Say goodbye to Major League Baseball – down the line.
It may now be too late to realistically implement a salary cap in baseball. At the very least, any such attempt would almost certainly precipitate a protracted labor standoff, as the players’ union would vigorously oppose constraints on earning power.
This writer was 12 years old when the NHL canceled its 2004 season—a drastic measure that, in retrospect, was both comprehensible and arguably essential.
At that time, the National Hockey League was hemorrhaging money, reporting losses of approximately $273 million during the 2003–04 campaign. Players continued to demand rising salaries, despite the league’s deteriorating financial condition.
The model was unsustainable: most franchises operated at a deficit, and the revenue chasm between large-market and small-market teams eroded competitive integrity and economic viability. The 2004–05 lockout, while painful, provided a necessary inflection point.
By the time of the abbreviated 2012–13 season, the league had institutionalized a more functional financial framework—one rooted in revenue-linked cost control.
And today, the results speak for themselves
The NHL has experienced a level of competitive balance once thought unachievable. Yes, the Florida Panthers have now won back-to-back Stanley Cups, but anomalies are part of sport. What’s remarkable is that franchises like Florida and Tampa Bay—hardly the financial juggernauts of the league—have become perennial contenders.
That they’ve done so under the constraints of a salary cap speaks volumes about internal leadership, front office ingenuity, and the efficacy of structural parity.
Baseball, however, exists in an entirely different economic and cultural moment. According to Forbes, Major League Baseball generated a record $12.1 billion in revenue in 2024, up from $11.6 billion the previous year.
This is not a league in crisis—it is, rather, a league confronting the byproducts of its own prosperity. The debate over a salary cap is not rooted in solvency or survival. Instead, it centers on equity and the perception of competitive imbalance.
The tension lies not in ownership’s desire to spend more, but in the uneven distribution of who can spend without constraint. It’s not that owners are resisting a cap because they’re eager to lavish players with higher salaries; rather, they’re frustrated that a few rivals—most notably the Los Angeles Dodgers—operate with seemingly unlimited financial bandwidth.
That disparity has disrupted the informal norms of fiscal restraint that once governed even the wealthiest clubs. Meanwhile, franchises like the Colorado Rockies appear wholly disengaged from the competitive enterprise, as they are on pace to post one of the worst records in league history, and deservedly so.
The NHL instituted a salary cap precisely to preempt the rampant inflation of player salaries that has since become a defining characteristic of Major League Baseball. At present, there are eleven MLB players earning $35 million or more annually.
Even those positioned at the lower end of baseball’s elite compensation spectrum command annual salaries of roughly $27 million—nearly twice that of the NHL’s highest-paid player, Leon Draisaitl of the Edmonton Oilers, whose average annual value (AAV) is $14 million.
That disparity underscores a looming existential challenge for baseball. When it comes time for current stars to negotiate new deals, how will any franchise—or commissioner—convince them to accept a pay cut? The backlash is already underway.
Consider the recent episode involving Philadelphia Phillies first baseman Bryce Harper, a player renowned not only for his prodigious talent but also for his unwavering candor. During a routine visit by MLB Commissioner Rob Manfred—part of the league’s effort to strengthen rapport between the front office and its thirty clubs—tensions reportedly flared.
When Manfred pivoted the discussion toward the league’s economic structure, Harper stood up, walked to the center of the clubhouse, and addressed the commissioner directly: “If you want to speak about that, you can get the f** out of our clubhouse.”*
According to ESPN, Manfred didn’t flinch. He replied, “I’m not going to get the f** out of here,” emphasizing the necessity of discussing threats to MLB’s financial sustainability and broader strategies for growing the game.
The exchange concluded with a handshake—a symbolic gesture of détente—but make no mistake: this was not an isolated outburst. Nor was it a mere semantic misunderstanding over the phrase “salary cap,” a term Manfred conspicuously avoided but one Harper clearly interpreted as implied.
This confrontation reveals the mounting tension between ownership and labor, a tension that—unlike during the 2004 NHL lockout—may soon reach a boiling point in full public view. Though this writer was only a child during the NHL’s historic work stoppage, I cannot recall an instance in which a player directly confronted Commissioner Gary Bettman with such visceral defiance, though it's plausible someone entertained the thought privately.
A salary cap doesn't mean dominant teams won't go to the wayside - consider the Red Wings
Despite the league’s principal objective of cultivating competitive parity, the Red Wings maintained their dominance well beyond the salary cap’s inception, culminating in their 2008 Stanley Cup triumph—merely three years after the cap’s enforcement.
This persistence underscored the enduring imperative of astute organizational stewardship and exemplary talent evaluation. During the decade preceding Detroit’s most recent championship, then-GM Ken Holland meticulously assembled a core nucleus through the draft, selecting future stalwarts such as Pavel Datsyuk, Henrik Zetterberg, Niklas Kronwall, Jimmy Howard, Johan Franzen, and Jonathan Ericsson.
Their collective contributions not only fortified Detroit’s roster but also exemplified the critical synergy between strategic drafting and sustained competitive excellence.
The underlying issue in MLB is not that the league is financially floundering
On the contrary, it’s thriving. MLB generated a record $12.1 billion in revenue in 2024, up from $11.6 billion the year prior. This is not a system on the verge of collapse—it’s a system in which ownership factions are divided.
The push for a cap is not born out of insolvency, but out of envy and imbalance. A handful of teams—most notably the Los Angeles Dodgers—possess the liquidity to outspend the rest of the league, disrupting competitive equilibrium and irritating less affluent owners.
Meanwhile, clubs like the Colorado Rockies appear disengaged, sleepwalking through the season en route to what may become a historically bad record.
The league’s financial engine is not broken—but its distribution of power and ambition is. Should MLB’s leadership pursue a hard-line approach to capping salaries, it will face a labor reckoning of unprecedented magnitude.
If a lockout materializes, one can reasonably expect it to extend far beyond a single season. That, at least, is the prevailing instinct—and it’s one not easily dismissed.
More from Octopus Thrower