For decades, Major League Baseball players have drawn a hard line against a salary cap-and with good reason. Caps tend to suppress overall player earnings, and in a sport where guaranteed contracts are the norm and career lengths can vary wildly, that’s no small concern. But what if the conversation around a salary cap included a twist that actually benefited the players financially?
Here’s where things get interesting: the idea of pairing a salary cap with a salary floor. It’s a concept that’s been floated before, but it’s gaining traction again, and for good reason.
A salary floor would require every team to spend a minimum amount on payroll-potentially around 90% of the cap. That kind of structure would force low-spending clubs to open their wallets, creating a more balanced financial playing field across the league.
We’ve seen this kind of model work in other leagues. Take the NFL, for example.
Every team gets an equal slice of the national TV revenue pie, which helps level the playing field between big-market and small-market franchises. That’s how you get the Green Bay Packers and Jacksonville Jaguars in the playoffs while the New York Jets and Giants struggle year after year despite sitting in the country’s biggest media market.
But back to baseball. Here’s the key stat that puts all of this into perspective: in 2024, MLB players received just 42.1% of league revenues.
That’s the highest share they’ve had over the past 12 non-pandemic seasons. Compare that to the NFL, NBA, and NHL-leagues that operate under salary caps and revenue-sharing models-where players typically get around 50% of total revenue.
That’s a significant gap.
So what if the MLB Players Association flipped the script?
Imagine this: the MLBPA tells team owners they’re willing to accept a salary cap, if it comes with a 50/50 revenue split and a salary floor set at 90% of the cap. That’s a bold move.
And it could be a lucrative one for the players. Under that structure, total player compensation would actually increase.
The math is simple: 50% of league revenue is more than 42%.
But here’s where it gets even more intriguing. For years, MLB owners have publicly pushed for a salary cap, claiming it’s necessary for the long-term health of the sport.
If the players were to agree to one-on the condition that it comes with a fair revenue split and spending floor-it would put the onus squarely on the owners. Do they really want a cap, or have they just wanted to keep costs down?
Of course, implementing such a system in MLB wouldn’t be as clean as it is in the NFL. Baseball doesn’t operate on a national TV deal like football does.
Instead, local TV revenue plays a massive role in team finances. The Dodgers, for example, rake in significantly more than most clubs thanks to their lucrative local broadcast deal.
Any plan that involves revenue sharing would require high-revenue teams to give up a portion of their advantage, and that’s going to be a tough sell.
Still, there’s a compelling upside. Teams like the Marlins, Pirates, A’s, and even the Guardians would be required to invest more in their rosters.
That could raise the overall level of competition across the league. And while the Guardians have managed to stay competitive on a shoestring budget-thanks to a top-tier front office and strong player development-most small-market teams haven’t been able to replicate that success.
A cap-and-floor system would push every organization to pair smart decision-making with legitimate financial investment.
This isn’t just about numbers-it’s about shifting the balance of power. If the players were to propose a cap with a 50/50 split and a spending floor, they’d be turning the owners’ long-standing argument on its head. It would show that the players are willing to negotiate in good faith-but only if it means a fairer deal for everyone.
And in the court of public opinion, that kind of move could be a game-changer. For over 40 years, owners have claimed they want a cap.
This would be the players calling their bluff. If the owners walk away from that deal, it’s no longer about competitive balance-it’s about control.
Whether or not such a proposal would actually be accepted is anyone’s guess. But in a labor landscape that’s often defined by gridlock and mistrust, it might be the kind of bold play that forces real movement. And for the players, it could mean not just a bigger slice of the pie-but a better game for everyone.