Major League Baseball has suggested postponing the implementation of a salary cap until 2028, citing that teams currently have too many financial obligations for the upcoming season to quickly cut spending. One day following the opening of free agency for the 2026-27 offseason, team owners proposed setting a hard salary cap at $258.2 million and a floor at $180.2 million for 2028, using luxury tax payrolls averaged annually. Teams would be allowed to spend as low as 90% of the floor ($162.18 million) in 2028 but would be required to meet the floor amount over a three-year span.
MLB spokesperson Glen Caplin stated that this delay would give clubs a full offseason to adjust to working within the new cap and floor system. Additionally, the proposal aims to preserve important player benefits such as earlier free agency, a $1 million minimum salary, a 30% boost to the pre-arbitration bonus pool, and reforms reducing roster turnover. The current five-year collective bargaining agreement, finalized in March 2022 after a long lockout, expires on December 1; management expects another potential lockout as no salary cap has been proposed since the negotiations before the 1994 strike which canceled the World Series for the first time in 90 years. The players’ union remains strongly opposed to any salary cap.
The owners’ salary cap plan assumes a 50-50 split of revenue with players, though disputes remain over what constitutes revenue and expenses. If a work stoppage decreases MLB revenues, both the cap and floor figures would be correspondingly reduced. According to management, eight teams—including Boston, the Cubs, , Mets, Yankees, Phillies, Padres, and Blue Jays—would need to slash their payrolls by a combined $528 million to comply with the cap by 2028. Meanwhile, twelve other teams would have to increase spending by $636 million to meet the minimum floor, including teams like the Athletics, White Sox, Reds, Guardians, Rays, and the reigning World Series champion Milwaukee Brewers.
MLB has expressed openness to negotiating the timeline and process for implementing these changes. The luxury tax system and revenue-sharing plan would stay the same for 2027, and MLB intends to centralize media revenue starting in 2028. Owners have shown willingness to accept the union’s proposal to reduce free-agent eligibility from six to five years for players aged 30 or above but want teams to retain the right to make qualifying offers; players rejecting such offers would become eligible for salary arbitration. Additionally, MLB would agree to eliminate qualifying offers for other free agents, matching the players’ demand.
On salary minimums, management proposes raising the major league minimum to $1 million for players with two years of service and $900,000 for others, with a $100,000 pre-arbitration bonus for players accruing a full season, provided they aren’t on the injured list excessively. Minor league minimums would also increase significantly. Owners plan a one-time bonus payment funded via luxury tax proceeds set aside for players’ 401(k) accounts, with the amount calculated based on 2026 service time, rewarding full-season players with $285,000 and lesser amounts for partial seasons.
The pre-arbitration bonus pool would rise from $50 million in 2026 to $65 million in 2027, eventually reaching $75 million during the term of a seven-year deal running through 2033. The plan also incorporates Prospect Promotion Incentive draft picks in the international draft, allowing teams to earn two such picks when a player is promoted. MLB agrees to exclude foreign professionals from service time calculations if they earn service through Rookie of the Year voting finishes. Owners also seek to remove the fourth option year for players, reduce optional assignment limits from five to four per season, shorten the time before players must be protected from the Rule 5 draft by one year, and allow teams to option Rule 5 draft picks.
Reporting by The Associated Press.
Fan Take: This proposal is a critical moment for baseball fans as it attempts to balance team spending and player benefits while avoiding immediate disruption to the game’s financial ecosystem. If successfully implemented, it could create more competitive parity and financial stability, but the ongoing resistance from the players’ union means fans might face uncertainty and potential labor disputes ahead.
Source: www.foxsports.com
