As the Los Angeles Dodgers’ World Series celebration winds to a close, debates have resurfaced over whether the baseball juggernaut’s ability to spend is fair to other teams. With 2026 Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) negotiations looming in the distance, talks of implementing a salary cap have become a point of contention among fans, having only been stoked as Major League Baseball’s (MLB) biggest spender wins its second championship in a row.

The truth is that baseball should not have a salary cap, and its implementation wouldn’t address the league’s issues.

It’s no secret that there’s a huge spending discrepancy in the MLB. Teams like the Dodgers, Phillies, Mets and Yankees have historically spared no expense in building star-studded lineups, while other teams have lagged behind. When comparing the league’s top spending Dodgers, who are going into the offseason with a $332,000 total payroll, to the bottom spending Marlins’ $59,000 payroll, it’s clear something is wrong here.

So why not implement a salary cap if there is such a large discrepancy? I believe it fails to address the true issue represented by these numbers; it’s not too much spending that’s the issue, but a lack of spending.

If there’s one thing we do know, it’s that players want to win. It’s been shown time and time again that players are more likely to sign with organizations that are willing to invest in their team’s current and future success. One major example is Ben Zobrist taking a less lucrative deal with the Chicago Cubs in 2015. Another is Yoshinobu Yamamoto signing with the Dodgers saying, “It was very important to me to join a team that wants to win — and not only now, but in the future as well.”

What this means is that if there is a salary cap that’s implemented in the coming seasons, high-value players would continue to sign with teams that spend regardless of limitations and teams that don’t invest will be in the same place they are now. The only difference I can see this hypothetical cap making is that these players might even sign with the same competitive teams for less money.

Proponents of a salary cap also argue that high spending teams make the MLB uncompetitive, but in a game as unpredictable as baseball, that has never been the case. In fact, the MLB has had the most parity among championship winners over the last 25 years, with 16 different winning teams, more than the National Hockey League, the National Football League and the National Basketball Association.

Ironically, all the sports leagues mentioned have implemented salary caps, but they have less parity than the MLB. In addition, the Mets, who had the second-highest payroll in the MLB, failed to even make the playoffs after signing Juan Soto to the most lucrative deal in sports history.

In reality, a salary cap being negotiated in the CBA next year is very unlikely. The union representing players (MLBPA) has been firmly against all forms of a salary cap since the 1994 players’ strike, believing it would diminish a player’s career earnings and allow them to be paid below their value. Without union support, the league will likely continue with its current system.

The question still remains: what can be done to fix the discrepancies in spending and competitiveness? Perhaps it’s time to look for alternative solutions. One proposal is a salary floor, which requires organizations to invest a minimum percentage of revenue in the team’s salary.

Whatever the solution may be, it’s abundantly clear for many reasons that it is not a salary cap. Baseball is a unique sport, and its issues may require more unique and creative solutions.