Breaking down initial MLB CBA proposals: Salary cap and more - ESPN

Following the opening salvos in collective bargaining between Major League Baseball and the MLB Players Association, one thing is clear: The gap between the sides is not just enormous. It's fundamental.

MLBproposed a salary cap system Thursday, marking the league's first foray into overhauling the sport's economic structure in more than three decades. The long-awaited proposal would set a hard cap of $245.3 million and hard floor of $171.2 million, aiming to shrink the disparity among team payrolls by a significant amount. The league's proposal — which also called for a 50/50 revenue split and the centralization of all television revenue — came one day after the MLBPAmade a wide-ranging opening offer that called for a soft floor, new definitions of revenue sharing and pay increases for younger players.

The differences between the two show why those around the sport expect a protracted fight leading up to the Dec. 1 expiration of the CBA. This is different than the last negotiation, in which the sides were negotiating money within an agreed-upon system. This time, MLB wants to change the system. The MLBPA does not. And until the sides agree on a framework to govern the sport, the 2027 season will be in peril.

Here is what you need to know about the dueling proposals.

There have never been restrictions on what teams can or can't spend. The league's proposal would codify a hard top and bottom, narrowing the maximum chasm between the highest and lowest spenders to less than $75 million. Players would be guaranteed a 50/50 split of baseball-related revenue, which the league proposed it would define similarly to other capped leagues. MLB also proposed fully sharing local television revenue. Currently, teams share 48% of all