How To Fix MLB’s Parity Problem
MLB is at a crossroads. Will there be a lockout heading into the 2027 season?
Watching Will Ferrell cruise into Dodger Stadium in a 1960s or '70s-era blue convertible—as Freddie Freeman and Miguel Rojas clutched the team’s 2024 and 2025 World Series trophies—left me with an ardent feeling.
This was a festive celebration: the Dodgers were celebrating their back-to-back World Series wins. The kickoff to the 2026 season. Dodgers vs. Diamondbacks.
But, I couldn’t fully feel the feels. Maybe it’s my own bias since I’m from Houston…
*let out all your Astros cheating jokes*
But seriously, in sports, it’s always great to watch a dynasty emerge, which the Dodgers are well on their way toward, but this felt different.
This would likely be the final MLB Opening Day in March for at least a couple of years.
That’s because the Collective Bargaining Agreement between the owners and the players expires in December.
The main sticking point: How does MLB address parity?
MLB owners are pushing for a salary cap, but players fear the move will stifle contract market growth.
*raises hand*
There’s a better way to address this without a salary cap.
MLB Must Limit Super Teams
Here’s the situation: The Dodgers have won three World Series in six years. An amazing feat, no doubt.
However, since MLB lacks a salary cap, owners can essentially spend as they please — and that means they can front-load contracts through signing bonuses and back-load them through deferrals. Thus, over the years, the Dodgers worked the system to build a “Super Team.”
As they always say, “Don’t hate the player, hate the game.”
*Let’s clap for the Dodgers*
Predictably, the decision to sign so many “heavy-hitter”—pun intended— free agents over the last three years has frustrated MLB fans and even trickled up to the owners.
Now, the owners want to do something about it.
You’ve guessed it: They want a salary cap. This means the hefty MLB contracts players are used to will likely go away, and why we might be staring down a lengthy CBA fight.
Here’s how the league can fix this:
A team can sign a superstar player to X amount over X years.
The league will break the contract down by the average annual value. Each club is limited to a specific number of those players on the payroll each season. If you follow the NBA, think of these players as “supermax” players.
So let’s keep going.
Let’s say the supermax range is $25 million + per year, which is what the top 5% of MLB players make. The minimum annual salary for the supermax would be tied to league revenue (e.g., 1-3% annually) to adjust for market resets during free agency.
That might be a bit confusing, so let’s use an actual contract to break it down.
Shohei Ohtani signed a 10-year, $700 million contract with the Dodgers ahead of the 2024 season. The Dodgers will pay the contract out over 20 years. For the first 10 years, he will make $2 million per year. Over the next 10 years, he’ll make $68 million per year due to deferment.
Under my framework, Ohtani’s average contract rate is $70 million per year, filling one of the Dodgers’ two “supermax” slots. The Dodgers could only sign one other player, averaging $25 million or more per year for the duration of Ohtani’s deal — unless they get him to sign off on a trade or buyout.
This framework can be tweaked—perhaps by increasing the number of “supermax” players per team or adjusting signing-bonus parameters—but the structure could satisfy the players’ and owners’ concerns.
MLB’s Future Depends On It Addressing Parity Issues
I admit, this won’t address everything when it comes to parity. The Dodgers spent $413.5 million in salary and $162 million in luxury taxes this season, dwarfing the rest of the league. They outpaced the second-place New York Mets by over $81 million. So, there are systemic issues here.
MLB needs small-market fans, not just in the short term but also in the long term, especially if it has expansion in its sights. The league must demonstrate parity—the way the OKC Thunder and Indiana Pacers did for the NBA last year in the Finals—among all markets.
Otherwise, who wants to be a sports owner in MLB? You have to outspend New York and LA teams to have a chance: Spend big, or you're doomed?
That’s no fun (yes, I know most sports owners are billionaires, but still).
So, I leave you with the question this piece aims to answer: How can MLB more equitably disperse top-end talent across the league?
I guess we’ll just have to see after the season.