The catastrophic fires that ripped through Southern California over the last three weeks were spurred by extremely dry conditions and unusually strong Santa Ana winds, in addition to water infrastructure problems. But there may have been another culprit behind some of the conflagrations: arsonists using the opportunity to sow further chaos.

Are arsonists responsible for starting the fires?
Most likely not, but it may take months before there are definitive answers. "To jump to any conclusions right now is speculation," said Ginger Colbrun, a spokesperson for the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, to the Los Angeles Times.

"Fires break out in the wooded areas on the edges of Los Angeles all the time," many accidentally started by the city's homeless, said NBC News. In this case, the "combination of ferocious winds and a parched landscape created ideal conditions for the fast-moving fires." 

While "copycat arson" is a known phenomenon and experts admit arsonists may have begun smaller fires that followed the Palisades blaze and the similarly destructive Eaton Fire in Pasadena (now 98% contained), people are probably not responsible for the initial conflagrations.

Why are people setting (more) fires?
Conspiracy theories about the fires abound, as people search for more satisfactory answers than science provides. "Every wildfire is accused of not being a wildfire but a planned attack to further sinister ends," said Mother Jones. These theories are a "mix of climate change denialism and attempts to pin the disasters on their usual and preferred villains."

Additional crimes happening in the wake of a natural disaster are common. "They think it's a perfect time to do it because everybody's tied up," fire investigator Bob Duval said to CNN. Arsonists' motivations can include mental health issues, societal resentment, "trying to make a statement," "mischief" and "blowing off steam." The people who set these fires may be more "attention-seeking" than malicious, said William Weinberg, a California criminal defense attorney with experience working on arson cases.

The Los Angeles Dodgers have committed more than $2 billion in future player salaries in the last two years, reigniting debate about whether a salary cap would ease equity woes across the league. With frustration growing among fans of smaller market teams, baseball may be headed to a standoff after its Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) with the players expires in 2026. 

Why aren't there salary caps?
The last effort to impose a cap ended in catastrophe. The 1994 season began without a CBA as owners pushed for a salary cap. The players struck, and many regular season games and the playoffs were canceled. Fans were livid, and attendance plummeted.

Players and owners agreed to a compromise "competitive balance tax" in 1996, which set a soft spending limit. Teams that "carry payrolls above that threshold are taxed on each dollar above the threshold," said Major League Baseball. In 2024, the luxury tax threshold was set at $237 million, and nine teams went over it, contributing $311 million in taxes. The Dodgers alone "outspent just in luxury tax the entire payrolls" of "20% of the league," said Baseball Purist.

Are the rules working?
In some ways, baseball's spending rules have led to parity. No team has won back-to-back World Series championships since the Yankees in 1999-2000. But the Dodgers have been slowly building an empire.

Recently, the biggest spenders have "not shown much concern about the impact of their activities on smaller-market clubs," said Front Office Sports. Record-breaking contracts put top players out of reach for most teams. Some "simply aren't wealthy enough to compete against their so-called peers without a cap," said Puck. 

Not everyone is convinced that a salary cap is the answer. More teams could easily afford more, but "half the league spends less than half of their revenue on the team itself," said Marc Normandin at his baseball analysis site. The issue is the "lower payroll teams not doing more to field a competitive group," as they pocket revenue sharing while consistently putting up terrible results, said Rowan Kavner at Fox Sports. 

All of this is leading to speculation about a work stoppage after the CBA expires. And if owners "decide to push aggressively for a cap," said the Athletic, "history says the fallout will be ugly."