Salary cap in baseball? Keep dreaming
The New York Yankees' spending spree is renewing the calls for a salary cap in baseball. The vast majority of fans seem to be for it. And at least one owner as well. But this isn't a Disney movie. Most wishes don't come true.
There's probably only one perfect system for compensation in sports, and it's in individual sports like golf and tennis. You finish first, you make the most. And for those of you who believe that's a system baseball can adopt, I've got some swampland in Florida for you.
In team sports, every system has a flaw. The NFL has a salary cap, and each team's ability to sign free agents is affected by it. A couple of injuries to key players, and it's wait 'til next year. The NBA's is a softer cap, because teams have the ability to go over the cap to re-sign their own players. But with all contracts guaranteed, a couple of bad moves can doom a team for a decade. Baseball has a "luxury tax" system, which is the softest of the three. Teams can spend as much as they want, but will have to pay a little more if they go over a certain barrier every year.
Both leagues' systems serve to artificially decrease demand for players, and therefore their salaries. The NFL and NBA's systems have had more success in curbing salaries than MLB, mostly because baseball's players union is much stronger. And while baseball's system has a major flaw - the Yankees have roughly 10 times the amount of revenue going to players than the Florida Marlins - the luxury-tax system in place better than nothing.
But there's no right answer. The free market is working - somewhat - to curb salaries this year, aside from a few notable exceptions. Sure, revenue-sharing should be stronger, so teams such as the Pittsburgh Pirates and Kansas City Royals can play meaningful games someday. But as Darren Rovell of CNBC pointed out, baseball has had 10 World Series winners in the last 15 years. The only league with more different winners is the NFL (12).
So baseball's system works. Somewhat. Anyone have a better idea?
Some other viewpoints:
- Neil deMause, ESPN.com: Does baseball need a salary cap?
- Ben Fry: Charting salary vs. performance.
- Timothy Sexton: How this decade has proven there's no need for a salary cap.
Comments
How about eliminating revenue sharing? When the Yankees play in Kansas City, KC keeps the gate.
i think that the salary cap would roun baseball
thank god for the sallery cap in the NFL, with out it football would suck just like baseball does. There would be no pitsburgh steelers because they would suc as bad as the pirates. some cities will never be more than double a and triple a teams for the stupid ny stankies. baseball is not even legit, its all rigged and the stankies can buy whom ever they wish. why watch something that you know the outcome every year..
I dont think a salary cap would solve the problem of fairness, I think you need to add a 2 teams to make it 32 teams. Add 2 playoff spots so there is 12 of 32 who can make the playoffs and instead of restrict a players earnings realign teams based on payroll spent. example:
Yanks, Red Soxs, Mets, Phils in one division and Teams like the Pirates, Nationals, Indians, Reds in another. This would ensure teams with lower payrolls can be represented in the playoffs. As you spend more you change divisions. This would keep the schedule fresh and teams like the Pirates and Royals would have a chance to play in October.
check out the plan at:
http://thefairball.com/mlb-realignment-plan/
The other leagues have a salary cap and I think it HAS made for parity. For the most part, the richest teams make the playoffs most often. I personally hate the idea of a team buying their way into the post season. In the NFL,there is no dynasty unless you’re really smart, like New England.
I do like Bill Mckillop’s idea of realligning in divisions, based on payrolls – a very appealing concept ( See comments July 3 )