The NFL Salary Cap: The Future of the Cap
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
4 recs |
30 comments
|
Comments
Collin one point to clarify
Any team can afford to keep their key players when they have that much cash floating around. This means that most quality players don’t even reach free agency because their respective teams have plenty of money to re-sign them.
Cap room and actual money may be two different things. A team without a stadium sponsor, not filling the seats, etc may have cap room, but not the revenue stream tpo support the cap. I believe about a third of the NFL teams have some struggle with income.
That is my only point. This analysis is very instructional and is exactly why people come here. Thanks
- Terry
Big Cat Country!:: The Official Home of the Unofficial Blog of the Jacksonville Jaguars!
by Tkopa on Mar 10, 2009 6:54 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
No prob.
That was the delineation I was trying to make with the Dan Snyder point… That already there are the have and have nots in Free Agency, and they will manipulate the cap to their advantage while poorer teams have to spend to the salary floor.
I see how that was slightly confusing… I’ll edit it accordingly.
-Collin
The End Is Nigh...
by silencecs on Mar 10, 2009 8:08 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Perfect. The point comes through now
With a cap set so high, rich teams can act irresponsibly and the poor teams are punished. As the cap grows, the minimum spend requirements increase and put more pressure on the weak teams to generate revenue. Dallas has a new revenue generating stadium, Kansas City doesn’t. Kansas City must spend a higher minimum because Dallas increased it’s revenue.
I get it now.
Big Cat Country!:: The Official Home of the Unofficial Blog of the Jacksonville Jaguars!
by Tkopa on Mar 10, 2009 8:22 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Kansas City sells out all its games
And has for many years. I think the team you are looking for is the Detroit Lions, thank you.
by Vince D on Mar 10, 2009 11:06 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, but Arrowhead doesn't have the same kind of revenue streams
ie tons of luxury boxes, that the Cowboys will have in their new stadium.
"I smoke. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."-Bill Hicks
by FSBlueApocalypse on Mar 10, 2009 11:32 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Arrowhead is being renovated and expanded as we speak
Construction started last year.
by Vince D on Mar 10, 2009 3:06 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Best stat/explanation I have heard
I heard on the radio this stat, forget which program, but it was about a week ago.
In the last 30 years of MLB, 20 different teams have won the Championship. MLB has no cap, and everyone can clearly see it’s a have vs. have nots league. This is the largest percentage of “unique winners” out of the 4 major sports.
by JirafaBo on Mar 10, 2009 9:25 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Great chart
That chart is great to show the distribution of wins for pre-cap and current seasons. The problem is the distribution of teams within that distribution of wins. I’ll bet that teams didn’t move around much before the cap. The 2% that had 14 wins were always the same teams. That’s the problem with the cap. I have a feeling that the Jaguars will be stuck on the bottom half of that histogram and can’t get over “the hump.”
by acedarney on Mar 10, 2009 9:39 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Actually, there is very little difference in pre and post cap expected improvement or decline from year to year.
Before the cap, a team with 2 wins one year could expect to win about 3 more wins the following season, going 5-11 on average. After the cap, a team with 2 wins can now expect to win about 4 more wins the following season, for an average record of 6-10.
That’s a quote from one of the articles I researched that explains the minimal differences between pre and post cap ability for a team to improve.
-Collin
The End Is Nigh...
by silencecs on Mar 10, 2009 9:59 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Thanks
Good reference. Although it will get worse, it won’t get that much worse. Fortunately, the ability to keep players for longer periods of time will help the teams that draft well, which the Jaguars are going to become (so they claim).
by acedarney on Mar 10, 2009 10:18 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
It's about weighing the benefits vs the cost... Great question by the way...
If Wayne isn’t forced to spend to the salary floor, then suddenly it won’t be as appealing for him to sell because he will be making MUCH more money due to the fact he doesn’t HAVE to spend in free agency.
-Collin
The End Is Nigh...
by silencecs on Mar 10, 2009 10:22 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
By the way
I love the use of statistics in the development of an article. This is great writing.
Big Cat Country!:: The Official Home of the Unofficial Blog of the Jacksonville Jaguars!
by Tkopa on Mar 10, 2009 10:48 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
This is probably the best piece I've read since joining this site
I feel so much more informed than I did, thank you very much. My question is, what’s the downside to the RFA tenders? It seems like there has to be something otherwise teams would just put a 1st round tender on all their restricted free agents.
by SoCalStites on Mar 10, 2009 11:42 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
The cost (the one year salary the player receives) varies based on the tender assigned
The cost of the one year salary increases with each tender…
Original round tender has the lowest yearly wage, followed by 2nd round tender, then 1st round tender, and finally 1st and 3rd round (which requires the largest yearly salary). When a player is tendered, his contract is a one year deal. If he still has another year left of RFA after this initial tender (this means his rookie contract was a 4 year deal), then you may choose to tender him again at whatever level the team chooses. Did that clear it up?
-Collin
The End Is Nigh...
by silencecs on Mar 10, 2009 1:21 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
No problem bro...
The End Is Nigh...
by silencecs on Mar 10, 2009 3:58 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Nice writeup
I would like to point out, that the rules you reference, such as: 6 years of RFA and two Franchise or transition tags are good only for the 2010 season.
After that, a new CBA will have to be worked out regardless, so this is essentially a look at the effect on next season only.
I would also argue that the revenue breakdown for all franchises is drastically different from pre-’94. Markets such as Jacksonville should be particularly weary about deviating from a system which essentially forces owners and to remain fiscally comptetive via a cap/floor. I also think a system with no floor or cap would lead to an increase franchise moves, particularly a lower revenue team moving to LA.
I would agree that the 2010 season itself wouldn’t necessarily be a crisis if the cap were eliminated, my concern would be the long term effects, especially if a cap is reinstated with a new CBA post-2010.
Wise GM’s (especially those with rich owners) would sign players to long-term contracts in the 2010 offseason that front loaded ‘cap’ dollars on that season. They would then be at a substantial advantage in subsequent seasons.
Also, as it stands now, the revenue sharing in the NFL isn’t comparable to the other major sports. Cheap owners would be able to cash in without a floor, as their shared tv dollars is a much greater % of team revenue than any other pro sport.
Lastly, I would argue that the reason MLB has so many different champions, is because the nature of the game, and therefore its playoffs, are more random. An easy way to evaluate this is looking at the difference in betting lines between football and baseball.
by kcsno56 on Mar 10, 2009 1:07 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Unless there is no CBA reached... Then this will become how it works every year.
I would argue that luck is more of a factor in the NFL. In MLB you play “series” of games in the playoffs, so if your team has one bad game, it’s no big deal. In the NFL, one bad game can mean an end to a season.
The End Is Nigh...
by silencecs on Mar 10, 2009 1:24 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Mathematically, I don't think thats correct
The odds of the ‘inferior’ team (which could only be judged by W-L record) winning a post season series in baseball is higher than that of the inferior team winning a single baseball game.
There are other simple ways to see this…the worst teams in baseball win 40% of thier games, the worst teams in football in a typical season win around 2 games or 12.5%.
This is the nature of the two sports, in baseball, the worst team in the league, with thier #5 starter on the mound, vs. the best team in the league with thier ace on the hill, is about a 2.5-1 dog. Whereas in the NFL, if you take….I don’t know, last year, the Steelers vs. the Lions, you’re talking like 8-1, or higher, I’d have to look it up.
by kcsno56 on Mar 10, 2009 2:56 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
sorry...typo
in that first paragraph, I should have said single ‘football’ game…
by kcsno56 on Mar 10, 2009 2:58 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The CBA expires in 2010
So after 2010, a new CBA would have to be agreed upon at that point, meaning: new CBA or lockout/strike.
Even if they decide they want to stop using a Cap, they still have to have a CBA in place.
by kcsno56 on Mar 10, 2009 3:02 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
There are two possibilities... either a lock-out (owners stop the season) or a strike (players stop the season)
If it is a strike, we may see some owners play hardball and have replacement players used much cheaper. Eventually, the players would cave if this was the case bc as Vic has said, there is a glut of football talent in America. Eventually, there would be change, but it doesn’t necessarily mean a salary cap will be in effect, you are right about that.
In fact, it’s perfectly feasible to think that there may not be a cap, the way things are looking. That’s the issue here, the salary cap, not whatever CBA is reached. A new CBA may not have a cap (which you astutely pointed out) and that is what this post addresses.
-Collin
The End Is Nigh...
by silencecs on Mar 10, 2009 3:08 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Agreed
I think what players may realize in an uncapped year, is that there will be less total $$ spent by owners on salary, seeing that there will be no salary floor.
As you’ve probably seen, currently, there are several teams 30+ million under the cap, and a few, like my Chiefs, $50+ million under the cap. Under the current system, these teams are forced to spend (according to PFT) $111 million on player compensation, at least as it relates to the Cap, in 2009.
While, I’m guessing you’ll have a handful of teams spending in excess of $115 million next year, maybe as many as 8, my guess is the majority of teams will fall well under the $100 million mark, and simple math will show the players that they had it better in a cap/floor system.
Time will tell.
by kcsno56 on Mar 10, 2009 3:26 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
This is just not true
The language of the CBA is very specific that changes to free agency and tags apply only in the final league year (which is 2010). They do not automatically carry forward beyond then and there is no reason to think the players would agree to them as part of the new CBA.
Unfortunately, you have not convinced me that a lack of a salary cap (for more than a single year) will not harm the NFL or turn it into the MLB.
by MattR on Mar 10, 2009 4:27 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Collin - You are drawing the most intelligent responses I have seen
High level content draws out the most knowledgable fans. This is what BCC strives to be.
Big Cat Country!:: The Official Home of the Unofficial Blog of the Jacksonville Jaguars!
by Tkopa on Mar 10, 2009 1:43 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Thanks, Terry...
It’s slightly more high brow than my Star Wars piece.
I appreciate the comments everyone…
The End Is Nigh...
by silencecs on Mar 10, 2009 2:24 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Rec'd
Nice work. A nice primer for the rest of us.
by Joel Thorman on Mar 10, 2009 1:55 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Nice Read
Nice Job Collin. I don’t think the no cap era will be as bad as I had thought it to be.
Thats Good For Another Jacksonville... First Down.
by Bestjagfan on Mar 10, 2009 4:38 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
This was linked to over on Buffalo Rumblings, the Bills blog, and I just want to say great read. Excellent job with the stats and the info on how things will be in the uncapped year(s).
by Hopefulcynic on Mar 10, 2009 7:15 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

by 
















