Juan Soto signed the largest contract in U.S. sports history—$765 million over 15 years, including a $75 million signing bonus, with potential earnings exceeding $800 million. 💰💰💰
This deal has sparked plenty of commentary, centering on two key questions:
1️⃣ Is Juan Soto really worth all that money?*
2️⃣ How can Major League Baseball (MLB) owners allow these skyrocketing contracts?
The first question is straightforward: “Worth” is determined by what the market will pay.
The second question, however, opens the door to an important lesson in employment and labor law.
Under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), MLB owners are prohibited from colluding to suppress player salaries. This prohibition isn’t unique to sports—it applies across all industries.
Let’s take MLB as an example. If owners were fed up with rising contract costs, some might suggest they should band together and agree to cap player salaries.
🫣 That’s collusion, plain and simple.
In fact, MLB owners have been caught doing this before. In the 1980s, they collectively agreed to limit spending on free agents. The MLB Players Association filed an unfair labor practice complaint—and won.
The NLRA’s anti-collusion rules are clear: industry leaders cannot collectively agree to suppress wages, whether in sports or any other field.
So, whether you think professional athletes’ contracts are fair or excessive, the solution is not for owners to “work together” to control salaries. That’s illegal.
What are your thoughts on Soto’s contract—or collusion in general?