MLBPA fires back at MLB owners after latest labor proposal

The right for professional athletes to collectively bargain is enshrined in the National Labor Relations Act and underpins what makes pro sports so lucrative for modern players.

Rich people have owned professional sports teams for over a century, but it has only been in the last 50 years that sports have seen labor breakthroughs such as revenue sharing between teams and players, free agency, safety standards, and improved health benefits. And those benefits were won through hard-fought labor strife.

The current collective bargaining agreement between MLB and the MLB Players Association expires at the end of the 2026 season. Fans have been whispering about a potential lockout for the last few years, as mega contracts like those signed by Shohei Ohtani, Juan Soto, and Vladimir Guerrero seemed untenable for the sport.

The biggest harbinger of the coming labor strife is undoubtedly the Los Angeles Dodgers.

Always one of the bigger spenders in the league, over the past two seasons, the team's payroll has skyrocketed. The Dodgers are spending $395.8 million on active roster spots in 2026. With the competitive balance tax that penalizes teams that exceed a certain payroll limit, LA will spend $415.2 million this season on player payroll and taxes.

That's up from $321 million in 2025 and $220 million in 2024.

But they aren't the only ones. The Mets and Yankees are also writing big checks, spending $367.9 million and $325.4 million on player payroll this year.

The top-5 teams in the league combined are spending $1.7 billion on player salaries this year. The bottom-15 teams are collectively spending $1.9 billion. That type of disparity has led the majority of fans to feel that if you aren't the Dodgers, Yankees, or a handful of other teams, your team has no chance of competing, much less winning it all.

The thing is, there is no doubt in my mind that the owners broke the system on purpose. Some of the free agent signings we have seen in recent years to get to these bloated payrolls haven't made financial or baseball sense, yet teams are handing out 10 and 15-year contracts to players they will be paying $30 million and $40 million annually to when they are in their late 30s and early 40s.

The Dodgers had a reasonable payroll as recently as 2024 when they spent $220.6 million, good enough for eighth in the league. But over the last two seasons, after signing Shohei Ohtani to what was the richest sports contract in North American history at the time, the Dodgers have been on a mission to outspend for every available free agent contract.

MLB pitches salary cap/floor, MLBPA fouls it off

Despite the eye-popping contract numbers from the Ohtanis and Sotos of the baseball world, the majority of free agents are getting the short end of the stick.

So the league offered a solution this week.

The players get a salary floor, requiring teams to spend at least $171.2 million on payroll, along with related expenses like pension contributions and health insurance, while the owners get a salary cap of $245.3 million. Perhaps even more enticingly, the league is offering a 50-50 split of all revenue with the players.

MLB is unique in American sports in two ways. It currently doesn't have a salary cap like all other major sports do. And it doesn't share revenue like all the other sports do.

On paper, it seems like an even trade for both sides. The players give up their unique non-salary cap situation and get a salary floor, while the owners give up their unique non-revenue sharing situation and get a salary cap.

But this wouldn't be an MLB labor negotiation if things were that easy.

On Monday, according to ESPN, Bruce Meyer, the MLBPA interim executive director, called the proposal the "worst system for players in any major sport, and not even close. I thought they would try harder to make it look good, and they didn't even do that."

There are two major problems with the MLB proposal, according to Meyer. First, the revenue split plan involves an escrow system in which player salaries would be affected if the league does not meet revenue projections for the year, ensuring a 50-50 split.

Secondly, amateur signing bonuses would make up part of players' share of revenue, along with other line items that the MLBPA says would decrease overall compensation in the long run.

While the MLB says its proposal levels the playing field while sharing revenue 50/50. "Under our proposal, major league players will receive more compensation in year one of the system than in 2026," MLB spokesperson Glen Caplin told ESPN.

Meanwhile, according to Meyer, "Using MLB's definition of revenue and player share, as set forth in their proposal and their presentation to us, player share under their proposal would go down. Player share for this season, 2026, is projected to be well over 50%, using MLB's definition of revenues and what counts against the player share. Had MLB's proposal been in place in 2026, players would, we estimate, lose half a billion dollars."

And there you have it. The two sides seemingly couldn't be further apart.

The good news is that MLB and the MLBPA have six months to figure this out before the owners lock out the players and about 10 months before they have to start missing regular-season games over the issue.

This is just the opening salvo in a long negotiation process that could get uglier before it gets prettier.

Related: MLB salary cap proposal could fix baseball's biggest problem

Copyright 2026 The Arena Group, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

This story was originally published June 3, 2026 at 11:03 AM.