Projected 2021 Salary Cap Decrease of $30-80 million

So I don’t know if this is new news on here, but Schefter’s been saying the owners expect the cap to drop next year between 30 million and 80 million

Adam Schefter Dropped an Important Nugget About Projected 2021 NFL Salary Cap That No One is Talking About

Obviously this will have massive impacts. Especially for us when we were expecting to have a windfall of cap next year.

Thoughts? How will the league adjust?

I’m concerned

lancerman said:

So I don’t know if this is new news on here, but Schefter’s been saying the owners expect the cap to drop next year between 30 million and 80 million

Adam Schefter Dropped an Important Nugget About Projected 2021 NFL Salary Cap That No One is Talking About

Obviously this will have massive impacts. Especially for us when we were expecting to have a windfall of cap next year.

Thoughts? How will the league adjust?

I’m concerned

Click to expand...

It’s all relative. If our 100milll becomes 30 other teams will be cutting half their roster.

This benefits the teams that aren't projected to be over the lowered cap number next offseason, such as the New England Patriots. This could be exactly how the Chiefs dynasty ends before it begins.

There are four teams that will be most prepared for a significant drop in cap space.

colts
Jags
Chargers
Pats

Each of those teams could feasibly show up next year, cap compliant without any buyouts or cap explosions.

my guess is there could be 50-60mil in lost revenue for players, but they spread that amount over 3 years, to not punish free agents from a single year.

Still, there’s a good chance the Pats go in to next summer as well equipped as any in the league.

Elijah said:

This benefits the teams that aren't projected to be over the lowered cap number next offseason, such as the New England Patriots. This could be exactly how the Chiefs dynasty ends before it begins.

Click to expand...

I'I think even teams well below will start cutting players too so that you're not the only one paying OLs $12m per.

There will be a massive shift in players all over the league.

The only teams that will benefit are those that haven't given out massive signing bonuses which will count as dead cap money.

And teams with QBs with big $$ contracts are particularly vulnerable since that will swallow up most of the pie.

The Patriots would come out very well in all of this because of Stidham's cap # and because they don't give huge signing bonuses and because Belichick would be able to coach up every new free agent signed in the mass purge.

How does that happen when the roster increases to 55 and ps spots increase as well?

I.M. Fletcher said:

There are four teams that will be most prepared for a significant drop in cap space.

colts
Jags
Chargers
Pats

Each of those teams could feasibly show up next year, cap compliant without any buyouts or cap explosions.

my guess is there could be 50-60mil in lost revenue for players, but they spread that amount over 3 years, to not punish free agents from a single year.

Still, there’s a good chance the Pats go in to next summer as well equipped as any in the league.

Click to expand...

Well the cba says it’s a %of revenues so I don’t know how they spread it out.
What will happen if there really is a 30-80 million drop per team is that half the players in the league will get cut, sign cheap one year desks with the teams that have money, then be free agents again the following year when it goes back up.

upstater1 said:

I'I think even teams well below will start cutting players too so that you're not the only one paying OLs $12m per.

There will be a massive shift in players all over the league.

The only teams that will benefit are those that haven't given out massive signing bonuses which will count as dead cap money.

And teams with QBs with big $$ contracts are particularly vulnerable since that will swallow up most of the pie.

The Patriots would come out very well in all of this because of Stidham's cap # and because they don't give huge signing bonuses and because Belichick would be able to coach up every new free agent signed in the mass purge.

Click to expand...

I don’t think it will lead to teams with $ cutting players because it will go right back up the next year.

KDPPatsfan85 said:

How does that happen when the roster increases to 55 and ps spots increase as well?

Click to expand...

Strictly speaking, it's not a 55-man roster.

Rather, it's still the standard 53, but teams can "call up" one or two PS players a game, and then send them back to the PS immediately after without the players going through waivers.

Ring 6 said:

Well the cba says it’s a %of revenues so I don’t know how they spread it out.
What will happen if there really is a 30-80 million drop per team is that half the players in the league will get cut, sign cheap one year desks with the teams that have money, then be free agents again the following year when it goes back up.

Click to expand...

Puts a team like NE in an interesting spot. Will have cap flexibility and an ability to pay a little more for priority FAs as opposed to many other teams who will have to make many cuts just to get to a safe zone and may still be strapped for space and unable to extend much.

For a good player who wants to take that 1 year deal, doing so for $3m in NE with Belichick will look a lot more appealing than doing it for $1.5m with many other lesser-known teams. Get paid more, play with a winning coach and organization, play for a team that gets a lot of eyes on it. Win-win-win.

Neither side benefits, in the long run, from a capocalypse [sic].

My guess is that both sides will work out a deal that "borrows" cap increases from future years. For example, the 2020 cap is $198.2M/team. The two sides might agree to something like this:

• Let's say the calculated value for the 2021 cap, based on revenues, is $162.2M. That's $36M beneath the 2020 value. [I'm picking this number arbitrarily to make the math a bit easier.]
• Both sides agree that the 2021 cap, the latter value notwithstanding, shall be $198.2M (the same as 2020). To do this, each team "borrows" $36M against future revenues.
• To compensate, the caps in 2022 to 2030 (nine seasons) are reduced by $36M/9 = $4M/year below what they would have otherwise been.

Geez that is alot

If they’re smart, they will work out a way to reduce salaries this year proportional to revenue loss and keep future cap calculations in line with what they were projected to be.

ctpatsfan77 said:

Neither side benefits, in the long run, from a capocalypse [sic].

My guess is that both sides will work out a deal that "borrows" cap increases from future years. For example, the 2020 cap is $198.2M/team. The two sides might agree to something like this:

• Let's say the calculated value for the 2021 cap, based on revenues, is $162.2M. That's $36M beneath the 2020 value. [I'm picking this number arbitrarily to make the math a bit easier.]
• Both sides agree that the 2021 cap, the latter value notwithstanding, shall be $198.2M (the same as 2020). To do this, each team "borrows" $36M against future revenues.
• To compensate, the caps in 2022 to 2030 (nine seasons) are reduced by $36M/9 = $4M/year below what they would have otherwise been.

Click to expand...

I see no way owners agree to pay 36 mill x 32 teams, over ONE BILLION DOLLARS in return for getting it back over a 9 year period.
A one year cap squeeze will give the owners greater control, they won’t hand over a billion to lose that control.

Ring 6 said:

I see no way owners agree to pay 36 mill x 32 teams, over ONE BILLION DOLLARS in return for getting it back over a 9 year period.
A one year cap squeeze will give the owners greater control, they won’t hand over a billion to lose that control.

Click to expand...

I actually came up with the same solution in my mind that ctpatsfan77 did, although I didn’t spread it out as far. The problem is teams made plans assuming a certain cap level which might be significantly lower than projected. It makes a lot of sense to “borrow” against future cap numbers to avoid a nightmare situation.

XLIX said:

I actually came up with the same solution in my mind that ctpatsfan77 did, although I didn’t spread it out as far. The problem is teams made plans assuming a certain cap level which might be significantly lower than projected. It makes a lot of sense to “borrow” against future cap numbers to avoid a nightmare situation.

Click to expand...

It make sense from one standpoint but it doesn’t from 2 others.
Why would owners overpay a billion dollars (this would mean they list approx 2 billion on revenues) because it would let them save money in the future? There would have to be a heavy discount for the time value of money, if they even feel they can afford the extra billion to start with.
Secondly, this situation would give ownership greater control over players. Why would they forfeit money for the sake of forfeiting extra control?
In the end if they don’t make a concession to the players they end up with a payroll that is a billion dollars lower. How would they see that as an unacceptable thing? Player movement because of it is something I would think they see as a better consequence than digging deep for an extra billion they don’t to.

Ring 6 said:

I don’t think it will lead to teams with $ cutting players because it will go right back up the next year.

Click to expand...

Assuming that the league in the teams don't broker some pandemic salary cap deal, how do you figure that teams won't have to cut players they otherwise would have kept? 2022 is not really relevant when you have to get under the cap in 2021 and are faced with a $140 million salary cap, when you budgeted for a $215 million cap. Theoretically, the teams who are in bad shape could restructure a large number of contracts but that is going to push a lot of pain down the road.

Let's take the Chiefs, as an example. Overthecap currently projects them to have $34 million in salary cap space in 2021, based upon a projection of $214 million cap, and that is before Mahomes new contract and doesn't include Chris Jones. Even if the salary cap drops my only $50 million, That still puts them in a very difficult position and I can't see how they don't end up cunning some starters and/or rotational players. Even if they are creative, at a bare minimum it severely limits their ability to add any significant talent to the roster. Frank Clark has a huge cap number next year but they would only gain $500,000 in space as a post June 1 cut. It would save about $13 million by cutting Honey Badger.

I think there's a very good chance that the uncertainty about next year's salary cap played a role in BB not restructuring the contracts of any high priced veterans this off-season, in order to add free agents to the roster. That would simply end up pushing more money into next year, not to mention the added salary of whomever they picked up with that added cap space.

I am certainly not a salary cap expert so maybe I am missing something. I'll be interested to get the opinions of our salary cap guys on the site.

Ring 6 said:

It make sense from one standpoint but it doesn’t from 2 others.
Why would owners overpay a billion dollars (this would mean they list approx 2 billion on revenues) because it would let them save money in the future? There would have to be a heavy discount for the time value of money, if they even feel they can afford the extra billion to start with.
Secondly, this situation would give ownership greater control over players. Why would they forfeit money for the sake of forfeiting extra control?
In the end if they don’t make a concession to the players they end up with a payroll that is a billion dollars lower. How would they see that as an unacceptable thing? Player movement because of it is something I would think they see as a better consequence than digging deep for an extra billion they don’t to.

Click to expand...

Because a natural consequence of a capocalypse would be a demand by players for a larger percentage of contracts to be fully guaranteed.

And, BTW, teams already do this to an extent. When players are given guarantees in future years, the teams have to put the money in escrow when the contract is signed. So, for example, the Vikings had to pre-pay Kirk Cousins' fully-guaranteed deal.

By my quick count, 23 of the Patriots 51 top salary players are entering the last year of their contracts. With so many expiring contracts which include such stalwarts as Joe Thuney, Dave Andrews, Lawrence Guy, and Dont’a Hightower, the competitive advantage of being “$100 million” under the cap has always been overstated.

That said the Patriots are in as good of shape as any team to deal with a dramatic drop in the salary cap in 2021 because a lack of long-term commitments give them considerable flexibility. But, they won’t be in position to go out and sign half the All-Pro team as half the posters here expect.

Don’t be surprised when it turns out to be a long-term haul to get the cap back to its current level. None of us know how deep the shock of this has been to the economy and how quickly it recovers. A major concern with expiring TV contracts is how well the networks survive all of this and whether they will still be able to pay the rights fees they have been paying. Ad revenues were declining before this, and, even with NFL football being the highest rated programming on TV, the networks do not make money broadcasting games. The question is how much they’ll be able and willing to lose on football to promote their other programming.

Ring 6 said:

It make sense from one standpoint but it doesn’t from 2 others.
Why would owners overpay a billion dollars (this would mean they list approx 2 billion on revenues) because it would let them save money in the future?

Click to expand...

I think the reason why is established as being the point of thread. If this hypothetical “capocalypse” comes into play, many teams will have to make ridiculously large changes to their rosters. Such radical changes would arguably be bad for the league as a whole. I think, for most teams as well as for the league, maintaining the usual amount of roster stability would be worth it.

You keep saying “a billion dollars” but that’s spread out among 32 billionaires. It would only be about $40 million per team and they would get it all back down the road. They could even structure it to take into account the future value of money so that it truly does net to zero.

Ring 6 said:

Secondly, this situation would give ownership greater control over players. Why would they forfeit money for the sake of forfeiting extra control?

Click to expand...

Creating a situation where owners are borrowing against future cap numbers helps the owners maintain control, not the other way around.

If teams have to cut half their roster just to get under the cap, that creates a ridiculously high amount of free agents. Creating more and more free agents gives the players more control, not the owners.