MLB<\/a> Players Association have been negotiating a new collective bargaining agreement since May, with the current deal expiring Dec. 1. And perhaps no issue is more consequential\u2014or potentially contentious\u2014than MLB\u2019s proposal for a salary cap and salary floor.<\/p>\n\n\tEnter the Milwaukee Brewers, winners of an MLB-best 103 games and, for the fourth consecutive season, the National League Central. And the Crew did it with nothing resembling baseball\u2019s biggest payroll.<\/p>\n
\n\tOf this, we are certain: The player\u2019s union noticed.<\/p>\n
\n\tMLBPA interim executive director Bruce Meyer has specifically pointed to the recent success of teams like Milwaukee when challenging MLB\u2019s competitive-balance argument. His point is straightforward: Cap systems don\u2019t guarantee competitive balance, because teams like Milwaukee\u2019s payroll ranking (19th) and Tampa Bay\u2019s (23rd) provide examples of lower-payroll teams keeping up with much richer clubs.<\/p>\n
\n\tThe Brewers and Rays (who won an impressive 98 games) therefore look like particularly compelling exhibits. To channel Dr. Suess, little cats A and B.<\/p>\n
\n\tIf two top teams can consistently win while spending considerably less than baseball\u2019s financial heavyweights, what exactly is the problem a salary cap will supposedly solve?<\/p>\n
\n\tClearly, a careful owner doesn\u2019t need to spend the most money to win division crowns. So why prevent billionaires (willing and able to spend lavishly) from opening their wallets for free agents?<\/p>\n
\n\tCould an objective jury suggest this case should be closed? Not quite.<\/p>\n
\n\tThe Brewers and Rays got us wondering about the other side of the argument. If Milwaukee and Tampa Bay become exhibits for salary cap opponents, what would MLB owners say in response?<\/p>\n
\n\tWe came up with four answers. There are undoubtedly others\u2014and perhaps better ones\u2014but here\u2019s our quartet.<\/p>\n
\n\tFirst, four exceptions (we\u2019ve added in little cats C and D with the Chicago White Sox and Cleveland Guardians) don\u2019t necessarily make the rule. That raises the question of whether this is really about someone\u2019s desire for \u201ccompetitive balance.\u201d<\/p>\n
\n\tMLB has explicitly structured its argument around equality of opportunity rather than equality of outcomes. Under that framing, competitive balance doesn\u2019t mean every club should finish 81-81. Why? Because superior scouting, player development, coaching and decision-making all create advantages.<\/p>\n
\n\tAdmittedly, our two exhibits have been exceptionally good at all of them. But that leads to a different interpretation of the success. Milwaukee and Tampa Bay may demonstrate that superbly run smaller-market organizations can overcome an annual financial\/salary disadvantage.<\/p>\n
\n\tBut that doesn\u2019t mean the disadvantage doesn\u2019t exist.<\/p>\n
\n\tIndeed, the Brewers, Rays, ChiSox and Guardians (they of the absolute lowest salary payroll) could be evidence for both sides at once. The union can say, \u201cSee, you don\u2019t need a cap to compete.\u201d<\/p>\n
\n\tThe owners respond with, \u201cSee how exceptionally well you have to operate a club without the resources of the wealthy.\u201d Milwaukee, Tampa, Cleveland and Chicago prove the financial gap can be overcome\u2014not that it doesn\u2019t matter.<\/p>\n
\n\tSecond, building a winner and sustaining one aren\u2019t necessarily the same thing. The Brewers and Rays have been unquestionably successful for multiple years. But two questions linger. Can they keep their rosters together as their best players become increasingly expensive? And come mid-October, can either club win the big prize?<\/p>\n
\n\tMLB has made player retention a central part of its competitive-balance case, arguing smaller-market teams should have greater ability to retain the stars they develop rather than eventually losing them to clubs with greater financial resources.<\/p>\n
\n\tThen there is October. Milwaukee and Tampa Bay have never won a World Series (and Cleveland hasn\u2019t won since 1948). Indeed, Kansas City in 2015 remains the last small-market club to win the World Series.<\/p>\n
\n\tThat doesn\u2019t prove a salary cap is necessary. Far from it. But it does point out a conundrum: Is possessing sufficient resources to compete over 162 games the same thing as possessing sufficient talent to continually assemble and win the Series?<\/p>\n
\n\tThe answer may be yes and no. This October will undoubtedly add interesting data points.<\/p>\n
\n\tThird, perhaps big payrolls aren\u2019t really about buying wins but more about the consequences of being wrong. This may be the most interesting argument, because one lingering \u201cMoneyball\u201d habit is thinking about payroll in terms of efficiency.<\/p>\n
\n\tWe can measure how many wins an organization purchased for each dollar spent. But can a 103-win team disappear from October in three games? Why, yes, they can. In fact, in 2001, the Seattle Mariners won a record 116 games and promptly lost the American League pennant to the Yankees in five.<\/p>\n
\n\tThis is the advantage of what Purple Row\u2019s Renee Dechert, drawing on Pedro Moura, calls \u201coptionality\u201d: Better resources give teams more ways to respond when things go wrong. Wealth doesn\u2019t guarantee better decisions. It makes bad ones easier to survive.<\/p>\n
\n\tWe think that insight leads to a broader question. Perhaps baseball\u2019s financial imbalance isn\u2019t simply about the unequal ability to purchase talent. Maybe it\u2019s also about the unequal cost of failure.<\/p>\n
\n\tConsider two teams that each make a $30 million mistake. A wealthy club can absorb it, find a replacement and try again. For a club operating closer to Cleveland, Chicago, Milwaukee or Tampa\u2019s payroll, the same mistake consumes a far greater share of its resources\u2014and leaves far less room to recover.<\/p>\n
\n\tMoney therefore may not buy certainty, but it may fund resilience.<\/p>\n
\n\tIf that postulation is true, the competitive-balance question changes subtly: Are wealthier clubs better positioned to survive the inevitable mistakes and misfortunes involved in trying to win it all?<\/p>\n
\n\tThe extraordinary efficiency of the 2026 Brewers and Rays doesn\u2019t necessarily answer that question, but it may actually help illuminate it.<\/p>\n
\n\tFinally, we think when the smoke clears what fans will see is that MLB\u2019s owners aren\u2019t proposing just a ceiling. They\u2019re also proposing a floor. The league\u2019s initial proposal would establish a $245.3 million salary cap and a $171.2 million salary floor in 2027.<\/p>\n
\n\tBased on 2026 Opening Day payrolls, the Washington Post reported eight clubs would have needed to reduce payroll. But 12 would\u2019ve been required to spend more. The Brewers, Rays, Guardians and the surprising Sox were four of them.<\/p>\n
\n\tThat turns the Milwaukee-Tampa example on its head. The owners\u2019 response could be: Exactly.<\/p>\n
\n\tMilwaukee has constructed one of baseball\u2019s best teams while spending approximately $131 million. Imagine an economic system that required the Brewers to put another $40 million into that roster while simultaneously reducing the spending advantage enjoyed by baseball\u2019s richest clubs. The numbers are even crazier for the Rays and White Sox. They\u2019re positively insane for the Guardians.<\/p>\n
\n\tThat, in turn, invites an equally powerful response from the players. Why does accomplishing the first objective require the second?<\/p>\n
\n\tThe MLBPA\u2019s proposal points toward another solution: Greater revenue sharing, coupled with penalties for clubs failing to meet minimum payroll benchmarks or invest revenue-sharing proceeds in players.<\/p>\n
\n\tSo, if Milwaukee can build baseball\u2019s best team at its current payroll, why prevent the Dodgers, Yankees, Mets or anyone else from paying players what they believe they are worth? Why not strengthen revenue sharing and require lower-spending clubs to invest more in players\u2014without imposing a ceiling?<\/p>\n
\n\tAnd suddenly the Brewers, Rays, Guardians and Sox aren\u2019t evidence for either side so much as evidence of how complicated the question is.<\/p>\n
\n\tCompetitive balance can mean comparable payrolls, chances of reaching October or the financial capacity to survive mistakes. Those are not the same thing.<\/p>\n
\n\tMilwaukee, Tampa, Cleveland and Chicago will undoubtedly be part of the bargaining conversation despite their status as lesser cats. But despite the attention their success receives, how much should four exceptional teams really tell us about the economics of an entire league? Perhaps not much. Or, possibly, too much.<\/p>\n
\n\tThen again, high-stakes labor<\/a> negotiations are rarely won\u2014or lost\u2014on economic evidence alone. They\u2019re often determined by brutal strategies and tactics requiring unwanted compromise or \u201ccouldn\u2019t stand the pain\u201d submission.<\/p>\n\n\tJohn Cairney is the dean of the School of Kinesiology at the University of Michigan. Rick Burton is Syracuse University\u2019s David Falk Emeritus Professor of Sport Management and former commissioner of Australia\u2019s National Basketball League.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"Today\u2019s guest column is from professors John Cairney and Rick Burton. Most baseball fans are currently focused on…\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":819693,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[2401],"tags":[5,136,11972,843,59,4280,4],"class_list":["post-819692","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-milwaukee-brewers","tag-baseball","tag-brewers","tag-labor","tag-milwaukee","tag-milwaukee-brewers","tag-milwaukeebrewers","tag-mlb"],"share_on_mastodon":{"url":"https:\/\/channels.im\/@mlb\/117371138513828746","error":""},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.rawchili.com\/mlb\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/819692","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.rawchili.com\/mlb\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.rawchili.com\/mlb\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.rawchili.com\/mlb\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.rawchili.com\/mlb\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=819692"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.rawchili.com\/mlb\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/819692\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.rawchili.com\/mlb\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/819693"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.rawchili.com\/mlb\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=819692"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.rawchili.com\/mlb\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=819692"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.rawchili.com\/mlb\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=819692"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}