Should there be a Rookie Salary Cap in the NFL?

MICHAELDIXON

What do you think? I read some of the posts and they are definitely for it.

MICHAELDIXON

I think there should be. It might motivate some of these lazy Rookies to excel.

ziggy29

<< <i>Yes. While I'm generally against things such as these (that work around free market forces).... >>

The problem is that in a professional sports league, "free market forces" would lead the NFL to a screwed up and lopsided economic model like MLB's. I think if the NFL went more to baseball's economic model, a lot of people in a lot of markets would lose interest in NFL football because their team, like the Royals and Pirates, basically never have a chance.

A professional sports league, as a single entity, has a vested business interest in seeing interest maintained in all of its markets, not just a few in the huge markets.

Though given your icon, you may well like MLB's economic model, as it's served your rooting interests well.

TomGshotput

Why is it most desirable to have every team win between seven and nine games every year?

And despite the Cardinals three wins last January, along with the Lions, they are as bad as any franchise in sports

No employer should use a salary cap. They should simply pay people what they are worth

ziggy29

<< <i>Why is it most desirable to have every team win between seven and nine games every year? >>

It's not. But if the alternative is the same big-money teams winning every year and the small-market teams having no chance year after year like it is in baseball, I'd reluctantly prefer mediocrity across the board. The disparity in MLB economics has significantly reduced my interest in baseball.

It's most desirable to have a mix of great teams, good teams, average teams, bad teams, terrible teams, even a few dynasties here and there -- but dynasties because of a good front office, shrewd drafting and trading, good coaching and players that execute, not simply because you play in New York instead of Jacksonville and can throw three times as much money on player salaries.

And since when has everyone had between 7 and 9 wins? I don't see anyone pushing for rules that add MORE parity, just resistance to changes that allow big market teams to regularly dominate.

TomGshotput

<< <i>It's not. But if the alternative is the same big-money teams winning every year and the small-market teams having no chance year after year like it is in baseball >>



Have you compared the winning percentages of the Lions, Cardinals, Texans from this decade to those of the Pirates and Royals?

Of course when it comes to the rookie salary cap all of that is completely immaterial. The NFL already has a salary cap (at least for now). Pay everyone exactly what they are worth within the confines of the cap and economics will not make the league lopsided -- that will come from plenty of other factors

ziggy29

<< <i>Have you compared the winning percentages of the Lions, Cardinals, Texans from this decade to those of the Pirates and Royals? >>

But the problem isn't that the Lions, Cardinals and Texans can't compete economically. In the case of the Texans, they are a new team this decade so let's throw them out. The Lions aren't regularly bad because the Bears (to use a big-market example in their division) can spend 3x more on player salaries than the Lions; the Lions are bad because of a incompetent front office, questionable drafting, lousy coaching and suspect free agent signings. Which means that with a regime change (and the Lions canned Millen so there is hope), a long-bad team has a chance to rebuild and remain good. In the baseball model, a team like the Royals and Pirates can be good for a year or two (in theory) if all the stars align and they get the right blend of good scouting, great farm system, good coaching and players that rapidly develop before becoming eligible for free agency. But it's not sustainable for them because of the economics.

So yes, there are long-bad teams in the NFL, but there's no structural or economic reason why they have to *remain* bad like in MLB. How long were the Indianapolis Colts a really bad team before they because one of the best in the league over the last decade? Does anyone think the Indianapolis market could sustain a winner for this long if the NFL had baseball's economics?

Which means that in the NFL, unlike MLB, fans of every team have a realistic hope that it can turn around some day. Yes, even fans of the Lions, the Browns et al.

And to go back to your question above, to some degree it's apples and oranges because in MLB even the worst teams will beat the best teams about 1/3 of the time in any given game. But over the course of 162, they have no chance.

[Edit: having said that, the most important thing is that teams can't spend their opponents into irrelevance like they can in MLB, not whether or not there is specifically a rookie cap.]

TomGshotput

<< <i> the Lions are bad because of a incompetent front office, questionable drafting, lousy coaching and suspect free agent signings. Which means that with a regime change (and the Lions canned Millen so there is hope), a long-bad team has a chance to rebuild and remain good >>



With the exception of one runningback in the 90s, the Lions have been bad for 40 years. In sports there will always be scarce resources that can not be distributed evenly. In baseball, a big one is money. In football perhaps the most important factor is competence in upper management -- and year after year the same teams scrape the bottom in that area. I agree a regime change would give the Lions hope, but when they have the same regime for almost 50 years now, it is as equally tiresome as seeing a baseball team spend $20 million compared to the Yankees $200 million

Morgoth

In this new environment where teams are hurting for advertising and corporate money having a hard cap would make sense but NFL owners actually would love to see it go. Alot of teams feel they could compete with a lower floor cap. They also feel the money is tilted too far in the players benefit. That's why you see todays story about the Union wanting a quick deal and basically keeping status quo.

League wants to even out distribution of revenues, install a rookie cap and maybe lower the bottom floor of the current team cap.

All things the union won't go for. The lockout if it does occur will be the owners doing to even out their bottom line.

ziggy29

<< <i>League wants to even out distribution of revenues, install a rookie cap and maybe lower the bottom floor of the current team cap. >>

Personally, I'm in favor of a salary cap, a salary floor, and with cap and floor set as a fair percentage of league revenues from the previous season.

I don't think there should be a cap unless there is also a floor *and* the salary cap is regularly adjusted to allow a rising tide to lift all boats.

Scavenger

Why limit the salary cap to just rookies? These multi-million dollar contracts are just ignorant, however there must be plenty of people that support it because the salaries just keep getting bigger.
Lets not forget, how much do the Dolphins have to pay Chad Pennington to sit at home the rest of the season? Get hurt at work and see how much your employer pays you.

MeteoriteGuy

<< <i>Why limit the salary cap to just rookies? These multi-million dollar contracts are just ignorant, however there must be plenty of people that support it because the salaries just keep getting bigger.
Lets not forget, how much do the Dolphins have to pay Chad Pennington to sit at home the rest of the season? Get hurt at work and see how much your employer pays you. >>




The big difference in sports and your employer is that the money is there. Right now the players get about 50%. Meaning one owner, gets as much money as 52 players.

If I am on a roof making $1,000 a hour, that is good money. But if my boss is making $52,000 an hour for me being up there....I would fail to see that I should make less, and the boss should make more.

MICHAELDIXON

...I would fail to see that I should make less, and the boss should make more.

The problem with your scenario is that the boss is the entrepreneur. He is the one risking his time and money to make money, not you. If you put up the money, negotiated the contracts, paid for the insurances, etc. you would be entitled to more.

Scavenger

I understand why you disagree with my statement because your reasoning is totally unrealistic. In the real world that most of us live in, $1000.00 a week is pretty good pay let alone $1000.00 an hour. And if you felt like you wanted a bigger piece of the pie your employer would probably tell you to take a hike because there are 200 applications for your job laying on his desk (especially in this economy).

MeteoriteGuy

Yes, the owner is an entrepreneur.

But lets put this closer to football. Take Team X, they pay their players a combined $250 million. Currently the NFL owners take 50% (and want to start taking in 60%), so the owner gets $250 million. If you are saying the players should be paid less, say $175 million, then you are saying the owner should get $325 million....a year. That the one owner should get $325 million a year, while the 52 players should get a combined $175 million. I don't agree with that. Do not be confused that the owner will lower ticket or jersey prices. Those prices are figured through SRP...which have little to do with cost. Taking money from the players...means giving it to the owners.

Now I have no problem and agree with the rookie cap in the spread the wealth type of thinking....al la...pay the veterans more. But I completely disagree that the players should get less (overall) or that they are overpaid. The money is there.

TomGshotput

<< <i>And if you felt like you wanted a bigger piece of the pie your employer would probably tell you to take a hike because there are 200 applications for your job laying on his desk (especially in this economy). >>



And replacement players in pro sports goes over real well

I don't care what my boss takes home, I just want to take home a large chunk. And if I find someone willing to offer me more, I'll take that job. With a salary cap, that possibility becomes extremely restricted as the salary offered is based by what is already committed to the other employees as much as it is based on what I can actually bring to the company

MeteoriteGuy

<< <i><<The big difference in sports and your employer is that the money is there. Right now the players get about 50%. Meaning one owner, gets as much money as 52 players.>>


I'm not sure where these numbers are coming from. First off, as mentioned, the owner is an entrepreneur and has put up insane amounts of money in the first place to be an "owner". It's not like a company where you can start slow and make it worth millions. The entry fee is substantial to begin with. As for what the owner "gets" is a revenue amount that gets divided up even further on mangers, scouts, coaches, lawyers, accountants, ticket sales folks, clerks of all kinds that you wouldn't even think of, people who clean those disgusting bathrooms that we all take a piss in, etc. The $1 that a player "gets", aside from what the government might take, it's all for the player to do what he wishes. I've no doubt there are owners that not only don't make as much money as the lowest paid player, but are in debt by millions on operating their team. >>



The 50% is what the owners get now. This has been well stated the last couple years, because of the owners wanting to take a larger share (60%). This debate is also tied to the what and who should pay the old players, so it should not be hard to google info on it.

No NFL franchise has ever lost money and only one major sport franchise team (MLB) ever did.....but that was because of outside investments. That is completely wrong to say the owner makes less then the lowest player or falls in debt.

Also note that the salary cap does not grow in percentage even close to what the TV right contracts do, which goes up hundreds a millions a year and if you remember a couple years ago when the stations got shook up, went up over a billion that year.

Most of the NFL teams (non-AFL) were founding teams and did not put up insane amounts of money. When the AFC joined, they had to pay the NFL teams if I remember correct $2 million a team, however even in this case, it made their team worth an extra $12-15 million. Its the 75th anniversary of the AFL and I am sure a couple of you have seen the documentaries were the old AFL owners are talking about the deal. The only complaints I am aware of on the merger...was from NFL owners, who did not understand that the league was not going to split the money evenly.


The owners do pay out....but so do the players.

He is going to have to pay luxury taxes at around 50% and he is going to have to pay his agent 10-20%. He can also get hurt any moment and lose his job, be in a wheelchair and has to deal with being a public person. Which means no more grocery stores, malls, restaurants or the like, unless you want to be bothered.

I am not saying poor player (like you were saying poor owner), just that the money is there and that giving the player less means giving the owner more. I don't know about you, but I am not worried Jerry Jones will have to work until he is 70 because he is not going to be able to retire.

MeteoriteGuy

http://blogs.payscale.com/content/2008/05/nfl-player-sala.html

2006 Team Salary Cap $102 million x 32 = $3,264,000,000
More then $6 billion in 2006

The $3,264,000,000 is assuming that all teams spent their complete salary cap, which is not true at least in the case of the Kansas City Chiefs, who have had a problem meeting the salary cap minimum (87.6% or $2,859,264,000) a few times the last few years.

The following refers to this a little...it is last years and in Sept., so figure the team spent another $.5 million, on moving practice squad people onto the teams in the year to be safe. That still leaves a lot of money these teams had to spend to reach the min. It is highly unlikely they maxed out.

http://www.arrowheadpride.com/2009/9/12/1027578/chiefs-still-7-million-short-of


Tampa Bay Bucs ($30 million)
Green Bay Packers ($17 million)
Kansas City Chiefs ($16 million)

So the players made $2,859,264,000-$3,264,000,000 in 2006
And the league, according to payscale.com, made "more then $6 billion."

Looks like 50/50 to me.

I got the 50/50 from a Gene Upshaw comment on where money for retired players would/could come from but could not find it right now googling.

MeteoriteGuy

lol....baseball.

I object to you getting upset or the like if you are.

It could very well be that ticket/jersey/et al sales have been down the last couple years. I would be surprised it that was not true. However, one would think the owners could at least have broken even with the downed economy considering their incredible increase in revenue from television rights.

wiki notes the TV rights increase I was referring to.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NFL_on_television

$2.2 billion/yr in 2005 to $3.085 billion/yr in 2006, but that does not include the NFL Sunday Ticket's package on DirecTV brings in another $700 million/yr.

IF the $6 billion from payscale is correct, which appears to be since the league almost gets $4 billion from TV rights, then one would have to wonder how the league owners went from 50/50 to 60/40 while increasing revenue almost 50% (the difference in 2005 and 2006 plus DirectTV).

The chart you referenced does appear to be provided by the owners, which may account for the difference in numbers?

I don't have time to play with this more tonight, but if you would like to run the NFL profit numbers, it makes the owners look a lot less greedy. Of course the teams profits do not include the increase in value of the team (which Fordes claims the average team is worth more then $1 billion). You could also break down what a new team paid and its profits. Such as Houston who paid $700 million in 1999 for a team in 2002, but even those numbers would look misleading without knowing the teams current value as well.

JackWESQ

Dear MICHAELDIXON,

NOW? Sure, why not since I already got my guaranteed $32 million. (And I sure am earning it. )

Sincerely,

JaMarcus Russell

MICHAELDIXON

Very good observations! As with anything, it has to be looked upon as a business. With the amount of revenue the owners keep, they have to pay for expenses in running the team, the stadium, flights to and from away games, etc. So, in reality, the owner would not get to keep 50%.

Morgoth

It is going to be interesting on how teams like the Cowboys who just invested heavily in their franchise will try and sway the voting when teams like the Chiefs or Jacksonville want no cap so the can lower their payroll and start making more money.

Scavenger

<< <i> He can also get hurt any moment and lose his job, be in a wheelchair and has to deal with being a public person.



You're right, fortunately working class people never become wheelchair bound. Come to think of it I'm sure that the NFL player fatalities are much higher than the jobsite fatalities for 2009.

MeteoriteGuy

<< <i>

<< <i> He can also get hurt any moment and lose his job, be in a wheelchair and has to deal with being a public person.



You're right, fortunately working class people never become wheelchair bound. Come to think of it I'm sure that the NFL player fatalities are much higher than the jobsite fatalities for 2009. >>




OK, I am convinced. The multi-hundred millionaires and billionaire owners need more money. Take Jerry Jones, who built a billion dollar stadium the last year and was named tonight in the national news as one of the few Americans that profited the most last year. I can't imagine a better case of owners needing more money.

This has nothing to do with working class people. However, we could discuss how the TV deals the owners made screwed the working class. I use to get to watch MNF.

mcadams

Unless you also feel that its appropriate for your job to be subject to a salary cap, then you shouldn't expect athletes to work under one either. Salary caps are about the most anti-american, anti-everything i believe in idea that sports has to offer. Owners know how much they can afford to pay before their franchise becomes unprofitable. Up to that point, I say let the athletes extract as much as possible. No caps.

Scavenger

I'll gladly take the league minimum to do my job. Not bad considering you only work half a year.

As of the 2007 season, the minimum salary for a rookie is $285,000. The minimum salary increases according to the number of years the player has been in the league. The highest minimum salary is $820,000 for players who have been in the league 11 years or more.

The minimum salary structure for 2007 is as follows:

* Rookies and first-year players $285,000
* Second-year players $360,000
* Third-year $435,000
* Fourth-year $510,000
* Fifth- through seventh-year $595,000
* Eighth- through tenth-year $720,000
* Eleventh-year and longer $820,000

grote15

Better yet, why don't they structure contracts and salary based on performance objectives. There are many jobs in the private sector whose salaries depend in large part on results, so why not the NFL....that way the teams won't have to pay big bucks for highly touted college players who suck once they enter the NFL....on the other hand, if the players meets or exceeds all expectations he earns what the free market will bear...