$110 Million Salary Cap? Our Dreams Come True?

[SonnyandSam]

The Boston Globe is reporting that the NFL is seriously considering a $110 million salary cap. Not clear whether it would apply to 2006 or 2007.....probably 2007. But considering the League and players are pushing to get something done by March 3, the start of free agency, the $110 million cap, or something slightly lower could end up applying for 2006. If nothing else, it probably will add at least one year onto contracts to spread out signing bonuses.

You say you want Reggie Wayne?...OK...... Abraham?.....OK .......Howard?.......OK Hutchinson....OK

A portion of the article.....

It's crunch time in labor negotiations

Meetings have begun between representatives of the Players Association and the Management Council and will continue next week with the hope that the framework for an extension of the collective bargaining agreement will be in place by late February.

Technically, an extension would have to be in place by the start of the new league year on March 3 or problems would arise; agents would be faced with making deals for this year's free agents with only a four-year amortization period for bonuses, and some franchises would be forced to all but gut their teams because of salary cap problems, according to league sources on both sides of the issue.

''A number of teams would go into severe cap trouble if there's no extension," said a league source. ''A team like the Colts would have to blow their team up. And for agents, it will be hard to get a true market deal. Not hard. It would be impossible.

''The good news is, the way the system was designed the last year without an extension is very painful for both sides. Hopefully that will promote rational behavior on both sides. As we get closer to D-Day, people start to think more clearly on both sides."

Management has begun to put together some guaranteed cap numbers beginning at $110 million and swelling to $160 million six years later. Twelve years ago, when the salary cap era began, the first cap was around $36 million.


Linky.... http://www.boston.com/sports/football/patriots/articles/2006/01/29/a_get_rich_kick_scheme_fails/?page=2

[inevitable]

I'm no salary cap junkie, but that sounds like great news to me!

What say you PASkinsgirl?

[vegeta2364]

I wouldnt mind an uncapped year for ONE year. I cant see the NFL uncapped.. THe other teams w/o much revenue would be in shambles.. and plus football is surpose to be abou thte love of the game.. not all about the money.. were is more Brett Farve type players who love the game not because of the money but because it is the game? The NFL is already turning into more of a business pu**y sport then smash mouth hard nosed football it was before my time.. and the salary cap would just add to this.

[DoGood]

The Boston Globe is reporting that the NFL is seriously considering a $110 million salary cap. Not clear whether it would apply to 2006 or 2007.....probably 2007. But considering the League and players are pushing to get something done by March 3, the start of free agency, the $110 million cap, or something slightly lower could end up applying for 2006. If nothing else, it probably will add at least one year onto contracts to spread out signing bonuses.

You say you want Reggie Wayne?...OK...... Abraham?.....OK .......Howard?.......OK Hutchinson....OK

A portion of the article.....



Linky.... http://www.boston.com/sports/football/patriots/articles/2006/01/29/a_get_rich_kick_scheme_fails/?page=2

Don't stir the pot!

[CowboyKilla]

Stir, Stir, I love it. Good news, the higher the better.

[whistleandthumb]

Obviously, this would help us, but it would also help everyone else, so it's still an even playing field. The main thing it would allow us to do is pick up key FA's in the areas of need, without having to worry about our cap limits.

But again... so can everyone else. And there are other teams that, because they already have more cap room, are going to be able to spend EVEN MORE.

[HanburgerBum]

The Boston Globe is reporting that the NFL is seriously considering a $110 million salary cap. Not clear whether it would apply to 2006 or 2007.....probably 2007. But considering the League and players are pushing to get something done by March 3, the start of free agency, the $110 million cap, or something slightly lower could end up applying for 2006. If nothing else, it probably will add at least one year onto contracts to spread out signing bonuses.

You say you want Reggie Wayne?...OK...... Abraham?.....OK .......Howard?.......OK Hutchinson....OK

A portion of the article.....



Linky.... http://www.boston.com/sports/football/patriots/articles/2006/01/29/a_get_rich_kick_scheme_fails/?page=2


Before you get overly excited about acquiring these free agents, the larger cap would mean that some of those players you anticipate being free agents because they were due to be released from teams with bulging caps will now likely be kept by those teams.

The only exceptions would be situations where a team either 1) can not afford to keep a player for money, not cap room, reasons; or 2) has judged a player not to be worth the money.

Under scenario 1), the amount of money presumably would be very large, and the Redskins should seriously consider whether paying that kind of money for a FA may destroy team chemistry (e.g. paying an equivalent talent more than a player already on the roster). Under scenario 2), paying an amount for a player that another team has deemed to be greater than the player's worth just doesn't seem to be smart practice.

I do see one large bonaza to a big jump in the cap. It will allow teams like the Redskins to purge themselves of unwanted, high-cap number players they would otherwise be stuck with. Lavar comes to mind.

[helimech24]

Obviously, this would help us, but it would also help everyone else, so it's still an even playing field. The main thing it would allow us to do is pick up key FA's in the areas of need, without having to worry about our cap limits.

But again... so can everyone else. And there are other teams that, because they already have more cap room, are going to be able to spend EVEN MORE.But even then, some teams still won't spend the money needed to really compete. Players also don't want to play in certain areas or for certain teams. It will be interesting if it goes thru.

[GoDannyBoy]

If I read correctly if an agreement is not reached it is painful for both sides, meaning that there is not going to be an uncapped year.

The good news is that they might get something inplace before that happens and it might be big enough for Gibbs to jettison some players while allowing him to pick up an acquistion or two. Let's hope this is in place before March 1.

Redskins One is on the way to a city near you!

[GolfFreak]

I'm strongly against no salary cap, we can try it for one year, but I think it'll be hard to go back to the "normal" way afterwards. I'm all for getting the best talent and put a winning team on the field, but I think parody is what makes the NFL so great.

[smoak]

I'd much rather add role players and save the cap space for locking up some of our players.

[redskin_rich]

For those of you that would like to see the CBA not extended by March, so there will be an uncapped year in '07, here are some points to remember.
-the top 8 teams won't be able to sign free agents (that would have included the Skins, had it been this year)
-Prorated signing bonuses and any other creative ways of averting the salary cap won't be allowed anymore.
- Cutting a player after June wouldn't spread the cap hit between the current year and the upcoming year anymore.

The uncapped year as a result of the CBA not getting extended would be a disaster for quite a few teams, including the Redskins. It would only benefit the cheap teams that never make use of all their cap room and it would only benefit them in that they wouldn't be faced with wholesale cuts to their team.

Now as far as the cap going up with the new agreement, I think it has to, with all the added revenue from the new TV deals. I would rather see a small but steady increase every year than a big jump --which I'm worried would just cause that years FA class to get overpaid, thus overinflating the FA market and canceling out the added cap room.

[BigPlayJay]

I wouldnt mind an uncapped year for ONE year. I cant see the NFL uncapped.. THe other teams w/o much revenue would be in shambles.. and plus football is surpose to be abou thte love of the game.. not all about the money.. were is more Brett Farve type players who love the game not because of the money but because it is the game? The NFL is already turning into more of a business pu**y sport then smash mouth hard nosed football it was before my time.. and the salary cap would just add to this.

Although it would benefit the Redskins more than probably any other team, I am not in favor of any uncapped year. That's why I don't like Baseball. I don't want the Redskins with a 220mil player payroll and the falcons with 40mil. That would cheapen any accomplishments to me.

[CNYSkinFan]

Before you get overly excited about acquiring these free agents, the larger cap would mean that some of those players you anticipate being free agents because they were due to be released from teams with bulging caps will now likely be kept by those teams.

The only exceptions would be situations where a team either 1) can not afford to keep a player for money, not cap room, reasons; or 2) has judged a player not to be worth the money.

Under scenario 1), the amount of money presumably would be very large, and the Redskins should seriously consider whether paying that kind of money for a FA may destroy team chemistry (e.g. paying an equivalent talent more than a player already on the roster). Under scenario 2), paying an amount for a player that another team has deemed to be greater than the player's worth just doesn't seem to be smart practice.

I do see one large bonaza to a big jump in the cap. It will allow teams like the Redskins to purge themselves of unwanted, high-cap number players they would otherwise be stuck with. Lavar comes to mind.

That is the first thing I thought about too. It may force Lavar into a real settlement as well.

Who knows. This is the first report I have heard about a cap number higher then 95 million. Lots of work has to be done on Revenue sharing as well before it gets totally done.

[PA Skins Girl]

Getting the CBA extended by March 3, 2006 would benefit the Redskins. But if it doesnt get done, I dont think it means we have to blow up the roster as this article suggests.

My understanding is, the contracts for our "core players", many of which are due a roster bonus in 2006, have been written so that the roster bonuses can be converted to signing bonuses. I know for sure that is true with Arrington's contract, and I can only assume it is true for the other 10 or so players that have a roster bonus due. So, even if the extension doesnt get done by March 3, 2006, I think we are fine and with a little cooperation from our players, will have at least $5 million in "FA shopping money" to play with. That is my best estimate, after all the contracts are redone, after we sign our own FAs, and leaving enough to sign our draft picks.

I dont know, maybe you have to have specific language in the contracts to convert the roster bonuses to signing bonuses, and maybe other teams (like Indy) dont have that language.

However, getting the extension before March 3, 2006 does help us as follows:

1) We will have options with Arrington. I think, if we dont get the CBA extension this year, we will have to convert his bonus to signing bonus to create cap space. Whereas if we do get the extension, thereby allowing the hit to be spread over two years, we will have the OPTION to release him if we want to. (We could release him without the CBA extension, but it would severely limit anything else we do in the FA market).

2) We would be able to clear more cap space by spreading the bonuses over More than 4 years, thereby allowing us to do more in the FA market.

3) The issue of the final 8 teams becomes a concern if we dont get it done this year, but I would assume that would only take effect if the CBA doesnt get extended by NEXT March.

As far as the $110-160 million for the next term of the agreement, that's fine, but it kind of takes away the advantage that I think we have, in that I think we are very creative with our contract structures. The numbers are so high, it seems we would lose that advantage. Also players will probably start crying for pay increases.

[redskin_rich]

3) The issue of the final 8 teams becomes a concern if we dont get it done this year, but I would assume that would only take effect if the CBA doesnt get extended by NEXT March.


Why would you assume that? Everything I have read states that the uncapped for '07 is triggered if the CBA isn't extended this March.

[Redblood]

I think parody is what makes the NFL so great.


Who are we kidding?

Pun intended!

[PA Skins Girl]

Why would you assume that? Everything I have read states that the uncapped for '07 is triggered if the CBA isn't extended this March.
The way I understand it, the current CBA is written with several "check points" to help the two sides come to an agreement before it expires, so we dont have a work stoppage.

The first check point is this year, in that, if it is not done by March 3 it will affect 2006 by not allowing for June 1 cuts and only allowing for signing bonuses to be prorated over 4 years.

The most critical check point is next March, where if it does get extended by then, the uncapped year rule takes effect and the Final 8 rule for the year prior to the uncapped year rule takes effect.

I could be wrong, but that's the way I understand it.

[skinswin]

I'm strongly against no salary cap, we can try it for one year, but I think it'll be hard to go back to the "normal" way afterwards. I'm all for getting the best talent and put a winning team on the field, but I think parody is what makes the NFL so great.


I agree with this. The beauty of the league is that small market teams are just as competitive with the big markets because of the salary cap. The Packers would have never won without the salary cap to give everyone the same playing field.

I know Snyder would go after whatever we needed with no salary cap but it would hurt the league as a whole if we abandoned the salary cap. And as much as I love the skins, no one is above the league. No one.

[HAWGZHEAD]

If they got rid of the cap for one year and then brought it back, how would that effect the highly paid players contracts bought without a cap?

[GolfFreak]

I agree with this. The beauty of the league is that small market teams are just as competitive with the big markets because of the salary cap. The Packers would have never won without the salary cap to give everyone the same playing field.

I know Snyder would go after whatever we needed with no salary cap but it would hurt the league as a whole if we abandoned the salary cap. And as much as I love the skins, no one is above the league. No one.

Glad someone agrees with me.

I know we have an owner that would spend like crazy if he has the chance, but I like it better this way.

[Redblood]

Glad someone agrees with me.

I know we have an owner that would spend like crazy if he has the chance, but I like it better this way.


He has spent and does spend like crazy for coaches!

The past two years in FA were all about filling needs. Granted, Washington was big, as was Rabach last year, but not nearly the back breakers Deion and Bruce were!

I believe the FO is now targeting great finds in FA, rather than "names", and that is a philosophical difference from 6 years ago!

[smoak]

Glad someone agrees with me.

I know we have an owner that would spend like crazy if he has the chance, but I like it better this way.

I think more than 90% of people agree with you. There really is no argument anyone can make for uncapped NFL that makes any sense.

[CNYSkinFan]

I think more than 90% of people agree with you. There really is no argument anyone can make for uncapped NFL that makes any sense.
Just to play Devil's Advocate, because I totally agree with you and golf freak about the beauty of the NFL, but some of the higher market clubs are tired of their revenue that they generate being given to the smaller market teams who do not spend it on payroll and then they can not even use their revenue to better their team.

But that in my mind is more of an argument for a minimum salary requirement more then a no cap NFL.

[helimech24]

Just to play Devil's Advocate, because I totally agree with you and golf freak about the beauty of the NFL, but some of the higher market clubs are tired of their revenue that they generate being given to the smaller market teams who do not spend it on payroll and then they can not even use their revenue to better their team.

But that in my mind is more of an argument for a minimum salary requirement more then a no cap NFL.
Is there a minimum right now? If not, they should put one in this year for teams like the Vikings and other small market clubs.

[CNYSkinFan]

Is there a minimum right now? If not, they should put one in this year for teams like the Vikings and other small market clubs.

And Philadelphia who goes cheap on their roster every year.

No there is no minimum.

[helimech24]

And Philadelphia who goes cheap on their roster every year.

No there is no minimum.Though it does keep the contracts somewhat reasonable because the players can't force their wanted salary on low market teams just to make the minimum. As much as they make now, can you imagine if the players had even more power.

[CNYSkinFan]

Though it does keep the contracts somewhat reasonable because the players can't force their wanted salary on low market teams just to make the minimum. As much as they make now, can you imagine if the players had even more power.

I actually think in the NFL the players have very little power...maybe too little. THere are no guaranteed contracts, the only thing that is guaranteed is siging bonus. And that can be taken away if you retire early or get into a car wreck or something.

This inbalance is leading to the one year redos since players know it is all about the signing bonus. It is also leading to the prevalence of Roster bonus' as well.

[helimech24]

I actually think in the NFL the players have very little power...maybe too little. THere are no guaranteed contracts, the only thing that is guaranteed is siging bonus. And that can be taken away if you retire early or get into a car wreck or something.

This inbalance is leading to the one year redos since players know it is all about the signing bonus. It is also leading to the prevalence of Roster bonus' as well.They make millions over a course of about 10 years average. They are super stars to the world, and you don't think they have power. One player this year wrecked a whole team. They also make more money than most of the baseball players. The only league that can compare is the NBA.

[Redskin4Life]

And Philadelphia who goes cheap on their roster every year.

No there is no minimum.
Preach it CNY!! Teams like the Vikes and Philly being $20M under the cap is a joke. Then teams like ours are punish for doing what was intended to be done with the cap -- get to that limit by spending on your players. The NFLPA needs to get a MINIMUM cap in place. And after the past couple of offseasons of frugality by some owners, I think it'll get done.

Also, I think the new CBA should put a provision in to reduce the cap hit of a roster bonus or signing bonus on veteran guys (10 years plus in the league) or guys that have stayed with the same team for longer than 5 years (something like that). It helps those smaller franchises keep their own players that they developed by keeping their cap numbers down.

[PA Skins Girl]

Preach it CNY!! Teams like the Vikes and Philly being $20M under the cap is a joke. Then teams like ours are punish for doing what was intended to be done with the cap -- get to that limit by spending on your players. The NFLPA needs to get a MINIMUM cap in place. And after the past couple of offseasons of frugality by some owners, I think it'll get done.

Also, I think the new CBA should put a provision in to reduce the cap hit of a roster bonus or signing bonus on veteran guys (10 years plus in the league) or guys that have stayed with the same team for longer than 5 years (something like that). It helps those smaller franchises keep their own players that they developed by keeping their cap numbers down.
I love that idea.

[BurgundyNGold]

Preach it CNY!! Teams like the Vikes and Philly being $20M under the cap is a joke. Then teams like ours are punish for doing what was intended to be done with the cap -- get to that limit by spending on your players. The NFLPA needs to get a MINIMUM cap in place. And after the past couple of offseasons of frugality by some owners, I think it'll get done.

Also, I think the new CBA should put a provision in to reduce the cap hit of a roster bonus or signing bonus on veteran guys (10 years plus in the league) or guys that have stayed with the same team for longer than 5 years (something like that). It helps those smaller franchises keep their own players that they developed by keeping their cap numbers down.
Teams like Philly and Minny have traditionally been $10M or more under the cap but they've also been competitive. Until the last couple of years, we spent all sorts of $$$ and didn't field a competitive team. That's a ripe condition for the mediot jesters to take their easy pickins.

[Redskin4Life]

They make millions over a course of about 10 years average. They are super stars to the world, and you don't think they have power. One player this year wrecked a whole team. They also make more money than most of the baseball players. The only league that can compare is the NBA.
You can't compare the NFL to MLB or the NBA on the basis of salaries at all. Almost ALL NFL players NEVER see the money they agreed to in their contracts (ie Steve McNair signed a contract a couple of years ago to be the highest paid player in the NFL -- the way that Tennessee made this happen was to give him a $50M roster bonus set for this year; now their talking about cutting him before the bonus is due -- McNair now won't see 35% of that contract money he signed for).

A baseball player or basketball player signs a contract for $50M over 6yrs, he gets ALL of it -- no matter what. We see this all the time with NBA teams trading away contracts for RETIRED players that come off the books in the offeason so they'll have space to get a big name FA!!?

Yea, TO found a way to demolish the "team" aspect of their locker room but that doesn't take away the fact that TO is only getting paid 6M over the last two years. That huge contract doesn't kick in until next year... starting with that roster bonus due him before free agency. A guy like TO at only 6 MILL?!?!? We're paying Lavar that much in a roster bonus!?!??!?

[CNYSkinFan]

They make millions over a course of about 10 years average. They are super stars to the world, and you don't think they have power. One player this year wrecked a whole team. They also make more money than most of the baseball players. The only league that can compare is the NBA.

For one the NFL players make less on average then the Average major league Baseball player. Plus major league baseball still hs guaranteed contracts and their top tie players make more in average salry then the top NFL players. Only if you average in minor league players does the average drop enough to get below the NFL.

see this from wikipedia


High Player Salaries

The average annual salary (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salary) for players in the four major leagues is about $ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_dollar)2.9 million in 2004, although player salaries can range from $300,000 for backup players to $20 million for superstars. NBA players have the highest average player salaries of the four leagues at 4.9 million dollars; however, their teams also have the smallest rosters (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Roster&action=edit). The NFL has the highest average team payroll (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Payroll), but these are distributed among rosters that are far larger than the other three leagues, making their players among the lowest paid on the average at 1.3 million dollars. Following the settlement of the 2004-05 NHL lockout (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004-05_NHL_lockout), NHL players are also due to be paid about $1.3 million, on average. MLB is in the middle at about 2.5 million dollars.


SOURCE (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_professional_sports_league)

Also the average playing career in the NFL is not 10 years....it is not CLOSE to ten years. It is around 3.8 years and make less then the league average (SOURCE (http://www.careerjournal.com/columnists/movingon/20020628-movingon.html)). So many players wash out after one or two years

NFL players have the LEAST amount of control as compared to every major sport. THe reason is no guaranteeed contract and that the NFL made a conscious choice to promote teams over players. That is why individuality among uniforms is so damn important to the league offices. They want to promote the teams not the players.

And I agree with them, but I think it could be better.

[CNYSkinFan]

Teams like Philly and Minny have traditionally been $10M or more under the cap but they've also been competitive. Until the last couple of years, we spent all sorts of $$$ and didn't field a competitive team. That's a ripe condition for the mediot jesters to take their easy pickins.
sure but what about teams like Buffalo, AZ, and NO who never spend money and are never competitive (at least not in the Salary Cap era). These are the teams the major franchises are getting made it. The teams who make money by sipohoning off the TV rewvenue from others and never put a good product on the field.

[BigCountry]

So what cap number are we looking at if it really does get pushed up to 110 mil?

[GolfFreak]

Also, I think the new CBA should put a provision in to reduce the cap hit of a roster bonus or signing bonus on veteran guys (10 years plus in the league) or guys that have stayed with the same team for longer than 5 years (something like that).

That would be a great change. I'm all for it and the minimum amount for players.

[BtwnDaTackles]

Sounds good to me!

[SonnyandSam]

I also want to continue the salary cap. It is what has made the NFL so successful compared to MLB, NBA and of course the NHL. It has helped to create parity (Uh....some of you....note the correct spelling :Peace: ) which brings more competition. I do not want to be like MLB where a few teams with money dominate year after year.

Having said that, teams should be able to use their money wisely to procure talent. It is ridiculous for teams like the Eagles and Vikings and others to spend tens of millions under the cap because their owners are too cheap.

The money IS there for the NFL and players to do well. A higher cap is going to help Danny sign better players which is a plus for us.

The one big change we are going to see, and I think it has been a long time coming, is that rookie contracts will have their own caps. Nothing I hate more than paying big money to a totally unproven college player. The big money should go to the veterans who have proven themselves. The money going to the top 10-15 players in the draft is silly. Those players simply are not worth that kind of money when you consider how many end up being total busts.

[SonnyandSam]

So what cap number are we looking at if it really does get pushed up to 110 mil?

That IS the cap number. The question is whether that will be for 2006 or 2007. My guess it is for 2007. BUT if the cap is $110 per team in 2007, they have to increase the cap for 2006 or the difference will be so astronomical that it will artificially increase the cost of superstar players. In other words, the superstars will end up receiving a disproportionate share of the higher cap instead of spreading it among many players.

[BigCountry]

That IS the cap number. The question is whether that will be for 2006 or 2007. My guess it is for 2007. BUT if the cap is $110 per team in 2007, they have to increase the cap for 2006 or the difference will be so astronomical that it will artificially increase the cost of superstar players. In other words, the superstars will end up receiving a disproportionate share of the higher cap instead of spreading it among many players.

I mean't roughly how much spending money will the Skins have?

[HanburgerBum]

I also want to continue the salary cap. It is what has made the NFL so successful compared to MLB, NBA and of course the NHL. It has helped to create parity (Uh....some of you....note the correct spelling :Peace: ) which brings more competition. I do not want to be like MLB where a few teams with money dominate year after year.

Having said that, teams should be able to use their money wisely to procure talent. It is ridiculous for teams like the Eagles and Vikings and others to spend tens of millions under the cap because their owners are too cheap.

The money IS there for the NFL and players to do well. A higher cap is going to help Danny sign better players which is a plus for us.

The one big change we are going to see, and I think it has been a long time coming, is that rookie contracts will have their own caps. Nothing I hate more than paying big money to a totally unproven college player. The big money should go to the veterans who have proven themselves. The money going to the top 10-15 players in the draft is silly. Those players simply are not worth that kind of money when you consider how many end up being total busts.


There is a reason for the high bonuses being paid the top draftees each year. This practice came into vogue during the battle for top college talent between the AFL and the NFL. The NFL had traditionally kept initial money for new players relatively low, as common sense would dictate. But, the AFL lured away many top college graduates by offering huge bonuses (remember Joe Namath?). The NFL had no choice but to follow suit in order to get its share of the top incoming talent.

It's true that the need for big bonuses to college kids ended when the two leagues merged. However, I think the NFL continues that practice today just as a guard against someone else (e.g. the now defunct USFL) getting any ideas about starting another league to compete with the NFL. I do think, though, as time passes and when there does not appear to be any competition on the horizon, the NFL may scale back the present exhorbitant bonus payouts to untried talent. But, the reduction needs to be done gradually. Otherwise, a competitor (e.g. arean football) may suddenly decide to offer significant signing bonuses to incoming players.

[helimech24]

For one the NFL players make less on average then the Average major league Baseball player. Plus major league baseball still hs guaranteed contracts and their top tie players make more in average salry then the top NFL players. Only if you average in minor league players does the average drop enough to get below the NFL.

see this from wikipedia



SOURCE (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_professional_sports_league)

Also the average playing career in the NFL is not 10 years....it is not CLOSE to ten years. It is around 3.8 years and make less then the league average (SOURCE (http://www.careerjournal.com/columnists/movingon/20020628-movingon.html)). So many players wash out after one or two years

NFL players have the LEAST amount of control as compared to every major sport. THe reason is no guaranteeed contract and that the NFL made a conscious choice to promote teams over players. That is why individuality among uniforms is so damn important to the league offices. They want to promote the teams not the players.

And I agree with them, but I think it could be better.
I stand corrected. We should have a league minimum.

[HanburgerBum]

And Philadelphia who goes cheap on their roster every year.

No there is no minimum.


Are you certain that there is no minimum to the salary cap? I thought I read a while back (of course, it could have been memory playing tricks) that the salary cap has a "floor" as well (something like two-thirds of the ceiling). If that were true, the present "floor" would be about 57 million, and I think every team in the League is above that.

The problem may be that the minimum is too low. So, whether there is already a minimum now or not, the new player agreement should establish a salary "floor" that is about 80% of the "ceiling". This would tend to lessen the practice of cheap owners stuffing more of the shared revenue into their own pockets instead of paying the players.

[skins111111]

so we will know where we're at by March 3rd......a nice increase would do us good:)

[HanburgerBum]

I'm strongly against no salary cap, we can try it for one year, but I think it'll be hard to go back to the "normal" way afterwards. I'm all for getting the best talent and put a winning team on the field, but I think parody is what makes the NFL so great.


You are a thousand percent correct. Competitive balance is a key reason why the NFL is by far the best League in the universe, and revenue sharing/salary cap is a way of ensuring that competitive balance. The NFL owners not only are wise businessmen, they have the guts to do what it takes to maintain the greatness of their League. They have stared down the players in every labor dispute in order to preserve the integrity and the long term health of pro football.

In contrast, just take a look at the state of affairs in MLB, where the players union is de facto running the sport. The no-cap salary structure has made it impossible for the smaller market teams to compete in the long run, and the league is talking about contracting teams. Smaller market franchises are going for peanuts, and some teams are even being sold at a loss from the original purchase price. This is a sport heading for the morgue. All this because the owners don't have the guts to stand up to the players (they have capitulated to the players in every labor strife). My advice to the baseball owners: GROW SOME BALLS!

[ConradCountry]

The more money the better within reason 160 million seems outragous.

[Keino]

I would just like to say, because I've seen it mentioned numerous times now, that we have parity in the NFL not because of the Salary cap, but because of revenue Sharing.

The Salary cap could go away, but with revenue sharing there is no competetive advantage. Baseball has neither, but it's not a cap that would put George Steinbrenner in check, it would be having to share the revenue generated by Stadium revenues and TV profits. The salary cap simply regulates what players can command on the open market. In other words it is merely a mechanism for the league keep players' slaries from rising at astromnomical rates.

Spence has written some brilliant pieces on this very subject, much more eloquent than I have above.....

[skinswin]

Just to play Devil's Advocate, because I totally agree with you and golf freak about the beauty of the NFL, but some of the higher market clubs are tired of their revenue that they generate being given to the smaller market teams who do not spend it on payroll and then they can not even use their revenue to better their team.

But that in my mind is more of an argument for a minimum salary requirement more then a no cap NFL.


Isn't there some way we can make owners like the bidwells, Benson and the rest of these cornball owners make their ballclubs more competitive? For years, Bidwell operated the Cardinals the same way Donald Sterling is operating the Clippers. As of the last two years, they look to be trying to be competitive but I really question some of these owners on weather they are really trying to make a winner.

It' s not right how these little small market guys just lay back and get money from the bigger market teams. There has to be a way to make them try and be competitive like the bigger ballclubs. We shouldn't be rewarding mediocrity either.

If the Cardinals would start winning, they'd sell merchandise and generate their own revenue base. It's kind of like they just want to suck the blood of the blgger ballclubs. I really don't have an answer to this two-sided question.

[BurgundyNGold]

I would just like to say, because I've seen it mentioned numerous times now, that we have parity in the NFL not because of the Salary cap, but because of revenue Sharing.

The Salary cap could go away, but with revenue sharing there is no competetive advantage. Baseball has neither, but it's not a cap that would put George Steinbrenner in check, it would be having to share the revenue generated by Stadium revenues and TV profits. The salary cap simply regulates what players can command on the open market. In other words it is merely a mechanism for the league keep players' slaries from rising at astromnomical rates.

Spence has written some brilliant pieces on this very subject, much more eloquent than I have above.....
What??? I agree that revenue sharing is a big part of what makes the league successful, but the salary cap is what makes the league competitive. If Danny could spend $160M on a team when the median club payroll was $80M, I'm pretty sure you could buy a competitive club like the Yanks and the Sox do every year.

[Keino]

I just spent some time searching the forums for one of Spence's articles/debates, but I think they got purged during the Server Switchover.

I will try and find more, or even better, get Spence in here to better answer your question. He made a very very Convincing argument and even provided some source data that backed him up. I am just not well versed enough in the nuances of the argument to articulate it.

I think the gist of it is that the cap itself is not prohibitive in terms of spending. Even this year, the payroll is way over the cap, but given cap rules, we are in compliance. Because teams would essentially still have to share revenues, the absence of a cap would more or less still have the same prohibitions....they would be defacto as opposed to dejure, because at the end of the day, the teams still have to make money.

[redskin_rich]

I just spent some time searching the forums for one of Spence's articles/debates, but I think they got purged during the Server Switchover.

I will try and find more, or even better, get Spence in here to better answer your question. He made a very very Convincing argument and even provided some source data that backed him up. I am just not well versed enough in the nuances of the argument to articulate it.

I think the gist of it is that the cap itself is not prohibitive in terms of spending. Even this year, the payroll is way over the cap, but given cap rules, we are in compliance. Because teams would essentially still have to share revenues, the absence of a cap would more or less still have the same prohibitions....they would be defacto as opposed to dejure, because at the end of the day, the teams still have to make money.
I agree with all that but I think the argument some owners have is the wealth of some of their colleagues.The Snyder's, Allen's and Jones' can afford to go into their pockets beyond the revenue of the team, whereas the Rooney's, Brown's and so on with the older owners, don't have any other source of revenue.
I know the obvious answer to that is TS but I just wanted to throw it out there.

[Keino]

I agree with all that but I think the argument some owners have is the wealth of some of their colleagues.The Snyder's, Allen's and Jones' can afford to go into their pockets beyond the revenue of the team, whereas the Rooney's, Brown's and so on with the older owners, don't have any other source of revenue.
I know the obvious answer to that is TS but I just wanted to throw it out there.

I definately get that, and certainly that was BNG's point. Thats why I was searching for the material from Spence, as he made a great argument and had some spirited debates on the issue. It was very educational for me, but it was also about 3-4 years ago when I accepted the argument and moved on.....

[techskinsfan]

what is our cap number for next year?

[BigPlayJay]

I would just like to say, because I've seen it mentioned numerous times now, that we have parity in the NFL not because of the Salary cap, but because of revenue Sharing.

The Salary cap could go away, but with revenue sharing there is no competetive advantage. Baseball has neither, but it's not a cap that would put George Steinbrenner in check, it would be having to share the revenue generated by Stadium revenues and TV profits. The salary cap simply regulates what players can command on the open market. In other words it is merely a mechanism for the league keep players' slaries from rising at astromnomical rates.

Spence has written some brilliant pieces on this very subject, much more eloquent than I have above.....

I think it is both the cap and the revenue sharing. Even with revenue sharing Snyder makes alot more than most owners so there is no way other teams could keep up with his spending if there were no cap.

[BigPlayJay]

Are you certain that there is no minimum to the salary cap? I thought I read a while back (of course, it could have been memory playing tricks) that the salary cap has a "floor" as well (something like two-thirds of the ceiling). If that were true, the present "floor" would be about 57 million, and I think every team in the League is above that.

The problem may be that the minimum is too low. So, whether there is already a minimum now or not, the new player agreement should establish a salary "floor" that is about 80% of the "ceiling". This would tend to lessen the practice of cheap owners stuffing more of the shared revenue into their own pockets instead of paying the players.

I think there is a minimum cap. I had heard that before several times and found this site which explains it.

http://www.askthecommish.com/salarycap/faq.asp (http://www.askthecommish.com/salarycap/faq.asp)
How is the NFL Salary Cap determined?Answer:The Cap is determined through a complicated calculation system. The Cap is based on income that the teams earn during a League Year. A percentage of that income, termed Defined Gross Revenues (DGR), is allocated for player expenditures. The DGR is based on ticket sales, merchandise sales, and broadcasts. The DGR is divided equally amongst all 32 teams.

For all of you nerds out there, here is the actual mathematical calculation:

Projected DGR x CBA Percentage = Players Share DGR

Players Share minus Projected League wide Benefits =
Amount Available for Player Salaries

Amount Available for Player Salaries / Number of Teams =
Unadjusted Salary Cap per Team

The CBA Percentages were agreed upon in the 1998 and 2001 extension to the CBA are as follows:
1998-2001
63%
2002
64%
2003
64.25%
2004
64.75%
2005
65.5%
2006
64.5%
2007
Uncapped Year

NOTE: Minimum Team Salary (MTS) is 56% for the remainder of the CBA. If a team does not allocate at least 56%, then the players on the team roster for that year will be directly paid the shortage.

[SonnyandSam]

Yes, revenue sharing has helped provide parity in the league, but IMHO, the salary cap has had a much bigger impact on allowing teams to stay competitive.

The cap forces teams to evaluate their team talent in context of the cap. It forces teams to release players from their contracts because to keep those players on the roster would put the team over its cap. Consequently, the cap provides fresh new talent in the form of free agents every season. That pool of PROVEN talent is available to any team that has the money to buy that talent. Thus, we see teams like the Bears, the Chargers, the Bucs, the Seahawks, and yes, even the Redskins go from crappy to being very competitive in just one or two years.

The revenue sharing is divided equally among teams....so if it made that big of a difference, how come the 49ers, the Saints, the Cardinals, the Lions, the Texans, etc. seem to be crappy all the time lately. They get as much money as the Patriots, the Colts, the Broncos, the Eagles, etc. Yet these latter teams have consistently been the best in football year after year lately. Why is this? Because they manage the cap wisely and make good decisions choosing the players that fit into that salary cap.

Sorry, I don't buy that revenue sharing is more influential than the salary cap in creating parity. There are other reasons that also affect parity (e.g. scheduling) but the salary cap is the single biggest contributing factor.

Bring it on Spence! :lol1:

[HanburgerBum]

I think there is a minimum cap. I had heard that before several times and found this site which explains it.

http://www.askthecommish.com/salarycap/faq.asp (http://www.askthecommish.com/salarycap/faq.asp)
How is the NFL Salary Cap determined?Answer:The Cap is determined through a complicated calculation system. The Cap is based on income that the teams earn during a League Year. A percentage of that income, termed Defined Gross Revenues (DGR), is allocated for player expenditures. The DGR is based on ticket sales, merchandise sales, and broadcasts. The DGR is divided equally amongst all 32 teams.

For all of you nerds out there, here is the actual mathematical calculation:

Projected DGR x CBA Percentage = Players Share DGR

Players Share minus Projected League wide Benefits =
Amount Available for Player Salaries

Amount Available for Player Salaries / Number of Teams =
Unadjusted Salary Cap per Team

The CBA Percentages were agreed upon in the 1998 and 2001 extension to the CBA are as follows:
1998-2001
63%
2002
64%
2003
64.25%
2004
64.75%
2005
65.5%
2006
64.5%
2007
Uncapped Year

NOTE: Minimum Team Salary (MTS) is 56% for the remainder of the CBA. If a team does not allocate at least 56%, then the players on the team roster for that year will be directly paid the shortage.


Thanks BigPlayJay for vindicating my memory. I was beginning to think that Alhezimer's (sp?) is starting to set in.

[PA Skins Girl]

what is our cap number for next year?
It's hard to say. Currently, we have about $95 million on the books for 2007, but by the time we convert 2006 bonuses, sign new players, and everything else we do, we'll probably be around $110 million. That number can be reduced by further manipulation of contracts next year.

[helimech24]

Yes, revenue sharing has helped provide parity in the league, but IMHO, the salary cap has had a much bigger impact on allowing teams to stay competitive.

The cap forces teams to evaluate their team talent in context of the cap. It forces teams to release players from their contracts because to keep those players on the roster would put the team over its cap. Consequently, the cap provides fresh new talent in the form of free agents every season. That pool of PROVEN talent is available to any team that has the money to buy that talent. Thus, we see teams like the Bears, the Chargers, the Bucs, the Seahawks, and yes, even the Redskins go from crappy to being very competitive in just one or two years.

The revenue sharing is divided equally among teams....so if it made that big of a difference, how come the 49ers, the Saints, the Cardinals, the Lions, the Texans, etc. seem to be crappy all the time lately. They get as much money as the Patriots, the Colts, the Broncos, the Eagles, etc. Yet these latter teams have consistently been the best in football year after year lately. Why is this? Because they manage the cap wisely and make good decisions choosing the players that fit into that salary cap.

Sorry, I don't buy that revenue sharing is more influential than the salary cap in creating parity. There are other reasons that also affect parity (e.g. scheduling) but the salary cap is the single biggest contributing factor.

Bring it on Spence! :lol1:
:goodpost: I totally agree with you man. It is both the salary cap and revenue sharing that makes the NFL so great, but the salary cap has more to do with it because it limits teams to how much they can spend.

[Keino]

And of course I haven't seen Spence online since early yesterday afternoon. I really wish I could find all of the points he made.

[danny's stogie]

:goodpost: I totally agree with you man. It is both the salary cap and revenue sharing that makes the NFL so great, but the salary cap has more to do with it because it limits teams to how much they can spend.

I have to be the only person out there who isn't in favor of a hard cap and parity in the NFL. Besides the fact that I think the NFL owners operate a cartel and that I believe in free markets, I was much happier with the league before the owners decided the ultimate goal was to have 30 teams finish 8 and 8. The quality of play is so watered down now. Both of this year's super bowl teams are incredibly mediocre. I'd much rather watch 5+ very good to great teams battle it out every year and play great football than watch 10 OK teams play sloppy football en route to the super bowl.

[redskin_rich]

I have to be the only person out there who isn't in favor of a hard cap and parity in the NFL. Besides the fact that I think the NFL owners operate a cartel and that I believe in free markets, I was much happier with the league before the owners decided the ultimate goal was to have 30 teams finish 8 and 8. The quality of play is so watered down now. Both of this year's super bowl teams are incredibly mediocre. I'd much rather watch 5+ very good to great teams battle it out every year and play great football than watch 10 OK teams play sloppy football en route to the super bowl.
No, you're not the only person, count me in. I hate how sloppy and mediocre football has become over the last 10-12 years, since the advent of the salary cap. Teams, that didn't have cheap owners, used to be able to stockpile talent, so when a starter went down to injury there was usually a reliable replacement. Now when you lose a starter or two, you have to play some rookie or practice squad wash-out and your season is doomed.

[helimech24]

I have to be the only person out there who isn't in favor of a hard cap and parity in the NFL. Besides the fact that I think the NFL owners operate a cartel and that I believe in free markets, I was much happier with the league before the owners decided the ultimate goal was to have 30 teams finish 8 and 8. The quality of play is so watered down now. Both of this year's super bowl teams are incredibly mediocre. I'd much rather watch 5+ very good to great teams battle it out every year and play great football than watch 10 OK teams play sloppy football en route to the super bowl.If we didn't have the parity in the NFL, it would have taken us another 3-4 years to start winning again. Either that or Snyder would buy all the free agents out there.

[danny's stogie]

No, you're not the only person, count me in. I hate how sloppy and mediocre football has become over the last 10-12 years, since the advent of the salary cap. Teams, that didn't have cheap owners, used to be able to stockpile talent, so when a starter went down to injury there was usually a reliable replacement. Now when you lose a starter or two, you have to play some rookie or practice squad wash-out and your season is doomed.

For real. I can live with having 5 or so JV teams every year like the Cardinals, Bucs, and Saints all used to be because at least when they play you don't have to watch. I however, get ticked off when the quality of play in the playoffs isn't very good. I want to see a bunch of juggernauts slug it out in the playoffs, not a bunch of beaten up teams that at this point in the season can hardly put together a full game.

If we didn't have the parity in the NFL, it would have taken us another 3-4 years to start winning again. Either that or Snyder would buy all the free agents out there.

I think the latter is more likely.

[redskin_rich]

If we didn't have the parity in the NFL, it would have taken us another 3-4 years to start winning again. Either that or Snyder would buy all the free agents out there.
I don't think so, especially considering how tough our schedule was. We earned our wins and should have won a couple more.
Furthermore, before the salary cap, once your team was loaded you could have a long run of 6-8 years at or near the top, now you're lucky with a 3-4 year run.

[CNYSkinFan]

I don't think so, especially considering how tough our schedule was. We earned our wins and should have won a couple more.
Furthermore, before the salary cap, once your team was loaded you could have a long run of 6-8 years at or near the top, now you're lucky with a 3-4 year run.

But the old NFL also did not have free agency at all either. The hard salary cap came along with free agency. Without Free Agency we would not have Rabach, Thomas, Moss (since Coles signed as a FA we would not have him to trade for Moss), Brunell, Washington, Clark, Patten, etc etc.

A hard cap leads to parity. Parity has caused the virtual EXPLOSION of TV revenue which makes the league so strong. What is good for the league is ultimately good for the Redskins. There is a reason that football since 1993 overtook Baseball in major sports and baseball fell to 3rd. IT is because of the CBA and the hard Salary Cap

[helimech24]

I don't think so, especially considering how tough our schedule was. We earned our wins and should have won a couple more.
Furthermore, before the salary cap, once your team was loaded you could have a long run of 6-8 years at or near the top, now you're lucky with a 3-4 year run.You don't think that is a good thing? Everyone has a chance of being great in the salary cap era, whereas only a few do in an un-salary cap era. Sure, we were one of those teams that were great before the salary cap, but what about most of the other teams in the NFL. If they are in a low market, they could not field a competitive team.

[redskin_rich]

But the old NFL also did not have free agency at all either. The hard salary cap came along with free agency. Without Free Agency we would not have Rabach, Thomas, Moss (since Coles signed as a FA we would not have him to trade for Moss), Brunell, Washington, Clark, Patten, etc etc.

A hard cap leads to parity. Parity has caused the virtual EXPLOSION of TV revenue which makes the league so strong. What is good for the league is ultimately good for the Redskins. There is a reason that football since 1993 overtook Baseball in major sports and baseball fell to 3rd. IT is because of the CBA and the hard Salary Cap
Football was better to watch before 1993, unless you like watching a lot of play stoppage because of some newbie arena league WR that doesn't know where to line up or rookie OG that keeps jumping offsides. And all these close games that get decided by bad calls by the refs. :banghead:

[CNYSkinFan]

Football was better to watch before 1993, unless you like watching a lot of play stoppage because of some newbie arena league WR that doesn't know where to line up or rookie OG that keeps jumping offsides. And all these close games that get decided by bad calls by the refs. :banghead:

Well that has nothing to do with free agency and more to do with the NFL still, despite being the richest sport and having a GDP higher then most third world countries refusing to hire full time refs that train and school in the off season.

I think we all tend to idolize football before 1993 because we were so horrible after 1993. I think next year Coach Gibbs will show it is about coaching more then the salary cap to show execution and determination in the salary cap era.

[redskin_rich]

Well that has nothing to do with free agency and more to do with the NFL still, despite being the richest sport and having a GDP higher then most third world countries refusing to hire full time refs that train and school in the off season.

I think we all tend to idolize football before 1993 because we were so horrible after 1993. I think next year Coach Gibbs will show it is about coaching more then the salary cap to show execution and determination in the salary cap era.
Its not just about us and how bad we have been during the salary cap era, case in point- Super Bowl XXXV: Ravens/Giants = Worst. Super Bowl. Ever! How often do you have a league champion that failed to score a TD in 6 consecutive games?

[danny's stogie]

But the old NFL also did not have free agency at all either. The hard salary cap came along with free agency. Without Free Agency we would not have Rabach, Thomas, Moss (since Coles signed as a FA we would not have him to trade for Moss), Brunell, Washington, Clark, Patten, etc etc.

A hard cap leads to parity. Parity has caused the virtual EXPLOSION of TV revenue which makes the league so strong. What is good for the league is ultimately good for the Redskins. There is a reason that football since 1993 overtook Baseball in major sports and baseball fell to 3rd. IT is because of the CBA and the hard Salary Cap

What normally happens without free agency is that the better and more valuable (dollar-wise) players eventually wind up on the richer teams. The market eventually finds ways to correct itself and i.e. in the case of pro sports, ownership finds ways to place the majority of better talent in the richer cities. For example, a team like Atlanta would realize that they can't support financially a Michael Vick and would eventually sell him to the highest bidder (the highest bidder in this case usually being below market value, say a mid-round pick or a bundle of cash). As a historical example I'll stick to baseball because I know the history better: teams like the Indians and the Athletics used to be considered the Yankee's major league farm teams. Both clubs, and other teams, would groom good players, but because they couldn’t afford to keep the stars they’d eventually sell them off to the Yanks. It’s not a coincidence that the Yanks dominated the MLB from the 1920s to 1960s.

What free agency did however, was increase the value of all players especially the middle tier. Free agency leveled the playing field because that sector of the salary structure increased and now the richest franchises can’t afford to keep completely stacked rosters, whereas in the past those second tier players filled out the richer franchises’ rosters. Notice that where the Yanks and Sox are currently lacking is in depth. They both pay huge amounts of money to the stars, but the drop-off to the players that fill out their rosters is gigantic. In the past a team like the Yanks would not only have the stars, but they’d have second tier players at all other positions and as backups. The Skins from the 90s are another example of this. So the elimination of free agency skews the competitive balance greatly towards the richer franchises.

As for parity helping the explosion of TV revenue: I’d agree to an extent, but I think gambling and fantasy football helped nearly as much, if not more. In the case of baseball, I don’t think competitive balance is even in the game’s favor economically. The game seems to do much, much better when the higher profile teams are winning. Sox, Yanks, and Cubs sell tickets and produce viewers. You could make a similar case that the NFL would do better if only Mannings, Vicks, Cowboys, Redskins, Steelers, and Jets made the super bowl every year.

[helimech24]

Its not just about us and how bad we have been during the salary cap era, case in point- Super Bowl XXXV: Ravens/Giants = Worst. Super Bowl. Ever! How often do you have a league champion that failed to score a TD in 6 consecutive games?When you have arguably the best defense in history, you have a chance to make the superbowl.

[helimech24]

As for parity helping the explosion of TV revenue: I’d agree to an extent, but I think gambling and fantasy football helped nearly as much, if not more. In the case of baseball, I don’t think competitive balance is even in the game’s favor economically. The game seems to do much, much better when the higher profile teams are winning. Sox, Yanks, and Cubs sell tickets and produce viewers. You could make a similar case that the NFL would do better if only Mannings, Vicks, Cowboys, Redskins, Steelers, and Jets made the super bowl every year.I would rather watch a football game where both teams have a chance to win, then for one team to blow everyone every week. I am the type of person that will watch any football game that is on tv, so I want to see competitive football all year round instead of seeing the dominate teams win out all year by blowouts. Even Indy played close games when they were on their streak.

[danny's stogie]

Its not just about us and how bad we have been during the salary cap era, case in point- Super Bowl XXXV: Ravens/Giants = Worst. Super Bowl. Ever! How often do you have a league champion that failed to score a TD in 6 consecutive games?

Yeah, this reallly isn't a sour grapes thing for me either. It's not like the NBA where I could care less except for a tepid interest in the Wiz. Even if the SKins stink I like watching football and when I watch I want to see good games with good teams.


I would rather watch a football game where both teams have a chance to win, then for one team to blow everyone every week. I am the type of person that will watch any football game that is on tv, so I want to see competitive football all year round instead of seeing the dominate teams win out all year by blowouts. Even Indy played close games when they were on their streak.

But this wasn't the case. Sure the better teams would kill the Cards every week, but it was special when two of the juggernauts played. I'd much rather watch two great teams play a great game of football than two mediocre teams play sloppy football albeit competitive.

[Spence]

Isn't there some way we can make owners like the bidwells, Benson and the rest of these cornball owners make their ballclubs more competitive?There is no way to force someone to be competent, but the CBA does require every team in the NFL to spend a certain amount on salaries every year. The cap involves a ceiling on salaries, that's well-known. What is often less well-known is that the cap also imposes a "floor" on salaries. Teams like Arizona have to spend a certain amount on player salaries. They don't have to spend it wisely, though.

[helimech24]

But this wasn't the case. Sure the better teams would kill the Cards every week, but it was special when two of the juggernauts played. I'd much rather watch two great teams play a great game of football than two mediocre teams play sloppy football albeit competitive.So, you would rather see the same 5 or 6 teams be great every year and hope they play each other, not in the playoffs, during the season. Instead of seeing a bunch of good teams play close games all year. I know that we are at a lose because of the salary cap because we yield so much money, but it isn't right for the rest of the league. I don't want our team to be the Yankees and Red Sox. I want us to compete every year with good coaching and good personell moves. That is what the salary cap forces. If you don't make good personell moves, your team will not win in the NFL. Our team has proven that over the last 13 years.

[danny's stogie]

So, you would rather see the same 5 or 6 teams be great every year and hope they play each other, not in the playoffs, during the season. Instead of seeing a bunch of good teams play close games all year. I know that we are at a lose because of the salary cap because we yield so much money, but it isn't right for the rest of the league. I don't want our team to be the Yankees and Red Sox. I want us to compete every year with good coaching and good personell moves. That is what the salary cap forces. If you don't make good personell moves, your team will not win in the NFL. Our team has proven that over the last 13 years.

Yes, I'd rather watch well played football than sloppy mediocrity. Not only do teams lack depth, they also shuffle roughly 1/3 of their roster every season. The lack of continuity also affects the quality of play. Also, you can only watch so many games, so I'd take my chances and hope I get to see 2 or 3 good to great matchups occur each weekend rather than 7 mediocre albeit competitve games played on Sunday.

[redskin_rich]

So, you would rather see the same 5 or 6 teams be great every year and hope they play each other, not in the playoffs, during the season. Instead of seeing a bunch of good teams play close games all year. I know that we are at a lose because of the salary cap because we yield so much money, but it isn't right for the rest of the league. I don't want our team to be the Yankees and Red Sox. I want us to compete every year with good coaching and good personell moves. That is what the salary cap forces. If you don't make good personell moves, your team will not win in the NFL. Our team has proven that over the last 13 years.
You keep bringing up baseball references but forget to mention revenue sharing, which would be a better fix for baseball than a salary cap. The NFL has revenue sharing and that is the biggest reason for the success of the league, not the salary cap. The salary cap was put in with free agency as a measure of keeping down salaries, not for competitive balance.

[CNYSkinFan]

You keep bringing up baseball references but forget to mention revenue sharing, which would be a better fix for baseball than a salary cap. The NFL has revenue sharing and that is the biggest reason for the success of the league, not the salary cap. The salary cap was put in with free agency as a measure of keeping down salaries, not for competitive balance.

but keeping down salaries ensures competitive balance since no team can stockpile a ton of talent. Revenue sharing divides national tv money but individual clubs, like Washington, have their own stream of $$ including tickets, luxury boxes, and local media revenue. The NFL would have more parity then Baseball without a salary cap....but it would not be the modicum of parity it is now. And YEs, I do like that anyone can win the Superbowl each year. ANd sure the Giants Ravens was one of the worst superbowls ever, but the Ravens defense was an aberration not a trend.

[SonnyandSam]

Football was better to watch before 1993, unless you like watching a lot of play stoppage because of some newbie arena league WR that doesn't know where to line up or rookie OG that keeps jumping offsides. And all these close games that get decided by bad calls by the refs. :banghead:

It was better to watch only because your Skins were winning football games.

Parity has not waterdowned the NFL. The same players would be playing whether we had a cap or not. The difference is that the talent is spread across a lot of teams rather than being stockpiled on a few teams. That means every week ANY TEAM is capable of winning a game. That means more close scoring games; more games coming down to the final few minutes of the game; more fans involved and watching NFL games because THEIR TEAM still has a chance to win...or to make the playoffs. That all generates excitement.

Before the cap, we had a handful of teams that dominated year after year after year. Half or more of our games would be boring and decided before the game began. Now every game is a dog fight; every game could be lost.....or won. That makes for exciting football.

I have to strongly disagree that football is waterdowned. The players are in far better physical shape; the coaching is far better today than 10-20 years ago; and the quality of the players is far better than 10-20 years ago.

IF you definition of better football is to see 5-6 teams dominate the league each year, then yes, you are right. But I don't see how fans from the other 27 teams could possibly agree.

[HanburgerBum]

What normally happens without free agency is that the better and more valuable (dollar-wise) players eventually wind up on the richer teams. The market eventually finds ways to correct itself and i.e. in the case of pro sports, ownership finds ways to place the majority of better talent in the richer cities. For example, a team like Atlanta would realize that they can't support financially a Michael Vick and would eventually sell him to the highest bidder (the highest bidder in this case usually being below market value, say a mid-round pick or a bundle of cash). As a historical example I'll stick to baseball because I know the history better: teams like the Indians and the Athletics used to be considered the Yankee's major league farm teams. Both clubs, and other teams, would groom good players, but because they couldn’t afford to keep the stars they’d eventually sell them off to the Yanks. It’s not a coincidence that the Yanks dominated the MLB from the 1920s to 1960s.

What free agency did however, was increase the value of all players especially the middle tier. Free agency leveled the playing field because that sector of the salary structure increased and now the richest franchises can’t afford to keep completely stacked rosters, whereas in the past those second tier players filled out the richer franchises’ rosters. Notice that where the Yanks and Sox are currently lacking is in depth. They both pay huge amounts of money to the stars, but the drop-off to the players that fill out their rosters is gigantic. In the past a team like the Yanks would not only have the stars, but they’d have second tier players at all other positions and as backups. The Skins from the 90s are another example of this. So the elimination of free agency skews the competitive balance greatly towards the richer franchises.

As for parity helping the explosion of TV revenue: I’d agree to an extent, but I think gambling and fantasy football helped nearly as much, if not more. In the case of baseball, I don’t think competitive balance is even in the game’s favor economically. The game seems to do much, much better when the higher profile teams are winning. Sox, Yanks, and Cubs sell tickets and produce viewers. You could make a similar case that the NFL would do better if only Mannings, Vicks, Cowboys, Redskins, Steelers, and Jets made the super bowl every year.


It's hard to believe that anyone (other than a Yankee fan or a sports agent) can think the present economy system in MLB is a good one. The smaller markets in baseball are doomed to non-competitiveness for the long term. That's a good thing? I guess you must be for tax-cut for the rich too.

Many smaller market teams are good at discovering talent (e.g. Pirates, Montreal, etc), but they can never keep the talented players once they blossom. How can that possibly be a good thing?

You presumably are a Redskins fan. If the NFL ever adopted the MLB salary system, Washington would be in position to be like the Yankees. Is that why you favor such a system? Well, I, for one, want my beloved Skins to earn their SB, not buy it.

[redskin_rich]

It was better to watch only because your Skins were winning football games.

Parity has not waterdowned the NFL. The same players would be playing whether we had a cap or not. The difference is that the talent is spread across a lot of teams rather than being stockpiled on a few teams. That means every week ANY TEAM is capable of winning a game. That means more close scoring games; more games coming down to the final few minutes of the game; more fans involved and watching NFL games because THEIR TEAM still has a chance to win...or to make the playoffs. That all generates excitement.

Before the cap, we had a handful of teams that dominated year after year after year. Half or more of our games would be boring and decided before the game began. Now every game is a dog fight; every game could be lost.....or won. That makes for exciting football.

I have to strongly disagree that football is waterdowned. The players are in far better physical shape; the coaching is far better today than 10-20 years ago; and the quality of the players is far better than 10-20 years ago.

IF you definition of better football is to see 5-6 teams dominate the league each year, then yes, you are right. But I don't see how fans from the other 27 teams could possibly agree.
Sorry but yes, I prefer 6 superior teams playing excellent football to 32 mediocre teams in a battle of attrition.

[helimech24]

Sorry but yes, I prefer 6 superior teams playing excellent football to 32 mediocre teams in a battle of attrition.You only say that because we are one of the few teams that could afford anybody we wanted.

[flave1969]

Parity would suggest that teams records over a period begin to even out, but if you look at the 13 years before and after free agency you will see that things have changed very little. In fact many of the traditional losing teams prior to Free Agency and the salary cap have been helped very little. I only did the AFC but look at this.

These are the number of winning seasons for each AFC team before and since the change(Expansion teams not included for obvious reason)

Buffalo
Pre 7 Win 5 Lose 1 Even
Post 6-5-2

Miami
Pre 8-1-4
Post 11-1-1

New England
Pre 7-5-1
Post 9-3-1

Jets
Pre 5-7-1
Post 6-5-2

Cleveland/Baltimore
Pre 6-6-1
Post 6-6-1

Cinci
Pre 5-6-2
Post 1-9-3

Pittsburgh
Pre 8-4-1
Post 10-3

Baltimore/Indianapolis
Pre 3-9-1
Post 8-4-1

Houston/Tennessee
Pre 7-6
Post 5-5-3

Denver
Pre 8-3-2
Post 9-2-2

Kansas
Pre 6-5-2
Post 8-4-1

Oakland
Pre 7-4-2
Post 6-4-3

San Diego
Pre 5-7-1
Post 4-5-4

Only Indianapolis have become significantly better since Free Agency and that runs in direct correalation with the addition of Manning,Harrison, and James. Cincinatti got significantly worse in the AFC with just one winning season in those 13 years, they had 5 in the previous 13.

In the NFC those traditional losing franchises prior to FA, are still overall perennial losing teams. Detroit and Atlanta have had 5 winning seasons as opposed to 3. Arizona and New Orleans have less winning seasons since Free Agency. You would think that parity would bring these franchises closer but it really has not. They are still inconsistent franchises. I think the NFC has more parity then the AFC right now, but it is not because there are more winning franchises, 80's powerhouses like Washington, Dallas, New York and Chicago have been more down than up especially in the past eight seasons.

The AFC won 11 of the first 15 Superbowls, the NFC 15 of the next 16, and now the AFC has taken 6 of the last 8. This is how it has always worked. There is not parity in a league when a team has won three of the last four Superbowls, for New England read San Francisco, Dallas and Washington. For Philly read Buffalo and Denver(It eventually won two).

The league seems remarkably similar these days I just think it was more exciting pre 1993.

[helimech24]

Parity would suggest that teams records over a period begin to even out, but if you look at the 13 years before and after free agency you will see that things have changed very little. In fact many of the traditional losing teams prior to Free Agency and the salary cap have been helped very little. I only did the AFC but look at this.

These are the number of winning seasons for each AFC team before and since the change(Expansion teams not included for obvious reason)

Buffalo
Pre 7 Win 5 Lose 1 Even
Post 6-5-2

Miami
Pre 8-1-4
Post 11-1-1

New England
Pre 7-5-1
Post 9-3-1

Jets
Pre 5-7-1
Post 6-5-2

Cleveland/Baltimore
Pre 6-6-1
Post 6-6-1

Cinci
Pre 5-6-2
Post 1-9-3

Pittsburgh
Pre 8-4-1
Post 10-3

Baltimore/Indianapolis
Pre 3-9-1
Post 8-4-1

Houston/Tennessee
Pre 7-6
Post 5-5-3

Denver
Pre 8-3-2
Post 9-2-2

Kansas
Pre 6-5-2
Post 8-4-1

Oakland
Pre 7-4-2
Post 6-4-3

San Diego
Pre 5-7-1
Post 4-5-4

Only Indianapolis have become significantly better since Free Agency and that runs in direct correalation with the addition of Manning,Harrison, and James. Cincinatti got significantly worse in the AFC with just one winning season in those 13 years, they had 5 in the previous 13.

In the NFC those traditional losing franchises prior to FA, are still overall perennial losing teams. Detroit and Atlanta have had 5 winning seasons as opposed to 3. Arizona and New Orleans have less winning seasons since Free Agency. You would think that parity would bring these franchises closer but it really has not. They are still inconsistent franchises. I think the NFC has more parity then the AFC right now, but it is not because there are more winning franchises, 80's powerhouses like Washington, Dallas, New York and Chicago have been more down than up especially in the past eight seasons.

The AFC won 11 of the first 15 Superbowls, the NFC 15 of the next 16, and now the AFC has taken 6 of the last 8. This is how it has always worked. There is not parity in a league when a team has won three of the last four Superbowls, for New England read San Francisco, Dallas and Washington. For Philly read Buffalo and Denver(It eventually won two).

The league seems remarkably similar these days I just think it was more exciting pre 1993.
Wow, I didn't realize that Miami has been that good for so long.

[Spence]

The NFL has revenue sharing and that is the biggest reason for the success of the league, not the salary cap. The salary cap was put in with free agency as a measure of keeping down salaries, not for competitive balance.That's absolutely correct. The vast majority of money generated by the NFL is split equally or almost equally among NFL franchises. The national television contracts, which are the biggest source of revenue by far, are split equally between all franchises. The revenue from NFL merchandising is split equally among the franchises. The ticket revenue from NFL games is split 60/40, with the home team taking the larger share of the money. However, since all teams play at least 10 home games and 10 away games per year, it amounts to an almost perfectly even split. The only exception there is that luxury suites are not shared with visiting teams, which is why each franchise covets that money and so many stadia have been built in the last decade or so.

The franchises can keep things like local radio broadcasting rights, but that money is puny and not a significant factor in spending by NFL franchises.

The NFL revenue sharing agreement is what gives each and every NFL team an equal opportunity to compete with the rest of the league. Whether they seize that opportunity is another matter entirely. The salary cap exists to restrain market forces -- to stifle capitalism and the free movement of labor. [This explains why late NFL owner Art Modell once described himself and his fellow owners as a bunch of conservative Republicans acting like Socialists.] If the salary cap were lifted tomorrow, each team would still have pretty much the same amount of money they have now. The difference would be that some teams would spend more money and some would not, preferring to hoard their cash so the owner can...do whatever he or she wants to do with it. [Pay off another ex-wife, purchase a 4th yacht, get penile enlargement surgery, etc.]

The obvious question is: Should owners who share the overwhelming bulk of revenues generated by the NFL be free to compete with their available funds or not? And if not, why not? Right now, an owner like Dan Snyder and an ownership group like the Rooney family have roughly the same amount of NFL money to spend on players. If the salary cap disappeared tomorrow, that would still be true.

Essentially, the salary cap restrains owners from competing with everything they've got and it does so by artificially holding down player salaries. The salary cap only promotes competitive balance within the NFL to the extent that it prevents ambitious owners from investing as much as they like in their players. It is revenue sharing with promotes competition. The salary cap does not promote competition, the salary cap prevents competition.

[flave1969]

Wow, I didn't realize that Miami has been that good for so long.

Winning season does not mean playoffs but they have been very consistent in the entire Superbowl era.

[helimech24]

That's absolutely correct. The vast majority of money generated by the NFL is split equally or almost equally among NFL franchises. The national television contracts, which are the biggest source of revenue by far, are split equally between all franchises. The revenue from NFL merchandising is split equally among the franchises. The ticket revenue from NFL games is split 60/40, with the home team taking the larger share of the money. However, since all teams play at least 10 home games and 10 away games per year, it amounts to an almost perfectly even split. The only exception there is that luxury suites are not shared with visiting teams, which is why each franchise covets that money and so many stadia have been built in the last decade or so.
I didn't know the Redskins played 20 games in 16 weeks,lol.


Essentially, the salary cap restrains owners from competing with everything they've got and it does so by artificially holding down player salaries. The salary cap only promotes competitive balance within the NFL to the extent that it prevents ambitious owners from investing as much as they like in their players. It is revenue sharing with promotes competition. The salary cap does not promote competition, the salary cap prevents competition.What it prevents is people like Jerry Jones or Danny Snyder from spending a lot more than any other teams. The reason such teams like N.O. and Arizona are not competitive right now is because they don't want to spend the money and they don't make good personel moves. They would rather pocket the rest of the money. But the gap would be bigger if there was no salary cap.

[helimech24]

Winning season does not mean playoffs but they have been very consistent in the entire Superbowl era.I wouldn't mind having 1 losing season over 13 years. They have been going thru coaches like they were out of style.

[danny's stogie]

Bravo Spence!

Heli--16 regular season + 4 preseason games.

[flave1969]

I wouldn't mind having 1 losing season over 13 years. They have been going thru coaches like they were out of style.

Actually they have only have had five and a half since 1970

[Spence]

I didn't know the Redskins played 20 games in 16 weeks,lol.Teams hold at least two home preseason games and two away preseason games. Since all teams charge normal prices, they count as revenue and I naturally included them.

What it prevents is people like Jerry Jones or Danny Snyder from spending a lot more than any other teams. The reason such teams like N.O. and Arizona are not competitive right now is because they don't want to spend the money and they don't make good personel moves. They would rather pocket the rest of the money. But the gap would be bigger if there was no salary cap.None of what you say is clearly true. Nobody knows how much Snyder or Jones would spend if the salary cap disappeared and no one knows how much any other owner would spend. We've never had true free agency without a salary cap.

As for teams like New Orleans and Arizona, they consistently make bad personnel moves and hire the wrong coaches and general managers. The salary cap won't change that one way or another. Those teams have bad ownership and will probably never be any good for a decent period of time until they change ownership. Again, that's got nothing to do with the salary cap.

[Keino]

That's absolutely correct. The vast majority of money generated by the NFL is split equally or almost equally among NFL franchises. The national television contracts, which are the biggest source of revenue by far, are split equally between all franchises. The revenue from NFL merchandising is split equally among the franchises. The ticket revenue from NFL games is split 60/40, with the home team taking the larger share of the money. However, since all teams play at least 10 home games and 10 away games per year, it amounts to an almost perfectly even split. The only exception there is that luxury suites are not shared with visiting teams, which is why each franchise covets that money and so many stadia have been built in the last decade or so.

The franchises can keep things like local radio broadcasting rights, but that money is puny and not a significant factor in spending by NFL franchises.

The NFL revenue sharing agreement is what gives each and every NFL team an equal opportunity to compete with the rest of the league. Whether they seize that opportunity is another matter entirely. The salary cap exists to restrain market forces -- to stifle capitalism and the free movement of labor. [This explains why late NFL owner Art Modell once described himself and his fellow owners as a bunch of conservative Republicans acting like Socialists.] If the salary cap were lifted tomorrow, each team would still have pretty much the same amount of money they have now. The difference would be that some teams would spend more money and some would not, preferring to hoard their cash so the owner can...do whatever he or she wants to do with it. [Pay off another ex-wife, purchase a 4th yacht, get penile enlargement surgery, etc.]

The obvious question is: Should owners who share the overwhelming bulk of revenues generated by the NFL be free to compete with their available funds or not? And if not, why not? Right now, an owner like Dan Snyder and an ownership group like the Rooney family have roughly the same amount of NFL money to spend on players. If the salary cap disappeared tomorrow, that would still be true.

Essentially, the salary cap restrains owners from competing with everything they've got and it does so by artificially holding down player salaries. The salary cap only promotes competitive balance within the NFL to the extent that it prevents ambitious owners from investing as much as they like in their players. It is revenue sharing with promotes competition. The salary cap does not promote competition, the salary cap prevents competition.

I knew you would come through.........

[helimech24]

Teams hold at least two home preseason games and two away preseason games. Since all teams charge normal prices, they count as revenue and I naturally included them.
LOL, did even think about them. My bad.

None of what you say is clearly true. Nobody knows how much Snyder or Jones would spend if the salary cap disappeared and no one knows how much any other owner would spend. We've never had true free agency without a salary cap.

As for teams like New Orleans and Arizona, they consistently make bad personnel moves and hire the wrong coaches and general managers. The salary cap won't change that one way or another. Those teams have bad ownership and will probably never be any good for a decent period of time until they change ownership. Again, that's got nothing to do with the salary cap.Do you really think owners like Snyder and Jones, and Al Davis wouldn't overspend the amount of money they have coming in from revenue sharing? Let's look at this a little differently. Before 1993, the same teams made the playoffs every year. Buffalo, Miami, San Fran, Wash, etc. In this age of football, the turnover rate is much better. In the NFC, Seattle was the only team to make the playoffs the last two years. 4 out of 6 made it for the AFC. But it allowes more teams to get into the playoffs or have a chance to. Isn't that what makes the NFL so great? The drama of the year, when it comes down to the wire.

[helimech24]

Bravo Spence!

Heli--16 regular season + 4 preseason games.
:lol1: , just smack me in the back of the head.

[helimech24]

Actually they have only have had five and a half since 1970Unbelievable. I am just amazed by that.

[Spence]

Do you really think owners like Snyder and Jones, and Al Davis wouldn't overspend the amount of money they have coming in from revenue sharing?I don't know how much they'd spend. It's pretty unlikely they'd spend gigantic fortunes considering the huge debt payments owners like Snyder and Jones have to make to their banks every month. Snyder couldn't affford to buy the Redskins, he had to mortgage himself and his entire family to the hilt in order to do it.

Let's look at this a little differently. Before 1993, the same teams made the playoffs every year. Buffalo, Miami, San Fran, Wash, etc. In this age of football, the turnover rate is much better. In the NFC, Seattle was the only team to make the playoffs the last two years. 4 out of 6 made it for the AFC. But it allowes more teams to get into the playoffs or have a chance to. Isn't that what makes the NFL so great? The drama of the year, when it comes down to the wire.The fact that any team [aside from a few perennial non-contenders] can make the playoffs is indeed one of the major strengths of the NFL. But what does the salary cap have to do with that? The main reason teams were consistently dominant before 1993 was the absence of a system of true free agency. True free agency begain in 1993. Once teams no longer owned the rights to a player as long as they wanted that player, talent moved around more and the league became more competitive. You've made an argument for free agency [an argument I agree with], but you haven't made an argument for the salary cap.

[helimech24]

I don't know how much they'd spend. It's pretty unlikely they'd spend gigantic fortunes considering the huge debt payments owners like Snyder and Jones have to make to their banks every month. Snyder couldn't affford to buy the Redskins, he had to mortgage himself and his entire family to the hilt in order to do it.

The fact that any team [aside from a few perennial non-contenders] can make the playoffs is indeed one of the major strengths of the NFL. But what does the salary cap have to do with that? The main reason teams were consistently dominant before 1993 was the absence of a system of true free agency. True free agency begain in 1993. Once teams no longer owned the rights to a player as long as they wanted that player, talent moved around more and the league became more competitive. You've made an argument for free agency [an argument I agree with], but you haven't made an argument for the salary cap.
But the salary cap is what controls free agency so that players contracts aren't outragous and the turnover of free agents are constant. If we didn't have a salary cap, players like Lavar wouldn't need to be cut or restructured for the Redskins. It helps free agency by always having a big pool of free agents instead of a contract just expiring. Look at how many players the Titans had to release last year. Even second teer guys are important because depth is always needed. We need the salary cap to force teams to cut players, trade players, and add to the pool of free agents that helps bad teams get better.

[Keino]

But the salary cap is what controls free agency so that players contracts aren't outragous and the turnover of free agents are constant. If we didn't have a salary cap, players like Lavar wouldn't need to be cut or restructured for the Redskins. It helps free agency by always having a big pool of free agents instead of a contract just expiring. Look at how many players the Titans had to release last year. Even second teer guys are important because depth is always needed. We need the salary cap to force teams to cut players, trade players, and add to the pool of free agents that helps bad teams get better.


So wait. You don't think player would still be cut etc etc etc? You don't think that a backloaded contract or a heavy roster bonus wouldn't force teams to cut their players, simply because they do not want to pay it? What does any of that have to do with Parity?

The best way to insure the best product is by allowing teams to freely compete. The salary cap limits that competition, while revenue sharing encourages it.

[helimech24]

So wait. You don't think player would still be cut etc etc etc? You don't think that a backloaded contract or a heavy roster bonus wouldn't force teams to cut their players, simply because they do not want to pay it? What does any of that have to do with Parity?

The best way to insure the best product is by allowing teams to freely compete. The salary cap limits that competition, while revenue sharing encourages it.No, I don't think the teams would freely cut players because they wouldn't have to cut them anymore if they didn't want to. Why would they need to if they have the player then need to be great? Let's use Lavar as an example. If he were one of the major keys to our defense, do you think Snyder would cut him to save money? I think teams would cut players they think they doen't need, but teams wouldn't have to cut the good-great players unless they think they can do better or the team doesn't like their style of play. Do you think the Titans would have released Samari Rolle if a cap wasn't in place? It would still happen depending on the owners and coaches, but the salary cap forces their hand in doing so, which levels the playing field that much more. The fact that the Titans had to release Derrick Mason and Samari Rolle because of the cap helped the Ravens.

[Keino]

No, I don't think the teams would freely cut players because they wouldn't have to cut them anymore if they didn't want to. Why would they need to if they have the player then need to be great? Let's use Lavar as an example. If he were one of the major keys to our defense, do you think Snyder would cut him to save money? I think teams would cut players they think they doen't need, but teams wouldn't have to cut the good-great players unless they think they can do better or the team doesn't like their style of play. Do you think the Titans would have released Samari Rolle if a cap wasn't in place? It would still happen depending on the owners and coaches, but the salary cap forces their hand in doing so, which levels the playing field that much more. The fact that the Titans had to release Derrick Mason and Samari Rolle because of the cap helped the Ravens.


Yes I think players would still get released. Because teams would have to still spend their money wisely in order to field a competetive team and still make a profit. Samari Rolle is a perfect example. Beyond his prime, but due for huge money. Injury issues that were thought to be potentially career threatening. Still a quality player, but maybe too expensive for some teams. I can see how a team, without facing a salary cap dilemna would release a player like that. I can see players getting cut for a variety of reasons (Lockerroom conflicts, Huge bonuses due that the team feels are undeserved based on performance, not a fit for the system etc etc etc).

Not to mention the fact that Free Agency allows players to sign where they want to sign. The Franchise tag is another factor that leads to player movement. My point is that player movement is not an intended consequence of the salary cap. In fact, as much as it encourages player movement (By forcing teams to cut players), it is also restrictive in that regard by not allowing teams to pursue players ata given position due to their own cap situation.

What we would also see, that we used to see all the time in the pre-salary cap era, are Blockbuster trades. The salary cap prevents this unless players are in the final year of their contracts or are in their rookie contracts, because the trading team must now have the entire Signing bonus accelerated and due on the cap that year. The CLinton-Champ trade is a perfect example. CP was way underpaid under his rookie Contract, and Champ was carrying the franchise tag. Remember that 9 Million dollar cap hit we took to trade Coles? Do you know how Riggins, Jurgenson, Bobby Mitchell, Sam Huff...all of whom are HOF'ers became Redskins? Trades.

Do I think Danny would cut Lavar to save money in the absence of a cap? No. Danny wouldn't, but thats how he would choose to use his earnings. Other owners would choose to pocket the cash. I can think of about half the league owners that would cut Lavar, especially given how the defense performed for the last 2 years while Lavar's role wasn't as prominant as it used to be, either due to injury or Coach decision.

In short, as Spence aptly points out, parity is function of revenue sharing. Player movement is a function of free agency. Neither would end with the ending of the cap.

[redskin_rich]

...
In short, as Spence aptly points out, parity is function of revenue sharing. Player movement is a function of free agency. Neither would end with the ending of the cap.
Nicely said on all your point's, Keino.
Let me just tag on, that the salary cap kills chemistry by making it impossible to keep good veteren depth. When we won our last Super Bowl in '91-92, we had Joe Jacoby and Russ Grimm as back-ups on our O-line, there was no drop-off in play if a starter went down. Now, it would be impossible to pay for that kind of depth without having bare bones somewhere else on the team. All you can do now is hope a rookie and/or some league journeyman can fill in if a starter goes down. This is the same with every team except a couple that have gotten really lucky in the draft recently.

I would feel better about the cap if there were some kind of veteren rule that makes it cheaper capwise to keep your own. The salary cap has created a nomadic league. I bet everyone on this board has at least one jersey of a player that is no longer here.

[santanadasavior]

Nicely said on all your point's, Keino.
Let me just tag on, that the salary cap kills chemistry by making it impossible to keep good veteren depth. When we won our last Super Bowl in '91-92, we had Joe Jacoby and Russ Grimm as back-ups on our O-line, there was no drop-off in play if a starter went down. Now, it would be impossible to pay for that kind of depth without having bare bones somewhere else on the team. All you can do now is hope a rookie and/or some league journeyman can fill in if a starter goes down. This is the same with every team except a couple that have gotten really lucky in the draft recently.

I would feel better about the cap if there were some kind of veteren rule that makes it cheaper capwise to keep your own. The salary cap has created a nomadic league. I bet everyone on this board has at least one jersey of a player that is no longer here.

First off, I have no out of date jerseys (I'm only 16 and I have a Cooley but I get your point). It would be nice to have an extra 10 or 20 million or so to spend on players that have been on the team for say 5 years. If the NFL would implenent something of that nature your idea of keeping people would be validated.

[Slobberknocker]

I wouldnt mind an uncapped year for ONE year. I cant see the NFL uncapped.

The real problem is that most insiders acknowledge that if the NFL has a season without a cap (2007), the chances are more than likely that the cap will NEVER be reinstated.

I would hate to see that. The NFL has everything going for it. Turning it into baseball because of greed -- that would be a tragedy.

Part of what makes the game so exciting is that every team is required to deal with the same cap. I HATE the Yankees and their determination to buy every available free agent, screw the cost.

The Redskins functioned least when we had the same motto. It's only now, that we're being frugal and discretionary that the team is flourishing.

I don't think more money is ever an answer in and of itself. It really comes down to what you do with it, whatever the ceiling happens to be. 110 mil? Fine... or 100 mil, fine.

Just like in Hollywood, the most money doesn't equal the best film... or the best team.

[helimech24]

Yes I think players would still get released. Because teams would have to still spend their money wisely in order to field a competetive team and still make a profit. Samari Rolle is a perfect example. Beyond his prime, but due for huge money. Injury issues that were thought to be potentially career threatening. Still a quality player, but maybe too expensive for some teams. I can see how a team, without facing a salary cap dilemna would release a player like that. I can see players getting cut for a variety of reasons (Lockerroom conflicts, Huge bonuses due that the team feels are undeserved based on performance, not a fit for the system etc etc etc). But don't you agree that the salary cap forces these issues even more in some teams? Look what it did to San Fran in the late '90s because they over extended themselves. I think it is a good thing because I don't want to see the big market teams be able to go above and beyond the shared revenue. I don't want the Redskins turning into the NFLs version of the Yankees. I want as many competitive teams as possible, and all three force that. I am not niave enough to think only one of the three makes the parity. It is a combination of all three.

Not to mention the fact that Free Agency allows players to sign where they want to sign. The Franchise tag is another factor that leads to player movement. My point is that player movement is not an intended consequence of the salary cap. In fact, as much as it encourages player movement (By forcing teams to cut players), it is also restrictive in that regard by not allowing teams to pursue players ata given position due to their own cap situation.But it allows other teams that are losing to almost be instantly better. I will admit that there was no example last season. But in the season before, that person was T.O. I know that he was injured thru the playoffs, but he gave that team a demeanor that they could walk on water. They saw his work ethic to get better for the SB, and the team worked just as hard. Maybe this is a bad example because they were already good(or the NFC was that bad), but it was the only one I could think of. T.O. improved that team instantly. Let me ask you this: What is the reason a team has a shorter turn around from bad to good then before 1993? Is it the big pool of free agents? Is it the revenue sharing? Is it the salary cap forcing good teams to get rid of talent? I think it is all three, and I like it.

What we would also see, that we used to see all the time in the pre-salary cap era, are Blockbuster trades. The salary cap prevents this unless players are in the final year of their contracts or are in their rookie contracts, because the trading team must now have the entire Signing bonus accelerated and due on the cap that year. The CLinton-Champ trade is a perfect example. CP was way underpaid under his rookie Contract, and Champ was carrying the franchise tag. Remember that 9 Million dollar cap hit we took to trade Coles? Do you know how Riggins, Jurgenson, Bobby Mitchell, Sam Huff...all of whom are HOF'ers became Redskins? Trades.
None of this would change unless they got rid of free agency because their going to be teams that could still not afford the contracts, for they will be limited to the revenue sharing. The only teams that could afford this type of trading contantly are the big market teams.

Do I think Danny would cut Lavar to save money in the absence of a cap? No. Danny wouldn't, but thats how he would choose to use his earnings. Other owners would choose to pocket the cash. I can think of about half the league owners that would cut Lavar, especially given how the defense performed for the last 2 years while Lavar's role wasn't as prominant as it used to be, either due to injury or Coach decision.
But Danny is one of the owners that would take advantage of this, that is my point. Because we want to be able spend more, do you think it is fair to small market teams or average teams for that matter? I was using a healthy Lavar as an example, but say that GW saw something in him, and he didn't want to risk cutting Lavar? Our owner would do what is needed to keep him.

In short, as Spence aptly points out, parity is function of revenue sharing. Player movement is a function of free agency. Neither would end with the ending of the cap.And the salary cap aids both of them.

[Keino]

But don't you agree that the salary cap forces these issues even more in some teams? Look what it did to San Fran in the late '90s because they over extended themselves. I think it is a good thing because I don't want to see the big market teams be able to go above and beyond the shared revenue. I don't want the Redskins turning into the NFLs version of the Yankees. I want as many competitive teams as possible, and all three force that. I am not niave enough to think only one of the three makes the parity. It is a combination of all three.

Sure, but I don't necessarily see it as a good thing that tampering with the market forces these decisions. Any comparisons to baseball are negated by the fact they (MLB) have no revenue sharing. If teams want to increase revenues, then they need to find creative ways to generate those revenues the way Jones and Snyder have. The size of the market doesn't seem to have much bearing since TV revenues are what is shared evenly. That's why Im not buying it.

But it allows other teams that are losing to almost be instantly better.

What you are saying here is that the salary cap is soley responsible for parity after you just finished saying it was a combination of factors. I don't think the salary cap has much effect, rather it is revenue sharing that created parity. That is the our fundamental difference.

Let me ask you this: What is the reason a team has a shorter turn around from bad to good then before 1993? Is it the big pool of free agents? Is it the revenue sharing? Is it the salary cap forcing good teams to get rid of talent? I think it is all three, and I like it.

Im not sure it has been sufficiently proven that teams have a shorter turnaround. Sure there have been some teams that have gone from Outhouse to Penthouse and back recently, but I think accross the board, the time it takes to get from Chump to Champ is quite possibly comparable. Tampa went from 0-and whatever as a franchise in 1976 (an expansion team mind you) to playing in the NFC Championship in 1979. There was no salary cap then, and hell the expansion rules weren't nearly as favorable. If you're asking me why I think there is parity I would probably say that revenue sharing is the primary cause and the ability to add players via free agency are both factors. I'm not so sure the salary cap has any other effect besides slowing the growth of player's salaries.


None of this would change unless they got rid of free agency because their going to be teams that could still not afford the contracts, for they will be limited to the revenue sharing. The only teams that could afford this type of trading contantly are the big market teams.

The market would dictate player salaries. Free agency wouldn't need to end. Teams would have to still make wise personnel and financial decisions to field competetive teams. There would be no stashing of players on Injured reserve, a favorite practice of the old Joe Gibbbs days. The NFL guarantees the owners a big chucnk of money to work with. Salary cap or not.


But Danny is one of the owners that would take advantage of this, that is my point. Because we want to be able spend more, do you think it is fair to small market teams or average teams for that matter? I was using a healthy Lavar as an example, but say that GW saw something in him, and he didn't want to risk cutting Lavar? Our owner would do what is needed to keep him.

And the salary cap aids both of them.

Again, if TV revenues and merchandise revenues and stadium revenues are all shared, what does the size of the market have to do with it? If Danny is creative enough to run his franchise in such a way that he makes other revenue not shared, why shouldn't he be able to benefiit from that?
Again with the Lavar example, I alredy said, Danny wouldn't cut him. That's our owner. Rooney would let him go. Kraft would let him go. Red McCombs would've let him go. and so on and so on.

[BigPlayJay]

Sorry but yes, I prefer 6 superior teams playing excellent football to 32 mediocre teams in a battle of attrition.

Do you really think that the 99 Rams or the Patriots of recent years were mediocre and sloppy teams? How about the late 90's Bronco teams? They looked good to me.

[SonnyandSam]

Spence.....I know my responses below will repeat what some have probably already written but I cannot disagree more with several of your statements.

The franchises can keep things like local radio broadcasting rights, but that money is puny and not a significant factor in spending by NFL franchises.


This is patently false. Local revenues include big money from suites, concessions, parking fees, stadium naming rights, and advertising revenue. The local revenues are very significant. Forbes http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2006/0213/058a.html just estimated the local revenues for 32 NFL teams in 2004 was $1.6 billion or 26 percent of ALL football revenue. That's a LOT of money. And guess what? That local revenue has grown 20 percent annually for the past 5 years. The Redskins, Cowgirls and Patriots account for 20 percent of all NFL LOCAL revenue.

If they were "puny" as you say, the NFLPA would not be demanding they be included in the gross revenue part of the salary cap calculation. Similarly, the other 25+ owners would not want to share in all the local revenue that owners like Snyder, Jones, Kraft and a few others have been able to build from their marketing efforts.

Local revenues are less than the current TV and gate revenues but still a very large chunk of money. It is THE MAJOR stumbling block to a CBA. Even the owners cannot agree to dismiss this "puny" share of the money pie.

Strike 1


[QUOTE]The salary cap exists to restrain market forces -- to stifle capitalism and the free movement of labor. [This explains why late NFL owner Art Modell once described himself and his fellow owners as a bunch of conservative Republicans acting like Socialists.]

In theory....yes. But in real life....no. The salary cap does restrict some movement of labor between teams. But if it really was that restrictive, why are there hundreds of free agents every year? Why are there dozens of top quality players available every year? There absolutely is a significant amount of free movement of labor from team to team.

The problem with your statement is that you talk about the salary cap as though it was the only thing affecting labor movement. The restrictiveness of the salary cap combined with a variety of features built into the CBA allows for players to become available every 3-5 years.

In the end, the salary cap and the various provisions of the CBA provide a "controlled" movement of labor between the teams.

Strike two....only one more and your out!

If the salary cap were lifted tomorrow, each team would still have pretty much the same amount of money they have now. The difference would be that some teams would spend more money and some would not, preferring to hoard their cash so the owner can...do whatever he or she wants to do with it. [Pay off another ex-wife, purchase a 4th yacht, get penile enlargement surgery, etc.]

:banghead: Spence......you don't really believe this, do you? I know you are not that naive. I usually agree with virtually all your posts.

You really believe that Danny Snyder would not go out and spend $150 million on salaries? 200 million? Or Jones or Kraft or Allen or Zygy what's his name?

The problem is you rely on your first argument above as your base for this answer. Yet I already proved that local revenues are a very substantial amount of money that Danny and other rich owners can use to their advantage. Look how Danny is buying up all the coaching talent. He'd do the same if Joe told him he could buy a Super Bowl with his check book.

Even if these owners spent only 20 percent more than the other owners, that's $20 million. I'm sure they would spend even more. Just look at MLB where the rich teams like the Yankees and Red Sox clearly out spend all the other teams; and are even willing to pay a TAX to do it! They have the local revenue to outbid all the other teams that have decent revenues of their own but not enough to compete with the big boys.

Even still, many owners will spend big in any one year to buy a championship this year and worry about the future later.

Sorry...but Strike three.....You're out Spence.

[redskin_rich]

Do you really think that the 99 Rams or the Patriots of recent years were mediocre and sloppy teams? How about the late 90's Bronco teams? They looked good to me.
The '99 Rams were fun to watch but in reality, they were one dimensional. They hung a lot of points on a team and their defense didn't have to do much and look how fast they faded.
The Patriots are one of the very few teams that have had good depth but even with them there has been little competition. Who did they have to beat to get there? The Colts, lol.
The Broncos cheated on their back to back Super Bowl run. They went well over the salary cap and the NFL barely penalized them. I think they lost a 3rd rd draft pick. :rolleyes:

To expand on this point more, look at the Colts this year. They came as close as any team ever has to going undefeated yet they get beat by the 6th seed in their first playoff game.
There will be a couple good teams every year but before the salary cap era there were more good teams and those teams were better.

[BigPlayJay]

To expand on this point more, look at the Colts this year. They came as close as any team ever has to going undefeated yet they get beat by the 6th seed in their first playoff game.
There will be a couple good teams every year but before the salary cap era there were more good teams and those teams were better.

Stuff like that was going on way before the salary cap. Remember the 1987 Vikings who did us the favor of knocking off the 49ers sending the chmpionship game back to Washington after beating the Bears on the road? My point is the standard arguement about there being no more great teams can be easily refuted.

The really bad thing is when a team like the Yankees has 4 times as much as many teams and still can't win a championship. No offense, but I have a hard time understanding how people are so impressed with a team that has a giant advantage winning a few championships. It reminds me of Pro Wrestling. It's not scripted of course, but it's leaning in that direction.

Just my opinion.

[redskin_rich]

Stuff like that was going on way before the salary cap. Remember the 1987 Vikings who did us the favor of knocking off the 49ers sending the chmpionship game back to Washington after beating the Bears on the road? My point is the standard arguement about there being no more great teams can be easily refuted.

The really bad thing is when a team like the Yankees has 4 times as much as many teams and still can't win a championship. No offense, but I have a hard time understanding how people are so impressed with a team that has a giant advantage winning a few championships. It reminds me of Pro Wrestling. It's not scripted of course, but it's leaning in that direction.

Just my opinion.
See, I think it is more like what you are describing now. Before the salary cap era, there were quite a few very good teams and getting to the Super Bowl was a major accomplishment. Now it seems to be more about luck and health than anything. Like I said earlier, its all about attrition these days.

[Spence]

But the salary cap is what controls free agency so that players contracts aren't outragous and the turnover of free agents are constant. If we didn't have a salary cap, players like Lavar wouldn't need to be cut or restructured for the Redskins. It helps free agency by always having a big pool of free agents instead of a contract just expiring. Look at how many players the Titans had to release last year. Even second teer guys are important because depth is always needed. We need the salary cap to force teams to cut players, trade players, and add to the pool of free agents that helps bad teams get better.You think teams would pay players far more money than they are worth rather than cutting them? How did you arrive at that conclusion? The entire history of human nature indicates that people don't like paying more for something than they think it is worth and since NFL contracts are not guaranteed, owners would cut vastly overpaid players. In fact, they would be MORE LIKELY to cut such players because the cap wouldn't inhibit them. The salary cap inhibits some roster moves because it becomes too expensive to cut or trade players when their prorated signing bonus comes due immediately. If not for the salary cap, the Redskins could have cut that fat pantload Dana Stubblefield after one season. Since Stubblefield's entire signing bonus would have come due and that would have been a huge problem under the cap, the Redskins were forced to keep him on the roster and pretend they had confidence in him, while Stubblefield continued to pretend he cared about earning a paycheck.

[RedskinRyan]

The Broncos cheated on their back to back Super Bowl run. They went well over the salary cap and the NFL barely penalized them. I think they lost a 3rd rd draft pick. :rolleyes:


they lost two 3rd rounders...dont forget they drafted maurice clarett :weak:

[Spence]

I think it is a good thing because I don't want to see the big market teams be able to go above and beyond the shared revenue. I don't want the Redskins turning into the NFLs version of the Yankees. I want as many competitive teams as possible, and all three force that. I am not niave enough to think only one of the three makes the parity. It is a combination of all three.The NFL is not major league baseball. There are no big market or small market teams in the NFL. Revenue is shared. The Green Bay Packers get pretty much the same revenue from the NFL as the Redskins do. One is a big market and one is a small market...in baseball. But in football, NFL revenue sharing ensures that all franchises share one big market -- the United States of America.

But it allows other teams that are losing to almost be instantly better.No, free agency allows teams to rebuild themselves quickly. The salary cap does not. The salary cap, if anything, prevents teams from rebuilding even faster because it limits how much they can spend.

But Danny is one of the owners that would take advantage of this, that is my point. Because we want to be able spend more, do you think it is fair to small market teams or average teams for that matter?Who are these small market teams in the NFL? They don't exist. All you have are franchises who get pretty much the same amount of money from the NFL. If some owners decide to spend more and some owners decide to spend less, that's a function of how much that owner wants to win football games, not a function of the size of his market. If the Chicago Bears, who play in a big city, decided not to spend much money because the ownership would rather build six new mansions in the south Pacific, that's not an argument for the salary cap, that's an argument to get new ownership in Chicago. All the salary cap does is prevent the best franchises from flourishing to their greatest extent. Revenue sharing ensures a level playing field.

[CNYSkinFan]

You think teams would pay players far more money than they are worth rather than cutting them? How did you arrive at that conclusion? The entire history of human nature indicates that people don't like paying more for something than they think it is worth and since NFL contracts are not guaranteed, owners would cut vastly overpaid players. In fact, they would be MORE LIKELY to cut such players because the cap wouldn't inhibit them. The salary cap inhibits some roster moves because it becomes too expensive to cut or trade players when their prorated signing bonus comes due immediately. If not for the salary cap, the Redskins could have cut that fat pantload Dana Stubblefield after one season. Since Stubblefield's entire signing bonus would have come due and that would have been a huge problem under the cap, the Redskins were forced to keep him on the roster and pretend they had confidence in him, while Stubblefield continued to pretend he cared about earning a paycheck.
Well that is true and it is not true. If there were no salary cap then the players's union would push for more guaranteed contracts. FA would not be about the signing bonus but how many years a team will guarantee it's money. Contracts would no longer be backloaded like now but front loaded to entice players into signing. Even now (see Fred Smoot) this is starting to happen under the cap.

Which is why I think the NFL should keep the whole package they put together in 1993. It is the perfect mix of team responsibility and ability of player's to earn their money. Revenue Sharing is a huge part of that, but so is the unguaranteed nature of player contracts, and so is the salary cap.

Leaving it up to market forces will eventually dilute that has led to the greatness of the NFl over the past 10-15 years. Star players will immediately demand front loaded guaranteed contracts. Eventually some teams (read Redskins, Dallas, NY) will acquiesce. Then the second tier players will start demanding it and eventually it will permeate the entire NFL. And once guaranteed contracts become the norm then Revenue sharing will not matter too much anymore. Teams with local revenue sources and stadium advantages will be able to afford floating a bad contract or player. Smaller teams will have to be perfect in their signings to have a chance at winning because they can not afford to make a mistake.

So eventually you will have MLB except with some revenue sharing of major tv money. So it won't be as disadvantageous as MLB but it will be pretty close.

[CNYSkinFan]

The NFL is not major league baseball. There are no big market or small market teams in the NFL. Revenue is shared. The Green Bay Packers get pretty much the same revenue from the NFL as the Redskins do. One is a big market and one is a small market...in baseball. But in football, NFL revenue sharing ensures that all franchises share one big market -- the United States of America.

No, free agency allows teams to rebuild themselves quickly. The salary cap does not. The salary cap, if anything, prevents teams from rebuilding even faster because it limits how much they can spend.

Who are these small market teams in the NFL? They don't exist. All you have are franchises who get pretty much the same amount of money from the NFL. If some owners decide to spend more and some owners decide to spend less, that's a function of how much that owner wants to win football games, not a function of the size of his market. If the Chicago Bears, who play in a big city, decided not to spend much money because the ownership would rather build six new mansions in the south Pacific, that's not an argument for the salary cap, that's an argument to get new ownership in Chicago. All the salary cap does is prevent the best franchises from flourishing to their greatest extent. Revenue sharing ensures a level playing field.

But money from the NFL is not the ONLY source of revenue. This is a major contention between small market clubs (Buffalo, Arizona, Green Bay, Minnesotta, Detroit, Seattle) and large market clubs (Washington, Dallas, NY Jets, NY GIants, etc). In large market clubs they get revenue from luxury suites, local tv revenuw, marchandising, and stadium and ticket sales, that is not part of the overall shared Revenue. Now I don't think it should be either, but to keep the league competitive you must find ways to cap the amount these large markets would spend on Signing Bonus' and guaranteed contracts or else you create the same issue as MLB just with some teams getting a supplement in income.

[smoak]

But money from the NFL is not the ONLY source of revenue. This is a major contention between small market clubs (Buffalo, Arizona, Green Bay, Minnesotta, Detroit, Seattle) and large market clubs (Washington, Dallas, NY Jets, NY GIants, etc). In large market clubs they get revenue from luxury suites, local tv revenuw, marchandising, and stadium and ticket sales, that is not part of the overall shared Revenue. Now I don't think it should be either, but to keep the league competitive you must find ways to cap the amount these large markets would spend on Signing Bonus' and guaranteed contracts or else you create the same issue as MLB just with some teams getting a supplement in income.

Correct. Not all revenue is shared in the NFL, but I do not agree with putting caps in place. A marketing guy like Snyder should be free to make as much money as he can from his fan base (scary thought). The only advantage he would have is more cash on hand to pay a higher bonus. It certainly is an advantage, but the other owners have enough cash to compete, and it would never be as lopsided as MLB.

Oh and in my opinion, gauranteed contracts KILL the NBA. Teams get stuck with too many lunkhead loafs who are just around to collect a check.

[redskin_rich]

Oh and in my opinion, gauranteed contracts KILL the NBA. Teams get stuck with too many lunkhead loafs who are just around to collect a check.
Big signing bonuses effectively do the same thing.

[Spence]

Well that is true and it is not true. If there were no salary cap then the players's union would push for more guaranteed contracts.The NFLPA asks for guaranteed contracts every negotiation as it is. They never get it. I don't see the big deal there. The deal is, you get a signing bonus or you get a guaranteed contract. The NFLPA agreed to take signing bonuses. I don't see why that would change.

Leaving it up to market forces will eventually dilute that has led to the greatness of the NFl over the past 10-15 years.Wait, the NFL was pretty great before the salary cap. The NFL didn't become great in 1993 and many people will tell you it certainly didn't get any better. Whatever the case, the NFL was the pro sports powerhouse in 1986 and still is in 1986.

Star players will immediately demand front loaded guaranteed contracts. Eventually some teams (read Redskins, Dallas, NY) will acquiesce. Then the second tier players will start demanding it and eventually it will permeate the entire NFL. And once guaranteed contracts become the norm then Revenue sharing will not matter too much anymore. Teams with local revenue sources and stadium advantages will be able to afford floating a bad contract or player. Smaller teams will have to be perfect in their signings to have a chance at winning because they can not afford to make a mistake.Again, there is no reason to believe the NFL would agree to guaranteed contracts. Front-loaded contracts might become the norm, but that wouldn't be much of a difference. Contracts are front-loaded already -- with huge signing bonuses. Again, you're placing too much emphasis on revenue differences between teams. They just don't exist very much. They're tiny. Every team in the NFL gets most of its operating income from the TV contracts, which are shared equally. Stadium gate revenue is shared. Merchandising is shared. The Redskins and Giants simply don't have this revenue advantage. It doesn't exist.

[Spence]

But money from the NFL is not the ONLY source of revenue. This is a major contention between small market clubs (Buffalo, Arizona, Green Bay, Minnesotta, Detroit, Seattle) and large market clubs (Washington, Dallas, NY Jets, NY GIants, etc). In large market clubs they get revenue from luxury suites, local tv revenuw, marchandising, and stadium and ticket sales, that is not part of the overall shared Revenue. Now I don't think it should be either, but to keep the league competitive you must find ways to cap the amount these large markets would spend on Signing Bonus' and guaranteed contracts or else you create the same issue as MLB just with some teams getting a supplement in income.Local revenue sources are tiny and not important. Teams in smaller cities have luxury suites in their stadiums, just as teams in larger cities do. The notion that only the Giants and the Redskins have luxury suites is false. They all do. The Packers do. The Raiders do. The Jaguars do. They all do and they all get to keep the money.

Local TV rights? Not sure what you're talking about. Teams can earn a few bucks from selling the rights to certain shows, but that's it. Again, it is infintesimally small compared to the national TV contracts. You're talking about the difference of a million dollars or so. That's nothing. No team is going to be forced out of competition because of that.

[danny's stogie]

It's hard to believe that anyone (other than a Yankee fan or a sports agent) can think the present economy system in MLB is a good one. The smaller markets in baseball are doomed to non-competitiveness for the long term. That's a good thing? I guess you must be for tax-cut for the rich too.

Many smaller market teams are good at discovering talent (e.g. Pirates, Montreal, etc), but they can never keep the talented players once they blossom. How can that possibly be a good thing?




No, trickle-down economics are a crock of ***CBS***. Any economist with half a brain will say that. But the NFL owners operate a cartel. A hard salary cap provids an artificial ceiling that prohibits labor from recieving its full market value. I believe the players should recieve a deeper cut of the profits, at least be able to recieve a salary equivalent to their worth. The lack of a hard cap in the MLB system allows players to seek their market value. So you see, I side with labor, and no, I don't have an affinity for the super rich (the owners) just the normal rich (the players).


You presumably are a Redskins fan. If the NFL ever adopted the MLB salary system, Washington would be in position to be like the Yankees. Is that why you favor such a system? Well, I, for one, want my beloved Skins to earn their SB, not buy it.

Why does this continue to be used against myself and rich? Both of us watch football regardless of whether the Skins stink or are great. We both just want to see QUALITY football not mediocrity.

[SonnyandSam]

[QUOTE=CNYSkinFan]Which is why I think the NFL should keep the whole package they put together in 1993. It is the perfect mix of team responsibility and ability of player's to earn their money. Revenue Sharing is a huge part of that, but so is the unguaranteed nature of player contracts, and so is the salary cap.

QUOTE]

I agree 100 percent. The CBA turned out to be an almost perfect plan to allow players to make good money, to have their wages increase as League revenues increased; but still allowed the owners enough control over the cost of player salaries so as not to bankrupt the owners and the League (See NHL). The sharing of certain gross revenues helped to balance available money between the teams.

But revenue sharing is not the only or even the biggest reason for parity in the NFL. It is the CBA which was carefully crafted to let all sides make money which has created the parity and ultimately the financial success of the NFL.

[SonnyandSam]

Local revenue sources are tiny and not important. Teams in smaller cities have luxury suites in their stadiums, just as teams in larger cities do. The notion that only the Giants and the Redskins have luxury suites is false. They all do. The Packers do. The Raiders do. The Jaguars do. They all do and they all get to keep the money.

Local TV rights? Not sure what you're talking about. Teams can earn a few bucks from selling the rights to certain shows, but that's it. Again, it is infintesimally small compared to the national TV contracts. You're talking about the difference of a million dollars or so. That's nothing. No team is going to be forced out of competition because of that.

Why do you keep saying this? Did you just completely ignore the Forbes analysis. $1.6 billion or 26 percent of all football revenue is made up of LOCAL REVENUE. That is not peanuts. It is very big money. And it is growing at 20 percent per year.

The Skins, cowgirls and Patriots average $107 million each in local revenue. Is that "puny"? I certainly do not think it is. Neither do the other 29 teams or the NFLPA. They want a share of that money. The other 29 teams average $44 million each. The 3 teams above have more than double any other team in the league on average. And many small market teams average far less than $44 million.

Stop ignoring the local revenue. It is big bucks....and it is growing.

[Spence]

Why do you keep saying this? Did you just completely ignore the Forbes analysis. $1.6 billion or 26 percent of all football revenue is made up of LOCAL REVENUE. That is not peanuts. It is very big money. And it is growing at 20 percent per year.

The Skins, cowgirls and Patriots average $107 million each in local revenue. Is that "puny"? I certainly do not think it is. Neither do the other 29 teams or the NFLPA. They want a share of that money. The other 29 teams average $44 million each. The 3 teams above have more than double any other team in the league on average. And many small market teams average far less than $44 million.

Stop ignoring the local revenue. It is big bucks....and it is growing.A couple of things here. First, those numbers have not been confirmed anywhere else, certainly not by the NFL. The NFL books are open to the NFLPA, but not to the general public. Forbes calls its own report an "estimate." You can take the estimate as gospel if you like.

Secondly, as Forbes itself acknowledges, the NFL just signed new TV contracts worth $3.7 billion annually, an increase of more than 50% over the previous TV contracts. Local revenue is very small compared to that.

Thirdly, look at what Forbes itself lists as the sources of local revenue: "concessions, suites, parking and stadium-naming rights." Here you see the real agenda. Teams in smaller cities can generate revenue from all those things just as teams in bigger cities. The size of the market is irrelevant. The smallest market in pro sports in the U.S. is Green Bay. Are we to believe that the Packers can't generate substantial local revenue because they just can't get enough people to come to the stadium and park, buy beers, purchase luxury suites? That's absurd. The entire area worships the Packers. The stadium is always full and the people there drink as much beer or more than fans anywhere else. They also park as much as anyone else.

As for stadium-naming rights, that's not a matter of the size of the city. The Packers are one of the premier franchises in the NFL and regularly make it on TV. So does the Steelers, which operate in what is, hypothetically, a small market. Yet every NFL fan knows the Steelers play in Heinz Field and the team makes big bucks from that stadium-naming deal.

No, this has nothing to do with teams in "small markets" being deprived of revenue open only to teams in "big markets." This has to do with lazy and unimaginative owners trying to take advantage of the hard work of the truly clever and entrepreneurial owners. If we're going to reward lazy and unimaginative owners, why don't we also reward lazy players and unimaginative coaches while we're at it? Maybe we should give all the teams with crappy coaches a two-game head start at the beginning of the season. Same goes for teams with lazy players.

I think Robert Kraft, the owner of the New England Patriots, sums it up best:

"Those of us who have taken financial risk did so with an understanding of certain rules that were in place and did our financing on that basis," he says. The goal of revenue sharing, he says, is to allow all 32 teams to field competitive teams but not necessarily to guarantee all 32 owners profits. "Every team should have an incentive to be entrepreneurial," Kraft says.

[smoak]

Why do you keep saying this? Did you just completely ignore the Forbes analysis. $1.6 billion or 26 percent of all football revenue is made up of LOCAL REVENUE. That is not peanuts. It is very big money. And it is growing at 20 percent per year.

The Skins, cowgirls and Patriots average $107 million each in local revenue. Is that "puny"? I certainly do not think it is. Neither do the other 29 teams or the NFLPA. They want a share of that money. The other 29 teams average $44 million each. The 3 teams above have more than double any other team in the league on average. And many small market teams average far less than $44 million.

Stop ignoring the local revenue. It is big bucks....and it is growing.

Assuming the numbers are correct (I have never heard anythign near thos $$$), if the cap is based on shared revenue, would local revenues make a difference. The only advantage is a team like the Redskins could offer a higher signing bonus, which is arguably a mixed advantage base on cap impact of large bonuses.

Also, how do you address the issue of owner A who is a marketing genius and earns more revenue over owner B whjo wants to sit on his tail and collect the sharing. There is no incentive for owner A to really spursue any local revenue.

[danny's stogie]

I agree 100 percent. The CBA turned out to be an almost perfect plan to allow players to make good money, to have their wages increase as League revenues increased; but still allowed the owners enough control over the cost of player salaries so as not to bankrupt the owners and the League (See NHL). The sharing of certain gross revenues helped to balance available money between the teams.

But revenue sharing is not the only or even the biggest reason for parity in the NFL. It is the CBA which was carefully crafted to let all sides make money which has created the parity and ultimately the financial success of the NFL.

As for the NHL, it wasn't that the lack of a salary cap that caused financial problems in the NHL, it was that owners speculated on the future profitability of the league and overvalued the players. The owners, by their own volition, created the over-valued market for players. It is equivalent to you or I buying a stock or bond that we think will gain value immensely, but tanks, or a housing bubble in which prices sky-rocket only to burst and level out. The owners should bear 110% of the responsibility for what happened, but instead of having to cut their losses, they use collusionary tactics to drive salaries down and create an artificial cieling on wages.

All sides should make money, but the labor should recieve their fair share. IMO pro sports ownership uses monopolistic practices to create salary caps and prevent labor from realizing their fair market value.

[CNYSkinFan]

Assuming the numbers are correct (I have never heard anythign near thos $$$), if the cap is based on shared revenue, would local revenues make a difference. The only advantage is a team like the Redskins could offer a higher signing bonus, which is arguably a mixed advantage base on cap impact of large bonuses.

Also, how do you address the issue of owner A who is a marketing genius and earns more revenue over owner B whjo wants to sit on his tail and collect the sharing. There is no incentive for owner A to really spursue any local revenue.
Well LavarPA is arguing in favor of a Salary Cap limiting the difference so I would assume he would agree it does not make much of a difference now, but if the Forbes numbers are correct then it would make a huge difference in a non capped league.

Also nthe owners themselves have disagreement over this. There has been acrimony between the small market teams and large market teams over this very isssue otherwise the NFL would have been negotiating extending the CBA with the union last year. But the owners could not come to agreement on revenue sharing of "local" revenue last year and the CBA was pushed off to this year.

The owners seem to think it makes a very big difference.

[Spence]

All you hear from some NFL owners is that they're concerned that Dan Snyder is spending too much money on coaches and has to be restrained. They say he's got a spending advantage. Here's the problem: Spending isn't the issue, revenue is. None of these owners have ever proven they don't have the money to compete with Snyder. The difference is that Snyder cares as much about winning as he cares about building new extensions onto his mansion, so he works his tail off to ensure that he can do both of those things. A lot of these owners simply don't do the work. Their schemes to create new revenue steams are not being foiled, they're not even being tried. These owners pleading poverty are disgusting. They own a local monopoly and are guaranteed a gigantic chunk of cash every year whether they field a competitive team or not. Every year Bill Bidwell makes money on the Cardinals and, more importantly, his franchise continues to appreciate in value with each passing season. The "small market" owners are doing just fine. They like a system where no owner tries harder than any other owner to earn money and build a successful team.

What kind of a system rewards mediocrity? Nothing is stopping Bill Bidwell from fielding a competitive team except Bill Bidwell and his own stupidity and miserliness. When the Redskins stank under Dan Snyder the Cardinals still couldn't win games. Dan Snyder and Bob Kraft are not keeping the "small market" owners from winning games. They're doing it to themselves.

If "small market" teams face such an incredible disadvantage, why are the Steelers in the Super Bowl? And this isn't an anomaly. The Steelers were in the AFC Championship game last year and are regularly in the playoffs.

[Spence]

Also nthe owners themselves have disagreement over this. There has been acrimony between the small market teams and large market teams over this very isssue otherwise the NFL would have been negotiating extending the CBA with the union last year. But the owners could not come to agreement on revenue sharing of "local" revenue last year and the CBA was pushed off to this year.

The owners seem to think it makes a very big difference.The lazy and unimaginative owners think it is a big difference. God forbid they should have to pry themselves away from the country club and do a bit of work for their team.

[CNYSkinFan]

Well I for one am not saying the small market teams ARE under a disavdvantage. I think they would be if we took away the cap. They would be totally screwed iuf we took away revenue sharing for sure, but taking away the cap will hurt them as well. I have no pity for small market teams right now. Ralph WIslon could get more money anytime he wants by just renaming his stadium but his ego prevents it. Bill Bidwell has the advantage of tax funded stadium building while JKC took the risk and built his own.

But take away the cap and then a real disadvantage happens. Then their whines become legitimate, and "small" market teams like Pitt and Minn that at least try and win would have to pitch shutout s in FA and the draft just to have a chance.

[Spence]

Well I for one am not saying the small market teams ARE under a disavdvantage. I think they would be if we took away the cap. They would be totally screwed iuf we took away revenue sharing for sure, but taking away the cap will hurt them as well. I have no pity for small market teams right now. Ralph WIslon could get more money anytime he wants by just renaming his stadium but his ego prevents it. Bill Bidwell has the advantage of tax funded stadium building while JKC took the risk and built his own.

But take away the cap and then a real disadvantage happens. Then their whines become legitimate, and "small" market teams like Pitt and Minn that at least try and win would have to pitch shutout s in FA and the draft just to have a chance.Dustin, you're making my argument for me. You've just given two excellent examples of how "small market" owners are, in fact, doing just fine and only have less money to spend because they're unwilling to work hard to make the money that someone like Snyder or Kraft are making. Where is the evidence that these guys would suffer under a salary cap? Maybe, for once, they'd have some incentive to get off their fat cans and start generating some independent revenue. Other teams do it and you don't need to own a team in a big city. I don't understand this sympathy for owners who are worth nearly a billion dollars and could easily field a competitive team if they cared enough to do so.

The NFL needs more owners like Bob Kraft and fewer owners like Bill Bidwell. That won't happen until the good owners are rewarded and the bad owners are punished.

[CNYSkinFan]

Dustin, you're making my argument for me. You've just given two excellent examples of how "small market" owners are, in fact, doing just fine and only have less money to spend because they're unwilling to work hard to make the money that someone like Snyder or Kraft are making. Where is the evidence that these guys would suffer under a salary cap? Maybe, for once, they'd have some incentive to get off their fat cans and start generating some independent revenue. Other teams do it and you don't need to own a team in a big city. I don't understand this sympathy for owners who are worth nearly a billion dollars and could easily field a competitive team if they cared enough to do so.

The NFL needs more owners like Bob Kraft and fewer owners like Bill Bidwell. That won't happen until the good owners are rewarded and the bad owners are punished.
Godd owners are rewarded no, with a better bottomline which is the best reward for an owner. Look I am no small market sympathizer. I love Dan Snyder and think he is a great owner that finds ways to make the Redskins succesful....BUT

If you take the cap away you will create a competitive disadvantage where none exists now. Many small market teams can not or will not make the money or spend it on the team. If you have serious bottom dwellers in the league it doesn't just hurt tose teams, it hurts the league as well. Why do you think TV stations are willing to pay a TON of money for the right to broadcast games. Because each game is competitive, at least at the start of the season it is.

The only way revenue sharing works is either NO Free Agency, or Free Agency with a hard cap. The NBA has a soft cap with guaranteed contracts and minimal revenue sharing and their product is weakened big time. The MLB has no revenue sharing and no cap and that sport ...welll we all know what is wrong there.

I have no sympathy in the small market owners current issue about local revenue. But I do see how local revenue in an uncapped league can be a competitive disdvantage and evenutally hurt a sport I love so dear.

[Keino]

Godd owners are rewarded no, with a better bottomline which is the best reward for an owner. Look I am no small market sympathizer. I love Dan Snyder and think he is a great owner that finds ways to make the Redskins succesful....BUT

If you take the cap away you will create a competitive disadvantage where none exists now. Many small market teams can not or will not make the money or spend it on the team. If you have serious bottom dwellers in the league it doesn't just hurt tose teams, it hurts the league as well. Why do you think TV stations are willing to pay a TON of money for the right to broadcast games. Because each game is competitive, at least at the start of the season it is.

The only way revenue sharing works is either NO Free Agency, or Free Agency with a hard cap. The NBA has a soft cap with guaranteed contracts and minimal revenue sharing and their product is weakened big time. The MLB has no revenue sharing and no cap and that sport ...welll we all know what is wrong there.

I have no sympathy in the small market owners current issue about local revenue. But I do see how local revenue in an uncapped league can be a competitive disdvantage and evenutally hurt a sport I love so dear.

I guess that's the part I don't get. Why should their be artificial means of keeping teams competetive when the Owner won't inject money into the team to make them better. I don't see the distinction with local revenues in a capped vs uncapped league in both cases they belong to the local team/owner. The amount of revenue being shared remains the same.

[Spence]

I guess that's the part I don't get. Why should their be artificial means of keeping teams competetive when the Owner won't inject money into the team to make them better. I don't see the distinction with local revenues in a capped vs uncapped league in both cases they belong to the local team/owner. The amount of revenue being shared remains the same.Precisely. There really isn't anything Snyder or Kraft are doing that is unique to big metropolitan areas. Any owner of any franchise could do these things. You can always wring more money out of your fan base if you convince your fan base you care about the team and winning every single year. Snyder doesn't have a good record of winning, but he does have a faultless record of TRYING to win every season. Even Snyder's biggest detractors, like myself, acknowledge that he tries like hell to win ever year, he just doesn't always know how to do it.

This isn't a case of some rich trust fund baby competing with a dirt-poor kid from the ghetto. All the NFL owners are stinking rich trust fund babies. There is nothing to stop every single owner in the NFL from doing the same things Snyder and Kraft do to generate revenue. Nothing aside from themselves. I'm sorry, but laziness and/or stupidity isn't a good reason for the salary cap.

And every owner has a huge pool of money he can use to make his team competitive because the vast majority of NFL revenue is shared and the TV contracts go up and up and up.

[redskin_rich]

The owners are still in a stalemate over the CBA extension and a big part of the reason is the cheap owners are jealous about the marketing work that owners like Dan Snyder have done to make more money. Here is an article I just read with some interesting quotes. I never thought I would ever agree with Jerry Jones but:
"It wouldn't be the worst thing in the world if we didn't have a salary cap," Dallas' Jerry Jones said last fall.

At one point, Upshaw even joked about the high-revenue owners, notably Washington's Daniel Snyder, who has more than 20 coaches on his payroll, including some of the NFL's highest-paid assistants.

"They are going to have to decide how to spend their money if they're going to reach agreement among themselves," he said. "You might cut back on the coaches on your payroll. I love Dan Snyder because he spends a lot of money on players. But there are others in that high-revenue group who take in $300 million and have just a $66 million payroll."

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=ap-superbowl-nflpa&prov=ap&type=lgns

[Spence]

But there are others in that high-revenue group who take in $300 million and have just a $66 million payroll."That's the key quote. Why should owners committed to winning be held back by owners who are not committed to winning? Shouldn't every owner be committed to winning? Isn't that true competition?

[MWballer]

To me the small market owners shouldn't be the problem and should be agreeing as fast as possible since an uncapped year would hurt them the most.

[CNYSkinFan]

I guess that's the part I don't get. Why should their be artificial means of keeping teams competetive when the Owner won't inject money into the team to make them better. I don't see the distinction with local revenues in a capped vs uncapped league in both cases they belong to the local team/owner. The amount of revenue being shared remains the same.

Ok but for every Buffalo, Arizona, and Minnesota (up until this last owner) out there, there is a Jacksonville, Pittsburgh, and Green Bay that is spending money. Those are the teams that will be hurt by no cap. The small market teams that are willing to spend money but won't be able to catch up.

The amount of revenue being SHARED will be the same, but there is a ton of money not being shared. And that individual money should not be shared as the owners in big markets usually do alot to make that money. So much like anything in life the cap policy is in place to protect the middle teams. The small market teams that want to compete but won't be able to in an uncapped league.

[Keino]

The money shared pales in comparison the the money not shared. To me it's issue of "Take a dump or get off the pot". The league should not be protecting owners too lazy to put a decent product on the field on their own.

[SonnyandSam]

Assuming the numbers are correct (I have never heard anythign near thos $$$), if the cap is based on shared revenue, would local revenues make a difference. The only advantage is a team like the Redskins could offer a higher signing bonus, which is arguably a mixed advantage base on cap impact of large bonuses.

Also, how do you address the issue of owner A who is a marketing genius and earns more revenue over owner B whjo wants to sit on his tail and collect the sharing. There is no incentive for owner A to really spursue any local revenue.

There is no incentive if you force the rich (and entrepreneural) owners to share their local revenues with those who sit on their butts and do nothing. I promise you if Snyder, Jones and Kraft have to give up their local revenues to the Jacksoville, Arizona and Buffalos of the League, those owner will quickly stop all marketing efforts because there is nothing to be gained.

But as long as those local revenues are NOT part of the CBA and gross revenues for salary, teams who want to be competitive will market their teams in a way to bring in more money. Because money beats the restrictions of the cap.

Everyone says the SKins are going to be in cap hell every year. Snyder has proven how you beat the cap by having revenue to pay players up front. Unlike the Raiders, the Ravens, the Titans and others....the cap has never blown up the Redskins roster because LOCAL Revenue allows the team to beat the cap.

[SonnyandSam]

A couple of things here. First, those numbers have not been confirmed anywhere else, certainly not by the NFL. The NFL books are open to the NFLPA, but not to the general public. Forbes calls its own report an "estimate." You can take the estimate as gospel if you like.

Secondly, as Forbes itself acknowledges, the NFL just signed new TV contracts worth $3.7 billion annually, an increase of more than 50% over the previous TV contracts. Local revenue is very small compared to that.

Thirdly, look at what Forbes itself lists as the sources of local revenue: "concessions, suites, parking and stadium-naming rights." Here you see the real agenda. Teams in smaller cities can generate revenue from all those things just as teams in bigger cities. The size of the market is irrelevant. The smallest market in pro sports in the U.S. is Green Bay. Are we to believe that the Packers can't generate substantial local revenue because they just can't get enough people to come to the stadium and park, buy beers, purchase luxury suites? That's absurd. The entire area worships the Packers. The stadium is always full and the people there drink as much beer or more than fans anywhere else. They also park as much as anyone else.

As for stadium-naming rights, that's not a matter of the size of the city. The Packers are one of the premier franchises in the NFL and regularly make it on TV. So does the Steelers, which operate in what is, hypothetically, a small market. Yet every NFL fan knows the Steelers play in Heinz Field and the team makes big bucks from that stadium-naming deal.

No, this has nothing to do with teams in "small markets" being deprived of revenue open only to teams in "big markets." This has to do with lazy and unimaginative owners trying to take advantage of the hard work of the truly clever and entrepreneurial owners. If we're going to reward lazy and unimaginative owners, why don't we also reward lazy players and unimaginative coaches while we're at it? Maybe we should give all the teams with crappy coaches a two-game head start at the beginning of the season. Same goes for teams with lazy players.

I think Robert Kraft, the owner of the New England Patriots, sums it up best:

"Those of us who have taken financial risk did so with an understanding of certain rules that were in place and did our financing on that basis," he says. The goal of revenue sharing, he says, is to allow all 32 teams to field competitive teams but not necessarily to guarantee all 32 owners profits. "Every team should have an incentive to be entrepreneurial," Kraft says.

Go ahead....ignore real numbers from one of the most respected business publications on the planet. How convenient!

Don't believe Forbes...How about the NFL owners or the NFLPA? Why do they want a cut of the local revenues? If they are so puny as you say, why would the owners or the NFLPA want a slice? It's puny....remember.

Come on Spence......You know it is big money when the majority of the owners wants a slice of that local revenue and the players want a slice, too. It is big money.

I've given you THREE REASONS proving local revenue is BIG money.

Give my just one piece of proof showing me that local revenue constitutes a puny, tiny, insignificant piece of the NFL revenue pie. Go ahead....back up your statement. Where's the beef?!

[SonnyandSam]

As for the NHL, it wasn't that the lack of a salary cap that caused financial problems in the NHL, it was that owners speculated on the future profitability of the league and overvalued the players. The owners, by their own volition, created the over-valued market for players. It is equivalent to you or I buying a stock or bond that we think will gain value immensely, but tanks, or a housing bubble in which prices sky-rocket only to burst and level out. The owners should bear 110% of the responsibility for what happened, but instead of having to cut their losses, they use collusionary tactics to drive salaries down and create an artificial cieling on wages.

All sides should make money, but the labor should recieve their fair share. IMO pro sports ownership uses monopolistic practices to create salary caps and prevent labor from realizing their fair market value.

Hey, that's how the free market works. And the NHL is a perfect example of why a totally free market for labor is not good for running a professional sports league. Owners get greedy. Most want to win right now. So if they can, they spend and usually spend too much. And when they spend too much, they lose money and then the league goes into the toilet because the owners cannot control their spending.

MLB could go the same way in the near future. Or it could end up dying from boredom because the same small handful of rich clubs keep winning and the rest of the clubs begin losing money because of fan disinterest.

That is why what the NFL has is so beautiful. They found a way to control outlandish spending for player talent (the salary cap) but still give the players a large chunk of the league gross revenue and the freedom to market their talents from time to time (but not every year) on the free market.

It is a delicate balance that the NFL and the NFLPA have created. Hopefully, they will not screw it up with the next CBA.

And to directly answer your question....a salary cap in the NHL would have prevented the owners from over valuing those players and controlled owner spending on player talent. The salary cap is not really so much controlling player income as it is controlling owners from self destruction.

After all....what good is a great athlete with no league to play in? In the end, the owners have to be able to make a profit so that those players can play in their favorite sport.

[SonnyandSam]

Dustin, you're making my argument for me. You've just given two excellent examples of how "small market" owners are, in fact, doing just fine and only have less money to spend because they're unwilling to work hard to make the money that someone like Snyder or Kraft are making. Where is the evidence that these guys would suffer under a salary cap? Maybe, for once, they'd have some incentive to get off their fat cans and start generating some independent revenue. Other teams do it and you don't need to own a team in a big city. I don't understand this sympathy for owners who are worth nearly a billion dollars and could easily field a competitive team if they cared enough to do so.

The NFL needs more owners like Bob Kraft and fewer owners like Bill Bidwell. That won't happen until the good owners are rewarded and the bad owners are punished.


I disagree. You are making mine and Dustin's arguement. We are the ones saying the salary cap is what allows these small market teams to compete in the NFL. You are saying it is the shared revenue. Remove the salary cap and those small market teams won't be able to compete in buying player talent. They just won't have the revenue.

You make the false assumption that any owner no matter whether in a small market or a big market can earn equal amounts of local revenue....all they got to do is get off their butts....but wait.....you said local revenue is a puny amount of money....so it does not matter....Right?

Except I gave you three substantial reasons why local revenue would kill the small market teams because the large market teams would have easier access to higher local revenue. The MLB is a perfect example...NY and Boston teams have a LOT more revenue to work with than the Kansas City's of the league. It's because they can market to a MUCH larger group of fans and more importantly businesses to support their teams. All that local revenue from suites and advertising comes from business NOT fans. And there are a hell of a lot more big businesses with deep pockets in NY, Boston, DC, Chicago, Dallas, Philadelphia and even Pittsburgh (Huge number of Fortune 500 HQs there) than there are in Green Bay, Kansas City, Jacksonville, Phoenix, Carolina, Tampa, Cleveland, etc.

Those big market teams will dominate in spending for player talent with no salary cap. Spread around all the TV revenue you want but the local revenue will kill off the small market teams.

[SonnyandSam]

The money shared pales in comparison the the money not shared. To me it's issue of "Take a dump or get off the pot". The league should not be protecting owners too lazy to put a decent product on the field on their own.

I don't understand how you and Spence can look at $1.2 billion which accounts for 26 percent of all League revenue and turn your nose up at it. Man, that's big money. I don't think it pales at all....and neither do the owners or the players and they have the most at stake in the negotiations. To them...it is very big money. I guess you and Spence must be multi-millionaires if it does not seem to be big money to you. :)

I agree with your latter statement that the league should not protect owners not committed to winning and spending a reasonable amount of money to make a winning team. And the players and/or owners tried to make sure this would happen by putting a salary FLOOR in the CBA. Each team must pay a certain amount in player salaries each year.

[Keino]

I don't understand how you and Spence can look at $1.2 billion which accounts for 26 percent of all League revenue and turn your nose up at it. Man, that's big money. I don't think it pales at all....and neither do the owners or the players and they have the most at stake in the negotiations. To them...it is very big money. I guess you and Spence must be multi-millionaires if it does not seem to be big money to you. :)

I agree with your latter statement that the league should not protect owners not committed to winning and spending a reasonable amount of money to make a winning team. And the players and/or owners tried to make sure this would happen by putting a salary FLOOR in the CBA. Each team must pay a certain amount in player salaries each year.


1. Because it is an estimate.

2. Because it is an aggregate amount of local revenues generated by all 32 teams. There is no breakdown that proves some teams will represent haves while others will represent have nots. I tend to believe the variance lies in the business acumen of the owners, and yet still has very little to do with fielding a competetive team. The shared revenue is enough to allow for that.

3. Greed. This is why Owners and Players want increased share of locally generated revenues from other teams. This is also why the more innvoative owners do not want to share it.

4. Its a matter of perspective. I will always argue that 26% of a pie pales in comparison to 74% of a pie. I like Pie. Hmmmm.mmmm.

[CNYSkinFan]

1. Because it is an estimate.

2. Because it is an aggregate amount of local revenues generated by all 32 teams. There is no breakdown that proves some teams will represent haves while others will represent have nots. I tend to believe the variance lies in the business acumen of the owners, and yet still has very little to do with fielding a competetive team. The shared revenue is enough to allow for that.

3. Greed. This is why Owners and Players want increased share of locally generated revenues from other teams. This is also why the more innvoative owners do not want to share it.

4. Its a matter of perspective. I will always argue that 26% of a pie pales in comparison to 74% of a pie. I like Pie. Hmmmm.mmmm.

Finally something to agree on!!!:lol1:

[ChiefPowhatan17]

This would be great if it actually happens, but I don't want to blow money on big name guys either way.

[danny's stogie]

Hey, that's how the free market works. And the NHL is a perfect example of why a totally free market for labor is not good for running a professional sports league. Owners get greedy. Most want to win right now. So if they can, they spend and usually spend too much. And when they spend too much, they lose money and then the league goes into the toilet because the owners cannot control their spending.

MLB could go the same way in the near future. Or it could end up dying from boredom because the same small handful of rich clubs keep winning and the rest of the clubs begin losing money because of fan disinterest.

That is why what the NFL has is so beautiful. They found a way to control outlandish spending for player talent (the salary cap) but still give the players a large chunk of the league gross revenue and the freedom to market their talents from time to time (but not every year) on the free market.

It is a delicate balance that the NFL and the NFLPA have created. Hopefully, they will not screw it up with the next CBA.

And to directly answer your question....a salary cap in the NHL would have prevented the owners from over valuing those players and controlled owner spending on player talent. The salary cap is not really so much controlling player income as it is controlling owners from self destruction.

After all....what good is a great athlete with no league to play in? In the end, the owners have to be able to make a profit so that those players can play in their favorite sport.


Are you advocating protection for ownership investments? They already spend hundreds of millions of dollars to purchase the franchise and so if they lose a little revenue or the value of the franchise slips they still are several hundred million away from bankruptcy. The salary crap ensures the creation of revenue and increases franchise value. It is a collusionary tactic to supress labor and make more money. Yes, the players make money too, but they deserve an opportunity to earn their fair share of the pie.

We need to control owners from self destrection? You're joking right? No one puts a gun to their head and tells them to sign the checks. No owner plans to spend themselves in the red so simple economics should keep spending in check. In the case of the NHL the owners speculated and lost. They thought they were going to make money by spending money. Should the NHL players have been punished for poor investments by the owners? Absolutely not.

[HanburgerBum]

No, trickle-down economics are a crock of ***CBS***. Any economist with half a brain will say that. But the NFL owners operate a cartel. A hard salary cap provids an artificial ceiling that prohibits labor from recieving its full market value. I believe the players should recieve a deeper cut of the profits, at least be able to recieve a salary equivalent to their worth. The lack of a hard cap in the MLB system allows players to seek their market value. So you see, I side with labor, and no, I don't have an affinity for the super rich (the owners) just the normal rich (the players).




Why does this continue to be used against myself and rich? Both of us watch football regardless of whether the Skins stink or are great. We both just want to see QUALITY football not mediocrity.


Your argument that the salary cap prevents players from seeking their maximum market value is true, but it is necessary in order to preserve competitive balance. Without a salary cap, you would have an economic system like baseball, where the Yankees have a payroll of 200 million and some small market teams have payrolls of 40 million. In the long term, there is just no way the small markets can be competitive. Sure, the Yankees may not win the pennant every year, but they are guaranteed to be contenders every year. Why would any fans in those small markets support those teams given the present economic system in MLB is beyond me? In the long run, interest in many cites would decline and contraction of teams becomes inevitable. Do the players realize when that happens jobs will be lost? Isn't it better to sacrifice a little in order to preserve jobs for all? Small market teams already are selling for peanuts in baseball. If you don't think this is a problem for MLB, I think you have blinders on.

A similar situation would develop in football if the salary cap is scraped and players are allowed to seek their maximum worth. Admittedly, it won't be quite as bad because there is sharing of over half the revenue.

Your contention that owners should not be protected from their own foolish spending (while it sounds good at first blush) really doesn't hold water. Unlike widgets, players are unique. Every team wants good players, but there are only a limited number of good players. Inevitably, they will drift toward the money. If a low revenue team doesn't want to go into the red in bidding for good players, the first thing out of the mouths of fans like you would be "so and so won't spend to win". Thus, the low revenue teams are damned if they do and damned if they don't.

Players don't have any proprietary interest in the game. They couldn't care less what happens to it after their playing days are over. So, it is understandable that they are out to maximize their income. But, in the interest of the integrity and the long term health of the game, there must be policies to guard against this greed from destroying the game. Revenue sharing plus a salary cap is the best way to do it.

As for my point about the Redskins earning a SB, let me ask you how happy you would be if the Skins are able to do so because they can simply buy every good player in sight and not because they used their brains to spend wisely? For me, such a SB would be hollow and would not be worth bragging about.

As for your point about the NFL being a cartel, that's true. But, it is a legal cartel because the player agreement allows it to circumvent the unfair restraint of trade laws. The players have agreed to the salary cap as well as the draft of new players. So, I don't really understand your complaint here.

[redskin_rich]

Your argument that the salary cap prevents players from seeking their maximum market value is true, but it is necessary in order to preserve competitive balance. Without a salary cap, you would have an economic system like baseball, where the Yankees have a payroll of 200 million and some small market teams have payrolls of 40 million. In the long term, there is just no way the small markets can be competitive. Sure, the Yankees may not win the pennant every year, but they are guaranteed to be contenders every year. Why would any fans in those small markets support those teams given the present economic system in MLB is beyond me? In the long run, interest in many cites would decline and contraction of teams becomes inevitable. Do the players realize when that happens jobs will be lost? Isn't it better to sacrifice a little in order to preserve jobs for all? Small market teams already are selling for peanuts in baseball. If you don't think this is a problem for MLB, I think you have blinders on.

Over and over and over again, Hanburgerbum, please read through this thread and stop making comparisons to MLB. The NFL has revenue sharing, MLB does not. Revenue sharing means all teams make a boatload of money. With or without a salary cap, everyone can remain competitive.

[helimech24]

Over and over and over again, Hanburgerbum, please read through this thread and stop making comparisons to MLB. The NFL has revenue sharing, MLB does not. Revenue sharing means all teams make a boatload of money. With or without a salary cap, everyone can remain competitive.But some teams will have an edge over others. The salary cap prevents that from happening.

[Keino]

But some teams will have an edge over others. The salary cap prevents that from happening.

And that is a good thing? Some teams put in effort (Or another word...Compete) for gaining local revenues. All the salary cap does is prevent player salaries from going up at astronomical rates. Revenue sharing prevents teams from having an edge over others.....

[redskin_rich]

But some teams will have an edge over others. The salary cap prevents that from happening.
The salary cap was put in to keep players salaries in check, not for competitive balance!
The NFLPA was rewarded with the concept of Free Agency, whereby players have the freedom to market their skills after a specific period of service. As a system of checks and balances, the owners sought a means of cutting back on the escalation of the players' salaries. This is accomplished by -- you guessed it -- the NFL Salary Cap.


http://www.askthecommish.com/salarycap/

[Keino]

As for my point about the Redskins earning a SB, let me ask you how happy you would be if the Skins are able to do so because they can simply buy every good player in sight and not because they used their brains to spend wisely? For me, such a SB would be hollow and would not be worth bragging about.



What???? isn't that how we won the 1st Three Superbowls?

Please, if our owner is willing to spend cash he could otherwise pocket as profit but chooses to inject it into the team to get the highest quality players, then they are in effect using both brains and pocketbook to make that happen. I would be as Proud of a ring like that as I am of the other three we earned. Hollow? Hardly.

[helimech24]

And that is a good thing? Some teams put in effort (Or another word...Compete) for gaining local revenues. All the salary cap does is prevent player salaries from going up at astronomical rates. Revenue sharing prevents teams from having an edge over others.....How? Tell me how revenue sharing is going to keep teams competitive with us making 300 million every year. The shared revenue is suppose to be 115 mil on the high end. That would mean we would have around 200 mil to spend right on everything right?

[helimech24]

What???? isn't that how we won the 1st Three Superbowls?

Please, if our owner is willing to spend cash he could otherwise pocket as profit but chooses to inject it into the team to get the highest quality players, then they are in effect using both brains and pocketbook to make that happen. I would be as Proud of a ring like that as I am of the other three we earned. Hollow? Hardly.There was no free agency, so they had to draft or trade to make a team.

[redskin_rich]

What???? isn't that how we won the 1st Three Superbowls?

Please, if our owner is willing to spend cash he could otherwise pocket as profit but chooses to inject it into the team to get the highest quality players, then they are in effect using both brains and pocketbook to make that happen. I would be as Proud of a ring like that as I am of the other three we earned. Hollow? Hardly.
LOL, the Broncos cheated and went over the cap to win their two back-to-back Super Bowls, I don't see anyone calling that a hollow victory. On the contrary, some people say they were one of the best Champions of the free agency era.

[Keino]

How? Tell me how revenue sharing is going to keep teams competitive with us making 300 million every year. The shared revenue is suppose to be 115 mil on the high end. That would mean we would have around 200 mil to spend right on everything right?

Asked and answered, but I will try again. Every team would start out with roughly the same money. It becomes contingent upon each owner to generate his local income. IN other words he/she/they would be obligated to Compete. We have an owner who does this. Other owners choose not to do this, living off of the shared revenue, pocketing cash and not injecting money into their teams. For these owners, Making a profit outweighs the need to field a competetive team.

[Keino]

There was no free agency, so they had to draft or trade to make a team.


Yes but we were also a team that would overpay a player to keep him on our bench. We would trade 3 1st round draft Picks to get a Stud Player of need. Sure, there are nuanced differences, but the way we won was very similar. The Squire would Spend openly. He wanted to win.

[Keino]

LOL, the Broncos cheated and went over the cap to win their two back-to-back Super Bowls, I don't see anyone calling that a hollow victory. On the contrary, some people say they were one of the best Champions of the free agency era.


LOL. Maybe they were given 2 Hollow Lombardi Trophies....

[redskin_rich]

Another thing, if there was no salary cap, I don't think we would go hog wild and sign every blue chip player available. Snyder might have done that a few years ago but Gibbs wouldn't. Our champion teams of yesteryear weren't built on star players, they were built on character guys and strong veteren depth, something Gibbs has always believed in. Those of you saying the Skins would be like the Yankees are just flat out wrong. And as a fan, I don't want us going out and signing every talented player available, whether they fit or not. I would like us to be able to hold on to guys that have been in our system and can fill in when needed without a huge drop-off. That is why I hate the salary cap, because it makes it nearly impossible to hold on to good veterens as back-ups.

[DCGreys]

I'd much rather add role players and save the cap space for locking up some of our players.



I agree completely. Coach Gibbs has built an incredibly young team and we need solid team players to work within the team. Draft a TE in the 2nd, a WR in the 3rd and linemen with the remaining picks. Only FA I would get is Wayne if reasonable, and some veteran but not overhyped CBs and linemen.

[Keino]

Another thing, if there was no salary cap, I don't think we would go hog wild and sign every blue chip player available. Snyder might have done that a few years ago but Gibbs wouldn't. Our champion teams of yesteryear weren't built on star players, they were built on character guys and strong veteren depth, something Gibbs has always believed in. Those of you saying the Skins would be like the Yankees are just flat out wrong. And as a fan, I don't want us going out and signing every talented player available, whether they fit or not. I would like us to be able to hold on to guys that have been in our system and can fill in when needed without a huge drop-off. That is why I hate the salary cap, because it makes it nearly impossible to hold on to good veterens as back-ups.

Yep. Homegrown talent is nurtured and then leaves for a big payday.

[danny's stogie]

Your argument that the salary cap prevents players from seeking their maximum market value is true, but it is necessary in order to preserve competitive balance. Without a salary cap, you would have an economic system like baseball, where the Yankees have a payroll of 200 million and some small market teams have payrolls of 40 million. In the long term, there is just no way the small markets can be competitive. Sure, the Yankees may not win the pennant every year, but they are guaranteed to be contenders every year. Why would any fans in those small markets support those teams given the present economic system in MLB is beyond me? In the long run, interest in many cites would decline and contraction of teams becomes inevitable. Do the players realize when that happens jobs will be lost? Isn't it better to sacrifice a little in order to preserve jobs for all? Small market teams already are selling for peanuts in baseball. If you don't think this is a problem for MLB, I think you have blinders on.

The Yankees are the exception to the rule with their 200 million dollar payroll, but you have to give them credit for having the foresight to create their own media network. Other clubs like the Mets apparently will follow suit and I’d wager that if NFL teams weren’t bound by collective bargaining of television contracts they’d do the same. Most MLB teams can afford to operate at somewhere between 70-100 million. Even the teams that operate at around 50 million have proven that they can compete at that payroll. The thought that the smaller market teams will cease to exist is a fallacy. Sure they won’t make as much money as the Yanks, but no team ever will. As long as they make revenue via either direct profit (receipts above expenditures) or franchise value appreciation, they will continue to operate.

Why would their fans support them? Geez, I don’t know, maybe because they’re FANS.

Contraction is not inevitable. Owners will not operate above costs and only poorly run franchises will be forced to sell. Maybe a free market would squeeze out the Bidwells and Bensons and good owners with a commitment to winning and operating a well run business would be put in their place. In fact, I bet if you eliminated the cartel aspect of the MLB and NFL and club membership was made available to anyone with the money to join, 10-20 more franchise would pop up around North America. The ability to use the MLB or NFL insignia is a license to print money. The financial appeal of having the Yankees or Sox, Steelers or Packers come to town a few times a year would be too much to pass up. The amount of ownership groups that have tried to buy the Nats should be evidence enough of the demand.

A similar situation would develop in football if the salary cap is scraped and players are allowed to seek their maximum worth. Admittedly, it won't be quite as bad because there is sharing of over half the revenue.

Your contention that owners should not be protected from their own foolish spending (while it sounds good at first blush) really doesn't hold water. Unlike widgets, players are unique. Every team wants good players, but there are only a limited number of good players. Inevitably, they will drift toward the money. If a low revenue team doesn't want to go into the red in bidding for good players, the first thing out of the mouths of fans like you would be "so and so won't spend to win". Thus, the low revenue teams are damned if they do and damned if they don't.

It doesn’t hold water? Why? You steer off topic after saying that. Business owners do not attempt to lose money. Steinbrenner wouldn’t spend 200 million if he couldn’t afford it. Would he ever spend 500 million? No, because he’d be in the red. Natural economic limits do exist to curb ownership zealotry.

Yes, players drift towards the money, but what happens with free agency is that salaries are increased across the board not just at the top of the pay scale. The super, super stars will inevitably be drawn to the most profitable teams (the place in which their star appeal allows them to maximize their financial value), but the second tier stars get spread across the board. That is why the Sox and Yanks are extremely successful, but don’t dominate. They can stack the team with stars, but because even they have a limit to the amount of money they can spend on salary, they can’t fill out their whole roster with top talent. Before the free agency era the Yanks dominated because not only did they buy up the biggest stars, they stocked the roster from top to bottom with, at the very least, above average talent. The Skins of the 80s were similar.

Players don't have any proprietary interest in the game. They couldn't care less what happens to it after their playing days are over. So, it is understandable that they are out to maximize their income. But, in the interest of the integrity and the long term health of the game, there must be policies to guard against this greed from destroying the game. Revenue sharing plus a salary cap is the best way to do it.

You’re right, most players don’t care what happens to the game after they’re done, but do the owners care what happens to the players after they retire? The players have every right to earn as much as they can when they can. To become a professional athlete you spend 99% of your time training, practicing, etc. and save for the exceptional few, the only skill set the athletes have is their physical ability. Once they lose that via injury or age they have virtually no earning power. They can’t go become accountants or lawyers at the drop of a dime, the few lucky ones get endorsement deals or become announcers or something. Before free agency you have players like George Mikan who was one of the greatest basketball players ever, but died recently with hardly a time in his pockets. In fact, if it wasn’t for the graciousness of Shaq, Mikan would probably have died on the street. Now a scenario like this won’t happen today with the amount of money the stars make, but the lower salaried players will always be at risk of similar circumstances. A player who works all their life to be a pro athlete makes a roster, makes the minimum and blows a knee out after a few years of playing doesn’t make enough money to secure them and their family for their entire lifespan. Well they could use that money to invest, start a business, and secure their livelihood, but wait, they spent their lives training to be an athlete so they don’t have the business acumen to do so successfully.

If you want to talk about greed in sports, look no farther than the owners. Like I said before, membership in the club of MLB or NFL ownership is a license to print money. Bidwell sits on his hands, closes his wallet, and collects checks from the league. Even the franchises that make a ton of money have a salary cap to fall back on as justification for not increasing spending. How about the MLB that reports to congress that they are losing money so as to keep their antitrust exemption when independently conducted financial investigations reported that they cooked the books and underestimated profits by roughly 10 million per franchise? How’s that for greed? To top that all off when reporting estimated franchise value they underestimated by roughly 1.5 BILLION DOLLARS! So in total, to renew an antitrust exemption they lied to congress by 1.8 billion. With that type of overhead you don’t think they could support more franchises or afford to go capless?


As for your point about the NFL being a cartel, that's true. But, it is a legal cartel because the player agreement allows it to circumvent the unfair restraint of trade laws. The players have agreed to the salary cap as well as the draft of new players. So, I don't really understand your complaint here.

It is a legal cartel by corrupt means. Yes, the players agree to collective bargaining, but their hands are tied at the negotiating table. The owners act together as a bloc and are collusive. Open the negotiations to free market competition and I’d bet you’d see a very different agreement than the one that currently rips off the players.

[HanburgerBum]

Over and over and over again, Hanburgerbum, please read through this thread and stop making comparisons to MLB. The NFL has revenue sharing, MLB does not. Revenue sharing means all teams make a boatload of money. With or without a salary cap, everyone can remain competitive.


Yes, NFL is not exactly like MLB in that there is sharing of over half the revenue. But, the large market teams still have a decided advantage in that they can generate more revenue than the smart market teams. As ably pointed out by LaVarPa, there are more businesses and organizations that are willing and able to pay higher prices for the luxury suites in big markets compared to small markets. The smaller market teams would either have to reduce the prices for these suites or risk not filling them. The same holds true for naming rights fees or anything else. Obviously, it is going to cost more to name a stadium in a big market than say Indy or Jacksonville.

The insistance by Spence, Keino and others that the locally generated, unshared revenue is non-substantial ignores the facts and defies common sense. The Forbes (a very reputatable outfit) estimates are more authoritative than anything I have seen or heard to the contrary. And, if the local revenue were truly insignificant, why are the small market teams fighting so hard to get their share of it in the coming trust agreement among the teams?

I do agree that any economic system should also foster incentive to generate revenue. So, the question is how to balance the need to pay the players their fair share while preserving competitive balance between the richer and the poorer teams. The NFL system comes very close to achieving that.

If you, Spence, and DannysStogie are upset over some owners pocketing large profits and not demonstrating any desire to find additonal income or to invest to win, there is a simple tweak to the salary cap that will fix the problem. Presently, there is apparently a "floor" of about two-thirds that of the ceiling. If that "floor" were raised to say 85%, it would force these penny-pinching owners to spend to win. Doing away with the salary cap and thus giving the richer teams a perpetual advantage is NOT the right solution.

[HanburgerBum]

What???? isn't that how we won the 1st Three Superbowls?

Please, if our owner is willing to spend cash he could otherwise pocket as profit but chooses to inject it into the team to get the highest quality players, then they are in effect using both brains and pocketbook to make that happen. I would be as Proud of a ring like that as I am of the other three we earned. Hollow? Hardly.


Except for an isolated instance where the Skins were able to acquire John Riggins and Jean Fuguet as free agents (I forget how the situation came to be), there was no free agency during the Skins 3 SB wins. So, I am at a loss why you would consider that to be "buying" championships.

[HanburgerBum]

The Yankees are the exception to the rule with their 200 million dollar payroll, but you have to give them credit for having the foresight to create their own media network. Other clubs like the Mets apparently will follow suit and I’d wager that if NFL teams weren’t bound by collective bargaining of television contracts they’d do the same. Most MLB teams can afford to operate at somewhere between 70-100 million. Even the teams that operate at around 50 million have proven that they can compete at that payroll. The thought that the smaller market teams will cease to exist is a fallacy. Sure they won’t make as much money as the Yanks, but no team ever will. As long as they make revenue via either direct profit (receipts above expenditures) or franchise value appreciation, they will continue to operate.

Why would their fans support them? Geez, I don’t know, maybe because they’re FANS.

Contraction is not inevitable. Owners will not operate above costs and only poorly run franchises will be forced to sell. Maybe a free market would squeeze out the Bidwells and Bensons and good owners with a commitment to winning and operating a well run business would be put in their place. In fact, I bet if you eliminated the cartel aspect of the MLB and NFL and club membership was made available to anyone with the money to join, 10-20 more franchise would pop up around North America. The ability to use the MLB or NFL insignia is a license to print money. The financial appeal of having the Yankees or Sox, Steelers or Packers come to town a few times a year would be too much to pass up. The amount of ownership groups that have tried to buy the Nats should be evidence enough of the demand.



It doesn’t hold water? Why? You steer off topic after saying that. Business owners do not attempt to lose money. Steinbrenner wouldn’t spend 200 million if he couldn’t afford it. Would he ever spend 500 million? No, because he’d be in the red. Natural economic limits do exist to curb ownership zealotry.

Yes, players drift towards the money, but what happens with free agency is that salaries are increased across the board not just at the top of the pay scale. The super, super stars will inevitably be drawn to the most profitable teams (the place in which their star appeal allows them to maximize their financial value), but the second tier stars get spread across the board. That is why the Sox and Yanks are extremely successful, but don’t dominate. They can stack the team with stars, but because even they have a limit to the amount of money they can spend on salary, they can’t fill out their whole roster with top talent. Before the free agency era the Yanks dominated because not only did they buy up the biggest stars, they stocked the roster from top to bottom with, at the very least, above average talent. The Skins of the 80s were similar.



You’re right, most players don’t care what happens to the game after they’re done, but do the owners care what happens to the players after they retire? The players have every right to earn as much as they can when they can. To become a professional athlete you spend 99% of your time training, practicing, etc. and save for the exceptional few, the only skill set the athletes have is their physical ability. Once they lose that via injury or age they have virtually no earning power. They can’t go become accountants or lawyers at the drop of a dime, the few lucky ones get endorsement deals or become announcers or something. Before free agency you have players like George Mikan who was one of the greatest basketball players ever, but died recently with hardly a time in his pockets. In fact, if it wasn’t for the graciousness of Shaq, Mikan would probably have died on the street. Now a scenario like this won’t happen today with the amount of money the stars make, but the lower salaried players will always be at risk of similar circumstances. A player who works all their life to be a pro athlete makes a roster, makes the minimum and blows a knee out after a few years of playing doesn’t make enough money to secure them and their family for their entire lifespan. Well they could use that money to invest, start a business, and secure their livelihood, but wait, they spent their lives training to be an athlete so they don’t have the business acumen to do so successfully.

If you want to talk about greed in sports, look no farther than the owners. Like I said before, membership in the club of MLB or NFL ownership is a license to print money. Bidwell sits on his hands, closes his wallet, and collects checks from the league. Even the franchises that make a ton of money have a salary cap to fall back on as justification for not increasing spending. How about the MLB that reports to congress that they are losing money so as to keep their antitrust exemption when independently conducted financial investigations reported that they cooked the books and underestimated profits by roughly 10 million per franchise? How’s that for greed? To top that all off when reporting estimated franchise value they underestimated by roughly 1.5 BILLION DOLLARS! So in total, to renew an antitrust exemption they lied to congress by 1.8 billion. With that type of overhead you don’t think they could support more franchises or afford to go capless?


It is a legal cartel by corrupt means. Yes, the players agree to collective bargaining, but their hands are tied at the negotiating table. The owners act together as a bloc and are collusive. Open the negotiations to free market competition and I’d bet you’d see a very different agreement than the one that currently rips off the players.


The gist of your arguments seems to be that bigger markets will be able to generate more revenue than smaller markets, but that's life. If you can't compete, get out of the business. The most important thing about pro sports is that every player be able to squeez out of the owners the last possible nickle. Who gives a crap about competitive balance and the long term health of the game? Teams like the Yankees may not win the championship every year, but they deserve to be perennial contenders simply because they are located in the biggest market and can generate more income to buy more good players.

Why wouldn't I want to support a baseball team in cities like Pittsburg, KC and Milwaukee if I were a fan? Oh, I don't know, maybe it is because the deck is always stacked against these type of teams. The good players these teams develop are never going to be around when they blossom. These teams are always playing on an uneven field. Just call me crazy for not wanting to get involved in such a travesty.

Contraction may not be inevitable in MLB, but it is very likely for some small market teams if the present economic system is not changed in some way to curb the spending of teams like the Yankees. These small market teams are selling for peanuts. Didn't the Marlins sell for something like 125 million dollars (not even as much as the annual player payroll for the Yankees!) not long ago? The Washington Nats have many suitors because it is a big market. As for your figures concerning the owners lying about profits, I have no idea where those figures come from. Let's just presume creative accounting can hide some profits. But, the point remains that big markets teams have a huge advantage over small market teams regardless of the accounting.

What I was trying to say about owners of small markets being damned if they do and damned if they don't is this. They have less to spend on good players and are going to get out bid in the overwhelming majority of times. When that happens, a fan like you would be the first to blame them for "not willing to spend to win". So, they have the choice of either spending beyond their means for good players or risk alienating their fan base when they don't spend beyond their means and lose out on the good players. I am at a loss why you seem to think that I steered away from the topic.

The NFL is a cartel, but so is the player union. If the players are forced to negotiate with the owners, so are the owners forced to negotiate with the players. Incidentally, the NFL has from time to time faced competition from another league. I presume that you remember the AFL forced a merger with the NFL some 40 years ago. The USFL tried, but failed.

Your point about some pro athletes being unable to cope with life after their sports career is true, but not for the stars. They make an enormous amount of money and are often set for life when they retire from the game. I hope you are not suggesting that lesser players should also never have to work again, because there just isn't that kind of money available. The athletes go into their professions with their eyes open. No one is forcing them to do this.

[danny's stogie]

The gist of your arguments seems to be that bigger markets will be able to generate more revenue than smaller markets, but that's life. If you can't compete, get out of the business. The most important thing about pro sports is that every player be able to squeez out of the owners the last possible nickle. Who gives a crap about competitive balance and the long term health of the game? Teams like the Yankees may not win the championship every year, but they deserve to be perennial contenders simply because they are located in the biggest market and can generate more income to buy more good players.

No, the gist of my argument is that free markets create healthy competition and as a consequence would actually improve the game as a whole by weeding out poor ownership. It’s not the fact that the Cardinals are located in Phoenix that they aren’t competitive; it’s that they have a crappy owner who doesn’t care about winning. Find me a multi hundred million dollar entrepreneur with a license to operate under the MLB or NFL insignia who can’t turn a profit and I’ll show you a person who doesn’t give a darn. Having quality ownership all around the board would do a better job improving the quality of the product and the long term health of the game than simply forcing all teams to spend the same amount on salaries.

Again, the Yankees are the exception to the rule. They are a statistical anomaly that has no place in this debate. (An aside: The amount of money they and the Mets make indicates to me that the New York market could actually support a third or fourth franchise. If MLB didn’t have a monopoly an ownership group put a team their and further level the playing field). The majority of MLB teams can afford to operate at salaries roughly between 70 and 100 million. Even the teams that are in the next lowest grade, 50-70 have proven that they can win.

Why wouldn't I want to support a baseball team in cities like Pittsburg, KC and Milwaukee if I were a fan? Oh, I don't know, maybe it is because the deck is always stacked against these type of teams. The good players these teams develop are never going to be around when they blossom. These teams are always playing on an uneven field. Just call me crazy for not wanting to get involved in such a travesty.

Pittsburgh and Milwaukee just suckered their cities into building fantastic new stadiums which in turn increases franchise value. They both make money, but they both have had horrible ownership that could care less about winning. And actually, just watch, Milwaukee is going to have a really nice team next year. As for KC, yeah, they just suck.

Contraction may not be inevitable in MLB, but it is very likely for some small market teams if the present economic system is not changed in some way to curb the spending of teams like the Yankees. These small market teams are selling for peanuts. Didn't the Marlins sell for something like 125 million dollars (not even as much as the annual player payroll for the Yankees!) not long ago? The Washington Nats have many suitors because it is a big market. As for your figures concerning the owners lying about profits, I have no idea where those figures come from. Let's just presume creative accounting can hide some profits. But, the point remains that big markets teams have a huge advantage over small market teams regardless of the accounting.

Forbes.

Contraction isn’t happening. Too much money to be made even for the relatively small markets to contract. A league buyout is more likely because it increases franchise value for all other remaining owners.

The Yankees didn’t skew the pay scale, they paid market value for their players, they just so happened to pay a lot of players.

The point remains that there are one or two exceptions like the Yanks, but for the majority of the league, the playing field is relatively equal. There is no huge economic advantage. Restricting a free market fosters rent seekers like the Bidwells whose terrible ownership creates the competitive advantage.

The NFL is a cartel, but so is the player union. If the players are forced to negotiate with the owners, so are the owners forced to negotiate with the players. Incidentally, the NFL has from time to time faced competition from another league. I presume that you remember the AFL forced a merger with the NFL some 40 years ago. The USFL tried, but failed.

The players lack the capital to support the creation of their own franchises and thus they don’t have nearly the leverage the owners do. They also have greater economic incentive to acquiesce because they have a relatively short window in which to earn a living as an athlete. Yes, I remember the AFL/NFL merger, but do you remember why it happened? The competition between leagues created an ad hoc free agency system that allowed the players to receive market value for their services. The owners COLLUDED to keep player salaries down by merging leagues.

[HanburgerBum]

No, the gist of my argument is that free markets create healthy competition and as a consequence would actually improve the game as a whole by weeding out poor ownership. It’s not the fact that the Cardinals are located in Phoenix that they aren’t competitive; it’s that they have a crappy owner who doesn’t care about winning. Find me a multi hundred million dollar entrepreneur with a license to operate under the MLB or NFL insignia who can’t turn a profit and I’ll show you a person who doesn’t give a darn. Having quality ownership all around the board would do a better job improving the quality of the product and the long term health of the game than simply forcing all teams to spend the same amount on salaries.

Again, the Yankees are the exception to the rule. They are a statistical anomaly that has no place in this debate. (An aside: The amount of money they and the Mets make indicates to me that the New York market could actually support a third or fourth franchise. If MLB didn’t have a monopoly an ownership group put a team their and further level the playing field). The majority of MLB teams can afford to operate at salaries roughly between 70 and 100 million. Even the teams that are in the next lowest grade, 50-70 have proven that they can win.



Pittsburgh and Milwaukee just suckered their cities into building fantastic new stadiums which in turn increases franchise value. They both make money, but they both have had horrible ownership that could care less about winning. And actually, just watch, Milwaukee is going to have a really nice team next year. As for KC, yeah, they just suck.



Forbes.

Contraction isn’t happening. Too much money to be made even for the relatively small markets to contract. A league buyout is more likely because it increases franchise value for all other remaining owners.

The Yankees didn’t skew the pay scale, they paid market value for their players, they just so happened to pay a lot of players.

The point remains that there are one or two exceptions like the Yanks, but for the majority of the league, the playing field is relatively equal. There is no huge economic advantage. Restricting a free market fosters rent seekers like the Bidwells whose terrible ownership creates the competitive advantage.



The players lack the capital to support the creation of their own franchises and thus they don’t have nearly the leverage the owners do. They also have greater economic incentive to acquiesce because they have a relatively short window in which to earn a living as an athlete. Yes, I remember the AFL/NFL merger, but do you remember why it happened? The competition between leagues created an ad hoc free agency system that allowed the players to receive market value for their services. The owners COLLUDED to keep player salaries down by merging leagues.


You said the Yankees are an anomaly. I don't really care what they are, but you need to address the issue how you are going to curb their obscene spending that puts every other team at a competitive disadvantage. You are against the salary cap. What then is your solution to the "Yankee" problem? If you don't think the Yankees are a problem, then we can not disagree more.

You claim that even the small market teams in baseball are making money. While I don't really find that credible, I will presume that to be true for the purpose of this argument. If these small market teams are making money, it is because they have very small payrolls compared to the rich teams like the Yankees and Red Sox. Such small payrolls put these teams at a perpetual competitive disadvantage. Why should fans of these cities continue to support these hopeless causes? How can that not inevitably lead to widespread disinterest in the long run? Be honest, if you lived in KC, would you feel that your team has hope ever? If not, why would you want to participate in and thus help to perpetuate an economic system that dooms these teams to fail forever?

Your point that the owners have more leverage than the players may or may not be true. It has been true in pro football, but it has been just the opposite in MLB. The baseball owners have capitulated in every labor strife and as a result have created a powerful, monster union that is now running amok. What the baseball owners need to regain control of their game is learn a lesson from the NFL owners. They must be prepared to shut the game down for how ever long it takes (3 years, 5 years, whatever) in order to cut the MLB player union down to size. Let's see if these baseball players will be able to stand that kind of pressure with their biological clock ticking in the background.

Your central theme appears to be the concept that the players must be allowed to maximize their income under a free market system and this is paramount above all other considerations. I totally reject that notion. The integrity and long term health of the game (and that means competitive balance) is far more important than players being able to squeeze out every last dime.

[danny's stogie]

You said the Yankees are an anomaly. I don't really care what they are, but you need to address the issue how you are going to curb their obscene spending that puts every other team at a competitive disadvantage. You are against the salary cap. What then is your solution to the "Yankee" problem? If you don't think the Yankees are a problem, then we can not disagree more.

You claim that even the small market teams in baseball are making money. While I don't really find that credible, I will presume that to be true for the purpose of this argument. If these small market teams are making money, it is because they have very small payrolls compared to the rich teams like the Yankees and Red Sox. Such small payrolls put these teams at a perpetual competitive disadvantage. Why should fans of these cities continue to support these hopeless causes? How can that not inevitably lead to widespread disinterest in the long run? Be honest, if you lived in KC, would you feel that your team has hope ever? If not, why would you want to participate in and thus help to perpetuate an economic system that dooms these teams to fail forever?

Your point that the owners have more leverage than the players may or may not be true. It has been true in pro football, but it has been just the opposite in MLB. The baseball owners have capitulated in every labor strife and as a result have created a powerful, monster union that is now running amok. What the baseball owners need to regain control of their game is learn a lesson from the NFL owners. They must be prepared to shut the game down for how ever long it takes (3 years, 5 years, whatever) in order to cut the MLB player union down to size. Let's see if these baseball players will be able to stand that kind of pressure with their biological clock ticking in the background.

Your central theme appears to be the concept that the players must be allowed to maximize their income under a free market system and this is paramount above all other considerations. I totally reject that notion. The integrity and long term health of the game (and that means competitive balance) is far more important than players being able to squeeze out every last dime.

I'm not trying to be a jerk by saying this, but you really don't address the points I made in any of my posts and your "central theme" comments continually miss important points. You just rehash the same arguments that I've already tackled. For example, the perpetual disadvantage that you talk about in MLB doesn't exist to the extent that you make it sound. I pointed out that the majority of teams can operate at a payroll roughly 70-100 million with only a few exceptions on either end of the spectrum. Most of the owners who operate below that threshhold don't give a darn about fielding a competitive team. It's not an inherent economic imbalance, it's rent-seeking ownership. This is the third time I've repeated that fact. So, I'm not going go and rehash all the refuting arguments in my previous posts. If you want to address directly the points I made then we'll talk.

[HanburgerBum]

I'm not trying to be a jerk by saying this, but you really don't address the points I made in any of my posts and your "central theme" comments continually miss important points. You just rehash the same arguments that I've already tackled. For example, the perpetual disadvantage that you talk about in MLB doesn't exist to the extent that you make it sound. I pointed out that the majority of teams can operate at a payroll roughly 70-100 million with only a few exceptions on either end of the spectrum. Most of the owners who operate below that threshhold don't give a darn about fielding a competitive team. It's not an inherent economic imbalance, it's rent-seeking ownership. This is the third time I've repeated that fact. So, I'm not going go and rehash all the refuting arguments in my previous posts. If you want to address directly the points I made then we'll talk.


Okay, let's see if I can address your specific point.

You say that the "majority" of teams can operate at a payroll of about 70-100 million. I don't know what is your basis for this figure, but let's assume it is accurate for the purpose of argument. How does a 85 million payroll continually compete against a payroll of 200 million and growing? Please don't trot out that argument that there is only one team with such a payroll. One is one too many when it comes to unfair competitive advantage.

And, what is your basis for the statement that owners of teams having a payroll less than 70 million are not interested in winning? Have you interviewed these people? How do you know they can afford payrolls of say over 40 million? Any normal person wants to win. What makes these owners different?

I also note that you did not anwer my question as to how do you propose to curb the Yankees' obsecene spending that gives them an unfair advantage in the absence of a salary cap. Nor did you answer my question how do you sustain interest in small markets when their fans eventually realize that the present economic system means that their teams will never be able to compete on an even field.

I have the interests of ALL the teams, the fans of ALL the teams and even ALL the players, both present and future, at heart. Competitive balance maintains interest everywhere and preserves the long term health of the game. That, in turn, saves players' jobs. You, on the other hand, seem only interested in ensuring the ability of the present players (mostly a handful of super stars) to maximize their income in a free market--to squeeze out every possible dime. The future? Who cares?

[bosshog001]

I wouldnt mind an uncapped year for ONE year. I cant see the NFL uncapped.. THe other teams w/o much revenue would be in shambles.. and plus football is surpose to be abou thte love of the game.. not all about the money.. were is more Brett Farve type players who love the game not because of the money but because it is the game? The NFL is already turning into more of a business pu**y sport then smash mouth hard nosed football it was before my time.. and the salary cap would just add to this.

Danny would certainly open his checkbook!!

[danny's stogie]

Okay, let's see if I can address your specific point.

You say that the "majority" of teams can operate at a payroll of about 70-100 million. I don't know what is your basis for this figure, but let's assume it is accurate for the purpose of argument. How does a 85 million payroll continually compete against a payroll of 200 million and growing? Please don't trot out that argument that there is only one team with such a payroll. One is one too many when it comes to unfair competitive advantage.

Actually, the Yankee payroll shrinks to about 180 this year. They had bad contracts on the books last season that are now gone. Even the Yankees have a limit dictated by finances. How do all other teams compete? I will repeat this for the seventy-second and final time, free markets in sports increase the salary structure at all levels, not just the stars. The reason the Yanks don’t dominate (let me remind you that they haven’t won in 5 years now and during their run in the late 90s they had a modest payroll) is because while they can afford to pay ARod 25M a year, they can’t afford to stock the team with good middle relief, decent backups, or quality starting pitching across the board. That’s what happens to the salary structure in sports when owners aren’t allowed to collude to keep salaries down. Before, when there was no free agency and no cap and the reserve clause was in effect the Yanks could afford to stock their teams from top to bottom with great players. That’s why they dominated for a 50 year stretch.


And, what is your basis for the statement that owners of teams having a payroll less than 70 million are not interested in winning? Have you interviewed these people? How do you know they can afford payrolls of say over 40 million? Any normal person wants to win. What makes these owners different?

Do I need to sit in a room with Bidwell or Angelos to know that they only care about their pocket books? They’re rent seekers who milk their respective leagues for all they can get. Free market competition would force them out of any other industry and professional sports would be no different. This is a silly argument; you’re grasping at straws.


I also note that you did not anwer my question as to how do you propose to curb the Yankees' obsecene spending that gives them an unfair advantage in the absence of a salary cap. Nor did you answer my question how do you sustain interest in small markets when their fans eventually realize that the present economic system means that their teams will never be able to compete on an even field.

Why would I answer that question if I don’t agree that they have an unfair advantage? There is absolutely no reason that the other teams in the division can't compete with the Yanks. Winning and (or) the perception that ownership wants to win maintains interest. If the fans still don’t come like in Florida then the franchise isn’t ment to be there. It’s not a small market problem, it’s a the franchise doesn’t belong there problem. I certainly don’t see the point in excessive revenue sharing or a salary crap being in place to prop up dead in the water franchises like that. Open up the game to free competition and move them to New York because it can certainly support another franchise.

I have the interests of ALL the teams, the fans of ALL the teams and even ALL the players, both present and future, at heart. Competitive balance maintains interest everywhere and preserves the long term health of the game. That, in turn, saves players' jobs. You, on the other hand, seem only interested in ensuring the ability of the present players (mostly a handful of super stars) to maximize their income in a free market--to squeeze out every possible dime. The future? Who cares?


What’s your deal? You keep saying I don’t care about the future of the game yet I keep saying that weeding out rent seeking ownership by removing artificial barriers that restrict the free movement of labor at market value is in the best interest of the game longterm. Quality ownership creates a quality product which in turn creates interest in the game. The salary crap creates an artificial competitive balance at the expense of quality i.e. this years’ super bowl. If that was my first impression of the game of football I certainly wouldn’t come back for more. Before you whine about how big the NFL is because of the salary cap and competitive balance let me remind you that the game was huge before the salary crap and if anything has helped the game over the past several years it’s the existence of 24 hour sports coverage on ESPN et al, fantasy football, and gambling. How else do I know the NFL’s growth wasn’t because of the salary cap? Because the same teams—the Saints, Cardinals, etc—that stunk before the cap and couldn’t generate interest still stink and still don’t generate interest. On the other hand, a team like the Pats change ownership in 91 from a dude who didn’t give a darn to one who strives to succeed and now the Pats not only do well, but have actually developed a following. Now I’ve repeated the same argument one hundred thirty-six times and it’s debunked every machination of your convoluted ideology. Cool now?

[redskin_rich]

The people in this thread that keep bringing up the Yankees are not taking into consideration that with the revenue sharing in the NFL, the difference between markets is nowhere near as big. Even if it is 20%, which someone said Forbes has shown, that is minimal compared to the discrepancy in the MLB.
Stop beating that dead horse, please.

Furthermore, I am not for getting rid of the salary cap completely. I would just like it to be more friendly in regards to keeping your own players. Sure, that would make it harder for players to move but ultimately, it would make the quality of the game better.

[helimech24]

The people in this thread that keep bringing up the Yankees are not taking into consideration that with the revenue sharing in the NFL, the difference between markets is nowhere near as big. Even if it is 20%, which someone said Forbes has shown, that is minimal compared to the discrepancy in the MLB.
Stop beating that dead horse, please.

Furthermore, I am not for getting rid of the salary cap completely. I would just like it to be more friendly in regards to keeping your own players. Sure, that would make it harder for players to move but ultimately, it would make the quality of the game better.That is because it could evenually be that way. Because the NFL makes so much money every year, the bigger teams will get a bigger difference in revenue that isn't shared with time. Revenue sharing only share particular profits. I think everyone is scared that their will be the disparity that is in the MLB, and it could end up that way. Why take the chance when everyone has a level playing field right now.

[HanburgerBum]

Actually, the Yankee payroll shrinks to about 180 this year. They had bad contracts on the books last season that are now gone. Even the Yankees have a limit dictated by finances. How do all other teams compete? I will repeat this for the seventy-second and final time, free markets in sports increase the salary structure at all levels, not just the stars. The reason the Yanks don’t dominate (let me remind you that they haven’t won in 5 years now and during their run in the late 90s they had a modest payroll) is because while they can afford to pay ARod 25M a year, they can’t afford to stock the team with good middle relief, decent backups, or quality starting pitching across the board. That’s what happens to the salary structure in sports when owners aren’t allowed to collude to keep salaries down. Before, when there was no free agency and no cap and the reserve clause was in effect the Yanks could afford to stock their teams from top to bottom with great players. That’s why they dominated for a 50 year stretch.



Do I need to sit in a room with Bidwell or Angelos to know that they only care about their pocket books? They’re rent seekers who milk their respective leagues for all they can get. Free market competition would force them out of any other industry and professional sports would be no different. This is a silly argument; you’re grasping at straws.



Why would I answer that question if I don’t agree that they have an unfair advantage? There is absolutely no reason that the other teams in the division can't compete with the Yanks. Winning and (or) the perception that ownership wants to win maintains interest. If the fans still don’t come like in Florida then the franchise isn’t ment to be there. It’s not a small market problem, it’s a the franchise doesn’t belong there problem. I certainly don’t see the point in excessive revenue sharing or a salary crap being in place to prop up dead in the water franchises like that. Open up the game to free competition and move them to New York because it can certainly support another franchise.



What’s your deal? You keep saying I don’t care about the future of the game yet I keep saying that weeding out rent seeking ownership by removing artificial barriers that restrict the free movement of labor at market value is in the best interest of the game longterm. Quality ownership creates a quality product which in turn creates interest in the game. The salary crap creates an artificial competitive balance at the expense of quality i.e. this years’ super bowl. If that was my first impression of the game of football I certainly wouldn’t come back for more. Before you whine about how big the NFL is because of the salary cap and competitive balance let me remind you that the game was huge before the salary crap and if anything has helped the game over the past several years it’s the existence of 24 hour sports coverage on ESPN et al, fantasy football, and gambling. How else do I know the NFL’s growth wasn’t because of the salary cap? Because the same teams—the Saints, Cardinals, etc—that stunk before the cap and couldn’t generate interest still stink and still don’t generate interest. On the other hand, a team like the Pats change ownership in 91 from a dude who didn’t give a darn to one who strives to succeed and now the Pats not only do well, but have actually developed a following. Now I’ve repeated the same argument one hundred thirty-six times and it’s debunked every machination of your convoluted ideology. Cool now?


I guess we can agree to disagree. If you don't think the Yankees have an unfair advantage, there is probably nothing I can say that will ever convince you otherwise. Sure, the Yankees don't win the championship every year, but they are always in the playoffs, always contending, because of their ability to buy free agents. The strengths of teams tend to be cyclical because of the built-in policies (e.g. draft in reverse order) to help the bad teams and the law of averages, but the Yankees never have to go thru any down period. That's fair?

You have this theory that competitive balance prompted by a salary cap eliminates excellence. You point to the most recent SB as an example. Yeah, that wasn't a particularly well-played SB, but it was certainly a competitive one. It's interesting that you fail to point out the fact that NE has won the previous 3 out of 4. I think one can make a pretty good case that the Patriots have been a model of excellence. Back in the days without a salary cap, there were no doubt some great teams (e.g. the Niners and the '85 Bears). You enjoyed those blow out SB scores (53-17, 51-10--don't remember the exact scores) these teams won by? Well, give me what the Steelers were able to accomplish this year any day over those blow outs. Pitt won it all from a 6th seed, beating 4 very good teams (Cincy, Indy, Denver and Seattle, with 3 of them on the road) en route. Now, that's excitement!

[danny's stogie]

That is because it could evenually be that way. Because the NFL makes so much money every year, the bigger teams will get a bigger difference in revenue that isn't shared with time. Revenue sharing only share particular profits. I think everyone is scared that their will be the disparity that is in the MLB, and it could end up that way. Why take the chance when everyone has a level playing field right now.

No, there won't be a huge divide between the haves and have-nots in the NFL as long as the league continues to negotiate its TV contracts as a bloc. The majority of revenue sharing - and the majority of revenue period - in the NFL is directly tied to this. If the TV contracts were negotiated locally then a New York or Washington would gain a slight advantage. The rent seekers among NFL ownership aren't fighting to prevent competitive advantage, they're fighting for scraps and trying to ensure that successful entrepreneurs in ownership - the dan snyders, etc - can't up the ante and tacitly pressure them into actually caring. It's really disgusting that the Bidwells of the NFL have this license to print money by being part of an exclusive club of NFL owners and instead of trying to make their franchise better and more successful both monetarily and on the field they try to limit ownership entrepreneurialism during the CBA negotiations. Imagine if all the competing cell phone providers, instead of trying to create a better product just went around and sabotaged each other's towers, satelites, and innovations.

Also, the imbalance in the MLB is vastly overstated. One team, the Yanks, spends a ton of money and everyone cries foul.

[danny's stogie]

Furthermore, I am not for getting rid of the salary cap completely. I would just like it to be more friendly in regards to keeping your own players. Sure, that would make it harder for players to move but ultimately, it would make the quality of the game better.

Kind of like the Larry Bird excemption in Basketball? Actually, the NBA is hard to peg down as to what would make for the best product because team success is tied so heavily to the contributions of one or two star players. If you want to increase the competitive balance make Tim Duncan, Kobe, Shaq, and LeBron switch teams every season.


I guess we can agree to disagree. If you don't think the Yankees have an unfair advantage, there is probably nothing I can say that will ever convince you otherwise. Sure, the Yankees don't win the championship every year, but they are always in the playoffs, always contending, because of their ability to buy free agents. The strengths of teams tend to be cyclical because of the built-in policies (e.g. draft in reverse order) to help the bad teams and the law of averages, but the Yankees never have to go thru any down period. That's fair?

You have this theory that competitive balance prompted by a salary cap eliminates excellence. You point to the most recent SB as an example. Yeah, that wasn't a particularly well-played SB, but it was certainly a competitive one. It's interesting that you fail to point out the fact that NE has won the previous 3 out of 4. I think one can make a pretty good case that the Patriots have been a model of excellence. Back in the days without a salary cap, there were no doubt some great teams (e.g. the Niners and the '85 Bears). You enjoyed those blow out SB scores (53-17, 51-10--don't remember the exact scores) these teams won by? Well, give me what the Steelers were able to accomplish this year any day over those blow outs. Pitt won it all from a 6th seed, beating 4 very good teams (Cincy, Indy, Denver and Seattle, with 3 of them on the road) en route. Now, that's excitement!

The Yanks were horrible easily one of the league's worst teams for a 10+ year stretch in the 80s to the 90s. They aren't always in contention. Their success has as much to do with producing two home grown HOFers, Derek Jeter and Mariano Rivera, as it does anything else. I guess the fact that the Braves have won their division for 14 straight years is all because they have a huge competitive advantage :rolleyes:.

The reason the Pats are a model of excellence is because they have great ownership, not because the salary cap allows them to compete against the financial bullies. I guess you enjoyed the salary cap era Tampa/Oakland , Balt/NYG, Den/Atl super bowls then if all salary cap era super bowls are great. There have been great games and great blowouts before and after the salary cap came into existence.

[HanburgerBum]

Kind of like the Larry Bird excemption in Basketball? Actually, the NBA is hard to peg down as to what would make for the best product because team success is tied so heavily to the contributions of one or two star players. If you want to increase the competitive balance make Tim Duncan, Kobe, Shaq, and LeBron switch teams every season.




The Yanks were horrible easily one of the league's worst teams for a 10+ year stretch in the 80s to the 90s. They aren't always in contention. Their success has as much to do with producing two home grown HOFers, Derek Jeter and Mariano Rivera, as it does anything else. I guess the fact that the Braves have won their division for 14 straight years is all because they have a huge competitive advantage :rolleyes:.

The reason the Pats are a model of excellence is because they have great ownership, not because the salary cap allows them to compete against the financial bullies. I guess you enjoyed the salary cap era Tampa/Oakland , Balt/NYG, Den/Atl super bowls then if all salary cap era super bowls are great. There have been great games and great blowouts before and after the salary cap came into existence.


In the NFL, there is almost no connection between the size of the markets and how good the teams are. The SB cities Pitt and Seattle are among the smallest in the country. Almost the reverse is true of MLB. If you are one of the smaller markets, good luck in making the playoffs! You think that's just coincidence?

Actually, I think there is a way to help the smaller markets in MLB without a salary cap. What I would do is place teams in divisions according to the sizes of their markets. Cities like NY, Chicago, LA, Boston, Philly, Houston would be placed into one division, while cities like Tampa, Minnesota, Milwaukee, Pitt, etc would be placed into another division and so forth. This would be a way of handicapping the teams and allowing the small and medium markets to compete more fairly (against their peers). Once in the playoffs, for a stretch of only 7 games, anything can happen. Of course, this would do away with some traditional division rivals. Would you support this plan as a comprise?

As for football teams before and after the salary cap, you apparently are arguing that there is not much difference between them. Well, that was my point exactly. I don't think the salary cap has hurt excellence in football at all. I guess we are in agreement here.

[helimech24]

No, there won't be a huge divide between the haves and have-nots in the NFL as long as the league continues to negotiate its TV contracts as a bloc. The majority of revenue sharing - and the majority of revenue period - in the NFL is directly tied to this. If the TV contracts were negotiated locally then a New York or Washington would gain a slight advantage. The rent seekers among NFL ownership aren't fighting to prevent competitive advantage, they're fighting for scraps and trying to ensure that successful entrepreneurs in ownership - the dan snyders, etc - can't up the ante and tacitly pressure them into actually caring. It's really disgusting that the Bidwells of the NFL have this license to print money by being part of an exclusive club of NFL owners and instead of trying to make their franchise better and more successful both monetarily and on the field they try to limit ownership entrepreneurialism during the CBA negotiations. Imagine if all the competing cell phone providers, instead of trying to create a better product just went around and sabotaged each other's towers, satelites, and innovations.

Also, the imbalance in the MLB is vastly overstated. One team, the Yanks, spends a ton of money and everyone cries foul.Teams do get to keep radio money, luxary boxes, and I think parking. You don't think Synder won't raise those prices if he thinks the team would benefit from it?

BTW, Boston spent about 200 mil last year, and Toronto just dumped a whole bunch of money into free agents. Plenty of teams have a big edge over others in that league.

[danny's stogie]

In the NFL, there is almost no connection between the size of the markets and how good the teams are. The SB cities Pitt and Seattle are among the smallest in the country. Almost the reverse is true of MLB. If you are one of the smaller markets, good luck in making the playoffs! You think that's just coincidence?

Actually, I think there is a way to help the smaller markets in MLB without a salary cap. What I would do is place teams in divisions according to the sizes of their markets. Cities like NY, Chicago, LA, Boston, Philly, Houston would be placed into one division, while cities like Tampa, Minnesota, Milwaukee, Pitt, etc would be placed into another division and so forth. This would be a way of handicapping the teams and allowing the small and medium markets to compete more fairly (against their peers). Once in the playoffs, for a stretch of only 7 games, anything can happen. Of course, this would do away with some traditional division rivals. Would you support this plan as a comprise?

As for football teams before and after the salary cap, you apparently are arguing that there is not much difference between them. Well, that was my point exactly. I don't think the salary cap has hurt excellence in football at all. I guess we are in agreement here.


Once again, it's not the size of the city, it's the owner. It's nice that Seattle and Pittsburgh played in the super bowl, but they both have cities perfectly capable of supporting winning MLB franchises. The Mariners not only have one of the league's highest payrolls, but they also consistently turn a profit. The Pirates have ownership that continually sells off it's better players despite making profits roughly 1/3 the size of its payroll. The team can afford to put out a winning product, but chooses to horde cash instead.

When you talk about small markets you're acting like its the wilkes-barre, PA so and sos trying to compete against the Mets. The other teams you mention: Milwaukee and Tampa were two of the highest grossing teams in the league last season. They have the capacity to spend money, but their ownership CHOOSES not to. Minnesota had a reasonably high payroll, operated right at cost, and if they can secure a new stadium will be rolling in dough. Lets add a team in there, the O's. They had a payroll of roughly 75 million and pulled in roughly 40 million in profit, yet they choose not to trade for Burnett during the season or sign quality free agents this offseason. It's not the Yankees fault they don't win; it's Angelos's. The only team I will conceed to you is KC. They are doomed. As for the highest payroll teams: the Mets, Yanks, Sox, they all LOST money last season. The Yanks operated in the red by roughly 40 million and this is even before their large luxury tax bill comes due.

Edit: the "small market" ownership would much rather people point the finger at the Yanks and use their inherent economic advantage -- or as I call it, commitment to winning -- as a sophistic (to quote a word just used by Akh that I'm sure you just looked up) rationale to sidestep blame for their own commitment to nothing but maximizing profit in the short term.

As for before and after the salary cap in the NFL: no I don't agree with you one bit. The quality of play was much better before the salary cap. SF might have blown out a few teams in the super bowl, but at least they were good enough to drop 50. The Seahawks and Steelers on the other hand couldn't get out of the way of their own two feet. The game now is fraught with mediocrity. It's a war of attrition rather than a battle of titans. Please read the discussion led by myself and Rich on this subject before responding to this topic and making me repeat posts.

[HanburgerBum]

Once again, it's not the size of the city, it's the owner. It's nice that Seattle and Pittsburgh played in the super bowl, but they both have cities perfectly capable of supporting winning MLB franchises. The Mariners not only have one of the league's highest payrolls, but they also consistently turn a profit. The Pirates have ownership that continually sells off it's better players despite making profits roughly 1/3 the size of its payroll. The team can afford to put out a winning product, but chooses to horde cash instead.

When you talk about small markets you're acting like its the wilkes-barre, PA so and sos trying to compete against the Mets. The other teams you mention: Milwaukee and Tampa were two of the highest grossing teams in the league last season. They have the capacity to spend money, but their ownership CHOOSES not to. Minnesota had a reasonably high payroll, operated right at cost, and if they can secure a new stadium will be rolling in dough. Lets add a team in there, the O's. They had a payroll of roughly 75 million and pulled in roughly 40 million in profit, yet they choose not to trade for Burnett during the season or sign quality free agents this offseason. It's not the Yankees fault they don't win; it's Angelos's. The only team I will conceed to you is KC. They are doomed. As for the highest payroll teams: the Mets, Yanks, Sox, they all LOST money last season. The Yanks operated in the red by roughly 40 million and this is even before their large luxury tax bill comes due.

Edit: the "small market" ownership would much rather people point the finger at the Yanks and use their inherent economic advantage -- or as I call it, commitment to winning -- as a sophistic (to quote a word just used by Akh that I'm sure you just looked up) rationale to sidestep blame for their own commitment to nothing but maximizing profit in the short term.

As for before and after the salary cap in the NFL: no I don't agree with you one bit. The quality of play was much better before the salary cap. SF might have blown out a few teams in the super bowl, but at least they were good enough to drop 50. The Seahawks and Steelers on the other hand couldn't get out of the way of their own two feet. The game now is fraught with mediocrity. It's a war of attrition rather than a battle of titans. Please read the discussion led by myself and Rich on this subject before responding to this topic and making me repeat posts.


In your previous post (#179), the last sentence states "There have been great games and great blowouts before and after the salary cap came into existance". This sure sounds like you don't think the salary cap has affected the game negatively or positively. If I misrepresented your position, I apologize.

But, I will say that we definitely have a huge disagreement as to what is good for the NFL. I don't care for "super" teams that dominate the league and erase all suspense about the SBs, as you apparently do. I prefer a bunch of good teams all with a realistic chance to win it all (pretty much like this year). Yeah, I wished there were less penalties and less mistakes in the SB last Sunday, but I think that game might have been an anomaly (to borrow one of your words). The two previous SBs (NE-Carolina, NE-Philly) were very well-played and very exciting.

As for MLB, I guess we will just have to agree to disagree. You can sliced, diced and dressed it up all you want, large markets will be able to generate more revenue. No matter how enterprising owners in Milwaukee and Pitt may be, they are not going to have an equal income with the Yankees and the Red Sox. When there is no significant revenue sharing and no salary cap, but there is free agency, it just defies common sense to think that all these markets can compete evenly in the long run.

[Keino]

Can I just repeat for the umpteenth time. Any comparisons to baseball are negated by the fact that Baseball doesn't share revenue.

[danny's stogie]

In your previous post (#179), the last sentence states "There have been great games and great blowouts before and after the salary cap came into existance". This sure sounds like you don't think the salary cap has affected the game negatively or positively. If I misrepresented your position, I apologize.

But, I will say that we definitely have a huge disagreement as to what is good for the NFL. I don't care for "super" teams that dominate the league and erase all suspense about the SBs, as you apparently do. I prefer a bunch of good teams all with a realistic chance to win it all (pretty much like this year). Yeah, I wished there were less penalties and less mistakes in the SB last Sunday, but I think that game might have been an anomaly (to borrow one of your words). The two previous SBs (NE-Carolina, NE-Philly) were very well-played and very exciting.

As for MLB, I guess we will just have to agree to disagree. You can sliced, diced and dressed it up all you want, large markets will be able to generate more revenue. No matter how enterprising owners in Milwaukee and Pitt may be, they are not going to have an equal income with the Yankees and the Red Sox. When there is no significant revenue sharing and no salary cap, but there is free agency, it just defies common sense to think that all these markets can compete evenly in the long run.


No, you're right, I wasn't clear. What I should have said was there were CLOSE games and blowouts before and after the implementation of the salary cap. I don't know about the last few SBs being well played. The NE-Philly game was kind of sloppy and the NE-CAR one was awful until the second half.

Again, you twist my words. I prefer a battle of titans to a war of attrition. I prefer 5-6 very good to great teams with a chance to win who all play great football to a league of 12 mediocre teams who play sloppy football like it was this past season.

I'm not dressing up anything when it comes to the MLB. The Pirates, Brewers, Rays, etc. all have the capability to spend in the neighborhood of 70-90 million on salaries a season, but they choose not to. There is no reason that they can't compete with that kind of payroll even if the Yanks spend 200 million. They horde cash and instead of putting out a productive product sit around and whine about how the Yankees are ruining baseball. Obviously their complaints have affected your view of the game.

What's especially heinous is that the Pirates and Brewers just fleeced their respective cities and taxpayers into constructing new ballparks by saying they can't compete and will have to leave if the city doesn't build one. So they rip off the taxpayers, get new ballparks, make more money, and still don't attempt to field a competitive product. ONCE AGAIN, IT'S NOT AN INHERENT ECONOMIC DISADVANTAGE. THEY CAN AFFORD TO COMPETE, BUT CHOOSE TO BE RENT-SEEKERS AND TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE MONOPOLISTIC ASPECTS OF THE LEAGUE. Yes, the Yanks and Sox will always make more money, but the difference is not large enough to preclude the "small" markets from competing.

In the words of Dave Chappelle playing Prince, "I'm Bored". Go ahead and get the last word in.



Keino- baseball does share revenue but it's nowhere near the amount of the NFL. The Yanks pay a huge luxury tax which in turn is divvied out to the "small" market teams. I believe the Devil Rays for example take in nearly as much in shared revenue as they spend on payroll. They rake in a huge profit every year because they're cheapskates who choose not to field a competitive team.

[HanburgerBum]

No, you're right, I wasn't clear. What I should have said was there were CLOSE games and blowouts before and after the implementation of the salary cap. I don't know about the last few SBs being well played. The NE-Philly game was kind of sloppy and the NE-CAR one was awful until the second half.

Again, you twist my words. I prefer a battle of titans to a war of attrition. I prefer 5-6 very good to great teams with a chance to win who all play great football to a league of 12 mediocre teams who play sloppy football like it was this past season.

I'm not dressing up anything when it comes to the MLB. The Pirates, Brewers, Rays, etc. all have the capability to spend in the neighborhood of 70-90 million on salaries a season, but they choose not to. There is no reason that they can't compete with that kind of payroll even if the Yanks spend 200 million. They horde cash and instead of putting out a productive product sit around and whine about how the Yankees are ruining baseball. Obviously their complaints have affected your view of the game.

What's especially heinous is that the Pirates and Brewers just fleeced their respective cities and taxpayers into constructing new ballparks by saying they can't compete and will have to leave if the city doesn't build one. So they rip off the taxpayers, get new ballparks, make more money, and still don't attempt to field a competitive product. ONCE AGAIN, IT'S NOT AN INHERENT ECONOMIC DISADVANTAGE. THEY CAN AFFORD TO COMPETE, BUT CHOOSE TO BE RENT-SEEKERS AND TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE MONOPOLISTIC ASPECTS OF THE LEAGUE. Yes, the Yanks and Sox will always make more money, but the difference is not large enough to preclude the "small" markets from competing.

In the words of Dave Chappelle playing Prince, "I'm Bored". Go ahead and get the last word in.



Keino- baseball does share revenue but it's nowhere near the amount of the NFL. The Yanks pay a huge luxury tax which in turn is divvied out to the "small" market teams. I believe the Devil Rays for example take in nearly as much in shared revenue as they spend on payroll. They rake in a huge profit every year because they're cheapskates who choose not to field a competitive team.


You think a handful of "titan" teams is the way to go. I think a bunch of good teams (with many more vying for playoffs late in the season) is more desirable. Hey, I don't think there is any right or wrong answer. It is just a matter of preference.

As for MLB, you say that the small markets should be able to afford about a 80 million dollar payroll and thus be competitive. For the sake of discussion, I will presume that your figure is correct. It is still puzzling to me how an 80 million payroll can consistently compete against teams like the Yankees and Red Sox, whose payrolls are about twice that.

As for the new baseball stadiums, I think cities should tell MLB (or any sport) to build its own stadiums (just like Jack Kent Cooke did). Sports are businesses and there is no reason why they should be subsidized. Like their players, sports must also learn to live within their means.

I have enjoyed the stimulating debate. I trust that we will agree on some issues and differ in others in the future.

[RicFlairOne]

You think a handful of "titan" teams is the way to go. I think a bunch of good teams (with many more vying for playoffs late in the season) is more desirable. Hey, I don't think there is any right or wrong answer. It is just a matter of preference.

As for MLB, you say that the small markets should be able to afford about a 80 million dollar payroll and thus be competitive. For the sake of discussion, I will presume that your figure is correct. It is still puzzling to me how an 80 million payroll can consistently compete against teams like the Yankees and Red Sox, whose payrolls are about twice that.

As for the new baseball stadiums, I think cities should tell MLB (or any sport) to build its own stadiums (just like Jack Kent Cooke did). Sports are businesses and there is no reason why they should be subsidized. Like their players, sports must also learn to live within their means.

I have enjoyed the stimulating debate. I trust that we will agree on some issues and differ in others in the future.

Read tonight on Profootball Talk com that free agency may be delayed as union and owners try to hash things out. Mentions Skins specifically, and also states that cap may be increased for 2006 season which would free up money for skins and other teams.

[ChiefPowhatan17]

Hutchinson has said that he doesn't want to leave Seattle. Now, Abraham is possible cause I guess he really wants to win somewhere else.