This article is free for anyone to read, but please consider becoming a Patreon subscriber to allow me to keep writing posts like this one. Sign up to receive articles like this one in your inbox here.
The regular season is over, the focus is on MLB’s postseason, but there aren’t any playoff games on Friday — what better time than to take a breath and reflect on where things are going to go about a month from now?
Here’s the most basic view: there are quite a few people concerned that there won’t just be a lockout when the current collective bargaining agreement expires, but that it’s going to persist into the 2027 season, maybe even erasing all of it. Reasonable people can agree that there will most certainly be a lockout — there was a time early on in negotiations this year where that belief was tested, but MLB’s refusal to engage seriously with the problems the Players Association has with a salary cap, and the league’s refusal to propose anything that isn’t tied to the acceptance of a cap, did away with any pretense otherwise.
The players will be locked out come December, when the CBA expires. We’ll surely see another letter from commissioner Rob Manfred solemnly explaining why this extremely premeditated move was actually an unavoidable one, and hopefully my eyes don’t roll so far back in my head that they get stuck that way.
Where things get murkier, though, is with the length of the lockout. While I can sympathize with the concern that this is going to be the big one, cutting into the schedule in a way the 1990 and 2021 lockouts did not, I don’t actually see this as the most likely outcome — or even a likely one at all. Granted, trying to get into the heads of billionaires who are not used to hearing the word “no” and might not even heed the guy whose job it is to keep them reined in just enough to not screw up their own functioning monopoly is a bit of a fool’s errand, so I could very well be wrong. I don’t think I am, though.
There are two reasons why. One longstanding with a recent update, the other more recent — let’s start with the latter. Last month at Baseball Prospectus, I explained, in detail, why the 2027 season is not in danger from where I sit.
MLB’s current owners keep selling their teams now. With the season ongoing; with the current collective bargaining active; with no promise or guarantee of a salary cap in place.
Why does that timing matter? Consider: as Evan Drellich reported at The Athletic in late-May, the primary concern of the owners, the thing that will make them richer beyond even their current levels of wealth, is skyrocketing franchise values. That will bring a massive, immediate return after however many years of profits just from running a baseball team, and the best way that the owners figure to get those franchise valuations to climb at a faster rate is to get a handle on spending and cap it.
…
If MLB’s owners were truly fighting for a salary cap, if they truly believed that they were six months to a year out from implementing a salary band that would lead to a rapid rate of franchise value increases, then why would these same owners be cashing in now, when the kind of return they want isn’t yet there?
The Padres sold for a then-record $3.9 billion this summer. The Angels are in agreement with Stan Kroenke to break that record, freeing MLB from Arte Moreno’s influence in more ways than one: Moreno is a hardline salary cap guy, one who voted against the confirmation of the current CBA before MLB’s follow-up vote song and dance where they pretend every vote is a unanimous one for the sake of a public show of unity. The Rockies — the Rockies! — are reportedly looking into selling away the majority stake that the Monfort’s have. Dick Monfort is the chairman of MLB’s labor policy committee and part of the actual bargaining process with the MLBPA — that’s a guy who would know which direction the wind is blowing.
There’s a follow-up thought to this, too, not covered in that article, in which fighting for a cap now and potentially missing out on 2027 games further delays any look into expanding the league and the expansion fees that come with it. Previously, MLB was looking for just over $2 billion in expansion fees, but if the Padres are selling for nearly $4 billion, and the derelict franchise that is the Los Angeles Angels can beat that out, well. Why stop at $2.2 billion from a new owner, you know?
Now for the longstanding issue. Since before 2026, I’ve posited again and again that the upcoming negotiations over broadcast rights is too significant for MLB to risk damaging the value of its product — every national contract expires after the 2028 season, and will be renegotiated during it. It’s the last major item on Manfred’s agenda before he leaves the role in January, 2029, and anytime MLB — or any league — misses games due to a work stoppage, attendance and ratings wane upon resumption. With the possibility of the largest-ever suite of broadcasting contracts on the horizon, risking that for a cap fight that, frankly, might never result in a cap no matter how long the owners wait out the players, is a huge risk. One better suited for the next CBA negotiations, which will likely occur with plenty of already settled broadcasting deal years left.
The Athletic recently expanded on this idea in a way that furthers this position, too: if 60 games are missed in 2027, “most of” the league’s national broadcasting contracts would then automatically extend into 2029, but things get worse for those awaiting a major payout:
Most of the current national contracts — which total more than $2 billion annually with Fox, TNT Sports and other platforms — call for the league’s partners to pay MLB in 2027 even if no games are played, the people briefed on the agreements said. This means the owners would still be guaranteed to collect around 17 percent of their overall $12 billion-plus in revenues.
If the entirety of the 2027 season were to be missed, the networks would pay nothing during 2029, the additional season they would get in return for their ’27 outlay. If MLB missed 60 games but still held a shortened campaign in 2027, the networks would have to pay some amount for 2029.
Get paid during a lockout with no games in 2027? Sure. Get paid in 2029 when actual baseball is being played and players need to be paid, though? No dice. It’s not just delaying a renegotiation and weakening of a position, but it’s giving away a free season to multiple national broadcasters, too. There are just too many variables here, all negative ones, to think that the owners will avoid blinking when negotiations get to that point.
Again, there is going to be a lockout, and bargaining is going to be contentious. However, both sides agree that revenue-sharing needs to be overhauled to lessen the advantages that the most profitable teams have — the real point of contention is in making the less-profitable teams actually spend those revenue-sharing dollars. There is some common ground here, and it would not be shocking to see some — but certainly not all — of MLB’s proposals that might actually benefit the players coming back to the table once this salary cap business is over and done with.
Visit my Patreon to become a supporter and help me continue to write articles like this one.