The financial architecture of Major League Baseball stands at a historical crossroads. The industry approaches the expiration of the current Collective Bargaining Agreement on December 1, 2026.¹ For over a century, the sport has coped with being labelled as a “free-market” outlier. It is an outlier among North American professional leagues. It has navigated this tension continuously. Meanwhile, there is a growing necessity for institutionalized parity.² Major League Baseball operates differently from the National Football League, National Basketball Association, and National Hockey League. It does not have a definitive salary cap. Instead, it relies on a “Competitive Balance Tax.” This tax functions as a soft deterrent rather than a rigid limit on spending.² However, the economic data from the 2025 season’s end shows the current framework’s failure. It does not address the widening gap between financial “haves” and “have-nots” in the league. This discrepancy threatens the sport’s long-term competitive meritocracy.⁵

The current landscape is defined by a paradox of record-breaking prosperity and systemic instability. While the league reached a record $12.1 billion in revenue in 2024, the wealth distribution among the player workforce is highly skewed. It is also uneven across the thirty franchises.⁷ The 2025 season saw the Los Angeles Dodgers commit to a total payroll and tax bill exceeding $586 million. This amount was higher than the active payrolls of the bottom twelve teams combined.⁶ Talent and financial muscle are concentrated in a handful of large-market cities. This situation has sparked an urgent debate among owners, labour representatives, and fans. They are discussing the implementation of a salary cap paired with a mandatory spending floor.⁹ The following report provides an exhaustive analysis of the statistical arguments for a restructured economic system. It examines the historical and fiscal arguments as well. The report looks at the correlation between spending and success. It considers the “squeeze” of the veteran middle class. The looming media crisis makes fiscal reform an existential imperative.

The Evolutionary Failure of the Competitive Balance Tax

The primary mechanism for financial regulation in Major League Baseball is the Competitive Balance Tax, or luxury tax. This tax was first implemented in 1997 following the devastating 1994-95 labour strike.² The tax was originally conceived as a compromise. Small-market owners wanted a cap. The players’ union was resolute in its opposition to spending limits.² From 1997 to 1999, the tax targeted only the top five highest-payroll teams. These teams had to pay a 34% fine on expenditures that exceeded a threshold. This threshold was set at the halfway point between the fifth and sixth highest salaries.²

Historical Thresholds and the Shift to Universal Limits

The tax was temporarily eliminated between 2000 and 2002. The 2002 Collective Bargaining Agreement then established a universal threshold. It applied to any team regardless of its rank in the payroll hierarchy.² This shift marked the transition of the CBT from a comparative penalty. It became a de facto, albeit “soft,” salary cap.

Era	Regulation Mechanism	Key Feature
1870s–1880s	Early Salary Cap	Players limited to $2,500/year 12
1997–1999	Comparative Luxury Tax	Applied only to top five teams 2
2003–2016	Universal CBT Threshold	Set fixed dollar amounts for all teams 2
2017–2026	Tiered Surcharges	Introduced penalties for excessive overages and draft pick regrading 2

Under the current agreement, the 2025 base threshold was set at $241 million.⁶ For first-time offenders, the tax rate is 20% on all overages. It increases to 30% for a second consecutive year. The rate rises to 50% for three or more consecutive years.⁴ Furthermore, the league introduced surcharges for teams that significantly exceed the threshold. Overages between $20 million and $40 million incur a 12% surcharge. Overages of $60 million or more trigger a 60% surcharge for the first year. This escalates to higher rates for repeat offenders.¹³

Despite these escalating penalties, the 2025 season demonstrated a significant change. The CBT is no longer a deterrent for the league’s wealthiest franchises. A record-tying nine teams exceeded the threshold. The Los Angeles Dodgers, New York Mets, and New York Yankees paid the highest escalator fees. The Philadelphia Phillies and Texas Rangers did as well. They were over the limit for three or more consecutive seasons.⁶ The failure of the tax to curb spending is evidenced by the final 2025 tax liabilities.

Finalized 2025 Competitive Balance Tax Payments

The following data shows the finalized tax obligations. These obligations are for the nine teams that exceeded the $241 million threshold in the 2025 season.

Team	CBT Payroll	Amount Over Threshold	Final Tax Payment
Los Angeles Dodgers	$417,341,608	$176,341,608	$169,400,000
New York Mets	$346,670,456	$105,670,456	$91,600,000
New York Yankees	$319,522,564	$78,522,564	$61,800,000
Philadelphia Phillies	$314,329,912	$73,329,912	$56,100,000
Toronto Blue Jays	$286,135,551	$45,135,551	$13,600,000
San Diego Padres	$270,351,396	$29,351,396	$7,000,000
Houston Astros	$245,991,459	$4,991,459	$1,500,000
Boston Red Sox	$248,859,139	$7,859,139	$1,500,000
Texas Rangers	$241,380,966	$380,966	$190,000

Sources: ⁶

The Dodgers’ total commitment of $586 million is the sum of their $417 million payroll and $169 million tax bill. This commitment highlights the limitations of a tax-based system.⁶ When a single franchise is willing and able to pay a tax penalty, it challenges the league’s financial dynamics. The penalty is nearly double the entire payroll of the league’s bottom-spending teams. Thus, the “competitive balance” intended by the CBT becomes an illusory concept. The revenue generated by these taxes, totaling $403 million in 2025, is redistributed. It funds player benefits, retirement accounts, and revenue-sharing pools for small-market teams.⁶ However, small-market recipients often fail to reinvest these funds into their active rosters. This creates a cycle where high spenders continue to buy success. Meanwhile, low spenders “tank” to minimize costs.⁴

Statistical Modeling of the Spending-Success Correlation

The central argument for a hard salary cap rests on the measurable correlation between financial expenditure and on-field success. The randomness of a 162-game season and the volatility of postseason baseball occasionally produce outliers. For instance, the 2023 Arizona Diamondbacks won the National League pennant with an 84-win record. However, the long-term data indicates that payroll is the most significant predictor of competitive viability.⁴

Regression Analysis and the Cost of Winning

Comprehensive studies conducted between 2011 and 2024 demonstrate a statistically significant relationship between team payroll and winning percentage.¹⁷ Researchers utilizing panel regression and multiple linear regression have identified that approximately 57.41% of the variation in a team’s payroll can be explained by the date. The number of losses also plays a part. This analysis suggests that teams systematically shed payroll in response to losing.¹⁷ Conversely, spending serves as a direct lever for acquiring wins.

One predictive model utilized a log-linear transformation to determine the relationship between seasonal wins and payroll:

$$\hat{y} = 0.059Y + 0.014W – 101$$

In this formula, $\hat{y}$ is the log-transformed payroll, $Y$ represents the year, and $W$ represents the number of wins.¹⁷ The resulting coefficient indicates that a team must increase its payroll by approximately 1.4% for each additional win acquired on the free-market.¹⁷ Another analysis suggests that for every $100 million in additional salary allocation, a team’s win rate is expected to increase by 0.47%, a marginal gain that becomes decisive in a league where the gap between the playoffs and the off-season is often fewer than five games.¹⁹

Success Clusters and Championship Probability

The stratification of the league into spending tiers has created clear performance clusters. Over the last five years, the top six teams in payroll have averaged 91 wins per season. In contrast, the bottom tier of spenders averages 74 wins.⁴

Payroll Cluster	Avg. Winning %	Season Win Total	Avg. Outcome
Top 5% Spenders	0.580	94	Consistent Playoff/Division Winner 19
League Average	0.500	81	Median Competitiveness 17
Bottom 5% Spenders	0.460	74	Perpetual Rebuilder/Non-Contender 19

Statistical tests show a significant difference in the payrolls of teams that reach the postseason ($p = 0.003$) and those that reach the World Series ($p < 0.001$) compared to the league as a whole.¹⁷ The 2023 Texas Rangers (4th in payroll) validate the theory that spending secures championships. Likewise, the 2024-2025 Los Angeles Dodgers (1st in payroll) support this theory. However, the sustained success of high-spending teams is even more critical.⁴ Wealthier teams can afford to absorb the “bad money” of underperforming contracts. In contrast, a single failed multi-year signing can have a devastating impact. It can effectively end the competitive window for a mid-market team like the Cleveland Guardians or Milwaukee Brewers.⁷ This “ability to shrug off failure” is an inherent advantage that a soft-tax system fails to mitigate.

Comparative Governance: MLB vs. The Salary Cap Leagues

We need to examine the governance models of the NFL. This will help us understand the potential impact of a salary cap on Major League Baseball. We should also look at those of the NBA and NHL. These leagues use a combination of hard or soft caps. They pair them with mandatory spending floors. This approach ensures that market size does not dictate competitive outcomes.⁴

Revenue Split Models and Labor Shares

The defining characteristic of salary cap leagues is the “revenue-split” system. Player compensation is tied to a fixed percentage of Basketball-Related Income (BRI) or Hockey-Related Revenue (HRR).⁷

League	System Type	Player Share of Revenue	Mandatory Floor
NFL	Hard Cap	48%	89% of cap over 4 years 22
NHL	Floating Hard Cap	50%	Fixed percentage of upper limit 3
NBA	Soft Cap / Aprons	51%	90% of soft cap 22
MLB	Luxury Tax (No Cap)	47%	No floor 7

Major League Baseball players currently receive approximately 47% of total league revenues, down from a peak of 56% in 2002.⁷ This share is the lowest among the four major North American sports. Critics of the MLB Players Association’s (MLBPA) anti-cap stance argue that the union has refused to tie compensation to revenue. As a result, they have left an estimated $2.5 billion on the table.⁷ This happened over the last three fiscal years. In a cap-and-floor system, the “aggregate pie” is guaranteed. MLB’s free-market system relies on “trickle-down economics” from top superstars like Shohei Ohtani and Juan Soto.⁷

Championship Parity vs. Regular Season Balance

MLB defenders highlight that the World Series has seen 16 unique winners since 2000. This is more than the NFL (14), NHL (12), or NBA (11). Analysts such as John Urschel suggest this championship diversity is a product of postseason randomness rather than structural health.²³ The standard deviation of winning percentages is significantly tighter in cap-governed leagues, meaning more teams cluster around the.500 mark.²⁵ In MLB, the absence of a cap allows the Dodgers and Yankees to avoid rebuilding cycles entirely. They stay competitive for decades. Meanwhile, small-market teams only have a “fighting chance” once or twice a decade through elite player development.²⁰

The disparity is also reflected in market-size dominance. The average market-size rank of teams reaching the MLB championship over the last ten years is 7th. This means the largest cities consistently dominate the Fall Classic.⁵ The NFL and NHL use strict hard caps. In these leagues, the average market size for championship contenders falls to 16th and 18th, respectively. This demonstrates that a cap-and-floor system effectively decouples market size from success.⁵

The Socio-Economic Squeeze: Roster Trends and the Veteran Middle Class

The lack of a salary cap and floor causes a pervasive and often overlooked consequence. It distorts the labor market. It affects veteran players. Major League Baseball owners have acted “rationally” without a mandatory spending minimum. They work within the constraints of the existing system by shifting their investment. They move away from free agency and move toward young, cost-controlled talent.⁷

The Efficiency Revolution and Wins Above Replacement

The modern front office evaluates roster construction through the lens of efficiency. It often calculates that an incremental win through free agency costs between $10 million and $15 million.⁷ In contrast, young players under team control provide massive surplus value. They earn the league minimum salary ($740,000 in 2024; $780,000 in 2026).¹⁴

As a result of this “Moneyball” evolution, about 70% of the total league-wide production (WAR) is now generated by players. These players are not yet eligible for free agency.⁷ This has led to the systematic “squeezing out” of the veteran middle class—players like J.D. Martinez or Whit Merrifield—who are reliable contributors but lack the “star power” to demand record contracts.⁷ In a cap-less environment, teams either spend at the elite top-tier to acquire superstars. Alternatively, they stay at the bottom-tier with league-minimum youth.⁷ A salary floor would fundamentally change this calculus. Teams would be forced to spend a minimum threshold. This would likely reinvigorate the market for veteran role players and intangibles.⁷

The Late Bloomer and Earning Potential

The current system also penalizes players whose production peaks during their years of team control. Under current rules, a player must generally accrue six years of major league service time before reaching free agency.¹² For a “late bloomer” like Aaron Judge, reaching the open market meant entering at age 30. He had already produced at an MVP level for half a decade.⁷ Industry experts suggest that the current structure cost Judge several hundred million dollars in career earning potential.⁷

A salary cap system paired with age-based free agency would align a player’s earning potential with their peak production years. Reduced team-control years could also achieve this. These are concessions the owners might offer in exchange for a cap.⁷ This change would convert MLB from a “trickle-down” economy. Currently, it serves only the top 10% of players. It would then become more equitable for the entire 1,200-player workforce.⁷

The Impending Media Crisis and the Revenue Imperative

The push for a salary cap is not driven solely by a desire for parity. It responds to a looming crisis in local media revenue. For decades, the Regional Sports Network (RSN) model was crucial for mid-to-large market teams. It provided guaranteed, long-term cash flows.²⁷

The Collapse of Main Street Sports and the Move to In-House Media

In 2025, Main Street Sports, the primary operator of RSNs, faced near-total collapse. This led to the termination of contracts for nine MLB teams.²⁷ This instability has forced franchises like the Washington Nationals to abandon traditional cable networks. They have joined the “MLB Media umbrella,” an in-house production and distribution structure led by the Commissioner’s Office.²⁷

Impact of RSN Crisis	Consequence for Teams
Move to DTC (Direct-to-Consumer)	Revenue tied to actual subscribers rather than fixed fees 27
Fixed Fee Defaults	St. Louis Cardinals taking advertising sales in-house 27
Hybrid Models	RSNs offering profit-sharing instead of guaranteed rights fees 27

Commissioner Rob Manfred has used this media disruption to “energize the workforce” regarding the need for a cap.²⁷ He argues that as local media revenues decline, the league must move toward a more centralized revenue-sharing model. This approach will protect franchises in smaller markets.¹ A salary cap naturally results from centralized revenue. When the league shares its local media wealth, the owners will demand a limit on how that wealth is spent.¹

RSN Revenue and the 75% Rule

One of the internal obstacles to reform is the power of large-market owners. Under current MLB rules, major changes to revenue redistribution require the approval of 75% (23 of 30) of the owners.¹ Teams like the Yankees and Red Sox have owners who control their own lucrative RSNs. They have historically blocked efforts to further redistribute local wealth.¹ The overall RSN market is deteriorating. Even these “behemoths” are feeling the pressure of a changing media landscape. This change makes a “Grand Bargain” involving a cap and floor more palatable.²⁷

Labor History and the 2026 CBA Horizon

The current tension regarding a salary cap is the latest chapter in a century-long labor struggle. The memory of the 1994-95 strike still looms over both parties. It lasted 232 days. It led to the cancellation of the World Series.¹¹

The Path to 1994 and the Implementation of the CBT

In the early 1990s, acting Commissioner Bud Selig and a group of “hardliner” owners tried to force a salary cap. They also attempted to eliminate salary arbitration.¹¹ The players, led by Donald Fehr, viewed the cap as a tool for salary suppression and collusion.¹¹ The subsequent strike was resolved when federal mediators and the courts restored the status quo. This eventually led to the implementation of the CBT as a “peace-keeping” measure.¹¹

As the 2026 Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) approach expires on December 1, 2026, the rhetoric has returned to 1994 levels.¹ Commissioner Manfred has toured league clubhouses. He argues that billions of dollars are being lost. This loss is because the sport has not moved to a revenue-sharing model found in the NBA or NFL.⁸ Conversely, MLBPA chief Tony Clark has stated that a cap “fundamentally erodes guaranteed contracts.” It remains a “definitive non-competitive system.”⁹

The Lockout Probability

Industry insiders expect that Major League Baseball will lock out the players once the current deal expires. This is likely to force a resolution on the cap-and-floor issue.¹ The 2021-22 lockout lasted 99 days. It served as a precursor to what may be a much longer stoppage if management insists on a cap.⁹

Theoretical Framework for a 2027 Salary Cap System

If Major League Baseball were to adopt a cap, analysts suggest a model. This model combines the rigidity of the NFL cap. This model would also include the flexibility of the NBA’s exceptions. Such an approach would preserve the unique nature of baseball development.

The 189/90 Model

A proposed structure suggests a “hard” cap of approximately $189 million for the 2027 season. This cap will fluctuate annually based on league revenue.⁴ Teams would be required to pair this cap with a “hard” salary floor. They must spend at least 90% of the cap, which is approximately $170 million.⁴

Feature	Proposed Specification	Penalty for Breach
Hard Cap	$189M – $220M	Forfeiture of one regular-season game per $500k overage 4
Hard Floor	90% of Cap	Loss of first-round draft pick / payments to players 4
Homegrown Rule	3-5 players exempt or subsidized	N/A

The “Homegrown Player Rule” is perhaps the most vital component of a baseball cap.⁴ MLB clubs spend millions of dollars developing a player in the minor leagues. They invest an average of four years in this process. Therefore, a hard cap could unfairly punish teams that are successful at development.²² Allowing teams to retain a handful of drafted stars at a “cap-discount” could maintain team identity. This would also boost fan engagement. It still prevents the “buying” of championships through free agency.⁴

Penalties and Deterrents

To ensure the cap is “hard,” the proposed system includes severe penalties. Beyond financial fines, teams exceeding the cap could forfeit regular-season wins. This punishment is designed to be more painful to a competitive franchise than any tax.⁴ For those falling below the floor, the primary deterrent would be the forfeiture of draft picks. This ensures that “tanking” does not yield the long-term benefit of top-tier amateur talent.⁴

Economic Impact on Franchise Valuations and Fan Engagement

The transition to a salary cap system would likely catalyze a massive increase in the business value of MLB teams. In the current “free-market” environment, the pool of potential buyers for MLB teams is limited. This limitation exists because competing with owners like Steve Cohen (Mets) is unpredictable. It also applies to competing with the Guggenheim Group (Dodgers).⁷

Club Valuations and the NBA Comparison

The disparity between MLB and NBA valuations is a direct reflection of the different economic systems. Despite MLB generating more revenue than the NBA in 2024 ($12.1B to $11.3B), the average NBA franchise is valued at $4.4 billion—nearly double the average MLB franchise value of $2.3 billion.⁷ Sources suggest that a revenue-split system providing cost certainty could lift MLB club valuations by as much as 50%.⁷ This is because a cap-and-floor model changes a sports team from a “vanity asset.” It prevents massive losses and also creates a predictable, cash-flow-generating business.⁷

Fan Engagement and the “Hope” Metric

Ultimately, the health of baseball depends on the engagement of its fans. The 2025 season saw the most-attended year in over a decade, with 71.4 million fans at ballparks and record viewing minutes on MLB.TV.³⁰ However, much of this growth is concentrated in markets where teams are winning. In markets where payrolls have stagnated—like Pittsburgh, Miami, and Oakland—attendance remains a fraction of the league average.⁶

A salary cap and floor would ensure that fans in all 30 cities start the season with “hope.” This is a metric that is difficult to quantify. However, it is essential for long-term growth.⁷ Fans are more likely to invest in tickets. They know their team is mandated to spend at a competitive level. They are also more likely to purchase merchandise and media subscriptions. This increases the size of the “revenue pie” for both players and owners.⁷

Synthesis and Conclusion: The Structural Necessity of Change

The finalized data from the 2025 Major League Baseball season is revealing. It paints a picture of a league that has outgrown its current fiscal regulations. The Competitive Balance Tax is a useful transitional tool. However, it has proven insufficient to curb the spending of elite market titans. It also fails to incentivize the league’s bottom-dwellers to compete.² The resulting payroll disparity is significant. The gap between the top and bottom teams exceeds $300 million. This issue is no longer localized. Instead, it poses a systemic threat to the sport’s competitive meritocracy.⁴

The implementation of a salary cap and floor system represents a “win-win-win” scenario for the industry. For the players, it offers a guaranteed share of record-breaking revenues and an end to the veteran middle-class squeeze.⁷ For the owners, it provides cost certainty and stability in the face of a collapsing local media landscape.²⁷ For the fans, it creates a league where front-office competence determines outcomes. Player performance is more crucial than the size of a team’s bank account.⁵

The 2026 labour negotiations are approaching. Both the league and the players’ union must recognize that the status quo is unsustainable. The “free-market” era of baseball is storied. However, it has led to a level of stratification. This risks alienating the next generation of fans. Major League Baseball can ensure its greatest era of prosperity is not also its most imbalanced. This can be achieved by adopting a unified fiscal architecture. It should include a hard cap, a mandatory floor, and a revenue-split model. The time has come to institutionalize the competitive balance the sport has long promised but has yet to fully realize.

Works cited

1. MLB Strike MLB, players union reignite salary cap debate as labor …, accessed January 16, 2026, https://en.as.com/mlb/mlb-players-union-reignite-salary-cap-debate-as-labor-stoppage-looms-f202601-n/
2. Major League Baseball luxury tax – Wikipedia, accessed January 16, 2026, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_League_Baseball_luxury_tax
3. Analyzing the Impact of Salary Discrepancies Between Professional Sports Organizations – Scholar Commons, accessed January 16, 2026, https://scholarcommons.sc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1623&context=senior_theses
4. Should MLB Implement a Salary Cap, and What Would It Look Like if It Did? – IJFMR, accessed January 16, 2026, https://www.ijfmr.com/papers/2025/5/57349.pdf
5. Competitive meritocracy, salary caps and Major League Baseball – Sports Business Journal, accessed January 16, 2026, https://www.sportsbusinessjournal.com/Articles/2025/03/24/competitive-meritocracy-salary-caps-and-major-league-baseball/
6. Nine Teams Exceeded Luxury Tax Threshold In 2025 – MLB Trade …, accessed January 16, 2026, https://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2025/12/nine-teams-exceeded-luxury-tax-threshold-in-2025.html
7. Revenue-Split System Would be a ‘Win-Win-Win’ for MLB Owners, Players, and Fans, accessed January 16, 2026, https://www.johnwallstreet.com/p/revenue-split-system-would-be-a-win-win-win-for-mlb-owners-players-and-fans
8. Dark days await MLB as Rob Manfred, owners reportedly try to ‘force’ salary cap on players – amNewYork, accessed January 16, 2026, https://www.amny.com/sports/mlb-lockout-rob-manfred-looming-1-13-26/
9. A lockout is looming over MLB in December 2026, with a salary cap fight possibly at the center | News, Sports, Jobs – The Intelligencer, accessed January 16, 2026, https://www.theintelligencer.net/sports/top-sports/2025/07/a-lockout-is-looming-over-mlb-in-december-2026-with-a-salary-cap-fight-possibly-at-the-center/
10. Survey: MLB fans favor salary cap, Nashville and Budweiser – Sports Business Journal, accessed January 16, 2026, https://www.sportsbusinessjournal.com/Articles/2025/12/01/survey-mlb-fans-favor-salary-cap-nashville-and-budweiser/
11. Twenty-five years ago, unified players thwarted owners’ plan to implement salary cap, accessed January 16, 2026, https://www.mlbplayers.com/post/ranking-this-year-hs-prospects-by-position
12. #DiamondDebates: MLB Strike | Baseball Hall of Fame, accessed January 16, 2026, https://baseballhall.org/discover-more/stories/whole-new-ballgame/mlb-strike
13. Competitive Balance Tax | Glossary – MLB.com, accessed January 16, 2026, https://www.mlb.com/glossary/transactions/competitive-balance-tax
14. CBA History | Cot’s Baseball Contracts, accessed January 16, 2026, https://legacy.baseballprospectus.com/compensation/cots/league-info/cba-history/
15. MLB trying to ‘force’ players into salary cap, union says, as Manfred walks a tricky line : r/baseball – Reddit, accessed January 16, 2026, https://www.reddit.com/r/baseball/comments/1qbpxr1/mlb_trying_to_force_players_into_salary_cap_union/
16. Does MLB Actually Have A Competitive Balance Issue? | by Edward England – Medium, accessed January 16, 2026, https://medium.com/@eje5462/does-mlb-actually-have-a-competitive-balance-issue-0bb58fbf2327
17. Relationship Between MLB Payroll and Performance, accessed January 16, 2026, https://scholar.valpo.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2084&context=cus
18. Positional Winning: The Allocation of Payroll and its Effects on Win Percentage in Major League Baseball – JBC Commons – New College of Florida, accessed January 16, 2026, https://digitalcommons.ncf.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=7676&context=theses_etds
19. Do Payroll Allocations Affect Success in the MLB? – AWS, accessed January 16, 2026, https://rstudio-pubs-static.s3.amazonaws.com/1309045_e3bc00e7c46048aeac5682e8e57f425d.html
20. [OC] The arguments against a salary cap (+ floor) don’t stand up to scrutiny – Reddit, accessed January 16, 2026, https://www.reddit.com/r/baseball/comments/1pisa7h/oc_the_arguments_against_a_salary_cap_floor_dont/
21. NFL and NHL salary caps have worked out well for players – University of Toronto, accessed January 16, 2026, https://www-2.rotman.utoronto.ca/insightshub/finance-investing-accounting/salary-cap
22. How the NBA and NFL’s salary cap, salary floor, television, and revenue-sharing structures work, and compare to MLB : r/baseball – Reddit, accessed January 16, 2026, https://www.reddit.com/r/baseball/comments/1ilrprl/how_the_nba_and_nfls_salary_cap_salary_floor/
23. Some Thoughts on Salary Caps and Parity – baseball – Reddit, accessed January 16, 2026, https://www.reddit.com/r/baseball/comments/1pexu12/some_thoughts_on_salary_caps_and_parity/
24. Salary Caps in Sports: Overview | Research Starters | EBSCO …, accessed January 16, 2026, https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/sports-and-leisure/salary-caps-sports-overview
25. The Parity Ideal – The Players’ Tribune, accessed January 16, 2026, https://www.theplayerstribune.com/articles/john-urschel-ravens-parity-ideal
26. MLB Minimum Salaries – Spotrac.com, accessed January 16, 2026, https://www.spotrac.com/mlb/cba/minimum
27. MLB Is Staring Down a Fractious Year of Labor Talks, accessed January 16, 2026, https://frontofficesports.com/mlb-is-staring-down-a-fractious-year-of-labor-talks/
28. MLBPA Rejects MLB Salary Cap Talk Warns Of Potential Work Stoppage – RealGM Baseball, accessed January 16, 2026, https://baseball.realgm.com/wiretap/60609/MLBPA-Rejects-MLB-Salary-Cap-Talk-Warns-Of-Potential-Work-Stoppage
29. 302 Baseball Strike – Sites@Duke Express, accessed January 16, 2026, https://sites.duke.edu/djepapers/files/2023/07/Schwarz1996.pdf
30. MLB attendance reaches 71.4 million; three straight years of growth for first time since 2007, accessed January 16, 2026, https://www.mlb.com/press-release/press-release-mlb-attendance-reaches-71-4-million-three-straight-years-of-growth-for-first-time-since-2007
31. MLB Growth in 2025 Covers All the Bases | MLBMusicCity.com, accessed January 16, 2026, https://www.mlbmusiccity.com/stars-updates/mlb-growth-in-2025-covers-all-the-bases/