Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
paul-mac

An honest debate about the salary cap

Recommended Posts

Full disclaimer, I love the salary cap.

 

  I love that in the NFL, any team is realistically only a couple of years from success if they manage themselves well. Look at the Chiefs and Raiders as two teams who have gone from dumpster fire to contender in the last three years or so (well five for KC)

 

In soccer for example it's just a competition of who has the richest ownership to buy them success 

 

However I saw a fellow British guy on twitter call the salary cap "wage suppression" and call for its end.

 

Thoughts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

However I saw a fellow British guy on twitter call the salary cap "wage suppression" and call for its end.

What an idiot.

The salary cap is great idea, it keeps the playing field level, and I wish other sports would do the same. Soccer being a great example.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wage suppression is a good thing, if you look at what's happening to soccer. It's also good for fair representations. If you're the best player on the team, expect to be paid like it. Whereas, if you're warming the bench for Arsenal (Walcott) you can still expect to earn more than the top scorer of say, Swansea. It's wrong. 

I don't think you can compare the two sports, as there's so many commercial investments from all around the world injecting soccer with money. It's broken. THEY need to adopt an NFL style of capping. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The salary cap is a great thing, but it only works in an American style system of franchises where the league itself is the focal point, rather than the clubs within it. The American system also doesn't punish bad teams, which is directly at odds with sports operating a pyramid structure.

It would be great for soccer as it would immediately make it more competitive and force teams to focus on youth development/ developing their own players, rather than going out every transfer window and buying a quick fix. It will never happen in soccer though as the bigger clubs, which are now essentially marketing machines, would never vote away their competitive advantage or willingly enter into revenue sharing.

As for calling it wage suppression, the cap would likely go up every year. It could also help development of younger players, since the familiar tale at the moment is a younger player signs a huge contract without having played much in the first team and they stop trying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

we've got it in rugby league here and one of the huge problems is given the cap is so small

(under 10mil)

you've got the rich clubs doing under the table deals - "sign for the sydney roosters and you'll get four boats and twelve houses for christmas" - because it is a league where 200k is actually a lot of money

the cap in the nfl is hyperinflated so unless the owners are willing to go proper deep in to their pockets that more or less doesn't happen as far as i know (am happy to be disagreed with however)

the cap is a great idea for competitive balance

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Shady Slim said:

we've got it in rugby league here and one of the huge problems is given the cap is so small

(under 10mil)

you've got the rich clubs doing under the table deals - "sign for the sydney roosters and you'll get four boats and twelve houses for christmas" - because it is a league where 200k is actually a lot of money

the cap in the nfl is hyperinflated so unless the owners are willing to go proper deep in to their pockets that more or less doesn't happen as far as i know (am happy to be disagreed with however)

the cap is a great idea for competitive balance

Yeah, that's a huge issue and it happens in the NFL too. It's like the Patriots paying a company owned by Tom Brady to provide the team with medical services when most other teams in the league are paid by the medical service provider to allow them to partner the team.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Buc Ball said:

Yeah, that's a huge issue and it happens in the NFL too. It's like the Patriots paying a company owned by Tom Brady to provide the team with medical services when most other teams in the league are paid by the medical service provider to allow them to partner the team.

Out of curiosity, do you have any actual examples of this? I don't doubt that some under the table money happens occasionally, but I very much doubt that something that transparent would get overlooked given the media coverage the NFL receives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Jakuvious said:

Out of curiosity, do you have any actual examples of this? I don't doubt that some under the table money happens occasionally, but I very much doubt that something that transparent would get overlooked given the media coverage the NFL receives.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/2015/12/19/patriots-pay-business-owned-tom-brady-and-partner-with-dubious-past/C4zMzcPDgU62WMMg10qeBL/story.html

That's the example I have.  It does seem to circumvent the salary cap, even if the NFL doesn't seem to be bothered by it.

It also offers an explanation other than "because Giselle is also incredibly rich" when trying to work out why Brady is happy to be the 15th highest paid QB in the league.

Edited by Buc Ball

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Buc Ball said:

https://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/2015/12/19/patriots-pay-business-owned-tom-brady-and-partner-with-dubious-past/C4zMzcPDgU62WMMg10qeBL/story.html

That's the example I have.  It does seem to circumvent the salary cap, even if the NFL doesn't seem to be bothered by it.

It also offers an explanation other than "because Giselle is also incredibly rich" when trying to work out why Brady is happy to be the 15th highest paid QB in the league.

 

To be fair if I was in Brady's position, even if you exclude this and the Giselle thing, I'd be fairly happy being 15th. 

 

He's making like $14m a season. That's more than seven times what the average American makes in their lifetime. He could literally do it for one year and be set for life, not to mention that he's done it for a lot more than a year. Gimme that and 5 super bowl rings over Matthew Stafford's money. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, paul-mac said:

 

To be fair if I was in Brady's position, even if you exclude this and the Giselle thing, I'd be fairly happy being 15th. 

 

He's making like $14m a season. That's more than seven times what the average American makes in their lifetime. He could literally do it for one year and be set for life, not to mention that he's done it for a lot more than a year. Gimme that and 5 super bowl rings over Matthew Stafford's money. 

And that's precisely why any cries of "wage suppression" are laughable.  I'd love to have my wages "suppressed" to NFL levels.  xD

 

The closest thing i could suggest as a "problem" with the Salary Cap system, is the inequity of various tax situations from team to team and the relative advantage that provides.  And how quickly decent QBs are now set to sign insane megadeals and hold teams hostage until they do, in spite of the salary cap system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, paul-mac said:

 

To be fair if I was in Brady's position, even if you exclude this and the Giselle thing, I'd be fairly happy being 15th. 

 

He's making like $14m a season. That's more than seven times what the average American makes in their lifetime. He could literally do it for one year and be set for life, not to mention that he's done it for a lot more than a year. Gimme that and 5 super bowl rings over Matthew Stafford's money. 

True, and I'm not saying that's the fact his business is paid on the side by the Pats is the reason at all, nor am I saying that he's happy to be paid less because of Giselle.  The fact he's been in the league for years, earning huge money and having millions of dollars worth of endorsements is a far more likely reason why he's happy to take a discounted salary to chase rings on a good team.

The main point is though, in a very unusual arrangement, the Pats paid Brady's business to provide them with services that the Pats themselves could have been paid to receive. Given how close to the cap the Pats were a few years back, it raises questions.

For the salary cap to work effectively, the type of arrangement where a team pays an active player's business for services needs to be looked at much more carefully, otherwise there's a clear opportunity to get around the salary cap with no consequences. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Tugboat said:

And that's precisely why any cries of "wage suppression" are laughable.  I'd love to have my wages "suppressed" to NFL levels.  xD

 

The closest thing i could suggest as a "problem" with the Salary Cap system, is the inequity of various tax situations from team to team and the relative advantage that provides.  And how quickly decent QBs are now set to sign insane megadeals and hold teams hostage until they do, in spite of the salary cap system.

This. Running backs are screwed by the NFL, they have short careers, are easily replaced and do a lot of the dirty work. Alfred Morris was a pro bowler, had a couple of great years, doesn't get a decent second contract and won't get a third. Where as Mike Glennon and Brock Osweiler, who never preformed at his level of production get huge deals. A QB can make 50 million based on perceived fictions on their ability. A proven running back like Freeman for the falcons gets less. 

Also rules protect some player more than others. You cannot tackle a QB, by the feet, or and you ain't allowed to lead with your helmet. You can't tackle a receiver until they are safe to be hit, where a running back has a to less protection from the rules of the game, or a lot less enforced protection from the league. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Buc Ball said:

The salary cap is a great thing, but it only works in an American style system of franchises where the league itself is the focal point, rather than the clubs within it. The American system also doesn't punish bad teams, which is directly at odds with sports operating a pyramid structure.

It would be great for soccer as it would immediately make it more competitive and force teams to focus on youth development/ developing their own players, rather than going out every transfer window and buying a quick fix. It will never happen in soccer though as the bigger clubs, which are now essentially marketing machines, would never vote away their competitive advantage or willingly enter into revenue sharing.

As for calling it wage suppression, the cap would likely go up every year. It could also help development of younger players, since the familiar tale at the moment is a younger player signs a huge contract without having played much in the first team and they stop trying.

Exactly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, paul-mac said:

 

To be fair if I was in Brady's position, even if you exclude this and the Giselle thing, I'd be fairly happy being 15th. 

 

He's making like $14m a season. That's more than seven times what the average American makes in their lifetime. He could literally do it for one year and be set for life, not to mention that he's done it for a lot more than a year. Gimme that and 5 super bowl rings over Matthew Stafford's money. 

You'd think it works like this wouldn't you, but why do they always chase the extra dollars. Brady isn't an example, but most players are happy to move from a team with championship ambitions to a lesser team for stacks more cash. They are different gravy to you and I. I'd be happy with 40K. lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Kiwibrown said:

This. Running backs are screwed by the NFL, they have short careers, are easily replaced and do a lot of the dirty work. Alfred Morris was a pro bowler, had a couple of great years, doesn't get a decent second contract and won't get a third. Where as Mike Glennon and Brock Osweiler, who never preformed at his level of production get huge deals. A QB can make 50 million based on perceived fictions on their ability. A proven running back like Freeman for the falcons gets less. 

Also rules protect some player more than others. You cannot tackle a QB, by the feet, or and you ain't allowed to lead with your helmet. You can't tackle a receiver until they are safe to be hit, where a running back has a to less protection from the rules of the game, or a lot less enforced protection from the league. 

I believe QB money (% of the team, not net amount) is justified. It's unfathomable how much they have on their plate at any one time. A lot more than a running back, say. Even learning their playbook like the back of their hand is a harder job than most occupations, let alone putting it into practice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  



×