Welcome to SB Nation Reacts, a survey of fans across the MLB. Throughout the year we ask questions of the most plugged-in Royals fans and fans across the country. Sign up here to participate in the weekly
emailed surveys.
The World Series is set. It will be the Los Angeles Dodgers going for a repeat against the Toronto Blue Jays, who will be battling for the championship for the first time in 32 years.
Much will be made of the fact that the Dodgers carry MLB’s second-highest payroll while playing in one of the largest TV markets. And sure, all that spending does wonders for building the super-rotation that the Dodgers used to demolish the Milwaukee Brewers in the NLCS.
But, well, it’s probably not just that the Dodgers spend so much, it’s also that other teams don’t spend as much as they could.
Sure, the Dodgers edge out the Yankees for the highest revenue in the sport, but they also spend the second-highest percentage of their revenue on players. What makes that seem even more significant is that, throughout the playoffs, the team that spent a higher percentage of their revenue on players has won every series except when the Cubs unceremoniously bounced the Reds and when the Mariners eked past the Tigers. The two teams that will be facing off in the World Series are the teams that spent the highest percentage of their revenue on salaries other than the Mets. Even though one of them spent roughly twice as much raw money as the other. Does that really seem like a coincidence?
It’s become rote for owners and general managers to caution that “sustainability” is necessary, but even the Mets are likely barely spending more than they earn once you factor in non-player costs.* It’s become similarly common for fans to decry the incredible spending of the wealthiest teams, but might the Mariners be the ones advancing to the World Series if they had spent a bit more on their bullpen or lineup? The Jays only outearned the Ms in 2024 by $8 million, but they outspent them in 2025 by nearly $100 million. And they still have a plenty large enough gap between their earning and spending to make a tidy profit.
One thing I’ve always found interesting about the cries for a salary cap in baseball is that it smacks of communism. In a capitalist society, the company that spends the most has the best opportunity to “win”. And that’s what holds true in baseball. If the team owners are unwilling to spend more, they naturally end up with a lesser product.
So I ask you, what’s the real problem with baseball spending? Is it that the Dodgers spend too much (i.e., their ownership is willing to accept less in profits), or is it that teams like the Royals don’t spend as much as they reasonably could? The Royals are fairly high on this list, but they clearly could be higher. If they’d spent another $70 million or so – about the amount it would have taken them to reach the same percentage as the Dodgers – do we really think they wouldn’t have been at least as competitive as the Mariners and Blue Jays this year?
*Also per BrooksGate, Forbes estimates the Mets lost hundreds of millions last year, but they also saw their team value rise by a similar level. Yeah, that’s not profit, but it could be at any time the team owners wanted to sell. It also appears Forbes does not include ancillary profits (profits not derived from the primary business), such as Atlanta’s Battery.
