NFL owners: Cap not absolutely necessary

[buffalobillsfootball]

http://www.mlive.com/business/ambizdaily/b...55207283290.xml

 

NFL owners: Cap not absolutely necessary

Monday, April 14, 2008

Daniel Kaplan and Liz Mullen - Business First

 

Could National Football League owners actually be considering life without a salary cap?

 

Facing labor uncertainty and rising costs, league officials and owners claim for the first time in nearly two decades to be thinking about such a scenario.

 

Long the foundation for the NFL's economic and popular growth, the salary cap is still the business system the league prefers, even if the union, as it maintains, does not. But while the cap was considered sacred in the past, now some owners - and even Commissioner Roger Goodell - are publicly leaving open the possibility of a future without a cap.

 

"Analysis that we are going through right now indicates that it is difficult for our clubs to stay up with what we have to pay the players," Goodell told reporters last week at the league's annual meeting in Palm Beach, Fla. "There are a lot of owners that aren't concerned about an uncapped season from that standpoint because the salary cap is so high right now.

 

"We will continue to look and make sure we can find a system that works, and my presumption is that there may be some kind of salary cap, there may not be," he added. The league also has a salary floor that is at least 85 percent of the cap.

 

John York, the San Francisco 49ers owner, called a cap "not absolutely necessary," though like Goodell, he prefaced his comment by saying he preferred one.

 

Fear of an uncapped season, in part, drove the owners in 2006 to cut a new labor deal that they now say is not economically feasible. Under the collective-bargaining agreement, the last year of the deal is uncapped, which usually gives the owners a great urgency to renew well in advance of that final season. Seen in that light, Goodell's remarks could be a negotiating strategy to convince the union the league is no longer afraid of a future without a cap.

 

NFLPA Executive Director Gene Upshaw responded in an e-mail, "I never wanted a cap in the first place. And I never will try to sell the players on one again."

 

Jeff Pash, the league's general counsel who is handling labor talks, said, "If I were the union, I would say that, too. That is the right pressure point to try to urge. If the union said 'no problem if we go to an uncapped year, we will agree to do a cap at some point,' that would change the dynamic. ... The union feels as if the uncapped year is a big pressure point. I don't know if that is right or not."

 

The Buffalo Bills declined to comment, citing a request from league officials that comments on the talks emanate only from the NFL.

 

Talk about life without a cap emerges as the league's labor arm, the Management Council Executive Committee, has been for several months mapping out various options for new labor arrangements, including one without a cap.

 

The league and union are sparring over the current collective-bargaining agreement, which owners -- including Ralph Wilson of the Buffalo Bills -- have denounced as disproportionately favoring the players. The owners can opt out of the deal on or before Nov. 8, which means 2010 would become the last year and one without a cap.

 

For that reason, some industry experts view the NFL's newfound public acceptance of a possibility of no salary cap as a labor stratagem rather than a change of heart.

 

"I think it is psychological warfare," said Bill Gould, Stanford Law School professor and former chairman of the National Labor Relations Board. "The players obviously believe the uncapped year is their leverage and this is an attempt to convince the rank and file it is not their leverage. It's as simple as that."

 

Many teams remain ardently for a cap.

 

Joseph Shaw Jr., partner in the Hamburg law firm of Shaw & Shaw P.C. and attorney and agent for such former Bills' players as Darryl Talley, Steve Tasker, Mark Kelso and Jim Haslett, said he would be surprised if the league's owners really do away with the cap.

 

"I think the salary cap is working so well for the players and owners, I'd be surprised if they'd tinker with it," Shaw said.

 

Shaw added he thinks the removal of the salary cap could hurt small market teams like the Buffalo Bills.

 

"It would put them (the Bills) in a difficult cash position as compared to some of the other teams," Shaw said. "There are other teams out there that clearly raise more revenues than the Buffalo Bills. Revenues are a concern for any owner."

 

Team owners agree with Shaw's opinion.

 

"I think it is still something that the vast majority of the owners believe we should have," said Art Rooney II, the Pittsburgh Steelers president.

 

Financial markets have also lent to the league and its teams in part on the confidence that the cap would keep a lid on player costs.

 

The idea that the NFL might be better off without a salary cap runs counter to conventional wisdom. In fact, the longest work stoppage in sports, the 2004-05 NHL lockout, was waged over NHL players' refusal to accept a salary cap.

 

Historically, the NFL's salary cap was envied by management of the other three major team sports leagues. But that changed with the 2006 extension, when the percentage of league revenue paid to NFL players rose from about 54 percent to about 59 percent.

 

"The value of [the cap] is it instills some level of discipline in the system," said Houston Texans owner Bob McNair. "But then the way it is now everybody is spending too much, so it's not having the positive impact we would have hoped."

[Tim Anderson's Lunch Pail]

The owners are going to play hardball. If they came out and said, "We're really worried about an uncapped year," that would be a concession on their part.

[KRT88]

Just imagine The Dallas Cowboys in their soon-to-be-open new stadium without a salary cap? The New York Yankees midwest.

 

Football would become baseball, we would have teams like Florida and KC spending small amounts and teams like Boston and NY spending 200+ million a year. Dallas likely earns $250 million a year in revenue, and they have profited for years, Jerry Jones could simply spend as a hobby for 5-10 years because "he wants to win."

 

Football is great because at the start of the season you don't really know who will make the playoffs. Anyone want to bet that Boston and the Yankees don't make the post season this year in MLB? So the other 3 teams in the AL East are playing the season why? Anyone want to see that in football?

 

Ralph's suggestion that the players get 100% of the shared revenue is better than the current 59% of all revenue system.

[/dev/null]

Football is great because at the start of the season you don't really know who will make the playoffs. Anyone want to bet that Boston and the Yankees don't make the post season this year in MLB? So the other 3 teams in the AL East are playing the season why? Anyone want to see that in football?

 

You mean like say, the New England Patriots and AFC East

[Gordio]

Just imagine The Dallas Cowboys in their soon-to-be-open new stadium without a salary cap? The New York Yankees midwest.

 

Football would become baseball, we would have teams like Florida and KC spending small amounts and teams like Boston and NY spending 200+ million a year. Dallas likely earns $250 million a year in revenue, and they have profited for years, Jerry Jones could simply spend as a hobby for 5-10 years because "he wants to win."

 

Football is great because at the start of the season you don't really know who will make the playoffs. Anyone want to bet that Boston and the Yankees don't make the post season this year in MLB? So the other 3 teams in the AL East are playing the season why? Anyone want to see that in football?

 

Ralph's suggestion that the players get 100% of the shared revenue is better than the current 59% of all revenue system.

 

 

Your wrong in your analysis compafring football to baseball. Can not compare the two. The differnece between football & baseball is that football players careers are so much shorter. Teams would still be successfull if they built thru the draft. Say they go to an uncapped league, but make it mandatory that rookies must sign or can not hit free agency until 6 years of service. By the time their 6th year is up, a good % of players are going to be on the downside of their career anyways. Sure there is going to be guys that hit free agency & then will go to the highest bidder but, your success is still going to be keyed thru the draft. Baseball is different. Players do not hit the major leagues until 3 -4 years after being drafted. Most players do not hit the peak until their late 20s, where in football I think most players hit their peak in their mid 20s, where they would still be under contract with the original team that they were drafted by.

[PromoTheRobot]

How important will that Toronto cash be then?

 

PTR

[KD in CA]

Teams would still be successfull if they built thru the draft. Say they go to an uncapped league, but make it mandatory that rookies must sign or can not hit free agency until 6 years of service.

 

That's a mighty big 'if'.

 

It's sad that there are owners who really want the NFL to go the way of MLB, and it's scary that they are gaining power.

[Gordio]

That's a mighty big 'if'.

 

It's sad that there are owners who really want the NFL to go the way of MLB, and it's scary that they are gaining power.

 

 

I agree that is a might big if but I dont think the owners will agree to be uncapped unless they are guaranteed that they have exclusive rights with their draft choices for at least 6yrs.

[apuszczalowski]

I agree that is a might big if but I dont think the owners will agree to be uncapped unless they are guaranteed that they have exclusive rights with their draft choices for at least 6yrs.

Why would the owners care about keeping their draft picks around? the only ones that would are the teams that want a cap because it will be the only way they could stand a chance. The bigger teams would just pay more, or go find someone else

[KD in CA]

I agree that is a might big if but I dont think the owners will agree to be uncapped unless they are guaranteed that they have exclusive rights with their draft choices for at least 6yrs.

 

I think that's contrary to the desires of the no-cap advocates. The point of not having a cap is so Snyder and Kraft can outbid for players and horde the top talent. If they succeed in scraping the cap they won't erect another obstacle (like a 6 year lock up) to prevent them from that goal.

[In-A-Gadda-Levitre]

Saying that cap is not absolutely necessary is just a negotiating tactic. They want the NFLPA to believe that it's not that big of a deal. If there was no salary cap, parity is gone and it's pretty hard to conceive that the league will allow that to happen.

[Gordio]

Why would the owners care about keeping their draft picks around? the only ones that would are the teams that want a cap because it will be the only way they could stand a chance. The bigger teams would just pay more, or go find someone else

 

 

Your missing the point. If the owners would say it will be uncapped but free agency will not begin until a player has complete 6yrs of service, most of the players are going to be on the downside of their careers anyways after 6yrs & will not merit huge salaries. Their are going to be exceptions like your franchise qb etc... but for the most part, if a team drafts well, they should succeed under this proposal.

[nucci]

The previous CBA did state that if there was an uncapped year, players would not have UFA until completing their 6th year. Not sure if that carried over to the new CBA.

[apuszczalowski]

Your missing the point. If the owners would say it will be uncapped but free agency will not begin until a player has complete 6yrs of service, most of the players are going to be on the downside of their careers anyways after 6yrs & will not merit huge salaries. Their are going to be exceptions like your franchise qb etc... but for the most part, if a team drafts well, they should succeed under this proposal.

And my point is, why would the owners agree to that? The Owners of the clubs with money want to be able to spend, and if a young player walks, they will just go out and buy a better replacement, or pay more for the player to stay.

 

Anbd why would the players agree to that? That would mean they would all demand a huge rookie salary because it will be their only big one if by the time they are at the end of it they are on the downside of their career.

 

If you really want to make teams focus more on drafting and building their team that way, the cap should only apply to players acquired through FA and trade. It would be uncapped for signing and re-signing players that were drafted by the team (or signed to their first NFL contract by them, and cap only the offseason FA spending each year.

[Gordio]

And my point is, why would the owners agree to that? The Owners of the clubs with money want to be able to spend, and if a young player walks, they will just go out and buy a better replacement, or pay more for the player to stay.

Anbd why would the players agree to that? That would mean they would all demand a huge rookie salary because it will be their only big one if by the time they are at the end of it they are on the downside of their career.

 

If you really want to make teams focus more on drafting and building their team that way, the cap should only apply to players acquired through FA and trade. It would be uncapped for signing and re-signing players that were drafted by the team (or signed to their first NFL contract by them, and cap only the offseason FA spending each year.

 

 

Why are you assuming every club has an owner like Snyder or Jerry Jones that think like this?

[JDG]

And my point is, why would the owners agree to that? The Owners of the clubs with money want to be able to spend, and if a young player walks, they will just go out and buy a better replacement, or pay more for the player to stay.

 

Anbd why would the players agree to that? That would mean they would all demand a huge rookie salary because it will be their only big one if by the time they are at the end of it they are on the downside of their career.

 

If you really want to make teams focus more on drafting and building their team that way, the cap should only apply to players acquired through FA and trade. It would be uncapped for signing and re-signing players that were drafted by the team (or signed to their first NFL contract by them, and cap only the offseason FA spending each year.

 

Many owners recognize that the salary cap creates a levelling of the playing field - and that that levelling of the playing field has contributed significantly to the enormous popularity of the NFL. That popularity is why the NFL TV Contracts are such a gold mine... and at the end of the day, the salary cap may well mean even more money for all teams - including the big market teams - than an uncapped system would.

 

Indeed, the big market owners like having their labor costs capped as much as any business owner does.

 

So, its missing a bit of the point to think that the salary cap is the only big issue here. *Revenue*Sharing* is just as big, if not a bigger reason for the upcoming labor troubles than the salary cap is.

 

JDG