

Last week's episode of the "Pablo Torre Finds Out" podcast didn’t just expose turmoil inside the MLBPA. It revealed something far more consequential for clubs like the Miami Marlins: instability within the union leadership can tilt leverage toward ownership, and toward profit protection.
With MLBPA executive director Tony Clark stepping down amid controversy involving his relationship with his sister-in-law and federal scrutiny surrounding union business dealings, leadership uncertainty arrives just as the current Collective Bargaining Agreement between players and the league inches toward expiration in December. And in the world of labor negotiations, timing is everything.
Torre's pod, with guests David Samson, former Marlins president, and former ESPN executive John Skipper, made one thing clear: owners prefer negotiating against union leadership that prioritizes player comfort over confrontation.
Clark, a former player, was described as focused on travel schedules, amenities, and day-to-day quality-of-life improvements for players. His successor in negotiations, interim executive director Bruce Meyer, was portrayed as something very different -- a litigator, a fighter, someone less interested in keeping the peace and more interested in gaining and using leverage.
For owners, that shift matters.
Owners, as Samson bluntly framed it on the podcast, play a long game. Players age -- but owners don’t. Players miss paychecks during labor stoppages, while owners accumulate long-term asset appreciation. The economic pressure during a lockout historically lands hardest on the workforce, not the franchise valuations.
That dynamic directly affects the Marlins.
Owner Bruce Sherman operates a franchise that already ranks in the bottom of MLB payrolls. In a labor environment where cost controls, free-agency timing, and revenue allocation become key bargaining chips, smaller-market owners often align with policies that slow salary growth and limit risk exposure.
Torre's pod discussion underscored a crucial truth: the headline issue isn’t necessarily whether there will be a salary cap. It’s more about distribution. Owners care about total payroll outlay, not whether that money flows to one superstar or spreads across the roster. And the easiest way to suppress total payroll is by limiting early-career leverage and delaying free agency. Precisely the issues younger players are pushing to change.
For a club like the Marlins, which builds primarily through pre-arbitration and arbitration-eligible players, any structural shift that increases early-career compensation could materially impact payroll strategy. Conversely, if ownership leverage strengthens due to union instability, policies that preserve cost certainty would benefit teams operating at the lower end of spending.
There’s also the larger financial landscape. Regional sports network instability has reduced projected revenue growth for several clubs. While league-wide revenue remains strong, individual team economics vary widely. In negotiations, that disparity often becomes justification for guardrails -- mechanisms that prevent wealthier teams from stretching payrolls beyond comfortable limits.
That’s where Miami’s position becomes clearer. Competitive balance taxes, spending deterrents, and structural controls don’t just restrain the Los Angeles Dodgers. They protect ownership models built around conservative payroll management.
None of this guarantees a lockout or dramatic labor war. But union leadership turmoil introduces unpredictability. And unpredictability can favor the side with deeper reserves and longer horizons.
Sherman has said the goal is winning. The next CBA will help determine what winning costs for Miami -- and who ultimately controls the terms.
For the Marlins, that outcome may matter as much as any free-agent signing.
ㅤ
Join our ROUNDTABLE community! It's completely free to join. Share your thoughts, engage with our Roundtable writers, and chat with fellow members.
Download the free Roundtable APP, and stay even more connected!