As the 2026 Major League Baseball season continues to unfold, something vitally important to the future of the sport quietly hums in the background: the ongoing negotiations over a new collective bargaining agreement.

The collective bargaining agreement, or CBA (or Basic Agreement, as it’s known in a formal sense), is the negotiated accord between players and clubs — i.e., the team owners and commissioner Rob Manfred, who represents their interests — that governs the working relationship between the two parties, typically for a period of five years. It covers things as mundane as players’ meal allowances and travel protocols and as vital as minimum salaries, the structure of free agency, revenue-sharing specifics, and roster sizes. Every CBA can be distilled down to a fight over money, or, more specifically, how the league’s revenues will be divided between players and team owners.

The first CBA covered the 1968 and 1969 seasons and was the first in professional sports history. That was the handiwork of Marvin Miller, the pioneering head of the Players Association (i.e., the players union) and belated Hall of Famer. It was Miller’s organizing skills, foresight, and training as a union economist that allowed him to make the Players Association a viable and effective labor organization. Every CBA negotiation from 1972 through 1994-95 resulted in some form and scale of labor stoppage, whether a players’ strike or an owner-implemented lockout. After the cancellation of the 1994 World Series because of the worst labor stoppage in the sport’s history, a long run of peace followed. That peace lasted until the prior CBA negotiations, which resulted in a 99-day lockout forced by team owners and delayed the start of the 2022 season.

MLB’s new CBA proposal would restrict free-agency contracts, raise minimum wage, but only with a salary cap

Dayn Perry

Advertisement

The current CBA negotiations have been underway for some time, and not surprisingly, the two sides remain far apart on several key issues. The biggest fight will be over the owners’ renewed desire to implement a salary cap, which the union continues to view as a non-starter. The push for a cap has less to do with the notions of competitive balance and more to do with the ownership’s internal belief that being the only non-salary-capped league among the major North American sports is harming franchise values. The cap, though, is but one of many pressing issues on which players and owners must find congruity.

Moving forward, the process will be uncertain and rife with posturing and pointed public comments from both sides. The hope, though, is that a new CBA will be agreed to before the middle of March 2027, at which point there’s a high risk of having the 2027 season delayed or even abbreviated. 

To keep you informed of the twists and turns along the way to a new CBA, we’ve provided a detailed timeline of negotiations. That timeline will illuminate the important and finer points of the talks and, along the way, explain the implications of the various proposals coming from each side. The hope, of course, is that all of it culminates in a timely agreement that permits a fully intact and on-time 2027 season.

Now let’s begin.

June 25, 2026: Limited free-agency contracts

More face-to-face negotiations take place, and MLB proposes more changes to the free-agency system, among other asks. MLB’s latest proposal includes the following, all of which depend upon the union’s acceptance of a payroll cap:

• A maximum contract length of five years for players who switch teams and a maximum of 15% of the cap with 5% increases every year of the contract;
• A maximum contract length of six years — and a max of 16% of the cap — for players who remain with their original team under a new “Cornerstone Player” provision;
• Based on the league’s proposed cap figure for 2027, the maximum contract for a player switching teams is $202 million over five years and $265 million over six years for a player remaining with the same team;
• An increase in the minimum salary from $780,000 to $1 million for players with at least two years of MLB service time;
• An increase in the minimum salary to $900,000 for players with less than two years of MLB service time with the opportunity for a $100,000 bonus from the pre-arbitration bonus pool (already established);
• The elimination of deferred contracts;
• Acceptance of the union’s proposal to allow free agency after five years of MLB service time instead of six for players age 30 or older;
• Acceptance of the union’s proposal to do away with the qualifying offer system for free agents.

MLB in a prior proposal called for a cap on team payrolls of $245.3 million starting in 2027 and a payroll floor of $171.2 million. The league issues a statement that reads in full: 

“The biggest issue baseball fans want solved to strengthen the game is fixing the payroll disparity that leaves too many fans without hope of their team competing for a World Series title. Every other major U.S. sport has tackled this problem, and every year more small market teams in those leagues have a chance to win. The salary cap and floor proposal levels the playing field, allowing us greater flexibility to address longstanding player priorities while sharing baseball revenue with the players 50/50.

“Today, in addition to proposing the largest ever increase in the minimum salary, earned by over half of MLB players, we accepted two landmark changes to free agency that have been in place for 50 years. We agreed to both the MLBPA’s proposal to provide earlier access to free agency, and their proposal to eliminate the qualifying offer system, a provision players view as a drag on free agency. We also proposed to eliminate deferred compensation and to create a new ‘Cornerstone Player’ provision similar to the NBA’s ‘Bird Rights’ to give every team a fair shot at retaining their fans’ favorite star players.

“We will continue working with the MLBPA during the bargaining process to improve the game for teams, players and fans.”

Advertisement

The MLBPA responds: 

“After making a series of proposals to reduce player compensation by billions of dollars, eliminate fundamental rights with a salary cap, and destroy the amateur entry process, Major League Baseball and team owners are now attempting to distract from the true impact their plan would have on baseball. These misleading offers are designed to look like ‘improvements’ but are of little or no value, given they are expressly conditioned on agreement to the league’s cap system which eliminates the free market, and ensures gains for one player only come at the expense of another.

“The league also introduced a litany of additional restrictions on player rights — limiting salaries, contract length, performance, award, and signing bonuses. While MLB claims to be acting in the interest of fans, their proposals thus far are entirely consistent with owners’ long-held goals: suppressing player salaries and maximizing club profits.

“Owners’ attempts to pit players against players are nothing new, but they’ve failed in the past and will fail again now, because PA members remain unified. We are committed to achieving a fair deal that protects the rights of all players, promotes competition, and leaves our game better for future generations.”

Lacking from the league’s latest proposal, at least on the public-facing side, is any revisiting of the recent changes to the draft and any mention of prior proposed changes to the league’s revenue-sharing system. 

June 18, 2026: MLB proposes sweeping draft changes

MLB and the MLBPA meet for face-to-face negotiations, and owners propose sweeping changes to the draft and also push for an international draft. As for the MLB Draft, formally known as the First-Year Player Draft, MLB pushes for the following changes:

• A reduction from 20 rounds to 12 rounds;
• A $200 million hard bonus system in which players are paid according to their draft position with no room to negotiate (teams have not spent $200 million or less in the draft since 2010);
• High school players would no longer be eligible for the domestic amateur draft, and college players would be draft-eligible at age 20.

“Over the last several years, college baseball has undergone a remarkable transformation,” MLB says in a statement. “Expanded scholarships, NIL opportunities, revenue sharing and significant investments in facilities and player development have made college baseball an increasingly important pathway that is producing major league-ready talent at an accelerated rate. Today’s top programs provide players with resources, competition and national exposure that were unimaginable a decade ago. Our proposal is designed to build on that momentum to benefit the game at the college, minor-league and major-league levels. By creating a draft system centered around college-aged players and making most college players eligible one year earlier, more players will benefit from both a college education and an elite development environment while reaching professional baseball — and ultimately the major leagues — more quickly. We believe these changes will strengthen college baseball and deepen fans’ connection to the next generation of major league stars. We look forward to working with the MLBPA throughout the bargaining process to modernize the domestic amateur system in a way that benefits players, clubs, and fans.” 

As for the international draft, MLB proposed making players outside of the U.S., Puerto Rico, and Canada (who are already included in the standard draft) subject to a similar system. The international draft would, as with the proposed changes to the MLB Draft, come with a $200 million bonus cap. At present, international amateurs may sign with any team under the international free agent system, although teams do have hard budget caps each year.

The MLBPA also issues a statement in response to MLB’s proposals:

Today, MLB made another set of proposals that are flat out bad for baseball, ones that would cripple the next generation of players and damage the future of our game. They would, among other things:

• Eliminate over a billion dollars in player compensation from the international and domestic system over the next five years, with a $400 million reduction from 2026 to 2027 alone.
• Destroy fundamental player rights and remove talent from our sport by barring high school and junior college players (anyone under age 20) from the domestic draft.
• Abolish an entire year of international signings by delaying the first draft until at least September of 2027 (and as late as March of 2028), denying young international players the ability to start their professional careers.

Players remain committed to bargaining in good faith and leaving baseball better than they found it — the league’s proposals fall woefully short.

June 5, 2026: Trump supports a cap

U.S. President Donald J. Trump publicly supports MLB’s efforts to implement a salary cap. “If you don’t have a salary cap, you don’t have a sport, because they can’t help themselves,” Trump says. “Football has a salary cap. They should have done it a long time ago.

“It’s shocking, frankly, that they didn’t put a cap on many years ago,” he said, possibly referencing the 1994-95 strike. “They had a chance to do a cap, but they blew it.”

June 3, 2026: Manfred talks luxury tax

Speaking to reporters following the owners’ quarterly meetings, Manfred addresses the luxury-tax system he and the owners seek to replace with a cap. “We have tried mightily over several rounds of bargaining to use a competitive balance (luxury) tax to address competitive concerns,” Manfred says. “And sometimes you’ve got to admit you failed.

“We made a proposal on one set of topics. At the outset of negotiations, I went and said myself, ‘We’re open to whatever ideas people have, but we need a realistic framework that addresses the fans’ concerns about competitive balance.’ You just can’t ignore that financial penalties have not gotten it done for us.”

June 1, 2026: MLBPA says cap is ‘institutionalized collusion’

In a call with reporters, MLBPA interim executive director Bruce Meyer addresses the owners’ proposals. “Using MLB’s definition of revenue and player share as set forth in their proposal and their presentation to us, player share under their proposal would go down,” Meyer says. “Player share for this season, 2026, is projected to be well over 50 percent, using, again MLB’s definitions of revenues and what counts against player share.

“Had MLB’s proposal been in place in 2026, players, we estimate, would lose over half a billion dollars.”

Meyer also refers to a salary cap as “a form of institutionalized collusion.”

“Our salary cap-and-floor proposal addresses our fans’ concerns by leveling the playing field while sharing baseball revenue with the players 50-50 like the other leagues,” MLB spokesperson Glen Caplin responded on behalf of the league. “Under our proposal, major-league players will receive more compensation in year one of the system than in 2026. We are ready to listen if the MLBPA wants to counter our proposal at the bargaining table.”

May 28, 2026: MLB’s first proposals

MLB and the owners publicly announce their first formal CBA proposal. Chiefly, they propose:

• A salary cap, including benefits expenses, of $245.3 million for 2027;
• A salary floor, also including benefits expenses, of $171.2 million for 2027;
• A 50-50 revenue split between clubs and players;
• The centralization and equal sharing of all local revenues.

Using competitive balance tax (CBT), or luxury tax, payrolls as a guide, since they include benefits expenses, nine teams at present would be above the proposed cap line, while 12 teams would be below the floor. However, as Craig Goldstein points out, the amount needed to get all these teams below or above the relevant payroll thresholds amounts to an $18.7 million loss in aggregate player salary overall. Another sticking point will be how league revenues are defined. Owners no doubt seek to carve out things like real estate developments surrounding ballparks and ownership stakes in regional sports. As well, MLB’s working definition of league revenues includes many expense deductions.

On another level, the fact that Manfred is able to persuade large-market, high-revenue clubs to agree to equal sharing of all local revenues is a notable development. However, such a concession by those large-market clubs may be contingent upon the implementation of a cap.

Another sticking point is that the league proposes an escrow system, as is used in the NBA and the NHL. This would mean a percentage of player salaries is withheld. If revenues fall short of projections, some of that money in escrow goes back to the league. If revenues are higher than projected, that excess is shared with the players. The MLBPA opposes the escrow system on the grounds that it undermines the notion of guaranteed player salaries. 

May 27, 2026: MLBPA’s first proposals

The MLBPA makes an opening suite of proposals to the league, including:

• A “competitive integrity tax” levied against teams that don’t spend a minimum amount on player payroll.
• An increase of the minimum salary from $780,000 to $1.5 million.
• An increase of the bottom Competitive Balance Tax (more commonly known as the luxury tax) threshold from $244 million to $300 million.
• Increased sharing of local-broadcast revenues among teams but less sharing of stadium game-day revenues (the latter to incentivize on-field success).
• Tens of millions in extra revenue sharing to go to low-revenue teams that make the postseason or have a winning record.
• Free agency after five or more years, rather than six, for players who are at least 30 years of age at the time.
• Expanded draft lottery. 
• Penalties for teams that neglect to spend revenue-sharing payments on team payroll.
• Draft picks and other incentives for low-revenue clubs active in free agency. 
• Elimination of the qualifying offer for outgoing free agents.
• Increased compensation for lower-revenue teams losing players to free agency.

“Today, the MLBPA (Major League Baseball Players Association) presented a comprehensive set of economic proposals designed to advance the rights and benefits of players at all levels,” Meyer says in a statement released by the union. “Our goal is to preserve and improve baseball’s market system, rewarding competition on and off the field. Additionally, the players’ proposals provide increased revenue sharing initially guaranteeing every small market club a minimum of $240m in revenue every season. This enhanced revenue sharing includes added protections to ensure clubs prioritize winning over profiteering. Ultimately, our proposals are designed to build upon the incredible momentum and popularity of our sport world-wide.”

“We appreciate the union making a set of proposals and we look forward to continuing the bargaining process and working towards solving the competitive balance problem our fans are telling us needs to be addressed,” Caplin says in a statement. “We understand their proposals are designed to benefit players. Unfortunately, they do not address and in fact exacerbate the competitive balance problem our fans are telling us we must address. The MLBPA’s proposal would reduce the amount transferred to lower-revenue Clubs, weaken the Competitive Balance Tax, and lead to even more payroll disparity than exists today. For example, under the Union’s proposal, the Dodgers would pay less in luxury tax payments, giving them an additional $70 million to spend on payroll.”

May 12, 2026: Negotiations begin

Negotiations on a new CBA formally begin between teams and players. Among the key issues to be discussed will be the league’s desire for a salary cap, drastic changes to the revenue sharing system, league expansion, possible further playoff expansion, and an international draft.

Dec. 1, 2026

The 2022-26 Basic Agreement is set to expire at 11:59 p.m. ET, at which point owners are expected to lock out the players in the absence of a new agreement.