The MLBPA is already coming down on the Marlins for not spending enough money:
The 2013 payroll projects to $32.5 million, but it’s $45 million counting money they owe other teams from salary-dumping trades. An MLB Players Association source said if owner Jeffrey Loria doesn’t increase their payroll in the coming months, they plan to pursue the issue with commissioner Bud Selig.
“We don’t have to wait until next October to pursue it,” the source said. If the Marlins don’t raise payroll in 2013, former commissioner Fay Vincent expects “the commissioner and union will strongly encourage Loria to spend some money. They can make it very uncomfortable if he doesn’t.”
In 2010, the MLBPA forced an agreement with MLB that required the Marlins to boost their payroll for three years. It jumped immediately, from $37 million in 2009 to $46 million in 2010. According to MLB’s Basic Agreement, any club that receives money from revenue sharing must use those funds “to improve its performance on the field.”
Note that last sentence. If the Marlins didn’t get funds from other clubs, the MLBPA would not have a leg to stand on. This is why I think revenue sharing should have a performance dimension. If teams don’t improve, they should lose some money.
Maybe revenue sharing dollars should only be distributed to small market teams based on their payroll. For example, for a given team receiving Y dollars now, those dollars can be used to subsidize X% of a teams payroll up to Y, instead of a lump sum to spend on anything or nothing. The more you spend on payroll, the more you get, up to Y. If you don’t spend enough on payroll, you leave some of Y on the table.
So say the Marlins receive 40 million in revenue sharing dollars today. Revenue sharing will subsidize 50% of their payroll.
If they spend only 40 million on payroll, they get 20 million in revenue sharing dollars. If they spend 80 million in payroll, they collect 40 million.