The NFL Salary Cap: The Future of the Cap
Awesome. Thanks Collin! From the FanPosts. -Chris
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
This is a FanPost and does not necessarily reflect the views of Arrowhead Pride's writers or editors. It does reflect the views of this particular fan though, which is as important as the views of Arrowhead Pride writers or editors.
36 comments
|
12 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Awesome
Great post. As a chiefs fan living in Jacksonville i frequent both bigcatcountry and arrowheadpride often and i am glad to see this great article make the rounds in the blog world to another franchise’s site in which there is a lot of doubt about an uncapped year. Thanks again
good arguments
but the use of a cap is just as symbolic as it is effective.
Farnsworth's imitation tight-pants now on sale at Dick's!
by kcisbetterthanstlateverything on Mar 10, 2009 1:33 PM CDT reply actions
Yep saw that JComp
Thanks for doing that.
by Chris Thorman on Mar 10, 2009 1:39 PM CDT up reply actions
Yeah that's where I first read it
Good work travels quickly.
by Joel Thorman on Mar 10, 2009 1:40 PM CDT up reply actions
Nice post
Although I’m curious to fnd out what the real deal is going to be. I understand from several conversations I’ve listened to on NFL Serius that the league owners are kicking around a couple of ideas about what the ground rules are going to be.
For instance, the top 4 teams from the previous year will indeed be held to some sort of cap while the rest of the teams are free to negotiate. This way no team will ever be able to go on a huge spending spree, dominate and stay on top like that for the long term.
I understand that there are a few such self regulating scenarios that are under consideration and they will be discussed at length at the upcomming league meetings in Dana Point. Doe anyone have any more info on this?
Vae Victis!
as the conversations go
a number of the small market teams are highly concerned about a free for all.
Vae Victis!
Great explanation
Now I’m not as worried about an uncapped year…
"I can only imagine what it is going to be like in that town if we are fortunate to build a winner. You win there, you can sense that it would be something really special." - Todd Haley
Excellent Post
Was wondering about that myself lately.
"I will fight you!"
"What is your weapon?"
"My bare hands!"
"That is stupid. I will use a sword and I will cut off your bare hands."
Questions...
What would be the main impediment stopping big market/budget teams from cutting all their back-ups and raiding all the mid-level (see Royals drain) talent FA’s (ie: not the top 2 players on a team)?
Also, presumably this 6-year RFA policy is retroactive, meaning a current 4 year vet would no longer be a RFA next year?
Also, we’re not particularly knowledgeable about sports law, what’s enforcing this agreement, a new CBA?
Great post, the win distribution graph was interesting. Generally, we thought the NFL should be fine because the shared TV distribution rights avoid the disparity that the MLB markets create. Also, while Dallas and Washington might go a little nuts, most teams seem to be on a pretty level playing field, with the exception of possibly Buffalo. Our biggest concern is what this could do to ticket prices, especially with the economic downspin.
by Official Arrowhead Pride Parade on Mar 10, 2009 2:02 PM CDT reply actions
On number two
That is correct, after this year those that don’t have 6 years of service are RFA (unless they’ve passed through the waiver system already).
by Joel Thorman on Mar 10, 2009 2:05 PM CDT up reply actions
The current CBA expires after 2010 making 2011 the first uncapped year since 1994...
The next CBA may not have a Salary cap… That’s the issue, the cap. A new CBA is inevitable.
The Cap and the CBA are two different things, but alot of research I did spoke of them like they were the same thing… I think alot of misinformation is out there on the web.
The End Is Nigh...
Still kinda confused
We also interpreted the cap as a potential provision of any new CBA, which had been negotiated out for these other provision. So it’s a separate agreement entirely? Presumably then the new CBA either agreed to (or inevitably pending) contains the 6 yr. RFA & franchise provisions, etc?
Understandably, at some point here we’re butting up against ongoing deliberations and not even the lawyers have it figured out yet, but interesting all the same.
Thanks again.
by Official Arrowhead Pride Parade on Mar 10, 2009 3:27 PM CDT up reply actions
Maybe I can help
The Salary Cap is wholly defined and governed by the CBA signed by the players and owners. It was first established in 1994 and has continued on in various forms since. In 2005, the CBA was renegotiated/extended to run from the 2006 through 2012 seasons. The years 2006-2011 were designed to have a salary cap while 2012 was going to be uncapped. The uncapped year was intended to act as a poison pill to make sure that both sides renegotiated well in advance of the CBA’s expiration. (The NFLPA has long stated that if there is ever a year played without a cap, they will never accept a return to one). Included in that poison pill year were the provisions about free agency mentioned above. The thought was that if it got to the point that there was no cap, then the owners would get some protection to help keep players and control costs.
The latest version of the CBA also contained provisions that allowed either side to terminate the agreement early if they wanted. The NFL Management Council took advantage of this and stated their intent to terminate the last two years of the deal. That makes 2010 the final league year. Therefore 2010 is uncapped and supject to all the funky final year provisions about the top eight teams and needing 6 years to be an unrestricted free agent.
As kcsno56 stated below those rules would apply only in 2010 and only if a new CBA is not finalized before the start of the 2010 “league calendar year”
The Collective Bargaining Agreement
Is the agreement between the players and ownership.
Pretty much everything will get renegotiatied either after this season, or after an uncapped 2010. But come 2011, with or without a Cap, we’ll need a new CBA, or there will be no NFL.
The 6 year RFA provision was written in as a protection for the owners given the possibility of an uncapped 2010.
After reading what you wrote again, I think maybe you’re confused as to what 2010 is. Its actually the last year of the previous CBA. The current CBA, as it stands calls for these things to occur in 2010 if a new deal has been worked out. I think the idea (probably from both sides) is that they would renegotiate after 2009, and come up with a new CBA before 2010, that way, 2010 as it currently stands in the CBA would never occur, instead it would be the 1st season of the new CBA.
This was my post over on the Jags site in response to this article...
I would like to point out, that the rules you reference, such as: 6 years of RFA and two Franchise or transition tags are good only for the 2010 season.
After that, a new CBA will have to be worked out regardless, so this is essentially a look at the effect on next season only.
I would also argue that the revenue breakdown for all franchises is drastically different from pre-’94. Markets such as Jacksonville should be particularly weary about deviating from a system which essentially forces owners and to remain fiscally comptetive via a cap/floor. I also think a system with no floor or cap would lead to an increase franchise moves, particularly a lower revenue team moving to LA.
I would agree that the 2010 season itself wouldn’t necessarily be a crisis if the cap were eliminated, my concern would be the long term effects, especially if a cap is reinstated with a new CBA post-2010.
Wise GM’s (especially those with rich owners) would sign players to long-term contracts in the 2010 offseason that front loaded ‘cap’ dollars on that season. They would then be at a substantial advantage in subsequent seasons.
Also, as it stands now, the revenue sharing in the NFL isn’t comparable to the other major sports. Cheap owners would be able to cash in without a floor, as their shared tv dollars is a much greater % of team revenue than any other pro sport.
Lastly, I would argue that the reason MLB has so many different champions, is because the nature of the game, and therefore its playoffs, are more random. An easy way to evaluate this is looking at the difference in betting lines between football and baseball.
My response to your post on BCC... which was a great question and point...
The CBA expires in 2010
So after 2010, a new CBA would have to be agreed upon at that point, meaning: new CBA or lockout/strike.
Even if they decide they want to stop using a Cap, they still have to have a CBA in place.
by kcsno56 on Mar 10, 2009 3:02 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
There are two possibilities… either a lock-out (owners stop the season) or a strike (players stop the season)
If it is a strike, we may see some owners play hardball and have replacement players used much cheaper. Eventually, the players would cave if this was the case bc as Vic has said, there is a glut of football talent in America. Eventually, there would be change, but it doesn’t necessarily mean a salary cap will be in effect, you are right about that.
In fact, it’s perfectly feasible to think that there may not be a cap, the way things are looking. That’s the issue here, the salary cap, not whatever CBA is reached. A new CBA may not have a cap (which you astutely pointed out) and that is what this post addresses.
-Collin
The End Is Nigh...
And my follow up...
I think what players may realize in an uncapped year, is that there will be less total $$ spent by owners on salary, seeing that there will be no salary floor.
As you’ve probably seen, currently, there are several teams 30+ million under the cap, and a few, like my Chiefs, $50+ million under the cap. Under the current system, these teams are forced to spend (according to PFT) $111 million on player compensation, at least as it relates to the Cap, in 2009.
While, I’m guessing you’ll have a handful of teams spending in excess of $115 million next year, maybe as many as 8, my guess is the majority of teams will fall well under the $100 million mark, and simple math will show the players that they had it better in a cap/floor system.
Time will tell.
Related Question: Rookie Cap
We’ll probably have to wait until the NFLPA has a new director for a more complete answer to this. Does anyone know what the general sentiment is regarding some sort of rookie pay scale? Is it important enough to be a prominent topic in these dicussions? I haven’t really seen much about it, other than agents being against any sort of cap (of course). Upshaw, may he rest in peace, seemed kind of wishy-washy: he liked all that money going to players, but had reservations against guaranteeing $30+ million to rookies who have never played a down. Any chance they’ll try to carve out some of that money to raise the veteran minimums or create some sort of perfomance bonus pool? Again, I’m probably putting the cart before the horse, but this issue bugs me more and more every year.
I think the NFLPA should be for it
It’s something I don’t quite understand. But here we go…
So, teams HAVE to spend 60% on player costs, right? So, if there was a rookie cap limiting the windfall of money to the first 7 or 8 picks, wouldn’t that money still have to be spent on players. But it would be spent on veteran players. And the actual players (not the incoming rookies) are the only ones who get the vote in the NFLPA.
So, wouldn’t a rookie cap provide more money to the current players? I’d be all for that.
by Joel Thorman on Mar 11, 2009 7:23 PM CDT up reply actions
And
I think right now, it’s not so much how big of a piece of pie you get, but making the entire pie bigger.
by Joel Thorman on Mar 11, 2009 7:24 PM CDT up reply actions
You've got it Prime
And if you look at other league’s ‘selling out’ the rookies, who aren’t current members of the Union, is something that is just natural, and is often done.
You also had several high profile NFL players openly questioning the contracts that Long and Ryan signed. This will be the first and easiest hurdle that will be crossed in a new CBA. Owners will have to give up something else to get this concession, but it won’t be much, b/c deep down, most of the current players would be in favor of it.
I don’t think it’ll be a lowering of the rookie cap, but instead a slotting system similar to what’s used in the NBA. This makes sense on a number of levels, but as Prime mentioned, it would put more money into the pockets of players that have proven they belong in the league, and takes it out of those that have proven they can play college ball.
It’ll also show that the Chiefs (as I’ve said before) picked, basically, the two worst seasons in the history of the NFL to suck. With a #5 and #3 in (likely) the last two seasons before a new CBA is negotiated, the Chiefs will prove that Carl couldn’t even lose at the right time!
BTW...
Partially as it relates to my job…and partially b/c I just love the NFL, but salary cap stuff and CBA stuff…I can’t get enough of.
I am as interested in the next CBA as I am who we’ll take #3. The more you research it, the more interesting it gets.
I think the owners would resort to a lockout before letting it come to an uncapped season.
by burntorangehorn on Mar 13, 2009 9:34 PM CDT reply actions
I doubt it.
They’re making too much money right now and TV contracts may not be this rich again for quite some time with the bad economy and all.
Vae Victis!
The players have no leverage
Except top %. The total dollars will come down just like rest of economy.
A low tide sinks many ships
Why the hell are NFL teams cutting staff?
by Steve_Chiefs on Mar 13, 2009 10:29 PM CDT up reply actions
Wrong Answers
This guy that wrote this article is an idiot. The % wins disruption argument really lacks an understanding of probability. Total wins are limited each year, because if someone wins someone needs to lose and visa versa. This bounds the problem and leads to a typical distribution, a "Bell" curve. Also for the majority of the time frame ’78-’93, the NFL had no free agency policies. Meaning that teams could not spend a lot of money to get all the best players, this lead to the CBA and the cap in the first place.
No one can get an accrete picture of what will happen to competition in the NFL once the cap does not exist. The only way that can come close is studying MLB and the level of competition and success of high revenue teams versus low revenue teams.
Also, what the author fails to state is that without a CBA in place NFL Restricted Free Agency and Franchising policies can be subjected to litigation in the courts. Yes, players will be able to take teams to court to get out of restrictions and franchising tags. In fact before the CBA the NFL was found in violation of antitrust laws because of their FA polices…http://tech.mit.edu/V112/N39/nfl.39w.html


























