The Los Angeles Dodgers have once again lit up the baseball world - and not just with another blockbuster signing. This time, it's Kyle Tucker, and the deal is massive: $60 million per year, putting him in the upper echelon of the sport’s highest-paid athletes.
Pair him with a roster that already features Mookie Betts, Shohei Ohtani, and Freddie Freeman, and it’s easy to see why some fans - and rival front offices - are calling foul. The reigning World Series champs just got richer, literally and figuratively.
But while the social media outrage machine is in full gear, there's a deeper story behind how the Dodgers are able to keep swinging big in free agency. At the heart of it is their long-standing TV deal with Spectrum - a deal that’s not only lucrative, but also structured in a way that gives the Dodgers a larger slice of the revenue pie than most teams.
Let’s rewind to how this all came together.
The TV Deal That Changed the Game
Back in the early 2010s, the Dodgers were in a state of flux. Then-owner Frank McCourt was on the outs, and MLB was trying to push him out.
McCourt, meanwhile, was trying to squeeze every last dollar out of the franchise before letting go. That included a proposed $3 billion TV deal with Fox Sports - a deal MLB blocked, prompting McCourt to take the league to bankruptcy court.
In that courtroom, MLB and McCourt reached a settlement that set the fair-market value of the Dodgers’ TV rights at the Fox offer. That was the number the league would use to calculate its revenue share - 34% of that valuation.
But here’s the twist: when Guggenheim Baseball Management - the current ownership group - bought the team, they struck a new TV deal worth more than $8 billion. And because of the terms of that earlier settlement, MLB couldn’t take a bigger cut. The league had essentially locked itself into the lower valuation when it agreed to the bankruptcy deal.
So while other teams are sharing a larger portion of their local TV money with the league, the Dodgers are holding onto a bigger chunk - and that’s a big reason why they can afford to build a roster that reads like an All-Star ballot.
Inside the Deal: A Legal Tightrope
Bill Shaikin of the LA Times recently broke down the nuts and bolts of how this all played out. Appearing on Dodgers Dugout with Doug McKain, Shaikin explained that MLB had to make a deal with McCourt in order to get him out - and part of that deal involved setting a value on a TV contract that didn’t even exist yet.
Guggenheim came in with an offer that blew expectations out of the water. MLB wasn’t thrilled, but they had to honor the deal.
And when the league later tried to renegotiate terms to bring the Dodgers in line with other clubs, they hit a wall. The original settlement gave the bankruptcy court jurisdiction - meaning if Guggenheim wanted to, they could’ve asked the judge to enforce the original deal in full.
Instead, the Dodgers’ ownership worked with MLB to find a compromise. It wasn’t perfect, and it certainly wasn’t equal. But it was better than what MLB might’ve ended up with had the case gone back to court.
Is It a Competitive Advantage?
Absolutely. The Dodgers’ ability to retain more of their TV revenue gives them more financial flexibility than most teams.
But is it the sole reason they’re dominating the offseason? Not quite.
As Shaikin pointed out, the total value of the TV contract is far greater than the annual savings the Dodgers are getting from this revenue structure. And even if that extra money were redistributed, there’s no guarantee other owners would spend it. That’s a whole different conversation - one that speaks more to ownership philosophy than to financial constraints.
Still, it’s clear the Dodgers are playing a different game. They’ve built a powerhouse roster, and they have the resources to keep it that way.
Whether that’s “ruining baseball” or just outmaneuvering the competition depends on your perspective. But one thing’s for sure: the Dodgers aren’t just winning on the field - they’re winning in the boardroom, too.
And for the rest of the league? It might be time to rethink the playbook.