The salary cap

Flamma

Well-Known Member
Messages
21,794
Reaction score
18,663
What was it truly designed for. Some would like to believe parity. Others would like to believe it controls the peak amount of money one player that one position can receive. There is not one contract that is absolutely 100% guaranteed. Everyone can be manipulated. With that being said. Salary cap is and never will be an issue for the franchises. Some people actually believe it was designed to control the amount of money that a player can actually receive as an excuse.I myself have never seen the franchise not sign a player that they wanted because of the Space.

In my opinion the salary cap was meant to keep player salaries down for the owners. That was its true intent. They didn't want runaway contracts like you see in baseball. Parity is the excuse. You have to be willfully ignorant to believe parity was the intent.
 

FuzzyLumpkins

The Boognish
Messages
35,684
Reaction score
27,237
What was it truly designed for. Some would like to believe parity. Others would like to believe it controls the peak amount of money one player that one position can receive. There is not one contract that is absolutely 100% guaranteed. Everyone can be manipulated. With that being said. Salary cap is and never will be an issue for the franchises. Some people actually believe it was designed to control the amount of money that a player can actually receive as an excuse.I myself have never seen the franchise not sign a player that they wanted because of the Space.

All salary caps are intended to cap the price of labor for firms within a market. It's an old tool that is only allowed under a CBA.

All this other crap you are mentioning is window dressing.
 

gjkoeppen

Well-Known Member
Messages
7,703
Reaction score
3,327
All salary caps are intended to cap the price of labor for firms within a market. It's an old tool that is only allowed under a CBA.

All this other crap you are mentioning is window dressing.





The cap in the NFL was started for one reason. To stop a couple of teams being able to outspend all the other teams because there were billionaires. The cap just leveled the playing field so those teams could just outspend all the other teams. A side issue is it was supposed to try to keep salaries down but we've seen that really hasn't happened.
.
.
 

Redball Express

All Aboard!!!
Messages
16,253
Reaction score
12,758
Even the small market protection and parity points really go back to protecting revenue because the more competitive the league is, the healthier it is, and the more overall revenue there is. It's all about keeping the league healthy, competitive and profitable.
I always thought the salary cap was to protect the players vs. the owners and for the owners to protect themselves from each other.

The players created their union to get a negotiating leverage with the owners who had way more professional advisors than the players ever could without a union.

The owners wanted a union becuz owners would be concerned about things like strikes and walkouts over money disputes.

So I do not see one as being overly out of line.

And yes..revenue for the smaller markets has been wisely redirected to keep it all profitable.

The biggest Earth shaker has been Free Agency. That's another topic all together.
 

Hoofbite

Well-Known Member
Messages
40,570
Reaction score
11,124
What was it truly designed for. Some would like to believe parity. Others would like to believe it controls the peak amount of money one player that one position can receive. There is not one contract that is absolutely 100% guaranteed. Everyone can be manipulated. With that being said. Salary cap is and never will be an issue for the franchises. Some people actually believe it was designed to control the amount of money that a player can actually receive as an excuse.I myself have never seen the franchise not sign a player that they wanted because of the Space.

Signings can always work if you're willing to get creative. Players frequently get cut because of cap space.

To suggest that the cap is non-influential is borderline delusional.
 

buybuydandavis

Well-Known Member
Messages
23,699
Reaction score
20,776
Evaluate leaguewide competition during the modern professional football era before and after 1994. If anyone believes afterwards parity was not firmly introduced when the current salary cap and free agency system began, nothing will convince them otherwise.

There is always the failsafe fallback counter-comment. "PATRIOTS!!!" :rolleyes:

With a cap on players, the competitive edge goes to coaching.
 

buybuydandavis

Well-Known Member
Messages
23,699
Reaction score
20,776
The salary cap was and remains primarily to protect the owners and their lust for ever increasing revenue.

If you’re a person who typically sides with ownership in money squabbles, think of things this way...If every owner in the NFL was replaced by another owner, would the game be the same? Of course. If every current NFL player was cut and replaced, would the game be the same? No way.

Owning an NFL team is one of the lowest risks there is. The current pandemic threatens that a little, but the owners will be fine. The players on the other hand put their physical bodies on the line for years. I think fans too often overvalue the owners’ risks and undervalue the risks the players have.

The salary cap is a gift to the owners. Plain and simple.

Not just a gift. It's there to make a more competitive league, and prevent cheapo owners from totally freeriding on the league. Every owner has to put at least so much into the kitty.
 

FuzzyLumpkins

The Boognish
Messages
35,684
Reaction score
27,237
The cap in the NFL was started for one reason. To stop a couple of teams being able to outspend all the other teams because there were billionaires. The cap just leveled the playing field so those teams could just outspend all the other teams. A side issue is it was supposed to try to keep salaries down but we've seen that really hasn't happened.
.
.

nonsense. Jerry Jones spearheaded the move. He is the one team that could outspend the others. It was all about capping labor costs.

And it did limit contracts. The Cowboys would have a $300m roster salary as would a couple of other teams
 

gjkoeppen

Well-Known Member
Messages
7,703
Reaction score
3,327
nonsense. Jerry Jones spearheaded the move. He is the one team that could outspend the others. It was all about capping labor costs.

And it did limit contracts. The Cowboys would have a $300m roster salary as would a couple of other teams





You are 100% wrong. The cap started because of the noise the packers and browns made because of the spending Jones was making creating the Super Bowl team of the 90's. They convinced enough of the other owners that there had to be a way to keep owners like Jones from being able to outspend the other owners.
.
.
 

CowboyoWales

Well-Known Member
Messages
5,575
Reaction score
4,028
The salary cap was and remains primarily to protect the owners and their lust for ever increasing revenue.

If you’re a person who typically sides with ownership in money squabbles, think of things this way...If every owner in the NFL was replaced by another owner, would the game be the same? Of course. If every current NFL player was cut and replaced, would the game be the same? No way.

Owning an NFL team is one of the lowest risks there is. The current pandemic threatens that a little, but the owners will be fine. The players on the other hand put their physical bodies on the line for years. I think fans too often overvalue the owners’ risks and undervalue the risks the players have.

The salary cap is a gift to the owners. Plain and simple.

Dead right, it was an owners agreement on a set figure to spend to limit outgoings and increase their personal profits for themselves.

Its a cartel.
 

OmerV

Well-Known Member
Messages
25,860
Reaction score
22,387
CowboysZone ULTIMATE Fan
I always thought the salary cap was to protect the players vs. the owners and for the owners to protect themselves from each other.

The players created their union to get a negotiating leverage with the owners who had way more professional advisors than the players ever could without a union.

The owners wanted a union becuz owners would be concerned about things like strikes and walkouts over money disputes.

So I do not see one as being overly out of line.

And yes..revenue for the smaller markets has been wisely redirected to keep it all profitable.

The biggest Earth shaker has been Free Agency. That's another topic all together.
The cap wasn't designed to protect the players - the players would make more if bidding for their services was unharnessed rather than having a cap on how much the teams can spend - it was designed to protect the league so the league can exist and both the players and owners can make money. As for protecting owners from owners, the cap does do that, and the reason that matters is that the league needs all owners and teams to be able to compete to have a viable league - which, again, goes back to revenue. If the league were to fail or dry up to only a few teams with the deepest pockets, the revenue stream would dry up.

A discussion about unions is separate from a discussion about the salary cap. That's not so say the salary cap isn't part of what is negotiated between the unions and the owners, but the unions don't just exist for that reason. Player safety issues, ensuring pensions, good work conditions and fair contracts, and handling player grievances are, among other things, part of the role of the union.
 

Whirlwin

Cowboy , It’s a way of life.
Messages
23,977
Reaction score
16,255
CowboysZone DIEHARD Fan
Signings can always work if you're willing to get creative. Players frequently get cut because of cap space.

To suggest that the cap is non-influential is borderline delusional.
But to think it is devastating as some make it out to be is also delusional.
 

Whirlwin

Cowboy , It’s a way of life.
Messages
23,977
Reaction score
16,255
CowboysZone DIEHARD Fan
All salary caps are intended to cap the price of labor for firms within a market. It's an old tool that is only allowed under a CBA.

All this other crap you are mentioning is window dressing.
Exactly. Totally agree
 

gjkoeppen

Well-Known Member
Messages
7,703
Reaction score
3,327
Dead right, it was an owners agreement on a set figure to spend to limit outgoings and increase their personal profits for themselves.

Its a cartel.




First off all for profit businesses are there to make money for their owners. Whether it's a single owner, a group of owners or stockholders. We do live in a free enterprise capitalistic society and as such profit IS NOT a dirty word. Second it's the CBA that sets the percentage of the revenues created by the league that the owners get PRIOR to all the expenditures they are responsible to pay for other than the players salaries that come out of their percentage of the revenue. Now the owners do a very good job of making sure that the league keeps generating more and higher forms of income streams that the players also enjoy those increases as their percentage keeps rising also. Just about every business's biggest cost is employee costs and that varies from around 40 - 45% of their revenue but the players alone take up 48% of the league revenue and that doesn't include all of the people other than players employed by the league and each team. Adding all of those the leagues employee costs are 51% of their revenue or at least 6% more than other businesses. Then there are all of the other expenses that the teams pick up that doesn't cost the players a dime but enjoy the benefits from them. Things like free travel to and back from away games and all the food they eat while there and the hotels they sleep in while there. The doctors and trainers the team provides. And the list keeps going on and on that those millionaires don't have to pay for that the owners do pay for. Before the cap players weren't guaranteed any amount of the profit generated by the league and that revenue was split up equally among the owners and they decided how much to spend on players. Now the cap guarantees the players 48% of the revenue created by the league.
.
.
 

FuzzyLumpkins

The Boognish
Messages
35,684
Reaction score
27,237
You are 100% wrong. The cap started because of the noise the packers and browns made because of the spending Jones was making creating the Super Bowl team of the 90's. They convinced enough of the other owners that there had to be a way to keep owners like Jones from being able to outspend the other owners.
.
.

https://www.pressboxdfw.com/jones-wanted-salary-cap-now-hes-suffering-with-it/

this article contradicts your claim. Jerry wanted the cap.

now you support your assertion. I won't hold my breath.

Really it shouldn't be hard to figure out. The NFL wanted a cap right after plan b fa was ruled illegal by scotus and they were looking down the barrel of unrestricted free agency. Price fixing and caps is typical behavior of trusts and monopolies. It's why they are illegal without a cba in the first place.
 
Last edited:

FuzzyLumpkins

The Boognish
Messages
35,684
Reaction score
27,237
You are 100% wrong. The cap started because of the noise the packers and browns made because of the spending Jones was making creating the Super Bowl team of the 90's. They convinced enough of the other owners that there had to be a way to keep owners like Jones from being able to outspend the other owners.
.
.

And further, GB signing Reggie White to a massive contract was a major cause for the NFL to desire a cap.I

Talk about 100% wrong #irony
 

gjkoeppen

Well-Known Member
Messages
7,703
Reaction score
3,327
https://www.pressboxdfw.com/jones-wanted-salary-cap-now-hes-suffering-with-it/

this article contradicts your claim. Jerry wanted the cap.

now you support your assertion. I won't hold my breath.

Really it shouldn't be hard to figure out. The NFL wanted a cap right after plan b fa was ruled illegal by scotus and they were looking down the barrel of unrestricted free agency. Price fixing and caps is typical behavior of trusts and monopolies. It's why they are illegal without a cba in the first place.




When I can find again the article from just after the cap was voted on where Jones stated he voted for the cap because being a relatively new owner he would vote with the majority so he wouldn't alienate other older owners. If Jones was so worried about cost controls at the time why did he pay many of his backups starting pay type money and start to sign free agents, oh ya that started before the cap, to more money than the other teams would bid for? If he was so concerned with cost controls he didn't have to spend like that. I'm not saying that in hind site in your article from last year he has changed his mind on the cap but he also had said shortly after the cap was voted on that he would vote with the majority so he wouldn't alienate other owners. Also that cost control ended up putting the Cowboys in a very bad disadvantage for 20 years because of how he spent to make that Super Bowl winning team of the 90's.

BTW, most trusts don't have any kind of outside cost controls because as trusts they are setup as a means of handling the money created by or for the trusts. Monopolies are illegal, trusts are not. A trust is just a legal way to control and/or dispense money in that trust. They don't need any outside approval to do that. As long as the money in a trust is created legally there are no outside approval needed and the executor of the trust can dispense the money how he see fit according all conditions of the trust. An example is a wealthy person dies and leaves his money in a trust for a minor relative and sets up rules that state when that person can get that money. The trust may say not until the age of 25 but also could say that if that minor becomes destitute the executor can release some or all of it to that person but the executor decides which or either. Or that same wealthy person may have set up that trust just saying then the executor will decide when the person is mature enough to handle the money he can release it.
.
.
 

gjkoeppen

Well-Known Member
Messages
7,703
Reaction score
3,327
lol this nonsense too?





You obviously know very little of the history of the Cowboys when the cap started. When the cap started the Cowboys had the highest player payroll in the league. In order to get under the cap the Cowboys had to release some players that put money in the dead money portion of the cap. The Cowboys also had to renegotiate several contracts into longer contracts putting large chuncks of money as bonuses paid in the later years that eventually those players never say the end of those contracts and again moving those bonus payment to the dead money thus drastically reducing the money they had to use to sign players. Because of all of that dead money and reduced caps space every year the Cowboys had to renegotiate more contracts that ended up putting more money as dead money. They had to do this every year just to get enough cap space to sign a couple of their stars and their draft picks. This vicious cycle went on for 20 years until Stephen finally stopped renegotiating contracts and let a couple of their players walk in free agency and signed cheaper replacements to try and eventually get rid of that killing dead money. There will always be some dead money but not the crippling dead money the Cowboys suffered through for 20 years that started originally from the precap salaries.
.
.
 
Top