smg93
In the Starting Line-Up
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2006
- Messages
- 2,198
- Reaction score
- 349
I have seen fans on this board complain more and more about free agency becoming an exercise of winning vs. dollars. While that may be a little simplistic in a way, there is merit to it. Frankly if there was no salary cap in place and the NFL was more like the real word, I think there would be less "should I choose winning or $$$$$$$" type scenarios that many fans complain about especially when their favorite player leaves their teams for another.
To the Victors go the Spoils does not apply to the NFL in this day and age because of the Salary Cap. Players do not see a direct benefit of just being on a winning team. Sure, if a team like the Pats win a superbowl and they generate more revenue because of those wins, most all of that money goes back into a pool and then is spread amongst all 32 teams. Everyone, not just the Pats benefit from that increased revenue. That for me is the main reason why it's hard to fault players who are so called "chasing the dollars" especially when most of them have such short careers. I'm not talking about benefits like fame or endorsements because so few on a team actually get to cash in on these endorsements. Only people like Brady, Vinatieri, or Troy Brown for the most part can get a significant amount of endorsement money. My focus is on the major or only source of income for all NFL athletes and that is in their Salary and Bonuses.
There simply is less direct monetary benefit in the Salary Cap era because it's not like an individual Superbowl winner either a) gets to exploit that success by earning more and then passing on that increased revenue directly to its team members or b) has a very huge financial incentive such as a one or two million dollar prize to give to each player who wins the Superbowl.
In the spirit of parity I would keep the cap but, I would like to see the NFL try option B. I would take away approximately $5 million from each of the 32 teams salary caps (which would equate to about $160 million) and then I would divide that pool of money between the Superbowl contenders. I'd give one third (about $53m) to the loser of the superbowl and two thirds to the SB champions (about $106m). That would equate to almost two million dollars in bonuses for each player on the team that won the Superbowl. If we took a simple 102m salary cap and divide that by 53 players (a little less than $2m per player), that's like the SB champions bonus would effectively double the salary of an average player on the roster. This then would create a real incentive for a player and agent to study the ownership and management of a particular team to evaluate that teams chances of winning it all rather than just seeing free agency as purely a personal financial exercise.
I think a system like this would even out the playing field in terms of recruiting players. If a salary cap is never going to go away, then lets at least put a real financial incentive for players to want to be in or stay in championship caliber teams. Are there people out there who think this is a workable idea?
To the Victors go the Spoils does not apply to the NFL in this day and age because of the Salary Cap. Players do not see a direct benefit of just being on a winning team. Sure, if a team like the Pats win a superbowl and they generate more revenue because of those wins, most all of that money goes back into a pool and then is spread amongst all 32 teams. Everyone, not just the Pats benefit from that increased revenue. That for me is the main reason why it's hard to fault players who are so called "chasing the dollars" especially when most of them have such short careers. I'm not talking about benefits like fame or endorsements because so few on a team actually get to cash in on these endorsements. Only people like Brady, Vinatieri, or Troy Brown for the most part can get a significant amount of endorsement money. My focus is on the major or only source of income for all NFL athletes and that is in their Salary and Bonuses.
There simply is less direct monetary benefit in the Salary Cap era because it's not like an individual Superbowl winner either a) gets to exploit that success by earning more and then passing on that increased revenue directly to its team members or b) has a very huge financial incentive such as a one or two million dollar prize to give to each player who wins the Superbowl.
In the spirit of parity I would keep the cap but, I would like to see the NFL try option B. I would take away approximately $5 million from each of the 32 teams salary caps (which would equate to about $160 million) and then I would divide that pool of money between the Superbowl contenders. I'd give one third (about $53m) to the loser of the superbowl and two thirds to the SB champions (about $106m). That would equate to almost two million dollars in bonuses for each player on the team that won the Superbowl. If we took a simple 102m salary cap and divide that by 53 players (a little less than $2m per player), that's like the SB champions bonus would effectively double the salary of an average player on the roster. This then would create a real incentive for a player and agent to study the ownership and management of a particular team to evaluate that teams chances of winning it all rather than just seeing free agency as purely a personal financial exercise.
I think a system like this would even out the playing field in terms of recruiting players. If a salary cap is never going to go away, then lets at least put a real financial incentive for players to want to be in or stay in championship caliber teams. Are there people out there who think this is a workable idea?
Last edited:
