Financial divide grows wider - Salary cap, revenue sharing set for review

[mesaSteeler]

Financial divide grows wider
Salary cap, revenue sharing set for review
BY MARK CURNUTTE | MCURNUTTE@ENQUIRER.COM

The NFL's current financial model, based in large part on the twin pillars of a salary cap and a revenue-sharing agreement, will come under intense review this week from team owners as they gather in Palm Beach, Fla., for their annual league meeting.

The fallout from any changes made to the system probably would hit small-market teams like Cincinnati the hardest.

At issue is the NFL's 2-year-old collective bargaining agreement with the NFL Players Association, which features a salary cap, and the future of revenue sharing between big- and small-market teams.

An increasing number of owners are unhappy with the CBA, and they have until Nov. 8 to opt out of the deal. It could happen as soon as this week; just nine votes are needed from the NFL's 32 teams to kill the agreement.

If owners do opt out, the salary cap, which limits the amount of money each team can spend on players, would end after the 2009 season.

Simultaneously, the league's system of sharing revenue between the haves and the have-mores is showing signs of strain. That's because there is a growing pool of unshared revenue, such as advertising and local broadcasting rights, which tend to be greater in larger markets or among teams with new stadiums.

Small-market teams - such as the Bengals, Buffalo Bills and Jacksonville Jaguars - say they have to spend significantly higher percentages of their revenue (70 percent compared to 40 percent) on player costs than big-market teams, and that the highest-revenue clubs continue to push up player costs for the whole league.

These twin factors - the potential of no salary cap and the increasing disparity in unshared revenue - should make Bengals fans nervous, said Sports Illustrated NFL writer Peter King.

"Here's what would scare me more than anything if I were a Bengals fan," King, a former Bengals beat reporter for The Enquirer, said.

"It's (Cowboys owner) Jerry Jones talking about how the (labor) deal is no good while simultaneously charging tens of thousands of dollars for seat licenses in his stadium that opens in 2009."

MORE OPPOSING VOICES

In March 2006, Mike Brown of the Bengals and the Buffalo Bills' Ralph Wilson were the only team owners among the 32 in the league to vote against the union's proposal to extend the labor contract through 2011.

Brown and Wilson saw the proposal, which gave players 60 percent of league revenues - another $850 million of the more than $6 billion NFL - as disastrous for small-market teams.

Now some notable big-market owners - Jones in Dallas, Robert Kraft in New England and Pat Bowlen in Denver - are saying the deal is not good for the NFL.

They have said teams will struggle because players have too much money.

And though increasing numbers of team owners now think the deal was, in the words of Bowlen to the Rocky Mountain News, "not our smartest move," they aren't aligned in their vision for the league's future.

For instance, it's no secret that Jones wants to turn the Cowboys into the New York Yankees of pro football.

Not having to deal with a salary cap would put him one step closer to that goal.

"Nothing will be able to stop Jerry Jones from giving a great player like (Bengals quarterback) Carson Palmer a $50 million signing bonus as a free agent," King said.

Compare the ghost of NFL future with that of big-league baseball's present. The Reds, who open their season Monday, are among the 75 percent of teams who are outspent 2-to-1 by big-market clubs like the Yankees, Red Sox and Mets. The spending disparity makes it almost impossible for small-market teams to compete consistently for championships.

Now apply that model to the NFL.

King said that without a salary cap, Dallas would be among a small group of NFL teams - along with New England, Philadelphia, Washington, and the two New York teams - that would be able, and probably willing, to outspend the rest of the league for top talent.

Most of the rest of the league would have to operate like the Oakland A's in baseball: Draft well, develop young talent, try to win in a three- to four-year window and then start all over again because they can't afford to re-sign their top players.

Brown declined to be interviewed for this story, citing the fine that would result in ignoring the league's call for silence on the issue.

But in interviews with Bengals beat reporters in March 2006, and again with The Enquirer in 2007, he warned of the competitive imbalance that would affect his team as well as such hallmark NFL franchises as the Packers, who play in the league's smallest market, Green Bay, Wis.

"If you look at the baseball pattern and what happened over there, and which would be the likely result here, over time you would begin to see some teams spending a multiple of what other teams are spending (for players)," Brown said.

And the players union would like nothing better than to lose the salary cap. Once it's gone, it's not coming back, NFL Players Association executive director Gene Upshaw has said.

BUILT ON SHARED REVENUE

The twin issue to the labor agreement is revenue sharing. Upshaw contends the biggest disagreement isn't between owners and the players union - it's within the league, among small-market and large-market team owners who disagree over non-shared revenue.

Each team in the NFL receives $102 million from the league's television contracts. And last year at the league meeting in Phoenix, owners adopted a supplemental revenue-sharing plan in which the top 15 revenue-producing teams - almost all of them in the NFL's largest markets, such as Washington, Philadelphia, New York, Houston and Boston - pay into the pool.

Teams such as the Bengals, Buffalo, Jacksonville and Minnesota - which ranks last in team revenue - are among the 17 that will receive money.

The problem is the growing pool of unshared revenues. The Bengals were among the most low-revenue teams in the league in 2006 - in the bottom third, with revenues of about $177 million. The top third of the teams - including the New York teams, Dallas, Washington, Chicago, Philadelphia and New England - generated revenues on average of $256 million.

The league average was $211 million in revenue per team. Each team is required to spend the same on players; the salary cap will be $116 million in 2008.

Brown said teams such as the Bengals spend 70 percent of their revenue on players, though big-market teams spend only 40 percent on their on-field talent. That means big-market teams have more money to spend on head coaches and high-priced coordinators and assistant coaches, as well as on scouts and facilities.

Brown, Wilson and other owners of small-market teams say the rift is growing and threatens the league's competitive balance. The cliché that any team could defeat any other team on "any given Sunday" could become a thing of the past.

"What is not in question is the Bengals' ability to compete over the next few years," Brown said in 2007 - a call that's even more urgent in 2008. "What is in question is the Bengals' viability over the long term. We are coming to the point where that is going to have to be addressed."

(Thanks to the might of Steeler Nation we will always be better off than the BungHoles but the Steelers can not compete with the likes of Dallas with out a salary cap. Witness their new stadium as exhibit one. What is really needed is a rookie salary cap so teams don't destroy themselves by overpaying a number one pick. Consider the damage that Ryan Leaf did to the Chargers. - mesaSteeler)

[Hollywood Bags]

The NFL is now just big business, it doesn't give a shit about the fans being the monopoly that thet are. I hope the owners lock out the players to reduce the overwhelmingly high percent of revenue. The players don't have debt service or any of the costs of running a team.

[Vader]

IF the NFL turns into MLB I'll stop watching.

[Hollywood Bags]

Its happening Vader. I rarely watch the Steelers anymore, I have just been turned off with todays NFL. I TIVO the games but after hearing who won, I lose interest in seeing every play, usually just watch the highlight shows.

If the dollar structure becomes like baseball and the Steelers become the de facto Pirates I stop watching altogether. Right now we have the chance to compete for the title every year, go the baseball route and who wants to watch certain defeat against the big boys ?

[blitz]

IF the NFL turns into MLB I'll stop watching.


i say that also but in the end i cannot stop watching. i am hooked and nothing will change that

[Hollywood Bags]

Try going 3-13 for the next 5 years with NO hope of getting better.

[blitz]

Try going 3-13 for the next 5 years with NO hope of getting better.


i would still watch. I would just drink alot more and hate going to work on mondays more.

[Super Dave]

For me it would equate to College Gameday > NFL Season Ticket

[DrunkinIrishman]

If the NFL turns into MLB it will change my view. I would still watch but would not be very die hard. Just like the Pirates, I would still keep an eye on them but would not give an ounce of my money to them. If this would happen I would hope the steelers could use their popularity around the country to pull in merchandise revenue from others backyards. If I am not mistaken is that not split up right now. Does anyone know.

[Hollywood Bags]

Very few will watch the Steelers if we become the equivalent of the Pirates with no hope to succeed.

[Kdiddy71]

I will out stop watching, nothing more then people being greedy.
Figures its @$$holes like Jerry Jones and Kraft trying to ruin the NFL just to make a buck over the next guy.
:mad:

[mesaSteeler]

IF the NFL turns into MLB I'll stop watching.

I agree. With out a salary cap and revenue sharing the Steelers can not possibly compete.

[pete]

I agree. With out a salary cap and revenue sharing the Steelers can not possibly compete.

Whoa........

[SteelrzGirl]

IF the NFL turns into MLB I'll stop watching.

Im right there with you

[TDX27]

They damn well better come up with something to keep the cap. The league will be ruined if it goes to no cap.

[warriors42]

If you get rid of the cap, you have to get rid of free agency, that would slow things a bit, and put the fucks to Jones, and snyder, Hell i don't understand how some of the teams like the skins, and cowboys stay under the cap anyway, with the way they spend now..

[BermudaSteel]

IF the NFL turns into MLB I'll stop watching.

Hmmmm....

Probably why I don't watch baseball now.

[BLITZ 43]

I agree. With out a salary cap and revenue sharing the Steelers can not possibly compete.



This is not true the Steelers have been the biggest draw for out of market teams and have been tops in merchandise sales. I don't have the total numbers but in one of my ESPN the magazine issues this past year it showed how the Steelers were the top rated team out of market and how the had the largest fan base out of market. With all that said it is all about winning and the Steelers have done that every year and thats what keeps the fan watching. I think we all know the Rooney's will not spend when it comes to FA and thats what would keep us from keeping up with the likes of the Cowboys, Broncos, Giants, Jets, etc! I do not want to see the end to the salary cap but if it did end we have the money to keep up it will be up to the Rooney's to spend it. Remember one reason for the new stadium was to create new revenue so we could spend on fa.

[TMC]

IF the NFL turns into MLB I'll stop watching.

MLB went on strike in the 80s, I have not watched a single game since. If the NFL drops the cap and it turns into the MLB system, I am done as well.

[FistfullofRings]

Although no salary cap would undeniably be bad for the NFL, it wouldn't be as bad as MLB because of the number of players, the importance of depth, and injuries.

Basically, the Patriots acted as if there were no salary cap last season and the Giants still took the Super Bowl.

[Super Dave]

This is going to get very messy.

As I understand it, the owners can't bargain with the players until they all get on the same page.

Unshared revenue is the critical area, the players are paid a % of profits ,(63% I believe) historically this has been the TV contracts and merchandisie.

Now we have PSL sales that are not factored in. Stadium naming rights are not factored in. If they had been, the Steelers would not of been able to sell naming rights for 57 Million Dollars, it would of been vetoed by the league, insufficient compensation.

Jerry Jones several years ago wanted to sell Marketing rights for Texas Stadium to Pepsi instead of Coke, he got a better, more lucrative offer from Pepsi, the NFL has a contract with Coke, Coke was the official sponsor of the NFL.

Robert Kraft has built Patriot Place at Gillette Stadium, the rent he is collecting from tenants is non shared revenue.

The Players union sees this revenue and wants it's cut.

IMO, If an owner assumes additional risk he should reap the rewards, like Kraft has done with Patriot Place.

However an owner must also realize that his business is not just the Dallas Cowboys, but the NFL.

The NFLPA has to realize that they are compensated for their work and are assuming none of the business risk.

I think there will be a lockout followed by a strike and it could take over a year to resolve.

[Stryker]

The Bengals are worried about not being able to compete without a salary cap.

What's their excuse for not being able to compete with the salary cap?

[Super Dave]

I'm trying to identify 9 owners that will nullify the CBA, the article states

Jones
Snyder
Kraft

It mentions the 2 NY teams, although they would have the most to gain,I don't buy it, I don't think Mara/Tisch will vote to Opt out. That leaves the Jets, and I don't know what they will do.

In the past you would automatically include Al Davis in this, but he's back in Oakland and his team sucks.

When you think of the new generation of owners, like The dude in Baltimore, or Ziggy in Minnesota you have to figure that the power of the NFL brand is stronger than that of the Ravens. So it would make sense to align your team accordingly.

I don't know if they can find 9 votes

[Stryker]

Jerry Jones several years ago wanted to sell Pepsi instead of Coke, he got a better, more lucrative offer from Pepsi, the NFL has a contract with Coke, Coke only in all NFL Stadiums. (Could be the other way, no coke, pepsi)

.

I work in the soft drink business. When one soft drink or beer becomes the official soda or beer of the NFL i.e. Diet Pepsi, it doesn't mean they get the pouring rights to all of the stadiums. They just get the right to market the NFL Logo with their product, which has tremendous marketing value. Pouring rights are always determined locally by the football team's marketing department. This how the Steelers can negotiate a better deal and pour Coke in their stadium when Pepsi is the official drink of the NFL.

These soda contracts are determined by the size of the market and always include trade as well as dollars, i.e. getting tickets or boxes for pouring rights and special funded events. Usually they get access to a high profile athlete on the team for advertising (though they also work out a contract with that player directly to be a spokesman). In Philly Pepsi had McNabb until 2 years ago when the switched to Reggie Brown. Now they have Westbrook, which gives them a better profile player.

There will never be a deal where one company can gain pouring rights to every stadium. It's not cost effective, and it wouldn't work locally where a company is weak (like forcing Coke HQ Atlanta to pour Pepsi in their stadium, that would be a dangerous situation).

[Super Dave]

This battle has been brewing for awhile now......

PRO FOOTBALL; Tagliabue Plans To Take Jones to Task
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=990CE5D81738F935A3575AC0A9639582 60&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=2

Jerry Jones, the Dallas owner, thumbed his nose at the National Football League during the Giants-Cowboys game on Monday night when he announced a commercial sponsorship agreement between Nike and Texas Stadium.

Now Paul Tagliabue, the National Football League commissioner, is preparing to slap his wrist.

Tagliabue believes the Cowboys violated league policies by striking an agreement with Nike and having unauthorized personnel standing on the sideline during the game. He hopes to arrange a meeting with Jones soon in New York.

Phil Knight, the chairman and chief executive officer of Nike, and Monica Seles stood on the Cowboys sideline dressed in Nike apparel while Cowboys players wore jackets and shoes with no visible labels. The headline on the statement released by Jones and Knight was "Cowboys Owner Bucks NFL Again" written in bold black letters and underlined.

Jones's agreement with Nike seems to do just that. Jones wants all 30 teams to have the freedom to market themselves. He has called for teams to abandon their current agreement with NFL Properties when it expires in 2003.

The N.F.L. grants exclusive licenses for apparel and shoes through NFL Properties. The Cowboys were covered by an agreement with Apex One until the company was bought by Converse and then closed this summer. Another N.F.L.-licensed apparel company was not assigned to the Cowboys. Whether the Cowboys players and coaches will be allowed to wear Nike apparel during games is debatable. Nike does not have a licensing agreement with NFL Properties but is trying to negotiate one.

The agreement that Jones signed with Nike, which is similar to the one he signed last month with Pepsi, calls for Nike to be the official sponsor of Texas Stadium. Nike has the right to use the stadium name and logos in connection with the sale of its products. Jones and Knight also plan to build a theme park at Texas Stadium.

Jones's deals with Pepsi and Nike have major ramifications for the N.F.L. because they fly in the face of the league's concept of revenue sharing and they conflict with exclusive licensing agreements negotiated by NFL Properties with Coca-Cola and Reebok.

Some N.F.L. owners find Jones's moves disturbing because they think it could be detrimental to the long-term health of the league and could drive down the price of some franchises.

The Giants' co-owner, Wellington Mara, compared Jones to a relay runner who won't pass the baton.

"I don't think he has the concept of what it means to be a member of a team," Mara said. "When you do something to enhance yourself at the expense of your team, you hurt the team.

"It looks like he wants to share other people's revenue, but not his."

Mara believes that Jones's action could prompt other N.F.L. owners to seek their own deals at the expense of the collective. Revenue sharing is a sensitive issue with Mara because he believes it paved the way for the lucrative television deals the league has with Fox, NBC, ESPN and TNT.

Jones is one of three N.F.L. owners who own the stadiums in which their teams play. Robert Kraft of the Patriots and Wayne Huizenga of the Dolphins are the others.

Kraft negotiated a deal with Pepsi for Foxboro Stadium that was similar to the one that Jones made. But unlike Jones, he did not make a public statement about the deal. He is concerned with the direction Jones is headed.

"We own our stadium and we've thought a lot about the types of things that Jerry is doing," Kraft said. "We did an arrangement with Pepsi, but in a way that allowed us to be a good partner. I believe in the concept of partnership -- not as a word, but something we make happen.

"The power of the group as a whole is greater than the individual partner. I'd like to find a way to give the individual incentive instead of breaking down the whole."

Jones's deals could also potentially affect the N.F.L.'s collective bargaining agreement with the players because the players are entitled to money from NFL Properties over an amount that was set in 1992. Over the last two years, the spillover has resulted in $15 million that was included as designated gross revenue and used to formulate the league's salary cap.

"If anybody does anything to diminish that spillover, we'll challenge it," said Doug Allen, the assistant executive director of the players association.

The players association has its own marketing company called Players Inc., which works exclusively with N.F.L. players, but not those in the Quarterbacks Club, which is part of NFL Properties.

"I'm not sure what Jerry has in mind with Pepsi and Nike," Allen said. "But neither he nor the league has the rights to the players. We do, and we are fiercely protective of that.

[VaSteelerFan]

If the Steelers can't remain competitive without a cap, I'll stop watching.

I used to be a huge baseball fan. I would listen to every game on the radio before our cable system in Warren Pa added Fox Sports Pittsburgh (it was called something different back then). I would try to go to several games a year even before I had my drivers license (I would find a local church taking a bus trip etc).

The last Pirate game I was at was 1 yr after the stadium was built. I have not been back since. I have lost virtually all interest in MLB. There just is no hope whatsoever of the Pirates ever being competitive and if they are, it will be for a year or 2 before they lose all their players. I refuse to support MLB in any way. What did that article say... 75% of teams are out spent 2-1 by the top few? And they call that a "league"? Its a joke.

At least the NHL made a change for the better...

[dobre shunka]

I don't think it will be as bad as MLB. But that largely depends on whether the owners decide to keep the draft system in place. Without a cap, a drafted player is bound to his team for 6 years instead of 4 as it is now. So teams can develop and keep players longer, if they draft well they can stay stocked on the cheap.

Plus revenue sharing and the collective bargaining, while go hand in hand, are two completely seperate entities. CBA is an agreement between players and owners, and Rev Sharing is between owners and owners. Revenue sharing will still exist without the CBA. And while the locally generated revenue disparity between the large market and small market will continue to widen, still every team will still get a large chunk of dough from revenue sharing (league generated revenue). Like TV, liscensing agreements, merchandising, ect. All that will continue to be divvied 32 ways. It won't be the free-for-all/every-man-for himself that is the MLB.

The owners screwed up last time because they couldn't get their issues amongst themselves resolved before dealing with the CBA. Therefore they went into negotiations disjointed and got raped. They put the carrot before the horse by agreeing way out in front to change the cap model to one based on Total Revenue rather than the old way of Designated Gross Revenue (basically, local money wasn't factored). They needed to resolve revenue sharing within their ranks before just casually tossing in such a huge bargaining chip as that to the union. It was like creating a flat tax by averaging all incomes. That's fine if all incomes are close in range, but that wasn't, isn't, and never will be the case. Like Crunette said, as a percentage of revenue some teams are paying a much higher rate than others, 70% to 40%.

The small market teams hate it because they have to pay an equal share based on total revenue. Think of it this way. You live in a $170k house in a neighborhood whose average house is $211k, and the high end is around $260k. Then your homeowners association decides to collective bargain with the state for a unified property tax rate, where all homeowners in your association will be taxed a rate based on the average $211k house. You'd be pissed too. And your property tax is nowhere near 70% of your annual income.

Large market teams don't like it either. . Takes money to make money. And these guys incur a large amount of debt to pay for these new stadiums. The stadiums are what generate that widening gap in revenue. Debt isn't factored into the new CBA model based on Total Revenue. Let's say Jones takes on $40m/y in debt to help finance his new stadium. But his new stadium only helps generate an additional $80m in revenue over his old stadium. Well, because the Players take 60% of that $80m, or $48m without consideration for that debt that lead to increased revenue. it looks like he's raking it in, but he's actually losing money compared to just staying in his old stadium.

It just isn't a sustainable model. Now here we are, as predicted.

[Vader]

Although no salary cap would undeniably be bad for the NFL, it wouldn't be as bad as MLB because of the number of players, the importance of depth, and injuries.

Basically, the Patriots acted as if there were no salary cap last season and the Giants still took the Super Bowl.

How did you get that? They gave away a 4th round draft pick for Moss and he took a pay cut to go there. Stallworth just had a 1 year deal. Thomas made some money but overall it wasn't that bad.

Also remember that without a salary cap depth is easier to come by. Jerry Jones and the rest of the more wealthy teams will totally dominant the sport if the salary cap is ever taken out. Yes, football is a bit different than baseball but without a cap the Steelers can't compete with the larger market teams.

[FistfullofRings]

How did you get that? They gave away a 4th round draft pick for Moss and he took a pay cut to go there. Stallworth just had a 1 year deal. Thomas made some money but overall it wasn't that bad.

Also remember that without a salary cap depth is easier to come by. Jerry Jones and the rest of the more wealthy teams will totally dominant the sport if the salary cap is ever taken out. Yes, football is a bit different than baseball but without a cap the Steelers can't compete with the larger market teams.

Forget about how they acquired it, I'm referring to the amount of talent they were able to acquire in one season.

I suspect that the only reason this has any wings among NFL owners is that baseball has 10 times the number of games as football, so the Yankees selling out 81 games and the Pirates selling 10,000 tickets for most games creates much more of a revenue divide than would Jerry Jones selling out at an average of $150/ticket to the Steelers selling out at an average of $90/ticket. I agree it would suck regardless and would be terribly short-sighted on the part of the NFL

[stevew]

Jones
Snyder
Kraft

Plus Brown and Wilson. Probably whomever owns Minnesota and Jacksonville too. They will get what they need. I think it will happen.

What's stupid is that owners on either extreme hate the deal. The Cowboys don't want to pay so much revenue sharing. The Bengals want the salary floor eliminated. The rapid rise in salary cap has to be tempered.

[LetMePlay]

The get rid of the cap and I will cancel my NFL Sunday.

I like the salary cap and I like the salary floor. If they mess with either I'm out.

[FistfullofRings]

The get rid of the cap and I will cancel my NFL Sunday.

I like the salary cap and I like the salary floor. If they mess with either I'm out.

Unfortunately, both Murphy's Law and the Law of Change Being Inevitable exist.

[Vindrow]

I have to agree..no cap, no watch.



Leave it to Jones and Kraft to try and screw up the NFL just so they can make more money....its not like they don't have enough already.

I can see the NFL's popularity plunging if they do this, and I can see the NBA taking over the crown.

[Southern Steeler]

question:

if each team were left up to it's own resources for revenue....wouldn't that help the Steelers in certain areas? (most notably merchandise sales). Am I correct in assuming that TV money would still be divided equally and that it's the extra stuff that they want to keep for themselves?

[FistfullofRings]

question:

if each team were left up to it's own resources for revenue....wouldn't that help the Steelers in certain areas? (most notably merchandise sales). Am I correct in assuming that TV money would still be divided equally and that it's the extra stuff that they want to keep for themselves?

Not if owners could pour whatever money they wanted into the salaries. Many NFL owners were billionaires and then bought an NFL franshise - they could use their own money to sign players in free agency. The Rooney's got their money from owning an NFL franchise - they don't have any outside money so-to-speak to sign players in free agency.

[Vader]

Forget about how they acquired it, I'm referring to the amount of talent they were able to acquire in one season.

I suspect that the only reason this has any wings among NFL owners is that baseball has 10 times the number of games as football, so the Yankees selling out 81 games and the Pirates selling 10,000 tickets for most games creates much more of a revenue divide than would Jerry Jones selling out at an average of $150/ticket to the Steelers selling out at an average of $90/ticket. I agree it would suck regardless and would be terribly short-sighted on the part of the NFL

It does matter how they acquired it because the entire discussion is about the salary cap. Your reference was to the pats* acting like there was NO salary cap last year.

Without a salary cap teams like Dallas, Washington, and both NY teams can out spend the Steelers by massive amounts. I'm not going to watch the Steelers get raped of their talent every year while the Cowgirls win SBs because of their massive spending.

If the NFL knows what is best for them they will keep the cap and work on the rookie salary cap as well.

[Blind Official]

The get rid of the cap and I will cancel my NFL Sunday.

I like the salary cap and I like the salary floor. If they mess with either I'm out.

Why exactly would you be a fan of the salary floor?

[Southern Steeler]

Not if owners could pour whatever money they wanted into the salaries. Many NFL owners were billionaires and then bought an NFL franshise - they could use their own money to sign players in free agency. The Rooney's got their money from owning an NFL franchise - they don't have any outside money so-to-speak to sign players in free agency.


good point.

I guess I was trying to find one bright spot for our boys....and figured our vast national fanbase would be one.....especially when it comes to merchandise.

[FistfullofRings]

It does matter how they acquired it because the entire discussion is about the salary cap. Your reference was to the pats* acting like there was NO salary cap last year. .

What I'm saying is that it's hard to imagine a team, even without a salary cap, being able to acquire more talent than New England did last year (which still was not enought to win a Super Bowl Championship).

[K from Cal]

I just finished Dan Rooneys book and was elated to see a good person making decisions which were unselfish while looking out for the best interests of the league, not just serving himself. Hopefully there are more Dan Rooneys in the NFL to save us from the Al Davis's, Krafts, and Jones of the world.

[VaSteelerFan]

Why exactly would you be a fan of the salary floor?



Well, since every team gets 102 million from tv revenue, it should be pretty damn easy to make the cap floor if the cap is at what 116 max now? Teams are getting 102 Million before concessions, ticket prices, merchandise, etc is factored in. In addition to this, there is additional revenue sharing on top for the poorer teams.

[Super Dave]

I just finished Dan Rooneys book and was elated to see a good person making decisions which were unselfish while looking out for the best interests of the league, not just serving himself. Hopefully there are more Dan Rooneys in the NFL to save us from the Al Davis's, Krafts, and Jones of the world.

I hope Art2 reads it........

[SteelrzGirl]

I hope Art2 reads it........

He sure needs to. He's the end of the Rooneys as you know it.

[Sluzilla]

i'd hate it...but i'd watch every game just like now...

[Vader]

What I'm saying is that it's hard to imagine a team, even without a salary cap, being able to acquire more talent than New England did last year (which still was not enought to win a Super Bowl Championship).

I call that the "yankee" argument. Everybody looks and says "The Yankees haven't won the WS in years." So that proves MLB is just fine and that it doesn't need a salary cap ETC... But that is too myopic. Many NFL teams have "made a run" at one last championship and not won it. I remember the Ravens cutting their SB QB and signing a high priced QB to make another run.

If the NFL doesn't keep a salary cap within a few years you will have MLB2 and I won't watch it. NE may not win every year but it will be between them and a handful of other teams. Just like in baseball, the Yankees don't win it every year but there is a small number of teams that have a real chance... and the Pirates ain't one of them...

[omawho]

MLB went on strike in the 80s, I have not watched a single game since. If the NFL drops the cap and it turns into the MLB system, I am done as well.

Ditto.............

[Blind Official]

One big difference is, I don't think baseball was ever right. Football was different, but fun even before the cap came into existence.

Personally, I might have even enjoyed it more (but that was before all of the maverick owners with the cash to throw around)

[LetMePlay]

Why exactly would you be a fan of the salary floor?

You want to play with the big boys you have to pony up.

[360x]

Financial divide grows wider - Salary cap, revenue sharing set for review

Fan support grows narrow - Support, personal attention and revenue spent on football set for review