https://www.espn.com/mlb/story...r-tells-mlb-boss-get-clubhouse
There is far more disparity in MLB payrolls than NBA payrolls.
For instance, Dodgers and Mets have the highest payrolls at $340 and $333 million whereas the lowest payroll teams are the White Sox, A's and Marlins at $78, $77 and $68 million respectively. So there's almost a 5 to 1 ratio between the highest payroll team and the lowest payroll team.
https://www.spotrac.com/mlb/payroll
In the NBA, the highest payrolls for the 2025-26 season are the Cavs at $224.6 and Celtics at $205.9 million and the lowest payrolls are the Wizards, Jazz and Nets at $135.4, $133.25 and $114.3 million for active players. That means Cavs have less than a 2-1 ratio over the Nets.
https://www.spotrac.com/nba/cap
The MLBPA accuses the owners of pushing for a salary cap to boost team valuations. It's not clear that a salary cap, if it led to more parity, would make the sport more popular, possibly leading to more lucrative TV contracts and more revenues.
ESPN is willing to walk away from MLB TV rights unless they can negotiate for much lower fees, so while the biggest stars like Ohtani and Judge are on two of the highest-spending teams in the sport, it's not clear that they make the sport overall more popular. No doubt the Dodgers and the NY teams are probably getting great local TV ratings and attendance.
But most of the other teams can't spend over $300 million to try to compete for WS rings.
Also not clear if a salary cap would make the sport more popular either. When superstars of the sport sign 10 or 15 year contracts worth well over $500 billion, does it make the sport more or less popular?
Do fans of teams who can't sign the biggest free agents every year like the Dodgers and the NY teams still remain interested in the sport?
