FWST: NFLPA Director DeMaurice Smith proposes current system continuation....

[casmith07]

They shouldn't even have the agents, really, who have an ethical obligation to represent their veteran clients, as well. Plus, it's better for the league to make sure the best players get the most money.

Sports agent and ethical obligation don't belong in the same sentence.

 

[sonnyboy]

The money is where the owners are balking. They say the players are getting too much of the gross and also they want to take part of the gross and start putting together a stadium fund. Which is hard to argue since public money for stadiums is a thing of the past now.

Why? With no floor, none of these owners are now forced to lose money. Or even fail to earn a reasonable return on capital.

I really really like this new system we're going to have in 2010.

The 6 yrs to Unrestricted Free Agency is great! It gives the teams the first crack at keeping the excellent players they drafted.
Yet since the players have Restricted FA opps in years 3-5, they still get a chance to earn a fair contract.

No Salary floor is great. No team is forced to lose money.

No cap is great. It will motivated all teams get off their *** and maximize revenue to compete.
The teams that earn the most will have the opportunity for a higher payroll. But since soo much of the rev is still shared, you wont have a MLB type system where 30-50% have little chance to compete for a championship. And 10-20% are almost assured a post season spot.
The "spread" between the NFL's highest and lowest payrolls will be much closer than say the Yankess and Royals. 250mil to like 50mil.

Highest to lowest would be something more like 160mil to 100mil. And the majority of the teams would probably fall within 10-20% of the average payroll.

 

[TellerMorrow34]

Just further proof that we'll be deep into the summer of 2011, at least, before we see any of this even begin to possibly get fixed.

 

[AdamJT13]

Why? With no floor, none of these owners are now forced to lose money. Or even fail to earn a reasonable return on capital.

I really really like this new system we're going to have in 2010.

The 6 yrs to Unrestricted Free Agency is great! It gives the teams the first crack at keeping the excellent players they drafted.
Yet since the players have Restricted FA opps in years 3-5, they still get a chance to earn a fair contract.

No Salary floor is great. No team is forced to lose money.

No cap is great. It will motivated all teams get off their *** and maximize revenue to compete.
The teams that earn the most will have the opportunity for a higher payroll. But since soo much of the rev is still shared, you wont have a MLB type system where 30-50% have little chance to compete for a championship. And 10-20% are almost assured a post season spot.
The "spread" between the NFL's highest and lowest payrolls will be much closer than say the Yankess and Royals. 250mil to like 50mil.

Highest to lowest would be something more like 160mil to 100mil. And the majority of the teams would probably fall within 10-20% of the average payroll.

For one season, there won't be a great spread in payrolls, because the owners prepared for one uncapped season. Teams made sure that almost all of their top players were under contract or would be restricted. But over the long term, as contracts expire and player become free agents, more of the top players would end up with the higher-spending teams, especially if those teams never had to worry about the cap coming back. (Teams wouldn't spend wildly this season, even if they could and there were players worth it who were available, because 2011 and beyond might be capped again.) And don't think that just because there is revenue sharing, every team would spend their portion of it on player salaries. You can bet that several teams would spend far less in order to improve their bottom line.

 

[Hostile]

For one season, there won't be a great spread in payrolls, because the owners prepared for one uncapped season. Teams made sure that almost all of their top players were under contract or would be restricted. But over the long term, as contracts expire and player become free agents, more of the top players would end up with the higher-spending teams, especially if those teams never had to worry about the cap coming back. (Teams wouldn't spend wildly this season, even if they could and there were players worth it who were available, because 2011 and beyond might be capped again.) And don't think that just because there is revenue sharing, every team would spend their portion of it on player salaries. You can bet that several teams would spend far less in order to improve their bottom line.

I have always wondered that about revenue sharing. To me, an owner like Mike Brown doesn't deserve the same share of the gate as say a Daniel Snyder.

Is there any kind of weight clause that actually makes it more equal for the books as a whole?

 

[sonnyboy]

For one season, there won't be a great spread in payrolls, because the owners prepared for one uncapped season. Teams made sure that almost all of their top players were under contract or would be restricted. But over the long term, as contracts expire and player become free agents, more of the top players would end up with the higher-spending teams, especially if those teams never had to worry about the cap coming back. (Teams wouldn't spend wildly this season, even if they could and there were players worth it who were available, because 2011 and beyond might be capped again.) And don't think that just because there is revenue sharing, every team would spend their portion of it on player salaries. You can bet that several teams would spend far less in order to improve their bottom line.

You know the Yankees don't lose money. I believe of the long haul or even over a shorter 3-4 year span, you wouln't see any NFL teams run their club at a loss.

For all the talk/fear of maverick NFL owners like Snyder running up a payroll twice the league average, I don't see it.

Money is still money. Snyder, Jones and every other owner is first and foremost a businesman.
They will not lose 10's of millions anually to gain a competitive advantage.


I think the system were headed for in 2010 could be a real nice long-term solution.

I'd like to know your thoughts on that.

Do you think most teams payroll would fall within 10-20% of whatever the league average payroll was for a given year?

 

[AdamJT13]

You know the Yankees don't lose money. I believe of the long haul or even over a shorter 3-4 year span, you wouln't see any NFL teams run their club at a loss.

For all the talk/fear of maverick NFL owners like Snyder running up a payroll twice the league average, I don't see it.

Money is still money. Snyder, Jones and every other owner is first and foremost a businesman.
They will not lose 10's of millions anually to gain a competitive advantage.


I think the system were headed for in 2010 could be a real nice long-term solution.

I'd like to know your thoughts on that.

Do you think most teams payroll would fall within 10-20% of whatever the league average payroll was for a given year?

Maybe within 20 percent, but a team 20 percent higher than the average is spending a lot more than a team 20 percent below the average. (If the average is, say, $120 million, that's a range of $96 million to $144 million -- one team is spending 50 percent more than the other.)

Take a look at the annual payrolls published by USA Today, and remember that those are controlled by the cap and the floor. With no floor, some teams won't be "forced" to spend more. And with no cap, teams won't be limited, either -- and that applies to each season individually and to seasons close together (with a cap, you might spend more one season, but you will have less available to spend in the next few seasons).


http://content.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/salaries/totalpayroll.aspx?year=2009

2009 season

New York Giants $ 137,638,866
Miami Dolphins $ 126,855,921
Houston Texans $ 122,573,860
New Orleans Saints $ 121,552,424
Chicago Bears $ 120,672,110
New York Jets $ 120,168,770
Pittsburgh Steelers $ 119,604,460
Arizona Cardinals $ 116,701,866
San Diego Chargers $ 115,264,155
Green Bay Packers $ 114,597,569
Carolina Panthers $ 112,738,038
Buffalo Bills $ 111,956,066
Oakland Raiders $ 111,527,250
Baltimore Ravens $ 109,200,157
Tennessee Titans $ 109,025,090
San Francisco 49ers $ 107,746,232
Washington Commanders $ 105,049,071
Jacksonville Jaguars $ 103,558,989
Philadelphia Eagles $ 102,490,815
Denver Broncos $ 102,043,735
Indianapolis Colts $ 101,203,115
Minnesota Vikings $ 99,806,040
New England Patriots $ 97,565,413
Detroit Lions $ 95,963,320
Atlanta Falcons $ 95,492,002
Cincinnati Bengals $ 94,591,308
Cleveland Browns $ 93,932,182
Dallas Cowboys $ 90,650,939
Seattle Seahawks $ 89,075,820
Tampa Bay Buccaneers $ 84,501,322
Kansas City Chiefs $ 83,187,156
St. Louis Rams $ 62,384,821


http://content.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/salaries/totalpayroll.aspx?year=2008

2008 season

Oakland Raiders $ 152,389,371
Dallas Cowboys $ 146,401,600
Minnesota Vikings $ 133,354,045
Cleveland Browns $ 131,916,300
New Orleans Saints $ 131,531,820
Pittsburgh Steelers $ 128,815,061
Tennessee Titans $ 126,017,443
Arizona Cardinals $ 122,110,110
Jacksonville Jaguars $ 122,109,207
Chicago Bears $ 120,065,819
San Francisco 49ers $ 118,766,239
New York Jets $ 116,910,097
St. Louis Rams $ 116,677,660
New York Giants $ 115,816,180
Miami Dolphins $ 114,649,660
Buffalo Bills $ 113,364,927
Carolina Panthers $ 112,114,711
Washington Commanders $ 111,963,684
San Diego Chargers $ 111,813,340
Cincinnati Bengals $ 109,727,880
Philadelphia Eagles $ 109,557,398
Houston Texans $ 108,445,418
Tampa Bay Buccaneers $ 104,329,311
Seattle Seahawks $ 102,985,710
Atlanta Falcons $ 96,391,525
Detroit Lions $ 95,827,117
Denver Broncos $ 95,599,778
Green Bay Packers $ 94,018,300
Indianapolis Colts $ 93,373,915
New England Patriots $ 92,734,120
Baltimore Ravens $ 90,713,965
Kansas City Chiefs $ 83,623,776


http://content.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/salaries/totalpayroll.aspx?year=2007

2007 season

Washington Commanders $ 123,408,019
New England Patriots $ 117,963,182
New Orleans Saints $ 110,417,011
Buffalo Bills $ 108,875,882
Kansas City Chiefs $ 108,482,459
Dallas Cowboys $ 107,376,072
San Francisco 49ers $ 106,877,077
Detroit Lions $ 106,731,910
Pittsburgh Steelers $ 106,293,914
Baltimore Ravens $ 104,997,764
Chicago Bears $ 104,151,969
Indianapolis Colts $ 102,786,398
San Diego Chargers $ 102,460,685
Cleveland Browns $ 102,394,922
Denver Broncos $ 102,152,344
Philadelphia Eagles $ 100,807,309
St. Louis Rams $ 100,340,467
New York Jets $ 99,971,535
Seattle Seahawks $ 99,567,188
Arizona Cardinals $ 98,694,817
Cincinnati Bengals $ 98,529,188
Houston Texans $ 98,154,775
Tampa Bay Buccaneers $ 98,105,565
Green Bay Packers $ 97,653,823
Tennessee Titans $ 97,081,153
Jacksonville Jaguars $ 94,030,775
Carolina Panthers $ 93,944,262
Miami Dolphins $ 92,573,123
Minnesota Vikings $ 92,161,921
Oakland Raiders $ 90,869,865
Atlanta Falcons $ 83,845,371
New York Giants $ 75,755,388


http://content.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/salaries/totalpayroll.aspx?year=2006

2006 season

Indianapolis Colts $ 131,189,741
Minnesota Vikings $ 125,025,909
Dallas Cowboys $ 113,595,442
Cincinnati Bengals $ 113,000,016
Baltimore Ravens $ 111,596,746
Washington Commanders $ 110,340,460
Houston Texans $ 108,675,881
New York Giants $ 108,196,454
Seattle Seahawks $ 107,449,932
Carolina Panthers $ 106,554,612
Arizona Cardinals $ 105,685,931
New England Patriots $ 105,110,495
Atlanta Falcons $ 105,072,221
Philadelphia Eagles $ 104,846,458
St. Louis Rams $ 104,720,286
Detroit Lions $ 100,994,425
San Diego Chargers $ 99,782,506
Green Bay Packers $ 98,561,315
Jacksonville Jaguars $ 97,664,503
Miami Dolphins $ 97,660,204
San Francisco 49ers $ 95,134,927
Denver Broncos $ 94,392,713
Pittsburgh Steelers $ 94,038,001
Chicago Bears $ 91,648,722
New Orleans Saints $ 91,021,286
Tennessee Titans $ 89,820,780
Cleveland Browns $ 89,196,326
New York Jets $ 86,145,839
Kansas City Chiefs $ 81,748,009
Buffalo Bills $ 80,924,316
Tampa Bay Buccaneers $ 78,779,519
Oakland Raiders $ 71,822,140


Now imagine the range being spread out even more, and the same teams always near the top and the same teams always near the bottom.

I wouldn't mind that system, because I know the Cowboys would always be near the top, but it's probably not best for all 32 teams.

 

[sonnyboy]

I wouldn't mind that system, because I know the Cowboys would always be near the top, but it's probably not best for all 32 teams.

Neither would I! And that's why I'd like this system long term.

But I don't want the NFL to morph into a system like MLB has with true haves and have nots.
That's not good long term for the competitive balance and credibility of the league.

I want our Cowboys to have a reasonable competitive advantage. I have no interest in seeing a system where the Cowboys have a payroll twice that of the lowest team year in and year out.

I was thinking something like 20-25% above the average and perhaps 35-40% greater than the lowest.

This is some real good info you posted here. But you know as well as I that the numbers are skewed a good bit based on the amount of bonus dollars handed out in a given year.

Here's my question for you:
Do you really think the Jones and Snyders of the league will lose 10, 20, 30 mil or more a year?
Don't you believe they will still run their teams like a business and limit annual payroll to turn a profit?

I know of no MLB teams who run an annual loss. They all run their teams to turn a profit.

 

[sonnyboy]

Maybe within 20 percent, but a team 20 percent higher than the average is spending a lot more than a team 20 percent below the average. (If the average is, say, $120 million, that's a range of $96 million to $144 million -- one team is spending 50 percent more than the other.)


I missed this. It just happens to be very close to what I think would happen and would like to see.

$96-$144 works for me.

Something else to consider and that's that the actual impact of FA in football is far less than it is in baseball. Especially whit NFL players hitting FA in year 7.

A 30yr old Howard, Utley, Jeter has a lot more value than a 30yr old Smith or Rice.

You can build a juggernaut baseball team signing a bunch of 30yr old superstars to mega 6yr deals.

Can't do that in the NFL. Youth rules. Highest NFL payroll teams will still have an advantage. It will just be much smaller.

 

[AdamJT13]

Maybe within 20 percent, but a team 20 percent higher than the average is spending a lot more than a team 20 percent below the average. (If the average is, say, $120 million, that's a range of $96 million to $144 million -- one team is spending 50 percent more than the other.)


I missed this. It just happens to be very close to what I think would happen and would like to see.

$96-$144 works for me.

But that's just "most" teams. The cheap teams could easily be around $50 million or $60 million -- maybe less in some seasons -- and the richer teams could be closer to $200 million in some seasons, if not more.

Do you really think the Jones and Snyders of the league will lose 10, 20, 30 mil or more a year?
Don't you believe they will still run their teams like a business and limit annual payroll to turn a profit?

If teams can spend whatever they want, the richer owners will find ways to increase their unshared revenues in order to spend more. They don't share every dollar they make. And I have no doubt that some owners would be willing to lose money over the short haul if it gave them a better chance of winning the Super Bowl.

 

[sonnyboy]

But that's just "most" teams. The cheap teams could easily be around $50 million or $60 million -- maybe less in some seasons -- and the richer teams could be closer to $200 million in some seasons, if not more.




If teams can spend whatever they want, the richer owners will find ways to increase their unshared revenues in order to spend more. They don't share every dollar they make. And I have no doubt that some owners would be willing to lose money over the short haul if it gave them a better chance of winning the Super Bowl.

Good answer. But I still don't think there would be as large a gap from top to bottom as you're suggesting.
Although I know you know better than I.

It would be interesting to know how much each team received in shared revs. The TV and merchandising dollars that I believe get spilt up evenly.
And how much each team generated in non-shared revs.