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.
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.
2) The owners must share this revenue to put it in the CBA and share it with the players, it appears they are not going to do this.
3) The counter-request by the NFLPA is to get a bigger cut of the shared revenue, currently somewhere in the 5X.X% area and Gene Upshaw is asking for at least 60%.
If the NFLPA gets what they want, than your poorer franchises will get a 3X.X% of the shared revenue, but must spend 6X.X% on salaries.
For example: if the number comes out to 65% and the each teams shared revenue cut is 200 million. Of this 200 million, 130 million would have to be spent on the salary cap.
Not sure if that helps. I could probably go further if I knew a particular teams' financial details. But in jest, the NFLPA want to raise each teams' payroll expense and reduce each team's portion of shared revenue.
1) I do not work for the NFL, the NFLPA or any NFL franchise.
2) I did not stay at a Holiday Inn last night.