to) the same money ON the field, but capping off the field helps too. Another thing they really should limit is the number of coaching personnel allowed per team. The Dodgers have always had a lot more coaches than other teams. At some times it seemed each player had their own individual coach.
Coaches are cheap. If you want as many coaches as the Dodgers, hire them.
More data, more trainers, more staff, that’s a good thing if done right.
You want to put limits on off-field spending, fine. But we then should put a cap on the percentage gross revenues are allowed to exceed expenses by as well.
Don’t give them an excuse to cut spending and pad their wallets further while gouging fans on costs. You want cover to cut expenses, fine, but lower prices across the board at the same time.
Why do some people get so upset when owners make money? Owners charge what people are willing to spend. No one with any sense would do it differently. If you are selling a product and it is selling for $10, are you going to start charging $7 because you are padding your wallet too much?
Baseball doesn’t exist to make fans happy. It exists to make money for owners. If owners didn’t make money, then MLB would not exist.
I don’t mind them making money. What I mind is when they force through new rules to deflate spending,just to make more money, at the expense of the product on the field.
The flip side should be, if a team wants to spend on players why should we prevent it? Baseball existed for 100 years without the arbitrary limitations. If a team wants lots of staff to make a better product, why restrict it?
It’s the same “paying what the market will bear” argument, is it not?
Fact – baseball Fandom is shrinking. Also fact – the ability to follow your team is harder to just see on TV with the fractured rights that require cable and 20 zillion streaming apps just to watch your team all year, and, how about the chance to go to a game? Out of reach for most families. Made worse by the minor league contractions. Fans are being driven away in droves.
The problem is 100 years ago there wasn’t the NFL juggernaut pretty much lapping the pro sports field 2-3 times or more. Why? Because of a true, real salary cap & total revenue sharing. Baseball is losing fans; more people watch the NFL Draft than the World Series. It’s 3-4 teams on whatever TV network they use.
The World Series last year average 12.3 million viewers per game. The NFL draft was around 6 million. Those are across all platforms.
hiflew,
Why do some people get upset when owners want to artificially limit their spending while putting no limits on their profits?
Because it’s privatizing gains and socializing losses – again. It happens in MLB, banking, automotive, etc. The private companies make profits for years, decades, and then when things get tough, they want the public to bail them out. That runs counter to the philosophies of capitalism you and the owners are espousing.
Why restrict it? Because it doesn’t create a fair and level playing field. Do we really want to watch a league with 15 Harlem Globetrotters and 15 Washington Generals? Sure those matchups between the big boys will be fun, but what about the fans of the rest?
The NFL is winning the battle because every team has the same chance. Now there are problems with the NFL model as well, starting with the over reliance on one person (ie QB) for victory, but I digress. The main point is that a team in Green Bay has just as much chance to win as a team in New York or LA. Baseball doesn’t have that other than Tampa and they are just a crazy outlier.. Most teams get 2-3 years every decade or so to join the annual playoff participants like the Yankees, Dodgers, Braves, etc.
I agree with you that losing so many minor league games/teams was bad for the sport. As is the blackout ridiculousness. I don’t have all the answers. I don’t think anyone does. But I do think a level playing field with every team in the league having equal opportunity is the key.. Right now it is just a case of whoever spends the most money gets to the postseason with a couple of outliers like Tampa and Cleveland thrown in.
If Major League Baseball wants an equal playing field, they could pool all revenues and share them equally like the NFL does. The burden should not be put on the players, and especially not on other employees.
Why are you comparing MLB with banking or automotive or any other industry? Those industries are designed to get rid of competition. MLB is 100% reliant on competition. The big boys need the little guys to play the games. Ford has no need for an upstart car company. Citibank has no need for a small bank chain. In fact, they usually swallow them up and spit out the bones.
The goal of any sports league should be to maintain competitive balance.
As far as bail outs go, if those large companies fail lots of people will become out of work which will put even more pressure on public resources. Would you rather pay a bailout to a company that has proven it can succeed over the long term or pay long term unemployment to people that have one less company in their field to work for? Not every company is worthy of a bailout, which is why it rarely happens, but for some without them there would be chaos.
The comparison is to demonstrate that MLB is like lots of other big corporations that they want others to help them when they’re losing money but they want everyone out of their business when they’re making money.
I have asked for help when I was losing money before, and I also want people to stay out of my business now that I am not. I don’t see a problem with that.
This is different, the league is attempting to collude to cap salaries on non playing personnel while pocketing the difference. It’s basically a monopoly and it’s wrong. Especially if those savings aren’t passed to consumers. Family of 4 taking the kids to the ballpark costs $500-$1000. It’s cost prohibitive for majority of population.
it’s the owners using “competitive balance” as cover for them keeping more money in their bank accounts.
Dcahen – the other difference is that I can turn on broadcast TV on a given weekend and watch a football game or 3.
Baseball? Not anymore.
Funny you mention the Braves alongside the Yankees and Dodgers.
You do realize that while staying in Atlanta the team went from a revenue sharing receiving ballclub for many years, to being a payor?
It’s called pulling yourself up by your bootstraps. Other MLB markets could do the same, if they put the work in
@gasoxfan
Spot on with your 2 points, I remember as a kid fox Saturday baseball being a thing and I could catch a 1/3 of cards games on “rabbit ears”, not to mention the radio if you were lucky enough to have some of the caliber of vin calling a game, ff to now unless you pay out the backend for a package your not watching bb. Now that’s great for about 1/2 your fan base that can afford stuff like that, but what about the other half that can’t afford such luxuries now your turning them away from bb, every sport needs the “poorer” fan base because those “poor kids” might not be poor when they grow up or be the next face of your sport. Also with atl going from small to big is proof of what I’ve been saying for years, “put a product worth watching/spend money on” and fans will come, imho the whole tank to be good has hurt mlb as a whole, how do you sell something at full value for years during the “rebuild” then complain why no one wants to watch or buy tickets,it’s because no one wants to give hard earn dollars to anyone that’s not trying
You are 100% right, but I want to point out that all professional sport leagues are built on a Socialist platform, not a Capitalist one.
Slow, the socialist aspect is who funds the stadium, while the capitalist aspect is who keeps the profits.
Here is the problem with that theory the same teams year in and year out are in the superbowl the nfl has the haves and the have nots when have we seen cleveland detroit the texans the jets the bears the titans the commanders anywhere near a superbowl
Then why are the same teams in the superbowl year in and year out when did detroit beat the bears to play in the superbowl vs cleveland who beat the texans to get there
why would you prefer this. it is a competition. though not always a level playing field, these kind of moves play into the hands of cheap owners like the one in Oakland. as a giants fan i am glad they employ analytics and a large staff. it is part of their success. so are we going to punish success. may as well I guess, as too much of the rest of our society is rewarding medioctriy
“We are tired of the Rays winning without spending foolishly like the rest of MLB. It is making us look bad. We want to take away everything they do intelligently, and force them to make poor decisions like everyone else.”
And how many WS titles do the Rays have?
@dcahen the more the playoffs are expanded, the more they become a crapshoot. 20 of the Yankees WS titles came in the era when you only had to win one playoff series to be the champion. It’s different today, the 10th best team gets hot at the right time and……. In todays game, putting cheating aside, if you are the Astros, Rays, Dodgers etc and you are consistently winning year after year, then the organization is great, WS titles or not.
AnD hOw MaNy WoRlD sErIEs TiTlEs Do ThE rAyS hAvE?
Salary cap yes!
I agree there should be a salary floor so teams with cheap owners like the White Sox will have to stick a crowbar in their wallets, blow the dust off, then pay to have a competitive team. I don’t think there should be a cap. Let the owners spend all the money they want. It’s not coming out of my pocket.
Yes it is. Well not yours specifically, but it will ALWAYS come out of the fans pocket. Owners became owners because they were good businessmen. Good businessmen do not spend more money than they bring in. If they spend more, they charge more for their product.
@hiflew
The Royals can’t raise ticket prices to match the salary increase they’d take on if they were to sign Max Scherzer and Marcus Stroman. Just doesn’t work like that. You can charge what the market bears.
You know Oakland isn’t selling anymore tickets because they paid Jace Peterson and Aledmys Diaz millions of dollars. His profit margin would’ve been better with 2 AAA players. The fans aren’t spending more because they did.
Did I miss the Royals making those signings? That is precisely why they don’t sign guys like that. That is why KC runs a small payroll because they know it does work like that. They know the limits of their market.
Yes as an individual, you can make that choice. And if enough individuals make that same choice, then owners would change. But thus far, some markets do not make that choice and continue to pay whatever the owners charge.
MLB tries to take in as much revenue from fans as they can, and player salaries have absolutely zero bearing on what that amount is. Do you seriously believe that sane businessmen voluntarily leave money on the table because their low payroll means they don’t need it? You think an owner says “nah, I know the market will bear $30 but let’s just charge $15 for these tickets because I’m making enough profit already”?
Player salaries are are determined by a highly-restricted-but-slightly-competitive market using that revenue to bid for their services in hopes of taking a larger share of the fan money than the other teams.
Lol the White Sox do spend money. They spend money on a bad team because spending doesn’t equal winning.
This FO limitation is horse crap. I hope we never see this come to fruition.
What a rouse. Big money teams now have year in year out competition from small money teams. And the big money teams don’t like it. Cheap off field investments by small market teams, specifically hiring talent evaluators and giving them technology to help find the talent, has helped even the playing field.
Oops. Meant “ruse” not “rouse”. LOL
They have spent millions and millions on aging relievers and 4th outfielders every year. Instead of signing 1-2 top free agents.
I don’t want a salary cap of any kind in baseball. Ever.
This would be painfully stupid for MLB to do. It pushes the balance much more towards big market teams that spend more on players and limits any sort of advantages small clubs can gain via specialized analysis and coaching.
without investing in preschool to 12th they won’t get qualified college students.
The John Fisher special. Don’t allow any spending at all.
By limiting the spending on payroll, and then adding more limits to non payroll areas, it increases the profits of the big market teams. Just like the Union only works for the top paid players, MLB does everything it can to help the largest markets.
Add it to coaches too. Seems like the Giants have almost as many coaches as they do players
This will not sit well with the PA. Capping players to better themselves? Yeah they are for that.
What a stupid proposal. They’re just mad the BoSox, Mets, and Pads aren’t obliterating the competition, while bottom-budget teams like TB, Baltimore, and AZ are crushing it.
It’s true that the owners, commissioner and TV networks favor ny and LA. Just look at how many Yankees games have already been on network TV. They’re probably wetting their pants that TB, Arizona and the Braves are leading their divisions instead of their precious Yankees, Mets and Dodgers.
Pirates, Rays, Twins, Diamondbacks, are all in first place. Baltimore, Marlins, Brewers, Reds, are all in wildcard spots. That is eight of the 12 playoff teams if the season ended today. Padres, Mets, Phillies, White Sox, all have payrolls of at least $185 million and are all below .500. It seems that the only place that small market teams have an advantage is investing in scouting and development. Simply spending money isn’t the same as spending wisely. Ask the Mets. There is no ring for spending like an idiot. Salary caps just protect owners from themselves. The Padres and Mets are proving that rings are not for sale.
I’m glad you mentioned spending wisely and the White Sox in the same post. The Sox’ higher payroll is deceiving. They paid way too much on mediocre, at best, players. Look where it’s got them.
Considering both of those teams could still win a championship this year. I wouldn’t go that far yet. Baseball World Series aren’t always won by the teams with the best record in mid June.
Tinker tinker tinker. Nowadays with every league, Industry, everything. Mess with it just to do something. Sad. Can’t leave stuff alone.
JayRyder: I’d like to send your post to Manfred.
Incredible.
Basically, cheap teams who refuse to spend money to draw fans out to the field by refusing to pay players, are mad that other teams are getting the benefits from investing in their teams and want to prevent them from more investments that could enhance the game and improve the product on the field, which would ironically bring more fans and interest to the game, which brings more money. But what do I know. Basic economics is what it is, basic
What would the limit be? We don’t know how large or how much each team spends on the scouting and tech side.
Why would you limit the amount that teams can spend investing in their business? Even if it’s a big limit? Owners that feel like they have a bad deal should sell today. The GD Washington Commanders are selling for 6 billion dollars. Nobody is being forced to own a sports team. If there is an owner who feels like they can’t make it under the current set of rules, then they should sell.
This is just to give owners cover to cut back on spending so they can pocket more money. Of course they want to cap off field spending. “Oh wo is me, I wish I could invest more in training tools to help improve player performance, but this mean ol’ rule (that I happily voted for) says I can’t. Golly Gee.” This is the kind of thing that’s going to cause the sport to stagnate. I hope the union fights this because it’s literally taking away the types of tools that can help players improve, and thus earn better salaries.
It is what it is a cost saving measure like the draft, like the international signing market masquerade behind a “competitive balance” excuse. They are talking like personnel are making millions (most of them are not) yet teams sign journeyman relievers for $8M a year.
Cap it up like the NBA.
Yeah! Then we can have baseball players team up to form super teams like in the NBA! And the players can force trades a year after signing long term contracts and everything in MLB will as awesome as it is in the NBA! The NBA sucks and so do caps.
The nba has a cap in name only when they do sign and trades your trading for a players Larry bird rights which you are allowed to sign not going against the cap
Never heard of that. It sounds like an unusual rule. How many sign and trades are there per year? Doesn’t that salary fall onto the team that acquires the player and the contract that he signed? It would make sense that the team that signed would not have a cap hit, but the one who traded for the player would.
All I can add to this is this: I am constantly in awe of the Los Angeles Dodgers. Despite being a perennial contender with international signing limits as well as constant late round draft picks, year in and year out they churn out a robust farm system with multiple top prospects. I feel like any limitations are aimed squarely at tampering them a bit (and I’m not even a Dodgers fan). To have the farm system they have year in and year out combined with what is essentially a blank check they are given every year to sign free agents, it feels like they are a cheat code.
First they aren’t spending enough and now they’re spending too much. Which is it MLB?
Holding back the game in the name of parity. Lovely.
More like giving the billionaires who won’t spend an even easier way to compete.
OR an easier excuse to save money!
> What we are focused on is gathering information on vendor costs to find potential cost savings
So basically they want to use this to squeeze Rapsodo and Spinball. How does MLB still have an antitrust exemption again? If a group of 30 other companies got together to collude on what they pay their suppliers it’d be a slam dunk antitrust case.
There should be caps and floors for all spending. This is a league and competitive balance is paramount. Capitalism does not work in the viability of the league. If the Mets and Steve Cohen spends a billion dollars a year how is Tampa who might spend 100 million on everything compete? You need caps and floors on everything or you are going to have a two or maybe 3 tiered product within a product. The Rays are an aberration. Oakland, Pittsburgh, Kansas City, Miami, and Cincinnati more often than not suck and are a minor league system for big market clubs.
Tampa is way better than NYM.
Because spending money does not equal winning. Just because a team spends $90 million dollars on two pitchers that are a combined 90 years old doesn’t mean that team then gets automatic wins. They still have to play and win games. Scherzer and Verlander have combined for 7 wins and 1.3 WAR. Zach Eflin has 8 wins and a 1.6 WAR. Eflin makes $11 million AAV. Verlander and Scherzer earn $43.33 AAV each. The Rays are paying $11 million for better production than the Mets are getting with $87 million. That is how they compete with the Mets. Why would you care if the Mets spend themselves into oblivion? Why would the goal ever be saving owners from themselves?
That’s true, small market teams need outstanding scouting and development departments to compete. A 90 million dollar mistake would hurt the Rays for 5 years, the Mets will absorb it easily and fix it and that’s the unfair advantage. Arizona can not make the same mistakes the Dodgers make and expect to compete. The Pirates will never outspent the Cubs and if they mess up on a player it hurts them longer. Baseball needs to join the other 3 major sports in putting in caps and having revenue sharing. Without revenue sharing there is no competitive balance and you will one day have a team with a billion dollar yearly payroll going against a team or 2 with a 100 million dollar payroll. Eventually it will cause the league to split like European soccer into two tiers, the Champions League and then the rest.
The ability to absorb a mistake is not a vaccine from the next mistake. There is already revenue sharing. Each team pools 48% of the revenue they earn, and the total amount is then split evenly (3.3% of the total) and given to each team. Some owners spend that on investing into a better on field product, and some owners put it in their bank account. Caps in the other sports have mixed results at best. The max contracts in NBA lead the players to create super teams that leave most of the league unable to compete. Caps in the NFL lead teams to cut veterans for cheaper players even though they are still productive and beloved by fans so that even a player like Aaron Rodgers and Booby Wagner can’t finish their careers in one city (I know Bobby is back in Seattle he never should have left).. For all the money that has been spent on contracts the Kansas City Royals have more championships since 2010 than the Yankees and Mets combined. Going back to 2001 the Yankees are tied with the Royals, Diamondbacks, and Marlins for championships. I don’t think the owners colluding on player contracts is better for anyone except the owners and I don’t care to save billionaires from making $90 million mistakes. Owners that do want to invest in their teams should be allowed to. Owners that don’t should sell their teams to an owner that does. I’m sorry if your owner sucks. Other teams shouldn’t be dragged down to their sucky level for some perceived sense of “fairness” when the results of the last twenty years don’t show a system of unfairness.
Nine MLB teams have a lower payroll than the $100 million they get from national TV deals and revenue sharing. That is before selling one ticket. Those owners pocket the money.
Oh, for craps sake…
Just do revenue sharing and join the 21st-century sports world.
▪︎It’d solve this issue (I’m assuming the larger markets are able to afford more tech, thus an unfair advantage)
▪︎It’d make the super-2 shenanigans needless
▪︎Practically end tanking
▪︎And just provide an overall better product for ALL 30 markets
They are sharing revenue. Some team owners invest that money back into their teams and some owners put it in their pocket then complain that they can’t compete. If your owner sucks, then I’m sorry. Other teams shouldn’t have to suck because yours does.
Let’s make this easier. Manfred should simply issue a press release stating he only wants high-revenue teams to be able to complete for championships. The moment MLB limits money put into things that are not the direct salaries of players will be the moment baseball crushes the chances of teams like the Orioles and Rays from challenging the Dodgers and Yankees with any consisency.
I don’t understand this. it sounds to me like the owners would rather implement a salary cap. However, since they know the players’ union would never go for that, they’re trying something else. But to me, this is an area that has always provided an opportunity for teams that do things like scouting & development well, to have an advantage. I dont like this. I feel that if you’re going to cut costs, this is definitely the wrong area to cut IMO.
And it’s not going to cut too much costs.
And also, I don’t think the players union is going to go for this either!
So much for the idea that “mlb stadiums bring jobs” argument.
This kind of crap would backfire if it was tried anywhere and it has nothing to do with evening competition. It’s the league wanting more control.
Manfred has destroyed MLB. Stupid new rules. Let’s return to authentic baseball ⚾ without all of the crazy rules. Get rid of starting a runner at second base after the 9th inning. Get rid of the pitch clock. Get rid of checking hands of pitchers. Baseball Purist. It worked just fine for over 100 years.
Yeah it’s a wonder how he keeps his job.
I remember when Dombrowski was in Detroit and they starting really spending on players in the draft. He was asked why were they willing to spend to get players like Verlander, Porcello, maybin etc.
DD replied that was a way that they could compete on a more level field with teams like the Yankees.
MLB went to a slotted system with penalties if teams went over their limit.
Point of historical order: there’s no “Congressional antitrust exemption” for MLB. It was the Supreme Court that exempted baseball from the Sherman Act. Congress has made noises repeatedly about reversing this decision by law for over a century, but has never taken any action.
Why? So Stu Sternberg can pull a John Fisher?