This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Once the NFL goes uncapped, it will likely never be capped again. Your scenario won't happen.
exactly
The issue earlier in the month was the players' wanted a cut of the local revenue and the owners were not opposed to this, but there issue was 'if we give the players a cut of local revenue, then we have to pull all local revenue give the players their cut and then share the rest equally among all owhers.' The above statement makes me believe the owners have decided not to share local revenue, but instead increase the players cut of the nationally shared revenue. Basically the players have a dollar amount they want (from projecting national and local revenues) and they want it regardless if local revenues are shared amoung owners or not. I anticipated this to be resolution and it could make things more difficult for the smaller owners. Basically the salary cap number goes up, but the pooled revenue (which is shared) goes down.
Old news; rich owners want to share revenue and responsibility, small owners just want to share revenue.Old news; NFLPA holding out for the removal of the cap is simply a pawn in this game of chess; or maybe I should say rook instead of pawn - it is a powerful piece of leverage for the players whether they want to do away with it or not.
Well this makes sense, though it is news to me.Lets say the players get a cut of the total shared revenue, we'll say it is 3.2 billion. However, the G-4 program says the league can take X dollars off the top (lets say 300 million), so the players only get a cut of (3.2 billion - 300 million). And since that 300 million loan goes to build a new stadium and the players get a very small cut of revenue from a new stadium, it only makes sense that the players get some sort of return on the money they did not receive (though were entitled to receive).
Yes, this does make a lot of sense. And over the last couple years the NFLPA has done a much better job of tracking all the different revenues the NFL is generating and making sure that they get the cut they are entitled to in the CBA. So revenues from online programs, computer software rights, marketing promotions, etc. I have no problem with the NFLPA doing this. The NFL agreed to give them a % of all shared revenue and the NFLPA is making sure that this continues. My big problem right now is that league revenue has been going up every year. This increases the salary cap every year. 15 years ago, the first cap was somewhere around $25M IIRC. Now its approaching $100M. Everyone's getting rich. And the reason everyone's getting rich is because the NFL has had labor peace and a consistent framework in place to guide their actions. Why would you even risk screwing that up to try to increase the % of revenue you are getting? If overall revenue drops, then it doesn't matter if your % of revenue has gone up 4% cause you're still going to get less money.
Team contributions to benefits also has to be accounted for in there. So $120M would be each team's revenues to players. Take ~ $20M out for benefits, and you get a $100M cap for salaries.Nice catch and I think your math is legit (for a rough estimate).
Keep in mind, revenue sharing would stay status quo, so teams would still get about 100 million (per team) in shared revenue.
I don't think the players want the owners breaking out the scabs again ...Truth to be told, with no competing league, the owners hold all the labor cards ...I keep hearing about an uncapped "year" but I have also heard from Upshaw himself, and from several players, that if there's an uncapped year, that's it. The NFLPA will NOT accept a return to a salary cap once they remove it, period.
We are eye-to-eye on this, and being outsider asking 'why the risk' seems legit. However, I bolded the part above because that is what I want to comment on. The owners came back and said, "We tried to share local revenue between us owners and we could not find a resolution." I interpret the players reponse as saying we want a bigger percentage cut as the same thing as saying, "Not our problem."
I have been saying this too - I think a lot of people have missed it. I keep hearing "uncapped year" but the NFLPA has said once the cap is gone, it STAYS gone. It'd be more like an uncapped league.If the NFL turns into MLB, the success they've been having is finished.
Two critical elements seperate MLB and the NFL.1) Revenue Sharing
So "budgeting" = "collusion"? All companies have budgets . . . why can't teams?
The difference is that the relative wealth and willingness to spend of the ownsers suddenly comes into play, whereas with a salary cap, it's moot. The Snyders, Joneses and Allens of the NFL will have a distinct competitive advantage over, say, the publicly owned Packers.
Not sure where you get the bolded from. Even George Steinbrenner doesn't take money out of his own pocket and throw it away on salaries.But sure, those owners who have more money and elect to reinvest it back into their own team will have an advantage, but I don't think it would be all that significant.
This doesn't give the Redskins, Cowboys, etc... a huge competitive edge? The large market teams would never have to cut anyone for salary cap reasons, ever. That talent wouldn't get re-distributed, and we'd be right back to the days of having 1 or 2 dominant teams and a bunch of doormats. The parity that makes the NFL so great right now would be all but destroyed. That scares the hell out of me.
I'm sure I don't, but I'm pretty sure that all the teams in the NFL can manage to afford to pay in salaries what the cap allows them to. I haven't heard of any teams struggling to sign enough players, but scads of players are cut every year in order for teams to get under the cap. If the cap were raised to some absurd level like $180 million, it would essentially be the same as having no cap. When I say that having a cap makes it moot, it's with the assumption that it's a cap as currently set, with moderate increases each year relative to revenue.
When I said that, I didn't necessarily mean that there'd be a $200 million difference in payroll between Washington and Arizona, I meant that the landscape of competitiveness would be shaped mainly by money rather than by shrewd decision making, as it frequently is in baseball.
This is what is threatening the current CBA. Here is what I got for a summary:1) The NFLPA wants a cut of local revenues, which vary from team to team and has a maximum seperation (from richest to poorest) of 100 million.
I got you. Thanks for further explaining. Even if that number comes out to $130 million, as long it's based on a percentage of the revenue cut, I don't see teams struggling to meet that requirement on salaries. No cap, however, threatens the competitive balance of the league, and that's what we both would hate to see.
The threat is that if there is no CBA, the union will decertify itself. The problem with that is that without the "special" agreement between the league and the union, the league becomes subject to all sorts of monopoly/anti-trust laws that it is NOT now subject to.I don't know this for a fact, but I'd guess having a salary cap without the protection of the union/CBA would violate one or more anti-trust laws.
