EmailPrintOpen Extended ReactionsThe players had long been anticipating a salary cap proposal from Major League Baseball's owners. But their lead negotiator, Bruce Meyer, believes what MLB ultimately proposed was even worse, a clear sign of the distance between the two sides just six months before the current collective bargaining agreement expires.Meyer, the Major League Baseball Players Association's interim executive director, said the league "effectively managed to cobble together the worst system for players in any major sport, and not even close.""I thought they would try harder to make it look good," Meyer added while on a videoconference with the media Monday, "and they didn't even do that."On Thursday, MLB proposed a strict cap-and-floor system that calls for a 50/50 revenue split with players and would begin with a range between $171.2 million and $245.3 million in 2027. The concept involves an escrow system whereby player salaries would be impacted if the league does not meet revenue projections for a given year, ensuring the 50/50 split, a major point of contention by the union. Another point of contention: With amateur signing bonuses making up part of the players' portion, among other elements, the union argues that overall compensation would decrease with a salary cap."Using MLB's definition of revenue and player share, as set forth in their proposal and their presentation to us, player share under their proposal would go down," Meyer said. "Player share for this season, 2026, is projected to be well over 50%, using MLB's definition of revenues and what counts against the player share. Had MLB's proposal been in place in 2026, players would, we estimate, lose half a billion dollars."The league countered that major league players specifically will receive more money year over year, noting that under its cap proposal, 12 teams would currently have to increase payroll by a combined $617 million and eight teams would have to decrease by a combined $578 million to satisfy the new parameters. Player salaries already grow significantly year over year under the current system, though the league has countered that industry revenues have been growing at a higher rate."Our salary cap and floor proposal addresses our fans' concerns by leveling the playing field while sharing baseball revenue with the players 50/50 like the other leagues," MLB spokesperson Glen Caplin said in a statement responding to Meyer's comments. "Under our proposal, major league players will receive more compensation in year one of the system than in 2026."Regardless of the financials, though, the MLBPA has long been against the concept of a salary cap, most notably during the player strike that cancelled the 1994 World Series. While MLB has attempted to frame its pursuit of a cap as a desire to appease small- to mid-market fans who crave a more level playing field, Meyer called a cap "a form of institutionalized collusion, and it basically tells clubs who want to make their team better in a certain way by signing certain players that they can't.""At a time of exploding popularity, growth and interest, the owners' goal is more money in the pockets of owners," Meyer added. "Don't blame them for that, but that's what it is, whether it's more profits because they're holding down labor costs or growing their franchise values."A day before the league made its cap proposal, the MLBPA proposed an economic plan designed to "get players closer to their true value at all levels" and "reward and incentivize competition," Meyer said. It included increases to the minimum salary, an expansion of the pre-arbitration bonus pool and a higher luxury-tax threshold, as well as increased revenue sharing and a "competitive integrity tax" applying to teams that fail to meet minimum payroll marks.The league's proposal calls for teams to share all local media equally. The union's, Meyer said, would have teams sharing close to 90% of local media, still a big jump from the current system, but also keeping more local non-media revenue as a way to incentivize teams to grow stadium profits. Meyer refuted the league's notion that the MLBPA's pitch only exacerbates the payroll disparity through significant increases in the luxury-tax threshold, saying: "Under our revenue-sharing proposal, teams would share more revenues and the lower-revenue teams would get more, period, full stop."At this point, the owners and the players don't seem to even agree on the problem.Owners see an uneven playing field, pointing to the fact that a small-market team has not won the World Series in 11 years and that 31 of the 40 teams to reach the League Championship Series from 2015 to 2025 hailed from the industry's 15 largest markets. Meyer noted that the Milwaukee Brewers, a franchise residing in what is considered the sport's smallest market, boasted the best record in baseball last year, and that the Brewers, Tampa Bay Rays and Cleveland Guardians continually finish near the top of the standings.Said Meyer: "We do not accept the premise that there's some existential crisis going on."Even if he did, the MLBPA is adamant that a salary cap won't fix it. The league is adamant that it would. A middle ground is elusive, and where the two sides go from here is hard to determine. In his statement, Caplin said the league is "ready to listen if the MLBPA wants to counter our proposal at the bargaining table." Meyer said no meeting is scheduled but would be "in the near future," adding that the two sides can still bargain on several non-economic issues.He believes players will remain united against a cap."Our union has never been broken and never will be," Meyer said. "Our players have what they have, including being the only sport that doesn't have this ultimate restriction, the salary cap, because our players have always been the most unified. And that's gonna continue."
