Can Major League Baseball Force the Sale of a Team, Including the Twins?
Ownership changes in Major League Baseball are rare, but when they do occur, they can bring what appears to be a fresh start, despite the roster remaining largely intact. In Minnesota, frustration with the Pohlad family has reached a breaking point - surveys and chatter among fans suggest that nearly 100% want new ownership to take the reins, and almost 80%, according to a recent article from The Athletic, lay the blame for the Twins' current situation squarely at the feet of the owners. Low attendance, payroll concerns, and years of disappointment have only amplified the calls for a sale - literally and figuratively. Something clearly has to give, but can MLB actually compel the Pohlads to sell the Twins? It's a question thousands of fans are already asking, and one worth exploring as we consider what options might truly be on the table.
Major League Constitution Options
The most recently amended and publicly available Major League Constitution is the 2005 edition. While some changes may have been made since then, several sections still frame the Commissioner's and owners' authority regarding sales, control, and discipline. With this as our general backdrop, we can dig into what the rules say about MLB forcing the sale of a club.
Article II, Section 2(b)- "Best Interests of Baseball" powers
Article II in the Major League Constitution addresses the powers and office of the Commissioner of Baseball. In addition to expected rules regulations, on-field discipline matters, and the general operation of MLB, the Commissioner has the power to:
"...investigate, either upon complaint or upon his own initiative, any act, transaction, or practice charged, alleged, or suspected to be not in the best interests of the national game of Baseball."MLC, Art. II, Sec.2(b)
Historically, this clause has been associated with disciplinary or corrective actions, including those against owners. Usually, this would include major misconduct events like sexual harassment, racism, sexism - basically anything that damages the game of baseball. More recently, we have seen issues regarding finances and failing to meet the league's standard of having a venue to play games. So, can the Commissioner push for a sale? Yes, but it is extremely unlikely to happen. History has shown us it is possible, but short of the Pohalds committing a misconduct of epic proportions or falling into financial ruin, it is unlikely to happen.
That doesn't mean fans don't still have an argument for Article II, Section 2(b). They do. A contemporary example to look at would be the situation brewing with the Pittsburgh Pirates owner, Bob Nutting. Like Twins fans, Pirates fans suffer under a cheap owner who was named in February as the second-worst owner in MLB, only ahead of Miami owner Bruce Sherman. Nutting has been criticized for his refusal to invest in facilities, low payroll, and lack of multi-year contracts for his players. Fans on Reddit have referred to his style as "egregious" due to his lack of spending on the team and the tactics he employs to save money. The posts from Pirates fans are raw and revealing - so much so that they won't be linked here due to extreme language, but you are encouraged to explore them yourself. Twins fans are not alone in their frustration.
Article VIII, Section 4 - Involuntary Termination
Article VIII of the MLC sets forth how many teams MLB will have, how the leagues are split, and who is in what division. Perhaps oddly, it also addresses the termination of a club - either voluntary or involuntary. Section 4 on Involuntary Termination reads:
"The rights, privileges and other property rights of a Major League Club hereunder and under any other Baseball-related agreement may be terminated (i) in the event of contraction, pursuant to Article V, Section 2 (b) (1), or (ii) involuntarily, with the approval of three-fourths of all Major League Clubs..."MLC, Art. VIII, Sec. 4
Several violations or situations can lead to this action being taken against a ball club. Conspiracy to lose a game, failure to comply with the Commissioner, willfully violating the MLC, insolvency, refusing to maintain a suitable stadium, etc. One interesting little nugget can be found in Section 4(h) that may strike a nerve for Twins fans:
"Transfer or assign such number of its player contracts as will prevent it from functioning as a Major League Club..."MLC, Art. VIII, Sec. 4(h)
As it has been copiously covered, the Twins packed up and shipped out nearly half of their active roster at the trade deadline. A quick search through online forums or a scan of social media posts will reveal fans using phrases like "AAA lineup" or "AAA Minnesota Twins." Both phrases are used by opposing fans, too, which makes things even worse.
Since August 1, the Twins are 14-27, good for just a .341 winning percentage since the trade deadline. This is not to say that the team was tearing it up before July 31, but at least one could say it was a Major League lineup. Now with a lineup flush with prospects plus the results since Aug. 1, the argument could be made that trading away 40% of the active MLB roster constitutes a violation of Article VIII, section 4(h). Have the Twins ceased to function as a Major League Club? It is possible but open to interpretation.
Precedent - Frank McCourt and the Los Angeles Dodgers
One of the most famous examples of precedent for MLB intervening in team ownership occurred in 2011 with the Los Angeles Dodgers ownership dispute. At the time, then-owner Frank McCourt and his wife, Jamie McCourt, were embroiled in a high-profile divorce that included a dispute over control of the team. Eventually, Frank agreed to pay Jamie $130 million to settle her claim to ownership. The very public legal battle cast doubt on McCourt’s ability to finance the team’s payroll and field a competitive squad for the 2011 season. The infamous brawl outside Dodger Stadium further complicated the situation during that year’s home opener, in which San Francisco fan Bryan Stow was nearly beaten to death. The Dodgers were later sued by Stow for medical expenses and failure to provide security, deepening the controversy and tarnishing the franchise’s reputation.
In response, then-MLB Commissioner Bud Selig - who had previously explored contracting the Twins - announced that MLB would take over the Dodgers' day-to-day and financial operations, sparking a bitter clash between the league and McCourt. In the middle of this public feud, attendance dropped more than 20% as fans distanced themselves from the turmoil. The dispute finally concluded in November 2011, when McCourt agreed to sell the team. MLB opened the sale to bids, and Guggenheim Baseball Management LLC ultimately emerged as the winning buyer. The group, which remains the Dodgers' owner today, includes controlling partner Mark Walter, Hall of Fame basketball player Magic Johnson, and, later in 2018, tennis legend Billie Jean King.
While this is a brief overview, it shows us that MLB can and will intervene when an owner is deemed incapable of fulfilling their team's obligations. In McCourt’s case, the league stepped in to protect the best interests of baseball, showing that, under extreme circumstances, MLB holds the authority to effect an ownership change. The Dodgers' situation may be an outlier and a rather extreme example, but it stands as clear proof that the league possesses the power to act when necessary.
What It Means For Minnesota
So, can MLB force the Pohlad family to sell the Twins? The short answer is yes - but only under extraordinary circumstances, as we've seen. The Commissioner's "best interest of baseball" powers and Article VIII's involuntary termination provisions provide a framework for removal, but history shows it happens only when ownership crosses a line so blatant that the rest of the league feels compelled to act. Even if MLB were to act, the process would be a lengthy, court-supervised affair that would not happen quickly enough for most fans, including the one writing this article.
That said, Twins fans are not shouting into the void. Around the league, pressure is building on owners in similar situations. In Tampa Bay, where attendance and stadium questions have lingered for decades, MLB has applied steady pressure on the Rays to secure a long-term facility deal or risk stronger intervention as Yahoo! Sports reported earlier this spring. In Pittsburgh, Bob Nutting continues to be the poster child for cheap ownership, with fan frustration spilling over in calls for MLB intervention.
The reality is that while MLB is unlikely to force the Pohlads out directly, the rising discontent still matters. League owners care deeply about the long-term health of the game; most do anyway, and fan disengagement in mid-sized markets like Minnesota and Pittsburgh hurts everyone's bottom line. Suppose the Twins' attendance continues to plummet into 2026 and the team's competitive credibility erodes. In that case, the league may feel pressure to act - if not through outright force of sale, then by nudging ownership towards selling.
For now, the Pohlad family holds the cards. However, with nearly 100% of the fan base calling for new ownership, the pressure is only going to intensify. And if history tells us anything, MLB can - and sometimes does - intervene when the "best interests of baseball" demand it.