-
Why the salary cap hurts football
Why the salary cap hurts football
Should the NFL adopt a system similar to that of Major League Baseball? Leigh Steinberg
Since 1993, the salary cap system has negatively impacted the NFL in a variety of ways. Its main benefit has been the fact that it has provided a structure that the NFL and players agreed upon, facilitating uninterrupted play since 1987.
Labor peace has greatly accelerated the dominance in this country of the NFL over other sports, with fans favoring the NFL over the next most popular sport by a two to one margin. That branding advantage allowed players and owners to engage in a united effort to creatively develop new revenue sources, creating unprecedented financial success.
The cap operates like a progressive income tax, redistributing the roster depth of a championship team to allow "parity.” Cap limitations mean that a team can no longer have Pro Bowl and star players at every starting position, even if it has drafted and coached them in a superior way. Financial limitations prevent a team from being able to afford the cap hit from five star offensive linemen.
The concept of "team" is undercut.
Contracts that extend over multiple years are reviewed every year and cuts need to be made. That means that a team and player who have a long history—which benefits team continuity, player security & stability, and fan's long term familiarity with players—may be forced to part ways. Happy team-player marriages are broken up.
This creates unnecessary turnover and destroys the fan's relationship with players. Free agency has led to less player movement than veterans pushed to find new teams due to cap considerations.
The redistribution of talent is designed to prevent the maintenance of long-term dynasties. Even though the cap can't completely overcome the advantages of stable and wise ownership, astute management, and superior coaching, it rewards mediocrity.
Excellence in administration and coaching should be rewarded, not penalized. Dominant franchises—from the Green Bay Packers of the sixties, Pittsburgh Steelers of the seventies and San Francisco 49ers of the eighties and nineties—did not hurt the NFL. If anything, they enhanced its popularity. Those franchises achieved national fame with fans all over the country. Bart Starr, Terry Bradshaw, Mean Joe Greene, Joe Montana, Steve Young, Jerry Rice, Troy Aikman, Emmitt Smith and Michael Irvin became national superstars and symbols of excellence. Superstars capture the public imagination and create long-term interest.
Cap limitations destroy depth at all positions. Paying a group of stars at premium levels means that the backups are largely rookies or veterans at the minimum. This produces a rapid drop-off in player talent when injuries occur. The entire course of a team's Super Bowl drive will be altered by a backup lineman or quarterback assuming that critical position.
The days when Joe Montana was backed-up by Steve Young (who was backed-up by Steve Bono) are over. This creates ragged play and amplifies the effect of injuries. It makes it much less likely for a team to repeat a Super Bowl win.
Highly drafted rookies with huge guarantees in their contracts are forced into service too early in their careers. Because a team can't afford an aging starting quarterback and his heavily compensated backup, the most beneficial developmental process for that rookie is altered. Young players who would benefit from a year or two of backing-up and learning their craft are rushed and may have their confidence and learning process destroyed.
Virtually none of the top quarterbacks from the 1999 draft are still in the league. Think of how Tim Couch, Akili Smith, Dante Culpepper and Cade McNown might have beeen stars in their primes if they had been given more tutelage time.
Keep in mind, the salaries in most veteran packages are not guaranteed. Twenty years ago, a player signing a three-year contract for between $800,000 and $1.2 million might underperform the first year. But teams would generally allow that player to continue with the team for the second year, betting he would improve and not risking losing his services to another team.
But the cap undermines many fundamental football principles and has short and long term destructive effects on the play of the game. It is a classic case of the unintended consequences that occur from a system based on financial rather than football considerations.
Today each year of salary is heavily scrutinized prior to each season and players are often asked to drastically reduce their existing compensation or they are cut. This creates a belief among players that contracts have no security and that a good year of performance should immediately lead to a renegotiation. Much player-team conflict has resulted.
The rookie salary cap never worked to limit rookie salaries. It merely created a disproportionate amount of guaranteed money for those players taken at the top of the first round. Many of those players received massive guarantees. The draft has never been an exact science, busts and booms abound. Teams were forced to keep high draft picks who clearly were underperforming to avoid the instant acceleration of pro-rated guaranteed money. And players who were more productive, but drafted later, were forced to sign long-term contracts which they quickly outperformed.
This resulted in dysfunction in the relationship of productivity to compensation. The first contract negotiated under the rookie cap—Drew Bledsoe back in 1993—took up roughly 55% of the pool for the first player picked, leaving the remaining rookies to fight over what was left.
Because of rules which accelerate pro-rated signing bonuses for veterans who are traded, are cut or retire because of injury, teams which make a poor decision or two regarding long-term contracts for veterans face large amounts of "dead" or unavailable current cap resources. A system promoting parity would not see certain teams excluded from free agency and signings in a rebuilding process because of "dead" money.
Since the primary benefit of the cap was the fact that it insured labor peace, the current negotiations could remedy its obvious defects.
-
-
disagree strongly with steinberg on this( see benj can post an article but not agree with it), but think it is an interesting subject for the debate, and obviously as an "agent", he doesn't want a cap because w/o one his comissions would be alot more, so sure has a stake in doing away with the cap. : )
think he is ignoring many points:
1. "No Cap" is even more destructive, and you can "buy your way" out of any mistake and allows a owner who can't draft jsut to "buy a champioship" even if cant scout or draft- which is worse than what he said happens with a cap
2. without a cap, and esp no rookie cap, the rook contracts get even more out of control, and heck even the vet players sick of the rook's making so mch and producin nothing, redistrubuting the money from unproven rook's to proven vet's logical and smarter with a rookie cap, until prove you can be a star- no need to be paid like one
3.The new CBA where ding away with the large rookie bonuses takes away his complaints about rookies, so a non-starter
4. And a large part of what makes the NFL so successful IS the parity,, where all 32 teams have a "chance" and each year see teasm go from last to first and allows fans to support and 'hope".. unlike baseball where the "have nots". of places like pitt/kc/etc are out of it by june, 3/4 empty staidumd by aug.. and ony 5-8 teams are competing consistently each year, that has IMO lead to a huge part of the decline of baseball.. the Cap allows the parity and allows teams to compete more consistently AND teams to rebound faster, than if no cap and a few teasm control Free Agency and the top players like what happens in baseball, where yankes, sox, rangers, philly control F/A and the top players each each
-
High Fives / Like - 2 High Fives, 0 Dislikes
-
I agree with you Dabears54, way too many good things (like competition) are a direct result of the salary cap. It may not be perfect, but there are plenty of ways to adjust how much various players are paid (ideally based on performance and or time in league) to just toss out the salary cap.
-
Where is Dagan to tell us how having no salary cap would be good?
-
Originally Posted by
dabears54 
disagree strongly with steinberg on this( see benj can post an article but not agree with it), but think it is an interesting subject for the debate, and obviously as an "agent", he doesn't want a cap because w/o one his comissions would be alot more, so sure has a stake in doing away with the cap. : )
think he is ignoring many points:
1. "No Cap" is even more destructive, and you can "buy your way" out of any mistake and allows a owner who can't draft jsut to "buy a champioship" even if cant scout or draft- which is worse than what he said happens with a cap
I disagree. I can't think of an example of a team since '93 that bought their championship without a good draft also. There may be one, but I can't think of it.
2. without a cap, and esp no rookie cap, the rook contracts get even more out of control, and heck even the vet players sick of the rook's making so mch and producin nothing, redistrubuting the money from unproven rook's to proven vet's logical and smarter with a rookie cap, until prove you can be a star- no need to be paid like one
What? Rookie cap (as it is before lockout) does not do anyone any favors that isn't a first rounder. We all know just as many stars come from later rounds, but having the money tied up in the "top" guys drafted first, as the article says, forces those guys to stay on the teams, and sometimes even get more playing time when the penalty for cutting said player is the acceleration of their signing bonus. Teams "can't afford" the hit, so a bust sticks around an extra year or two, not because he's that good, but because the cap forces the team to hang on to them.
The type of rookie cap that is being discussed in current negotiations makes more sense than the one in place from '93 til now. That is just stupid.
3.The new CBA where ding away with the large rookie bonuses takes away his complaints about rookies, so a non-starter
And how do you know that will be part of final deal? There isn't a consensus on that approach. Until there is, his point remains valid. Assuming change might come doesn't change the inequity and stupidity of almost 20 years.
4. And a large part of what makes the NFL so successful IS the parity,, where all 32 teams have a "chance" and each year see teasm go from last to first and allows fans to support and 'hope".. unlike baseball where the "have nots". of places like pitt/kc/etc are out of it by june, 3/4 empty staidumd by aug.. and ony 5-8 teams are competing consistently each year, that has IMO lead to a huge part of the decline of baseball.. the Cap allows the parity and allows teams to compete more consistently AND teams to rebound faster, than if no cap and a few teasm control Free Agency and the top players like what happens in baseball, where yankes, sox, rangers, philly control F/A and the top players each each
Comparing baseball attendance is a distractor. Their season is 162 games. Football is unique because so few games and much more meaningful rivalries as a result. People will come.
Is it really parity or mediocrity? I'd say that is a 50/50 arguement. There are still really only 3 to 4 teams that can truly compete in the playoffs for a super bowl run. We all know that is the case. The teams that can do so year in and out still draft better than the others.
Bears are a good team but not consistently good because don't draft better than others. We have one of the best cap guys in the league in Stein, but without the homegrown talent........ups and downs. New England and Indy do it without splashy free agents that cost money, they do it by drafting well.
Steinberg has many valid points. It's not really all or nothing right or wrong but we all grew up loving the league and our teams in the pre-cap era. That alone makes me wonder if "parity" brought around by the cap has done anything for the game/fans on a long term basis.
Last edited by BearStuff; 06-17-2011 at 03:38 AM.
Winston Churchill:
"Since light travels faster than sound, some people appear bright until you hear them speak."
"If you're not a liberal at twenty you have no heart, if you're not a conservative at forty you have no brain."
-
High Fives / Like - 2 High Fives, 0 Dislikes
-
Originally Posted by
BearStuff Steinberg has many valid points. It's not really all or nothing right or wrong but we all grew up loving the league and our teams in the pre-cap era. That alone makes me wonder if "parity" brought around by the cap has done anything for the game/fans on a long term basis.
we loved our team BECAUSE NO FREE AGENCY, and players FORCED TO STAY ON TEAM JD.. you know better. now if want "no cap" and limited movement like had "when we were growing u" then i'm fine with that also, but that would never fly now.ifthe 80's bears had lost let's say payton, hanmpton singletary in mid 80's , you may not have thought so highly of the no cap..just saying
1. And NO TEAM BOUGHT A CHAMPIONSHIP- since 1993 jd , becuase well, THERE IS A CAP!.. so can't buy a champsionship, that's the idea of the cap, so not sure your point?
2. And THAT was point on the rookie cap!- the new CBA both sides already agree needs to be a hard cap and redistrubute the money- so that point irrelevant now as both sides already agreed needed changing- and both sides already have agreed to the new redistrubution of the money to both the vet players and a % to the retired players- that is NOT a issue either side disagrees with or hs aproblem with- so of course it will happen when both sides already agree with the new proposals( that is who a CBA gts done, you agree on 'some" and then keep hammering away on the differences,, not go back and reopen things you already agree on)
3. And the Point is in FOOTBALL THE PARITY ALLOWS ALL TEAMS TO REBOUND QUICK and to compete MORE OFTEN( might stink for individual teams, but long term view and health much better).. in baseball you have the "have's and have not's" and while some exceptions happen, the lower tier teams do not rise up annually and the top tier do not fall, like do in football. the NFC South has gone from first to worst and back to first think in 7 of last 8 years for example. The Cap allows teams to compete annually, allows teams to always "have a chance" and not allow a team to stockpile talent, and like the yankees in baseball would be alot worse in football in that you potentially have one team outspending the wholepayroll of 3-4 teasm combined, and becaue of the injusty fator in football, IMO would really be an even bigger deal if allowed in football and create teams that can always be far superior
-
Originally Posted by
BearStuff Steinberg has many valid points. It's not really all or nothing right or wrong but we all grew up loving the league and our teams in the pre-cap era. That alone makes me wonder if "parity" brought around by the cap has done anything for the game/fans on a long term basis.
I can agree that Steinberg does have some valid points but from a fans perspective I would not want to see and NFL without a salary cap. I was never in favor of a setup which allowed the Eddie DeBartolo's of the world to build teams with the massive depth of the 49'ers just because he had a big enough checkbook. It's pretty nice to have Joe Montana as your starting QB and Steve Young backing him up.
Take away the cap and Jerry Jones becomes the new Eddie DeBartolo and creates a dynasty in Dallas while guys like Ziggy Wilf will be content to pocket his revenue sharing dollars and field only moderately successful teams. To me there's little long term promise in a league where a few teams spend $200 mil plus on players payroll and other spend less that $100 mil. The higher spending may not buy a Super Bowl but it virtually insures a two class system where several teams are in annual competition for it every year and others are perennial bottom feeders. Some teams will just not spend what it takes to be competitive.
I enjoy a league where 7th round picks like Chris Harris get the chance to develop into All-Pros right along with 1st Choices like Julius Peppers because teams need guys at that end of the salary spectrum to fill out the depth on their rosters. The lack of an upper cap limit may mean that teams would pay to keep over the hill vets in lieu of younger low round picks and FA's just because of their experience. In the long run I think this hampers player develoment rather than improves it as Steinberg contends. For every Cade McNown there are a handful of Matt Toeiana's and Izzy Idonije's who came in as FA's and made earned their stripes by stepping up when finally given the chance when lacking a cap the team may have held on to the Oguns and Tommie Harrises for another year or two.
I think that lowering rookie pay for 1st rounders and redistributing that money to vets who've earned it will mean that teams like the Bears will have an easier time retaining those core players many of which may be due to be UFA's once the new CBA agreement is reached. Rewarding guys like Matt Forte who didn't get that larger 1st round contract will be much easier after that adjustment and maybe fewer will ever reach FA to begin with.
With no salary cap the FA losses we experienced after the 86 Super Bowl would become even more prevalent as top future HOF'ers couldn't afford not to consider huge guaranteed contracts from other teams. I respect Lee Steinberg but in this matter I believe that he's wrong.
I'm getting to that age where a lifetime warranty just doesn't mean as much to me anymore as an afternoon nap. 
Honey Badger Don't Care. Honey Badger Don't Give a Shit.
-
High Fives / Like - 2 High Fives, 0 Dislikes
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote
