An honest debate about the salary cap

[Iamcanadian]

6 hours ago, Hunter2_1 said:

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.

I personally don't like the idea of a salary cap. Football players are grossly under paid compared to the revenue pro football generates. Nobody seems to care that the owners reap most of the revenue generated by the NFL while the players who are responsible for the revenue, get the leftovers, even though football is an incredibly tough sport where your career can end with an injury on any play, unlike most other sports.

Players are lucky if they can still walk normally at the end  of their careers. I once saw a piece on the Bus, the old RB for the Steelers which showed what it is like to play in the NFL. They filmed him for a week.

1) Sunday - play the game

2)Monday - He could not get out of bed and walk downstairs.

3) Ditto for Tuesday

4) Wednesday - could finally get downstairs by holding on to the banister.

5) Thursday - went to practice

6 Friday - felt OK to practice again

7) Saturday - Film room

8) Sunday - played another game

9) Monday - start all over again

Their is a reason the saying goes 'Health, wealth and happiness. Without health what good is money?? Would you really want to live like this???

The NFL is very tricky about salaries, yes QB's generally make most of what their contract calls for, but the rest of the players usually only see a 1 to 3 years of what their contract guarantees, but the NFL puts out those false non guaranteed $$$'s to fool fans into thinking that players make a lot of money when in fact they make peanuts compared to other professional sports.

Really, what does a QB get paid compared to a baseball star or an NBA star, peanuts when you compare the salaries, yet, not one of us would take a job where you are constantly hit hard basically on every other minute, risking serious injury that can follow you the rest of your life and stand for the fact that your salaries are limited by a salary cap.

I wonder how many people would stand for a salary cap in their fields of work, it is totally unAmerican. So, why do NFL players put up with it, its really simple. The average career of a NFL player is around 5 years and their are thousands of college players just standing in line to take their jobs, so the average player who make up the majority of NFL rosters, really cannot afford to strike and the NFL knows it.

Fans really are selfish just so they can be entertained, anybody who supports the NFL salary cap would have really enjoyed Roman times when Gladiators paid for the fans entertainment with their lives, because football comes pretty close to it. There are hundreds if not thousands of ex pro football players who suffer greatly from concussions and other serios physical ailments. Many, many ex players cannot walk without aids. It's a horror story which the NFL has tried to cover up for years.

The NFL owners have done a truly remarkable job by including non guaranteed money in releasing salary $$$'s, to convince fans that their players make a lot of money, when in fact, they are the lowest paid professional athletes playing in the toughest sport by a mile.

Sorry for the rant, but I get the feeling that a lot of young fans have little knowledge of what it is really like to be a professional football player???

[Kiwibrown]

6 hours ago, Hunter2_1 said:

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.

I don't disagree. I would say, running backs get punished physically more so the QB's and a lot more than 2nd string QB's. There are a number of second string QB's on more than starting running backs which is not fair, or honest. 

[Jakuvious]

3 hours ago, BroncoSojia said:

 For the people saying it's not wage suppression, all you have to do is look at the name. "Salary Cap" It's literally a cap on what so many players can earn on a certain team. You have fans and FOs alike arguing for elite players to take less money to help their respective teams stay under the cap .

Then you have players being called greedy and selfish for just trying to get their market value. It's a screwed up system.

If the owners simply picked a number for the salary cap, I might agree, but there's a lot of elements in place to try to ensure that the cap is as fair as possible. There are lengthy negotiations that go into it, at which the players are represented. It scaled with league revenue, so it isn't as though the NFL can make substantially more money this year and not have that trickle down to the players. And ultimately, removing the cap would not likely improve the standing of most NFL players. The MLB made $9.44 billion, last year. This year they're spending roughly a total of $4.13 billion on player salaries. Their total slice of the pie is about 44% (found an article that says 43% as of 2 years ago, so I'll assume I'm close.) The percentage of revenue that NFL players make is actually part of the CBA, and in recent years has been roughly 47% to 48%, actually more than the share MLB players are getting. What removing the cap would really do is it would shift the money further to the top tier players and to the higher revenue teams. The 49ers have the lowest cap hit this year, and they still have 30 players making over $1M. The Dodgers have the highest total salaries in the MLB, and they have 23.  For guys like Rodgers to get contracts like Clayton Kershaw, you're most likely going to be pulling that money from the mid-tier guys and the journeymen vets who are making a few million per year on second and third contracts to be solid role players. Aaron Rodgers will run to Dallas to get his $35M per year contract, while Dallas ships guys making $2M - $4M like James Hanna or Terrance Williams off to Kansas City or Green Bay where they'll make vet minimum to start for a hopeless team.

[bucsfan333]

23 minutes ago, Iamcanadian said:

Sorry for the rant, but I get the feeling that a lot of young fans have little knowledge of what it is really like to be a professional football player???

It's not like guys play football and don't know what they're getting themselves into. And they're well compensated for it. Maybe not as well as NBA players, but we also don't have two superteams that just wreck the NFL every year. 

With no cap, Jerry Jones would be giving everyone whatever they wanted. Dan Snyder too.

We have teams like the Browns and Jets, but they're not bad due to being outspent. They've just been bad at drafting/coaching/GMing/etc. And I'd rather see that than a team like the Chargers or Bucs be perennial bottom feeders because they can't afford to give every superstar a megadeal.

[Hunter2_1]

38 minutes ago, Kiwibrown said:

I don't disagree. I would say, running backs get punished physically more so the QB's and a lot more than 2nd string QB's. There are a number of second string QB's on more than starting running backs which is not fair, or honest. 

Yeah that's true

[Iamcanadian]

14 minutes ago, Jakuvious said:

If the owners simply picked a number for the salary cap, I might agree, but there's a lot of elements in place to try to ensure that the cap is as fair as possible. There are lengthy negotiations that go into it, at which the players are represented. It scaled with league revenue, so it isn't as though the NFL can make substantially more money this year and not have that trickle down to the players. And ultimately, removing the cap would not likely improve the standing of most NFL players. The MLB made $9.44 billion, last year. This year they're spending roughly a total of $4.13 billion on player salaries. Their total slice of the pie is about 44% (found an article that says 43% as of 2 years ago, so I'll assume I'm close.) The percentage of revenue that NFL players make is actually part of the CBA, and in recent years has been roughly 47% to 48%, actually more than the share MLB players are getting. What removing the cap would really do is it would shift the money further to the top tier players and to the higher revenue teams. The 49ers have the lowest cap hit this year, and they still have 30 players making over $1M. The Dodgers have the highest total salaries in the MLB, and they have 23.  For guys like Rodgers to get contracts like Clayton Kershaw, you're most likely going to be pulling that money from the mid-tier guys and the journeymen vets who are making a few million per year on second and third contracts to be solid role players. Aaron Rodgers will run to Dallas to get his $35M per year contract, while Dallas ships guys making $2M - $4M like James Hanna or Terrance Williams off to Kansas City or Green Bay where they'll make vet minimum to start for a hopeless team.

There are a few problems with your statements. Yes the ratio of players making a million dollars in MLB compared to football is 23 to 30, but baseball teams only have 25 man rosters, so practically every baseball player is getting a good salary. pro football has 53 man rosters, so 23 players are making peanuts to play the game, a huge difference from MLB.

There is also a reason why pro football players cannot strike for better wages, their careers average 5 years for the vast majority of players and missing a season due to a strike is hard for them to take., especially as there are literally thousands of trained replacements coming out of college every year.

Is America a Communist country where every body's salary is controlled for the betterment of society or is it a place where free enterprise is what America stands for???

Does any other sport have non guaranteed money in player contracts, money that most of them will never see??? 

I notice you do not mention the total revenue of pro football which is considerably more than MLB and last I looked, smaller market teams with poorer owners can compete in MLB even with their high salaries, so it does not follow that pro football would be any different???

[Jakuvious]

Just now, Iamcanadian said:

There are a few problems with your statements. Yes the ratio of players making a million dollars in MLB compared to football is 23 to 30, but baseball teams only have 25 man rosters, so practically every baseball player is getting a good salary. pro football has 53 man rosters, so 23 players are making peanuts to play the game, a huge difference from MLB.

There is also a reason why pro football players cannot strike for better wages, their careers average 5 years for the vast majority of players and missing a season due to a strike is hard for them to take., especially as there are literally thousands of trained replacements coming out of college every year.

Is America a Communist country where every body's salary is controlled for the betterment of society or is it a place where free enterprise is what America stands for???

Does any other sport have non guaranteed money in player contracts, money that most of them will never see??? 

I notice you do not mention the total revenue of pro football which is considerably more than MLB and last I looked, smaller market teams with poorer owners can compete in MLB even with their high salaries, so it does not follow that pro football would be any different???

The revenue difference is factored in to the percentages listed. The fact that the NFL makes more money does not matter because NFL players are still making a greater share of that than in the MLB. If you counter-argument is that NFL players should make more because the NFL makes more, well....they do. The highest paid guys do not. But they as a whole do.

If your argument is a purely capitalist one, then I trust that you are also against a rookie wage scale, maximum and minimum roster sizes, minimum team spending, minimum veteran contracts, revenue sharing, the NFLPA (not saying unions are not capitalistic, but mandatory membership in a union would presumably be deemed as such), etc? The communist argument is a flawed and awful one. And not even an accurate one in the case of the NFL. All of these are things the NFLPA negotiated for. It wasn't set by the government or something.

[paul-mac]

2 hours ago, Iamcanadian said:

There are a few problems with your statements. Yes the ratio of players making a million dollars in MLB compared to football is 23 to 30, but baseball teams only have 25 man rosters, so practically every baseball player is getting a good salary. pro football has 53 man rosters, so 23 players are making peanuts to play the game, a huge difference from MLB.

There is also a reason why pro football players cannot strike for better wages, their careers average 5 years for the vast majority of players and missing a season due to a strike is hard for them to take., especially as there are literally thousands of trained replacements coming out of college every year.

Is America a Communist country where every body's salary is controlled for the betterment of society or is it a place where free enterprise is what America stands for???

Does any other sport have non guaranteed money in player contracts, money that most of them will never see??? 

I notice you do not mention the total revenue of pro football which is considerably more than MLB and last I looked, smaller market teams with poorer owners can compete in MLB even with their high salaries, so it does not follow that pro football would be any different???

 

No one is making "peanuts" - even guys on the veteran minimum make more money than nearly all normal 9-5 workers will per year.

[Malik]

7 hours ago, lancerman said:

Think of it this way. The top 5 or 6 at every position gets a fortune. The rest of them get far less or next to nothing. The best player on the worst team might get less than the worst player on the best team.  It would eventually become a system where the owners who couldn't compete would just give up and you'd have a 5-10 teams that didn't matter anymore.

Are you saying there aren't 5-10 teams that don't matter?

[Crickett]

21 minutes ago, Malik said:

Are you saying there aren't 5-10 teams that don't matter?

I think he is saying there would be an additional 5-10 teams that wouldn't matter.

[Shady Slim]

here is the thing, players are not grossly underpaid in and of themselves - they're paid very very well and many will still argue they're overpaid - something i don't agree with to that extent 

but abolishing the cap doesn't do anything to the issue of payers being underpaid RELATIVE to how much the league earns

the way to fix that is to have a centralised revenue sharing model like the australian cricketers do in their CBA

in which of all profits made by cricket here, 26% of it is shared evenly among the cricketers as a bonus

[Soko]

The hard salary cap is good for the NFL.

Perhaps they deserve more in relation to how much revenue the NFL brings in. The unfortunate side effect would be the owners refusing to take a loss, thus inflating the prices of other aspects. Unless they signed some sort of mega deal like the NBA.

I'm also in favor of the NFL establishing some sort of health plan. But that's equally as far fetched. 

[Jakuvious]

26 minutes ago, Yin-Yang said:

The hard salary cap is good for the NFL.

Perhaps they deserve more in relation to how much revenue the NFL brings in. The unfortunate side effect would be the owners refusing to take a loss, thus inflating the prices of other aspects. Unless they signed some sort of mega deal like the NBA.

I'm also in favor of the NFL establishing some sort of health plan. But that's equally as far fetched. 

There is a health plan. It even lasts beyond retirement. All active players and any veteran within 5 years of release or retirement are under the NFL's health insurance. They get health insurance, life insurance, dental, disability, counseling, etc.

[Broncofan]

If you really want to help players get a share of the pie, but keep parity across the league, a few ideas:

1.  Increase the amount of guaranteed $ for rookie deals.   

2.  Eliminate the franchise tag, and replace it with a Bird/Magic-like exemption - teams can play 2 players at a contract where a portion is cap-exempt.  Encourages retention of the faces of the franchise.   Also doesn't hold them hostage to teams an extra year - with 1st year contracts, it's nuts that 6 or even 7 years could be held hostage (the 2nd franchise tag is usually horrific in its cost, but as we saw with Cousins, it's do-able).

3.  Make part of vet signings that have a higher min # cap-exempt.   

4.  Consider reducing the # cheap years by 1 for rookie deals.   Get players to the tenders, RFA and FA 1 year sooner.   You can't do this without having the above 3 changes though, to be clear.    For sure reduce the minimum service time needed to get into the pension and health plan.

5.  The last idea is more controversial, as it's really just more player friendly - have a minimum amount of guaranteed money to any multi-year FA deal, as a percentage of the deal.   Players can get more than this, but some of the deals are crazy in how little guaranteed $.  This is one that the stars won't care about, but affects the  mid-level guys more.

All of that said, don't scrap the cap.  Parity in the NFL is its biggest draw, other leagues aspire to have the turnover in playoff teams.

Now, of course the NFL will fight the NFLPA tooth and nail on the above issues.  It's a huge reason why the likelihood of a lockout looms large when the current CBA expires.

[Soko]

1 hour ago, Jakuvious said:

There is a health plan. It even lasts beyond retirement. All active players and any veteran within 5 years of release or retirement are under the NFL's health insurance. They get health insurance, life insurance, dental, disability, counseling, etc.

Just read this: 

https://mbksports.com/news/an-overview-of-nfl-player-benefits/

The article states players are covered if they have 4 accrued seasons (active roster, IR, or PUP) for up to 5 years retirement. Unless I'm reading it wrong, it seems it ends after 5 years?