Major League Baseball today released its latest proposal for a new collective bargaining agreement. The key update is the league’s push to push the implementation of a salary cap/floor system from 2027 through the 2028 season, but the simple fact that the entire proposal is contingent on the implementation of a cap/floor system unsurprisingly resulted in a quick rebuke from the MLBPA.
The league’s points on the subject seem appealing but are worded rather selectively. For example, MLB’s press release proposes a $1 million per-league minimum salary increase and a $15 million pre-arbitration bonus increase (plus an additional $10 million put into the pot over the life of the next deal).
However, reading the document itself (link via Evan Drellich of The Athletic) shows some key caveats. The league’s supposed $1 million minimum only applies to players with more than two years of big league service. Since players reach arbitration after three years, this only applies to players with more than two years and less than three years of service. The top 22 percent of these players are already qualified for arbitration as “Super Two” players anyway, so the $1 million minimum actually only applies to 78 percent of players with between two and three years of service.
Players with less than two years of service would have a league minimum of $900,000. They can receive $100,000 from the pre-arbitration bonus pool to bring them to $1 million — but only if they get a full year of major league service this season. Leveraging the pre-arb pool for this select group of players is not the same as simply guaranteeing these players $1 million and leaving the bonus pool intact for the entire pre-arb class. A significant portion of the proposed $15 million pool increase would be solely for this set of pre-arb players who would get an increase from $100,000 to $1 million, thereby reducing the impact of the increase. (As a reminder, the current pre-arbitration bonus pool is $50 million, with each team contributing $1.667 million per year to pay bonuses to MLB’s most productive pre-arbitration players.)
The cap itself is proposed at $258.2 million, with a floor of $180.2 million, but those are just projections. The specific figures would be based on actual league revenues during the upcoming 2027 season and therefore cannot be known at this time.
MLB’s proposal calls for a 50-50 split of all “baseball revenue” with players starting in 2028, but does not specify what exactly “baseball revenue” entails or whether there is a gap between that and total revenue. These cap/floor figures would include annual contributions to the pre-arb bonus pool and player benefits, meaning the actual cap/floor would be lower than the suggested figures; MLBTR contributor Ethan Hullihen projects that player benefits will cost $18,561,327 per club next year (as can be seen in the MLBTR Payroll Tracker). Proposed changes to the pre-arb bonus pool would mean each club would contribute an additional $2.167 million that would count toward the cap/floor ($2.5 million per year by the end of a new deal).
Other elements of today’s proposal include reducing the number of times a player can be optioned in a given season from five to four, eliminating the ability for teams to receive a fourth year option on a player, and a vague mention of “restrictions on a club’s ability to move a player on and off the 40-man and active rosters throughout the season for strategic reasons.” (Presumably this is a nod to teams like the Braves and Orioles cycling repeatedly. Carlos Carrasco, Elieser Hernández And Albert Suarez on and off the 40-man roster via repeated DFAs.) MLB’s proposal also includes weekly roster caps, advancing Draft Rule 5 eligibility by one year, and references an international draft (without explicitly proposing details regarding implementation).
In its response, the union criticizes the league’s proposal, calling it an attempt to “continue to propose blowing up the current system and replacing it with a system designed to line their pockets and increase the value of their franchises.”
The MLPBA adds that pushing back implementation of a cap/floor to 2028 still results in “a massive reduction in player compensation,” “the elimination of basic player rights, including guaranteed contracts,” “the gutting of domestic and international amateur entry systems,” and “the replacement of market-based fundamentals with a zero-sum system that harms the middle class and pits players against each other.” (The idea of eliminating guaranteed contracts stems from the possibility that guaranteed deals should be based on revenue projections with a portion thus held in escrow; if revenues are lower than expected, players might not receive their full salaries, as has happened in the NHL with its cap/floor system in the past.)
The MLBPA concluded: “The players are prepared to negotiate in good faith toward a new collective bargaining agreement that will capitalize on the unprecedented momentum of our sport and benefit players, clubs and fans alike.”
The current collective agreement expires at 11:59 p.m. ET on December 1.
Gn sports
