Why in the world doesn't baseball have some form of a salary cap?

Question

It is ridiculuous that teams like Milwaukee, Kansas City, Pittsburgh and Tampa Bay have no chance of competing in the free-agent market, therefore having no serious chance of ever competing consistently during the season or the playoffs. I love baseball, but I'm tired of the Yankees, Braves, Red Sox, Dodgers, Cardinals and Giants. I'd like to see some other teams and get to know some of the other talent in the league.

Answer 1

I'm a Yankee fan and I'm tired of it also. Let me explain...

I believe that sports is about fair play - not only on the field but also off the field. There is only so much pride I can have for *my* team when I know that a large percentage of the competition was eliminated before the first pitch was thrown. So I completely agree with alot of fans who feel this is unfair - and it is!

In 1994, baseball (owners & players) cancelled the rest of the season after fans had *invested* a large portion of their time and money on their teams. The reason for the cancellation was all about money and it remains the only issue today.

Perhaps when enough fans begin to see how this is negatively effecting the sport and they themselves "cancel" a season by not attending or watching games, a more equitable solution could be found.

Until that happens - (like another user stated) it's business as usual and the few teams who manage to compete will eventually lose their players to the teams that can afford them.
.

Answer 2

The have a luxury tax instead. Though it is so high and has so little a penalty I'm not sure it has an effect. Also I don't think things like the money Boston paid the Japanese team for the rights of to sign Matsuzaka come into play.

Details on luxruy tax:


Luxury Tax in Major League Baseball
Major League Baseball has instead implemented the so-called luxury tax, an arrangement by which teams whose aggregate payroll exceeds a certain figure (annually revised) must pay into a pool designed to help the less affluent teams pay higher salaries. However, critics point out that the luxury tax has had little effect on maintaining competitive balance and on overspending by affluent teams. For the 2004 season, only the New York Yankees, Boston Red Sox and Anaheim Angels paid any luxury tax; such teams had superstar players whose yearly salary was close to the entire payroll of weaker clubs. Despite this fact, teams have been able to compete with low payrolls. The Florida Marlins contended for a playoff spot in 2006 with a payroll less than what Yankees 3rd Baseman Alex Rodriguez was paid, and the Oakland Athletics went to the ALCS in the same season despite a low payroll. Meanwhile, the New York Yankees have not won a World Series in 6 straight seasons and both the Red Sox and Angels missed the playoffs in 2006. Due to opposition of a powerful MLB union and because the Yankees and Red Sox refused to side with the majority of MLB owners, the implementation of a salary cap is unlikely at the moment. Although some saw the success of NHL owners in their 2004-05 lockout as an opportunity for MLB to reform its collective bargaining agreement, baseball owners and players have apparently agreed to a new five-year deal (as of October 2006) that is highly unlikely to have included a salary cap.

Unlike the other three major sports, MLB has no team salary floor. The only minimum limits for team payrolls are based on the minimum salaries for players of various levels of experience written into MLB's collective bargaining agreement.

Answer 3

This is an easy question to answer...

MLB doesn't have a baseball cap because of their greed, plain and simple. Salary caps, and revenue sharing which goes along with salary caps, stop the big-market teams from raking in the dough. Big market teams are the influential teams. See where this goes? The big market teams won't agree to share the wealth with the smaller market teams like Milwaukee, KC, etc. because that would take away alot of financial power that the big market teams have. MLB can't FORCE the big market teams to share the wealth, so there we are. We have the Yankees, Boston, LA Dodgers, etc.... the big market teams able to buy the top ranked free agents, because they have the most disposable cash. Then the big market teams get even richer, and the smaller market teams fall further behind in influence and disposable income. A salary cap will stop any one team from getting too powerful, and revenue sharing will keep the financial field more level for all the teams. The owners and the unions and MLB itself will have to grow up enough to see that they are hurting the game with their financial shenanigans before anything will change.

Answer 4

While a salary cap would do a world of good for the sport of baseball, the players union wont allow it. They have already demonstrated they are willing to go on strike and cancel a season before they will allow someone to put a cap on the amount of millions they make.

Baseball does have a "luxery tax" which is a "salary cap light." It does not prevent teams from spending a certain amount of money, but it punishes their checkbook pretty hard for doing so. The Yankees get hit each year with a pretty hefty luxery tax bill. The money from the luxery tax the Yankees pay supposedly goes to the poorer teams to help them with their payroll, but there is nothing that forces those teams (Royals, Tigers, Pirates, etc.) to use that money for those purposes, and the owners probably just take that money and buy klondike bars with it...

Answer 5

The players union will not allow it. They would go on strike yet again if the MLB ever tried to impose a salary cap.

The MLB Players Union is one of the strongest unions in the United States, and can pretty much get away with strongarming Major League Baseball into whatever they want. As 1994 showed us, they won't think twice about striking, which costs hundreds of millions of dollars in ticket sales, tv ratings, merchandise and other revenue, not to mention that many fans get disgusted and stop watching alltogether. The owners are afraid of another strike, so you will likely never see a baseball salary cap.

It's a shame, really, because it would definately help, but it just isn't possible with the union.

Answer 6

The owners will never agree to a salary cap because most of them don't want their payrolls that high. They'd lose out on the millions that they make in revenue sharing and the luxury tax.

Answer 7

You cant just point out a few teams anymore and say they are the big spenders. Every team does it now. It starts with the small market teams offering high salaries to unproven talent. This leads to other teams signing slightly better players to million dollar contracts.

So many teams are signing weak players to multimillion dollar contracts. These guys can't even make my fantasy starting line up and get paid over 10million a year.

Answer 8

LoL this is stupid. They do have a chance even w/o a high payroll...look at what the DBacks and Marlins have done in recent years (won championships with very very low payroll, esp the Marlins). Its about building up players youve drafted and working your minor league players into great molds for either your team or great trade bait. PLUS the Brewers, Royals, Pirates, and DRays all have an equal chance at signing players, its that their owners wont dish out the money like Boston, St. Louis, and the Yanks....so get ur facts straight bud, its the owners fault baseball does not need a salary cap.

Answer 9

as a royals fan i understand the frustration. my thoughts are that the union will not allow for a salary cap. there are some forms of taxing the higer teams but the union is stronger than the owners so it will not get done

Answer 10

I can't answer, but I can agree.
We have similar problems in the UK with Football (Soccer), the Premiership league players are paid millions, leaving other smaller clubs to struggle.
I suppose it's business at the end of the day.