How would the addition of a 17th game impact the players salaries, and in turn impact the cap?

[Tuco]

On 3/31/2021 at 9:59 PM, Rew said:

If I'm referencing the correct and final revision of the CBA, the money for the extra checks comes out of the performance bonus pool and does not count against the cap at all (sort of). This means there are no modifications to the cap.

 

Keep in mind I'm just a dude reading publicly available material, but here's my best interpretation of the CBA.  Money that is determined once, but paid out over multiple checks does not get increased (but the divisor changes from 17 to 18).  Money that is calculated on a per game basis results in an increase (meaning an extra check).  As an example, if a player has a $1.7M roster bonus based on opening day roster that is paid out over 17 checks their game checks will go from 17 x $100k checks to 18 x $94.4k checks.  However if a player has a $100k roster bonus per game active, they will receive a 18 x $100k checks, assuming they were on the roster for each game.  This means that the amount extra a player receives is dependent upon the structure of the contract.  For a team with the same roster throughout the season, this means there is no cap implication.  However, if a team used 1 player for 9 weeks and a different player for 9 weeks to replace them it is possible they would end up having extra salary count against the cap.  (Bc neither player is restricted by the 17 week limit).

 

I didn't spend enough time to find out if seasonal performance based payments are modified, but the literal interpretation would be "get 12 sacks over the course of the season" stays the same but "average 100 rushing yards per game calculated by total yards divided by number of games active" would require an additional 100 yards over the season to achieve the bonus.

 

I don't have enough experience to estimate how much of contracts overall is the fixed type vs the per game type.  Remember, all of the above could be wrong if the available cba I found is not the approved version.

 

Yeah there's a lot of fine print in that section for sure. One thing I might add (as another who is just reading publicly available material), it looks as though the extra game check only applies to players who signed their contract prior to the latest CBA signing in February of 2020. I guess the idea is anybody who signed a contract after that date had to be aware the change to 17 games was very likely and therefore signed their contract with that knowledge.

 

There's also some other stuff further down about if the fund where the extra game check money should come from isn't enough plus something about whether the actual player cost is above (or maybe below I don't remember, lol) the 48.5% or whatever it is then teams can apply for a cap credit of some sort which can be spread over 3 years at the team's discretion. Or some other stuff along those lines. That part got really technical so I figured I'd just read about it if and when it happens, LOL.

[Simon Says]

Wasn't this all worked out when the CBA was approved,a year ago? I believe the players will receive a higher portion of revenue,48,then a bump to 48.5%? The 2021 cap was obviously affected by The Pandemic....2022 cap will benefit from the additional income, especially media dollars.

[GunnerBill]

The game check from the 17th game does not count against the cap for contracts signed before Feb 2020 is my understanding. That money is basically paid by the league rather than the teams.

[Simon Says]

This explains some of the details;

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/31159686/nfl-moves-17-game-regular-season-2021-means-teams-players-revenue-fans%3fplatform=amp

Edited April 3, 2021 by Georgie

[Don Otreply]

I will openly admit to not reading all the posts in this thread...

 

My take on this is that the addition of a 17th game is old news to the teams and players, being all the particulars would have to have been  worked out previous to an open announcement, and this change going forward, so, any and all adjustments to cap/salaries should there be any, have already been agreed to, what ever those possible changes might be. So, not really news at all, imo. 
 

What may be worth chatting about is the inevitability of the 18th game being added, because we all know  that is gonna happen, and it will be the next excuse/reason to renegotiate the  TV/ broadcast contracts...💰 💰💰💰💰💰💰💰💰💰it will happen inside the next five years, bank on it. 

[HOUSE]

A longer season means less time for mock draft planning

 

This will lead to mock draft mistakes....

[Tuco]

2 hours ago, Don Otreply said:

I will openly admit to not reading all the posts in this thread...

 

My take on this is that the addition of a 17th game is old news to the teams and players, being all the particulars would have to have been  worked out previous to an open announcement, and this change going forward, so, any and all adjustments to cap/salaries should there be any, have already been agreed to, what ever those possible changes might be. So, not really news at all, imo. 
 

What may be worth chatting about is the inevitability of the 18th game being added, because we all know  that is gonna happen, and it will be the next excuse/reason to renegotiate the  TV/ broadcast contracts...💰 💰💰💰💰💰💰💰💰💰it will happen inside the next five years, bank on it. 

 

Well the current CBA that runs through 2030 strictly forbids going to an 18 game schedule. Or, to put it another way, has already been agreed (not) to. So yes it is possible for it to happen in 5 years, but only if both the players and owners want it to.

[ngbills]

+++ to both. That has been the discussion all along. 

[Don Otreply]

37 minutes ago, Tuco said:

 

Well the current CBA that runs through 2030 strictly forbids going to an 18 game schedule. Or, to put it another way, has already been agreed (not) to. So yes it is possible for it to happen in 5 years, but only if both the players and owners want it to.

I see, the remedy to this quandary is more money 💰 and I do think that is very doable, you know, a few million here a few million there, so to speak, will likely get er done... 😁

 

oh, and by the way, have you had the opportunity to use the line, “ you know nothing of Tuco”  asking for a friend... 😁👍 awesome character, awesome portrayal by, Eli Wallach. 

[Tuco]

6 hours ago, Don Otreply said:

I see, the remedy to this quandary is more money 💰 and I do think that is very doable, you know, a few million here a few million there, so to speak, will likely get er done... 😁

 

oh, and by the way, have you had the opportunity to use the line, “ you know nothing of Tuco”  asking for a friend... 😁👍 awesome character, awesome portrayal by, Eli Wallach. 

Yeah I use that line all the time. Just like I use the line, "you are the son of a thousand fathers, every one a bastard just like you."

 

Love that movie.

[machine gun kelly]

14 hours ago, HOUSE said:

A longer season means less time for mock draft planning

 

This will lead to mock draft mistakes....

 

[Rochesterfan]

21 hours ago, Don Otreply said:

 

What may be worth chatting about is the inevitability of the 18th game being added, because we all know  that is gonna happen, and it will be the next excuse/reason to renegotiate the  TV/ broadcast contracts...💰 💰💰💰💰💰💰💰💰💰it will happen inside the next five years, bank on it. 

 

I would not expect an 18th game for quite a while.  They specifically bargained in this CBA for a 17th game to come about and forbid an 18th game.  
 

What cracks me up is players that agreed to the CBA then complaining about the additional game - like it was some kind of surprise.

 

I could see in 5 years the Players and the League looking at 18 games and trying to work out a deal for 1 more game, one less preseason game, an additional bye, a 50/50 revenue split, a larger roster/PS call up, and a Super Bowl locked into Presidents’ Day weekend to ensure the following Monday is off - allowing it to be an even bigger party.

 

My real guess is we are looking at 10 years and a big part of the negotiations to get this approved.

[Don Otreply]

4 minutes ago, Rochesterfan said:

 

I would not expect an 18th game for quite a while.  They specifically bargained in this CBA for a 17th game to come about and forbid an 18th game.  
 

What cracks me up is players that agreed to the CBA then complaining about the additional game - like it was some kind of surprise.

 

I could see in 5 years the Players and the League looking at 18 games and trying to work out a deal for 1 more game, one less preseason game, an additional bye, a 50/50 revenue split, a larger roster/PS call up, and a Super Bowl locked into Presidents’ Day weekend to ensure the following Monday is off - allowing it to be an even bigger party.

 

My real guess is we are looking at 10 years and a big part of the negotiations to get this approved.

Could be so, but money and those additional items could make it happen... never can tell, 

[GunnerBill]

11 hours ago, Rochesterfan said:

 

I would not expect an 18th game for quite a while.  They specifically bargained in this CBA for a 17th game to come about and forbid an 18th game.  
 

What cracks me up is players that agreed to the CBA then complaining about the additional game - like it was some kind of surprise.

 

I could see in 5 years the Players and the League looking at 18 games and trying to work out a deal for 1 more game, one less preseason game, an additional bye, a 50/50 revenue split, a larger roster/PS call up, and a Super Bowl locked into Presidents’ Day weekend to ensure the following Monday is off - allowing it to be an even bigger party.

 

My real guess is we are looking at 10 years and a big part of the negotiations to get this approved.

 

Agree. Won't happen in this CBA's lifetime because it was a specific negotiating demand of the players in the 17 game discussion. The league accepted a 10 year block on game 18. 

 

It will, I would imagine, be the centre piece of the next CBA negotiations. 

[Spiderweb]

On 3/29/2021 at 8:56 PM, HankBulloughMellencamp said:

 

I agree, and have often wondered how this would be handled.  Perhaps it's just curiosity after working in supervision in unionized environments for many years.  And now that it's a reality, I am interested to see what gives.

 

The players assume all of the risks associated with playing the extra game.  The owners are obviously doing this for only one rea$on... an excuse to generate more TV rights fee$, ticket sale$ & ad revenue$ at regular season prices!  Not merely, as Rog has suggested, a way to put forth "a higher quality product that fans have demanded" in place of four uninspired preseason games.  And it certainly isn't in the players' best interests safety-wise.

 

I had always assumed that the players would get paid an additional 1/17 of their contracted salary for the extra game (as I'd think the union would argue).  And I'd wager that the owners would be happy to pay that fair sum, since they are taking in more money from every angle by having the extra game for each team.  I'd be shocked if this isn't the case. And if not, Demaurice Smith should be fired.

 

Now we will need to recalculate what actually IS a good statistical season... is 1,000 yards rushing or receiving a big deal anymore? (59 yards a game?)

The significance of 1000 yard rushing season was already diluted considerably when the NFL went from a 14 game season to a 16 game season. My father would argue that happens when the NFL went from 12 to 14 games. So yes, it dilutes it further. The only current factor that still supports it being a milestone is that it is a passing league nowadays so carries are down overall. 

[PromoTheRobot]

 

 

[machine gun kelly]

On 4/5/2021 at 1:51 AM, GunnerBill said:

 

Agree. Won't happen in this CBA's lifetime because it was a specific negotiating demand of the players in the 17 game discussion. The league accepted a 10 year block on game 18. 

 

It will, I would imagine, be the centre piece of the next CBA negotiations. 

 

They’d have to offer a monster carrot before it happens in this CBA.  It will happen eventually whether anyone likes it or not.  Not me advocating, but just an inevitable.