Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: Raiders' GM Begins The Purge

The NFL Salary Cap: The Future of the Cap

 

 

Hello everyone, I'm Collin the Asso. Editor over at BigCatCountry.com, the Jaguars' blog. I've done this piece outlining the coming issues of having no salary cap... Enjoy.

There has been a great deal of discussion as to whether or not the elimination of the salary cap would mean an end to fair competition in the NFL. The answer to this question is a resounding NO, and there are a number of reasons why. 

The NFL hasn't always had a salary-cap:

The NFL functioned without a salary cap up until 1994, when the original CBA was instituted. I managed to find a graph that compares the distribution of wins among teams prior to 1994, up until now. The prevailing thought is that having an uncapped NFL would lead to a few teams that amassed tons of wins, and a large number of teams who were consistantly bottom feeders. We would not expect to see as many average teams as we do now, where much of the NFL finishes between 7-9 and 9-7. 

The blue line represents the number of wins prior to the CBA, and the red line represents number of wins after the institution of the CBA. Notice a difference? Neither do I...

It seems counter-intuitive, but the distribution of wins among NFL teams doesn't significantly differ from before the CBA was instituted. Could there be more to having a successful NFL franchise beyond how much is spent on player acquisition? Yes!

The Growth of the cap and the problems with a salary floor:

Second, no salary cap means no salary floor: The current salary floor mandates that NFL teams are to spend at least 84% of the entire salary cap, no matter what. When you have the salary cap expanding at such drastic rates, the salary floor grows with it. Here's a list of the amount the salary cap has grown each year since 1999. 

 

Salary Cap Per Team for NFL Player Salaries by Year

2008 $116 million 2003 $75 million
2007 $109 million 2002 $71 million
2006 $102 million 2001 $67.5 million
2005 $85.5 million 2000 $62.2 million
2004 $80.5 million 1999 $58.4 million

 

Wow... Just so you know, the salary cap this season jumped to $127 million. That means that over 90 million has to be spent on player salaries this season alone. When the cap is growing so exponentially, it really doesn't matter that it exists at all. Rich teams can afford to keep their key players when they have that much cash floating around and are required to spend a certain amount. They'll just manipulate the terms of the contract to make it cap-friendly. This means that most quality players don't even reach free agency because their respective teams have plenty of money to re-sign them. 

The Cap is a funny animal, it can be manipulated and forced into doing whatever you want it to do, as a result, it might as well just disappear altogether. A perfect example is when Dan Snyder spent over $100 million in the year 2000, at a time when the cap was only $62.2 million.

A special way of paying players called a signing bonus is used to avoid dealing with cap problems. A player may only get a salary of $500k, but a signing bonus of $10 million for a 5 year deal. You would think this means that his cap hit is $10.5 million that year because that's how much he was paid that year... Well, you're wrong. The signing bonus is pro-rated throughout the length of the contract, so even though the player was paid $10.5 million that year, his cap hit was only $2.5 million because the $10 million is divided by the length of the contract (5 years in this example), which comes to 2 million. Then we add his base salary of $500k, and we see how the cap cost reaches $2.5 million. 

You might say, "Collin, their irresponsible behavior will catch up with them soon enough!" In theory, you are correct. However, the cap has grown even more rapidly than predicted, and it has allowed teams to spend irresponsibility without consequences. It is almost pointless as it stands now.

Restricted Free Agency:

Third, a player would have to accrue six seasons of NFL experience before he would be a free agent, not the four that are required now. This means that once a player's rookie contract expires he'll still be a RFA for one or two seasons, depending on the length of his contact (The NFL only permits the top 16 picks in the draft to sign 6 year deals). This means the team would still own their rights and could tender them accordingly. Once tendered, the team would receive compensation if another team chose to offer the player a contract and his original squad opted not to match. That's right, the team he currently plays for can choose to match the offer and the player has no say in where he goes... Basically, if you draft well, you'll own the players rights for at least six seasons and if you choose to not match the offer the player recieves, then you'll get draft pick compensation. 

Allow me divert for a moment and explain the levels that you can tender a RFA (note that this is different than placing a franchise or transition tag on a player). The levels are First and Third round tender (meaning if another team signs him you get a 1st and 3rd round pick), First round tender, Second round tender, and Original round tender (you receive a pick from the same round that the player was originally drafted in). You can tender as many players as you want who are RFA, or you may choose not to. 

Without a salary cap, the draft increases in importance, drastically. Not only does it become the chief way to acquire talent for small market teams, the value of each pick also increases because you will own that player's rights for an extra two years. The most important person on an NFL team without a salary cap is the GM. Gene Smith is the the kind of man you want running your franchise.

Franchising multiple players:

Fourth, without a salary cap, a team would be able to franchise or transition two players instead of one. This means even if a player reaches his sixth season and is ready to hit free agency, he can still be franchised and it would again prevent him from leaving (Franchise and transition tags are different than restricted free agent tenders). Since you can franchise a player more than once, it effectively means you can keep a player for eight or more seasons without having to sign him beyond his rookie contract. You would be able to do this to two different players each year, meaning that you could effectively keep the core of your team intact as long as you draft well. If you can't draft, you are going to struggle big-time. If someone else offered him a contract you chose not to match, then you would receive two first round picks for a franchise player, but nothing for a transition player (except the ability to match the offer given).

Additional ways to level competition without a cap:

The top 8 NFL teams would only be permitted to sign free agents at the rate they lose them each year. On top of that, the league would keep the same scheduling parameters in place, meaning the worse a team does, the easier their schedule is the following season. Also, the draft order would remain the same, with the worst teams getting to choose first. These barriers would have the effect of inhibiting the ability of the top eight teams to improve themselves.

WHEW!!

I hope I answered some of your questions and have provided you with the kind of information that you can use to refute all those who say that the NFL will turn into the MLB without a salary cap... That's just not the case... If you have any other questions, just list them in the comments and I'll do my best to get to them ASAP.

-Collin

 

 

Comment 21 comments  |  2 recs  | 

Do you like this story?

Comments

Display:

Good Stuff man…

We have had quite a few questions come up about the cap here at BTSC. This answers a lot and makes a decent arguement for not having a cap at all.

Even though you can manipulate the cap, the simple fact that you have to work around issues regarding the cap does level the playing field to an extent.

Elliminating the cap also makes it easier for teams to cut players who are no longer worth while but might have big contracts in the future. So there is at least some reason why the NFLPA might be interested in keeping a cap.

I'll drink your Milkshake, I'll drink it up!

by Frank Mineo (DYMS) on Mar 10, 2009 2:20 PM EDT reply actions  

True but...

I think most of the points you make about the RFA and Franchise tags are based on the current CBA and are only in effect for 2010. After that there is no agreement whatsoever between the NFLPA and the NFL. I could be totally wrong on that.

And I would disagree when you say unwise cap spending doesn’t catch up with people. For as much as Dan Snyder is spending ridiculous money every year he’s also not got terrible depth at most positions because of it.

The floor is expanding at an alarming rate for small-market teams and I think this will need to go at a different rate then the upper cap, but I do believe a floor is necessary to make sure that we don’t have owners that sell their players off never wanting to pay a second contract to a decent player.

by Chicago Steeler on Mar 10, 2009 2:51 PM EDT reply actions  

Good points. I think we all cringe at the phrase “uncapped”, but honestly, it would probably affect teams like the Jags and Bills the most, since they’ve been bitching about the floor for some time.

As Chicago Steeler points out (I’ll trust him on this one), it’s not a long term CBA, but 2010 and the potentially uncapped future would be pretty bad for the players, IMO, especially if RFA’s have to stick with their teams like they do in next year. Players would be 28-30 by the time they made any money, toward the end of (or past) their primes. Anyone who got significantly injured in those years would be really screwed.

charity standing orders

by BadMaafala on Mar 10, 2009 3:45 PM EDT reply actions  

While these are excellent thoughts, I am more afraid of erosion than anything else. Once the cap goes, how long before the other things go? Will they fall one by one? The small market owners need to fight like the dickens to keep the restrictions in place or we will end up like the Yankees and Pirates. I am curious about the “Top 8 Rule” That sounds outstanding (especially for a team like the Steelers who always lose more in Free Agency than they gain salary-wise). I wonder what the particulars are about that rule.

Thoughtful discussion with a sense of history

by maryrose on Mar 10, 2009 4:27 PM EDT reply actions  

The biggest diiference between football and baseball is the source of the income. In baseball, there are 162 games, almost none of which are on TV outside of their local cable affiliates, so attendance is the biggest source of income. NFL teams play only 16 games, almost everyone of which is readily available to millions of people over the air.

I’m not sure what the terms of it are, but MLB does have revenue sharing. However, large market teams can still have 5 times as much income as small markets. The NFL, on the other hand, gets something like $4B a year from TV contracts, which is the bulk of their income. That money will always get pretty evenly distributed, giving teams upwards of $125M to spend as they see fit.

That’s not to say the NFL couldn’t suffer from a leadership void like the MLB has, just that it may show itself in other ways. Goodell hasn’t struck me as a guy with a plan up to this point, so it will be interesting to see if he starts to do more than police the league. Still, I have a hard time seeing people like the Dan Rooney and Jerry Jones sitting back while a bad commissioner damages their sport and their investment (respectively)

charity standing orders

by BadMaafala on Mar 11, 2009 9:06 AM EDT up reply actions  

Not sure that pre-1995 records apply...

Thanks for putting this together, but I am not sure that the distribution of winning percentages in the pre-1995 period is indicative of what would happen if the NFL goes to an uncapped system. It is true that there was no salary cap before 1995, but there was also no free agency. Once a team drafted a player, they essentially owned that player’s rights forever, unless they traded or cut that player. Therefore, a team that drafted well (e.g. 1970s Steelers) had a tremendous advantage.

If the NFL eliminates the salary cap, presumably players would be bound to teams only for the duration of their contracts. (As Chicago Steeler points out, the 2010 rules are for a transition period only.) Thus, a team that drafts well would keep these players for only 3-5 years. After that, they would go to the highest bidder, which is a very different system from pre-1995.

I have read that the players union would even like to eliminate the draft. This may just be a negotiating posture, but I think they are really in danger of killing the golden goose. Even baseball has a draft, and it is not enough to overcome the inequities of system, as Pirates fans (are there any left?) know. An NFL with no salary cap could easily degenerate to a similar situation, and I don’t think the Steelers (among others) would fare as well, or well at all. Without competitive balance, the NFL would not be as popular as it is today.

by Steelin on Mar 10, 2009 5:19 PM EDT reply actions  

Draft

My understanding is that the draft goes away after 2010 without a new CBA with new rules. I do believe that the current CBA includes the 6 year to FA rule after 2010, as part of “poison pill” for the NFLPA to give them an incentive to come up with a new CBA.

If that’s true, and the Franschise Tags also continue, that would actually mean that the way the Steelers do business would not drastically change. In most cases, they don’t sign a player over 30 years old (there are exceptions), and if they are able keep a player for up to 8 years, those are usually the most productive years for most players.

by WolfpackSteelersFan on Mar 10, 2009 6:08 PM EDT up reply actions  

Actually, the whole CBA goes away after 2010

The problem is that no one knows what will happen after 2010, because the CBA expires after that season. The rules that will apply after 2010 have yet to be negotiated by the NFL and the NFLPA. The NFLPA has said that if the 2010 season is played without a cap, there is no going back to a salary cap, but I don’t understand the point to that, other than as a negotiating tactic.

But we really have no idea what will happen after 2010. In fact, the entire 2010 “uncapped” scenario is really a bogey man intended to scare both sides into negotiating a new agreement before the start of the 2010 fiscal year (that would be next February). If an agreement can be reached in time, the salary cap could be extended to cover 2010 and beyond, perhaps with minor adjustments such as limiting the salaries of high first-round draft picks.

Another scenario, unfortunately, is that there will be no agreement on a new CBA, and the owners will shut down the league (a "lockout") after the 2009 season is over. There is a faction among the owners (Jerry Jones et al) that wants to reduce the players’ share of the revenue in order to provide more funding for new stadiums and other expenses. The players, of course, will not agree to this. The current economic downturn exacerbates the financial problems of the owners. If enough of them are willing to shut down the league to try to force the players to capitulate, things could get ugly.

by Steelin on Mar 10, 2009 8:17 PM EDT up reply actions  

Lockout

Yeah, that is what I thought I remembered. IIRC, they said last year when the owners voted to nullify the CBA (which apparently they were allowed to, and let to the 2010 uncapped year scenario), the guys NFLN said it was likely that the owners would have a lockout if there were no CBA in place before the 2010 season.

by WolfpackSteelersFan on Mar 11, 2009 6:43 PM EDT up reply actions  

It takes a while to recover after a lock-out...

The NFL was succesfull after their lockout of coming back strong, but Hockey and Baseball are still struggeling after they had their resepective lockouts…

It is also a HUGE waste of revenue for teams if they don’t hold a season. Owners like Jerry Jones who have put LOTS and LOTS of money into a new stadium would have to be totaly 100% against a lockout.

I'll drink your Milkshake, I'll drink it up!

by Frank Mineo (DYMS) on Mar 12, 2009 10:56 AM EDT up reply actions  

Jerry will lead lockout

Outside of stadium expenses, the owners can easily weather a lockout. The current system ensures that 60% of total revenue goes to the players, and that expense goes away during a lockout. The team can lay off most front office employees, although they probably have to pay coaches who are under contract. No expenses for equipment, travel, security, etc.

Guys like Jerry Jones are looking at the long term and trying to get the best possible deal from (i.e. screw) the players. They have lots of money from their personal fortunes and can easily pay the mortgage/rent on a stadium for a year if they think they can get that money back later. Guys like the Rooneys, who don’t have a personal fortune, will be the ones that suffer, along with the players and fans, of course.

I totally agree with ’shake that it could take a while for the fans to come back if the NFL cancels an entire season. Last time, the strike lasted only a few games, and that was bad enough.

by Steelin on Mar 12, 2009 12:45 PM EDT up reply actions  

in case of strike

I don’t think this country would survive without an NFL season. It would be civil war, anarchy, mass hysteria. Its hard enough to endure an off-season. The sport is too popular and will be deemed too important to let have a lock-out and will recieve a bail out courtsey of yours truly.

by tannofsteel84 on Mar 12, 2009 5:31 PM EDT up reply actions  

Couple of points about a lockout

I think you’d have replacement players if there was a lockout. The league owners did that for each of the last two work stoppages. Also, I don’t expect it to come to that. The players have seen enormous growth in salaries during the years of labor peace. They may face a lower salary cap if they go to a work stoppage.

by WolfpackSteelersFan on Mar 12, 2009 11:22 PM EDT up reply actions  

The UFL would be the main attraction

wouldn’t that be ironic?

"The team that scores the most points wins."
John Madden
(Master of the obvious)

by PixburghArn on Mar 13, 2009 9:41 AM EDT up reply actions  

Haha

Well, the USFL was around during the 1982 strike, wasn’t it? It didn’t last long.

by WolfpackSteelersFan on Mar 13, 2009 10:06 PM EDT up reply actions  

But it had some real stars in it

How bout those Maulers!!!

"The team that scores the most points wins."
John Madden
(Master of the obvious)

by PixburghArn on Mar 16, 2009 8:37 AM EDT up reply actions  

Replacement players will only be used in the event of a strike...

If the owners lockout, then there will be NO football

The End Is Nigh...

by silencecs on Mar 16, 2009 5:49 PM EDT up reply actions  

Another point to consider

Is that the pre-1995 NFL is very different from the 2009 NFL. The amount of money flying around has more than doubled (potentially tripled?). Thus smaller market teams back then had a better chance cause no teams had “limitless” resources. These days there’s about 3-4 teams that could outspend the bottom 10 and not blink.

That’s why baseball has such a hard time in my opinion the major market teams can buy the small market teams out of the water cause of the money involved.

As is pointed out by Steelin, it will depend very much on what rules are established if the cap goes away. There are ways to keep the parity in the league without a cap, but it will need to be well negotiated on both sides to keep the cash cow going.

by Chicago Steeler on Mar 10, 2009 5:48 PM EDT reply actions  

There is no need

For a cap in football. There isnt parity because of the Cap, there is parity because of the number of good players out there. Let teams spend what they want, it wont change anything

by Michael Uhlhorn on Mar 10, 2009 8:17 PM EDT reply actions  

You guys

Yall are gonna make me barf. This is some of the saddest stuff I’ve ever heard with my ears. Lockouts?! Let that never happen.

There IS a need for a cap though. And I do believe every sport needs one. You simply cant have Yankees’ style of play where you can just toss 20 million dollars at everybody per season. Its disgusting.

by Mechem on Mar 13, 2009 2:01 PM EDT reply actions  

Couldnt agree more

Parity would go out the window. Teams with more money would just sign so many people. Imagine what Jerry Jones would do! The cap should stay IMO

BLITZBURGH IS BACK

by Michael Hewitt on Mar 15, 2009 2:41 AM EDT up reply actions  

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

Welcome to BTSC, a blog dedicated to the SIX-time world champion Steelers.

"Thoughtful discussion with a sense of history."

Art Rooney Jr.

"Level-headed thinking." Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recommended FanPosts

Franco72_small
The Last Sunday
Small
Joe Greene on Steelers Offense Under BA
Small
Homer reps BTSC and Steeler Nation on Washington Post Front Page
Small
Your Super Bowl Hate Guide
Steeler_nation_small
University of BTSC: Masters of Science degree in Steelerology Required Core Course 201: Using Quantum Mechanics to Understand the Baltimore Ravens (and their Fans).

Recent FanPosts

Steel-ball-logo-poster_small
Knowing Your Guards: A look at the 2012 Prospects (Updated 2/11/12)
Rodthreerivers_small
Report: Steelers Don't Want Ward
Small
Analyzing the Steelers 2008 Draft
Small
My Top 11 Prospects for our First Round Pick
Small
Ike Taylor restructures, over 18 million in cap space created so far this offseason
Small
Analyzing the Steelers 2009 Draft
Small
6 Round NFL Mock Draft
Steeler_small
Steelers Cut Their Salary Problem in Half
Small
Woodley restructures contract
Bonek_small
Haley's Day One in Steelers office

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >

Terrible Towel Talk

Listen to internet radio with Michael Bean on Blog Talk Radio


Site Founder & Editor

Imag0299_small Michael Bean

Steelers Historian

Steeler_small maryrose

Bison_small Neal Coolong

Contributing Authors

Small Ivan Cole (RickVa)

Franco72_small 5020

Btsc_head_shot_small Rebecca Rollett

Small big_jay71

Stogs_small John Stephens

178896_499126548441_596563441_5939410_7960015_n_small Anthony Defeo