How much did MLB players make?

[Vanimal46]

7 minutes ago, Sconnie said:

what's the source? I've seen similar numbers floating around, but only Atlanta is publicly traded and subject to GAAP and reporting rules. It makes me skeptical...

https://www.forbes.com/sites/maurybrown/2020/12/31/inside-mlb-revenues-to-mlb-player-costs-in-the-2010s/?sh=5edf185057dd

That’s the source of the graph, which was posted on the baseball subreddit. The 57% figure has been mentioned on The Athletic and MLB Network. 

[Richie the Rally Goat]

11 hours ago, Major League Ready said:

I don't give a crap about them either.  What I do care about is parity, the health of the game and our team being able to compete.  Shorter control will no doubt hurt the game and the players don't give a crap about the game or the fans in mid and small markets who will lose them even earlier.  Their interest is in getting more money which leads to an interesting question.  Will the owners really payout more because players become FAs earlier.  Is that going to change their budget?  All it will do is give the large market teams an additional year with many of the top FAs.

What they should so is put in a salary floor like the NBA.  I believe NBA teams payout the difference in the floor to players.  What MLB should do is split any amount under the floor among all the prearb players in the league.  I don't know how you magically get FAs to go to Baltimore the last couple years so require them to distribute the difference to the lowest income players.  Also, raise minimum salaries to at least $750K or perhaps $750/850/1M for the 1st 3 years.  

I would also quit paying out huge draft bonuses.  They have not earned anything yet and if they prove to be great the pay will be there at the ML level.  Instead make the top bonus $1M and decrease every pick by something like .5% until you get down to 25 or 30K.  Then, use all that left over money to increase Milb pay.  The available funds would provide roughly $60K additional to all Milb players.  They could have a 70K/80K/90K/100K progression through the Milb levels.

While I don't agree with generalizing that the players don't care about the fans, your argument against team control is interesting and has me thinking differently.

Earlier player control loss may mean more disproportionately high pay going to the top tier players, and less pay going to the mid-tier players hurting  the market with one less year of arbitration pay gains or even faster DFAs and more roster churn.

Very good point that I hadn't thought of previously 

[Sousy]

9 minutes ago, Sconnie said:

While I don't agree with generalizing that the players don't care about the fans, your argument against team control is interesting and has me thinking differently.

Earlier player control loss may mean more disproportionately high pay going to the top tier players, and less pay going to the mid-tier players hurting  the market with one less year of arbitration pay gains or even faster DFAs and more roster churn.

Very good point that I hadn't thought of previously 

Agreed, and that's the tricky thing about these negotiations.  There's going to be an obvious difference in financial desire between the 'superstar' type of players that want earlier FA to demand higher value contracts, then the low-to-mid-tier players that simply want a way to earn more during their currently artificially limited playing careers.

(i.e. Max Scherzer might want a faster path to big contracts, Tyler Duffey might want a path to be somewhat better paid and have his career not artificially ended by arbitration.)

[roger]

Personally, I believe both sides of this deal are out in left field.  But isn't that the way most labor negotiations begin, ie, a work stoppage and both sides claiming the other side is, well, I can't type what I am thinking.

We just went thru the worst part of a pandemic, and when baseball should have been first out of the gate they weren't because the two sides couldn't get together.  Yes, there was fault on both sides, but in my view it was about 60/40 on the players.  So here we are a year plus later and the sport I love to watch has ground to a halt.  Whoops, that was a typo because I can no longer watch it without going out to Chammps and hell, my Chammps is also closed.

With all that said, I will make one suggestion to solving a small part of this.  Agree with those, and I suspect the owners, that don't want to lessen the six years of control.  Will also agree that there should be more money to the players who are really contributing during those first three years.  So yes, increase the minimum.  But have a stepped up minimum with say $600k for first year players, $750k for second year and $900k for third year.  That would give young players a lot more cash during their first couple years.  It would also mean that players need to contribute, if they are only marginal they will get replaced sooner.

[bean5302]

4 hours ago, Major League Ready said:

The lower the revenue the more inevitable the need to go through complete rebuilds...

The rebuild is necessary. The "tank" part is not.

[Major League Ready]

3 hours ago, Sconnie said:

While I don't agree with generalizing that the players don't care about the fans, your argument against team control is interesting and has me thinking differently.

Earlier player control loss may mean more disproportionately high pay going to the top tier players, and less pay going to the mid-tier players hurting  the market with one less year of arbitration pay gains or even faster DFAs and more roster churn.

Very good point that I hadn't thought of previously 

Their demands demonstrate they either don't understand the impact of their demands on the game or they don't care.  I was listening to MLB radio today.  To sum up what they said ... What the players say they want to promote is not consistent with what they have proposed.  Taking $100M for revenue sharing is not in the best interest of the game.  They obviously don't care.  They want to put the money back in the big market where they believe it will be spent.  A much better solution is to create a floor.  An even better solution would be to send any difference between the floor and actual back to the players, specifically prearb players.  Their complaint is the money is not being spent.  This not only assures it's spent but that also solves another issue of getting more to players early in their career.

5 years of control is also bad for the game.  It's most detrimental to the smallest markets.  It's also certain such a policy would increase supply which would counter the financial gain they hope to create.   It certainly does not appear they have considered the impact of these policies.  They believe it will be financially advantageous.  Therefore, they are fighting for it.  The irony is that what they want would ultimately hurt the game which will in turn hurt players income long-term. 

Let's keep in mind that the policies of MLB and their promotion of the league has made MLB players the beneficiaries of the most prolonged / astronomical pay increase seen in any industry for any group of individuals ever.  Look at the spending the last month and how can we come to the conclusion the current system does not provide enormous opportunity for players.  They do need to pay more to prearb players.  They could do something along the lines of $1M / $1.5M / $2M for the 1st 3 years.  Plus, institute the floor with proceeds to prearb players

[TheLeviathan]

4 hours ago, chpettit19 said:

Accepting a cap wasn't part of that offer, they just believed it would give the owners too much momentum in that direction and it would become inevitable.

And that's where the players lose me.  The billionaires who pilfer tax payers to enrich themselves can get bent....but stuff like this is why I can't do anything but be annoyed at the whole thing.

[Brock Beauchamp]

On 12/2/2021 at 3:58 PM, chpettit19 said:

The players are very against a salary cap situation as they don't want to see the top end salaries go away. They believed agreeing to any kind of revenue split would be a gateway to the league pushing for a cap in these CBA negotiations. That's my understanding at least.

 

And also, there is a huge fight being waged over what is revenue. Over the past decade, owners have discovered that building huge multiplex facilities around the stadium reap huge rewards but don’t want to share that revenue. It’s a common theme in baseball over the past 50 years; owners claim every new revenue stream is outside the scope of baseball, players rightfully disagree. 

[tony&rodney]

6 hours ago, Major League Ready said:

They could do something along the lines of $1M / $1.5M / $2M for the 1st 3 years.  Plus, institute the floor with proceeds to prearb players

I would think this would be attractive to many players. Even make it $1/$2/$4. I would add that any player put on the 40 man roster  should be at at $500 thousand.  For sure, this is complicated. The general idea is to put more money into those first years. 

A CBA that only benefitted the highest paid players without creating better salary for the younger players would be disappointing. Higher pay for those in their first five years would also create more opportunities for experienced fringe players to maintain positions. The current system slides a $600 k player into a slot that might be better held by a veteran at $3-5 million. 

[Major League Ready]

10 hours ago, tony&rodney said:

I would think this would be attractive to many players. Even make it $1/$2/$4. I would add that any player put on the 40 man roster  should be at at $500 thousand.  For sure, this is complicated. The general idea is to put more money into those first years. 

A CBA that only benefitted the highest paid players without creating better salary for the younger players would be disappointing. Higher pay for those in their first five years would also create more opportunities for experienced fringe players to maintain positions. The current system slides a $600 k player into a slot that might be better held by a veteran at $3-5 million. 

I would take a fair amount of work to model a system and determine the impact so I am not sure exactly what the numbers should be.  However, Rookies should not make $550K in a world where a single players is getting paid over $40M/yr.  The balance of the system is weighted far too heavily to top free agents.  So, why is the core of what players are asking for all about free agency and taking away revenue sharing.  Does Boras really have this much influence?   

[The Mad King]

Increasing the minimum even 50% is small potatoes to the owners compared to the cost of signing one premium FA. 

The real issue should still be revenue sharing (more) among the owners to balance out small vs large markets. 

[bean5302]

22 hours ago, Brock Beauchamp said:

And also, there is a huge fight being waged over what is revenue. Over the past decade, owners have discovered that building huge multiplex facilities around the stadium reap huge rewards but don’t want to share that revenue. It’s a common theme in baseball over the past 50 years; owners claim every new revenue stream is outside the scope of baseball, players rightfully disagree. 

In no world should the owner of Business A be forced to split his/her personal assets or the assets of unaffiliated businesses with the employees of Business A. MLB owners would disband their teams and shutter the stadiums before allowing something like this to happen, and rightfully so. If MLB players want to profit from the real estate surrounding stadiums, they should buy some of the real estate around stadiums.

This breakdown shows where league revenues come from. Seems pretty reasonable. https://camdendepot.blogspot.com/2016/01/where-mlb-receives-its-revenue.html

[Major League Ready]

On 12/2/2021 at 4:43 PM, Mike Sixel said:

The don't pay those people millions per year. But sure, some orgs have added staff (100? wow)......

I am going by a couple interviews I heard on MLB radio so I don't really know what the norm other than we know all know ALL (not some) teams are investing in analytics and player development.  Some no doubt more than others.  I do know that 100 people come with salary plus, payroll takes, health plans and other benefits .  It does not take a real expense employee to get to a total expense of $100K.  Multiplied by 100 is 10M/team.  Of course, they also need office space, travel, computers, cell phones, etc.

IDK exactly what we are talking about but ballpark ... I would estimate we are talking 4% of revenue for the Twins.  Therefore, if a 50/50 model was viable 10 years ago, the equivalent today would be 54 / 46.  My point here is for the players or us to ignore these changes in team investment is select intellect.  I can understand fans not really computing the impact of these changes.  However, the union is either making this statement for public affect or they are very poorly prepared to understand what is a viable proposal or for that matter what is available to them.

[bean5302]

1 hour ago, Major League Ready said:

I am going by a couple interviews I heard on MLB radio so I don't really know what the norm other than we know all know ALL (not some) teams are investing in analytics and player development.  Some no doubt more than others.  I do know that 100 people come with salary plus, payroll takes, health plans and other benefits .  It does not take a real expense employee to get to a total expense of $100K.  Multiplied by 100 is 10M/team.  Of course, they also need office space, travel, computers, cell phones, etc.

IDK exactly what we are talking about but ballpark ... I would estimate we are talking 4% of revenue for the Twins.  Therefore, if a 50/50 model was viable 10 years ago, the equivalent today would be 54 / 46.  My point here is for the players or us to ignore these changes in team investment is select intellect.  I can understand fans not really computing the impact of these changes.  However, the union is either making this statement for public affect or they are very poorly prepared to understand what is a viable proposal or for that matter what is available to them.

Glassdoor has MLB analysts making $76k/yr. This site has a list of some typical salaries. https://blog.completepayroll.com/a-breakdown-of-major-league-baseball-player-and-front-office-salaries

This is the Twins' front office of 138 positions by my count. https://www.mlb.com/twins/team/front-office. Not sure what size it was 10 or 20 years ago, but I expect there are many ways front offices are expanding. Not only from an analytics standpoint, but player support and languages, etc. I can't say how much more money it costs, but it's not free.

It also seems to me teams have been aggressively updating their stadiums much more so than they did in the past. Old stadiums aren't staying outdated. They're getting the latest in screens, concessions, re-building areas which were poorly utilitized, etc.

This article suggests the 50/50 split is already happening and has been steady for well over a decade. https://www.theringer.com/mlb/2018/2/21/17035624/mlb-revenue-sharing-owners-players-free-agency-rob-manfred

[Major League Ready]

6 hours ago, bean5302 said:

Glassdoor has MLB analysts making $76k/yr. This site has a list of some typical salaries. https://blog.completepayroll.com/a-breakdown-of-major-league-baseball-player-and-front-office-salaries

This is the Twins' front office of 138 positions by my count. https://www.mlb.com/twins/team/front-office. Not sure what size it was 10 or 20 years ago, but I expect there are many ways front offices are expanding. Not only from an analytics standpoint, but player support and languages, etc. I can't say how much more money it costs, but it's not free.

It also seems to me teams have been aggressively updating their stadiums much more so than they did in the past. Old stadiums aren't staying outdated. They're getting the latest in screens, concessions, re-building areas which were poorly utilitized, etc.

This article suggests the 50/50 split is already happening and has been steady for well over a decade. https://www.theringer.com/mlb/2018/2/21/17035624/mlb-revenue-sharing-owners-players-free-agency-rob-manfred

I already had the 3rd link you provided highlighted.  Everyone here should read this article if they want to have a quick way to get educated on MLB salaries and team spending.  The great thing about this article is the author made the effort to get input from a couple different college professors of economics. 

An interesting tidbit ... The economists cited have consulted for MLB and the union.  According to these professors, MLB is representing the numbers accurately which means the union is misrepresenting the facts according to these economists.

[TheLeviathan]

14 hours ago, bean5302 said:

In no world should the owner of Business A be forced to split his/her personal assets or the assets of unaffiliated businesses with the employees of Business A. MLB owners would disband their teams and shutter the stadiums before allowing something like this to happen, and rightfully so. If MLB players want to profit from the real estate surrounding stadiums, they should buy some of the real estate around stadiums.

This breakdown shows where league revenues come from. Seems pretty reasonable. https://camdendepot.blogspot.com/2016/01/where-mlb-receives-its-revenue.html

Perhaps this logic should also apply to owners as well.  If they want to profit from their real estate they should stop soaking taxpayers and use their own money.

[bean5302]

4 hours ago, TheLeviathan said:

Perhaps this logic should also apply to owners as well.  If they want to profit from their real estate they should stop soaking taxpayers and use their own money.

I think that's a great idea, but it's not baseball related though, is it? It's pro sports and legislators in general. I found absolutely no value in US Bank Stadium being built for the Vikings, but it has nothing to do with MLB's CBA.

[Major League Ready]

4 hours ago, TheLeviathan said:

Perhaps this logic should also apply to owners as well.  If they want to profit from their real estate they should stop soaking taxpayers and use their own money.

There is no excuse IMO for public funding.  These businesses generate plenty of revenue to pay for their own stadium.  I can see some subsidy given the benefits they provide.  This happens with other types of businesses.

They should pay for it like any other business pays for infrastructure .... with the revenue generated from the business.  The biggest benefactors of this practice are the players.  If teams had to pay for their "buildings" like any other business those funds would come out of revenue and the amount of financial resource available for player salaries would be reduced by the amount paid for facilities.  Players salaries would be far lower if public subsidy did not pay for their stadiums.

[TheLeviathan]

1 hour ago, bean5302 said:

I think that's a great idea, but it's not baseball related though, is it? It's pro sports and legislators in general. I found absolutely no value in US Bank Stadium being built for the Vikings, but it has nothing to do with MLB's CBA.

It wouldn't necessarily but for the logic you used.  That invites the counter argument.

[ashbury]

No idea why the move toward greater analytics needs to come out of the players' share.

[Major League Ready]

58 minutes ago, ashbury said:

No idea why the move toward greater analytics needs to come out of the players' share.

ANY business can afford to pay $X for employees.  Teams are spending on other types of employees now.  Businesses don't just spend a bunch of money on additional employees and accept they will make less net profit.  They shift how their personnel dollars are invested.   In this case, revenue is going up.  Teams are using some of that additional revenue to invest in other types of employees..  

Players have been the beneficiaries of consistent revenue increases for a very extended period.  This provided teams with financial resources and they use this increased revenue to compete for the services of players.  Teams don't need to pay what they are paying for players today to retain them.  If available revenue was cut by two-thirds, salaries decreases would follow.  In this case, the teams have invested in an alternative resource which leaves a little less to spend on players.

[ashbury]

1 hour ago, Major League Ready said:

ANY business can afford to pay $X for employees.  Teams are spending on other types of employees now.  Businesses don't just spend a bunch of money on additional employees and accept they will make less net profit.  They shift how their personnel dollars are invested.   In this case, revenue is going up.  Teams are using some of that additional revenue to invest in other types of employees..  

Players have been the beneficiaries of consistent revenue increases for a very extended period.  This provided teams with financial resources and they use this increased revenue to compete for the services of players.  Teams don't need to pay what they are paying for players today to retain them.  If available revenue was cut by two-thirds, salaries decreases would follow.  In this case, the teams have invested in an alternative resource which leaves a little less to spend on players.

Thanks.

[bean5302]

4 hours ago, ashbury said:

No idea why the move toward greater analytics needs to come out of the players' share.

...because it's a business expense which reduces profits? MLB is not going to operate in the red just so players can get more money. 

I just really don't understand the sense of player entitlement in this thread.

[bean5302]

4 hours ago, TheLeviathan said:

It wouldn't necessarily but for the logic you used.  That invites the counter argument.

What argument is that? Blendtec should send MLB players money because it was able to blend baseball cards? 

[TheLeviathan]

Just now, bean5302 said:

What argument is that? Blendtec should send MLB players money because it was able to blend baseball cards? 

"If owners want to complain about profit sharing perhaps they should buy their own real estate rather than leveraging so much from tax payers"

They definitely don't get to cry foul about players to those same tax payers.

[old nurse]

On 12/5/2021 at 12:27 AM, bean5302 said:

Glassdoor has MLB analysts making $76k/yr. This site has a list of some typical salaries. https://blog.completepayroll.com/a-breakdown-of-major-league-baseball-player-and-front-office-salaries

This is the Twins' front office of 138 positions by my count. https://www.mlb.com/twins/team/front-office. Not sure what size it was 10 or 20 years ago, but I expect there are many ways front offices are expanding. Not only from an analytics standpoint, but player support and languages, etc. I can't say how much more money it costs, but it's not free.

It also seems to me teams have been aggressively updating their stadiums much more so than they did in the past. Old stadiums aren't staying outdated. They're getting the latest in screens, concessions, re-building areas which were poorly utilitized, etc.

This article suggests the 50/50 split is already happening and has been steady for well over a decade. https://www.theringer.com/mlb/2018/2/21/17035624/mlb-revenue-sharing-owners-players-free-agency-rob-manfred

Local revenues are split in a complex formula involving market size, revenue and the commissioner’s office getting their share. When the Twins moved into Target field they actually lost money because they went to contributor rather than receivers of revenue sharing  Also not included in the local revenue to be shared is debt service and ballpark operations

LinkedIn has the Twins with over 1000 employees. 136 by your count is just the tip of the iceberg

The 50/50 split is achieved by counting what is paid to minor league players. Accounting is like baseball fielding metrics

[Cap'n Piranha]

On 12/2/2021 at 2:43 PM, Mike Sixel said:

The don't pay those people millions per year. But sure, some orgs have added staff (100? wow)......

Collectively, I would guess that employing those 100 people costs the Cardinals anywhere from $7.5M to $15M.