The 2026 World Series and the Looming Lockout
The 2026 World Series kicks off later this week, and it might also mark the last Major League Baseball games we see for quite a while. On December 1, the current Collective Bargaining Agreement between team owners and the MLB Players Association will expire. Unless something totally unexpected occurs, we can expect the owners to initiate a lockout immediately. What that means is players will be cut off from team personnel and facilities, among other significant changes intended to give the impression that the players—the real stars of the game—are somehow nonexistent.
It’s tough to gauge how long negotiations for the next Collective Bargaining Agreement will drag on. We don’t really know how long the lockout might last, or if spring training and the 2027 regular season will kick off as planned. There’s even a chance that the league could miss games, potentially threatening the growth that baseball has built up recently. Take, for example, the 2026 NLCS, which featured the Dodgers and the Brewers; that matchup recorded the highest ratings for any League Championship Series since 2015, despite being a brief four-game series.
Impact of Possible Lockout on Future Games
There’s concern among some that the impending lockout could, without a doubt, result in canceled games for the next season.
Attendance figures have increased, and TV ratings have followed suit. Yet, the owners are reportedly eager to shake things up, fighting over the idea of introducing a salary cap. Ironically, one of their most recent members seems to have unintentionally undermined their case for it.
The salary cap debate is largely born from dissatisfaction with the spending habits of the Los Angeles Dodgers, who, after clinching the World Series in 2024 and 2025, added Kyle Tucker with a hefty $240 million, four-year contact and also signed closer Edwin Diaz for three years at $69 million. This led to an uproar among opposing fans, with some even suggesting that the season should be canceled since a third consecutive title for the Dodgers felt like a foregone conclusion, with influential writers fanning the flames with misleading commentary.
Now, looking at late October, those doomsday predictions seem off-base. Kyle Tucker turned out to be a below-average hitter in L.A., and Edwin Diaz faced serious struggles, ending up with an ERA nearing nine during the regular season after dealing with multiple injuries. As a result, the Dodgers made it through the division series but then faced a sweep against the Milwaukee Brewers, a small-market team. Meanwhile, the American League is sending either the Cleveland Guardians—who have the lowest payroll in the league—or the notoriously frugal Tampa Bay Rays to the World Series.
For the league office, things are even more complicated. Fans can dismiss these outcomes as mere ‘outliers,’ but they can’t ignore the facts—one small market owner proudly boasted about how profitable his team has been.
This is exactly what David Rubenstein, owner of the Baltimore Orioles, did recently. Speaking at the Economic Club of Washington, D.C., he mentioned that he bought the Orioles partly due to the significant profits they were generating. He recalled that many of his friends were acquiring teams and making money, more than he was in private equity. However, he emphasized that his primary reason for owning the Orioles was philanthropic, motivated by his desire to help revitalize Baltimore.
He noted, “I thought I should look at it as a financial thing, but ultimately I bought the Orioles for a philanthropic purpose.” His assertion that “owners care more about winning than making money” but are “not against making money” is quite amusing.
While Rubenstein’s intentions might seem noble, the confession that baseball franchises are pulling in more cash than a well-known lucrative sector certainly undermines the owners’ arguments for a salary cap. It highlights the fact that the business of baseball is thriving, with small-market teams reaping substantial profits while some owners prefer to keep that money rather than reinvest in their teams.
One user pointed out how skilled small-market owners are at pocketing earnings. Even though the highest payrolls have ballooned over the last decade, the lowest have remained almost stable, and yet, MLB is generating significantly more revenue than during the 2010s. Not to forget, revenue sharing allows successful teams like the Dodgers to financially support teams like the Pirates and the Marlins, to the tune of millions each year—just for being in the league, before even considering ticket sales, TV deals, and other revenue streams.
It’s ironic that in a season when management complained about fans’ lack of hope for World Series success, the facts actually contradict that narrative. The outcomes are proving that hope can exist if front offices are competent. One of the small-market teams—Brewers, Rays, or Guardians—will likely win the World Series, while the league’s big names combined only managed five postseason wins this year.
Rubenstein, like any owner, has every right to maximize his earnings with the Orioles. He has shown to be a responsible small-market owner by investing in players like Pete Alonso and Kyle Bradish. However, pretending that MLB isn’t a moneymaking industry with lots of cash flowing into so-called “poorer” teams seems ludicrous.
Will this reality change the narrative among those who want players to take pay cuts so owners like Rubenstein can profit even more? Likely not. There seems to be a strong push to continue pushing for a salary cap, modeling MLB after the NFL—often criticized for its poor competitive balance and predictable outcomes. Why let reality mess with their agenda?
