There's also the perception issue. Who wants to sit down at a Las Vegas poker table where a talented opponent is dealt an extra card? Few, I imagine. The game is perceived to be unfair regardless of on-field results (Those are imbalanced, too). Perception matters if you want full investment and interest from fans/customers. (79% of 'avid' fans support a cap/floor -- Morning Consult poll from November) Perception matters in terms of offseason headlines/interest generated, which leads to more fan engagement. In too many markets, this is a seasonal game -- not a year-round interest garnering daily media coverage.

What’s the right way to define competitive balance? (That's the first point of contention). It’s about equal opportunity, not equal outcomes. Want to grow the game? Grow the business? The revenue pie? It's about leveling the economic playing surface, so outcomes can be attributed to skill and execution -- not the size of a team’s home market. The big difference is a team of any market size has an equal opportunity to compete in the NFL, NBA and NHL. The same is not true in baseball.