The NFL Salary Cap: The Future of the Cap
Hello everyone, I'm Collin the Asso. Editor over at BigCatCountry.com, the Jaguars' blog. I've done this piece outlining the coming issues of having no salary cap... Enjoy.
There has been a great deal of discussion as to whether or not the elimination of the salary cap would mean an end to fair competition in the NFL. The answer to this question is a resounding NO, and there are a number of reasons why.
The NFL hasn't always had a salary-cap:
The NFL functioned without a salary cap up until 1994, when the original CBA was instituted. I managed to find a graph that compares the distribution of wins among teams prior to 1994, up until now. The prevailing thought is that having an uncapped NFL would lead to a few teams that amassed tons of wins, and a large number of teams who were consistantly bottom feeders. We would not expect to see as many average teams as we do now, where much of the NFL finishes between 7-9 and 9-7.

The blue line represents the number of wins prior to the CBA, and the red line represents number of wins after the institution of the CBA. Notice a difference? Neither do I...
It seems counter-intuitive, but the distribution of wins among NFL teams doesn't significantly differ from before the CBA was instituted. Could there be more to having a successful NFL franchise beyond how much is spent on player acquisition? Yes!
The Growth of the cap and the problems with a salary floor:
Second, no salary cap means no salary floor: The current salary floor mandates that NFL teams are to spend at least 84% of the entire salary cap, no matter what. When you have the salary cap expanding at such drastic rates, the salary floor grows with it. Here's a list of the amount the salary cap has grown each year since 1999.
Salary Cap Per Team for NFL Player Salaries by Year
| 2008 | $116 million | 2003 | $75 million |
| 2007 | $109 million | 2002 | $71 million |
| 2006 | $102 million | 2001 | $67.5 million |
| 2005 | $85.5 million | 2000 | $62.2 million |
| 2004 | $80.5 million | 1999 | $58.4 million |
Wow... Just so you know, the salary cap this season jumped to $127 million. That means that over 90 million has to be spent on player salaries this season alone. When the cap is growing so exponentially, it really doesn't matter that it exists at all. Rich teams can afford to keep their key players when they have that much cash floating around and are required to spend a certain amount. They'll just manipulate the terms of the contract to make it cap-friendly. This means that most quality players don't even reach free agency because their respective teams have plenty of money to re-sign them.
The Cap is a funny animal, it can be manipulated and forced into doing whatever you want it to do, as a result, it might as well just disappear altogether. A perfect example is when Dan Snyder spent over $100 million in the year 2000, at a time when the cap was only $62.2 million.
A special way of paying players called a signing bonus is used to avoid dealing with cap problems. A player may only get a salary of $500k, but a signing bonus of $10 million for a 5 year deal. You would think this means that his cap hit is $10.5 million that year because that's how much he was paid that year... Well, you're wrong. The signing bonus is pro-rated throughout the length of the contract, so even though the player was paid $10.5 million that year, his cap hit was only $2.5 million because the $10 million is divided by the length of the contract (5 years in this example), which comes to 2 million. Then we add his base salary of $500k, and we see how the cap cost reaches $2.5 million.
You might say, "Collin, their irresponsible behavior will catch up with them soon enough!" In theory, you are correct. However, the cap has grown even more rapidly than predicted, and it has allowed teams to spend irresponsibility without consequences. It is almost pointless as it stands now.
Restricted Free Agency:
Third, a player would have to accrue six seasons of NFL experience before he would be a free agent, not the four that are required now. This means that once a player's rookie contract expires he'll still be a RFA for one or two seasons, depending on the length of his contact (The NFL only permits the top 16 picks in the draft to sign 6 year deals). This means the team would still own their rights and could tender them accordingly. Once tendered, the team would receive compensation if another team chose to offer the player a contract and his original squad opted not to match. That's right, the team he currently plays for can choose to match the offer and the player has no say in where he goes... Basically, if you draft well, you'll own the players rights for at least six seasons and if you choose to not match the offer the player recieves, then you'll get draft pick compensation.
Allow me divert for a moment and explain the levels that you can tender a RFA (note that this is different than placing a franchise or transition tag on a player). The levels are First and Third round tender (meaning if another team signs him you get a 1st and 3rd round pick), First round tender, Second round tender, and Original round tender (you receive a pick from the same round that the player was originally drafted in). You can tender as many players as you want who are RFA, or you may choose not to.
Without a salary cap, the draft increases in importance, drastically. Not only does it become the chief way to acquire talent for small market teams, the value of each pick also increases because you will own that player's rights for an extra two years. The most important person on an NFL team without a salary cap is the GM. Gene Smith is the the kind of man you want running your franchise.
Franchising multiple players:
Fourth, without a salary cap, a team would be able to franchise or transition two players instead of one. This means even if a player reaches his sixth season and is ready to hit free agency, he can still be franchised and it would again prevent him from leaving (Franchise and transition tags are different than restricted free agent tenders). Since you can franchise a player more than once, it effectively means you can keep a player for eight or more seasons without having to sign him beyond his rookie contract. You would be able to do this to two different players each year, meaning that you could effectively keep the core of your team intact as long as you draft well. If you can't draft, you are going to struggle big-time. If someone else offered him a contract you chose not to match, then you would receive two first round picks for a franchise player, but nothing for a transition player (except the ability to match the offer given).
Additional ways to level competition without a cap:
The top 8 NFL teams would only be permitted to sign free agents at the rate they lose them each year. On top of that, the league would keep the same scheduling parameters in place, meaning the worse a team does, the easier their schedule is the following season. Also, the draft order would remain the same, with the worst teams getting to choose first. These barriers would have the effect of inhibiting the ability of the top eight teams to improve themselves.
WHEW!!
I hope I answered some of your questions and have provided you with the kind of information that you can use to refute all those who say that the NFL will turn into the MLB without a salary cap... That's just not the case... If you have any other questions, just list them in the comments and I'll do my best to get to them ASAP.
-Collin
This is a Fan-Created Comment on MileHighReport.com. The opinion here is not necessarily shared by the editorial staff of MHR
22 comments
|
9 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Love It!
Thanks for stopping by and sharing, Collin!
-TSG
SBNation's Denver Broncos Blogger
MileHighReport
Questions, Comments...E-Mail Me!
milehighreport@gmail.com
or
Call Me! (303)731-5605
Great post!
I have been wondering how the cap might change the game. Maybe it won’t. This may become a bargaining tool for the owners. If the union gives them a cap on rookie salaries they can drop the salary cap.
Nice article those I completely disagree :-)
But I am glad someone is starting the conversation. I have been meaning to write something about the state of the Palyer’s Union, CBA negotiations and what it means for 2010 and beyond, but life (and Cutler-gate) got in the way.
I would really like to look deeper into some of those numbers. The distribution of wins and losses across the league may be roughly the same, but what about the year to year changes by teams. Is it more likely that a bad team will become decent with the salary cap in place (or go from decent to very good or go in the other direction)? I think the current state of the Detroit Lions is an abberation in the salary cap era and is something that was much more likely beforehand.
The other major problem that I have is that all your ways to level the field without a salary cap are only in place for the 2010 season. None of them are guaranteed to exist in 2011 (if there is a season). Same thing with the minimum salary that teams are currently required to spend.
Which brings me to the last point and one I wish I had more time to elaborate. You have vastly oversimplified the growth of the salary cap, salary floor and the spending habits of owners. I would argue that this is the first year that the cap has not been a significant barrier for many teams and that is more a result of the economic downturn and not having the cash to spend. The other is that the biggest jump in the cap was from 2005 to 2006 which was when the current CBA was negotiated. This is the CBA that the owners terminated early because they realized it was too favorable to the players.
An answer to your year to year improvement question...
Actually, there is very little difference in pre and post cap expected improvement or decline from year to year.
Before the cap, a team with 2 wins one year could expect to win about 3 more wins the following season, going 5-11 on average. After the cap, a team with 2 wins can now expect to win about 4 more wins the following season, for an average record of 6-10.
That’s a quote from one of the articles I researched that explains the minimal differences between pre and post cap ability for a team to improve.
-Collin
The End Is Nigh...
and this is the reason I did not want to reply
I don’t have the facts at my fingertips to make all the points I have in my mind so I don’t know which are supported by data and which are just from my gut.
Thanks for the info. Would love to see that article if you still have the link handy.
Found the link and the next paragraph refutes your conclusion
Notice that the slope of the regression line for the cap era (-0.72) is singificantly steeper than the slope of the line for the pre-cap era (-0.54). This indicates that year-to-year parity has indeed improved since the salary cap. It’s easier for bad teams to improve and harder for good teams to stay on top.
I think you are being to critical... I read that and to me it screams that there is very little difference.
the matter of a few wins… one way or another…
The End Is Nigh...
The author thinks there is a difference
In the article (emphasis mine)
So we can say that yes, although the salary cap has made little or no difference in the within-year parity of team strength, the cap has made a difference in the year-to-year churn of improvement and decline. The end of the salary cap would likely reduce that parity to pre-1994 levels. Whether that’s a good thing or bad thing, or even if the difference is big enough to matter, depends on your point of view.
And in comments responding to a question
Interesting post. Do you have any idea of the statistical significance of the difference in regression estimates? I agree that there is a difference, but I am not sure if it is actually a meaningful difference or just random variation, possibly attributable to other causes. Thoughts?
Cheers, Paul
Paul-Yes, the difference is statistically significant. The standard errors for both line slopes is .5, so they’re about 3 and a half SEs apart.
So it’s doubtful it’s random, but nothing I’ve done here proves that it’s the CBA that causes the change. For now, that has to be inferred from the timing:
‘87 Free agency…’94 CBA —> greater parity
although I am reading at statistical significance
whereas you are talking about significance, meaning importance (as in something to worry about).
And I actually think a full win difference is a pretty big difference. I know plenty of Broncos fans who would have taken that win last year.
The problem with both or your analyses
Is that you leave out the effect of changes to the scheduling formula. The scheduling formula was also changed in 1994 and again,I think, in 2002. Changes to the scheduling formula also affect parity (at least in theory).
by SlowWhiteGuy on Mar 10, 2009 4:57 PM MDT up reply actions
good point
and ther is the advent of free agency as well as changing conditions in the sports marketplace in general over the past 30 years. The numbers are interesting to look at, but they may show that the salary cap helped increase parity but there is really no way they can be used for predictive analysis going forward. There are just too many other variables involved.
that shouldn't stop us
from adamantly insisting on our respective points of view and beating each other into submission with mountains of statistical data though ;-)
by SlowWhiteGuy on Mar 10, 2009 6:00 PM MDT up reply actions
NOTE THAT THE CBA and the SALARY CAP are two different things...
The next CBA may not include a salary cap…
The End Is Nigh...
Very true
But my personal opinion is that any new CBA agreed to by the players and owners will have a salary cap (or some kind of payroll equality mechanism) and there will not be football in 2011 without a new CBA.
Remember, it's the owners,
not the players, who want the salary cap. The players want the salary floor. Their naturally conflicting interests are what set up these games.
by SlowWhiteGuy on Mar 10, 2009 3:26 PM MDT up reply actions
Unfortunately they had to live through the cap
at a time when it actually constrained some owners from spending more (and when most teams would have approached the minimum anyway). And now they may get rid of the cap during a terrible economic time where owners don’t have the cash to spend and where more teams might choose to go below the minimum when they have a choice.
Great post! Rec'd
I just hope there is no holdout. What would I do with my life if there wasnt football?
Great post! Thank you.
Down with the Salary Cap!
Verbose in style, dispersion of thought, procrastination in life.
How is the cap decided each year?
If it were to keep going as is the cap will hit 200mil in a few years.
Let's see if I can do this simply
in 2006 and 2007 a specific number was set in the CBA since they were using a new formula to determine the salary cap. After that, the numbers are initially set a year in advance (the 2008 salary cap was set after the 2006 season concluded). This initial number is calculated by taking the total projected revenue for the league and subtracting the total cost of player benefits to determine a projected net value. For 2008 and 2009, they take that number and multip[ly it by 57.5% and then divide it by the 32 teams in the league to come up with the salary cap per team. (Don’t ask me the formulas used to calculate projected revenue or benefits but there is a large section of the CBA devoted to it) The specific numbers in 2006 and 2007 were based on 57% and 2010 and 2011 were set to be 58% of total net revenue had they been capped.
Since all these numbers are based on projections, the initial number for any given year gets adjusted. I am not sure how often this is done or if they change the formula for projecting the future based on actual numbers. But I do know that the cap number does get adjusted every year after they figure out the differences in the projections and actual revenues and costs for that season. There also may be a restriction about adjusting the cap down.
Here’s an example but I did not bother to do the math to figure out what the actual revenue numbers are/were so I made them up, but they should be accurate enough relative to each other. After the 2006 season, they determine that net projected revenue will be 1 billion dollars for the league in 2008 and set the 2008 cap for $116 million. After the 2007 season they determine that net projected revenue will be 1.1 bullion dollars for 2009 so the 2009 cap is set to $123 million. After 2008, they realize the net revenue for that year was actuall $1.05 billion. So they brought in $.05 billion more than projected. That money gets added into the 2009 calculation which leads to a projected revenue of $1.15 billion for 2009 and a cap of $127 million
As for the $200 million dollar mark
There is a reason the owners opted out of the CBA early ;)
Although in all seriousness, the jump between 2005 and 2006 shows what a difference there is between the current CBA and the previous one. In short the players get a smaller percentage of the revenue now, but more things are included in the category of revenue. It is important to recognize that change when looking at the increase in the cap over time (not to imply that the year to year growth has been stagnant for the past 10 years)




























