For years, professional baseball has become a system in which winning can be purchased rather than earned. MLB teams that are willing to spend are able to accumulate top-tier talent and assemble the league’s best rosters, while those without the financial ability or desire to do so are left at a significant competitive disadvantage.
The 2025 World Series champions, the Los Angeles Dodgers, carried the league’s second-largest payroll at $321,287,291. Their opponent in the Fall Classic, the Toronto Blue Jays, ranked fifth with a payroll of $239,642,532. This matchup marked the second consecutive year in which both World Series teams finished in the top five in league payroll, and nine of the last 10 World Series have featured at least one team ranked in the top five in league payroll.
The Dodgers will also pay a luxury tax of $169 million for having an excessive payroll in 2025, a total that is greater than 16 other MLB teams. The 2025 season marked the fifth consecutive year in which the Dodgers exceeded the luxury tax threshold to field a roster featuring some of the league’s premier talent, including superstar Shohei Ohtani and his average annual salary of $70 million.
With a payroll of that magnitude and another World Series title already secured, one would think the Dodgers would be done spending. Not quite. All-star outfielder Kyle Tucker signed a four-year, $240 million contract with the Dodgers Jan. 21 to enhance an already loaded — and expensive — lineup.
The Tucker signing is representative of a larger structural issue within professional baseball, where teams in major markets with extensive financial resources hold a significant advantage over small-market franchises. With no true limitation on spending, wealthier teams are free to indulge, assembling rosters that smaller markets simply cannot match because they possess both the willingness and the means to pay. Simultaneously, the absence of a minimum salary threshold allows small-market teams to spend as little as they choose, further widening the competitive gap.
By putting a salary cap in place, the league can begin to foster an environment that rewards tactful team building and long-term strategy rather than the sheer size of a franchise’s pocketbooks. A cap would force all teams to operate within the same financial boundaries, placing a greater emphasis on player development, scouting and front office decision-making. Instead of allowing wealthy franchises to simply outspend their competition, success would be determined by how effectively teams maximize their resources, creating a greater opportunity for league-wide parity.
Other major professional sports leagues have already taken steps to level the financial playing field, and the results speak for themselves. Both the NBA and NFL utilize salary caps that limit excessive spending and allow teams from all markets to compete on relatively equal financial footing. The NBA’s 2025 Finals serve as a clear example of this balance, as the Oklahoma City Thunder faced off against the Indiana Pacers, a matchup of two small-market franchises contending for the title.
While the 2002 “Moneyball” Oakland Athletics remain a popular underdog story to give hope to less-wealthy franchises, that team never reached the World Series and was ultimately overpowered by opponents with significantly larger payrolls. That said, the reality is that professional baseball has fostered an environment where teams that are unable to afford massive payrolls are doomed from the very start of the season.
The MLB needs to reevaluate its financial rules before the competitive imbalance becomes permanent. Without a salary cap or floor, the league risks turning into a predictable product where only the wealthiest franchises can realistically compete for championships. If nothing changes, teams like the Dodgers will only continue to outspend the competition and buy themselves another World Series ring.