Major League Baseball has finalized the luxury tax calculations for the 2023 season, and the eight teams over the Competitive Balance Tax threshold will combine for a total bill of $209.8MM, Ronald Blum of the Associated Press reports. Both the total number of tax-paying teams and the total sum are new records, surpassing the previous highs of six teams (in 2016 and 2022) and $78.5MM (in 2022).
Here is what each of the eight teams owes for surpassing at least the $233MM base CBT threshold….
- Mets: $100,781,932
- Padres: $39.7MM
- Yankees: $32.4MM
- Dodgers: $19.4MM
- Phillies: $6.98MM
- Blue Jays: $5.5MM
- Braves: $3.2MM
- Rangers: $1.8MM
As a reminder of how the luxury tax operates, the CBT figures are determined by the average annual value of salaries for players on the 40-man roster. A player earning $20MM over two seasons, for example, has a CBT number of $10MM, even if the player might earn $8MM in the first year of the contract and $12MM in the second year. Deferred money in a contract can reduce a luxury tax number to some extent — most famously, Shohei Ohtani’s $700MM deal with the Dodgers contains $680MM in deferred money, so his CBT hit will be roughly $46MM per season instead of $70MM.
A team is considered a “first-time payor” if they haven’t spent above the CBT threshold in the previous season. A first-time payor would owe a 20% surcharge on any dollar spent between $233MM and $253MM, 32% of anything between $253MM and $273MM, 62.5% on anything between $273MM and $293MM, and then 80% of overages for anything beyond $293MM. These percentages rise if a team is a tax payor for two consecutive seasons, and then even further if a team exceeds the CBT line in three or more consecutive seasons. This year’s CBT class featured three first-time payors (Texas, Atlanta, Toronto), three two-time payors (Philadelphia, both New York teams) and two three-time payors (San Diego, Los Angeles).
The $293MM threshold was instituted in the last Collective Bargaining Agreement as a fourth penalty tier, and it is unofficially known as the “Steve Cohen Tax” in a reference to the Mets owner’s penchant for big spending. Even though New York has only topped the CBT whatsoever in 2022 and 2023, it isn’t surprising that Cohen’s team set new standards for tax payouts. The Mets’ tax payroll of $374.7MM and approximate $100.78MM tax bill far exceeded the 2015 Dodgers’ previous records of $291.1MM and $43.6MM, respectively.
This bill would’ve been even higher if the Mets hadn’t unexpectedly struggled, and unloaded some expensive contracts at the trade deadline in order to save some money and reload with an eye towards probably 2025 as a more clear-cut return to contention. Blum also notes that the Mets received a $2,126,471 tax credit related to a CBA provision, which slightly reduced their bill further.
As always, the actual financial cost of exceeding the tax is perhaps the least-important part of the penalties, especially for teams who barely across the first threshold. Teams who exceed the CBT line would face further punishment in regards to free agents who reject qualifying offers, whether that translates to additional compensation required to sign a QO-rejecting player, or lesser compensation received if a team’s own qualified free agent signs elsewhere. For instance, signing Ohtani cost the Dodgers not just $700MM, but also $1MM in international draft pool money and their second- and fifth-highest picks in the 2024 draft. For a team like the Padres, should Blake Snell or Josh Hader sign elsewhere, San Diego’s compensatory draft selection wouldn’t come until after the fourth round of the 2024 draft.
Spending on talent is more often than not a recipe for success on the field, though obviously hardly a guarantee. The Mets had a losing record, and the Padres and Yankees each squeaked over the .500 mark with 82-80 records. The other five tax payors reached the playoffs, though the Phillies and the World Series champion Rangers were the only members of that group of five to win at least one postseason series.
The $209.8MM in tax revenues will be split up in three ways by the league. The first $3.5MM is devoted to funding player benefits, $103.15MM will go towards funding individual player retirement accounts, and the other $103.15MM will be put into a supplemental commissioner’s discretionary fund and distributed amongst revenue-sharing recipient teams who have grown their (non-media) local revenue over a pre-determined number of years.
1 penny owed up front, $209,799,999,99 deferred.
Here’s $20. Go buy a new joke.
How much of that 20 are you deferring though?
Trumo asking the real questions. ^__^
We’ll have Harambe Day instead of Bonilla Day every July 1
How many times is this corny joke going to keep on happening one penny oh upfront the rest will be deferred. Enough already it’s over it’s done. It’s played out stop you know you’re only doing it for the likes. Make sure you defer that.
Bees??
This joke has been around for a week. I wouldn’t say it’s old.
And Oakland, etc collect for doing nothing
I highly doubt the A’s have grown their local revenue recently.
Fisher, Nutting and Castellini are rubbing one out as we speak.
@unclemike1526
As an A’s fan (with an owner who I would like to push face first into a cement mixer) I’d really like to know where these taxes go.
I do appreciate that there should be certain balances, and appreciate all 30 teams can’t spend exactly $237 million a year each. But using an extreme example, why should Steve Cohen’s ambitions be used to fund John Fisher’s utter lack of investment… and you can add Nutting in Pittsburgh & Angelos in Baltimore too.
So I’d go further. Ask Mr Polishuk to explain where the taxes go, and why the bold teams should be paying for the Fisher’s of this small world to lie dying on the vine?
Why do you threaten violence?
@realsox
It’s comedy violence. Laurel & Hardy violence. Obviously I’m not going to do that..
Maybe….
@AsFan
The Bold teams (large market) should be paying, because MLB sells large and small franchises for HUGE sums regardless of how disadvantaged they will be in competition. They know now that Vegas, and Nashville and Montreal cannot compete with LA and NY or even Philly. Yet they will get teams never the less, and MLB will charge them ridiculous amounts to do so. The markets aren’t even in size, so revenue can’t be even, so something has to level the field. The A’s make a mockery of the system, but Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Baltimore, Cincinnati and Milwaukee just don’t have the revenue.
But only Pittsburgh’s owner is Nutting!
They received $110 million in revenue sharing. Pittsburgh spent 59 million on payroll, Milwaukee spent 61 million, Cleveland spent 60 million, Baltimore spent $35 million, Cincinnati spent 65 million. 15 teams spent less on payroll than received at the beginning of the year in revenue sharing. I think that teams that don’t spend their portion of revenue sharing on payroll cannot complain about the system. They are all billionaires and can afford to spend at least what they receive for free in revenue sharing on payroll. If they can’t, then they should sell their team. I don’t feel bad for any billionaire owner that pockets half of their revenue sharing and then cries that they can’t compete.
Tell me about it! If they don’t spend it then they should have to pay double what doesn’t go into the team! Cheap ass tax!
Do you know that one of the minority owners of the Reds have donated nearly half a billion dollars in the last five years to charities? I think the issue is that the Reds have the wrong owners. I mean, charity is awesome but they need owners who will actually spend it on the investment (the team). And King Kroger can go find a new team to root for. 🙂
larkraxm, you say that the owners are all billionaires and can afford to spend at least what they receive in revenue sharing on payroll. Are you saying that they should put millions of their own money into the team every single year? Seems like a way to not be a billionaire any longer in a few years. I believe every small market team can spend more on payroll than they do, but fans seem to ignore the fact that a club’s revenue has to be spent on more than just the major league payroll – they have to pay minor league players, front office staff, major and minor league coaching staffs, and other overhead. How much does that amount to? I don’t know, and I don’t know of any reliable source for that information.
If they won more games they would make more money and then they could donate even more!!
No. I’m saying that they get $110 million from MLB before selling one ticket, or one hot dog, or one jersey, or one parking space, or any corporate signage or stadium naming rights. I get that they have other expenses in addition to payroll, but they also have other revenue streams besides what they get in revenue sharing. No one is forcing them to own a MLB team. There is no shortage of billionaires that would take their place if they want out. If they can’t afford to spend the free money they get from MLB on payroll, they should sell the team. Winning = profits.
@stymeedone
Great response and I appreciate your point, well made. But I’d make this point..
If I’ve got 1.5 billion available to set up one of the two expansion teams in (say) Nashville, why do I then expect the bold teams to subsidice me for a number of years afterwards?
I suppose my badly made point is why would you do it?
as with having applied a ceiling before taxes, the floor should be enforced as well….but how do you penalize the poor in a just way…and yes, all these smaller market clubs don’t spend entire amounts of revenue sharing given on the major league payroll…supporting their minors system as well has been the defense used…floor should be the revenue sharing $ plus a designated minimum commitment from the owners as well
Fisher line 2
running,
I would much prefer someone spend half a billion dollars on charities than the folly of a sports team.
I highly dislike the fact that some teams are not spending all of their sharing money visibly, and the only argument they might have is that they were operating at such a deficit that the revenue sharing money went to keep them afloat … but I just don’t believe any of these teams are losing money, small market or not. It’s more about how much they are making and what loopholes they are using to actually get more money out of them.
As for the penalty you asked about, they simply lose revenue sharing money to the same amount they didn’t spend up to be at least being a zero-sum organization. Give it to a charity if need be, but make these teams try.
I should also state I think it should not be based year to year, but possibly on a rolling schedule. Maybe a three or five year average. That way they can possibly overspend occasionally, but also go a little lower if they are building up. I am sure the bright minds in the MLB and MLBPA can come up with something.
Agreed. Didn’t say they should stop spending it on charities but rather that the Reds need new ownership who will invest in the team.
I’m not sure where you got your numbers but as a Brewers fan I can confirm they spent way more than 61 million this past year on salary. If that number of for the upcoming year then they didn’t factor in Arb prices for not that number yet. Which means it will still go way higher.
Its not leveling the playing field at all. So where does that money go and how does it help level the playing field? I have no idea…
Since they control another team’s tv rights, besides their own, Baltimore should have the revenue.
Persi – Last year Oakland had the 5th biggest profit in MLB.
Baseball is broken.
@additionally at real Sox
Whichever Sox team you pay to follow, are you happy to sub your money to another team?
Fever, that’s disgusting if true, but it doesn’t necessarily mean that they grew their local non-tv revenue though.
The answer is simple. If they don’t show proof they put the money back into the product on the field, Then they should have to give it back. Problem solved.
Persi – It’s from Forbes, so definitely true.
Most profitable in MLB? Mariners.
Source?
@ Pepsi W – How much of that is due to putting a subpar product in the field for years?
It’s easy to make a profit when your stadium isn’t being maintained, your dollars are still rolling in from media deals and your roster costs 27 cents.
Pittsburgh is also up there on that Forbes list. Still, A’s are a bit more disgusting because they actively broke up a winning team, stripped the organization for parts (including selling one of the most popular minor league franchises), and spent the money lobbying corrupt Nevada politicians to gain access to taxpayer money.
It went so far that the other owners, passionate fans of corporate welfare themselves, voted to make the move to Vegas contingent on a massive tax penalty if Fisher tries to immediately sell the franchise.
Because that is what the owners want. None of them voted no. They have chosen to support what Oakland is doing. I therefore cannot support the owners. They are destroying the integrity of baseball, and they don’t care as long as they get theirs.
What are we going to do about it?
Having a perennial doormat that other teams get to take out their frustrations on a couple times every year is not destroying the integrity of baseball. If you look back throughout the 20th century there have been chronically bad teams. For reference, watch the movie Major League.
If small market Owners silence could be bought with the promise of $5-10 million, than they will certainly be all out cheerleaders of the CBA for double that amount.
What about $110 million. That is what every team received last year to start the year in revenue sharing.
The beauty of communism. Incentive to do the absolute least, receive rewards and collect funds to stay stagnant. So beautiful.
Please take the time to use your own thoughts and actually invest some time into learning about communism instead of sounding like a Cory in Texas.
Lowest CBT hit won it all lol.
That’s the formula – Ureka!
I don’t think it’s LOL really. I think it shows that spending doesn’t equal rings. It also shows that one team’s spending doesn’t hurt another team, which is the argument being repeatedly made over and over. Can anybody explain how the Yankees paying Donaldson and Hicks $35 million last year hurt the Pirates?? In fact, I would argue that the Mets committing $90 million to Scherzer and Verlander actually created opportunities for other clubs. The Rays signing Eflin for example. The Rangers showed it isn’t “just” spending, It’s spending on the right players that compliment each other and your roster.
Lol Mets
Steve Cohen knows how to get his bang for the buck. He fell right into the Cohen Tax and will keep paying it in 2024 once again as he continues paying for Max, Verlander and get this one James McCann to play for other teams.
I can’t make this stuff up and he loses 10 positions in the draft another year. Lol
Yeah since he finally realizes he needs a strategy, I think the smart thing would be stay away from big name free agents until those 3 are paid off. Stick it out with the youngsters for now. I’d love to extend Alonso but that might not be a smart move now.
Also imagine how bad it would be if they did end up with Correa
Rangers well done
I know the “Big Guy” gets 10%. But where does the rest of all this “luxury tax $$” go to?
The rest of the money goes to all the teams with the billionaire owners that don’t spend any money at all on their teams but still collect huge paychecks because it’s determined that they are “small” markets. I’m not saying that some of those owners don’t try and do the right thing, but giving the A’s money they won’t actually spend, while Jeff Fisher pockets this, is absolutely ridiculous. Sorry, just my opinion.
They really distribute it to the “poor owners/teams?” I would rather it just be fully embezzeled by MLB. That’s pathetic.
The owners that act like paupers with a cup in their hand are equally brutal.
Yeah, it should be equally distributed to all non tax paying teams as incentive to stay below the line.
MLBPA would never agree to that in a CBA. They want teams to go above the line, over and over again.
John Fisher. That would be hilarious though if Jeff “7-9 BS” Fisher owned the A’s. Nevertheless, both Fishers are clowns.
Miles: It’s amazing how much Fisher and Reinsdorf are alike. I picture Reinsdorf – whose team is not in a small market, he just spends that way – on the floor of his vault room just rolling around in his money, like Scrooge McDuck, who I would actually prefer run the Sox than that cheapskate. I mean, at least the A’s players try. They also have more good players (Kemp, Brown, Blackburn) than the Sox (Robert and Cease, whose time in Chicago is limited).
Not just yours and while cash for players is cool, but if it was given to teams with mandatory player spending it might make some big spending teams think twice. Just think, if every team got 7 mil free money but it would have to be spent on player salaries. Add say 3 mil more and acquire player for every non-penalized team. So almost twenty teams get a free player.
The vacation homes of small market owners I think. I have no idea lol.
Small markets doesn’t mean small bank accounts by the owners. The money should go to smaller market teams with the stipulation that they actually spend it, not on another yacht or to buy their own private island, but on players. If manfred wasn’t in the pockets of the owners, his focus should be focused on the integrity of the game.
I wonder how much of that total redistribution is actually spent on improving the respective team. I’d be willing to bet that the total amount *not* spent by some of these teams to improve would be pretty large.
1 penny will be spent on improving the team, the rest will be deferred.
It goes to Socialism, the biggest scam known to man.
You know Capitalism invented pyramid schemes, right?
HADG: Well, in all honesty, socialism doesn’t necessitate any schemes to steal money because it’s all forcibly taken by the government….
Equating a competitive balance tax to Socialism is absurd! What you are advocating is whoever has the most money should win. Baseball is special, partly because of parity. Even the best teams lose 50 games a year, and the worst win 50. So you know what your free market approach can do!
Its a game my friend. A game that is playing by different rules from a fan perspective. Its not that deep.
Except for the NFL. There it works.
The small market team who doesn’t have the large media market (Oakland, Pittsburgh, tampa, St. Louis)(yes , St. Louis) revenue gets the funds. Problem is they are not required to put the funding into payroll for mlb players.
The Mets are run by similar people who are big on Wall Street Bets.
Am I missing something, or is $291.1m higher than $100.78m?
Depends how long and how much is deferred…
The Mets making roster decisions based on some random Reddit form is entirely believable. Too the moon!
Pretty obvious the CBT really does nothing to constrain salaries or the spending of the wealthiest teams in baseball. What it really does is affect the next small group of teams that could spend to or maybe just above the CBT threshold but can’t afford the tax bill or other penalties.
Yup, it just increases wealth redistribution from rich teams to players and low spending teams.
I think you are correct. It doesn’t really change behavior at the top, it discourages spending in the middle, and if I understand the cbt payout distribution correctly it also doesn’t really encourage payroll investment at the bottom. It seems unlikely to change as all sides seem to be making a lot of money.
Agree. Money doesn’t buy World Series appearances but it does buy long competitive windows whereas the lower revenue teams have to go through long rebuilds (Pit, Bal, Cin) and shorter competitive windows.
Please do a similar article or Projection for the upcoming ’24 season on teams over the CBT..SO FAR..Including which tiers they are currently at, & how much tax they would currently owe for being over! Thanks MLBTR
That figure will double next year.
This isn’t at all how I thought the CBT proceeds were distributed. I have so many questions. 1) Why does half of it go to fund player retirement accounts, isn’t that part of the players contract with their team? 2) What constitutes non-media revenue for the rest of the discretionary distribution.. is that just growing baseball ops revenues (like attendance) or is it also including real estate lease revenues like Ballpark Village or The Battery developments?
If the latter, it doesn’t incentivize competitive balance it incentivizes owners trying to squeeze free land out of local government.
GV: The players really took the league to the cleaners on that one, which shows how badly those non-tax-paying owners wanted this extra money. The retirement though is funded by the league at ~$205MM/yr, not the team, specifically.
As far as non-media revenue, this is how it’s worded, “Net Local Non-Media Revenue, including, but not limited to, initiatives to increase attendance and attendance related revenue; expenditures and investments in marketing, promotion, and fan engagement and new business opportunities; and the competitiveness of the Major League team.”
Thanks YC! Seems like that broad language gives Manfred leeway to spread that discretionary amount around however he sees fit. I guess if I word that differently, it doesn’t exactly sound like a formula to calculate the distribution but maybe it is one. Either way it seems designed to share proceeds with teams that already have increasing revenue regardless of spend, rather than to teams that have decreasing net income such as from a big investment in payroll. Maybe I’m wrong but wouldn’t that reward a team that runs a low payroll draft-develop-trade type team more than a team that runs a higher payroll, if both strategies increase revenues from attendance etc but one of them has more associates payroll expense?
Yeah, GV, sounds like you’re tracking the way it works. I think if you were to assign team names to make it a more vivid illustration, it would be that it’s intended to punish the A’s for intentionally decreasing payroll, competition, and therefore fan attendance, and reward teams like the O’s that increase attendance and revenue.
Yankee Clipper: It seems kind of crazy that some of the.money goes to a retirement fund. Most players – even those making minimum wage for 7 months of work – should be able to survive for a long time on that money. “Underpaid” players making $3, $4m or $5m a year are doing a lot better than most people. It should be put into the team, into developing players, etc. Unless I completely misunderstand you post. If I did, never mind.
Avenger: Yeah, seems pretty crazy. What’s even more of a mockery to me is that they also have a benefits plan, which includes eyeglasses, contacts, etc! I mean, really?!
Clip, as far as I still know, ONE day of MLB service time gets you LIFETIME health benefits..Dental..Contacts..Body Piercings etc…
Haha, “body piercings” Lolol.
If Altuve smiles real big you can see his 2 tongue rings.
And I have it on good authority that the reason he didn’t want his Jersey torn off after his walk-off HR was because of his new union-endorsed belly button ring.
Not True Trumbo
blogs.fangraphs.com/micah-bowie-player-benefits-an…
Didn’t know that. Nice job Cat Mando!
My pleasure. Most people believe what you stated because you can still find articles etc from reputable outlets spreading the falsehood. You are not alone.
If I had to choose between Trumbo and Fangraphs, I’m going Trumbo every time….
From what I understand, the MLB pension plan is paid out by MLB, not the individual teams. So unless I’m misunderstanding what ‘individual retirement accounts’ are (like if they’re similar to a 401k instead of a pension), that’s what the money is for. MLB pensions can be over $200,000/year for guys with 10+ years of service, so that adds up.
The players also pay into the pension plan out of their paychecks.
Tax and redistribution + draft pick compensation is how there’s parity in MLB. Seems to be working imo.
Same MLB’s richest teams. Same.
unpaid: All owners are billionaires, yet it’s fascinating when they want a new stadium built so at the owner’s meetings they can brag that they have the best stadium on the planet, cry poor and turn to the taxpayers instead of paying for it themselves.
Everyone keeps saying this but there are several owners who are not billionaires. A quick search online shows Brewers, Marlins, Rockies, Dbacks, etc. Shohei Ohtani will be worth the same amount as Mark Attanasio from the Brewers at the end of his contract.
There are A LOT of costs that go into running a MLB team that aren’t just player payroll. This is the compromise on not actually having a real cap or floor like every other sport that makes everyonehave to just get by on smarts. Trust me, the big market teams are coming out way ahead. Owners like Fisher in Oakland who is a billionaire suck but every one of these teams is running a similar profit margin. Big market owners aren’t coming close to losing money but small market owners would if they spent anywhere close to the tax line. There’s no virtuosity here. The Dodgers are spending because they are absolutely rolling in money due to their market and tv deal and are going to make more money with their latest expenses. I don’t blame them. They are exploiting the system the way a big market team should.
This is great to see IMO. I get that a lot of the smaller market teams’ fans are justifiable frustrated, but I like seeing more teams spending big. It used to just be 1-2.
I’m not against teams spending big. Frankly if the biggest clubs DONT spend big it’s bad for baseball’s overall global marketability. I still don’t think the CBT really does anything positive for competitive balance. I really wish we had more visibility on club financial statements.
It really isn’t “bad for baseball.” I mean, really, how many of those contracts actually play out? How many World Series has it gotten the teams for spending so much? I don’t think you can really say it’s bad for baseball when teams like the Rays put up more WAR as a team for less money.
It looks bad everywhere else, but it’s great for the game to be wealthy. Now if only certain jobs got more money…
I think more teams are realizing that if you’re OK spending over $200 million on payroll, and extra $5-20 million in penalties isn’t that big of a deal.
Rct this is my take on it as well. Most of the top market teams and teams that are run more efficiently like the Dodgers, Braves, Phillies have the financial means to field teams with a $200 million payroll and then the results on the field and fan support throughout the year makes the additional tax penalty payment of a few extra million as no big deal.
I understand the hate for what the Dodgers did this off-season with Ohtani and Yamamoto, but the Dodgers draft and develop players rather well and have owners and a market that allow them to re-invest into their team to remain competitive. The Yankees have always had the same advantages, just the Dodgers have had better success recently.
Baseball is still a very popular sport and is very lucrative. We are going to see small market teams still prosper when they develop their own players, but still see large market teams get the superstars and free agents because they can afford to take on higher contracts that smaller market teams can’t just eat if they don’t work out. Teams like the Rays, Marlins, Orioles show that you can be good for a stretch of time with good scouting and development, but their competitive time windows are limited before they lose their core (unless they continously develop replacements).
Too bad they don’t put which teams receive the $ and how much they receive
I am reading either a lot if typical large market fan drivel or you all just can’t do basic math.
103 million divided among the small market teams isn’t going to do a whole lot per team to change competitive balance one iota when you take the local TV income disparity into account alone, not to mention other factors.
This is the biggest farce since congressmen were allowed to do insider trading.
lmao, once again you’re here, quite in the tank for small market cheapskate owners with your blinders on, insulting everyone else and accusing them of being in the tank for large market teams.
Every estimate available has revenue sharing around $150-200 million. Here’s one:
thetribune.ca/sports/mlb/
There is literally no excuse for teams like your Reds having a payroll below $150 million other than their owners being cheapskates who value profit over fielding a competitive team. This $103 million spread out over the poorest teams is in addition to local and national revenues being shared. The small market teams are compensated plenty. The owners just don’t spend it.
Again, you attack without admitting there’s a real problem, just like a politician.
Reds never had a payroll above 130 million. Neither of us ever saw the books so I guess that’s their max. I have said for two years 80 million was a farce, but my issue with the owner is well known.
You have the RSN situation, which they have done nothing to fix. Most small and mid markets teams aren’t spending because they have no idea if Bally’s is paying.
All TV revenues, iclusibg local, should be shared equally like other sports. That would even the playing field considerably.
Large markets drove contracts into the stratosphere, beyond small and even mid markets ability to compete.
Flip it on its ear. What incentive do small and mid markets have to spend on contracts given that they are so behing the 8 ball? That’s why you see them put money into player development and Latin American scouting. No scouting in Asia because that posting system is also geared for the large markets. Their best bet is to hope everything comes together in a 3-4 year window before the player leave for big money. They’ll have to deal guys in year five to get any return.
That’s reality for two thirds of the clubs in baseball.
I’ll leave you with a last thought. If these teams are so willing to pay this tax, how much are they really bringing in? They aren’t doing it out of the kindness of their heart. That proves the tax is a farce.
Both points very well articulated. This has been the best discussion ive seen on this topic. Without name calling too!
@this one belongs…. Yeah, both math and business sense are sorely lacking in most of the posts here. $100 million between twenty-two teams, even ten teams doesn’t add up to much. Especially as there is no guarantee that you will get the same amount next year. Can’t make long term commitments on such an uncertain revenue stream.
@Skeptical But this isn’t their main revenue stream. It’s just added money. Like a Christmas bonus. Of course it shouldn’t be relied on year to year.
Articles like this written to ‘protect’ and ‘validate’ the new Padres ownerships spending stance.
‘See, we can’t afford to spend’
Well the Mets and Yankees can.
Hey Padres ownership group, if you cant afford to spend…sell the team to someone who can.
Padres even with reductions will be in the top 5-10 of payroll going in to 2024. Probably something like 60-80M ahead of my Mariners in overall payroll investment in a similar sized market. Why is that so unacceptable? Do you really expect them to spend like the Mets and Yankees when their market and the value of their club is a fraction of the size? I would be in heaven if the Mariners even approached 170-180M in payroll.
You may need to go to a doctor. You may have been in a coma? You don’t know what you are saying or you failed to miss months of context.
San Diego always comes out and supports their teams lol
Dude you just had a team full of stars and your owner foot that bill. It didnt work, now youre crying they dont spend.
It’s all about this year. Team doesn’t get a pass for last year.
‘It didn’t work’ is a canned excuse.
Yet another example of how the redistribution of wealth fixes nothing.
Weird….the sport with no salary cap has the most parity…..yet the most crying
Do we know who the revenue-sharing teams are? There is some sort of formula for determining the competitive balance draft picks, and of course those teams are known from the draft order. But I haven’t been able to find who are the teams that receive the tax distribution $ (with the exception of the A’s whose eligibility is for some reason specifically written into the CBA).
I wish they would change this system in one material way–the forfeit of draft picks and international draft $. Raise the CBT rates if you need to, but the more you shut big market teams out of cheaper prospect talent, they more the will be forced to buy it in the free agent market–that pushes up prices for all types of FA talent, not just the hyper-gaudy stars, but also the 2 to 3 WAR player who fills a need that a powerhouse team hasn’t been able to draft or otherwise acquire.
I would like to be the “agent” for the luxury tax.
The top three teams combined for almost $172 million with 0 playoff games between them.
Again, it would take a heart of stone not to laugh at Cohen blowing all that money on a lousy team.
“Competitive Balance” lol
$101 million luxury tax for a ballclub that finished 4th.
LOLmets … the Xmas gift that keeps on giving all year round.
Yeah, I’d love more clarity on the “supplemental commissioner’s discretionary fund.” Not just where it goes, but the formula they use to come up with the pay outs. I’m guessing that’s something internal and will remain secret(?)
There is no set formula. The collective bargaining agreement sets out a bunch of factors that the commissioner can use in distributing the money to teams getting revenue sharing. If you want the actual verbiage from the CBA…
The Commissioner will consider the following factors in determining whether to make a Club a distribution from the Fund: (i) the Club’s non-media Net Local Revenue growth rate compared to other Payee Clubs; (ii) the Club’s success at reducing the total amount of proceeds it receives under the Revenue Sharing Plan through revenue growth of non-media Net Local Revenue; (iii) the Club’s total non-media Net Local Revenue compared to its average non-media Net Local Revenue over a five- and ten-year period; (iv) the Club’s total non-media Net Local Revenue in relation to its Market Score; (v) the Club’s total paid attendance in relation to its Market Score; and (vi) the Club’s long- and short-term efforts at growing its non-media Net Local Revenue, including, but not limited to, initiatives to increase attendance and attendance-related revenue; expenditures and investments in marketing, promotion, and fan engagement and net business opportunities; and the competitiveness of the Major League team. The Commissioner will provide the Association with a written statement as part of the consultation process regarding the factors that he considered in making a distribution to a Club. The commissioner will utilize best efforts to distribute all of the amounts allocated to the Fund within one year, provided that, in his discretion, there are a sufficient number of Clubs that merit a distribution from the Fund.
Got all that?
The top has never been the problem, most of the top paid players haven’t won the world series. The floor is the big problem.
When I see a team like the Brewers get money from this, I don’t have a problem because they don’t have the revenue streams the big market teams do. Yet they try and be competitive within their constraints, and that’s appreciated. But when John Fisher deliberately torches his roster to the ground on purpose, and gets rewarded monetarily and pockets the money, that’s where there’s a problem.
Wow, the Rangers win the World Series and only pay $1.8 million for the salary tax. Maybe instead of sending money to the non salary cap teams, the mlb use that money for supporting disadvantage youth to play the game.
Then who determines who the “disadvantaged” are? You cant make everyone happy. Seems to come down to what the goals and expectations are from the individual owner. In the case of the Reds, they have traded or let go of Cy Young level pitchers they have had in the last 5 years. Gausman, Castillo, Sonny Gray and not even to mention Trevor Bauer. Havent see anything close to a return yet. So take a small/mid market team like the Reds and add the fact that they are clueless on how to build a team and you have the current Cincinnati Reds.
No collectively bargained agreement will have a team lose 100 games and then extend the manager for 3 years a quarter into the next season. Thats the current Cincinnati Reds. On the flip side you have the Mets, who have shown money doesn’t equal success necessarily. But at the end of the day (and beginning lol) you are basically playing by different rules when you have a team spending 4 times what another spends. Theres a reason no other leagues deal w this problem and they are thriving. Go ask a kid if they can name 10 major league baseball players outside of their local team.
5 of the 8 made the playoffs. Does anyone want to try and argue that the money doesn’t matter? it’s OK, I wouldn’t either…
$10-15m seems doable for the Phillies as long as they get to host some playoff games. Ticket revenue could cover the added expense and then some with concessions and merch sales
It doesn’t work that way. All playoff revenue is split since 2022 as:
World Series winner gets 36%, the World Series runner-up, 24%, two League Championship Series losers, 12% each, the four Division Series losers, 3.25% each, and the four Wild Card playoff losers 0.75% each.
No players get paid a regular salary during playoffs. They get “shares” of the take on all teams playoff revenues. The teams get what they get from concessions/mech per normal agreements.
The Metz must be the all-time most horribly managed and owned team to run up a luxury tax around $101MM?!
Steve Cohen is now trapped like a sewer rat Lol. He has a $ 300 MM
roster for 2024 where he will be hit with another luxury tax while he is paying about $ 50 MM to Players Max, Verlander & James McCann to play for other teams. He has a swiss cheese roster with multiple holes to fill 2 SP, RP, OF, 3B with no pitching in the minors to be promoted. He has been setup like a bowling pin. The Wilpons weren’t anywhere near this financially incompetent.
His Casino Deal is going nowhere as his parking lot sits on NYC parkland where he will need a political waiver to use and the local politicos and community oppose him. The Wilpons own the land with the former chop shops where the Soccer Stadium is coming with housing and he is playing hardball with the Soccer Stadium over using his parking lots. Fun times coming grab your popcorn.
AOC looms as she is in his backyard and she has already stopped the Amazon deal from happening.
Should the MLB rename the cap – “BIG MARKET SPEED BUMP”?
Does it seem to be effective to anyone? And how about deferrals? Does that seem to be a loop hole that levels the playing field?
The laughable part is the teams that have all the advantages don’t have the smarts to take advantage of them and win rings consistently. The days of money buying half the rings from the 1920s to 1962 are over.
I guess the front offices have learned how to compensate for not having unlimited money. When that stops happening, the game will be just as boring as it was for 40 years when the Yankees bought their rings.
Thank goodness for the Friedmans and Cashmans of the baseball world, otherwise there would be truly dominant organizations winning rings every year..
With the Dodgers deferrals, doesn’t that mean that the 46 million or whatever will be charged every year against them until it’s paid off?
After reading all of these comments, I need a drink!!
Top 3 teams miss the playoffs haha
I think the Jays were only going into the luxury tax levels to try and persuade Ohtani to come to Toronto. I think they will dip back under in a couple of years after their window closes. Luxury payer is not who they are.
The NY teams are an embarrassment.
Payers 2 – 7 pay $133 million and Mets pay $100 million for 4th place finish. One more example of dollars not guaranteeing results.
As a Mets fan it’s depressing to see that the amount could have been even worse….
It is disingenuous and incorrect to keep referring to the Ohtani deal as a $700 million deal. the cbt hit is $46 million in each of the next 10 years because the balance of the deferment is the calculated interest on that amount. In reality it is a $460 million contract. To characterize otherwise only satisfies egos and encourages others to point to the contract when negotiating their own.
Sorry. I don’t know why it posted four times.
Robrock30, you are really ill informed. Steve Cohen has a bill like every other owner. Even though his bill is substantially bigger he’s also substantially richer than all the owners. The Mets already netted a profit of 600+ million and he’s already made an additional 5-6 billion in other areas since purchasing the Mets. So the 300 million is a drop in the bucket. Basic math. He can pay that bill with one of his Picasso’s if he wanted to lol, you do know who Picasso is?
As for the Casino he’s most likely going to get that done and you’ll probably end up being a guest there.
Try not to sound stupid next time.
Neither of top three teams in Luxury Tax made the postseason.
The team with the best RoI was the Texas Rangers; only $1.8 million over but they gained their first World Series Championship
FLAGS FLY FOREVER
Only two of those teams had success in the playoffs. Interesting.