The NFL Salary Cap: The Future of the Cap
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 Niners Nation's writers or editors. It does reflect the views of this particular fan though, which is as important as the views of Niners Nation's writers or editors.
14 comments
|
1 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Salary floor.
With or without a cap, I think a salary floor needs to be instituted. With revenue sharing between teams, a floor prevents some greedy owners who care little about product to just put out minimal cost teams so they can pocket the large chunk of revenue sharing.
I know that.
The writer of the original post was saying that No Cap = No Floor, and I think that spells for an even worse disaster than having no salary cap in the first place.
It sounds...
… like the rules are catered to teams retaining players at prices they please. I think the players, without a CBA (which is the reason why there’s going to be no cap to begin with) would strike before they even consider playing under those rules. Eight seasons under the control of a team that drafted you? Can you imagine being an elite player getting drafted by the Lions? You’re destined to spend the rest of your life in mediocrity.
Mediocrity
It seems to me that the vast majority of players in the NFL, when they become free agents, have as their main aim the wish to sign for the team that offers them the most money – regardless of whether the player thinks that team is likely to be competing for the superbowl or not. Please correct me if I am wrong on this.
by Ninerfromacrossthepond on Mar 11, 2009 7:30 PM PDT up reply actions
True, to some extent.
I think that while they DO look for the largest contract, they will also look for the situation that will provide them with at least a decent shot at making the playoffs. Careers are short, at least relative to “normal jobs,” so it’s understandable that players would like to maximize their income. However, in almost any athlete, there is that desire to be at the top and winning a championship.
But that's the point
Teams with owners who can and are willing to throw mounds of cash at these players will create an All-Pro team that will be hard to beat. Thus these teams will become the tops in the league while those that cannot/will not compete financially will lose out on this top talent. So within a few years, the teams with the most moeny to spend will also be the teams with the best chance at success. Thus both types of player (those looking for money and those looking for a winner) will be attracted to these teams essentially suffocating the other teams.
I mean, let’s not forget the years when the Niners and Cowboys had 15+ Pro Bowlers on the team each. I mean, that’s pretty hard to do now-a-days. I’m not sure how accurate this statement is, but I remember them always being well represented.
So whats your argument here?
Are you therefore for or against keeping a salary cap based on what you said above? Cos the niners success came before a cap was in place. Since then, no team has really dominated in terms of S/Bowl wins since the cap was introduced – NE has 3 wins but they have hardly been the most spendthrift of teams.
The Cowboys have spent money like they owned it and yet they have not won a play-off game since ‘96. The point I’m making here is that, in this sport, you can’t buy your way to success – unlike football in my country(see Chelsea).
by Ninerfromacrossthepond on Mar 12, 2009 7:29 PM PDT up reply actions
I am defininetly for a salary cap...
as much as it had a hand in the downfall of the Niners, I think the salary cap is good for the sport in general.
My point was that if there is no salary cap, then things will fall back to the way they were. The teams that can spend, will spend, and there for will get better. Thus they become more attractive for both the players looking for the big paycheck, as well as those looking for success. So you will have the few great teams, full of all-pros that will be in the playoffs every year. And then there will be the rest of the league, on the outside looking in.
Distribution of wins? I’m not sure that chart shows anything. There is going to be a bell curve distribution of wins between the good, average and bad teams each season.
Before the salary cap the same teams were top on the league year after year. After salary cap there have been very few teams who have managed to stay consistently on top (Pats and Colts?). I remember the 80’s, in the NFC it was 49ers, Giants, Redskins and Bears every January. The Rams and Eagles were always trying to break in. The 49ers, Cowboys dominated the early 90’s. Not having a salary cap allowed these teams to keep all their great players and pick up spare parts which made it much more difficult for other teams to move past them. That’s what an uncapped league does.
If you need any more evidence about the absence of a salary cap check out the former sports league called Major League Baseball. Sorry, but the A’s are now a Quadruple AAAA baseball team like many others.
If you want to look at a game that has no salary cap check what is going on in England with their code of football.
For the last 10 years four teams have dominated the sport. Some of the teams are being propped up by Russian oil magnates who are just having a bit of fun.
The richer clubs are paying players who they know will not fit into their team but like to keep them away from potential rivals.
Their game is ruined. Some clubs exist only to develop players so they can on sell them to one of the big four.
Salary cap and the draft works well in this country. The team I follow are on the bottom (think Detroit) but I have doubt they will play at the business end within three to four years.
Detroit is always on the bottom though.
It’s almost like a Chuck Norris fact. An interesting example could be the Cardinals, though. Good mix of good drafting and good FA pickups to rebound from the cellar.
It truly is a "what have you done for me lately" kind of league, though
Don't sweat it. I'm illiterate.
by methodrampage on Mar 12, 2009 7:23 AM PDT up reply actions



























