mlb owner

If this World Series is going to turn into a food fight about the economics of baseball, Dave Roberts tossed the first meatball.

The Dodgers had just been presented with the National League Championship trophy. Roberts, the Dodgers’ manager, had something to say to a sellout crowd at Dodger Stadium, and to an audience watching on national television.

“They said the Dodgers are ruining baseball,” Roberts hollered. “Let’s get four more wins and really ruin baseball.”

The Dodgers had just vanquished the Milwaukee Brewers, a team that did everything right, with four starting pitchers whose contracts total $1.35 billion.

The Brewers led the major leagues in victories this year. They have made the playoffs seven times in the past eight years, and yet their previous manager and general manager fled for big cities, in the hope of applying small-market smarts to teams with large-market resources.

The Dodgers will spend half a billion dollars on player payroll and luxury tax payments this year, a figure that the Brewers and other small-market teams might never spend in this lifetime, or the next one.

The Brewers will make about $35 million in local television rights this year. The Dodgers make 10 times that much — and they’ll make more than $500 million per year by the end of their SportsNet LA contract in 2038.

Is revenue disparity a problem for the sport?

The owners say yes. They are expected to push for a salary cap in next year’s collective bargaining negotiations. A cap is anathema to the players’ union. At the All-Star Game, union executive director Tony Clark called a cap “institutionalized collusion.”

The union could say, yes, revenue disparity is the big issue and propose something besides a cap.

But that is not what the union is saying. The union does not agree that revenue disparity is the issue, at least to the extent that the players should participate in solving it. Put another way: Tarik Skubal should not get less than market value in free agency to appease the owner of the Pittsburgh Pirates.

For the most part, the union believes the owners should resolve the issue among themselves.

And the fundamental difference might be this: To most of the owners, the Dodgers’ spending is the big problem, or at least the symptom of a big problem. This was Commissioner Rob Manfred at the owners’ meetings last February: “Do people perceive that the playing field is balanced and fair and/or do people believe that money dictates who wins?”

To the union, the problem is not one of perception. The union believes the problem is that the Dodgers’ spending exposes other owners who would love a salary cap that would give them cover — not to mention cost certainty that could increase profits and franchise values.

“Players across the league show up every day ready to compete and ready to win,” Clark told The Times. “Excuses aren’t tolerated between the lines, and they shouldn’t be accepted outside them either.

“When decision-makers off the field mirror the competitive drive exhibited on it, everybody wins and baseball’s future is limitless. Fans and players alike deserve — and should demand — far more accountability from those to whom much is given.”

Tony Clark, executive director of the MLB Players’ Assn., speaks during a news conference in New York in March 2022.

(Richard Drew / Associated Press)

In its annual estimates, Forbes had the Dodgers’ revenue last season at a league-leading $752 million and the Pirates’ revenue at $326 million. The Pirates turned a profit of $47 million and the Dodgers turned a profit of $21 million, according to those estimates.

The Pirates — and other small-market teams — make more than $100 million each year in their equal split of league revenue (national and international broadcast rights, for instance, and merchandising and licensing) and revenue shared by the Dodgers and other large-market teams. That means the Pirates can cover their player payroll before selling a single ticket, beer, or Primanti sandwich stuffed with meat, cheese and fries.

“The current system is designed so larger markets share massive amounts of revenue with smaller markets to help level the playing field,” Clark said. “Small-market teams have other built-in advantages, and we’ve proposed more in bargaining — and will again.”

The union would be delighted to get a salary floor — that is, a minimum team payroll. The owners would do that if the union agreed to a maximum team payroll — that is, a salary cap.

Whether the owners believe recent and potential future changes — among them a draft lottery, more favorable draft-pick compensation for small-market teams losing free agents, providing additional draft picks for teams that promote prospects sooner and for small-market teams that win — can begin to mitigate revenue disparity is uncertain. Whether the players can condition revenue sharing on team progress also is uncertain.

And, perhaps most critically to owners, the collapse of the cable ecosystem means many teams have lost local television revenue that might not ever bounce completely back, even if Manfred can deliver on his proposed “all teams, all the time, in one place” service.

Whatever the issues might be, fans are not throwing up their hands and walking away. The league sold more tickets this year than in any year since 2017. Almost every week brought an announcement from ESPN, Fox or TNT about a ratings increase, and the league did not complain about the outstanding ratings the Dodgers and New York Yankees attracted in last year’s World Series.

Dodgers fans celebrate after Shohei Ohtani hits the second of his three home runs in Game 4 of the NLCS against the Brewers at Dodger Stadium on Oct. 17.

(Eric Thayer/Los Angeles Times)

Payroll is under the control of an owner. Market size is not.

Of the top 15 teams in market size, six made the playoffs. Of the bottom 15 teams in market size, six made the playoffs.

Is that a reasonable exhibition of competitive balance? Would the Dodgers winning the World Series in back-to-back years define competitive imbalance, even if they would become the first team in 25 years to repeat? The only other team currently dedicated to spending like the Dodgers — the New York Mets — has not won the World Series in 39 years.

The Kansas City Chiefs have played in the Super Bowl five times in six years, winning three times. That is because they have Patrick Mahomes, not because the NFL has a salary cap.

In the past three years, the Dodgers are the only team to appear in the final four twice — more diversity than in the final four in the NFL, NBA or NHL, each of which has a salary cap.

The league used to happily distribute information like that. After the winter chants about the Dodgers ruining baseball, the league started talking about how no small-market team had won the World Series in 10 years.

Payroll itself should not define competitive balance, but that becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy if an owner decides competing with the Dodgers would be no less futile by spending another $25 million on players.

It is premature to count heads now. However, at this point, you wonder whether any team besides the Dodgers and Mets would lobby against the league pursuing a salary cap in negotiations. If the owners really want a salary cap, they need to be prepared to do what the NHL did to get one: shut down the league for an entire season.

We should be talking about the magic of Shohei Ohtani and Mookie Betts. Instead, on its grandest stage, the talk around baseball will be all about whether its most popular team is ruining the game to the point of depriving us of it come 2027. Well done, everyone.

ATLANTA — In 2021, Times columnist Bill Plaschke incurred the wrath of Atlanta by blaspheming the entertainment district surrounding the Braves’ ballpark as a “sterile shopping mall.” The district, called The Battery, prefers the grand descriptor of “the South’s preeminent lifestyle destination.”

Let’s take a walk around The Battery, so you can understand why it could become one of the flash points in the coming holy war between owners and players.

If you leave the ballpark through the right-field gates, you are in The Battery. You’ll see a plaza in front of you, and around you places to ride a mechanical bull, go bowling, navigate an escape room or take in a concert.

You can eat, drink, shop, dance, stay in a hotel. You can live here, in apartments above the storefronts. You can work here, in office towers housing corporate giants.

“To create an environment where you can spend eight, nine hours at The Battery and the field, and still feel like you have all the time in the world, I think they’ve done a wonderful job building this place,” Dodgers and former Braves All-Star first baseman Freddie Freeman said.

The Braves built all this, not only to lure fans to come early and stay late on game days but to make money from the property 365 days a year rather than 81. On that front, it is a spectacular success: Nine million people come here each year, and the Braves generated $67 million in revenue from The Battery last year.

This, according to major league officials, is the template for the modern team. The Angels had planned a ballpark village twice as large as The Battery. Imagine what the Dodgers could build, and how much revenue they could generate, on property twice as large as the Angel Stadium site.

And, speaking of revenue, Rob Manfred has something he likes to say to players about it. The MLB commissioner spoke at the Braves’ Investor Day last month and said he tells players that their share of the sport’s revenue has dropped from 63% in 2002 to 47% today.

Baseball is the only major sport in America without a salary cap system, in which owners agree to spend a designated percentage of revenue on player salaries.

“If we had made a deal 10 years ago to share 50-50, you would’ve made $2.5 billion more than you made,” Manfred said he has told players, in comments first reported by Sports Business Journal.

The players and their union rolled their collective eyes at those comments. It is no secret that many owners want a salary cap, and the cost certainty that comes with it.

“It’s all tactics,” Dodgers All-Star catcher Will Smith said. “It’s all early negotiating stuff.”

Said Arizona Diamondbacks All-Star outfielder Corbin Carroll: “Owners don’t want to put money in our pockets. For them to emphasize how we need this so much, there’s a reason for that.”

Tony Clark, the union’s executive director, said the revenue numbers the league shares with the union are not consistent with Manfred’s statements. And, when you consider a percentage of revenue, you have to define what counts as revenue: What goes into the pool to be shared with players?

Tony Clark, executive director of the MLB players’ union.

(Brynn Anderson / Associated Press)

So let’s go back to The Battery, and to the revenue opportunities that such ballpark villages create for teams.

A report released in April by Klutch Sports, the Los Angeles-based agency, called such villages “the sports industry’s $100+ billion growth engine,” particularly as media revenue wanes. Within the pitch to team owners: Those villages “generate attractive financial returns that stand outside of league revenue sharing requirements.”

Translation: You can make all these millions without sharing any of it with the players.

The Braves are building here because the team plays here. That is the new issue looming over the next round of collective bargaining: If a team builds around its ballpark, should that revenue be shared with players?

“Oh yeah,” Athletics All-Star designated hitter Brent Rooker said. “Revenue is just any dollar that teams bring in that ultimately could be turned around and used to put a better product on the field. It’s got to include tickets, TV, concessions, all the things around the stadium. It’s got to include all of it.”

Is the money a team makes from renting office space outside the ballpark really relevant to the team?

Here’s what Braves president and chief executive Derek Schiller told ESPN about The Battery: “You’ve got a whole other set of revenues from the real estate development that can then be deployed for the baseball team.”

I asked Clark whether, if negotiations turn to the possibility of revenue sharing along the lines Manfred discussed, the money from ballpark villages needs to be part of the conversation.

“Yes,” Clark said.

He declined to elaborate. Understand this about Clark: He can filibuster a yes or no question into a 45-second monologue without actually answering yes or no. That he would say a clear “yes” and nothing else leaves no doubt about his position.

If the players do ask that owners share revenue from such ballpark villages, the response would be predictable: First, we share baseball revenue from baseball operations, and real estate developments are not baseball operations. Second, if you want to share in the revenue, you can share in the risk too, by helping to fund construction of the ballpark village, say, or by assuming some of the losses when a tenant drops its lease and leaves storefronts or office buildings unoccupied.

Said Carroll: “I think that’s a conversation that won’t need to happen, because it won’t get to that point. A salary cap is a nonstarter from the union’s perspective.”

Enjoy the All-Star Game Tuesday, because this summer is one of relative peace. The collective bargaining agreement expires after next season, which means the rhetoric between players and owners ought to be flying this time next year. If the owners insist on pushing a salary cap, a lockout almost certainly would follow.

And, if the owners push revenue sharing, The Battery could provide the push for the players’ pushback.