How does baseball fix salary inequality?

Baseball has to come out with a fix for their salary inequality. As time continues on, baseball interest is going to die off in certain cities. Look at the lowest ranked teams in attendance. Most of them are also low payroll teams. The top ranked teams in attendance are almost all the teams with high payrolls. I believe that trend and separation is going to continue to grow. So what is the fix?

My suggestion - revenue share local TV / radio money. Give the local team 60% of their local money and 40% goes into a pool to try and equalize revenue and payroll for teams.

So you want the New York, Chicago, Boston, and LA to fund the rest of the teams payrolls?

Other than team contraction, do nothing.

I agree that there needs to be a salary cap. The inequities in team salaries let’s half the fan bases know that their team has no chance each year.

2 of the last 3 WS winners were 16/30 and 18/30 in payroll.

I agree that there needs to be a salary cap. The inequities in team salaries let’s half the fan bases know that their team has no chance each year.

Exactly, there has to be a level playing field (a salary cap) or the problem will get worse.

This is why I oppose expansion of the MLB

2 of the last 3 WS winners were 16/30 and 18/30 in payroll.

The Astros went through a brutal rebuild to get to this point.

The Astros went through a brutal rebuild to get to this point.

So did the Cubs, who have almost limitless resources. It is more about the team's management than it is about the payroll. The payroll dictates more how long the window remains open.

I don't see a need to fix anything.

The little guys (payroll wise) have proven they can and do win. Don't fix what isn't broken IMO.

The Astros do not win it if they don’t take on Verlander’s contract last year in mid season. They will have to blow up the team in 3-5 years because of salaries. As a fan that sucks to know you can’t continue to root for those players on your team but for a short time. If costs are more controlled, the salaries would be more controlled and easier to keep a core of players together.

I don't see a need to fix anything.

 

The little guys (payroll wise) have proven they can and do win. Don't fix what isn't broken IMO.

They CAN but the margin for error is so small. Mistakes and injuries can set the small market teams back years. I don’t think it’s this big problem that is hurting baseball greatly, but I think they could do a few things to help.

Even though the Astros ended up rebuilding you don’t want to have teams going through a 4 year stretch where they won about 55 games on average. Not the way to grow the fan base.

^I don't disagree, but almost all of the "small-market" teams COULD spend a large amount more than they do on payroll if the owners were so inclined.

^I don't disagree, but almost all of the "small-market" teams COULD spend a large amount more than they do on payroll if the owners were so inclined.

Absolutely. The MLB owners are sitting on a cash cow and making money hand over fist from streaming. Pretty much every team could spend, but because low payroll teams can and do have success many choose not to spend. A salary cap actually probably helps the players more than the owners.

They CAN but the margin for error is so small. Mistakes and injuries can set the small market teams back years. I don’t think it’s this big problem that is hurting baseball greatly, but I think they could do a few things to help.

 

Even though the Astros ended up rebuilding you don’t want to have teams going through a 4 year stretch where they won about 55 games on average. Not the way to grow the fan base.

^I don't disagree, but almost all of the "small-market" teams COULD spend a large amount more than they do on payroll if the owners were so inclined.

Exactly what UKMF said. The Reds, and everyone else, got a $50 million payout this off-season from the league. How many of them spent it on payroll?

Not sure if it has aged well, but Bob Costas' book "Fair Ball" was a pretty deep dive into this. As I recall (it has been a while), Costas' main point was that you have to have both a salary cap AND a salary floor to make it work (and to have any hope of getting the Union to go along with it). In MLB, teams figured out that they can spend $60M (or whatever the # is now) and finish in 2nd or 3rd behind the $100M Yankees / Dodgers / etc. OR they can spend $30M and finish 4th or 5th. A lot of owners pocketed the $30M and dealt with the backlash from their fan base (if there was one) and talked about rebuilding.

Currently, you have a few clubs that can / do have the resources to compete every year (Yankees, Red Sox, Dodgers, Cubs (yes, they tore it down, but now they reload), Nationals (sort of - what they do next year will be interesting), Mets (but they are run soooo poorly, they don't overcome it), Angels (see Mets), Giants, etc.). You have other clubs that try to catch lightning in a bottle. You have other clubs that do the tear down and rebuild (or tell their fans they are doing that). Finally, you have clubs that just don't really plan to compete in the current structure.

MLB & NBA both have large % of teams entering the season with no legitimate chance of winning the title. In the NFL, that # is very few. It's not good for the long term health of either game (although the NBA and its current "super teams" obsession seems to be working out).