In a bit of weird news, the Washington Redskins and Dallas Cowboys were both docked portions of their salary cap for front loading contracts during the 2010 uncapped season. According to a report by Adam Schefter of ESPN, the Redskins will lose $36 million in cap space while the Cowboys will lose $10 million in cap space, split however the teams decide between the 2012 and 2013 seasons. The money will be split among the other teams in the league.
I don't particularly like the Cowboys or the Redskins, but this seems pretty nonsensical to me. If the NFL didn't want teams to salary dump in the uncapped 2010 season, why did the league office approve of the contracts in the first place? The league could have rejected the deals, noting that it was salary dumping and not permitted instead of allowing them to go through. You also have to wonder if this will effect the Robert Griffin III trade, which isn't technically official yet. The Redskins reportedly gave up so much in that deal because they felt the could make up for the lost first rounders in free agency. That doesn't seem to be the case now.
By enforcing this, the NFL is basically punishing a team spending in an uncapped year by saying that the NFL asked teams not to spend... ergo enforcing a "ghost cap" which should be considered collusion. Don't be shocked if the NFLPA jumps all over this.
My question though is: Not spending to the salary floor in 2010, setting up space for 2011 theoretically games this system just as much as front loading, right?