On Oct. 15, the Milwaukee Brewers defeated the Los Angeles Dodgers 6-4 to complete their 4-0 “sweep” in the National League Championship Series. On the surface, the entire series would seem like a shock to the baseball world. The Dodgers have won four of the six World Series titles this decade and were looking to complete a “three-peat” this year with a fourth. Strangely enough, it was partially expected.

It’s no secret that the Dodgers have turned into one of MLB’s superpowers in the 20th century. The acquisitions of superstars Shohei Ohtani, Yoshinobu Yamamoto and most recently, Tarik Skubal have made them one of the most feared and hated teams in baseball. However, one aspect of the team’s management also stands out — their 2026 season payroll. Their adjusted total player payroll of roughly $339 million, the second largest in the MLB and one that is more than twice as large as each of the three other league championship teams, has sparked controversy. This has led to the recurring proposal that the MLB should introduce a salary cap and floor. Because of this, it has been speculated that Los Angeles intentionally lost the playoff series to destroy the argument for a salary cap.

Regardless of whether this is the reason for the Dodgers’ loss, a salary floor is more necessary for the competitiveness of the MLB than a cap. The MLB has an extremely high range in team payroll, with the gap between the highest and lowest-spending teams reaching over $270 million in 2026, which is concerning for a sports league that wants to maximize competition. Conversely, the range in total team spending in the NFL and NBA did not even hit $100 million for their most recent seasons. As a result, large-market teams that benefit from large cities and fan bases have consistently made the playoffs by acquiring superstars with large payrolls.

On the flip side, teams with low payrolls constantly have losing seasons and don’t make the playoffs. In the 2020s, four MLB teams have missed the playoffs every season, and each was ranked in the bottom 10 in team payroll among all MLB teams for the 2026 season. The NFL has had two teams that have never made the playoffs in the 2020s, and the NBA has had one. This is a showcase of how MLB features multiple consistently bad organizations and displays low fluctuations among playoff teams. Although a salary floor wouldn’t change the fact that large-market teams would still have a higher advantage due to a higher ability to acquire great players, it would force MLB owners of low-spending organizations to invest in their teams and give them a better chance at competing with large-market teams. This would reduce the uniformity of which teams make the playoffs.

The CBA’s proposed salary cap and floor are set at $245.3 million and $171.2 million, respectively, which, if implemented for the 2027 season, would force 22 of 30 teams to modify their spending. The proposed spending gap of $74.1 million is immensely lower than the current one and would likely increase competitiveness. However, while the combined policies may definitely be beneficial, a salary floor offers more advantages. A salary cap would suppress high-end player value and set artificial earning limits.

A salary floor wouldn’t have that effect; instead, it would force bad teams to build their rosters and reduce tanking. A $171.2 million payroll is easily attainable for all MLB teams and would force owners to care more about winning. Although a cap would also narrow the range of team payrolls, rather than just setting a floor, it wouldn’t force lower-spending owners to invest more in their teams. In fact, a salary cap would mainly benefit owners by limiting spending, while a floor would benefit players and teams without disincentivizing high spending and good team management.

Additionally, this proposal would give good players on consistently bad teams a better chance to shine. Each MLB team that has not made the playoffs this decade hasn’t had a payroll higher than the proposed floor in the past three seasons. As a result, poor management and a low willingness to win have held back star players on those teams.

Although some low-spending teams have been successful in the playoffs, more often than not, low-spending teams have consistently performed poorly. In 2025, none of the bottom-five spending teams made the playoffs, with only three in the bottom half of payroll spending making it. From 2018 to 2025, the MLB World Series winner has always been a top-10 payroll team, and team spending is how the Dodgers acquired their superstars to maintain one of the best rosters in the league. Simply put, high player payrolls generally lead to more team success, and a salary floor would be a useful tool to increase competitiveness in the MLB.

Salary cap proposals have been introduced alongside a floor, and despite the possible benefits from a cap, a salary floor is far more necessary to force owners to care more about winning. Tanking has worsened in professional sports over the past few years, and MLB is no exception. A salary floor might alleviate MLB’s current problems. Owners have a responsibility to invest in teams and communities that support them, and a floor would definitely necessitate that.

Henry Brandler is a sophomore double-majoring in cinema and economics.

Views expressed in the opinions pages represent the opinions of the columnists. The only piece that represents the view of the Pipe Dream Editorial Board is the Staff Editorial.