“No decisions have been made by ownership as to strategy, actual content of what we’re going to propose. We’re a year away.” MLB commissioner Rob Manfred was honest when asked about the implementation of the salary cap system early this month. However, while he sounded no rush to implement the same, we would not be surprised if it comes sooner than expected. Courtesy: Manfred’s NFL-style broadcasting plan for MLB.

This week, Manfred once again touched on the future of the league’s local TV rights. He has made it clear that his long-term goal is to bring all 30 teams’ broadcast rights back under MLB’s control. And why not when only a handful of top-tier teams like the Dodgers and Yankees are earning huge amounts from their local broadcast rights? In contrast, teams like the Padres, Rockies, and Twins have had to either truncate their deals by a significant amount or have already surrendered their rights to MLB.

However, baseball analyst Chelsea Janes thinks realigning the broadcasting rights would automatically bring the salary cap to the league! “But to do away with revenue sharing, which was introduced in 1996 after disagreements over a would-be salary cap, cost baseball the 1994 postseason amid a lengthy work stoppage, MLB would need another method to ensure competitive balance between smaller- and larger-market teams. The most obvious method (insert dramatic music here): a salary cap.” Janes shared her view via The Washington Post.

So, the main challenge for Manfred to pull up the broadcasting rights from all 30 teams by 2028 would be the big teams. Why? Because Manfred plans to follow the NFL here, where no teams would have their own localised TV rights. MLB would have the total broadcasting rights, which they would sell as a complete package. Something that the NFL has been doing for years. But the Dodgers, which have a broadcast deal with SportsNet of $8.35 billion, would surely feel the pinch to let go of the deal. Same with the Yankees, Mets, and Red Sox.

Hence, the solution would be to bring in the salary cap! A salary cap wouldn’t just keep payroll costs in check. But Manfred could also make big-market teams happy by cutting back revenue sharing. Put those two together, and giving up local TV rights might not seem like such a tough sell. But going by the history, implementing a salary cap would come with a lot more challenges.

Manfred has an uphill task ahead in MLB

We all remember what happened the last time Manfred brought up a salary cap with the teams. Players pushed back hard. Earlier this summer, Phillies star Bryce Harper even got in Manfred’s face. He told him that if he wanted to talk about a cap, he could “get the f— out of our clubhouse.” Moreover, the union has been just as firm in its own meetings. They made it clear that a cap is a nonstarter and not even worth discussing. The Major League Baseball Players Association called the move “institutionalized collusion.”

Still, Rob Manfred got a few owners who are on board. For instance, Rockies owner Dick Monfort has said flat-out that the only way to fix the sport is with both a salary cap and a salary floor. Notably, he chaired the league’s labor committee in the last round of negotiations. But history looms large, as we can still recall the 1994 work stoppage that was triggered by this very issue.

Hence, Manfred’s vision of consolidating all broadcast rights under MLB will only become a reality if teams feel they’re getting enough in return. For him, that means a salary cap. But for the players, though, that’s a brick wall. While Manfred has set 2029 as his target for finishing all these realignments, it’s clear the road ahead is only going to get more heated.