Commentary: MLB owners say lopsided spending is a serious problem. What does the union say?

"The Dodgers had just been presented with the National League Championship trophy. Roberts, the Dodgers' manager, had something to say to a sellout crowd at Dodger Stadium, and to an audience watching on national television. "They said the Dodgers are ruining baseball," Roberts hollered. "Let's get four more wins and really ruin baseball." The Dodgers had just vanquished the Milwaukee Brewers, a team that did everything right, with four starting pitchers whose contracts total $1.35 billion."

"The Brewers led the major leagues in victories this year. They have made the playoffs seven times in the past eight years, and yet their previous manager and general manager fled for big cities, in the hope of applying small-market smarts to teams with large-market resources. The Dodgers will spend half a billion dollars on player payroll and luxury tax payments this year, a figure that the Brewers and other small-market teams might never spend in this lifetime, or the next one."

"Is revenue disparity a problem for the sport? The owners say yes. They are expected to push for a salary cap in next year's collective bargaining negotiations. A cap is anathema to the players' union. At the All-Star Game, union executive director Tony Clark called a cap "institutionalized collusion." The union could say, yes, revenue disparity is the big issue and propose something besides a cap."

Dave Roberts provoked attention with a celebratory taunt about "ruining baseball" after the Dodgers won the National League Championship. The Dodgers spend vastly more than small-market clubs: half a billion on payroll and luxury tax and massive local-TV revenue that will reach over $500 million annually under SportsNet LA. The Milwaukee Brewers succeeded on-field with modest TV income and lower payroll, yet lost executives to larger markets. Owners argue that revenue disparity threatens competitive balance and plan to push for a salary cap. The players' union rejects a cap as "institutionalized collusion" and resists measures that would reduce players' market-valued salaries.

Read at Los Angeles Times