5 Phillies takeaways from first CBA proposals by MLB, MLBPA

May 29, 2026 | 1:31 PM EDT

Tim Kelly

While it’s viewed as fait accompli that Major League Baseball owners will lock out the players when the current collective bargaining agreement expires at 11:59 p.m. ET on Dec. 1, the two sides nonetheless released their first proposals this week as what’s likely to be a lengthy labor battle commences in earnest.

Rather than BSing you with fake neutrality, I’m going to state my biases up front. First of all, I’m pro-labor in general. In this case, the players are labor and there wouldn’t be a product without the players. Secondly — and perhaps most importantly — I’m pro baseball being played in 2027 because my employment revolves around covering baseball. I also do genuinely believe that while there are some issues in the sport, MLB is in a significantly better place than it was during the last CBA negotiations prior to the 2022 season. It would be a mistake to lose games in 2027 when things like the pitch clock and ABS challenges have drastically improved the product since the last lockout.

With all that acknowledged, here are five takeaways from the initial proposals, with a focus on how they would pertain to the Phillies specifically.

The Phillies Would Be One Of The Teams Most Affected By A Potential Salary Cap

MLB’s initial proposal includes both a salary cap and floor. Under the initial proposal, the floor for the 2027 season would be $171.2 million, while the cap would be at $245.3 million.

Even in the story on MLB.com written by Mark Feinsand about the proposal, it’s acknowledged that 12 teams would need to increase their payroll to reach the floor, while eight would have to find a way to get under the $245.3 million cap. The Phillies are one of those eight.

According to Spotrac, the 2026 Phillies currently have a luxury tax payroll north of $313 million. They already have $236.49 million in commitments for 2027 without any re-signings or external additions.

Setting aside how you may feel about a salary cap and/or floor, there are some practical realities that need to be acknowledged here. A salary cap and floor would need to be phased in over years. MLB is putting this proposal out here to give fans an idea of what this system would actually look like. There’s no way it could actually go into effect like this in 2027. Even the “small-market” owners who want a cap would push back on having to get to a certain floor that quickly. And in a sport with fully-guaranteed contracts, it would be nearly impossible for teams like the Phillies, Los Angeles Dodgers, New York Mets, San Diego Padres, New York Yankees, Toronto Blue Jays and Atlanta Braves to get under these numbers as soon as next season with what is already on their books.

The problem with phasing things in would be that it would probably take close to five years to truly get to MLB’s ideal cap/floor system with all teams in compliance. By that point, you would probably be talking about negotiating a new CBA again. The current deal that’s about to expire — which was reached after a 99-day lockout following the 2021 season — was a five-year deal.

For all of our mental well-being, doing a longer CBA deal — like the 10-year deal the NFL has that runs through the 2030 season – might make sense moving forward. But if there’s another five-year deal reached by the MLBPA and MLB, it’s going to be difficult to truly feel the effects of a cap/floor system during the next CBA cycle if such a proposal would be phased in over a series of years.

MLBPA Is Proposing a Competitive Integrity Tax

As ESPN‘s Jeff Passan outlined earlier this week, the MLBPA has their response to the idea of a salary floor, which seems to be a concept that just about all fans are in favor of.

The MLBPA made its first proposal to MLB today in collective bargaining. Among the topline issues:

– A "competitive-integrity tax" for any team that does not spend $150M
– Increase minimum salary from $780,000 to $1.5M
– Increase in base CBT threshold from $244M to $300M
— Jeff Passan (@JeffPassan) May 27, 2026

Per the MLBPA’s website, here are some proposals “that are designed to improve competition while also supporting lower revenue”:

Increased revenue sharing that initially guarantees every small market club a minimum of $240m in revenue every season, subject to requirements that funds be used to compete on the field. Beyond that guarantee:

Clubs will be able to keep more of the stadium-related revenues they generate

Tens of millions in extra revenue sharing will go to low-revenue clubs that qualify for the playoffs or have a winning record

Significantly increased sharing of local media revenues from high to low revenue teams

Curbing revenue sharing dependence by barring excessive transfers

Penalties for clubs that neglect to spend revenue sharing payments on team payroll

Draft picks and other benefits for low revenue Clubs active in free agency and other signing

To dumb things down, MLBPA is saying the way to fix perceived competitive imbalances is to make some increases in welfare — for lack of a better term — going to so-called small markets, but heavily incentivize that recipients put it back into team payroll, not into the pockets of ownership.

Centralized TV Revenue

One of the advantages the Phillies have other a bulk of teams in the league right now is that they still, by all accounts, have a relatively stable regional sports network broadcast deal with NBC Sports Philadelphia. The Phillies current 25-year/$2.5 million contract with their RSN runs through the 2041 season.

Assuming the Phillies are getting what their contractually required from NBC and will for the term of the pact — which probably shouldn’t be assumed — it does give them an advantage over other clubs who have seen their RSN deals collapse. 14 MLB teams now have their broadcasts produced directly by MLB. Whatever money those 14 teams are getting from MLB likely pales in comparison to what teams like the Phillies (NBC Sports Philadelphia), Yankees (YES Network), Dodgers (Spectrum SportsNet LA), Mets (SNY) and Chicago Cubs (Marquee Sports Network) are getting from their current TV deals.

MLB wants to create a centralized TV pot, as opposed to their being a disparity in TV revenue for each team:

“MLB believes this change will accomplish a top priority for fans by addressing local market blackouts while also increasing exposure for players and teams. Players would receive 50% of any increase in media revenue under the current proposal.

“The league’s current revenue sharing program – which the MLBPA has long argued disincentivizes growth – would be replaced, as the centralization of local media revenue would reduce revenue disparity among the 30 teams.

“The Commissioner would have the ability to implement a supplemental local revenue sharing system among teams to ensure lower-revenue clubs can comply with the salary floor.”

Ending local TV blackouts — particularly if fans could get local games in all 30 markets just by signing up for MLB.TV, not needing a cable bundle or YouTube TV — would be great for fans.

The question is, will owners be united in this? Do John Middleton and Steve Cohen, for example, want to give up a competitive advantage for what owners at large might view as the greater good?

What About Deferred Payments?

Most fans would probably agree that while the Dodgers have been smart to expose the loophole of deferring money into the future, that should be closed.

Now, it’s not widely understood enough that while Shohei Ohtani is deferring $68 of his $70 million salary annually, he’s still counting $46.08 million every year towards the luxury tax threshold. Even if he’s making a $2 million salary, with the rest to be paid out from 2034 to 2043 — which does help the Dodgers have more money to spend, but also keeps Ohtani from paying taxes on most of his salary in California, which you could argue isn’t right because that’s where he’s employed — that’s not what he’s counting towards the threshold.

However, most would agree that Ohtani’s full $70 million salary should count towards the luxury tax threshold in the present day. That doesn’t mean you couldn’t still defer the payments to the future, but the impact should still be felt in the present on the luxury tax threshold.

Notably, deferred payments don’t seem to be at the forefront of the proposals for either side here, though. The MLBPA has zero reason to try to change this system — if players are willing to defer some of their payments to the future if it means they’ll get more total guarantees, then by all means. As much as owners might not like the extent to which the Dodgers are deferring money, they probably don’t want to close the door on the ability to do it themselves in some form.

So it may be that the issue that most fans are focused on isn’t a major priority for either side.

Justin Turner — who played for the Dodgers from 2014-2022 — did make a compelling argument about how his former team could actually gain a short-term advantage in a cap situation:

And in case you are wondering, the deferrals wouldn’t actually start hitting dodgers hard until 2034 (ohtanis first year) and they would be at about 90 million in deferrals towards a proposed cap. So, 8 years until they start to feel it.
— Justin Turner (@redturn2) February 27, 2026

Just Keep This In Mind

We’re not saying there aren’t reasonable arguments for a cap/floor system, but you should remember this: There’s not going to be a cap on how much ownership makes. The reason most owners want a cap isn’t in the name of trying to preserve parity, but because having fixed costs will increase the valuations of their team. It would likely mean they get a larger sum of money if they sell the team altogether, or they can increase the valuation of the club when selling off minority shares.

Right now, any owner that isn’t No. 1 in payroll can be shamed by their fabase for not spending more money. There are financial and draft-related penalties for repeatedly exceeding the luxury tax threshold, but most fans don’t care about those. If you go from a luxury tax system to a hard cap, those owners could simply defer to the cap as reason they wouldn’t be permitted to spend more on payroll.

5 Phillies takeaways from first CBA proposals by MLB, MLBPA