Major League Baseball and the MLB Players Association need to come to an agreement on a new Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA), which expires following the 2026 season. With the deadline so close, issues like leverage and public positioning from both sides means the upcoming talks will be high-stakes and highly visible. Public comments from league and union leaders already signal sharp disagreement on core economic architecture and competitive-balance fixes, which raises the risk of a lockout or strike if talks break down.
Let’s run down some of the major topics that need to be addressed and agreed to before a new CBA can be signed.
Salary structure and the salary cap versus luxury tax debate
At the center of modern labor tension is whether MLB moves to an NFL- or NBA-style hard salary cap, or keeps the current mix of revenue sharing and luxury-tax mechanisms. Owners increasingly argue a cap is necessary to create competitive balance and curb escalating payroll outlays by a few markets. Players view a cap as an existential threat to earned free-agent value and long-term earning potential. Negotiators need to square how a cap would be designed, what exceptions exist, how revenue sharing adjusts, and whether reductions to competitive-balance tools would accompany a cap. These are fundamental bargaining chips because they affect every contract, draft pick valuation, and team strategy across the league.
GET YOUR PHILLIES GEAR FROM THE PBN SHOP
Revenue sharing, competitive balance, and market disparity
Owners want mechanisms that narrow the gap between high- and low-revenue clubs. The union accepts some forms of revenue sharing but resists measures that penalize player pay or transfer revenue away from payroll. Any negotiated framework must balance incentives for local investment, protect small-market viability, and preserve player mobility. Solutions could include more progressive revenue-sharing formulas paired with stronger cost-control measures that are not simply a hard cap on payroll. The structure must be transparent and enforceable, or mistrust will make any deal fragile.
International draft and amateur compensation
The international talent pipeline is another contentious area. Owners have proposed draft-like mechanisms or tighter international signing caps to reduce spending disparities and channel young talent into controlled systems. The players oppose restrictions that curtail market access for amateurs and reduce opportunities for early-career earnings. A compromise might combine increased international bonus pools with clearer development support for prospects and more robust scouting transparency so smaller-market clubs can compete on talent discovery rather than just on cash.
Service-time manipulation and rookie-pay scale
Service-time rules and arbitration are perennial grievances because they determine when players reach arbitration and free agency. The union wants measures that reduce intentional manipulation of service time so talent reaches free agency earlier. Owners seek predictability and cost control for young talent. Possible approaches include a shortened arbitration window, performance-based service credits, or guaranteed minimums for high-performing rookies that reduce the incentive to keep players down for arbitrary stretches.
Revenue allocation: minimum salary, arbitration, and pension
Minimum salary levels, arbitration formulas, and long-term benefits such as pensions and health coverage must be modernized. The players will press for higher minimums, more favorable arbitration comparisons, and improved post-career benefits. Owners will weigh how changes flow through payroll budgets. Creating a tiered minimum salary, improving guaranteed-health commitments, and enhancing the pension formula can address player security while allowing owners to structure payroll phases.
Roster construction, limits, and in-season rules
Changes introduced recently, including roster size adjustments and new two-way or designated-hitter rules, affect both competitive fairness and player employment patterns. The upcoming CBA must resolve whether to lock in certain roster sizes, clarify two-way player definitions, and set rules for expanded playoffs or interleague scheduling. These operational rules influence how teams allocate innings and manage depth, so clarity reduces disputes and preserves competitive intent.
Technology, gambling, and integrity protections
Gambling, data access, and technology governance are newer but critical bargaining areas. Owners demand robust integrity protections and data monetization rights, while players want privacy protections, fair compensation if their image or data is exploited, and strong safeguards against betting-related interference. A modern CBA should clearly define permissible data uses, institute education and support around gambling risks, and set a disciplinary framework that is swift and fair.
For more on the blurring line between players and sports betting, see Part 2 of this series: Sports Betting and Player Involvement.
Likelihood of a work stoppage and ways to avoid one
A work stoppage is a real possibility if negotiators treat the salary-cap question as non-negotiable. Public signals indicate both sides are preparing for a hard fight, and the owners’ appetite for a cap makes a lockout an available lever. However, a stoppage is not inevitable. Avoiding one requires three practical moves: first, focusing early talks on lower-friction, high-impact fixes such as minimum salary increases, enhanced benefits, and service-time adjustments to build trust. Second, creating a phased approach for any major structural change, like a salary cap, with pilot programs, opt-in periods, or sunset clauses so stakeholders can test effects. Third, establishing a high-level joint committee that includes independent economists and former players to design transparent revenue-allocation models. These steps reduce zero-sum framing and create technical paths forward.
A negotiated, incremental solution that protects player earnings while offering owners credible competitive-balance tools gives both sides a face-saving exit from all-or-nothing positions. If both parties prioritize keeping the game on the field and engage independent expertise to craft pragmatic compromises, they can avoid a work stoppage and deliver a CBA that stabilizes baseball’s economic future for the next decade.
Read Part 1: A Salary Cap vs A Salary Floor | Read Part 2: Sports Betting and Player Involvement
Please scroll down to comment on this story or to give it a rating. We appreciate your feedback!
Disclaimer: Some of the products featured or linked on this website may generate income for Philly Baseball News through affiliate commissions, sponsorships, or direct sales. We only promote items we believe in, but please assume that PBN may earn a cut from qualifying purchases that you make using a link on this site.
Privacy Policy | Contact us
© 2025 LV Sports Media. All rights reserved.
Philly Baseball News 