REPORT: MLB Projecting Massive Losses Without Fans, Including More Than $150 Million for the Cubs

As part of the effort to resolve the economic questions of playing a baseball season in 2020, if possible, MLB owners are set to propose a 50/50 revenue share with the players, rather than simply paying them a prorated share of their salaries, as the previous interim agreement contemplated. 

And as part of the effort to respond to such a proposal, the players have reportedly sought financial information from the league. We’ll see what they’re able to get, but the league cannot simply expect the players to take their word for any of this – independent review is going to be necessary.

Meanwhile, the Associated Press has obtained a 12-page presentation from the league, dated May 12, and titled “Economics of Playing Without Fans in Attendance.” It is apparently the initial financial presentation to the players, and likely what spurred them to seek additional financial documentation. Read the AP report here.

(Four weeks ago (feels like a lifetime), I wrote about “The Ugly Economics of Playing Baseball in Empty Stadiums,” and it’s remarkable how much of it remains on point, even as we’ve received more information and the world has continued to change rapidly. I mention it here at the outset, as well as my piece on how much the players could lose under various financial plans, because the economic conversation kind of builds on itself. There’s a lot in those two posts that I won’t be rehashing here, but are all to be taken together as one growing and evolving discussion.)

Per the report, which again is coming from MLB’s economic presentation to the players, teams stand to lose a tremendous amount of revenue this year, from a previously-projected $10 billion for the 2020 season to under $3 billion with the modified 82-game season if there are no fans, and thus no gate-related revenues. 

Moreover, if expenses do not change, the projected losses for individual teams are admittedly staggering on paper: the Cubs, for example, are projected to lose $155 million. The Tigers would project to lose the least (about $40 million), and the Yankees would project to lose the most ($267 million). The median loss is just under $100 million.

(Note: this is before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization, but including national distributions from MLB; note that the AP report keeps excluding national distributions from its team-specific calculations, but I don’t see any reason to do that – the teams will receive their national share from MLB, and the players will count that as revenue).

To be sure, there remain valid questions about what gets included and excluded from the definition of “revenue” for the purposes of calculating the “local revenue” referenced in the presentation. If it is the same as “local revenue” for league revenue-sharing purposes, then we know quite a bit that you would consider revenue affiliated with the team is indeed excluded (surrounding business operations, equity stakes in RSNs, ancillary stadium activities like concerts, etc.). Players are going to want to understand these things completely before they could agree to sharing revenue. (Though, it’s fair to point out: most of that extra non-revenue revenue is going to be crushed this year if there aren’t stadium events.)

All told, the numbers in MLB’s presentation do appear to square with what we could calculate externally, and I’ll add that the Cubs numbers do track with my understanding of the team’s financial picture. They also track with Tom Ricketts’ recent comments that upwards of 70% of the Cubs’ local revenues are game-day-related. The players, of course, are right to seek more documentation, however.

So, then, what do we do with these numbers? 

Well, for the most part, I think we simply add them to our ongoing conversation, and use them as a rough framework to do some player-related calculations, as well as ask some of the questions about how to make the season work financially.

For example, using the projections from MLB, we can calculate that, if the players agreed to a 50/50 revenue share, they would ultimately receive only about 1/3 of the salary they were expecting to receive before the pandemic struck, less than the roughly 1/2 they were expecting to receive as a prorated salary. Note that this calculation does not include any incremental revenue the league/teams are able to add from here (unique sponsorships, extra rounds of the postseason, limited number of fans later in the year, extra national games picked up, etc.), which could plausibly bring the players closer to their prorated salary. But, as we’ve discussed, the biggest risk on the revenue-share front is a second wave of the virus which shuts down the season before the postseason can complete. The postseason, alone, might account for upwards of 1/4 of ALL revenues this year. So if that gets wiped away, everyone takes even more of a bath.

(Photo by Jonathan Daniel/Getty Images)

To illustrate something, using the numbers we have (subject to all the caveats and questions about “revenue):

If players receive full pro-rated salaries for an 82-game season, that would be about $2.36 billion total, and the median MLB team projects to lose about $100 million this year. 

If players receive a 50/50 revenue share instead, that would be about $1.44 billion total, and the median MLB team projects to lose about $70 million this year.

So is the question, then, who should bear that $30ish million difference per team? If that were your question, you could pretty easily make any kind of argument you want (“owners take on the risk in the good times and the bad times,” or “players are at least making some money,” or whatever you want to say). 

No. I think the big question is still mostly about the risk associated with revenues in an uncertain time. I understand that owners are trying to shave off expenses however they can do so in a year when they are projecting these massive losses. I think eating big losses this year is still very much worth the long-term value to the franchise and the sport as a whole, but I’ll set that aside for the moment. Shaving off expenses while simultaneously shifting even more of the risk (i.e., future playoff cancellations) to the players is where it feels like this becomes an unfair proposal. The players are already the ones taking the physical health risks of playing. They should not also be asked to take on an extra portion of the financial risk. 

That is all to say, based on the numbers the AP reports from MLB’s presentation, and subject to much more financial information becoming available, it feels to me like: 

•   Yes, the owners are going to take massive losses this year if they play a season without fans (but they’re going to take massive losses either way, and eating it is still the wise business move in the long-term).

•   Yes, it’s reasonable for the owners to try to limit those losses where they can do so in a fair, agreed-upon way. 

•   No, I don’t think it’s reasonable for the players to assume part of the risk for a cancelled postseason.

So, if the owners hope to get a revenue-share proposal pushed through, I suspect – after the financial investigation is complete – they’re going to have to figure out a way to not make this proposal more risky for the players. Whether that’s a minimum guarantee, some new offer on service time/free agency/arbitration, or whatever. 

(I wasn’t sure where else to make this point, so I’ll just throw it in here at the end: none of this contemplates the governmental and tax aspects of owner financial calculations. That is to say, we don’t know where there might be governmental assistance to get games going or tax incentives for the same. We also don’t know how current losses (and loans) could be used to reduce past or future tax obligations, thus in turn reducing the actual losses felt by owners. I won’t comment on the local, state, and/or national wisdom of effectively subsidizing sports operations, but the point does need to be made: the “losses” felt by owners might play out very differently over time than the “loss in salary” felt by players. It’s really not a one to one thing, and that’s JUST on the tax/government side of things. I’m not even talking about franchise equity and appreciation over time.)

written by

Brett Taylor is the Lead Cubs Writer at Bleacher Nation, and you can find him on Twitter at @BleacherNation and @Brett_A_Taylor.

more cubs news

Internal and External Improvements, Morel, Hendricks, Taillon, Soto, Molina, Leeper, and Other Cubs Bullets

The Winter Meetings are over, and although that always means something of an exhale for me after four days of very late nights and trying to grind through the day, this year's installment doesn't have the benefit of ... anything...

Stray Morning After Winter Meetings Thoughts: Cubs, Candelario, Reds, Soto, Padres, Rodriguez, More

When I sat down this morning to start writing, I realized I was just kind of piling up some stray after-the-meetings thoughts ... Transactionally, the Chicago Cubs did nothing this week at the Winter Meetings, other than picking up a...

REPORT: Jeimer Candelario Signing with the Reds (UPDATES)

Well, for the second time in his career, Jeimer Candelario is leaving the Chicago Cubs for another team. Only this time, he's headed to one of their division rivals: The Cincinnati Reds. Mark Feinsand has the scoop: The Cubs,...

On the Anniversary of the “Arson Judge” Tweet, the Yankees ROAST Jon Heyman

Oh, this is so good. This isn't just "good for the social media manager of a baseball team" good. This is full on excellent comedy execution. The official Yankees' Twitter/X account just landed an all-time burn — one that's both...

Diamondbacks Reportedly a Finalist for Eduardo Rodriguez, Conflicting – Wrong? – Reports About Reds Involvement (UPDATE: DBacks Get Him)

Although he's not necessarily in that top tier of available starting pitchers this offseason, lefty Eduardo Rodriguez could be a very good number three in many rotations. He would, for example, be a noticeable upgrade for the Cincinnati Reds' rotation....

Kinda Sounds Like Yankees Might Get Juan Soto Today (UPDATES: Finally Happening)

It was picking back up last night, but the steam behind a Juan Soto trade to the Yankees seems to be quite robust right now. To such an extent that it sounds like it's going to happen today:

Winter Meetings Wednesday Night: Cubs Have to Head Down Various Paths, Available Trades, Glasnow, Stephenson, More

There will be more to say about the Winter Meetings, and the Juan Soto deal is still likely to be completed eventually ... but man alive, that was absolutely the worst and most boring and awful Winter Meetings ever. Just...

Craig Kimbrel “Close to a Deal” with the Orioles (UPDATE: It’s Done)

Late last night, Joel Sherman reported that the Orioles were "seriously engaged" with free agent reliever (and former Cubs closer) Craig Kimbrel. And this morning, it seems those talks have progressed to "close to a deal" status, which, from Ken...

The 2023 MLB Rule 5 Draft is Underway (UPDATES)

The 2023 MLB Rule 5 Draft has arrived, and I'll be tracking any Cubs-impact-related picks down below. For the uninitiated, the Rule 5 Draft is an opportunity for teams to poach players from other organizations that meet certain criteria. The Draft comes...

Is Cody Bellinger Seeking Upwards of $300 Million in Free Agency?!

Sorry to make today pearl clutching about exorbitant prices day, but I have one to add to the ever-exploding Yoshinobu Yamamoto expectations and the apparent high price the Yankees are paying to acquire Juan Soto from the Padres. This one...

Latest News

Robbie Gould Announces His Retirement

Robbie Gould, long held as the gold-standard of Chicago Bears kickers, announced his retirement from the NFL in social media posts via Instagram and The Players' Tribune. Gould dives deep in his retirement post at The Players' Tribune. And,...

NFL Notes: Former Jaguars Employee Accused of Stealing More than $22 Million, Robbie Gould Retires, More

According to a report by The Athletic's Katie Strang and Kalyn Kahler, a former Jacksonville Jaguars employee is accused of stealing more than $22 million from the franchise from 2019 to 2023 by exploiting the team's virtual credit card program....

Panthers’ Hayden Hurst Dealing With Post Traumatic Amnesia

It was almost a month ago that Carolina Panthers' tight end Hayden Hurts entered the league's concussion protocol. Hurst took a big hit against the Chicago Bears on Thursday Night Football in Week 10, and he has been sidelined since....

DeVante Parker Player Props Week 14: Anytime TD Props and Odds vs. the Steelers

[lasso ref="draftkings-promo-1" id="299003" link_id="896437"]Will DeVante Parker get into the end zone when the New England Patriots and the Pittsburgh Steelers come together in Week 14 on Thursday at 8:15 PM ET? In the piece below, we dive into his anytime...

Brook Lopez Player Props: Three-Pointer Props and Odds vs. the Pacers – Thursday, December 7, 2023

To beat his 3-point prop, Brook Lopez must make two from downtown on Thursday, when his Milwaukee Bucks play the Indiana Pacers on Thursday at 5:00 PM ET.Brook Lopez's Three-Pointer Prop Odds vs. the PacersBrook Lopez's over/under for three-pointers in...

Myles Turner Player Props: Three-Pointer Props and Odds vs. the Bucks – Thursday, December 7, 2023

The Indiana Pacers face the Milwaukee Bucks at 5:00 PM ET on Thursday, and one of the 3-pointer props available for this clash requires two triples from Myles Turner.Myles Turner's Three-Pointer Prop Odds vs. the BucksMyles Turner's over/under for three-pointers...

Tyrese Haliburton Player Props: Three-Pointer Props and Odds vs. the Bucks – Thursday, December 7, 2023

Will Tyrese Haliburton drain five 3-pointers when the Indiana Pacers play the Milwaukee Bucks on Thursday at 5:00 PM ET? If so, he'll beat his over/under for the game.Tyrese Haliburton's Three-Pointer Prop Odds vs. the BucksTyrese Haliburton's over/under for three-pointers...

Giannis Antetokounmpo Player Props: Three-Pointer Props and Odds vs. the Pacers – Thursday, December 7, 2023

The Milwaukee Bucks face the Indiana Pacers at 5:00 PM ET on Thursday, and one of the 3-pointer props available for this matchup requires just one trifecta from Giannis Antetokounmpo.Giannis Antetokounmpo's Three-Pointer Prop Odds vs. the PacersGiannis Antetokounmpo's over/under for...

Damian Lillard Player Props: Three-Pointer Props and Odds vs. the Pacers – Thursday, December 7, 2023

Will Damian Lillard drain four 3-pointers when the Milwaukee Bucks meet the Indiana Pacers on Thursday at 5:00 PM ET? If so, he'll beat his prop for the game.Damian Lillard's Three-Pointer Prop Odds vs. the PacersDamian Lillard's over/under for three-pointers...

Bruce Brown Player Props: Three-Pointer Props and Odds vs. the Bucks – Thursday, December 7, 2023

Bruce Brown's Indiana Pacers face the Milwaukee Bucks on Thursday at 5:00 PM ET, and to beat his 3-point over/under, he needs to make two from beyond the arc.Bruce Brown's Three-Pointer Prop Odds vs. the BucksBruce Brown's over/under for three-pointers...

more cubs news