The 2025 Payrolls… And Beyond!

As FanGraphs’ payroll and baseball economics czar, I expend a frightening amount of my brainpower thinking about team spending. I’m constantly trying to figure out how much money teams have spent and how much they will spend in the future. Since that stuff is always floating around in my head anyway, I thought it’d be a good idea to do something with all that information. Today, we’ll cover the payrolls for all 30 teams in 2025 and over the next three years.

Let’s start with the payrolls for this season, both real-dollar and luxury tax (CBT) amounts. There are a lot of small nuances that determine how the two numbers are calculated and why they are different, so I won’t get into the nitty gritty here. However, I am going to briefly point out some of the key discrepancies that you should know before we get to the data.

The real-dollar payroll uses the actual money paid out for each year of the contract, plus the prorated portion of the contract’s signing bonus, if it has one. On the RosterResource payroll pages, this is the number shown in the player’s column for each year.

Please note that for contracts with significant deferrals, the league’s Labor Relations Department (LRD) will recalculate their value to a significantly lower number than what is displayed on the RosterResource pages to account for the discounted rate. For each year, we show the money that ultimately will be paid out to each player. So, for example, RosterResource lists Shohei Ohtani’s real-dollar payroll value for 2025 as $70 million, even though his 10-year, $700 million contract is heavily deferred.

The CBT payrolls shown on RosterResource, and in the AAV column for each player, do accurately reflect how the league discounts contracts. I wrote more about Ohtani’s deal in particular here. Ken Rosenthal wrote more about the nuances of Ohtani’s contract’s three values ($700 million, about $460 million, and about $280 million) here; RosterResource only accounts for the first two values, while the league’s LRD calculation reflects the third.

CBT payrolls include ancillary expenses that the real-dollar payrolls don’t, including player benefits (estimated at $17.5 million this year), payment into the $50 million pre-arbitration bonus pool ($1,666,667 per team), and minor league salaries for 40-man roster players (estimated at $2.5 million per team).

Ultimately, CBT payrolls will correlate strongly to real-money payrolls, since many contracts are evenly distributed anyway, so they’ll count the same for each season by both calculations.

OK, now that we’ve got that out of the way, here are the top-line payroll numbers for the 2025 season:

The Dodgers may well end up as the first team in major league history to have a $400 million payroll; Clayton Kershaw should earn at least some of the $8.5 million available to him in incentives. On top of that, even though Los Angeles sure looks like a juggernaut right now, we should still expect president of baseball operations Andrew Friedman to make additions at the deadline that could increase payroll even more.

Flipping the chart on its head shows a couple of unsurprising bottom-dwellers in the A’s and Marlins. The A’s are successfully over the $105 million CBT threshold needed to avoid having the burden of proof placed upon them if the Players’ Association were to file a grievance against them related to how they allocate the revenue sharing dollars they receive. (Their real-dollar payroll is significantly lower because the contracts signed to get over that threshold are all backloaded.)

The Marlins, on the other hand, are evidently rolling the dice on being able to weather a potential grievance, with The Miami Herald reporting that the club does “not believe [it is] at serious risk of losing a grievance in part because of the wording of the collective bargaining agreement.” In the event of a grievance, the Marlins would argue that they are using revenue sharing dollars “in an effort to improve performance on the field” (which is all that the CBA stipulates the money must be used for) because they’re spending on non-roster expenses like front office augmentation and player development fortifications. Helping their cause is the fact that grievances against the team from 2017 and 2018 are still pending; in the club’s eyes, this is a can that can be kicked quite far down the road.

And now, let’s take a look at how teams are distributing their budgets:

Each team exists within its own context of what it’s trying to accomplish with its payroll, and having a higher or lower percentage within a given category doesn’t inherently mean anything good or bad. But it’s especially interesting to me to look at the middle column, or the percentage of real-dollar payroll allocated to arbitration-year players.

Since most of those players are between one and three years away from reaching free agency — along with the small group of Super Two players who have four years left — sorting from highest to lowest is a great way to answer the question: “Which teams have their rent coming due the soonest?” In other words, both Beltway teams have over a quarter of their payrolls hitting free agency within the next three years; will either of them make the effort to re-sign or extend key players like Cedric Mullins, Adley Rutschman, Nathaniel Lowe, and MacKenzie Gore? Those aren’t all extremely urgent decisions, but they’re much more at the forefront than, say, what becomes of Gunnar Henderson or Dylan Crews.

Speaking of the future, here’s what teams have allocated in payroll for the next three years:

Just so we’re all clear on what we’re looking at here: Future Commitments includes only guaranteed salaries from free agent contracts and extensions; we’re not including any projected earnings for pre-arbitration or arbitration-year players. Because of how our data is displayed on the payroll pages, single-year player options (highlighted in green on the payroll pages) are not included (like Pete Alonso), but opt outs for longer deals are (like Alex Bregman) factored into these figures. Essentially, we’re summing the white text on the payroll pages and ignoring any of the color-coded cells.

Even though the mechanism is the same in that the player still controls the cards, we create this line of demarcation (one year left on the deal is a player option, anything longer is an opt out) for a couple reasons. One is that the CBA itself makes that distinction, and the other is because it more closely matches how club, mutual, and vesting options work: They’re a single year 99% of the time. Opting out is a longer-term decision that’s also generally easier to make; if you’ve got multiple years left on your deal, you’d better be darn sure you can do better in free agency if you leave.

As I said before, each team is going to operate within its own budgetary constraints. The fact that the Diamondbacks already have $110 million on the books for 2026 may well make them more inflexible than the Dodgers or Mets this coming offseason, even though the Snakes have much less in the way of commitments.

Having more tied up in the future doesn’t mean that the team has less to do compared to teams with fewer dollars on the books, either. The Mets’ $202 million includes just eight players on guaranteed deals; they don’t have a particularly impactful arbitration class, and their only significant pre-arbitration player is Mark Vientos. They’ll have more to accomplish than the Red Sox, who are at $175 million, a total that includes Bregman. Excluding Bregman, Boston has nine players locked up, plus Tanner Houck and Jarren Duran, both key cogs, in arbitration.

Ultimately, my job is to compile all of the data, not necessarily to make sweeping declarations or draw any grand conclusions about payroll. I always caution that there’s a lot of nuance and team-specific context that often gets lost in more generalized comments, and the purpose of this summary isn’t to tell anyone how to think or feel about how teams are spending their money. That said, I’m looking forward to a spirited discussion in the comments section, and I’m happy to answer any team-specific questions you may have.

Source