PDA

View Full Version : What-if's of the CBA



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.

Dean
12-15-2009, 10:59 PM
If I remember correctly there are also constraints placed on the top eight wealthiest teams upon how they can pick up free agents. Here is a link.

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/2008-05-20-owners-labor-deal_N.htm

Nomad
12-16-2009, 07:26 AM
After seeing what MLB is (which I seldom watch or follow anymore), no salary cap would make the NFL the same and eventually meh to watch. It's already a greedy league, players and owners alike. Keep the salary cap!

I know the NFL are ******** when it comes to air time so maybe they come up with a plan to have pay per view for cable and other satellite networks other than the monopoly they have with directv. I'd be willing to pay what a average ticket would cost!!

CoachChaz
12-16-2009, 09:11 AM
Without a salary cap altogether, the Cowboys and Redskins become the Yankees and Red Sox. The NFL cant let that happen.

silkamilkamonico
12-16-2009, 12:49 PM
I've always heard this salary cap would be good for parity, and that's BS.

All I know is I experienced the first 16-0 team 2 years ago, the first 0-16 team last year, and this year it's quite concievable to think that there could be not 1, but 2 16-0 teams.

Superchop 7
12-16-2009, 01:15 PM
The players give up a percentage point. 59%

Rookie salary is set in stone, all contracts are 4 year deals, a committee of former veterans will create 3 pay scale versions, then voted on by players. Guaranteed money will be the only negotiating factor by teams.

Half of all "extra" income is put in a pool and split by teams. (Still leaving some teams with an advantage, but leveling the playing field quite a bit)

Just thoughts....

CoachChaz
12-16-2009, 01:20 PM
I've always heard this salary cap would be good for parity, and that's BS.

All I know is I experienced the first 16-0 team 2 years ago, the first 0-16 team last year, and this year it's quite concievable to think that there could be not 1, but 2 16-0 teams.

Chalk those results up to management. Cleveland, Detroit, Oakland and St. Louis have none,,,NE, IND, NO do.

Coincidence?

silkamilkamonico
12-16-2009, 01:29 PM
Chalk those results up to management. Cleveland, Detroit, Oakland and St. Louis have none,,,NE, IND, NO do.

Coincidence?

Which is why it isn't going to change much without a salary cap.

weazel
12-16-2009, 02:14 PM
I've always heard this salary cap would be good for parity, and that's BS.

All I know is I experienced the first 16-0 team 2 years ago, the first 0-16 team last year, and this year it's quite concievable to think that there could be not 1, but 2 16-0 teams.

The cap does help with parity. The reason you see very good teams and very bad teams is good and bad money/player management. You probably dont watch the NHL, but after they put in a cap, the parity in the league was very noticeable.

There are a lot of ways that good teams use to manipulate the cap number, bad teams try it and end up with a lot of dead cap hits along the way.

silkamilkamonico
12-16-2009, 02:42 PM
The cap does help with parity. The reason you see very good teams and very bad teams is good and bad money/player management. You probably dont watch the NHL, but after they put in a cap, the parity in the league was very noticeable.

There are a lot of ways that good teams use to manipulate the cap number, bad teams try it and end up with a lot of dead cap hits along the way.

Heres a good article on how bad organizations manipulate the cap to keep their spending incredibly low. It only adds to the argument that the cap should just go. Also, it has not helped with parity. This year the NFl has produced some of the worst games on a week to week basis. Football has gotten so bad in some games on Sunday that they should get rid of 4-6 teams just to eliminate all the bad talent.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704224004574489773943949070.html

CoachChaz
12-16-2009, 03:51 PM
Heres a good article on how bad organizations manipulate the cap to keep their spending incredibly low. It only adds to the argument that the cap should just go. Also, it has not helped with parity. This year the NFl has produced some of the worst games on a week to week basis. Football has gotten so bad in some games on Sunday that they should get rid of 4-6 teams just to eliminate all the bad talent.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704224004574489773943949070.html

The NFL would be horrible without a cap. Not as bad as baseball...but it would get out of hand fast

weazel
12-16-2009, 04:21 PM
Heres a good article on how bad organizations manipulate the cap to keep their spending incredibly low. It only adds to the argument that the cap should just go. Also, it has not helped with parity. This year the NFl has produced some of the worst games on a week to week basis. Football has gotten so bad in some games on Sunday that they should get rid of 4-6 teams just to eliminate all the bad talent.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704224004574489773943949070.html

again, cap or no cap... those teams would be horrible. It's poor management, not the cap that creates bad teams. To think otherwise is foolhardy

silkamilkamonico
12-16-2009, 04:26 PM
If you guys are right, that really sucks for the NFL. The quality is absolute shit right now. Terrible. And everyone knows poor management is the result, which is why an uncapped NFL would not be bad. Management would still triumph.

Again, If you guys are right about the NFL being uncapped being a worse thing, then the quality of the NFL absolutely sucks right now.

JDL
12-16-2009, 04:50 PM
I've always heard this salary cap would be good for parity, and that's BS.

All I know is I experienced the first 16-0 team 2 years ago, the first 0-16 team last year, and this year it's quite concievable to think that there could be not 1, but 2 16-0 teams.

Actually, that coincided with the loosening of the salary cap. New TV contracts created a massive infusion of dollars and the cap grew by record amounts. You haven't heard the term salary cap hell in quite awhile. Almost no teams are over the salary cap these days and THAT is why you are starting to see what you are seeing.

If they clamp down on things like unearned incentives being pushed into future years (teams like the Vikings, whose cap was run by the Broncos notorious cap guru, used this loophole to annually push 10-20mil into the next year, effectively increasing their cap for that year by that large amount.) That HAS to go away. Limit what you can push forward into the next year to 5mil or so.

Also, Cap maximum should be brought down to reflect the economy and the league should push to have a cap set at an amount where on average 10-12 teams every year are over the cap. It will encourage player movement and better contracts (something that to some extent has already occurred.)

I think as much as anything, we are seeing what it is like to have no cap right now. This will only get worse if the cap goes away completely. Teams adapted, tv money increased, but nothing was done to constrain things and maintain the competitive balance the league had developed.

Lonestar
12-16-2009, 05:00 PM
If I remember correctly there are also constraints placed on the top eight wealthiest teams upon how they can pick up free agents. Here is a link.

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/2008-05-20-owners-labor-deal_N.htm

What it means: Possibilities abound for uncapped NFL year
Updated 5/29/2008 11:34 AM |


NFL OFFSEASON

NFL's best players: Ranking the five best at each position -- now and in the Super Bowl era



ATLANTA — Since purchasing the Washington Redskins in 1999, Dan Snyder has been defined by bold moves. He lured Hall of Fame coach Joe Gibbs out of retirement in 2004 and had a payroll of nearly $100 million in 2000 after adding aging veterans Deion Sanders, Bruce Smith and Jeff George.
So imagine Snyder — whose team plays in the NFL's largest stadium, FedEx Field, and in 2007 earned NFL-high revenue estimated at $312 million — in an uncapped year.


SUPER BOWL AWARDED: Indy to host 2012 game
GOODELL LAW: Teams fined for player misconduct

The prospect of the NFL playing the 2010 season without a salary cap, triggered by the owners' decision to opt out of its collective bargaining agreement two years early, might provide cash-flush owners with the opportunity to stock teams as never before.

THE DETAILS: Owners unanimously decide to opt out of CBA

Snyder, though, insisted Tuesday that he didn't envision stocking up in 2010 despite the possibility of losing the constrictions of a salary cap.

"No, not at all," said Snyder, whose team didn't make a big splash in free agency this offseason. "We've always been aggressive in free agency, but I think you can see from this year that it's been based on when we've had more needs in some years than we had in other years."

The 2010 season looms as a Pandora's box, given the financial disparity between some NFL teams. According to Forbes, the Redskins grossed $130 million more in 2007 than the Minnesota Vikings.

That fuels questions of whether the league's competitive balance could be skewed by a free-for-all environment.

Despite the disparities, it's difficult to predict how an uncapped 2010 would unfold, given the conditions attached to an uncapped year:

• The top eight playoff finishers from the previous season would be allowed to sign free agents only at the rate at which they lose them.

• Players would need six NFL seasons to be eligible for free agency, rather than four.

• Each team would be allowed to restrict two eligible free agents with "franchise" or "transition" player tags, rather than one.

The biggest impact of an uncapped year might be the timetable both sides face to strike a new deal. The prospect of an uncapped year in 2007 was a driving force that led to the collective bargaining agreement in March 2006. Players union chief Gene Upshaw sees an uncapped year as a point of no return, saying once players get out of a salary-cap system, they wouldn't agree to another in ensuing years.

"That's what we see as a realistic deadline," Upshaw said, referring to the league year starting in March 2010. "If nothing is done by then ... I'm not going to try to sell players on cap again. I don't know who will, but it won't be me. Once we go through the cap, why should we get it again?"

Countered commissioner Roger Goodell, "In 1993 we didn't have a capped system and we got one. So I'm sure there will be a lot of rhetoric about a no-cap system, but we were able to make that transition before, and we'll be able to do it again if necessary."

In an uncapped year, Upshaw said, players would receive more than the 60% of total revenue that is currently central to the rift with owners. Upshaw said even with the prospect of an uncertain 2010, he is advising players to sign long-term deals if the numbers work. He thinks that could supply players with leverage in renegotiations.

Some teams are already operating in anticipation of an uncapped year. Dallas Cowboys owner Jerry Jones said he has thought for months about 2010 and how decisions that include signing players to long-term contracts weigh against the potential upheaval of the system.

"One thing is certain," Jones said. "It will become a bigger challenge for everybody."

Jones made two moves Tuesday that surely reflected his planning. He signed cornerback Terence Newman (six years, $50 million) and running back Marion Barber III (seven years, $45 million) to deals that will tie them to the team through 2014. By signing them before a 3 p.m. deadline Tuesday, Dallas avoided accounting rules that go into effect with the revised collective bargaining agreement.

JDL
12-16-2009, 05:06 PM
I believe those provisions apply to the final league year of the CBA... this is not the final league year. That would be I believe next year and so those free agent restrictions would be applicable to next years playoff teams. I believe, but could be wrong.

weazel
12-16-2009, 05:42 PM
You want to fix the cap? lower it by 15 - 20 million and make the contracts guarateed. The NFL teams sign players to ridiculous contracts because they know they will never pa them the full amount. They still get screwed with the cap hit, but don't actually pay the money out.

rcsodak
12-16-2009, 10:54 PM
Without a salary cap altogether, the Cowboys and Redskins become the Yankees and Red Sox. The NFL cant let that happen.

Not necessarily, coach.

Teams have to LOSE players, before they can replace them. Experience/playing time, or some damn thing. Heard them talk about it on Sirius, but wasn't paying attention....

Just know that it won't be as easy as "he who has the biggest wallet, wins".