An interesting idea emerged this week that could be included in the next MLB collective bargaining agreement, and it might force owners of teams like the Pittsburgh Pirates, Cincinnati Reds, and Miami Marlins to sell their clubs.
Spring Training opens this week for many teams around MLB. It has created the usual excitement about what could be this summer. However, there has also been a lot of speculation about the doom and gloom coming after the 2026 season when owners and players have to hammer out a new CBA.
Due to the Los Angeles Dodgers spending over a billion dollars to win back-to-back titles, and throwing even more money at top free agents this offseason, many expect small and mid-market owners to aggressively push for the addition of a hard salary cap in the next CBA. However, there is a flip side to that demand.
The Players Association is expected to want a salary cap floor. A case can be made that the owners of teams like the Pirates, Reds, Marlins, and others have hurt the game as much as the big spenders because of their willingness to accept revenue sharing while investing little into their teams for years.
Should MLB tax low-spending teams like the Pirates, Reds, and Marlins?
However, this week, popular sports analyst/expert Ryen Russillo offered up a bold idea that ESPN MLB insider Jeff Passan is supportive of. During a conversation between the two on a new edition of Russillo’s podcast, the host suggested that to get rid of “bad owners” that are damaging the game, if a team is under a payroll of $120 million (for example), they should be taxed for every dollar they are under.
Both the Pirates and Marlins were under that number in 2025, while the Reds were $24 million above. However, a recent report suggested that $160 million could be the new salary floor in the next CBA. If that did happen, all three teams would be hit with big penalties, especially the Pirates and Marlins, if Russillo’s tax idea were implemented.
For fans of all three clubs, and other low-spending teams, they would certainly be in favor of the idea. Because it would either force those owners to spend far more consistently, or it could make them sell those franchises to individuals willing to pay what is necessary to win.
