What Alex Rodriguez’s Contract Would Look Like Today
After the 2000 season, a 25-year-old Alex Rodriguez had just finished a historically great season. He hit 41 homers, batted .316/.420/.606, and posted a 158 wRC+ to go along with solid shortstop play on his way to 9.5 WAR. In his first five full seasons, Rodriguez averaged over seven wins per year as he headed toward free agency. He might not quite have been early-career Mike Trout (nobody is), but he had just completed one of the 10 best starts to any career in history. The Rangers won Rodriguez’s services with a 10-year, $252 million contract. In the 18 offseasons since, no other free agent has received a larger contract despite payrolls that have more than doubled during that time.
In 2001, the first season of Rodriguez’s deal, the average year-end MLB payroll was $66 million, per data collected from Cot’s Contracts and calculated by Major League Baseball. Last season, that figure was $152 million, which was a drop from 2017, when the average payroll was $155 million. For some perspective, here’s how average payrolls have risen since 2000.

Generally speaking, salaries have risen pretty steadily over the past two decades. Even with the step back last year, salaries have risen at close to 6% per season starting in 2000 and 5% per season starting in 2001. The growth looks healthy, though it has tended to happen in spurts, with the last few seasons showing no growth at all. There is a discussion to be had about spending as it relates to revenue, but this is not that article. Here, I am more concerned with salary growth as it relates to individual players, particularly those at the top of the pay scale.
Average payroll has more than doubled in the past two decades, yet Alex Rodriguez’s contracts remain atop the free agent leaderboard despite occurring in 2000 and 2007. To get a sense of the progression, I looked at the 75 contracts Cot’s has listed as totaling at least $100 million. The first was Kevin Brown‘s $105 million deal ahead of the 1999 season, and we go all the way to Patrick Corbin’s $140 million contract which starts next year. The contracts below aren’t only free agent contracts, as they include contract extensions as well. Here are the top 25.
| Player | Year | Total Value ($/M) | Years | AAV ($/M) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Giancarlo Stanton | 2015 | 325 | 13 | 25.0 |
| Alex Rodriguez | 2008 | 275 | 10 | 27.5 |
| Alex Rodriguez | 2001 | 252 | 10 | 25.2 |
| Miguel Cabrera | 2016 | 248 | 8 | 31.0 |
| Albert Pujols | 2012 | 240 | 10 | 24.0 |
| Robinson Cano | 2014 | 240 | 10 | 24.0 |
| Joey Votto | 2014 | 225 | 10 | 22.5 |
| David Price | 2016 | 217 | 7 | 31.0 |
| Clayton Kershaw | 2014 | 215 | 7 | 30.7 |
| Prince Fielder | 2012 | 214 | 9 | 23.8 |
| Max Scherzer | 2015 | 210 | 7 | 30.0 |
| Zack Greinke | 2016 | 206.5 | 6 | 34.4 |
| Derek Jeter | 2001 | 189 | 10 | 18.9 |
| Joe Mauer | 2011 | 184 | 8 | 23.0 |
| Jason Heyward | 2016 | 184 | 8 | 23.0 |
| Mark Teixeira | 2009 | 180 | 8 | 22.5 |
| Justin Verlander | 2013 | 180 | 7 | 25.7 |
| Felix Hernandez | 2013 | 175 | 7 | 25.0 |
| Stephen Strasburg | 2017 | 175 | 7 | 25.0 |
| Buster Posey | 2013 | 167 | 9 | 18.6 |
| Jose Altuve | 2018 | 163.5 | 7 | 23.4 |
| CC Sabathia | 2009 | 161 | 7 | 23.0 |
| Chris Davis | 2016 | 161 | 7 | 23.0 |
| Manny Ramirez | 2001 | 160 | 8 | 20.0 |
| Matt Kemp | 2012 | 160 | 8 | 20.0 |
Giancarlo Stanton’s deal is the largest by dollar amount, and eight of the biggest 12 contracts were signed in the last five seasons. That shouldn’t be a surprise, as inflation moves prices upward. When we see that Manny Ramirez and Matt Kemp both signed for $160 million, we hear the same number in our head, but when the deals are 11 years apart, we know they aren’t really close to the same thing. Exactly how we should adjust for inflation is an interesting question. If we simply looked at the national rate of inflation, that $252 million contract A-Rod signed would be something like $365 million today. His second contract would total roughly $330 million, and Stanton’s contract would sit at $345 million. An inflation calculator says the equivalent deals signed by Manny Ramirez and Matt Kemp are actually $54 million apart.
But it doesn’t really make sense to use national inflation numbers when baseball salaries have risen at a considerably faster rate. As a result, I have attempted to replicate the big contracts over the last couple of decades using baseball salaries as the base for inflation. There is a case to be made that we should be doing this analysis based on revenues, but those numbers are murky when it comes to what should and shouldn’t be included or excluded, and aren’t always readily available. For the purposes of this study, we will give the league the benefit of the doubt that the player’s share of revenue has remained steady at roughly 50%, even though that seems impossible for 2018 as salaries were cut about 2.5%. For player salary purposes, we’ll use the year-end 40-man roster numbers that MLB uses.
Next, we have to take a guess at what 2019 payroll will be. Adding 5% seems like too much in the current environment, but with two monster free agent contracts upcoming and a relatively brisk free agent market for starting pitchers thus far, we will go with a 3% increase, which takes us up to $4.7 billion, or an average payroll of $157 million. If salaries remain stagnant again, it will affect the outcomes below a little, but not enormously. To determine any particular contract in 2019 terms, I took the $4.7 billion 2019 projected payroll and divided by MLB payroll in the season a player signed. For example, MLB payroll was roughly $3 billion in 2011, so any contract starting in 2011 was multiplied by 1.57.
With all that in mind, here are the biggest $100 million deals in adjusted 2019 terms.
| Player | Year | Years | 2019 Adjustment ($/M) | AAV 2019 ADJ ($/M) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Alex Rodriguez | 2001 | 10 | 592 | 59.2 |
| Alex Rodriguez | 2008 | 10 | 448 | 44.8 |
| Derek Jeter | 2001 | 10 | 444 | 44.4 |
| Giancarlo Stanton | 2015 | 13 | 393 | 30.3 |
| Manny Ramirez | 2001 | 8 | 376 | 47.0 |
| Albert Pujols | 2012 | 10 | 358 | 35.8 |
| Ken Griffey, Jr. | 2000 | 9 | 330 | 36.6 |
| Prince Fielder | 2012 | 9 | 319 | 35.4 |
| Robinson Cano | 2014 | 10 | 310 | 31.0 |
| Kevin Brown | 1999 | 7 | 297 | 42.5 |
| Joey Votto | 2014 | 10 | 290 | 29.0 |
| Mark Teixeira | 2009 | 8 | 290 | 36.2 |
| Joe Mauer | 2011 | 8 | 289 | 36.1 |
| Mike Hampton | 2001 | 8 | 284 | 35.5 |
| Clayton Kershaw | 2014 | 7 | 277 | 39.6 |
| Todd Helton | 2003 | 9 | 277 | 30.8 |
| Jason Giambi | 2002 | 7 | 276 | 39.4 |
| Carlos Beltran | 2005 | 7 | 263 | 37.6 |
| CC Sabathia | 2009 | 7 | 259 | 37.0 |
| Miguel Cabrera | 2016 | 8 | 258 | 32.2 |
| Max Scherzer | 2015 | 7 | 254 | 36.3 |
| Justin Verlander | 2013 | 7 | 252 | 36.0 |
| Miguel Cabrera | 2008 | 8 | 248 | 31.0 |
| Troy Tulowitzki | 2011 | 10 | 248 | 24.8 |
| Felix Hernandez | 2013 | 7 | 245 | 35.0 |
Nearly $600 million for Alex Rodriguez probably seems a little wild. Of course, it was a little wild at the time, given that it was twice as high as the biggest contract signed before that offseason, and 58% higher than the one Manny Ramirez signed that same offseason. That contract also would have been worth it if the Yankees hadn’t given in to Rodriguez and signed him after he opted out following the 2007 season. From 2001-2010, the years of the original contract, A-Rod put up 70 WAR, more than fulfilling his end of the bargain. When we see these past contracts in today’s terms, we see that $300 million for Manny Machado and Bryce Harper isn’t A-Rod or Stanton money, but is instead Mark Teixeira, Joe Mauer, and Robinson Cano money. In one sense, Harper and Machado might both get the largest contracts in history, but practically, this analysis shows they are likely to be in the back half of the top 10.
For one perspective, here are the $100 million contracts by average annual value.
| Player | Year | Years | 2019 Adjustment ($/M) | AAV 2019 ADJ ($/M) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Alex Rodriguez | 2001 | 10 | 592 | 59.2 |
| Manny Ramirez | 2001 | 8 | 376 | 47.0 |
| Alex Rodriguez | 2008 | 10 | 448 | 44.8 |
| Derek Jeter | 2001 | 10 | 444 | 44.4 |
| Kevin Brown | 1999* | 7 | 297 | 42.5 |
| Clayton Kershaw | 2014 | 7 | 277 | 39.6 |
| Jason Giambi | 2002 | 7 | 276 | 39.4 |
| Cliff Lee | 2011 | 5 | 188 | 37.7 |
| Carlos Beltran | 2005 | 7 | 263 | 37.6 |
| Johan Santana | 2008 | 6 | 224 | 37.4 |
| Ryan Howard | 2012 | 5 | 186 | 37.3 |
| CC Sabathia | 2009 | 7 | 259 | 37.0 |
| Ken Griffey, Jr. | 2000 | 9 | 330 | 36.6 |
| CC Sabathia | 2012 | 5 | 182 | 36.4 |
| Max Scherzer | 2015 | 7 | 254 | 36.3 |
| Mark Teixeira | 2009 | 8 | 290 | 36.2 |
| Joe Mauer | 2011 | 8 | 289 | 36.1 |
| Justin Verlander | 2013 | 7 | 252 | 36.0 |
| Zack Greinke | 2016 | 6 | 215 | 35.8 |
| Albert Pujols | 2012 | 10 | 358 | 35.8 |
| Mike Hampton | 2001 | 8 | 284 | 35.5 |
| Prince Fielder | 2012 | 9 | 319 | 35.4 |
| Josh Hamilton | 2013 | 5 | 175 | 35.0 |
| Felix Hernandez | 2013 | 7 | 245 | 35.0 |
| Zack Greinke | 2013 | 6 | 206 | 34.3 |
| Cole Hamels | 2013 | 6 | 202 | 33.6 |
| Adrian Gonzalez | 2012 | 7 | 229 | 32.8 |
| Miguel Cabrera | 2016 | 8 | 258 | 32.2 |
| David Price | 2016 | 7 | 226 | 32.2 |
| Carl Crawford | 2011 | 7 | 223 | 31.8 |
| Matt Cain | 2012 | 6 | 190 | 31.7 |
| Barry Zito | 2007 | 7 | 218 | 31.1 |
| Miguel Cabrera | 2008 | 8 | 248 | 31.0 |
| Robinson Cano | 2014 | 10 | 310 | 31.0 |
| Todd Helton | 2003 | 9 | 277 | 30.8 |
| Albert Pujols | 2004 | 7 | 214 | 30.6 |
| Giancarlo Stanton | 2015 | 13 | 393 | 30.3 |
That $30 million per year isn’t really a figure teams have been scared of in the past. Players are still signing large contracts, but they have been limiting the number of those elite-level contracts they give out. There are a lot of possible reasons for this salary suppression, including extensions for young players that have kept them from free agency, a luxury/competitive balance tax system that has acted as a cap and failed to keep up with payroll and effectively worked as a salary cap, PED testing that has changed aging curves, and increased pressure from other owners to keep salaries down.
So where is the money going? Several years ago, we could argue it was either going to the players above or perhaps to mid-tier free agents, but given the stagnation of salaries the last few years and the massive profits in the sport, it’s pretty clear where that money is going now.
Craig Edwards can be found on twitter @craigjedwards.
I believe the Stanton deal included a couple of arb years — should an adjustment be made to the AAV to reflect that? Also, presumably the more backloaded a contract is, the more the total would be (time value of money), would it make much difference if you computed a PV for each deal when it happened?
The more backloaded, the lower the total money on the contract. $150 today is worth more than $50 today and $100 tomorrow, because I could invest the extra $100 today and get $105 (or just $100 plus my ROI) tomorrow, to have $155.
“The more backloaded, the lower the total money on the contract. ”
Isn’t that backwards? Lets say you were offered a 1y/$10M contract for the 2019 season.
Lets assuming that the money is deferred with no interest until 2029 and then it is paid out in $1M installments. This is a really back-loaded deal. That same value on a cash-upfront basis would be something around $4M.
The more back-loaded a deal is, the “bigger” the total contract $$ are, but not necessarily more valuable than one with more money up-front without knowing all of the details.
At its best, Fangraphs writing is objective, analytical, and data-driven. At the other end of the spectrum are narrative-driven pieces that seek to advance an agenda, merits be damned.
The off-hand comments about 1-year payroll changes and it being “pretty clear where that money is going now” fall pretty clearly into the latter bucket from my perspective. As echoed elsewhere in the comments, it’s a terrible end to the piece.
How about the fact that MLB payrolls were up 45% between 2012 and 2018, inclusive of the 2-3% decline this year? (and if that’s too endpoint-sensitive for you, take it back a little further and see that 2018 payrolls are up almost 115% since 2005).
I’m not aware of another profession where the lack of perfect linearity in comp increases is clear evidence of malfeasance.
It would seemingly also be worth mentioning by the author that over this same period of ~45% pay increases for players, in-person attendance is down ~7%. Obviously this doesn’t reflect the full picture of revenue, much less profit (ticket prices have gone up and TV payments are an important revenue stream – more on that in a moment) but it doesn’t speak to a business model without any cracks in it.
Note also that the stated comp figures don’t include ancillary benefits both small (e.g., better clubhouse amenities, travel arrangements, and the like – the dollars may not be massive, but clearly they’re valuable to the players given their apparent choice to focus on them in the last collective bargaining agreement) and large (the rise of player options, which won’t be reflected in current-year payroll, but are of enormous value to the option holder).
Tying back briefly to the media point – it’s well-worn at this point that consumption habits are changing. TV ratings are falling precipitously – and even if live sports to date has been somewhat better insulated, Disney is beset by worries about what will happen with ESPN affiliate fees; there’s ongoing talk about whether over-the-top rights revert to the clubs; baseball serves a much older demo than the NBA and is perhaps more at risk of structural generational change – etc, etc, etc.
All of this can impact how an owner might think about long-term, fully guaranteed liabilities.
None of it is examined here. Edwards has seemingly made up his mind, and facts won’t stand in the way of that conclusion.
As noted elsewhere, Fangraphs went down this pointless rabbit hole last year. I had hoped this winter would be different. Especially in light of the fact that with a year of hindsight, there seem to be very, very few contracts that were given out last season that look terribly unfair to the players/advantageous to the clubs.
When Scott Boras sees this article… Ctrl+A, Ctrl+C, New Email, To: All GMs, Ctrl+V, Send
Given Craig’s parroting of Boras’ talking points in the past, I would not be particularly surprised to find that Boras had commissioned this article or if Craig had been a paid consultant of Boras Corp for years.
This comment deserves more than just a down vote. That is a vile accusation.
I hope I’m wrong, but this sounds like a new username for the individual who has attacked Craig’s integrity dozens of times over the last 2+ years. It is unfounded, it is insulting, and it displays an astounding arrogance: I disagree with journalist, therefore journalist lacks integrity and is possibly a shill.
Not really. How can you read the last two paragraphs of this piece and *not* conclude that this opinion piece tilts strongly toward labor, and the player agents who serve (and profit from) labor? It’s not a far leap to suggest this piece comes from the mouth of the agents.
Brewtown_Kev: Those two paragraphs begin: “That $30 million per year isn’t really a figure teams have been scared of in the past. Players are still signing large contracts, but they have been limiting the number of those elite-level contracts they give out.”
Those statements sound like obvious facts to me. Edwards’s reasons for those facts are all highly plausible. Where is the strong or obvious evidence (“not a far leap”) that those paragraphs “tilt strongly toward labor”?
Mr. Boras, *ahem* I mean “Allan Wood”, the sentences that you have cherry picked seem innocuous enough, to be sure. It’s basically everything else in those two paragraphs that leans toward labor. Let’s start with the term “salary suppression”. Then we get a list of reasons why large contracts have not been forthcoming in the past two offseasons that conveniently fails to include the fact that many of these long, high dollar deals have been blowing up in the faces of teams in the post-PED era, but *does* contain a direct reference to collusion. Maybe teams have simply learned that overlong fully guaranteed mega-contracts are bad business? Finally, we get the last paragraph, that cutely implies, without stating outright, that owners are “suppressing salaries” to increase profits at the expense of players. That’s speculation at best that’s extrapolated from this same author’s previous article about the publicly available information for one team. And there’s no reasonable argument against it being a *great* talking point for labor. I know you can see it. But go ahead and keep telling us all that it’s not there.
There may be other reasons for a tilt toward labor than being paid by player agents. If there’s one group of people that is extraordinarily good at doing something I like, and another group of even wealthier people that is raking off a share of the money the first people bring in, I’m going to favor the first group.
That’s essentially an argument that workers are inherently superior to owners and owners do nothing but leech off of the workers.
And…?
Formerly matt w: “If there’s one group of people that is extraordinarily good at doing something I like, and another group of even wealthier people that is raking off a share of the money the first people bring in, I’m going to favor the first group.”
You know, you’re not wrong, except you’ve misidentified the second group. The second group is the player agents, not the team owners. There are folks on here who seem to think these teams spring out of nowhere and run themselves. Nope! They’re run by scores of people being paid out of the owners’ share of the revenues. The owners are running a multi-billion dollar business, which means they’re paying a lot of people a lot of money, and none of that comes from “labor’s” share of the revenues. Meanwhile, the agents are doing almost nothing useful while skimming millions from the players.
“There are folks on here who seem to think these teams spring out of nowhere and run themselves. Nope! They’re run by scores of people being paid out of the owners’ share of the revenues. The owners are running a multi-billion dollar business, which means they’re paying a lot of people a lot of money”
Sounds like the owners aren’t running the multi-billion dollar business, in the sense of doing the active work that creates the value in the business. They’re hiring the front-office people who actually run the business. Yes, they’re paying them, but that’s because those people are creating value for them, more so than the amount they’re getting paid.
Formerly matt w: “If there’s one group of people that is extraordinarily good at doing something I like, and another group of even wealthier people that is raking off a share of the money the first people bring in, I’m going to favor the first group.”
You know, you’re not wrong, except you’ve misidentified the second group. The second group is the player agents, not the team owners. There are folks on here who seem to think these teams spring out of nowhere and run themselves. Nope! They’re run by scores of people being paid out of the owners’ share of the revenues. The owners are running a multi-billion dollar business, which means they’re paying a lot of people a lot of money, and none of that comes from “labor’s” share of the revenues. Meanwhile, the agents are doing almost nothing useful while skimming millions from the players. There are people stealing money out of the pockets of the players you love to watch, but it ain’t the owners. Ask Jayson Werth how things worked out for him.
I think that is extraordinarily unlikely. Perhaps I’m naive.
Yep, you’re naive.
It’s been said numerous times on this site that people within the baseball industry are regular readers here. Why wouldn’t the agents want to put their agenda on here? Given how fatuously pro-labor many of this site’s writers (and readers) are, it would be easy for agents to use the writers here as tools to broadcast opinions like we see at the end of this piece, and get positive affirmations of those opinions in the comments. Just look around you. The proof is in the pudding.
Sounds like we’ve got an owner (or a paid shill for one of them) also as a regular reader at FanGraphs!
Oh, how nice it would be if either were true!
Chris Davis 2016 161 7 23.0
Thank you for warming my Tuesday afternoon with a good chuckle.
Not sure I understand your last paragraph. Your article makes it very clear that the superstar AAV hasn’t been keeping pace over the last 18 years. But in the article you also mention that average payroll per team went from 66M to 155M in the same time (almost 2.5x). The money is clearly going to the middle class, no?
Exactly – I am pretty sure that “We’re not throwing $300 million albatross contracts at big name guys in their 30s” is offsetting a generalized raising of the floor in terms of salary, at least for guys on the ML roster.
This seems more like progress to me than nefarious profit mongering.
Is it going to the “middle class” of free agents? Seems to me like most of it may be going to pre free agency deals for stars that buy out arb years. Maybe that’s not accurate, I’m not sure.
But typically those pre-FA deals are structured to loosely follow expected pre-arb and arbitration salaries.
IE, Mike Trout signed away all of his arbitration [and some FA] years in a 6/$145M deal.
$6M Arb1
$16M Arb2
$20M Arb3
$34M FA1
$34M FA2
$34M FA3
At the time Dave Cameron estimated he’d get $60M in arbitration, so it even looks like they kicked about $18M well down the road
“The money is clearly going to the middle class, no?”
That certainly appears to be the case, and it also directly refutes Craig’s pet theory that middle class free agents are getting squeezed.
The middle class squeeze criticism has occurred over the last couple years when overall MLB wide salary growth has flattened or reversed. Prior to the last couple years, I agree with your comment.
But couldn’t that just be owners have wised up in not wanting to give Kendry Morales 3/33 …. Is that wrong?
Excellent point. The thing is that using the numbers in the post as a proxy for how much money is going to players as a whole won’t work, because the numbers are indexed to average payroll! If we did the same exercise with total payrolls, they’d come out flat by definition.
It does seem to be widely reported that the share of revenue going to players has dropped, but all this exercise can tell us is about is the share of payroll going to megacontracts.
Now that Sawchik is gone some has to die on the collusion hill.
And who exactly would pick up the mantle of posting stupid nonsense if you were to leave? Why don’t we figure that out?
Another way of thinking about this is “meta surplus value.”
Whatever you (or I) might think about the Manny Ramirez contract, he was a vital part in winning the Red Sox a World Series for the first time in 86 years. That’s 86 years’ worth of incremental additional value, not to mention the merchandising.
In a similar vein, Mike Trout is a bargain at the price. I would claim that Justin Verlander was a bargain at the price. Maybe even Joey Votto is a bargain at the price. But you can’t isolate the superstar from the team that dropped the shilling on them … I mean, what have any of those three done for us lately?
(Yes, yes, I know, JV did reasonably well after a trade.)
I’d love to see an extra column in that chart with Average Annual WAR produced during the deal. I’m not an A-Rod fan but there’s no denying his production during the 2001-2010 cycle.
Some of the other deals look outright terrible.
Miggy is 3 years in and averaging 1.8 WAR/yr
Heyward is 3 years in and averaging 1.3 WAR/yr
Teixera averaged 2.2 WAR/yr during his deal
Pujols is 7 years in and averaging just under 1.0 WAR/yr
And Chris Davis… well… maybe there’s time for him to get back above 0 WAR/yr
I don’t disagree with your premise, but it’s worth noting that teams often pay superstars for the early years, knowing they’ll be throwing money away towards the end of the contract.
In other words, I don’t think teams are looking at the avg WAR over the full contact, but rather what impact and draw the player had in the first few seasons. Do you think Detroit regretted that Miggy contract
MLB teams aren’t stupid. They know the value well depreciate quickly. To truly value these side by side, it’d be interesting to compare their AAV by WAR on a bell curve.
But Cabrera, Heyward, Pujols, and Davis are far, far underperforming their contracts even *in the early years of their contracts*, when they’re supposed to be providing this surplus value. That situation is not likely to improve as they age…
“given the stagnation of salaries the last few years and the massive profits in the sport, it’s pretty clear where that money is going now.”
The all to common reference to profits from the clear assumption that it’s a dirty word. MLB players are doing just fine – we are watching tens of millions of dollars getting thrown this offseason at luminaries like Lance Lynn and Nate Eovaldi. Terrence Gore just got paid more money to steal a few bases next offseason than I make in several years (half a decade in fact if he stays on the ML roster!), and I work in a high demand industry. Minor league players – those guys are getting shafted and something should be done about it, but personally I think a lot of the tightening of the belt as far as player wages has come from teams that don’t hand out the ludicrous contracts to aging veterans anymore (excepting the Orioles apparently). Pujols, if he entered today’s market at the same age and performance level he was at when he got his deal with LAA, would simply not get such a mega contract, because by and large teams know better now. That sounds like progress to me, and if it results in ownership pocketing more money, well, I don’t really mind that MLB is a viable economic enterprise, that’s a good sign, particularly when so many are saying the sky is falling due to the “aging fan base”.
“Players make millions. I do not. Therefore, they’re fine.”
The boring and frustratingly self-centered argument against the fact that owners pocket a larger and larger percentage of increased revenues each year. Most people would rather the worker make more than the owner who has no influence on the team except opening his pocket book.
Agreed. And even if you assume that the 50/50 split is still happening, why is it okay? Revenue splits in high skilled/low capital intensity industries tend to be closer to 90/10 in favour of labour. The 50/50 split is solely the result of regulation (limits on the number of franchises). What function is ownership serving that makes 50 per cent justifiable?
What industry gives 90% of its revenue to labor? Hollywood Studios, Investment Banks, Hospitals have massive expenses outside of labor.
MLB franchises cost, say, $1.5B. Let’s say it’s like buying a house and owners put up 20% of the $1.5B or $300M and then finance the rest through bank loans. They deserve a return on that $300M, right, since they have other opportunities to invest that money? They negotiate the TV deals, the stadium leases/financing, player contracts, concessions contracts. There’s a lot of work in running a baseball team. This work costs money, so owners don’t get 50%, they get the remainder after paying off all these expenses.
How many MLB stadiums have been privately financed?
What fact? . According to Tony Clark the players have been getting around 50% of revenue. The owner has no influence on the team? What? Why do I care what one stranger makes over another? I root for teams. Players come and go but teams generally do not. Obviously I have favorite players and all that.
The more people follow this train of thought the more preposterously wealthy the owners/other billionaires can get, good for them I suppose for being able to take advantage of your stupidity.
I don’t really care how preposterously wealthy anyone gets if it’s not ill gotten. It’s the notion that people shouldn’t be making money that they are, just because we don’t like the abstract idea that they have it, that’s patently stupid.
I mean, please, if you are going to call people stupid make an argument better than “I just don’t like people who make lots of money”
Baseball operates in about the furthest thing from a free market. Take away all of the artificial barriers, and if the owners can still keep that much money, more power to them. Until then, they are essentially thieves.
I follow and watch baseball for the players, not the owners. So I want the players to receive fair compensation for the revenue they generate. While I also want the owners to receive fair compensation for their investment, they also receive ridiculous subsidies from governmental and other sources, sometimes unethical and ill-gotten subsidies.
In a lot of ways, I think professional sports team owners in the US are similar to our cable companies. Do we need them? Yeah. However, are they generally local monopolies enforced by law? Yeah. Do they generally exhibit rent-seeking economic behavior? Yeah. Do they often get in the way of just having fun? Yeah.
All of those reasons are why I tend to support players over owners. The owners already have the deck stacked in their favor. Why further stack the deck?
You appear to care quite a bit about how much the players are making.
I’d just like to enjoy a $3 beer at a ballpark again. Let’s not forget who actually funds both the owner and the player… you and me.
The owners get wealthy and what do you think they do with that wealth? Lock it in a vault and swim in it? Stuff it in burlap sacks with $’s. Duck Tales and Scrooge McDuck are not real. Many benefit, including the players according to Tony Clark.
Also, this terrible argument leaves out the many players that play great for 2-4 seasons and then flame out (being an above avg mlb player is hard) before they get to high money arbitration/free agency. This is big for pitchers. All players should be making on avg 10% more than they are making but they are stupid and keep letting a person with zero labor negotiating skills get destroyed by professionals.
You know, I actually agree with you that there is room to improve arbitration rates for certain roles and super 2/arb eligibility nonsense. In those cases, as with the minors, players are demonstrably being shorted. That’s actually the principled market based argument to make.
What I find objectionable is the pervasive suggestion that owners of a profit making asset shouldn’t profit from that asset beyond some arbitrary and undefined line of ‘excess’, an argument which is largely reductive to ‘I want those people to make less for no good reason other than that it makes me feel better about myself and the world’, and an argument that pretty quickly torpedoes whatever venture it is visited upon should it ever actually be implemented. So bring up all the issues you want, I love it, but don’t merely reference profits like it’s some sort of prejorative.
I agree in principle, but baseball’s antitrust exemption and the fact that most of the capital investment is actually made by municipalities makes it hard for me to sympathize with owners in this case.
What does the antitrust exemption afford MLB that the NFL, NHL, and NBA doesn’t have? These are all natural monopolies. The anti-trust exemption is irrelevant.
Cities are essentially loaning capital to MLB teams and getting paid back over time in lease revenue. If your argument is that municipal gov’ts shouldn’t fund amenities (I don’t think you’d say they shouldn’t fund infrastructure like road-building), I might agree with you.
I’m not sure I see the issue. A player who is great for a couple of years has the option of continuing year-to-year expecting that their continued great play will give them more and more negotiating power or using that great play to sign a longer-term deal (essentially insurance against flaming out).
So Cody Bellinger can choose to try and convert his two very good MLB seasons into guaranteed money (perhaps something like $750k/$3M/$6M/$9M/$15M/$20M), or he can roll the dice and hope he stays good and healthy and get whatever he can get as time goes on.
I don’t fault players for not wanting to sell out early, but I also don’t pity the ones who were less risk averse. With 20/20 hindsight, Trout and Longoria and Altuve, for examples, presumably could have made *alot* more money by not signing those first multi-year deals, but doing so put them in pretty good positions if their careers did not start off as well as they did.
The use of the word profits actually makes the argument less clear.
These are super-profits or rents, and they exist because of the anti trust exemption (monopoly power).
This was a really interesting set of hypotheticals, but the last two paragraphs make no sense. “Top salaries haven’t been rising, because contract value has been going up, therefore, players are getting squeezed.” What? You can’t assume that contract value is going up and then conclude that because of that players are getting squeezed. It makes no sense.
Please let’s not repeat last offseason.
Well said. I think Craig had an interesting point to make about the biggest contracts in the game today being rather affordable when compared to some of the last 20 years. The gratuitous and absurd attack against the owners in the last paragraph (especially when he promised not to talk about the revenue split in the first paragraph) ruined this.
its pretty sad whats happening to the sport. players are not getting paid and now you have the optics of kyler murray choosing to play NFL instead. NFL recent contracts are much bigger even though they only play 16 games. Owners are ruining the game. sad
There’s also a higher likelihood that by age 50, an NFL player’s brain will be mush and will be moving around the house needing the assistance of a walking device than an MLB player’s.
An NFL career is also only 3.3 years, and most contracts aren’t fully guaranteed. In contrast, an average MLB player plays 5.6 years and plays on a fully guaranteed contract.
Also, the average MLB contract pays $4M a year. In the NFL, , it’s $2.1M. MLB players get paid more.
While I understand the instinctual response of downvoting this particular commenter, it is in fact a sad development that the 9th pick in the MLB draft, a potential star baseball player, may in fact choose to play the brain-bashing sport instead based largely on an economic landscape that he finds more beneficial than baseball. If Murray plays football instead, all the arguments about how baseball is a better financial decision won’t be worth the paper they are printed on.
The NFL’s highest paid WR, Odell Beckham Jr, is making $65mil guaranteed over 5 years. It could get up to $95mil if he plays out the length of the contract. When it all shakes out, he’ll be making somewhere between Jake Arrieta and Jeff Samardzija.
Maurkice Pouncey, who was just elected to the Pro Bowl, has been seven times total and four since signing a 5yr/$44mil contract in 2014, will make $9mil and change this year. Or, in other words, less than Lance Lynn.
Kyler Murray is a QB, so his earning potential is a bit different (also not a highly touted QB who many expect would go as a Day 3 draft pick), but looking at players paid at the top of their positions in the NFL, on offense, whether they’re “skill positions” or not, makes the assertion that football is more beneficial economically to its players than baseball, frankly, laughable. And that’s before factoring in the heightened risk of injury, average longevity of careers, lack of guarantees and post-career quality of life for football players.
Nobody thinks Murray is a day three pick anymore and your examples don’t mean a whole lot. Watch this:
Kris Bryant won the MVP and made a shade over $1 million the next year. That is less than your average backup nose tackle makes.
I don’t know that you can say that “Nobody thinks Murray is a day three pick”, because I’ve heard that said numerous times recently. But, besides that, best case, his NFL draft stock is highly debatable.
Kris Bryant won the MVP and made a shade over $1mil the next year. Then he made $10.5mil the year after. Which, again, is more than one of the best offensive lineman in football noted above who’s playing on an FA contract, not his rookie deal, and is a rare example of a player who makes it to the end of that contract before blowing out their knee and getting cut with no guaranteed money left.
Patrick Mahomes may well win the MVP in his second full season this year, similar to Bryant, and will make $2mil next year (not including his deferred signing bonus), so it’s really not too dissimilar to the NFL for young players to be “underpaid”.
Phillip Lindsay just made the Pro Bowl, and he’s going to make $575k next year at a skill position. And Matt Harvey just got paid $11mil (2.5 fWAR since 2016).
I agree that the balance in pay scale should shift more so to younger players, and the MLBPA benefits should extend to minor leaguers, but, in no world, is the NFL better economically for its collective union than baseball is. If you remove or discount out QBs, it’s not even close.
Also, you cannot forget that the rules governing arbitration and team control are in place to protect small market teams and to help them remain competitive. It is not borne out of some nebulous concept of “corporate greed”. You cannot overhaul the rules without keeping this in mind, or else you could see a significant shift in the competitive balance of the league even more so towards teams like the Yankees, Red Sox, Dodgers, etc.
None of this counters the core issue. The idea of the 9th pick in the mlb draft choosing football is crazy. Your examples are not effective for anyone with the slightest understanding of both sports. Are you just trying to convince idiots to agree with you that there is no issue? Baseball has a bigger longterm payoff, but it takes so long to get there, especially for college players, when compared to the nfl. That is just a fact.
I think that when I cite the highest paid player in the NFL at a given position, which is also one of the highest paid positions, that should be a rather effective example, but understood that you don’t see it as such.
While you may find my examples ineffective, I think you’ve cherry-picked the one instance where it actually may be more economically beneficial for a player to choose football over baseball and are using that to make unfounded generalizations in comparing the sports. Possibly the only scenario in which football is more beneficial economically to the 9th overall pick in baseball (who has received and would have to pay back his $4mil bonus), is when he’s a QB who may also go in the Top 10 in the NFL Draft.
The bonus structure is higher in the NFL for rookies drafted in the first round, but not by a gross amount. The 5th year team options can be very lucrative. Should they be exercised. When you’re a QB. Who is drafted in the Top 10. Otherwise you’re getting the average of the 3-25 highest paid player at your position (assuming you’re drafted between 11-32, and not after the first round), which for non-QBs, is going to be a couple million, not in the eight figures. And then you need to maintain health. Every year.
It absolutely takes longer to get there in baseball. We can argue over how that is impacted by the economic structure of the sport, but regardless of teams skirting rules surrounding service time, it always has and always will take longer. It’s just the nature of the sports. Assuming health, the chances of making it in baseball are less. But that’s a big assumption. And when you do get there in baseball, you don’t even have to be any good to out-gain the best in football. And if you are any good? You’ll be out-gaining them in arbitration. And by the time you’re an FA, well, it’s not close.
It ultimately comes down to his self confidence and which sport he feels he has a stronger chance of succeeding in, and to what level, because ultimately that’s what will drive the economic benefit.
Is he a first round pick in the NFL? If so, is he Patrick Mahomes? Or EJ Manuel? Or is he a Day 2-3 pick? Can he hit? Will he be Aaron Judge? Or Byron Buxton?
But his choice, that of a unicorn, should not be taken as a reflection on the overall, collective economic benefit of one sport compared to another, because, again, they’re really not close when comparing the majorities.
The NFL is a much larger business than MLB, $14b against $10b in revenue makes a different no? Plus other factors like vastly different operating expenses and marketing opportunities outside of the sport. Baseball isn’t as popular as it once was and is increasingly becoming more of a regional sport. Not that the NFL has been all that great the last decade.
owners are keeping the top players out of baseball. last year was the beginning of great players not getting contracts. bad for the sport.
My takeaway from this is that a team that signs Machado and Harper to twin 14 year $420 million contracts will be mighty glad they did.
White Sox? Lol.
Ah… good old Johan Santa
nice post
I liked this article a lot better when it was just a fun, albeit flawed, look at recent player contracts being adjusted for inflation.
But then the last paragraph just makes me feel dirty. And not because I’m upset that owners may be taking a larger portion of the profits than they had previously.
I feel misled. Like when I buy a ticket to a movie only to find out it’s more politically driven propaganda than art. Like with movies, I guess maybe I’ll just stop buying tickets.
There are also so many awful contracts listed here that it’s actually hilarious that you would use a list which includes Jason Giambi, Albert Pujols, Ryan Howard, CC Sabathia, Mark Teixeira, Joe Mauer, Miguel Cabrera, Ken Griffey Jr., Josh Hamilton, Mike Hampton, etc, as an argument for players to be given more money.
The Dodgers paid Carl Crawford $42mil from 2016-2017 (30 games played, all in 2016, for -1.0 bWAR). The San Francisco Giants just paid Matt Cain $7.5mil last year (he didn’t pitch). The Texas Rangers just paid A-Rod $5mil, and he’s owed another $10mil over the next two years from the Yankees and Rangers (he’s retired and hosting podcasts).
But owners are ludicrously withholding a fair share of the profits from players!
Give me a break. This is progress, not conspiracy.
The Alex Rodriguez deal was franchise crippling. I hope we don’t see anything so reckless again.
So where is the money going you ask?
The Associated Press, March 21, 2016.
“Financial data released by Major League Baseball to The Associated Press showed the big leaguers’ share of net revenue was between 48.5 percent and 51.7 percent each year since 2006. Dollars spent on amateur players and minor leaguers rose by 29 percent last year — four times the increase in big league compensation. Counting signing bonuses for amateurs and minor league salaries, revenue devoted to players has ranged from 53.7 percent in 2012 to 57.5 percent last year.”
“Scott Boras, the most prominent player agent, said at the general managers’ meetings in November that the players’ share of revenue had dropped to 43 percent. Boras is including gross revenue from Major League Baseball Advanced Media, which formed in 2000, and the MLB Network, which launched in 2009 and is two-thirds owned by MLB. The expenses of running those companies are deducted to determine their net revenue.”
“The Major League Baseball Players Association has access to MLB’s figures, and union head Tony Clark described the percentage devoted to players as “fairly constant.”
“Two or three percentage points one way or the other is always room for improvement,” he said of the fluctuations.”
Ben Lindbergh, Feb 21, 2018.
“Last week, MLB commissioner Rob Manfred made a controversial claim. “We have been at a very stable?—?approximately 50 percent of revenue going to player salaries?—?for five, six, seven years,” Manfred said. “The math of that means that salaries are growing in line with revenues.””
“In December 2015, MLBPA executive director Tony Clark told the L.A. Times that the players’ share of revenue was “as close to 50 percent as it has been in a long time.” A year later, upon negotiating a new collective bargaining agreement that took effect in 2017, Clark said his expectation was that the split would “stay right in that general area,” remarking that the union “wouldn’t have agreed to the deal otherwise.” A 50–50 split seems to be the target that the Players Association has set for itself. Financial information from the first full year covered by the CBA suggests that the union hasn’t yet missed that target.”
this is incorrect. Its an accounting issue, that makes it look like 50/50. Masks about 20% of revenue for the owners. I believe their has been articles written about that topic here on fg. Its realistically more like 30/70.
After 2001 MLB likely realized something needed to be done. After 2002 MLBPA saw something and filed collusion charges in 2003. MLB settled but players have been losing ground ever since.
Collusion is hard to prove but its basically a law of capitalism. Over 200 years ago Adam Smith said when owners of competing companies get together behind closed doors nasty stuff happens. Its going on in pretty much every major industry and government and courts no longer attempts to curtail it, and in fact by their actions or lack thereof encourage it.
That said nobody is weeping for these pampered millionaire players who seem content with what they have , otherwise Tony C would be history
Per Baseball America Article:
“Lions quarterback Matthew Stafford and Dodgers lefthander Clayton Kershaw grew up together. Kershaw has been one of the best players in baseball over the past decade. Generously, Stafford could be described as a slightly above-average NFL quarterback. He’s made one Pro Bowl. In 10 seasons, Stafford has earned $178 million. If he plays the final four years of his current contract, he’ll have earned over $262 million. Kershaw has earned $173 million so far over 11 seasons. He will earn $266 million by the end of his current deal in 2021.
Both players are 30 years old, but because he’s a quarterback, there’s a good chance Stafford’s career will last longer than Kershaw’s. In 2018, seven of the NFL’s 32 starting quarterbacks are 35 or older. Four are 37 or older. Of the 196 pitchers and hitters who qualified for the ERA or batting title last season, 11 were 35 or older. Only three were 37 or older.
Murray will have a big decision to make going forward. But MLB’s decision to put a hard limit on draft bonuses and prohibit major league contracts for two-sport stars as draftees makes it hard for baseball to compete financially”
If murray picks NFL over MLB, it will be a sad day for MLB with long term ramifications regarding optics if you ask me.
This touches on something very important which I’ve mentioned in previous comments re that Stafford (and Murray) is a quarterback, which is the most lucrative position in all of professional sports. Stafford was also the first overall pick, another important multiplier. And the Lions will be able to get out of the contract in 2021 and save roughly $40mil, which the Dodgers, of course, cannot do with Kershaw.
Focusing on other players who are still active from Stafford’s draft class, Mark Sanchez was the next QB taken at #5, and has made $75mil to this point in his career. Andre Smith, an offensive lineman, was drafted fourth overall, and has made $52mil in his career. Michael Crabtree, drafted ninth overall, has made $62mil as a WR.
The point being, if you’re not a franchise QB in the NFL, football is not nearly as lucrative as baseball can be for merely average players.
So does Kyler Murray fancy himself a potential franchise QB? If he is, and he’s drafted in the Top 10, it likely is more lucrative to play football. He’d have to be a generational talent in baseball to make more money in that sport. But, even if he is a franchise QB based on talent, if he’s drafted in the 2-3 round, he’ll be facing more of an uphill battle. Russell Wilson, for example, was drafted in the third round, and made all of $2.1mil, including bonuses, for his first three years in the league before getting an extension. Had his talent not developed, or if he had been hurt, he could’ve walked away with less than Murray’s MLB signing bonus for his career.
Regardless, I really don’t think there’s anything “sad” in “the optics” of this. It really comes down to what sport he thinks he is better at, and if the sport agrees, because that’s what will really drive his economic benefit. No need to be dramatic.
the guys you mentioned are no where near kershaw…sanchez? Sanchez doesnt even play. Kershaw is arguable the best picther in MLB in last 10 years. Hes not making what some medicore guys like stafford are in NFL. Kershaw should be a 400+MM dollar man, not a 160 guy. Hes the face and best of MLB pitching.
Stafford was the last #1 overall pick before the NFL dramatically changed the rookie pay scale tied to draft position. No one is getting anything like the rookie guarantee that Stafford got anymore. His case is not at all informative for someone considering entering the draft today.