The 2025 baseball season was an uncomfortable one.
Like running into your pure-of-heart, soft-eyed and suddenly single high school crush from Toronto you haven’t seen since 1993: Really great until you approach her. Nervous. Awkward. And you do the inevitable: dodge her.
Dodge her. Dodger? Dodger.
The Los Angeles Dodgers once again entered the 2025 playoffs as baseball’s default favourite. Even teams like the Toronto Blue Jays, with the league’s fifth-highest payroll, were cast as underdogs — securing the fancy of the vast American fanbase (sans Glendale).
That’s because the Dodgers have all the money, arguably the best ballpark and have signed the most coveted free agents in the last few years.
It doesn’t seem fair, but America’s affection for the Blue Jays during the World Series ultimately made sense. Last season was the year of the underdog, except for the fact that the evil empire won.
Cleveland (27th in payroll) and Cincinnati (21st) both made the playoffs. Minnesota (22nd) and the Mets (2nd) missed out. Meanwhile, the Milwaukee Brewers (19th) were among the league’s elites.
And of course, the Blue Jays were projected to finish last in the AL East, but won their division.
All of those teams just had to lose to the artful Dodgers. Everything was calling for L.A. to be dethroned, and they weren’t.
C’est vrai: The plucky, audience-resonating and misfit-consisting Brewers/Blue Jays/Guardians/Tigers/Reds/Cubs didn’t win, and that hurts.
And since the obvious World Series pick managed to win again, the age-old salary cap discussion is back with a vengeance.
The back-to-back champion Dodgers have the league’s largest payroll at $353 million. They’ve also won their division 12 of the last 13 years, while small-market teams like the Pittsburgh Pirates and Miami Marlins have been largely irrelevant for the past decade.
But there’s a deeper question at stake: What should equality look like in baseball? It doesn’t really matter that teams like Milwaukee and Tampa Bay have proven they can be competitive with low payrolls. On the other hand, teams like the New York Mets can spend endless amounts of money in the offseason and then stick it to everyone and not make the playoffs.
The Blue Jays proved you can spend $125.5 million and end up with Anthony Santander and Jeff Hoffman. Money can’t always buy rings — except when it’s used with brute force.
After all, there have been nine different World Series winners over the last 11 years, and the Dodgers are the first team to repeat since the 1998-2000 New York Yankees.
Does that prove that well-run teams with a legitimate desire to win can be competitive year-to-year without a cap if they so choose?
Um, yes…?
Maybe pre-Moneyball, when the Yankees were busy as three-peat champions, there would be a better case. But since 2002, the idea of a salary cap is arguably a moot point.
Whatever. Small-market teams that don’t spend any money — like Miami or Pittsburgh — obviously want a cap. The Dodgers and Blue Jays have deep pockets and are happy to pay the existing luxury tax threshold. It’s a tier-based system of penalty, and the Dodgers and Jays both made the World Series anyway. L.A. paid out $169.4 million in luxury taxes while Toronto endured $13.6 million in penalties.
Big teams also want an end to revenue-sharing — the current system that sees big-market clubs contribute a certain percentage of earnings into a pool that is split evenly among all 30 clubs. Meanwhile, small-market teams are going to do everything they can to show they’re at least willing to ultimately sign a decent free agent and evade that.
The idea behind revenue-sharing criticism is simple: teams can survive without fielding a winning team and still turn a profit. That’s not fair to rich teams, and ownership groups like the Yankees have been bellyaching about how they’re running at a loss.
Revenue-sharing might be the most divisive issue heading into the new collective bargaining agreement negotiations.
Roughly half the pool comes from national profits like the playoffs and Apple TV games. For the most part, only playoff teams compete in those games, and consequently, only good teams make up the pot. The other half comes from local revenue like ticket sales, which means small-market teams unable to draw fans still collect an equal share of the pool.
There are other elements in play, like the possibility of a salary floor — a minimum amount of money a ballclub would have to spend.
Let’s preface this by saying none of it is a certainty, even if the Dodgers say they’re okay with the idea of a cap, and the Yankees lament about how they aren’t profitable.
Players don’t want a cap that could restrict their salaries, and as you might have noticed, owners are deeply split. That division is exactly why many believe a lockout is on the horizon following the 2026 season.
But the 2025 season proved that a cap isn’t necessary.
Ultimately, baseball is self-regulating. Teams that overspend are punished by a luxury tax, disadvantaged teams are rewarded by revenue-sharing, and there’s a draft lottery to protect against tanking. Plus, punishments are levied against profitable teams making good money but not winning.
In theory, we should have an even financial and talent playing field. But if a team still cannot find adequate capital or market appeal for free agents — no matter what tools or assets it tries to leverage — cities will eventually lose their teams. If Pittsburgh or Miami continue to subsist as revenue-sharing sponges and still can’t win, baseball could force a sale or relocate the franchise.
That’s the game.
Unlike hockey or basketball, not everything is created equal. In baseball, outfield turf bothers some players; the stadium might be too cold in April and October, the air might be too thin, or the outfield wall might be too far back. This prevents teams like Tampa Bay and Colorado from signing good players.
In that case, implementing a cap doesn’t make sense: Just regulate the system and move to better locations or build better parks.
Individual players’ impact also matters less in hockey and basketball. Those sports are more of a team game. So, viewership and attendance equal, five Connor McDavids are going to be worth less to the Oilers than five Shohei Ohtanis are going to be to the Dodgers. That’s because Ohtani can slug five homers in five at-bats, but no matter what, only one McDavid can take a shot at a time.
And you don’t need five Gretzkys on the ice at once because you can just feed one.
Salary misalignment poses another major concern under a cap. A third-line centre relative to a team’s fourth-line centre is far less important than a No. 3 starting pitcher is to a No. 4 arm. And if you pay the No. 4 guy the same as the No. 3, why should the No. 3 bother being so good for the same salary? MLB wouldn’t want that.
A counterpoint to my argument is that MLB’s existing measures (like the luxury tax, revenue sharing and draft protections) don’t fully level the playing field. Despite these systems, maybe teams still can’t win because of financial constraints.
And therein lies the reason why 2025 proved a cap isn’t necessary.
Last year revealed the championship X-factor isn’t dollars — it’s personnel.
In many cases, it was people like Ernie Clement, Nathan Lukese and Eric Lauer that brought the Jays so far. Ultimately, they had the right group.
The Brewers were like that, too. Back in July, Milwaukee benched key defensive infielder Joey Ortiz for taking poor at-bats. Every organization says they value hustle, effort, drive, and other platitudes, but you can’t bench anybody in the Yankees starting lineup when they don’t pull their weight.
Teams with the right personnel emphasize smart baserunning and team play, taking extra bases where they can.
The same thing is true for defence, too.
These elements are proof of a certain personnel and team culture — a culture that teams can build with low and league-minimum salary players.
With smart management, we know small-market teams can compete, and that unheralded groups can make it work against the richest teams.
It’s not easy or fair, but it is possible.
I think in the years to come, the MLB will work to level the playing field in more subtle ways, like restricting data-gathering technology in the minor leagues so rich teams can’t over-invest in development where poor teams lag behind. I think anything bigger will see owners fight and struggle to find a consensus. Certainly, the next 12 months will be important.
But all in all, 2025 proved a cap just isn’t necessary. Not right now, anyway.
Featured image from ladodgersbacktoback.com
