Chris Whalen’s Random Life

I have been asked a few times to repost my content on the salary cap etc. Embedded in there is a link to how Peter King explained the uncapped year. The bottom line is that for the top 8 teams in the playoffs last year, they can only sign free agent players equivalent to the salary of players they lose. So in effect if a team loses $10MM in free agents, that top 8 team could only sign $10MM in new free agents. Over and above that, while there will be no ceiling on spending for the other teams, there is also no floor. Small market teams may cut payroll since there will be at least $10MM less in revenue sharing from those teams. For one year they will pocket far more cash. They do not have to share, get money from the richest teams, and have no minimum payroll to maintain. The other part is that if teams, like Washington, spend way overboard, when the cap, and there will be one, is renegotiated they will have to cut players or contracts to get under. For the fear they will spend a ton of money for one year, the reality is that few players will take a one year deal, they want more security than that. See the Vince Wilfork attitude on being franchised, essentially a high one year deal. I have copied below the rest of my prior post as well as the effect of a longer season, something the owners want for sure…..

Let’s take a look at the rumored expansion of the league from 16 to 17-18 games and the potential elimination of pre-season games. The recent rash of pre-season injuries that will greatly affect the upcoming season certainly have given fuel to the fire that the pre-season is at least 2 games too long. 17-18 games is a long time to try to keep a roster of 53 players healthy enough to have a competitive season. It would seem natural that while the additional games would add revenue to the NFL owners, let’s keep in mind that regular season revenues are shared amongst all 32 teams, pre-season and playoff revenues are not. This actually will add to the pool of revenue that the salary cap is figured off of. One would imagine that an expansion of the schedule should mean an expansion of the rosters and therefore the salary cap. Perhaps an extension of 5-8 players and another $5 million. More jobs, more players union members, more overall revenue but yet a cut in unshared revenue for owners, so actually a decrease in overall team non-shared revenue but increase in overall due to better attendance in regular season v. pre-season games.

This will actually mean more revenue for small market teams. Something that is a sticking point that actually was one of the reasons the NFL recently cancelled their agreement with the NFLPA and led to all the speculation of an uncapped year. An uncapped year is actually not an open license to the large market teams to spend anything they can and is actually restrictive and confining of the players. Peter King of SI.com does the best job of explaining it…

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/writers/peter_king/05/20/react/index.html

So let’s back up a bit. The players initial reaction has been that a 17-18 game regular season is just too long. The wear and tear on the human body just can’t take it (an NFL game is the equivalent of something like 100 car crashes per player each week). I agree with that. My first blush reaction was that this was something Commissioner Goodell came up with as a negotiating point that he could take away in exchange for keeping the salary cap or some other key point as the current labor deal is renegotiated…

But then as you think of it this may actually be in the best interest of both parties. Overall the US appetite for the NFL seems insatiable, so little danger of overexposure. But if you break down what adding one or two additional regular season games SHOULD mean, it starts to make more sense. The owners get a larger pool of shared revenue, good news for the smaller market teams, and they get the additional incremental revenue they pull in for each game anyway (parking etc.). The players should get a larger salary cap and more roster spots/members. Now while the latter is pure conjecture,  I a scenario where that doesn’t make sense partially in exchange for adding more games. Perhaps a second bye week as well but that may be taking it too far.

If you look deeper, adding more games is just not simply an NFL ploy to get more revenue, it should benefit both sides. The players also are looking for more guaranteed income. The basic argument is that the average person has their peak personal income level some where in their 50s, NFL players have it in their 20s and usually have a declining personal income level the older they get. Couple that with the average NFL career being less than one year now and you can see the point. Very few guys last long enough to get to the 4 year mark, the minimum for being eligible for the NFLPA pension. (we can talk later about retirement benefits and how badly alumni are treated, see previous posts of mine).

I would not be surprised if an increase of games would lead to a larger salary cap, more roster spots, and potentially a decrease in the number of years before a player can become a free agent ( I think the number right now is 3 years).

Love to get your thoughts on the proposed expansion….