yahoo
The Cincinnati Reds were already facing an uphill battle this winter after a disappointing 75-87 season that left them in last place in the National League Central. Now, a looming owner-imposed lockout threatens to compound those challenges. With the collective bargaining agreement set to expire at 11:59 p.m. on December 1, all MLB operations—including free agency, which is only a month old—will grind to a halt. The lockout also puts spring training and possibly the 2027 regular season at risk.
If anyone doubts that owners and commissioner Rob Manfred are ready for a protracted fight over a salary cap—a long-standing goal—they need only recall Manfred's remarks during a World Series that featured two small-market teams, the Milwaukee Brewers and Tampa Bay Rays. Manfred used that matchup to bolster the owners' parity argument, stating, "I think it shows that we leave a lot on the table in some of our smaller markets by not having them have an opportunity to compete on a regular basis." He added, "The Brewers have been a well-run franchise forever. It's been 40 years since we're here. Once every 40 years is not enough."
Bruce Meyer, the head of the players union, countered that stance in an ESPN report during the Series, saying, "The salary cap is the opposite of competition. The results of these playoffs obviously further undermine their argument for why they think they want it. But, again, that's not the reason they want it." Conversations with dozens of players over the past two seasons indicate that the rank-and-file remains united on this issue, which has been a non-starter for players since Marvin Miller led the union decades ago.
Key Analysis
What does this mean for the Reds and their fans? First, a lockout is almost certain. It would take an extraordinary reversal by owners and Manfred to avoid it. When asked by The Enquirer in July whether owners would risk a shutdown for a cap—given the damage from the 1994-95 strike—Manfred responded with a 176-word set of talking points about competitive balance and fan concerns, never directly answering the question. He ignored a follow-up asking for clarification.
Manfred's rhetoric often suggests that fans are demanding a salary cap, but that's not accurate. Fans simply want their teams to have a realistic chance to win championships. The owners' messaging implies a cap is the solution, yet there is little empirical evidence to support that claim. They often cite the NFL and NBA as examples of leagues with caps and parity, but they overlook that the NFL also has extensive national broadcast revenue sharing.
Is revenue disparity the reason the Reds have struggled for 30 years? Not entirely. Smaller-market teams do face revenue disadvantages compared to big spenders like the Dodgers, but the Brewers just won the World Series despite being in the smallest TV market in MLB. The Rays have played in three World Series since 2008 while spending far less than the Reds—$32.6 million less this year alone. And Cleveland has consistently done more with less. In fact, sources say the Reds are among the most profitable teams in MLB by percentage of revenue, and one source claims they make more money than at least seven other teams.
How big is competitive disparity in MLB? The league has had more different champions than the NFL in recent decades, with 10 different World Series winners in the past 15 seasons—including three franchises winning for the first time. Another nine teams played in the Fall Classic over that span, meaning nearly two-thirds of the league reached the final round. And this in a league that qualifies a smaller percentage of teams for the postseason than the NFL, NBA, or NHL. For all the talk of Dodgers dominance, they went 32 years without a title before winning three in the last seven years. In some ways, parity has never been better.
Would a salary cap improve the Reds' chances? Unlikely—especially without a significant increase in revenue sharing. The Reds may not be spending enough to compete given their resources, but they spent more on players than 10 other teams this year and still finished last. Consider MLB's latest proposal: a payroll ceiling of $245.3 million and a floor of $171.2 million. The Reds' 2026 payroll was roughly $128 million, ranked 20th. Would they choose to exceed a required floor that is $43 million above this year's budget? Would the Rays, Guardians, or Brewers? If not, the Reds might end up spending at the floor—near league-low levels—which wouldn't fix their competitive issues.
Is a salary cap necessary for competitive balance? Again, no empirical evidence supports that. History shows that from 1936 to 1964, the Yankees played in 22 of 29 World Series and won 16. The league then had the most effective salary cap in sports history: the reserve clause, which bound players to their teams indefinitely at club-dictated salaries. Every team had that cost-containment tool, yet the Yankees still dominated.
The only certain outcome of a salary cap is an immediate spike in franchise values due to the cost limit on payrolls. Profit margins would likely rise for many teams, as seen in the NBA and NFL. That seems to be the real reason owners are willing to engage in a potentially costly labor war in an industry nearing $13 billion in annual revenues, with attendance and viewership at all-time highs. All but four of the 30 MLB owners are billionaires—they didn't get that way by settling for "pretty damn rich."
Do Reds fans benefit from a salary cap? Probably not. Ticket and merchandise prices won't drop. In fact, one concession floated in early CBA talks would allow players to reach free agency after five years instead of six. For the Reds, that means Elly De La Cruz—their 30-30 shortstop—could hit the trade market sooner. The team has already tried and failed to extend him, and he has three seasons of club control remaining, with the upcoming season already in jeopardy.
How long could the lockout last? Using the 2021-22 lockout as a barometer, expect at least a delayed and shortened spring training and a brief delay to the regular season (the first week was wiped out and rescheduled). But most insiders anticipate a much longer shutdown this time, given the owners' long-game approach and harsh rhetoric, including commercials aimed at swaying fan sentiment on the salary cap. Most expect a shortened season, possibly significantly.
For smart estimates on the length, keep an eye on the money. MLB is set to negotiate new national TV deals once a new CBA is in place, aiming to vastly increase league packages that have been dwarfed by even the NBA's latest deal. The Athletic reported that if more than 60 games are lost from the 162-game schedule, the current TV deals will extend at current prices for an additional year (through 2029). A source with knowledge of the contracts said the league must deliver 135 of 162 games to avoid that financial hit (they get paid for 2027 regardless). Depending on which number is accurate, the deadline to start the season is roughly the end of April or the end of May. If the battle extends beyond those markers, all bets are off on how long it might last.
Originally reported by yahoo.