MLB lockout risk resurfaces as CBA deadline nears, Steinberg warns of 'remarkably self-destructive' consequences
Professional baseball is entering its most fraught labor moment in roughly three decades, with the collective bargaining agreement between Major League Baseball and the Major League Baseball Players Association set to expire in…
Key takeaways
- Major League Baseball's collective bargaining agreement with the players association expires in December, and owners are widely expected to impose a lockout.
- Agent Leigh Steinberg called the current labor climate the 'murkiest' the sport has faced since the 1994 strike and warned a lockout would be 'remarkably self-destructive.'
- The Los Angeles Dodgers' spending—a four-year, $260 million deal for Kyle Tucker and a three-year, $69 million acquisition of Edwin Díaz—gave ownership its argument for a salary cap, though neither player has performed well.
- Steinberg says ownership cannot claim economic hardship because television rights, attendance, merchandising, fantasy, and gambling have produced a period of resurgence for the sport.
- Players are vehemently opposed to any salary cap, and no meaningful progress has emerged from early talks.
Professional baseball is entering its most fraught labor moment in roughly three decades, with the collective bargaining agreement between Major League Baseball and the Major League Baseball Players Association set to expire in December and owners widely expected to impose a lockout. Legendary sports agent Leigh Steinberg, whose career has included representation of Steve Young, Troy Aikman, Warren Moon, and Ben Roethlisberger, described the current climate as the "murkiest" environment the sport has seen since the 1994 strike.
Steinberg's warning to OutKick was direct. When the 1994 work stoppage ended, gross receipts fell 40% the following year. Fans left. The sport did not recover, Steinberg argues, until the home run race between Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa and later Barry Bonds pulled audiences back. A lockout in the current environment, he said, would be "remarkably self-destructive."
The salary cap push and what triggered it
The proximate catalyst, as Steinberg frames it, is the spending of the two-time defending World Series champion Los Angeles Dodgers. Their four-year, $260 million signing of outfielder Kyle Tucker and their three-year, $69 million acquisition of closer Edwin Díaz from the New York Mets gave ownership the argument for a salary cap. Neither signing has delivered. Tucker is hitting .221 with 12 home runs, 59 RBI, and a .672 OPS across 136 games, well below his career batting average of .265 and career OPS of .836. Díaz has been limited to 16 games by elbow and neck injuries, posting an 11.85 ERA in 13 2/3 innings against a career ERA of 3.06 across 10 seasons. The underperformance has done nothing to soften the ownership bloc's posture.
Revenue versus leverage
The deeper tension in the negotiation, as Steinberg sees it, is that ownership cannot claim economic hardship. Television rights, attendance, merchandising, fantasy, and gambling have together produced what he describes as a period of resurgence for the sport. Owners are not arguing poverty. They are arguing structure, and the players are vehemently opposed to any salary cap.
Both sides have made preliminary proposals, but no meaningful progress has emerged from early talks. In March 2022, a 99-day lockout ended when the two sides ratified a new collective bargaining agreement. With ownership more committed to a salary cap now than it was then, Steinberg's caution is pointed: when powerful billionaires and wealthy players entrench without someone holding the wider picture in view, deadlock is the predictable result, and it is games, not negotiating leverage, that ultimately get sacrificed.
Related reading
Source · 來源