Soon after the 2026 MLB playoffs end with the crowning of a World Series champion, much of the focus of the baseball world will turn to the tense negotiations over a new collective bargaining agreement.
A potential salary cap is expected to dominate the conversation headed into the sport’s expected Dec. 1 lockout, with payroll disparity and its effect on competitive parity at the heart of the debate. With that in mind, we asked players and team officials how they think the results of this postseason might shape the narrative.
If the big-money Los Angeles Dodgers complete just the fifth three-peat in Major League Baseball history, how much fuel will it add to the fire of the league’s salary-cap push? On the other hand, if either the Milwaukee Brewers or Tampa Bay Rays are holding their first World Series parade, how much would it strengthen the case against baseball’s small-market teams being at a competitive disadvantage? Let’s dig in.
How much impact will the results of this MLB postseason have on the upcoming CBA negotiations?
National League executive: I think they’ll play some role, but they won’t be the end all, be all. I’d think of it more as another data point that either owners or players will use to argue that the game is or isn’t in a healthy place. I think both sides appear fairly dug in at this point and don’t think one year’s results will necessarily change that.
NL player: It’s a good question. I think it might affect what fans think, but I’m not sure it’s going to change anyone else’s opinion. I don’t see players all of a sudden wanting a cap if the Dodgers win. And I don’t see it changing if the Brewers win either. So probably little impact, but I don’t know right now. Maybe that changes later.
American League executive: Zero. I don’t think anyone is paying attention to that. They want this lockout no matter what. The game is in a great spot. We should be building trust with the players and confidence with the fans. Build for the future. I worry about the goals of all the leaders involved.
NL player: I think it could have an impact, but no one knows for sure until we get there. Whichever side the results benefit, they’ll be making the case to use it in negotiations. Personally, I don’t think results of one World Series should determine the future of the sport.
AL player: You’d hope that if things go really well and there’s a lot of excitement as far as just the buzz and the continuing wave of excitement around baseball … that that would help play a role into hopefully not dragging things out and having both sides be more motivated to come to a deal. Because at the end of the day, I think all sides — players, MLB owners and fans — they just want one thing and that’s for us to keep this going and to be playing baseball and to be able to be entertaining and competing and all of those things. So, you would hope that the excitement of that — whatever the outcome is with what teams are in it — would allow for that.
NL executive: I do think it will impact the conversation in the room. I just doubt one side or the other will cave because of the outcome of the playoffs. I’d like to see what fans think after the postseason. I know they are on the side of a salary cap. Will they be if a small-market team wins? Not that I think what fans think will really matter, but it’ll come up.
What would it mean for the negotiations if the Dodgers pull off a three-peat this postseason?
NL player: If [the Dodgers] win, it’ll be bad. The league is going to dig in a lot more. And we know the union isn’t going to go for a cap, so it’s going to get really bad. Nobody wants to see the Dodgers win. No owner does. None of the fans do. But I think it’s going to make this all worse.
NL executive: I think it’ll only embolden owners and the league to argue that additional parity is needed in the sport. I also think the additional volume surrounding Mark Walter will only add fuel to the fire if the Dodgers three-peat. There are countless things that make the Dodgers elite, and many of them don’t relate to payroll, but I think a three-peat would further tilt the public to support a cap. Not sure if that will soften the players’ stance, but I’d expect it to harden that of the owners.
NL player: The league will definitely be screaming that from the rooftops, saying fans are upset by it. And they’ll take that into negotiations, but I don’t see it changing anything. So what if they three-peat? The Mets didn’t win. What’s the difference?
NL player: The league will use it. We know that. They already are. I think players will say what we’ve always said. Every team can spend money, and it actually might help us because it shows that spending means winning. I know that’s not how everyone will see it. But if the Dodgers do win again, it’s not just because they spent a lot of money. I think everyone in the game knows they do other things well.
AL player: It’s so hard to put myself in that future scenario of saying that it’s for sure going to be one thing or it’s for sure going to be the other. As far as the hypothetical putting it out there, like what if this happens, what if that happens, I can’t really tell you that. But I do hope that at the end of the playoffs, hopefully it’s [my team] winning the World Series, but at the end of the playoffs everyone walks away being, like, “Wow that was a really great playoffs. We really loved watching baseball.
AL player: C’mon, it’ll mean teams should spend like the Dodgers. That’s it. We say sports are copycat leagues, but in this case we’re not going to copy? We’re going to curb spending? No way.
What would it mean for the negotiations if a small-market team such as the Brewers or Rays wins the World Series?
NL executive: I don’t think people want Rays-Brewers for reasons beyond the lockout; they are just bad markets and not especially appealing to casual baseball fans. I think you can contort any matchup to help sell an argument. I don’t think it really matters unless the Dodgers win again and everybody can pile on.
NL executive: A small-market club [with a strong front office] winning the World Series going into an adversarial offseason would likely allow players to make the argument that the game is in a healthy place from a parity standpoint.
NL player: I think it will definitely prove that money doesn’t always make the difference, and different spenders can win. I think fans will say leave the system alone. I’ve already heard what the league will argue, that small markets only win once in a while. But the good ones are always competing. Does it help us? I don’t know.
NL player: I’m sure it will only strengthen the resolve of players. Not that we need it, but it’ll prove money doesn’t mean winning all the time. Anyone can win. I think everyone already knows that in baseball. The playoffs are kind of random.
