Why MLB Expansion Is a Bad Idea

Major League Baseball (MLB) has thrived as a 30-team league since adding the Tampa Bay Rays and Arizona Diamondbacks in 1998. However, calls for further expansion—potentially to 32 teams or beyond—have gained traction in recent years, with cities like Nashville, Portland, and Charlotte often cited as candidates.

While the idea of growing the game’s footprint might seem appealing on the surface, MLB expansion is a bad idea for several reasons: it risks diluting talent, straining finances, and undermining the league’s competitive balance and historical charm.

First, expanding MLB would stretch an already thin talent pool. Baseball demands a unique blend of skills—power, precision, speed, and endurance—that few athletes possess at an elite level. With 30 teams, the league already struggles to maintain consistent quality across rosters. Pitching, in particular, is a glaring concern. Starters rarely pitch deep into games compared to past eras, and bullpens are often patchwork affairs. Adding two more teams would mean 52 additional roster spots, including at least 10 more starting pitchers. The minor leagues and international pipelines simply aren’t producing enough top-tier talent to fill these gaps without compromising quality. Fans would likely see more lopsided games and fewer marquee matchups, diluting the product on the field.

Financially, expansion sounds lucrative—new franchise fees could exceed $2 billion per team—but the reality is less rosy. MLB’s revenue model relies heavily on local media deals and gate receipts, both of which vary widely by market. Established teams in big markets like New York and Los Angeles subsidize smaller-market clubs through revenue sharing. Adding teams in untested cities risks saturating markets and cannibalizing existing fan bases. For example, a team in Nashville might draw fans away from the Atlanta Braves or St. Louis Cardinals, weakening those franchises without guaranteeing long-term viability for the newcomer. Moreover, new teams often struggle financially early on, as seen with the Rays and Marlins, who’ve battled low attendance despite competitive success. Expansion could saddle MLB with more perennial money pits.

Competitive balance is another casualty of expansion. The current 30-team structure already features a wide gap between haves and have-nots, with teams like the Dodgers and Yankees outspending rivals by hundreds of millions. Adding teams would exacerbate this disparity unless MLB radically alters its salary cap-free system—which it won’t. New franchises typically take years to contend, often becoming punching bags for established clubs. This not only frustrates new fans but also skews playoff races, as powerhouse teams pad their records against weaker expansion foes. The 162-game season is grueling enough; injecting more mediocrity risks alienating viewers who crave meaningful competition.

Finally, expansion threatens baseball’s historical charm. MLB’s 30-team setup balances tradition with modernity, preserving rivalries and legacies while adapting to new audiences. Adding teams could force realignment, disrupting iconic divisions like the AL East or NL Central. The sport’s deliberate pace and regional roots are part of its identity—overexpansion risks turning it into a generic, sprawling corporate entity, more akin to the NFL than the pastime it’s been for over a century.

In short, MLB expansion promises short-term gains but long-term pain. Talent dilution, financial instability, competitive imbalance, and a loss of tradition outweigh the benefits. Baseball should focus on strengthening its current foundation—improving pace of play, boosting small-market success, and engaging younger fans—rather than stretching itself thin with unnecessary growth.

Hits: 105