rcsodak
12-15-2009, 10:14 PM
This is for the 'few' people that don't understand the 'what ifs' of the CBA, in easy to understand lingo.
http://www.rapiddraft.com/talk/blogs/musings_on_sports/archive/2009/08/11/nfl-collective-bargaining-agreement-and-no-salary-cap.aspx
As many NFL fans know, the owners and the Players Union are responsible for reaching an agreement on a new Collective Bargaining Agreement before the 2010 season. The reason most fans should pay attention to this is because within the current CBA there is a provision that the final season of the agreement (2010) must be an uncapped salary season. There is no doubt that a deal will eventually be struck, but will we lose the salary cap forever? Possibly.
The reason the NFL and other leagues can use a salary cap in the first place is due to the Non-Statutory Labor Exemption created as a part of the Clayton Act in 1914, which allows owners and Players Union to negotiate and come to agreements, like a salary cap, that would normally be an antitrust violation. The salary cap and free agency were created in the NFL when antitrust law was applied on the the basis of restrictions on player movements in a suit filed by a group led by Reggie White. In the current CBA, the NFL would be under antitrust liability if an agreement can't be reached six months after it expires, or if negotiations are argued to impasse, whichever comes later. So there is incentive on both sides to get a deal done quickly, or risk losing their exemption.
The owners are justified in their demand for a new CBA. Here is a list under the current CBA that the owners must follow, and the big issues surrounding these negotiations:
-Guaranteed Spending
Every year there is an increase in team salary that every team must pay. In 2006, each team's salary had to be at least 84% of the current salary cap. That number rises 1.2% every year, so teams are forced to spend money on players to stay above the minimum.
-The salary cap rises every year
The salary cap rises based on projected league revenues, so naturally, it rises every year. With the increase in the minimum and a higher salary cap, teams are forced to spend a lot more money than they may want.
-Teams must pay 50% towards contracts
50% of total league revenues must be paid towards player contracts. Why is this even in there? In the end clubs are forced to spend almost 60% of their revenues towards player contracts.
-Rookie salaries
This is a large sticking point, and where common sense has seemingly been thrown out the door. The first pick in the 2008 NFL Draft was Left Tackle Jake Long. He signed a five-year, $57.5 million deal with the Dolphins. Good for him, right? That contract made him the highest paid Left Tackle in the NFL, and he hadn't even played a down yet. This isn't the only instance of a rookie making more money than Pro Bowl players. Rookies taken in the top 10 of the draft are making Pro Bowl type money right out of the gate. I wonder how that makes 5 and 10 year veterans feel? I think this is one of the issues that both sides will agree on and a slotting system will be put into place, or a rookie pay scale, similar to what the NBA is using.
Effect of No Salary Cap
If no agreement is reached and 2010 is an uncapped season, it's not going to be the spending free for all that many people think. Provisions under the current CBA state that in the event of an uncapped season, the number of seasons required to become an unrestricted free agent goes to six. Another provision states that each club will be able to use a Transition Tag on any of their unrestricted free agents, which works a lot like the franchise tag. These two provisions will severely cut down the number of free agents available in 2010. So don't look for the Redskins to sign 27 Pro Bowlers.
The biggest issue will be getting the salary cap back, as the Players Union insists that if it's gone in 2010, they aren't agreeing to bring it back. While I don't think the NFL without a salary cap would be as unbalanced as MLB, there would definitely be some changes. For instance, in 2007 the Redskins grossed over $130 million more than the Minnesota Vikings, so there would be built in advantages for some teams with unlimited spending power.
Whose side do you stand on? The owners or the Players Union? Me, I'm on the greedy owners side, simply because the changes they want would also improve the quality of the game, and that's all that matters to me.
http://www.rapiddraft.com/talk/blogs/musings_on_sports/archive/2009/08/11/nfl-collective-bargaining-agreement-and-no-salary-cap.aspx
As many NFL fans know, the owners and the Players Union are responsible for reaching an agreement on a new Collective Bargaining Agreement before the 2010 season. The reason most fans should pay attention to this is because within the current CBA there is a provision that the final season of the agreement (2010) must be an uncapped salary season. There is no doubt that a deal will eventually be struck, but will we lose the salary cap forever? Possibly.
The reason the NFL and other leagues can use a salary cap in the first place is due to the Non-Statutory Labor Exemption created as a part of the Clayton Act in 1914, which allows owners and Players Union to negotiate and come to agreements, like a salary cap, that would normally be an antitrust violation. The salary cap and free agency were created in the NFL when antitrust law was applied on the the basis of restrictions on player movements in a suit filed by a group led by Reggie White. In the current CBA, the NFL would be under antitrust liability if an agreement can't be reached six months after it expires, or if negotiations are argued to impasse, whichever comes later. So there is incentive on both sides to get a deal done quickly, or risk losing their exemption.
The owners are justified in their demand for a new CBA. Here is a list under the current CBA that the owners must follow, and the big issues surrounding these negotiations:
-Guaranteed Spending
Every year there is an increase in team salary that every team must pay. In 2006, each team's salary had to be at least 84% of the current salary cap. That number rises 1.2% every year, so teams are forced to spend money on players to stay above the minimum.
-The salary cap rises every year
The salary cap rises based on projected league revenues, so naturally, it rises every year. With the increase in the minimum and a higher salary cap, teams are forced to spend a lot more money than they may want.
-Teams must pay 50% towards contracts
50% of total league revenues must be paid towards player contracts. Why is this even in there? In the end clubs are forced to spend almost 60% of their revenues towards player contracts.
-Rookie salaries
This is a large sticking point, and where common sense has seemingly been thrown out the door. The first pick in the 2008 NFL Draft was Left Tackle Jake Long. He signed a five-year, $57.5 million deal with the Dolphins. Good for him, right? That contract made him the highest paid Left Tackle in the NFL, and he hadn't even played a down yet. This isn't the only instance of a rookie making more money than Pro Bowl players. Rookies taken in the top 10 of the draft are making Pro Bowl type money right out of the gate. I wonder how that makes 5 and 10 year veterans feel? I think this is one of the issues that both sides will agree on and a slotting system will be put into place, or a rookie pay scale, similar to what the NBA is using.
Effect of No Salary Cap
If no agreement is reached and 2010 is an uncapped season, it's not going to be the spending free for all that many people think. Provisions under the current CBA state that in the event of an uncapped season, the number of seasons required to become an unrestricted free agent goes to six. Another provision states that each club will be able to use a Transition Tag on any of their unrestricted free agents, which works a lot like the franchise tag. These two provisions will severely cut down the number of free agents available in 2010. So don't look for the Redskins to sign 27 Pro Bowlers.
The biggest issue will be getting the salary cap back, as the Players Union insists that if it's gone in 2010, they aren't agreeing to bring it back. While I don't think the NFL without a salary cap would be as unbalanced as MLB, there would definitely be some changes. For instance, in 2007 the Redskins grossed over $130 million more than the Minnesota Vikings, so there would be built in advantages for some teams with unlimited spending power.
Whose side do you stand on? The owners or the Players Union? Me, I'm on the greedy owners side, simply because the changes they want would also improve the quality of the game, and that's all that matters to me.