There’s a lot to share on the labor front this week, so I thought I’d just go at it bullet style …
With Tony Clark out, the MLB Players Association wanted to act relatively quickly to get an interim boss in place, and they did the most obvious thing:MLBPA Player Board appoints Bruce Meyer as Interim Executive Director, Matt Nussbaum as Interim Deputy Executive Director pic.twitter.com/xsczBmxzfD
— MLBPA (@MLBPA) February 19, 2026 Bruce Meyer was already set to lead the Collective Bargaining Agreement negotiations, so this is just a sensible move by the players. Maybe a new chief is installed over the course of the year, but this way, the actual negotiations can continue in a relatively status quo way while that process plays out in the background. Meanwhile, that process is increasingly being framed in a very specific way. A fight about the salary cap:MLBPA subcommittee member Chris Bassitt on the salary cap debate that may be a central figure in the upcoming CBA discussions: "The salary cap is not the issue. Having suppressed salaries across the league so owners can make more money is not the answer." pic.twitter.com/wDXeFMgmO2
— Andy Kostka (@afkostka) February 18, 2026 I’m not fully prepared to argue for a salary cap/floor system, and I don’t know if that’s because I’m pro-player or because I’m biased against the Cubs losing their one theoretical advantage in the NL Central (whether they use it routinely or not). It’s probably a little of both. But what I am prepared to argue is that, if the owners dig in their heels and if there’s a wave of support out there among fans (TBD), the players could be doing themselves a disservice by not turning their focus to getting the best version of a cap/floor system possible. One that guarantees them a much larger cut of the revenue. One that forces owners to declare more as “league” revenue. One that comes with the highest floor possible. One that comes with earlier free agency. One that comes with much larger bumps for minimum salaried players and arbitration-level players (if that system remains). My one beef with past CBA negotiations from the player side is that it sometimes feels like they are fighting for the tip-top players at the expense of getting larger gains for the average player – some up-down reliever, for example, who’ll never even reach arbitration, much less free agency. That can be an issue when the executive subcommittee is made up exclusively of players who’ve reached free agency, which isn’t to say they are being entirely self-interested; only that their perspective is so much different. I don’t think it’s worth going to the mats over whether a few guys can get $600 million in free agency instead of $500 million, if that precludes you from going to the mats over whether lesser players can get to arbitration a year earlier or whether the minimum gets a 20% bump. Driving off the cliff for the former is not something I can support. But the latter? OK, I might be more willing to join the fight, so to speak. All that said, this is a problem that is being glossed over in most of the salary cap/floor debates:Even if you argue that cap/floor is right approach for MLB, what's a REALISTIC spread that even JUST THE OWNERS would agree to among themselves?Like, what, $250M/$200M? That’s a MASSIVE gap compared to NBA/NFL, yet there’s STILL no chance small market clubs agree to that floor!
— Brett Taylor (@Brett_A_Taylor) February 19, 2026 So, either (1) the smaller market owners have to step up and be willing to spend a TON more on payroll (they won’t), (2) the larger market owners have to be willing to share a TON more revenue to prop up the smaller market owners (they won’t), and/or (3) the spread between the cap and the floor will have to be so massive that it is debatable to what extent it actually even addresses competitive imbalance in the first place. That last one is probably where the fight will ultimately live, by the way, and it’ll come down to whether the players are willing to adopt a cap/floor system (with extreme outer bands) in exchange for a lot of wins in other areas. The lockout is more or less assured, by the way:More from MLBPA’s Bruce Meyer who met with Cubs players this afternoon: “A lockout is all but guaranteed at the end of the agreement. The league has pretty much said that. Their strategy in bargaining has always been to put as much pressure on players as they can to try and…
— Jesse Rogers (@JesseRogersESPN) February 18, 2026MLB is building a $75 million-per team "war chest" of money for organizations as a lockout seems inevitable after 2026 season, writes @MattSpiegs after his discussions with a number of officials across baseball.Read: t.co/aohrvcDWUT pic.twitter.com/d3mmigbCRC
— 104.3 The Score (@thescorechicago) February 12, 2026Fans are angry. At growing payroll disparity. At a Dodgers team that cracked the system. At others unwilling to do the same. And particularly at the threat of no baseball in 2027. Free at ESPN: Where the game stands — and how there's still time to fix it. t.co/uZrXarDx7C
— Jeff Passan (@JeffPassan) February 12, 2026 Meanwhile, this is the backdrop for everything that’s coming:Major League Baseball had an 18% increase in viewsership on National televised games last season. They had a 28% increase in postseason viewership. I sure hope the owners and players realize the momentum they have right now.
— BallPark Buzz (@BallParkBuzz) February 19, 2026Hence then, the article about early cba chatter new mlbpa director the salary cap fight more was published today ( ) and is available on Bleacher Nation ( Middle East ) The editorial team at PressBee has edited and verified it, and it may have been modified, fully republished, or quoted. You can read and follow the updates of this news or article from its original source.
Read More Details
Finally We wish PressBee provided you with enough information of ( Early CBA Chatter, New MLBPA Director, the Salary Cap Fight, More )
Also on site :