2010 end of salary cap???

[AtlPackFan]

If anyone has posted this, my apologies:

From Yahoo Sports

According to Cowboys owner Jerry Jones, there's a strong possibility that the NFL's 2011 season could be played without a salary cap. (Warning: If you happen to be in the vicinity of Dan Snyder right now, prepare to see something like this).

From the Dallas Morning News:

Dallas Cowboys owner and general manager Jerry Jones believes there is a good chance ownership will opt out of the current labor agreement with the NFL Players Association by the November deadline.
[...]
Twenty-four of 32 votes would be needed to keep the collective bargaining agreement in place.
[...]
"It's a real challenge when you have nine clubs that can decide they want to opt out and it affects all 32 teams," said Jones.
[...]
If the owners opt out, the current structure will stay in place through 2010; 2011 would be an uncapped season. NFLPA president Gene Upshaw has said once there is an uncapped year, a salary cap would never return.
It's scary and exciting at the same time. I feel tingly, and yet, I want to hide.

On one hand, it could be disastrous for teams in smaller markets, like Green Bay, Jacksonville, San Diego, Buffalo, etc. When it gets to the point that teams can't compete because other teams are buying up all the free agents, that could throw a huge monkey wrench into the NFL's current domination of the sporting landscape.

Parity might have its drawbacks, but you can't argue with the success of the league in the era of parity. It's been fantastic for the league.

On the other hand, I've always felt like football players were grossly underpaid in comparison to MLB or NBA players, especially given the increased risks they take and the abbreviated length of their careers.

I guess the short version of this is, for the sake of NFL players, an uncapped 2011 (and probably, from there, eternity) would be excellent. But for you and me, it could be the beginning of a long and unpleasant nightmare.

I'm siding with me on this one, and hoping they get this deal done.

[Patler]

I think it is hard to say they are underpaid without analyzing the total financial picture. Yes, the NFL makes huge amounts of money. On the other hand their payroll is extremely large compared to an NBA team or even a major-league baseball team. With the level of the current salary cap I don't think the disparity in pay is as great, but injury and longevity factors still weigh against the football player.

[The Leaper]

If the league went uncapped, it would not be nirvana for the players...at least in the long run.

The NFL, with only 8 home games a year for teams to raise revenue, relies HEAVILY on television revenue for their profits. Compare that to the NBA with 41 home games or MLB with 81 home games.

If the league is uncapped, and fan interest wanes in all but a few markets (see baseball) in future years as a result, the revenue potential of the league would plunge dramatically.

In 1998, the league received almost $18 BILLION in TV revenue, just over $2B a year.
In 2005, the league received over $25 BILLION in TV revenue...roughly $3B a year.

Compare that to $250 MILLION Fox pays annually for MLB.

If the NFL threatens to destroy the parity of the league by eliminating the cap, the TV revenues will plunge because TV ratings will seriously decline. There are just too many other options out there...most other sports/TV events are already facing declining TV ratings because of it.

[Patler]

If the league went uncapped, it would not be nirvana for the players...at least in the long run.

The NFL, with only 8 home games a year for teams to raise revenue, relies HEAVILY on television revenue for their profits. Compare that to the NBA with 41 home games or MLB with 81 home games.

If the league is uncapped, and fan interest wanes in all but a few markets (see baseball) in future years as a result, the revenue potential of the league would plunge dramatically.

In 1998, the league received almost $18 BILLION in TV revenue, just over $2B a year.
In 2005, the league received over $25 BILLION in TV revenue...roughly $3B a year.

Compare that to $250 MILLION Fox pays annually for MLB.

If the NFL threatens to destroy the parity of the league by eliminating the cap, the TV revenues will plunge because TV ratings will seriously decline. There are just too many other options out there...most other sports/TV events are already facing declining TV ratings because of it.

Not only that, the CBA also mandates minimums and increases that are based on the increased revenues. Without the structure of a salary-cap, even wealthy teams and wealthy owners may not spend their money on the players. If the players will not agree to reasonable caps, I doubt the owners will agree to any significant minimums. Salaries could decline, especially with an owner that has a short-term outlook to generate income, possibly even for the benefit of other business interests.

If part of it crumbles, the entire structure could fall, which would be a shame because it is the best operating professional sport and has been for a long time.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

If the league went uncapped, it would not be nirvana for the players...at least in the long run.

The NFL, with only 8 home games a year for teams to raise revenue, relies HEAVILY on television revenue for their profits. Compare that to the NBA with 41 home games or MLB with 81 home games.

If the league is uncapped, and fan interest wanes in all but a few markets (see baseball) in future years as a result, the revenue potential of the league would plunge dramatically.

In 1998, the league received almost $18 BILLION in TV revenue, just over $2B a year.
In 2005, the league received over $25 BILLION in TV revenue...roughly $3B a year.

Compare that to $250 MILLION Fox pays annually for MLB.

If the NFL threatens to destroy the parity of the league by eliminating the cap, the TV revenues will plunge because TV ratings will seriously decline. There are just too many other options out there...most other sports/TV events are already facing declining TV ratings because of it.

Not that your figures are wrong, but Baseball relies quite a bit more on local tv revenue..YES network for example.

[Travbrew]

If the league went uncapped, it would not be nirvana for the players...at least in the long run.

The NFL, with only 8 home games a year for teams to raise revenue, relies HEAVILY on television revenue for their profits. Compare that to the NBA with 41 home games or MLB with 81 home games.

If the league is uncapped, and fan interest wanes in all but a few markets (see baseball) in future years as a result, the revenue potential of the league would plunge dramatically.

In 1998, the league received almost $18 BILLION in TV revenue, just over $2B a year.
In 2005, the league received over $25 BILLION in TV revenue...roughly $3B a year.

Compare that to $250 MILLION Fox pays annually for MLB.

If the NFL threatens to destroy the parity of the league by eliminating the cap, the TV revenues will plunge because TV ratings will seriously decline. There are just too many other options out there...most other sports/TV events are already facing declining TV ratings because of it.

Not only that, the CBA also mandates minimums and increases that are based on the increased revenues. Without the structure of a salary-cap, even wealthy teams and wealthy owners may not spend their money on the players. If the players will not agree to reasonable caps, I doubt the owners will agree to any significant minimums. Salaries could decline, especially with an owner that has a short-term outlook to generate income, possibly even for the benefit of other business interests.

If part of it crumbles, the entire structure could fall, which would be a shame because it is the best operating professional sport and has been for a long time.

Agreed. Horrible in every sense of the word. It won't take long before the major market teams dominate every year, year in, year out. Parity is what helps the NFL maintain its stranglehold over the other pro sports. "Any given Sunday" right?

Just seems wrong no matter which angle I look at it from.

I've always been told (and preached) it it 'aint broke..don't fix it!!

[superfan]

If part of it crumbles, the entire structure could fall, which would be a shame because it is the best operating professional sport and has been for a long time.

My thoughts exactly. Losing the salary cap would be devastating to the NFL. It's a big part of what sets it apart from the other major leagues.

[digitaldean]

Leave it to Jerry Jones and a greedy few to want to kill the golden goose which is the NFL.

JJ wants to be the Steinbrenner of the NFL. This will do long term damage if they opt out.

Heard Clayton on ESPN state he doubts that it will come to that. I, however, have my doubts.

[twoseven]

I imagine the NFL draft would generate about as much excitement as MLB's were there no more cap. I can think of a few things that would lose their excitement if major markets and free agency ruled the roost. How the divisions are aligned would be thrown off, same for the playoff brackets. Think ESPN and NBC cross their fingers on primetime matchups when the schedules are set now, wait until there's no cap and there are a lot less competitive teams, better beef up that flex option. Is DirecTV going to sell more $300 NFL packages or less with no cap? Stupid move any way you look at it. The NFL is number one because they have the best product, the salary cap might be the number one reason why the product is so attractive.

[Tarlam!]

I am often asked why I am such a fanatical supporter of an NFL team, seeing as how I am an Aussie living in Germany. I explain the way the NFL guards parity through the cap and the draft.

Soccer doesn't have that at all. Hence, the same teams dominate for decades at a time. It is so predictable.

Anyway, when I explain the NFL's system, people here genuinely like the idea and consider it to be a great advantage.

I hope fan clubs start petitioning owners to keep this sport the way it is.

[Patler]

JJ wants to be the Steinbrenner of the NFL. This will do long term damage if they opt out

Opting out really isn't the problem. All it does is begin the process of renegotiating the CBA sooner than it would if the CBA continues for its full term. If the owners opt out, presumably negotiations will begin soon. The salary cap will stay in place throught the 2009 season. If nothing is agreed to, the cap goes away in 2010. There was the risk of losing the cap when the last CBA expired, too.

It will all come down to the negotiations. Upshaw has said that if a new deal isn't in place before the salary cap goes away, the players will never agree to its return. But he said the same thing when the last CBA was up and there was the risk of entering an uncapped year. If they really feel that way, why did they agree to continue the cap in the new CBA?

[Merlin]

We will just go back to the dynasty years where teams could buy a super bowl multi year run. Teams like Green Bay will be relegated to farm teams because they can't pay players like the deep pocket teams. Dan Snyder has tried to buy a super bowl and it didn't work. Denver did it back in the 90's (a fine is a small price to pay for a super bowl) and the Patriots continue to try and buy it. That's why I like teams like the Giants who have a joke as a coach and a team that looks more like an amusement ride then an NFL team. They pull together when it matters and get the job done. There is no way the Giants should have beaten the Patriots, or us for that matter. This gives me hope that there is still some integrity in the NFL and it's not all about the money.

[swede]

We will just go back to the dynasty years where teams could buy a super bowl multi year run. Teams like Green Bay will be relegated to farm teams because they can't pay players like the deep pocket teams. Dan Snyder has tried to buy a super bowl and it didn't work. Denver did it back in the 90's (a fine is a small price to pay for a super bowl) and the Patriots continue to try and buy it. That's why I like teams like the Giants who have a joke as a coach and a team that looks more like an amusement ride then an NFL team. They pull together when it matters and get the job done. There is no way the Giants should have beaten the Patriots, or us for that matter. This gives me hope that there is still some integrity in the NFL and it's not all about the money.

As I understand your post...

(Losing the salary cap would mean) The era of dynasties will return and Green Bay will never be a dynasty team because they don't have the money, but buying dynasties a la Dan Snyder doesn't work.

And...

You like teams with a joke for a coach that look like amusement rides but who pull together when it matters even when there is no way they should beat teams that are clearly better because at least it wasn't all about the money.

[The Leaper]

Swede...

Stop trying to translate Merlinism into something comprehendable. It is neither a noble nor possible task.

:D

[Merlin]

Sort of.

Buying dynasty's is an art, you can't be a moron like Dan Snyder. Jerry Jones and Al Davis will pony up in a hurry and Jones could be successful whereas Davis is an idiot.

And yes about the Giants, it wasn't all about the money although I am sure this off season there will be plenty of Giants wanting their due, if not, more power too them.

The Packers today financially can be a dynasty but unless it's a quick turn around for that Dynasty without a salary cap we will plunge into oblivion because our pockets deep today wouldn't be for long. The right moves would have to be made to keep the revenue flow.

[swede]

Well okay. :lol:

I think I'm agreeing with you if we are both thinking that first, and obviously, Green Bay is poorly set up to be a big player in a salary cap-less NFL.

And, yes, there are some owners with deep resources and enough brains to counteract their egos and perhaps make trouble for the rest of the league without a cap in place.

As far as the Giants I am a momentary big fan because they played their hearts out in the last two games of their season. I respect the way they played not just with each other--but FOR each other.

[The Leaper]

I think I'm agreeing with you if we are both thinking that first, and obviously, Green Bay is poorly set up to be a big player in a salary cap-less NFL.

I disagree.

While Green Bay does not have an owner with deep pockets to spend money, Green Bay does have one of the largest fan bases around. Green Bay could easily compete with New York and Dallas by simply raising ticket prices to what people already usually pay to attend Packer games...and eliminate the ridiculous profit season ticket owners grab. If the Packers took in $300 a seat, that is $170M a year in revenue right there...nearly TWICE the stake Green Bay receives from the current TV agreement.

Don't tell me that you couldn't find 70,000 Packer fans willing to pay $300 a seat for season tickets. That is the problem with other small markets...they don't have a famed stadium like Lambeau, and they don't have a 60+ year waiting list for season tickets.

I agree that most small market teams would be in deep trouble if there was no cap. Green Bay is not one of them. They would have to aggressively change their policies to survive...and season ticket holders would have to enjoy the games rather than $2000 a year in scalping profits...but Green Bay could survive.

Ultimately, if TV revenues DID fall, the Packers would be one of the few teams who could establish their own TV contract and demand top dollar...because Green Bay possibly draws more TV viewership than any other NFL franchise.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

How is Coughline a joke of a coach.

If by winning at every stop on his resume that is considered a joke, then i'm all in favor of more jokes.

[twoseven]

I think I'm agreeing with you if we are both thinking that first, and obviously, Green Bay is poorly set up to be a big player in a salary cap-less NFL.

I disagree.

While Green Bay does not have an owner with deep pockets to spend money, Green Bay does have one of the largest fan bases around. Green Bay could easily compete with New York and Dallas by simply raising ticket prices to what people already usually pay to attend Packer games...and eliminate the ridiculous profit season ticket owners grab. If the Packers took in $300 a seat, that is $170M a year in revenue right there...nearly TWICE the stake Green Bay receives from the current TV agreement.

Don't tell me that you couldn't find 70,000 Packer fans willing to pay $300 a seat for season tickets. That is the problem with other small markets...they don't have a famed stadium like Lambeau, and they don't have a 60+ year waiting list for season tickets.

I agree that most small market teams would be in deep trouble if there was no cap. Green Bay is not one of them. They would have to aggressively change their policies to survive...and season ticket holders would have to enjoy the games rather than $2000 a year in scalping profits...but Green Bay could survive.

Ultimately, if TV revenues DID fall, the Packers would be one of the few teams who could establish their own TV contract and demand top dollar...because Green Bay possibly draws more TV viewership than any other NFL franchise.
I remember a few years back when the CBA was on the rocks and the salary cap looked to go away. They posted a list of the teams that generated the most money and GB was in the upper end of the group. They may be located in a small market but they do not generate small revenue.

[twoseven]

http://www.forbes.com/lists/2007/30/biz_07nfl_NFL-Team-Valuations_Revenue.html

..looks like we were at 14th in 2007 in revenue generated.

Not sure if Forbes' figures are completely cut and dry or if there are other dollars and incomes not accounted for, not sure about revenue sharing figures, but they at least point the way to who's bringing in the most and the least money.

Vikings at the bottom of the list.

[The Leaper]

..looks like we were at 14th in 2007 in revenue generated.

Green Bay could be much higher than that. Their ticket prices remain fairly low...considering the actual cost tickets go for on the scalper's market. Places like Washington, New England and Dallas already charge considerably more per ticket than Green Bay does...which is why they pull in more revenue.

Green Bay certainly isn't hurting for cash...they have been highly profitable the last 15 years. If they were forced to be more aggressive with their revenue stream, they would be. However, since there is no greedy owner looking to line his/her pockets, the franchise is fine with not pilfering every last dollar they can.

[Patler]

The problem the Packers would have is that they have only the money they earn to spend. They do not have an owner who can funnel his personal wealth or other business interest profits into the team if needed..

[the_idle_threat]

I think I'm agreeing with you if we are both thinking that first, and obviously, Green Bay is poorly set up to be a big player in a salary cap-less NFL.

I disagree.

While Green Bay does not have an owner with deep pockets to spend money, Green Bay does have one of the largest fan bases around. Green Bay could easily compete with New York and Dallas by simply raising ticket prices to what people already usually pay to attend Packer games...and eliminate the ridiculous profit season ticket owners grab. If the Packers took in $300 a seat, that is $170M a year in revenue right there...nearly TWICE the stake Green Bay receives from the current TV agreement.

Don't tell me that you couldn't find 70,000 Packer fans willing to pay $300 a seat for season tickets. That is the problem with other small markets...they don't have a famed stadium like Lambeau, and they don't have a 60+ year waiting list for season tickets.

I agree that most small market teams would be in deep trouble if there was no cap. Green Bay is not one of them. They would have to aggressively change their policies to survive...and season ticket holders would have to enjoy the games rather than $2000 a year in scalping profits...but Green Bay could survive.

Ultimately, if TV revenues DID fall, the Packers would be one of the few teams who could establish their own TV contract and demand top dollar...because Green Bay possibly draws more TV viewership than any other NFL franchise.

Do you remember how much difficulty Bob Harlan had in getting Brown County voters to pay for the stadium renovations about 10 years ago? What do you think the chances would be of getting any further public help the next time if they effectively price the locals out of seeing games?

[The Leaper]

Do you remember how much difficulty Bob Harlan had in getting Brown County voters to pay for the stadium renovations about 10 years ago? What do you think the chances would be of getting any further public help the next time if they effectively price the locals out of seeing games?

People hate taxes being raised. The two items are entirely different things.

When it comes to paying to see Packer games, people fork out $250+ per ticket with no qualms...and currently, the season ticket holders are the ones who see most of the profit.