In Case You Were Wondering Why Players Oppose a 50/50 Revenue Split

I’ve been off the radar since the World Series started due to a variety of events that have demanded my time, but I wanted to pop back in quickly after seeing something that piqued my interest. The good news for both of us is that I’ve got too little energy to produce one of my patented rambling soliloquies here. The bad news for both of us is that what follows is perhaps the most obvious harbinger to date of a protracted work stoppage in MLB.

One of the tentpole issues at hand in labor negotiations is the owners’ proposal of a 50/50 revenue split with players, which might seem like an olive branch to casuals. But as anyone with even a rudimentary grasp of the economy of professional sports can tell you, owners aren’t including all of their ancillary baseball-related revenue in the pot they’re offering to split.

Most owners are able to obscure those amounts because they’re all operating private businesses, but the Braves are owned by a publicly traded entity and are thus required to reveal more about their finances. And while their particular stadium setup can’t simply be copied and pasted 30 times, they are a shining example of why the players are balking at what they feel — rightly so — is a decidedly bad deal.

Andrew Petcash of Profluence — a private network of 1,300+ founders, operators, executives, and investors building the future of sports — shared that the Braves generated 34% more operating income from their real estate holdings than from baseball itself. They’d only have to share a portion of their $51 million from direct baseball revenue while pocketing all of the $68 million they earned through hotels, bars, restaurants, etc. around the ballpark.

This stat from the Atlanta Braves is wild 👀

In 2025:
⚾ Baseball business → $51M income
🏙️ Mixed-use business → $68M income

The real estate+ businesses surrounding the Braves generated 34% MORE operating income than the baseball team itself. https://t.co/9OmJoG51FR

— Andrew Petcash (@AndrewPetcash) October 26, 2026

It’d be one thing if we were talking about Mets owner Steve Cohen, who is a billionaire hedge fund operator, not including his non-Mets income streams as part of a rev-share with the players. But the mixed-use businesses in Atlanta and other cities exist solely because of the baseball team. The Ricketts family didn’t strong-arm all those rooftop buildings, construct a swanky hotel, and flood Wrigleyville with even more bars in order to create buzz for the Cubs.

No, the Cubs’ appeal is what led them to purchase and then leverage the team for massive financial gains that don’t have to be shared with the league or players. This isn’t about capitalism or whether ownership has gone too far in and around Wrigley, so let’s go ahead and avoid any debates on that front. But when we’re talking about a multifaceted industry that depends solely on baseball players, it’s only fair that the players be included in some of the spoils.

I mean, remember those “biblical losses” the Cubs suffered during COVID? They’re in line for more of the same should a lockout stretch well into the spring, summer, or beyond. Well, unless they can just keep running events at Gallagher Way in the absence of games. As I see it, the issue here is that MLB owners think they’re much smarter than they really are. Or maybe they just think the players and the general public are too dumb to know better. Either way, it’s a mindset that could end up costing them a lot more in the end.