Critics of baseball’s new labor deal point to the absence of a minimum payroll, which seemingly could allow the owners of low-revenue teams such as Kansas City or Florida to pocket their enlarged checks for revenue sharing.

That, Commissioner Bud Selig said Monday, is “just a myth going around.”

Selig and Major League Baseball vice president Rob Manfred point out that the deal struck with the union on Aug. 30 to avert a strike includes a provision requiring teams to reinvest any funds they receive from revenue sharing.

According to a copy of a “memorandum of understanding” drafted by Major League Baseball and revised by the players union, the deal requires each team receiving revenue sharing to report its usage to the commissioner annually.

The exact language is “each club shall use its revenue sharing payments to improve its performance on the field. The commissioner has the authority to enforce this provision.”

Selig can use his powers under the major-league constitution to sanction any clubs that do not comply with the rule. It is unclear how he would handle such an issue, but the most likely remedy is a fine.

Manfred said the union did not want a requirement tying revenue sharing to payroll.

“But it is going to be spent to improve teams,” Manfred said. “It is not payroll specific, but it has to be used to improve the product on the field in one way or another. The intention is that it has to stay in the game.”

MLB proposed a minimum payroll of $45 million, which the union rejected. MLB Players Association executive director Donald Fehr said that would have hit only one team with the payroll figures used for tax purposes (which include all players on the 40-man roster and about $9 million per team in benefits).

Selig has said owners would have considered raising that payroll floor but the union opted to take the issue off the table.

Fehr has said clubs should maintain the flexibility of spending as they believe will benefit their teams. Besides signing players, teams could decide to invest their revenue sharing in signing a top draft pick, a high-profile manager or general manager or on stadium improvements.

“That ought to be left to an individual club’s decision,” Fehr said earlier this summer.