NationStates Jolt Archive

I made this post in another thread, but thought us NS Generalers who follow the NFL need a thread focused on the CBA, because it is a serious problem. That, and we need a football topic that will keep us satisfied til draft analysis starts.

For those of you who do not understand the salary cap and the importance of getting a new CBA:

This site focus on the Jaguars, but it is the best source of info on the cap. Go through the Salary Cap 101 series to learn all the lingo and rules.
http://www.jaguars.com/News/FeatureSeries.asp

Vic Ketchman started "Ask Vic", but had it stolen by another Vic, Vic Carrucci (of NFL.com). This question & answer series also focuses on the Jaguars, but you can see all the questions and problems with the CBA in the last couple of weeks. Vic is funny as hell and heaps on the sarcasm. But he is very worried about the status of the game, and he talks a lot about the problems coming up. The last week or so in January are good dates to look for CBA talk.
http://www.jaguars.com/News/AskVic.asp

The NFL is only alluding to the problem, because the possibility of a non-capped NFL, or a strike, or a lockout would be very detrimental to the game. Just look what happened last time. Or what happened to the NHL recently. Baseball STILL hasn't recovered from the last strike.
http://www.superbowl.com/news/story/9206628
http://www.nfl.com/news/story/9204548

Wow. Not one reply in almost 24 hours. I guess the NFL fans don't care if the draft disappears. Or if the salary cap is gone and half the league will have to field cheerleaders.

I at least thought I would see a post by some random soccer hooligan saying:
"Maybe they will close shop, wouldn't that be great! GO MANCHESTER UNITED! American football/Gridiron sucks! It's not even real football! All you have is commercials, I want nonstop 'action'...blah blah blah..."

Well, today is D-day for the NFL, and apparently no one has noticed. I posted this thread a month ago. So tomorrow, when the Redskins, Colts, Chiefs, Dolphins, etc have to start cutting players, maybe then someone will notice.

Why would no CBA wipe out the draft?

Why would no CBA wipe out the draft?

Because, the entire concept of the draft is included in the CBA. Why does a player have to be three years removed from high school to be eligible for the draft? It's in the CBA. Who gets to pick when, how long you have to pick, how many picks do you get? It's in the CBA. Without a new Collective Bargaining Agreement, there will be no rules whatsoever between the player's union and the NFL owners.

The current agreement would allow for a draft this year. But after 2006, no draft, no salary cap. And 2007 will be an uncapped year. But, there is a 30% rule in effect- stating that a player cannot earn more than 30% more in 2007 than in 2006. So you cannot dump extra salary into the uncapped year to get under the 2006 cap. You cannot pro-rate signing bonus into the future. Which means that teams who are over the cap now have no way of getting under without cutting players. If a team can't or won't get under the cap- the league will step in and start voiding contracts until they are.

Mark my words- by 10pm EDT, you will see NFL rosters around the league gutted.

You'd think if the problem was as dire as all the sport writers are saying that the owners and union people would lock themselves in a room and work something out. A lift on a salary cap would be bad for everyone.

You'd think if the problem was as dire as all the sport writers are saying that the owners and union people would lock themselves in a room and work something out. A lift on a salary cap would be bad for everyone.

The problem IS that dire. But there are several issues at stake and the CBA, although at the heart of the issue, is not the real problem. The problem is revenue sharing between the owners. I am going to try to explain it so those who are not accountants or haven't studied the cap will get a clear picture.

- The players want their salaries to be based on 60% of the total money the NFL makes.
- The owners are unwilling to let them have more than 56.2%.

Yes, that doesn't seem a big difference. Until you look at the backstory.

- Currently, the % of money players get is from a designated amount of money the leage makes. The money that is collectively shared by all the teams. Money from TV deals, sponsorship rights, etc.

- However, the players want (and the owners have agreed to) their salaries to be based on ALL money the leage makes, including what they do not get a piece of -local revenue. Selling jerseys, stadium naming rights, tickets to games, etc.

- The problem is, the owners do not share that income. It goes to the local team. A few teams, like the Redskins and Giants, have huge fan bases and make HUGE amounts of local revenue. Other teams, like Seattle and Jacksonville, are not from huge cities and make far less. Also, some teams like the Patriots have large debts from building/renovating stadiums.

- So the owners are caught in a power struggle, between the large-market superrich teams (ie Washigton), and the small-market teams like Jacksonville. The LM teams want to keep their local revenue, but the SM teams want to pool it all and divide it more evenly.

I know what you must think. How selfish of the Jacksonville's! They don't make that extra money, yet they want to share it! The Washingtons and Dallas' should keep the extra money they make.

But it's not that simple. The salary cap is based on what the leage makes as a whole. If the players make a % of the total revenue of the league, then the SM teams will have a bigger burden of player salary than the LM teams. Washington can pay its players easily, but Seatte cannot.

I will give an example with made up numbers to illustrate since I do not have all the actual figures.

Say the salary cap is 100 million dollars. That is the % of the total revenue agreed upon by the league and the players union, divided among the teams.
Take two teams, Washington and Seattle. They each get a check each year for 75 million dollars from the league, as their share of the collective earnings. (TV rights, etc) However, Washington makes another 100 million locally from jersey sales and their always sold out huge stadium. Seattle, on the other hand, only makes 25 million locally. A smaller city, smaller stadium, less jerseys sold, etc. Well, Seattle with their 25+75 million in money can just barely pay its players. The owner makes no money, they have no money to pay signing bonuses, etc. While Washington's owner writes big bonus checks to get high priced free agents from the deck of his yacht with his cool 75 million a year in profit.

See the difference? The small market teams want to pool local money too, so they can afford to pay their players and (God forbid) make a little money as well. The large market teams want too keep the money they earn. Until these owners agree on a % of local money shared, they will not be able to negotiate with the players union on a new CBA, because the SM teams could not afford to field teams if they have to pay based on what the LM teams make locally.

They'll pull it out eventually. They saw how the lockout damaged the NHL, they don't want the same to happen to them.

They'll pull it out eventually. They saw how the lockout damaged the NHL, they don't want the same to happen to them.

You sure? The NHL sure didn't learn that lesson from the NBA lockout. Or the MLB strike. Or the last NFL strike. Or the MLB strike before that. Or...

You sure? The NHL sure didn't learn that lesson from the NBA lockout. Or the MLB strike. Or the last NFL strike. Or the MLB strike before that. Or...

Sports may have a short memory...

And why is not having a cap in 2007 necessarily bad?

What do you mean "till draft analysis starts", I've been all over it since the Bucs lost to the Skins in the Wildcard round...

this CBA thing will get worked out, I have faith cooler heads will prevail...

And why is not having a cap in 2007 necessarily bad?

Have you read the thread, or followed the links? Not having a cap will destroy the sport. Without the cap, it will be like baseball where Boston, New York, and Altanta are ALWAYS in the playoffs because they make more money, and can dish out much more in salaries. While small market teams who make less will always struggle because they can't afford to get good players.

The best part of the NFL's salary cap is it makes every team able to afford good players- draft well, coach well, manage the cap- and you can excell. Without it, you will always be inferior talent-wise unless you're one of the richest teams.

What do you mean "till draft analysis starts", I've been all over it since the Bucs lost to the Skins in the Wildcard round...

this CBA thing will get worked out, I have faith cooler heads will prevail...

I started this thread BEFORE the probowl, but no one seemed to care then.

Have you read the thread, or followed the links? Not having a cap will destroy the sport. Without the cap, it will be like baseball where Boston, New York, and Altanta are ALWAYS in the playoffs because they make more money, and can dish out much more in salaries. While small market teams who make less will always struggle because they can't afford to get good players.

The best part of the NFL's salary cap is it makes every team able to afford good players- draft well, coach well, manage the cap- and you can excell. Without it, you will always be inferior talent-wise unless you're one of the richest teams.

Atlanta has not spent that much money over the past few seasons. They have had success becuase of their Farm System.

Atlanta has not spent that much money over the past few seasons. They have had success becuase of their Farm System.

Not the point, but I don't care about MLB to follow that so I will take your word on it. But there is no farm system in the NFL.

I started this thread BEFORE the probowl, but no one seemed to care then.

Ah, I see... its only recently that ive been on the threads while at work since we finished our last project- i probably missed it- I'll have my fingers crossed that when i wake up tomorrow morning nfl.com has good news for me...

To the guy who asked about the uncapped year:
Not having a cap in '07 would put all the player aquisitions in teh hands of owners- who could buy the best players wuold win- and that sucks- we need the cap to maintain the beauty that is parity from year to year in the NFL... thats why it is such a big deal that the Pats have been able to win so many years in a row... take the cap away and you'll have a handful of REALLY nasty teams and several other mediocre to crappy ones... people stop going to games, teams lose revenue, NFL dies...

Not the point, but I don't care about MLB to follow that so I will take your word on it. But there is no farm system in the NFL.

Also the NFL is a completely different monster- the average career of an NFL player is 3.5 years, injuries are often more limiting in whether a player can play again. In baseball they play TONS of games over the course of a season, while an NFL season is 16 (or else all the players would be injured and that in itself would cripple the sport). I will also go so far as to say that football is a more team oriented game- you don't have one guy up to bat and at most 3 others on base, so it is more important to develop a team over time (with the same players)... anyways... lets just hope we get it worked out...

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news;_ylt=Am7_q1UOP0Nk9dSjQ4MZuwyW2bYF?slug=citadel-2_504536_114&prov=citadel&type=story

Q: Is there a fundamental difference in opinion among the owners on revenue sharing?

PT: Nothing could be further away than that (assessment). The revenue sharing issue has never been an impediment in the past to getting an agreement with the Players Association. We've had this agreement in place now with a salary cap and free agency 1 for 13 seasons. I think '06 is the thirteenth season. The revenue sharing issue has never been an impediment, and it's not an impediment now to an agreement with the Players Association. The difference between now and the past is the fundamental change in the way they are defining their expectations as to the percentages that should go to the players and the unwillingness in this proposal, or inability, to recognize the very real costs that are associated with doing all the things the league has done to build new stadiums, generate revenues, invest in a whole range of enterprises that produces the revenue.

Q: What concerns you most about the current situation?

PT: We don't have an agreement and there is a deadline at midnight tonight.

Q: What is the next step from here?

PT: We're going to go back and talk about next steps, but I think at this point, it's not about making phone calls. It's about the Players Association fundamentally changing the character of their proposal and the character of their demands.

Q: How dire a situation is it?

PT: It's about as dire as dire can be. We feel that one of the very positive things about the National Football League since the early '90s has been our Collective Bargaining Agreement, one that works for both sides. We've put a proposal on the table that would extend that through 2011. We recognize that the last year of the current agreement is certainly not ideal in terms of operational realities. Without an extension, it's certainly not a good situation for anybody.

Q: What kind of new rules for free agency will be in place during the uncapped year in 2007?

PT: We don't have any new rules. I think I've basically covered everything that is important today. There has to be a fundamental change in their proposal for anything further of a constructive nature to begin to take place.
Yeah, I can't believe they're really on the verge of killing the goose that lays the golden eggs. Stadium funding and debt certainly needs to be accounted for, and infact the NFL should be shouldering more of that burden. That certainly couldn't hurt expansion which is far better for the players than say, a lockout, or a team folding. One imagines some preseason games will be converted into regular season games before a lockout happens. I can't imagine the players are greatly intrigued by the prospect of shortened careers either. But what do I know.

~snip~

Although true in some aspects, your source is an NFL employee, so he isn't going to be up front about the revenue sharing problem. He doesn't address the change from the DGR (Designated Gross Revenue)to the TGR model (Total Gross Revenue), which is why there IS a revenue sharing problem.

This just in: The NFL has extended the deadline by three days. So instead of the league calendar and the start of free agency being tomorrow, it will be Monday. Presumably this is to allow for more negotiation. But I think it is to allow teams who were counting on a resolution to find a way to get under the cap.

Mark my words- by 10pm EDT, you will see NFL rosters around the league gutted.

Perhaps you could tell us how it turned out? Got no patience to try to find out myself. :p

Perhaps you could tell us how it turned out? Got no patience to try to find out myself. :p

Well, an 11th hour extension gave the teams three more days. But a few teams had already started the purge.

25 minutes left... if no deal is done by 6:00 pm EDT, then all teams have to be under the cap immediately, and free agency starts at 12:01 am.

Wow. Not one reply in almost 24 hours. I guess the NFL fans don't care if the draft disappears. Or if the salary cap is gone and half the league will have to field cheerleaders.

I at least thought I would see a post by some random soccer hooligan saying:
"Maybe they will close shop, wouldn't that be great! GO MANCHESTER UNITED! American football/Gridiron sucks! It's not even real football! All you have is commercials, I want nonstop 'action'...blah blah blah..."

Perhaps I can help.

Although almost non-existant in the USA, rugby league is a comparable game that offers great excitment in the hotbeds of Europe and Australia.

St Helens are a magnificent, flamboyant side in the UK and the State of Origin between New South Wales and Queensland is one of the great spectacles in world sport.

Ah, I see... its only recently that ive been on the threads while at work since we finished our last project- i probably missed it- I'll have my fingers crossed that when i wake up tomorrow morning nfl.com has good news for me...

To the guy who asked about the uncapped year:
Not having a cap in '07 would put all the player aquisitions in teh hands of owners- who could buy the best players wuold win- and that sucks- we need the cap to maintain the beauty that is parity from year to year in the NFL... thats why it is such a big deal that the Pats have been able to win so many years in a row... take the cap away and you'll have a handful of REALLY nasty teams and several other mediocre to crappy ones... people stop going to games, teams lose revenue, NFL dies...

But before it dies the Raiders would win at least five superbowls because Al Davis is the man.

Therefore, go non-cap!

Aparently everybody thought they were going to get a deal done...and couldn't. Again. The deadline was just pushed back to 10 pm EST. So either they are just working out a few final details (not likely) or the talks have failed (probably) and the teams who need to get under the cap have been given 4 hours to tell the players that they have been cut.

It is official! NO DEAL. Let the massive player cuts begin.

Yeah, the CBA! Go Sun Kings, go Wizards! Woo!

What? Oh. "Collective Bargaining Agreement"?

I thought you were talking about the Continental Basketball Association. Certainly that organization is more recognizable as "CBA" than collective bargaining agreement. Sheesh.

Yay! Maybe the Lions will pick up an offensive line. But they'll probably just get another wide receiver or two.

Gee, suprise suprise, the league has postponed AGAIN. Another 72 hour extension. They sure know how to fuck up my doomsday for the NFL thread.