Why can’t they get rid of the salary cap?

conner01

Well-Known Member
Messages
27,889
Reaction score
25,808
This could never happen because the NFLPA knows that the second they did this, every starting QB (and any backup QB who hopes to stumble into starting someday) would break away from the NFLPA and start their own union to collectively bargain for themselves. Which the league would then cater to instead of dealing with the non-QB union. As a result, QBs would soon command even more money and even more influence over the rules of the game.

So your effort to screw quarterbacks instead turns them into the Kings of the land.
Starting new union for 70 people or so would never happen
The idea won’t happen because the agents want their guy to get more but in reality it would spread the same amount of money to more players
 

gjkoeppen

Well-Known Member
Messages
7,703
Reaction score
3,327
This could never happen because the NFLPA knows that the second they did this, every starting QB (and any backup QB who hopes to stumble into starting someday) would break away from the NFLPA and start their own union to collectively bargain for themselves. Which the league would then cater to instead of dealing with the non-QB union. As a result, QBs would soon command even more money and even more influence over the rules of the game.

So your effort to screw quarterbacks instead turns them into the Kings of the land.

Technically the players don't have a union. They decertified in 1987 and became a player association and became the NFLPA.
.
 

ESisback

Well-Known Member
Messages
13,147
Reaction score
14,016
Yep! Years ago, there was no cap, and a handful of teams always won. After six or seven games it became obvious that certain teams weren’t competitive, and ticket and merchandise sales fell off. The Have Nots complained until they came up with the cap. Socialism!
 

SSoup

Well-Known Member
Messages
1,087
Reaction score
1,194
Starting new union for 70 people or so would never happen
The idea won’t happen because the agents want their guy to get more but in reality it would spread the same amount of money to more players
Of course it would happen.

Quarterbacks know they are the faces of the franchises and worth the most. If their own union ever conspired with the league on a rule aimed specifically at reducing how much a starting QB can ask for, the QBs would see they're no longer being served by this union so they would leave it. And because these guys are all well-schooled on the power of unionizing and bargaining collectively, they'd immediately form their own little union representing only their own QB interests.

Because QBs are more important to the league than any other position, their union would immediately become the more powerful of the two.

A strike or lockout where the league loses only the QBs would be a bigger problem for the league than a strike or lockout where they keep all the QBs. So the league would get their lunch eaten by the QB union in negotiations while they'd easily screw the non-QB NFLPA union that has lost its most important and visible members. The salary cap would stagnate or even go down while QBs' share of it rises. Even more protect-the-QB rules would be incorporated into the game.

The whole thing would result in, within 5-10 years, the non-QB union being absorbed by the QB Union, going back to one union for all. But this time it will be built from the ground-up to favor and protect quarterbacks somehow. Like the QBs get extra votes on labor issues, or the quarterbacks as a voting bloc have to approve any and all leadership choices for the union. It would somehow be more QB-friendly than the NFLPA to ensure a repeat of the "screw the quarterbacks" movement can't happen again.
 

willia451

Well-Known Member
Messages
3,283
Reaction score
3,525
"From each according to his ability. To each according to his needs and contribution."

---Karl Marx, 1875

The NFL is basically a socialist cabal of 30 or so Politburo members whose singular role is to convince all comrades of "the body" to accept less so they can have more.

Works like a champ.

How they pulled it off without even having to evoke divine right is anybody's guess. But the anti-trust exemption asked for and granted to them by Congress to exclusively and collectively sell their broadcasting rights through monopoly pooling, then distribute the revenue equally seems to have helped.
 

ItzKelz

Well-Known Member
Messages
6,838
Reaction score
9,164
The ironic thing is that JJ is the one that pushed for the cap in the first place
 

Insomniac

Active Member
Messages
201
Reaction score
143
Why cant they get rid of the cap. Have a hard cap on teams trying to buy a Super Bowl but no cap on players you drafted or signed as UDFA. This way we keep players we want without having the animosity we have like Zeke last year and now Dak and coop this year. You can keep teams altogether and not be punished for drating well and coaching players up. Honestly we should start a union for fans so we have a voice in all this. After all we are the driving force for all of this, we should have a voice at the table or use what would hurt most, boycott games and dont show up or watch.

The entire purpose of the salary cap is to allow the owners to maximize their profits. Only total rubes ever bought the argument that the salary cap was intended to promote competitive balance.
 

Number1

Well-Known Member
Messages
1,690
Reaction score
1,326
Owners like having a cost controlled payroll.

bingo - it's control mechanism, they play smoke and mirrors with it as needed,

and as a base structure for negotiations .... there is such a thing as the CBA
kill or radically change the cap and ... the whole structure of the deal would change and the outcome rather unpredictable

... after immediate chaos
 

Runwildboys

Confused about stuff
Messages
50,240
Reaction score
94,113
CowboysZone DIEHARD Fan
The entire purpose of the salary cap is to allow the owners to maximize their profits. Only total rubes ever bought the argument that the salary cap was intended to promote competitive balance.
The owners who had perennial winners maybe, but the ones whose teams were usually weaker probably liked the idea of parity.
 

Fizziksman

BanditHiro
Messages
5,108
Reaction score
3,503
because the owners wanted a bigger piece of the pie. Artificially having a cap on how much you can pay players allows them to take more money.
 

fansince68

Well-Known Member
Messages
4,475
Reaction score
3,269
Why cant they get rid of the cap. Have a hard cap on teams trying to buy a Super Bowl but no cap on players you drafted or signed as UDFA. This way we keep players we want without having the animosity we have like Zeke last year and now Dak and coop this year. You can keep teams altogether and not be punished for drating well and coaching players up. Honestly we should start a union for fans so we have a voice in all this. After all we are the driving force for all of this, we should have a voice at the table or use what would hurt most, boycott games and dont show up or watch.
Super Bowl TV commercials 8 million for 30 seconds. I say Doritos, Liberty Mutual Insurance, State Farm and many others are more of the driving force. The fans are an afterthought.
 

Fizziksman

BanditHiro
Messages
5,108
Reaction score
3,503
"From each according to his ability. To each according to his needs and contribution."

---Karl Marx, 1875

The NFL is basically a socialist cabal of 30 or so Politburo members whose singular role is to convince all comrades of "the body" to accept less so they can have more.

Works like a champ.

How they pulled it off without even having to evoke divine right is anybody's guess. But the anti-trust exemption asked for and granted to them by Congress to exclusively and collectively sell their broadcasting rights through monopoly pooling, then distribute the revenue equally seems to have helped.

well no, this is very much anti-ethical to Marx lol. If that was the case the players would have a much greater say in the process because they would be partial owners. Right now they don't own the means of production, they sell their labor to the NFL owners who own the stadiums and all that stuff. The only power they have is their union and the fact they aren't necessarily the easiest workers to replace but striking comes with considerable monetary damage that is harder for them to bear than it is a billionaire owner.
 

Runwildboys

Confused about stuff
Messages
50,240
Reaction score
94,113
CowboysZone DIEHARD Fan
Super Bowl TV commercials 8 million for 30 seconds. I say Doritos, Liberty Mutual Insurance, State Farm and many others are more of the driving force. The fans are an afterthought.
But the advertisers only buy time to get the attention of the fans.
 

kskboys

Well-Known Member
Messages
44,059
Reaction score
46,962
The salary cap is one of the reasons why there's so much money for the players to begin w/.
 

garyo1954

Well-Known Member
Messages
3,704
Reaction score
4,470
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salary_cap


"In theory, there are two main benefits derived from salary caps – promotion of parity between teams, and control of costs.[5][6][7]

"Primarily, an effective salary cap prevents wealthy teams from certain destructive behaviours, such as signing a multitude of high-paid star players to prevent their rivals from accessing these players, and ensuring victory through superior economic power. With a salary cap, each club has roughly the same economic power to attract players, which contributes to parity by producing roughly equal playing talent in each team in the league, and in turn brings economic benefits to the league and to its individual teams.

"Leagues need to ensure a degree of parity between teams so that games are exciting for the fans and not a foregone conclusion. The leagues that have adopted salary caps generally do so because they believe letting richer teams accumulate talent affects the quality of the sporting product they want to sell. If only one or a handful of dominant teams are able to win consistently and challenge for the championship, many of the contests will be blowouts by the superior team, reducing the sport's attractiveness for fans at the stadium and viewers on television. Television revenue is an important part of the income of many sports around the world, and the more evenly matched and exciting the contests, the more interesting the television product, and the higher the value of the television broadcast rights. An unbalanced league also threatens the financial viability of the weaker teams, because if there is no long-term hope of their team winning, fans of the weaker clubs will gravitate to other sports and leagues."

How much fun would it be for you if you were in a small market and knew you could never sign the players necessary to play in a championship game?
 

kskboys

Well-Known Member
Messages
44,059
Reaction score
46,962
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salary_cap


"In theory, there are two main benefits derived from salary caps – promotion of parity between teams, and control of costs.[5][6][7]

"Primarily, an effective salary cap prevents wealthy teams from certain destructive behaviours, such as signing a multitude of high-paid star players to prevent their rivals from accessing these players, and ensuring victory through superior economic power. With a salary cap, each club has roughly the same economic power to attract players, which contributes to parity by producing roughly equal playing talent in each team in the league, and in turn brings economic benefits to the league and to its individual teams.

"Leagues need to ensure a degree of parity between teams so that games are exciting for the fans and not a foregone conclusion. The leagues that have adopted salary caps generally do so because they believe letting richer teams accumulate talent affects the quality of the sporting product they want to sell. If only one or a handful of dominant teams are able to win consistently and challenge for the championship, many of the contests will be blowouts by the superior team, reducing the sport's attractiveness for fans at the stadium and viewers on television. Television revenue is an important part of the income of many sports around the world, and the more evenly matched and exciting the contests, the more interesting the television product, and the higher the value of the television broadcast rights. An unbalanced league also threatens the financial viability of the weaker teams, because if there is no long-term hope of their team winning, fans of the weaker clubs will gravitate to other sports and leagues."

How much fun would it be for you if you were in a small market and knew you could never sign the players necessary to play in a championship game?
Why do ya think we Astros cheat?!!!!!
 
Top