What's the cap in football? $124mil in 2009?
Even if the MLB capped spending at $100mil the smallest of markets still wouldn't be affected by the switch to a cap since they're only spending on avg $43mil/yr (avg of the bottom5).
Capping at $100 mil would be the most fair option since you have 10 teams willing to spend $100mil or more/yr compared to: 1 @ $90m, 4 @ $80m, 5 @ $70m, 5 @ $60m, and 4 @ $50m and below.
Going lower than $100mil is unfair to the top teams who generate most of the leagues revenue and is borderline socialism; spreading the wealth to the less fortunate for what?...the sake of mediocrity and parity?
So you cap MLB and you've still got over half the teams (18) unwilling to commit $100 mil to winning, and capped you're still going to hate the Yankees, albeit MISGUIDEDLY!
...and what stake do I have in this need to back the Yankees?
I'm not a Yankee fan, I'm a Phillies fan, but I can't stand this notion that they hold an unfair advantage as if capping the league would all of sudden make Florida spend even $60mil on player salaries. And in return capping the league would serve unjustly unfair to the top10 revenue generating teams.
2009 Payroll MLB Teams 11-30:
Comment