PDA

View Full Version : Do you think the NFL and teams should rework player Contracts/Salaries?



honda522
02-15-2009, 10:47 PM
What I mean by that, is basically give them a base salary, and then pay them on how the player performs throughout the game.

You would have starters make........say, lets keep it simple, $50k a game. And backups would make.....$35k a game. Then if the team won, everyone would get a $10k bonus.

I just think players make way to much money to begin with. And then when you got people like LJ, who doesn't seem to try or give a rats *** about trying since he got his money. Or sign a player like Ryan Sims to a big contract and he is a total bust....if you forced them to play for less then it might be better for everyone.

What do you think?

chiefsfreak4life
02-15-2009, 11:03 PM
I'm not really what the pay system would be, but I agree 100% that rookies get paid WAY too much! When unproven college players are getting paid more than experienced NFL players, the system is screwed up.
My idea:
All rookies should be paid according to when they are drafted, and what position they play. Sign a one year contract, then after one year, based on their play, performance, teamwork AND conduct on and off the field, then they can negotiate for their first contract. They can only negotiate with their team that drafted them. They would not be eligible for free agency until they have 3 years in the league, unless they are cut from their team.

honda522
02-15-2009, 11:05 PM
I'm not really what the pay system would be, but I agree 100% that rookies get paid WAY too much! When unproven college players are getting paid more than experienced NFL players, the system is screwed up.
My idea:
All rookies should be paid according to when they are drafted, and what position they play. Sign a one year contract, then after one year, based on their play, performance, teamwork AND conduct on and off the field, then they can negotiate for their first contract. They can only negotiate with their team that drafted them. They would not be eligible for free agency until they have 3 years in the league, unless they are cut from their team.

Well thats a good idea, but then look back at the LJ case.

Big Daddy Tek
02-15-2009, 11:17 PM
MY STANCE:

As an NFL player you need to make as much as you can possibly make! There is a very small window of opportunity and the BIG contract only comes once. As far as rookie contracts, the system is perfect, for players drafted after pick 20. 1-20 and ESPECIALLY 1-10 need to change. For instance, if we draft Curry # 3, he would be one of the highest paid LB's in the game. Thats not right. It will change, but the rule will probably will change within the next two years.

hometeam
02-15-2009, 11:33 PM
I agree with Tek. The owners already have the power to cancel your contract at ANY time.. and if you think the players make too much, just look at the total revenue generated by the NFL, not just the % that the players get off the top.

jmlamerson
02-16-2009, 12:11 AM
What I mean by that, is basically give them a base salary, and then pay them on how the player performs throughout the game.

You would have starters make........say, lets keep it simple, $50k a game. And backups would make.....$35k a game. Then if the team won, everyone would get a $10k bonus.

I just think players make way to much money to begin with. And then when you got people like LJ, who doesn't seem to try or give a rats *** about trying since he got his money. Or sign a player like Ryan Sims to a big contract and he is a total bust....if you forced them to play for less then it might be better for everyone.

What do you think?

When guys like Reggie White die early, they always perform an autopsy. And they almost always find mental and physical deterioration greatly in excess of what should be there at their age. That's because the human body was not meant to be hit repeatedly by 6'$" 260 lb LBs who can run a 4.3. People aren't going to put themselves thorugh that for the pittance you're suggesting.

The NFL needs to follow the NBA and MLB and guarantee contracts. We also need a rookie scale to avoid Ryan Sims sorts of problems.

hometeam
02-16-2009, 12:33 AM
Ah.. getting into rookie contracts, now that is what is whacked. Jmlamerson is right, a rookie pay scale is what is needed. High picks need to be substantially scaled back, while lower picks arent too terribly outrageous.

Big Daddy Tek
02-16-2009, 12:39 AM
When guys like Reggie White die early, they always perform an autopsy. And they almost always find mental and physical deterioration greatly in excess of what should be there at their age. That's because the human body was not meant to be hit repeatedly by 6'$" 260 lb LBs who can run a 4.3. People aren't going to put themselves thorugh that for the pittance you're suggesting.

The NFL needs to follow the NBA and MLB and guarantee contracts. We also need a rookie scale to avoid Ryan Sims sorts of problems.

I definitly understand your thoughts on this JM. I agree to a point, but guaranteed contracts are a joke. I think its ruined NBA and MLB because players are not accountable for their play. In the NFl, if you dont play well, you dont get paid and thats how it should be. As far as rookie salary, again, I agree.

jmlamerson
02-16-2009, 01:01 AM
I definitly understand your thoughts on this JM. I agree to a point, but guaranteed contracts are a joke. I think its ruined NBA and MLB because players are not accountable for their play. In the NFl, if you dont play well, you dont get paid and thats how it should be. As far as rookie salary, again, I agree.

Would you agree that rookie salaries should be guaranteed, if we go to a scale?

FA contracts could stay as they are.

chiefsfreak4life
02-16-2009, 08:57 AM
Well thats a good idea, but then look back at the LJ case.


Good point.

Pro_Angler
02-16-2009, 09:14 AM
yea they need player caps that are like 800% below what it is now, this is retarded...millions for playing a game. should be a cap of like 100g a year.

Canada
02-16-2009, 09:15 AM
Then the argument would be "why do the owners get all the money"? People are paying to see the players, why shouldn't they make the money?

Big Daddy Tek
02-16-2009, 10:07 AM
Would you agree that rookie salaries should be guaranteed, if we go to a scale?

FA contracts could stay as they are.

Not the entire thing. Top ten picks are already getting between 10 to 30 million guaranteed, depending on when their drafted. IF rookie wages were more reasonable, I would probably be closer to agreeing on a guarantee.

Big Daddy Tek
02-16-2009, 10:20 AM
yea they need player caps that are like 800% below what it is now, this is retarded...millions for playing a game. should be a cap of like 100g a year.

Now your getting WAY out of hand. First off all, the money has to go somewhere (and no, its not going back to you or your kids.) Second of all, its NOT just playing a game. I wont say that you haven't, but I would be very surprised if you've worked a fraction as hard as most football players within a 5 to 10 year span. Thats training, studying, watching film, practicing and playing about 10 months a year now a days. If you dont agree with that, than we can just go straight to the physical abuse agrument. The life span of an NFL player is shorter than that of a "normal person." This is a life that is a daily routine of wake up, hot tub, ice tub, massage, stretch, practice, ice tub, hot tub, ouch. Ask Terell Davis or Priest Holmes, who will never be the same again. Alot of these guys cant even practice during the week. A guy goes through all of this, sacrifices his body and puts himself in situations that could lead to paralysis, for what? A 6 year career? Thats why the revenue goes to them Angler!

dbolan
02-16-2009, 11:27 AM
I agree with Tek. The owners already have the power to cancel your contract at ANY time.. and if you think the players make too much, just look at the total revenue generated by the NFL, not just the % that the players get off the top.

And if us "regular folk" went to our boss with actual revenue figures the company had generated over the past fiscal year and demanded an increase in salary based on those numbers, we would be in the unemployment line.

The astronomical sigining bonuses that are guaranteed money are the performance killers.

jmlamerson
02-16-2009, 11:45 AM
And if us "regular folk" went to our boss with actual revenue figures the company had generated over the past fiscal year and demanded an increase in salary based on those numbers, we would be in the unemployment line.

The astronomical sigining bonuses that are guaranteed money are the performance killers.

You apparently do not work in a union job. The NFLPA, like all unions, DOES get to negotiate based upon its company's earnings.

Signing bonuses only exist because contracts aren't guarenteed. We should scale rookie contracts down massively (each would be three years, with restricted free agency in the fourth year, the top pick would make $5M or so a year, the 2nd $4.5, or some such), and guarentee them. This would have the double effect of making top picks immensely more valuable (and tradable) and also protecting rookies in case of catestrophic injury.

Tek is right. Do people really expect players to train for years and years and take years off of their lives for $100K or so a year? Especially when management can tear up any contract at any time? Do we want NFL football or XFL football?

hometeam
02-16-2009, 12:29 PM
Dbolan, the NFL players union has an agreement with the owners. Player salary is 60% of the profit, the rest of the profit goes to the owners. So 60% of the profit is split between about 1760 individuals, and 40% is split between 32 owners/owner groups.. how is this not fair?This does not count the total amount of revenue that is generated and paid out as salarys, stadium costs, advertising etc etc etc etc. The players union exists for a reason, and if the owners dont want to pay out, then they dont have too, and the players can strike, and we see how much good this does the game, the players, the owners. Players are well paid, and for good reason.

chiefnut
02-16-2009, 12:45 PM
I think salaries should be based on postion and years experience. this would be a players base salary with a set of bonus' available to be earned based on games started & pereformance such as yds gained, tds, receptions, tackles, int, sacks, blocking, nfl rank, playoffs, superbowl, etc. a formula can ber derived for each position using the highest paid player at that position, adding 10% and then working backwards w/incentives to arrive at a base salary. this way a rookie or a career backup can make the big $ rewarding him for a big year w/o paying him those same big $ for the next year when he has a bad year. everyone gets paid on what they have done for their team instead of what they might do, kinda like the rest of us!

tornadospotter
02-16-2009, 12:53 PM
I think that the money the top drafted rookies get, is what is out of line. I have no problem with players getting paid well, because their careers are short, and the physical abuse to their body's are extreme. I do think, that some of, or most of the signing bonus money should be placed in a fund for when the career is over. Maybe that would stop the suddenly I am rich attitude's, and maybe curb some of the problems. You play you get paid, you get a career ending injury, you then fall back on your signing bonus money. You go out and break the law, beat on a women, do drugs etc. Lose the fund, or portion of fund etc. You blow all of your salary, and are broke when you retire, you have your fund, to restart your life. Just my thoughts, probably not worth much, but just what I think.

OPLookn
02-16-2009, 01:23 PM
You apparently do not work in a union job. The NFLPA, like all unions, DOES get to negotiate based upon its company's earnings.

Signing bonuses only exist because contracts aren't guarenteed. We should scale rookie contracts down massively (each would be three years, with restricted free agency in the fourth year, the top pick would make $5M or so a year, the 2nd $4.5, or some such), and guarentee them. This would have the double effect of making top picks immensely more valuable (and tradable) and also protecting rookies in case of catestrophic injury.

Tek is right. Do people really expect players to train for years and years and take years off of their lives for $100K or so a year? Especially when management can tear up any contract at any time? Do we want NFL football or XFL football?

As a matter of fact I do expect or hope the NFL would pay their players less. So long as the price decrease get's passed along to the cost of the tickets and not to someone else's pocket. Wishful thinking, I know.

These people are choosing to play a game that they in theory love to play. Nobody's making them do this. If they have a 5 to 10 year shelf life then so be it. I'm not against someone making money but when people try to tell me that they aren't supposed to take hits like that...ok fine, go find another job. I'd even venture to say...and if someone has stats to back me up or refute me I'd say many thanks, but I'd say that because we're paying them more we're just seeing more and more "thugs" with money. People can always be replaced and some NFL players seem to have forgot that.

As for someone's comment about not having worked as hard as they do...really? You really want to go there? In the end it's a game, how people want to spend their money is up to them. But when people try to tell me that a guy who takes a ball and runs it deserves to get paid 35 million over the course of 5 years or something I'd have to disagree.

hometeam
02-16-2009, 01:38 PM
Once a business had made X amount of dollars, it will never settle for less unless the revenue is not there. So, if the players take less, the owners make more, the costs for us stay the same.

And yes, rookies make too much, not for the fact that its just too much money, but for the fact that that money is not going to vets who have proven themselves.

dbolan
02-16-2009, 01:50 PM
Dbolan, the NFL players union has an agreement with the owners. Player salary is 60% of the profit, the rest of the profit goes to the owners. So 60% of the profit is split between about 1760 individuals, and 40% is split between 32 owners/owner groups.. how is this not fair?This does not count the total amount of revenue that is generated and paid out as salarys, stadium costs, advertising etc etc etc etc. The players union exists for a reason, and if the owners dont want to pay out, then they dont have too, and the players can strike, and we see how much good this does the game, the players, the owners. Players are well paid, and for good reason.


And of the 40% that is split between the owners, they have to re-invest it in their team in some manner, IE marketing, neccessary commodities, etc etc.

However, the players can market themselves on the side, IE Nike, Reebok, etc and KEEP all of that money!!!!

Not one red cent back to the NFL or the team they represent. So, what is wrong with that? A lot, in my opinion.

jmlamerson
02-16-2009, 01:56 PM
As a matter of fact I do expect or hope the NFL would pay their players less. So long as the price decrease get's passed along to the cost of the tickets and not to someone else's pocket. Wishful thinking, I know.

You have the cause and effect all messed up. Player salaries (caps) are set after revenues are projected. How much money the league makes determines how much the players make. Player's salaries have nothing to do with ticket prices.


These people are choosing to play a game that they in theory love to play. Nobody's making them do this. If they have a 5 to 10 year shelf life then so be it. I'm not against someone making money but when people try to tell me that they aren't supposed to take hits like that...ok fine, go find another job. I'd even venture to say...and if someone has stats to back me up or refute me I'd say many thanks, but I'd say that because we're paying them more we're just seeing more and more "thugs" with money. People can always be replaced and some NFL players seem to have forgot that.

No, they can't be replaced. Very, very few people can do what NFL players do. They don't have the size, speed, or training. Why do you think start up leagues fail? It's because the on-field product is inferior.

Doctors, lawyers, athletes, etc. are paid far in excess of most people because very few people can do what they do. It takes years of sacrifice and training, coupled with natural gifts. Saying that anyone can be a NFL player is like saying anyone can be a heart surgeon - they can't.

No one makes you watch the NFL. It really isn't any business of yours or mine if players are overpaid. They demand the money they make because no one else can do what they do, and because people are willing to shell out billions of dollars a year to watch.


As for someone's comment about not having worked as hard as they do...really? You really want to go there? In the end it's a game, how people want to spend their money is up to them. But when people try to tell me that a guy who takes a ball and runs it deserves to get paid 35 million over the course of 5 years or something I'd have to disagree.

People are willing to fork over $200/ticket to watch Tony G. catch a football. They're not willing to pay anything to watch you work.

Do you see the difference?

jmlamerson
02-16-2009, 02:00 PM
And of the 40% that is split between the owners, they have to re-invest it in their team in some manner, IE marketing, neccessary commodities, etc etc.

However, the players can market themselves on the side, IE Nike, Reebok, etc and KEEP all of that money!!!!

Not one red cent back to the NFL or the team they represent. So, what is wrong with that? A lot, in my opinion.

Except that people actually watch a team based upon the players. Teams with bad players don't sell tickets.

hometeam
02-16-2009, 02:07 PM
Dbolan, the owners sell ad revenue as well, all becuase of the players on the field. Most companys and business fields have a much much greater disparity of revenue to employee payout than the NFL. The NFL is one business in which the employees get a fair deal, I dont see what the big problem is.

Also, what percent of NFL players get big fat ad contracts? .5%? Remember there are nearly 2000 players in the league at any given time, and you only see a handful hawking shoes.

dbolan
02-16-2009, 02:32 PM
Dbolan, the owners sell ad revenue as well, all becuase of the players on the field. Most companys and business fields have a much much greater disparity of revenue to employee payout than the NFL. The NFL is one business in which the employees get a fair deal, I dont see what the big problem is.

Also, what percent of NFL players get big fat ad contracts? .5%? Remember there are nearly 2000 players in the league at any given time, and you only see a handful hawking shoes.

Where is the "I" in team? Funny how an RB has great blocking or a QB has great pass protection and they are rewarded huge salaries. BUT, when the line deteriorates and their numbers go down, it is not their fault but they still get paid.

Due to the economic crisis that has impacted many, including the corporate office of the NFL, how many players salaries or roster spots will be reduced? I bet ZERO.

jmlamerson
02-16-2009, 02:39 PM
Where is the "I" in team? Funny how an RB has great blocking or a QB has great pass protection and they are rewarded huge salaries. BUT, when the line deteriorates and their numbers go down, it is not their fault but they still get paid.

Due to the economic crisis that has impacted many, including the corporate office of the NFL, how many players salaries or roster spots will be reduced? I bet ZERO.

No, when their numbers go down, they get cut (see Taylor, Fred today) and don't get paid. Because the owners don't have to abide by contracts they sign.

When the owners set the salary cap lower, then salaries will drop. Why would it be otherwise?

Coach
02-16-2009, 03:57 PM
What I mean by that, is basically give them a base salary, and then pay them on how the player performs throughout the game.

You would have starters make........say, lets keep it simple, $50k a game. And backups would make.....$35k a game. Then if the team won, everyone would get a $10k bonus.

I just think players make way to much money to begin with. And then when you got people like LJ, who doesn't seem to try or give a rats *** about trying since he got his money. Or sign a player like Ryan Sims to a big contract and he is a total bust....if you forced them to play for less then it might be better for everyone.

What do you think?

The Players union would never agree to that type of deal so it's pretty much pointless to go down this road. It does provide for interesting conversation though. :yahoo:

Canada
02-16-2009, 04:41 PM
Now your getting WAY out of hand. First off all, the money has to go somewhere (and no, its not going back to you or your kids.) Second of all, its NOT just playing a game. I wont say that you haven't, but I would be very surprised if you've worked a fraction as hard as most football players within a 5 to 10 year span. Thats training, studying, watching film, practicing and playing about 10 months a year now a days. If you dont agree with that, than we can just go straight to the physical abuse agrument. The life span of an NFL player is shorter than that of a "normal person." This is a life that is a daily routine of wake up, hot tub, ice tub, massage, stretch, practice, ice tub, hot tub, ouch. Ask Terell Davis or Priest Holmes, who will never be the same again. Alot of these guys cant even practice during the week. A guy goes through all of this, sacrifices his body and puts himself in situations that could lead to paralysis, for what? A 6 year career? Thats why the revenue goes to them Angler!


I agree with all of this but I do take exception to the "working harder" than the rest of us. I work 12 months a year, have to stay in good shape, put in time studying and I make a small fraction of what they make. I think everyone involved in football makes entirely too much money, but the players take home their fair share.

Canada
02-16-2009, 04:46 PM
You apparently do not work in a union job. The NFLPA, like all unions, DOES get to negotiate based upon its company's earnings.

Signing bonuses only exist because contracts aren't guarenteed. We should scale rookie contracts down massively (each would be three years, with restricted free agency in the fourth year, the top pick would make $5M or so a year, the 2nd $4.5, or some such), and guarentee them. This would have the double effect of making top picks immensely more valuable (and tradable) and also protecting rookies in case of catestrophic injury.

Tek is right. Do people really expect players to train for years and years and take years off of their lives for $100K or so a year? Especially when management can tear up any contract at any time? Do we want NFL football or XFL football?

Just because they tear up the contract does not mean that the player is not still getting paid. If that were true, then why not just fire LJ now and not worry about paying him anything next season!

OPLookn
02-16-2009, 04:57 PM
You have the cause and effect all messed up. Player salaries (caps) are set after revenues are projected. How much money the league makes determines how much the players make. Player's salaries have nothing to do with ticket prices.

I don't think I do but I'm open to discuss. A budget isn't made by just throwing darts until you think you have a good number. At some point you have to estimate how much you'll pay your players. You don't just randomly say hmmm, I hope I can pay all my players and have enough money left over to pay all the other bills...



No, they can't be replaced. Very, very few people can do what NFL players do. They don't have the size, speed, or training. Why do you think start up leagues fail? It's because the on-field product is inferior.

Doctors, lawyers, athletes, etc. are paid far in excess of most people because very few people can do what they do. It takes years of sacrifice and training, coupled with natural gifts. Saying that anyone can be a NFL player is like saying anyone can be a heart surgeon - they can't.


I hate to tell you but yes, everyone is replaceable. Something I learned very early in life is that there is always someone out there wanting to do it more and do it for less. Now maybe it's someone from Europe, Asia or People's Republic of any other country. But you can't tell me it's a select crowd and well shoot we're gonna have to pay them millions.

As for a gift I'd say that their gift is the drive to do it. Almost anyone can be a doctor or lawyer if they want it bad enough.





No one makes you watch the NFL. It really isn't any business of yours or mine if players are overpaid. They demand the money they make because no one else can do what they do, and because people are willing to shell out billions of dollars a year to watch.

People are willing to fork over $200/ticket to watch Tony G. catch a football. They're not willing to pay anything to watch you work.

Do you see the difference?

Again, no I don't and yes, it is our business. By your logic I shouldn't even bother voting because I have no idea what it takes to run a govt. So I should just let the people in power keep power. As for the $200/ticket just to watch me work...well a guy can always dream.

I know you'll have reply and I look forward to it. :bananen_smilies046:

jmlamerson
02-16-2009, 05:06 PM
Just because they tear up the contract does not mean that the player is not still getting paid. If that were true, then why not just fire LJ now and not worry about paying him anything next season!

I answered this before!:D

We don't have to pay LJ anything if we cut him, but the prorated portion of the signing bonus we gave him would count against our cap. It would be "dead cap" money - ie not going towards active salary.

But not one more cent would go from the Chiefs to LJ.

Coach
02-16-2009, 05:15 PM
I answered this before!:D

We don't have to pay LJ anything if we cut him, but the prorated portion of the signing bonus we gave him would count against our cap. It would be "dead cap" money - ie not going towards active salary.


Doesn't really matter if the your team consistently stays under the cap.

jmlamerson
02-16-2009, 05:26 PM
I don't think I do but I'm open to discuss. A budget isn't made by just throwing darts until you think you have a good number. At some point you have to estimate how much you'll pay your players. You don't just randomly say hmmm, I hope I can pay all my players and have enough money left over to pay all the other bills...

Very true. But the salary cap's increase/decrease is in direct proportion to the revenue of the preceding year. As the teams make more money, the players make more money. If revenue dropped sharply, players would be cut and resigned at lower contracts.

NFL contracts are imaginary. If we were to cut our entire 53-person roster tomorrow, they would be owed a grand total of $0 by the Chiefs. We wouldn't do that because of the cap ramifications and the difficulties filling a 2009 roster with free agents, but we could do it.

We are not being forced to pay anyone we don't want to in 2009.


I hate to tell you but yes, everyone is replaceable. Something I learned very early in life is that there is always someone out there wanting to do it more and do it for less. Now maybe it's someone from Europe, Asia or People's Republic of any other country. But you can't tell me it's a select crowd and well shoot we're gonna have to pay them millions.

If the NFL were to go with replacement players for longer than one season, the league would die. Attendence would drop, the in-game play would suffer, and everyone would lose.

A couple specimens aside, every single player in the NFL has been training and conditioning for at least a decade prior to being on a team. You cannot replace that level of skill, training, and conditioning with people off of the street and expect to have the same product.

You cannot replace skill workers with unskilled workers and expect the same results. You cannot fire everyone at the Mayo Clinic to save costs, replace them with Uganda's best medical team, and expect the same results. I want a guy who graduated law school and has been practicing for a dozen years or so defending me if I'm arrested, not someone off the street.


As for a gift I'd say that their gift is the drive to do it. Almost anyone can be a doctor or lawyer if they want it bad enough.

No, they can't. The average IQ of a lawyer is 115. Of a doctor its 120. Of a research scientist or a MIT professor, it's higher than that. Nobel Prize winners are usually 135+.

Not to mention that many people just don't have the physical skill for medicine, football, etc.


Again, no I don't and yes, it is our business. By your logic I shouldn't even bother voting because I have no idea what it takes to run a govt.

If you have no idea what it takes to run a government, you shouldn't be voting!


So I should just let the people in power keep power. As for the $200/ticket just to watch me work...well a guy can always dream.

I know you'll have reply and I look forward to it. :bananen_smilies046:

Players are paid according to the market. As I wrote above, the league sets the salary cap based on revenues. If the NFL were hit badly by this new depression, the owners would (and could) either scrap the cap and just pay people whatever they want, or the cap number would decrease and contracts would be renegotiated lower.

I know that it sucks that some people get paid millions to do what you'd do for free. It bugs me too some times. But if players aren't getting paid, they aren't playing. And if players aren't playing, then this sport dies.

And I like football!

jmlamerson
02-16-2009, 05:28 PM
Doesn't really matter if the your team consistently stays under the cap.

Exactly. Which is why LJ will be shopped for a couple months and then cut June 1.

dbolan
02-17-2009, 01:30 PM
Very true. But the salary cap's increase/decrease is in direct proportion to the revenue of the preceding year. As the teams make more money, the players make more money. If revenue dropped sharply, players would be cut and resigned at lower contracts.

NFL contracts are imaginary. If we were to cut our entire 53-person roster tomorrow, they would be owed a grand total of $0 by the Chiefs. We wouldn't do that because of the cap ramifications and the difficulties filling a 2009 roster with free agents, but we could do it.

We are not being forced to pay anyone we don't want to in 2009.



If the NFL were to go with replacement players for longer than one season, the league would die. Attendence would drop, the in-game play would suffer, and everyone would lose.

A couple specimens aside, every single player in the NFL has been training and conditioning for at least a decade prior to being on a team. You cannot replace that level of skill, training, and conditioning with people off of the street and expect to have the same product.

You cannot replace skill workers with unskilled workers and expect the same results. You cannot fire everyone at the Mayo Clinic to save costs, replace them with Uganda's best medical team, and expect the same results. I want a guy who graduated law school and has been practicing for a dozen years or so defending me if I'm arrested, not someone off the street.



No, they can't. The average IQ of a lawyer is 115. Of a doctor its 120. Of a research scientist or a MIT professor, it's higher than that. Nobel Prize winners are usually 135+.

Not to mention that many people just don't have the physical skill for medicine, football, etc.



If you have no idea what it takes to run a government, you shouldn't be voting!



Players are paid according to the market. As I wrote above, the league sets the salary cap based on revenues. If the NFL were hit badly by this new depression, the owners would (and could) either scrap the cap and just pay people whatever they want, or the cap number would decrease and contracts would be renegotiated lower.

I know that it sucks that some people get paid millions to do what you'd do for free. It bugs me too some times. But if players aren't getting paid, they aren't playing. And if players aren't playing, then this sport dies.

And I like football!

Uumm...Isn't the cap negotiated and/or tied to the players union in some way? I don't believe they can just lower the cap.

DT14PRIEST
02-17-2009, 04:57 PM
How is the NFL Salary Cap determined?

Answer:The Cap is determined through a complicated calculation system, which has changed with the latest extension of the CBA. The Cap is based on income that the teams earn during a League Year. Originally that "pot" was limited to what was known as Defined Gross Revenues (DGR), which consisted of the money earned from the national televison contract, ticket sales, and NFL merchandise sales. Under the new agreement the "pot" has been expanded to include total revenue. Thus, other sources of revenue, including such other items as naming rights and local advertising, have been added. As was the case with the original DGR, the expanded revenue is divided equally amongst all 32 teams for purposes of claculating the salary cap.

For all of you nerds out there, here is the actual mathematical calculation:

Projected revenue x CBA Percentage = Players Share Total Revenue

Players Share minus Projected League wide Benefits =
Amount Available for Player Salaries

Amount Available for Player Salaries / Number of Teams =
Unadjusted Salary Cap per Team

Under the old DGR model, the CBA Percentages were as follows:

1998-2001 63%
2002 64%
2003 64.25%
2004 64.75%
2005 65.5%
2006 64.5%
2007 Uncapped Year



However, when the model was changed and the DGR expanded, the players and owners agreed to a smaller set percentage of the larger pot. The $102 M figure in 2006 was based on a 57% share of the 2006 projected Total Revenues as was the $109 M figure for 2007. In 2008, the percentage jumps to 57.5%, and the same percentage applies to 2009 as well. In 2010 and 2011 the percentage will be 58%. Note that if the projections see a shortfall in 2006 or 2007, when the dollar amounts were hard-coded in the CBA, then the 2008 and 2009 caps would be adjusted accordingly. (That is why the 2009 figure of $123 Million is "approximate" as of this writing.)

Note: The actual dollar amount of the Salary Cap can not be less than the actual dollar amount of any Salary Cap for the preceding year. So, for example, if Total Revenues should decline from one year to the next, the players are protected against a smaller associated Salary Cap. However, the Projected Benefits, plus the amount of the Salary Cap multiplied by the number of Teams in the NFL, can not exceed 61.68% of
Projected Total Revenues.

As we have seen, even though the percentage is lower, the expansion of the revenue "pot" still allows the players to come away from the table with more money in their pockets. Again, under the original DGR model, the salary cap was set at $94.5 Million in 2006 with the players receiving 64.5% of the DGR. Under the expanded revenue system, the cap increased to $102 Million with the players receiving 57% of the total revenue. That is an increase of almost 8%.

DT14PRIEST
02-17-2009, 05:15 PM
Maybe this will help more:

DO Teams need to pay the player on contract if they are cut before the contract expires?:

The team is not obligated to fork over the money for remaining years of the contract if they cut the player.

In order to convince the player to sign such a cap friendly contract, the team will fork over a large signing bonus. The signing bonus is guaranteed, so that money is the player's to keep if the team decides to release him later.

The signing bonus IS part of the player's salary. So it counts against the cap. When determining team and player salary, the signing bonus will be prorated over the length of the contract.

For example, if a player signs a four-year deal with a $1 million signing bonus, $250,000 of that bonus will count toward team salary for each contract year ($1 million divided evenly over the four-year contract is $250,000 per year). If a team releases a player, the unamoratized bonus money (the remaining prorated bonus money) counts immediately against the cap.

In our example above, if the player is released after Year 1, the remaining $750,000 (the prorated signing bonus money for years 2-4) counts against the cap in Year 2 -- even though the player is no longer on the team's roster.

Again, let me take a moment to explain how important it is that the CBA be extended. The proration of the signing bonus cannot extend beyond two years after the close of the existing CBA. With the CBA currently set to expire in 2010, that would mean that the bonus proration has to be fully accounted for by the end of the 2012 season. Of course, if the CBA is not extended and there is no cap in place in 2010 and beyond, you are probably wondering why this even matters. Simply put, it matters for two reasons:

1. There could be major cap ramifications for 2009, the final capped year under that CBA.

2. If all goes well in the Spring 2009 meetings, and the extension are put in place -- the cap situations associated with existing contracts will obviously still need to be dealt with.

An expression that was thrown about repeatedly during the various labor meetings is "cash over cap". Well, these signing bonuses are what insiders were talking about, when they brought up that term. One of the things that held up negotiations amongst the owners with the last CBA extension (back in 2006) was the move to place some kind of cap on the amount of signing bonus money that could be pushed into future years for cap accounting purposes. Although there was no cap on signing bonuses, there was a limit put in place (for 2006) that signing bonuses could only be prorated for up to five (5) years -- but that moved up to six (6) years in 2007.