NFL to end salary cap?

[Weasel Soup]

Being from the tiniest market I don't know if I like it, and don't really want to see the Yankees of the NFL.

I think it will definately affect parity.

And not to sure I want to see wealthy foreign investors coming in and buying a team and dumping cash ala the Premier League.

What possibly do the owners see as a positive in this?

[Sephiroth]

I think it would be a big mistake.

As a fan of the other football (soccer), one of the things I envy (and admire) most about the NFL is the salary cap. The emphasis on sporting success, rather than financial success.

I dearly wish that soccer would take a lead from (American) football on this -- not the other way around.

It will ruin the game. The rich clubs will dominate, the poor will fall by the wayside, and the list of Super Bowl champions will start to read like a roll call of the richest franchise owners.

As I grew up, I watched it happen over here. My own club, and many others like them, were reduced from Europe-wide contenders to an utter irrelevance in the space of a few years, with the introduction of crazy money into football following the glorious revolution led by satellite TV.

[Parson]

I don't think the dropping of the salary cap would be a s disastrous to the NFL as it sounds like it was for football/soccer in Australia. First, think of baseball. There is a surprising amount of parity there. Okay, the Yankees seem to be able to buy themselves into contention, but look at the Mets, Cubs, et. al. to see that having the money and being willing to spend it, does not always lead to success, and certainly not championships. And some clubs without the mega bucks, think Cardinals and Twins, are able to field very competitive teams almost every year and win the occasional championship. -- It is true that the sports are not all that similar. Major League Baseball has the physically superior team winning about 60% of the time, while in the NFL that figure is closer to 85%. This is the usual difference between a power sport and a finesse support. --- I watch too little soccer to be able to judge on which side of the continuum it would fall. My limited viewing leads me to think of it as a luck sport. At the highest levels of soccer scoring is so limited that games are often determined by a lucky bounce, or a single instant of inattention.

But probably most telling for football is the source of their revenue. Unlike baseball and according to Seph, Austrailian soccer, there are no NFL clubs with separate cable broadcasting (at least as far as I know) and certainly none like the YES network with the Yankees. Even the money raised from the fans in attendance is small potatoes compared to that which is raised by the national television contracts. Every NFL club would have resources at least in the same ballpark as the others. Under the present system we have had some truly dominate teams -- Cowboys, Colts, Steelers, Patriots, (Packers are too far back to count, sorry Weasel). I don't think a cap-less league would produce more of these.

[Weasel Soup]

Seph, I think the NFL has an advantage over the major European Clubs in that they are not competing against other nations for the same player base. Man Utd could start 11 different nationalities on their team, but pretty sure most NFL teams are 90% plus American players with a smattering of Canadians. The advantage of this is you are working primarily in one economic system as opposed to, well, every economic system in the world. So if one major european prem league put on a cap the best players from that league would be bought out. Obviously players have a limited time to make their money in the game. Frankly I wouldn't mind Ronaldo's salary.

And the problem also with the NFL removing the salary cap, with free agency, there will not be financial restitution to the teams that are not as wealthy, so will eventually transfer fees need to be instituted? And the draft becomes largely irrelevant if players say I am going to skip the draft and go directly to free agency (which now only happens with lower skilled players).

[jojajihisc]

It would almost certainly be bad if you are a fan of parity in the league. Of course there are people like my dad that think it is more fun to have dynasties that practically never change so he can root against them. I prefer what the NFL has now where every season you get surprises and different fan bases get a chance to experience some success.

Teams would have large disparities in revenue because markets vary in size and there certainly are local TV contracts (which make up about 20% of team revenue) that would pay teams like the Giants, Bears, Cowboys, Redskins and Patriots much more than, say, the Packers, Jaguars, Bills, Saints and Bengals.

[Winters_Sorrow]

Yeah I think the salary cap removal would backfire really. The NFL prides itself on it's parity aspect and "any given sunday" appeal. That's been getting less so in the last few decades sure Parson, but I can't think it would improve if the salary cap were lifted. That sense of parity is about the only thing forcing good players to go to bad teams to "get the money".

As it is, you are asking players to make a choice between not earning as much as they could command and staying on a winning (or glory) franchise with large followings and fanbases, against taking the money and playing for the less fashionable teams. And as someone has already pointed out, the draft would be severely imbalanced as a result. Right now the salary cap & draft system work pretty well together in keeping things level. The "worst" teams get first dibs on the most valuable players coming out and can use that to bargain with to improve their teams.

Ok, you need to have someone who knows what they're doing for it to make any benefit (Matt Millen I'm looking at you) but, in theory, the Lions should have massively improved themselves over the last 5 years of poor performance. The fact they haven't is purely down to the morons in their front office making numerous bad judgements. I could point at the Cardinals and Bengals as a "joke" team less than 5 years ago now making big waves with some canny acquisitions.

One of the reasons for dynasties in the NFL now is good off-season moves. Much as I dislike them, the Patriots have consistently scouted well and traded draft picks from the bottom feeders to their advantage and combined with players wanting to stay with winning teams more often than not given the choice. Ironically, the system of parity would work a lot better if players were more mercenary-minded

On a seperate issue - what do people think about the proposals to cap the draft salaries? Sounds a sensible approach to be honest, but do you think it'll backfire with more high-draft players turning to free agency to get a better deal? If so, will this render the draft meaningless?

[Culhwch]

Originally Posted by Winters_Sorrow

On a seperate issue - what do people think about the proposals to cap the draft salaries? Sounds a sensible approach to be honest, but do you think it'll backfire with more high-draft players turning to free agency to get a better deal? If so, will this render the draft meaningless?

This absolutely has to happen. It's ridiculous the amount of money these rookies get before playing a down of pro football. Add to that multi-year contracts and you see teams ending up having to pay a bust a bunch of money for years, which they could be using to improve the team with free-agent acquisitions.

I don't know that prospective players can dodge the draft, can they? Aren't there already regulations against that? And if not, how hard could they be to implement - you can't play in our league if you don't submit your name to the draft. Go play in the CFL or the UFL if you don't like it. Period.

[Parson]

Originally Posted by jojajihisc

Teams would have large disparities in revenue because markets vary in size and there certainly are local TV contracts (which make up about 20% of team revenue) that would pay teams like the Giants, Bears, Cowboys, Redskins and Patriots much more than, say, the Packers, Jaguars, Bills, Saints and Bengals.

It is discouraging to discover your well thought out argument bombed by someone with "facts." I stand massively corrected.

But I still think that losing the salary cap would not necessarily mean the end of the line for small market teams. I would wager that we will find out the truth of that statement before too long.

[jojajihisc]

Originally Posted by Winters_Sorrow

On a seperate issue - what do people think about the proposals to cap the draft salaries? Sounds a sensible approach to be honest, but do you think it'll backfire with more high-draft players turning to free agency to get a better deal? If so, will this render the draft meaningless?

I'm not very familiar with the rules for rookie contracts as they currently exist but I do think this is one of the NFL's more inefficient areas and one they could improve by looking at Major League Baseball. MLB does not reward huge contracts until players have been in the league for several years and have proven what they can do and then, of course, the money pours down like a waterfall. I'm bracing for Felix Hernandez's almost inevitable departure from the Mariners after 2010.

I don't know if having more high picks turning to free agency would necessarily be bad so long as the NFL has a relatively even playing field for teams to pay their players. There is no Yankee black hole that inexorably pulls every star away from its original home and it should stay that way.

[Dundalis]

As a Cowboys fan, I can't say I would be too displeased, because we would be one of the teams advantaged (not this season though). But for the good of the game there needs to be a cap.