NFL Owners want a QB Salary Cap

[Stu Pidassle]

Thirty years ago trhe NFL needed a salary cap to save the owners from themselves. 30 years later they now need a position by position cap to... wait for it... save the owners from themselves.

"History never repeats itself but it does often rhyme"

The owners shouldn't have any issue getting the players to go along in the next CBA though, of the @ 2400 voting members of the NFLPA @ 2200 aren't QB's or WR's.

You forgot a step. The owners needed a cap on rookie contracts to save them from themselves. To me the best case scenario would be ensuring that the players are fairly compensated with the minimum amount of drama. Human nature being what it is, there needs to be rules to make that happen.

 

[XLIX]

Not really... when a decade is considered a really long career, it's not misleading at all.

Every year over a thousand college players throw their hat into the job pool, somewhere around 200-250 players get jobs... most don't make it more than three years. A third of the NFL is made up of UDFA's, which means a whole lot of drafted players don't make it.

No ****, sherlock, that's the point I am making. The players who sneak into a game or two but just don't make it are the ones who drag the average down.

Pro football is hard.

Simple.

Yes pro football is hard, but the 3.5 year statistic remains misleading.

Anyone's career can end on any play, but fact is there is not an epidemic of talented players' bodies breaking down after 3.5 years. It is the players who are not talented enough to succeed in the League, but manage to find their way onto the 53-man roster for a couple games of fill in duty, who drag down the average.

Simple.

 

[203Pat]

This remains one of the most misleading stats in the game. The reason why the average NFL career length is so low is because there are so many late season replacements/career practice squad types who play a game or two here and there and bring the average way down.

The average 1st rounder plays over 9 years. The average player who makes the opening day roster week 1 of his rookie season plays almost 7 years. Players with talent average decent length careers.

Even still they make pocket change in their career compared to what the owners make over the lifetime they own a team. I always root for players to get paid as much as they can. When it my own team I don't love to see bad contracts handed out as a fan but I do like it on a personal level for the player.

 

[XLIX]

Even still they make pocket change in their career compared to what the owners make over the lifetime they own a team.

Well, that's a separate argument. If you want to increase the percentage the players get, you'll find no opposition from me. It's just a darn shame they are the weakest union in all of pro sports. Hell, IMHO, they are so weak as a Union they should just disband.

 

[Wozzy]

No ****, sherlock, that's the point I am making. The players who sneak into a game or two but just don't make it are the ones who drag the average down.

Yes pro football is hard, but the 3.5 year statistic remains misleading.

Anyone's career can end on any play, but fact is there is not an epidemic of talented players' bodies breaking down after 3.5 years. It is the players who are not talented enough to succeed in the League, but manage to find their way onto the 53-man roster for a couple games of fill in duty, who drag down the average.

Simple.

These players didn't just arrive out of nowhere, they've kicked around the league on practice squads for years. Bottom line is it's a tough sport, Ty Warren's career didn't end because he wasn't good enough, he suffered a debilitating injury. Todd Gurley and Sony Michel's careers ended because of years of abuse in college and high school finally caught up to them.

Averages don't care who was good, who wasn't good enough, who got injured, who got addicted to crack... it counts everyone.

The average NFL career lasts three years. Football is hard.

 

[XLIX]

These players didn't just arrive out of nowhere, they've kicked around the league on practice squads for years.

Yeah no foolin'. And then when they have to replace the backup left guard for the final 2 games of the season and are never heard from again, it brings the average way down.

Bottom line is it's a tough sport,

You seem strangely obsessed with repeating this statement which no one is disagreeing with.

Averages don't care who was good, who wasn't good enough, who got injured, who got addicted to crack... it counts everyone.

Thank you for supporting what I am saying. Averages count everyone - which is why the 3.5 figure is so misleading. It counts everyone.

 

[203Pat]

Well, that's a separate argument. If you want to increase the percentage the players get, you'll find no opposition from me. It's just a darn shame they are the weakest union in all of pro sports. Hell, IMHO, they are so weak as a Union they should just disband.

They really are the weakest union by far and they play the most physically challenging sport out of all the major sports. They cave on everything every CBA negation and take whatever small, meaningless concession everyone already knew the owners were going to make regardless. Demaurice Smith was the status quo selection for the NFLPA over and over and even when they added the 17th game they didn't get commensurate value. When it was a 16 game schedule the players got 47% of the revenue share. Break that down and each game was worth just shy of 3% of the revenue. When the 17th game was added they got half that in a bump up to 48.5%.

It obviously isn't all just on Smith as the players are never galvanized as a union which isn't a surprise considering the elite players have the luxury of endorsement deals and already millions in the bank. It is much harder to tell the union to go to battle and ask a holdout when you're a bottom of the roster guy and one bottom of the roster vote counts the same as Patrick Mahomes's does. I still wonder if the quarterbacks will realize how much of the revenue they drive and bail on the union and create the 90's "Quarterback Club" 2.0. Someone on Reddit summed it up pretty well:

For those who don't know, the NFL Quarterback Club was a marketing organization formed by the NFL to **** over the NFLPA when it decertified to sue the league for free agency. The NFLPA had planned to use money from jersey sales to fund its litigation, but the NFL, realizing that the overwhelming majority of jersey sales were for quarterbacks, created the "NFL Quarterback Club," which would require QBs to sign over their licensing rights to Quarterback Club rather than the NFLPA. The goal was to dry up the litigation money and force the NFLPA back to the negotiating table. The quarterbacks loved it, because they were guaranteed more money than they were getting from their current licensing deal, so they all quickly signed up (except Joe Montana, who held out for more). Everyone you see in this commercial had agreed to help bleed the union dry for their own personal benefit.

 

[Wozzy]

Yeah no foolin'. And then when they have to replace the backup left guard for the final 2 games of the season and are never heard from again, it brings the average way down.

The backup guard was on the roster the entire time, or someone else’s roster.

Thank you for supporting what I am saying. Averages count everyone - which is why the 3.5 figure is so misleading. It counts everyone.

Yeah, it’s hard to make it in a league made up of the best of the best. There’s nothing misleading about that… it is what it is.

 

[maust]

You forgot a step. The owners needed a cap on rookie contracts to save them from themselves. To me the best case scenario would be ensuring that the players are fairly compensated with the minimum amount of drama. Human nature being what it is, there needs to be rules to make that happen.

Good point. I guess it didn't occur to me because the JaMarcus Russell Memorial rookie wage scale has done its job so well. Sure, there are guys making bank they'll never be worth but at least a draft bust doesn't break that bank now.

 

[Stu Pidassle]

Good point. I guess it didn't occur to me because the JaMarcus Russell Memorial rookie wage scale has done its job so well. Sure, there are guys making bank they'll never be worth but at least a draft bust doesn't break that bank now.

The money is more reasonable and players don't waste development time sitting out half their rookie years trying to get paid more than veterans. Definitely a better situation.

 

[maust]

The money is more reasonable and players don't waste development time sitting out half their rookie years trying to get paid more than veterans. Definitely a better situation.

The success of the rookie wage scale in distributing the pie more equitably is no small part of why a limit for QB contracts based on a % of the cap doesn't seem unreasonable to me. Provided ofc the cap's floor provisions remain intact

 

[mgteich]

I never understand why so many NFL fans love to side with ownership over the players. The owners are billionaires. They're mostly sleazy businessmen and nepobabies who stand on the backs of the thousands of people they have taken advantage of. The players are the ones putting their bodies on the line. Most of these owners have their team for decades and make 10x + what they invested while the average NFL career is 3.5 years. Those greedy slimeballs don't pay their quarterbacks enough.

You don't seem to understand that if QB's are paid more, the rest of the team is paid less.

 

[203Pat]

You don't seem to understand that if QB's are paid more, the rest of the team is paid less.

I am aware that is true to some extent but quarterbacks should be paid the most. They're the face of the franchise and the elite ones are the faces of the league. The players should galvanize as a whole and actually be willing to hold out to get a bigger share of the revenue. Everyone knows all this current proposal will be designed to do is put a cap on how much the quarterbacks will be paid. This is just a version of Raegan's "trickle down economics" farce. Because the owners are saving on the QB doesn't mean that money will trickle down to the other positions.

 

[maust]

I am aware that is true to some extent but quarterbacks should be paid the most. They're the face of the franchise and the elite ones are the faces of the league. The players should galvanize as a whole and actually be willing to hold out to get a bigger share of the revenue. Everyone knows all this current proposal will be designed to do is put a cap on how much the quarterbacks will be paid. This is just a version of Raegan's "trickle down economics" farce. Because the owners are saving on the QB doesn't mean that money will trickle down to the other positions.

As long as the language of the cap's floor provisions remains in place then what isn't spent on a QB will perforce find it's way to the rest of the roster just as it was when the rookie wage scale was implemented. Not every change means the 'money grubbing owners' get more, the rookie wage scale proved a tremendous benefit to both veteran players and teams. The idea behind the rookie wage scale was to prevent the ridiculous amounts wasted on guys that didn't pan out. The net effect being the amount not spent there was redistributed throughout the rosters because it had to be spent. In the past few years it has unfortunately gravitated towards QB's and WR's at the expense of other psoitions

No one, here at least, is making the argument QB isn't the most valued (and valuable) postion. It's just that as a % of the cap the position is getting too big a piece of the pie because any non collectively bargained limit wouldn't stand even minimal scrutiny by an impartial arbitrator or the courts. The players would scream collusion if teams tried it, they'd be right to do so and they'd win going away. If however an agreement to limit contracts at a given position to no more than a certain % of the cap was part of a CBA then it's all good.

 

[Toofy]

I think you need to have a upper limit of 15 % max yearly cap dedicated to one player and total of 49 players should be minimum 60 % of cap . This means the top 6 players in total can account for 40 % of cap and remaining account for 60%. This way the wage differential is minimal. And adjust the jersey revenue sharing at a team pool level with lower paid players getting higher share .

Have performance incentives for rookies to bump up their pay to a max of 3 million / year .

Again for this the players need to be united . But QBs and wrs would want to get the biggest pie.

Why would a RB want to plough too hard to break the bank. Perform for 4 years and get out without any major long term injury.

 

[203Pat]

As long as the language of the cap's floor provisions remains in place then what isn't spent on a QB will perforce find it's way to the rest of the roster just as it was when the rookie wage scale was implemented. Not every change means the 'money grubbing owners' get more, the rookie wage scale proved a tremendous benefit to both veteran players and teams. The idea behind the rookie wage scale was to prevent the ridiculous amounts wasted on guys that didn't pan out. The net effect being the amount not spent there was redistributed throughout the rosters because it had to be spent. In the past few years it has unfortunately gravitated towards QB's and WR's at the expense of other psoitions

No one, here at least, is making the argument QB isn't the most valued (and valuable) postion. It's just that as a % of the cap the position is getting too big a piece of the pie because any non collectively bargained limit wouldn't stand even minimal scrutiny by an impartial arbitrator or the courts. The players would scream collusion if teams tried it, they'd be right to do so and they'd win going away. If however an agreement to limit contracts at a given position to a no more than a certain % of the cap was part of a CBA then it's all good.

My feeling, and it very well may be wrong, is that if the owners are proposing this it isn't for the good of the game or the other players on the roster. It is to keep more money for themselves. I get that this would cap what they pay quarterbacks but a big part of QB deals over the last few years is guaranteed money. Not all the other positions get even close to the percentage of guaranteed money the way the quarterbacks do. So in theory they could still be spending the same cap dollars just shifted from quarterbacks to the other positions but be lower in cash spending and easily able to cut bait on all the other positions that didn't have a bunch of money guaranteed if they aren't performing. Call me cynical but I am always dubious when it comes to owner suggestions.

 

[mgteich]

I am aware that is true to some extent but quarterbacks should be paid the most. They're the face of the franchise and the elite ones are the faces of the league. The players should galvanize as a whole and actually be willing to hold out to get a bigger share of the revenue. Everyone knows all this current proposal will be designed to do is put a cap on how much the quarterbacks will be paid. This is just a version of Raegan's "trickle down economics" farce. Because the owners are saving on the QB doesn't mean that money will trickle down to the other positions.

There is a cap.

Every team pays out all the cap money, or carries it over and pays it out in the next year or two,

So, yes, if the top QB were capped at $40M per year AAV or an equivalent percentage of cap, teams who would sign a contract for $50M would now spend the $10M on other players.

 

[XLIX]

I am aware that is true to some extent but quarterbacks should be paid the most. They're the face of the franchise and the elite ones are the faces of the league. The players should galvanize as a whole and actually be willing to hold out to get a bigger share of the revenue. Everyone knows all this current proposal will be designed to do is put a cap on how much the quarterbacks will be paid. This is just a version of Raegan's "trickle down economics" farce. Because the owners are saving on the QB doesn't mean that money will trickle down to the other positions.

Setting aside that's not how trickle down economics works, either in theory or in practice...

Given the current structure of the NFL, paying QBs less does indeed result in more money for everyone else. If they change the structure of the League, then that statement certainly may not necessarily hold true. But as things are currently constituted, paying QBs less would result in more for others.

 

[mgteich]

My feeling, and it very well may be wrong, is that if the owners are proposing this it isn't for the good of the game or the other players on the roster. It is to keep more money for themselves. I get that this would cap what they pay quarterbacks but a big part of QB deals over the last few years is guaranteed money. Not all the other positions get even close to the percentage of guaranteed money the way the quarterbacks do. So in theory they could still be spending the same cap dollars just shifted from quarterbacks to the other positions but be lower in cash spending and easily able to cut bait on all the other positions that didn't have a bunch of money guaranteed if they aren't performing. Call me cynical but I am always dubious when it comes to owner suggestions.

Yes, the owners expect that having a QB cap (and there would also end up being a cap on all playes) would cause the teams to be worth more money and for the networks to be willing pay more for a better product.

Folks are caught up with the fact that almost all teams are owned by billionaires. That doesn't change the fact that they pay the same percentage of revenues to players as a team owned by the fans.

The issue is whether it is in the best interest of owners and players to have a cap on QB salaries, within the same cap structure as with no cap.

The question for the union is whether they think that the implementation of a cap would increase the revenues offered by media companies in their next contract negotiations. If so, then the plan should be agreed to before the new negotiations.

 

[maust]

My feeling, and it very well may be wrong, is that if the owners are proposing this it isn't for the good of the game or the other players on the roster. It is to keep more money for themselves. I get that this would cap what they pay quarterbacks but a big part of QB deals over the last few years is guaranteed money. Not all the other positions get even close to the percentage of guaranteed money the way the quarterbacks do. So in theory they could still be spending the same cap dollars just shifted from quarterbacks to the other positions but be lower in cash spending and easily able to cut bait on all the other positions that didn't have a bunch of money guaranteed if they aren't performing. Call me cynical but I am always dubious when it comes to owner suggestions.

I don't fault your cynical view of ownership, it's a widely shared sentiment and there is good reason for it. I think, in part because of my poor explanation, what's missing in your calculation is the key points of any collectivelly bargained agreement would be the firm cash floor provisions. Just as with the rookie wage scale, the money 'saved' on QB contracts would still be required to be spent elsewhere