Yahoo Sports: Owning up to the CBA

[tr1]

Uh,oh...lock out in 2011...



By Jason Cole, Yahoo! Sports 1 hour, 56 minutes ago
http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=jc-ownerspre032808&prov=yhoo&type=lgns

NFL owners will consider a series of rules regarding everything from the integrity of the game to having a few hairs out of place next week at the annual owners meetings in Palm Beach, Fla., but also lurking is a potential battle over the collective bargaining agreement.

The league’s most powerful men will discuss how they want to approach the seemingly pending showdown with the players regarding the CBA, as a November deadline looms for the owners to vote to remain in the current agreement.

“I would anticipate there will be a healthy discussion about the CBA and what direction we’re going,” Kansas City Chiefs president Carl Peterson said. NFL spokesman Greg Aiello said a 90-minute discussion of the CBA was scheduled for Monday, among talks about other topics.

Between now and November, the owners must vote on whether to stay in the deal. Twenty-four of 32 yes votes from owners are required to continue the deal. If that mark isn’t hit, the owners can opt out, which ultimately could lead to the 2010 season being the last salary capped year and the 2011 season facing the possibility of a lockout.

While all of that sounds ominous, much of it depends on how strong the NFL owners are when faced with the reality of cancelling games. Most observers believe the owners will balk when it comes time to hurt a season, knowing full well the league has much more to lose than the players.

Still, hard-line owners will try to push their agenda.

“This is the time when the owners can vent their frustrations about the salary cap and how much the players are making,” said one NFL team executive. “There are some important issues that need to be discussed. There’s a lot of liability in the owners’ laps and they’re uncomfortable with that. But they’re also making a lot of money. Both sides are making a lot of money.”

Earlier this month, the NFL Players Association held its annual meeting of player reps and executives in Hawaii. Aside from electing Kevin Mawae as president, a significant theme of those meetings was helping players make preparations for a possible lockout in March 2011. The union anticipates that a lockout could begin then if there is an uncapped year in 2010.

Veteran players have been advised to save money and reduce debt in anticipation of a lockout, which would lead to free agency being delayed until later in that offseason.

As for the owners, a number of them, including Cowboys owner Jerry Jones, Broncos owner Pat Bowlen and Patriots owner Robert Kraft, have said that the current agreement needs adjustment. On average, however, NFL teams have at least $10 million in unused salary cap room from this year and last year, according to information from the union and the league’s management council.

[Genghis Khan]

They need to control the size of the contracts for rookies and the length of contracts for the older players. That way teams don't have to eat enormous contracts for busts or free agents who don't live up to their hype.

[[[ghost]]]

They need to control the size of the contracts for rookies and the length of contracts for the older players. That way teams don't have to eat enormous contracts for busts or free agents who don't live up to their hype.

Bingo. Well put.

[DGreenistheBest]

They need to control the size of the contracts for rookies and the length of contracts for the older players. That way teams don't have to eat enormous contracts for busts or free agents who don't live up to their hype.

On the one hand, my thoughts are that if it was that easy, wouldn't they be doing it now?

But on the other hand, I remember that there are a lot of stupid and stubborn people in the world, and it occurs to me that even if it was that easy, there's probably less than 24 NFL owners that would come to that conclusion.

[mwj473]

which ultimately could lead to the 2010 season being the last salary capped year


The union anticipates that a lockout could begin then if there is an uncapped year in 2010.

This article contradicts itself. Is 2010 going to be the last capped year or uncapped?

[Mass_SkinsFan]

I believe 2010 would be an UNcapped year, from what I've read in other places. 2011 would pretty much end up being a null and void season because it would take at least 15 months for the NFL and the NFLPA to come to an agreement on a new CBA.

Personally, so long as the new version of the CBA had no Salary Cap and no Revenue Sharing it could have almost anything else and I'd be happy with it.

Unfortunately I think there are too many owners who are Socialists (including Dan Snyder) and who will prefer to have football in 2011 rather than doing the RIGHT thing and getting rid of the Salary Cap and Revenue Sharing and I doubt this will ever happen.

[skinfan2k]

I think i will like football much less if there is no salary cap

[Mass_SkinsFan]

I think i will like football much less if there is no salary cap

Which is the exact opposite for me. So far as I'm concerned the NFL has been almost unwatchable since the salary cap was instituted in 1994.

[L30L]

Which is the exact opposite for me. So far as I'm concerned the NFL has been almost unwatchable since the salary cap was instituted in 1994.

Whoa the Salary cap is what makes the NFL cool.

Gives everyone a chance to win.

[Mass_SkinsFan]

Whoa the Salary cap is what makes the NFL cool.

Gives everyone a chance to win.

Let me guess that you're in favor of hiring quotas, affirmative action, welfare and social justice as well; because those ridiculous Socialist/Communist concepts are normal society's equivelants of the Salary Cap.

The Salary Cap is the worst thing to have ever happened to the NFL in my mind. It opened the door for much of the rest of what's wrong with the sport right now, including Revenue Sharing, ultra-protection of high priced players (can't even look crossly at a QB anymore w/o drawing a 15 yard penalty), and a whole bunch of other garbage that this new "Strong-League - Weak Team" system has brought about.

Now maybe you're a fan of "football" or "The NFL", but I'm not. I'm a fan of the Washington Redskins and the Redskins ONLY. I don't care if the Arizona Cardinals haven't won a game in 25 years. If they go out of business GREAT, that's one less team standing between the Redskins and the Lombardi Trophy on a yearly basis. Creating "parity" by forcing teams that actually have and make money to restrain themselves to the level of what these other teams can afford to spend, and then being forced to give these worthless franchises some of our profits is STUPID, RIDICULOUS, and SOCIALIST in my mind. How about instead of that, a new rule that says... "If you can't build a decent enough team to make the playoffs over a five year span, the league decertifies your franchise and you get kicked out of the league." If they wanted to put a better, "more equal" product on the field, THAT'S how they should have done it. Not by hamstringing franchises that are actually interested in making money and trying to win games.

[DWinzit]

I was reading this and thought it fit well with MFS's thoughts. The Bills come from one of the smallest markets. I give them credit for looking to Toronto to extend fan base. There are other ways to generate income and this has to be one of the easiset and most common in recent times.
The Bills are always one of the first teams to cry poverty.

Stadium-naming deal could bring big bucks

In defending the Buffalo Bills partnership with Toronto, Ralph Wilson recently claimed that in trying to create new streams of revenue, the Bills have “overturned all of the rocks in Western New York.” This couldn’t be further from the truth.

Dozens of other cities with pro sports teams have sold the naming rights to their stadiums in multimillion- dollar deals. The Buffalo Sabres renamed the Crossroads Arena after striking a deal with Marine Midland Bank (now HSBC). I always liked the Crossroads name, but I understand the reasoning for the deal with HSBC. I’d rather support the Sabres in an arena named after a bank than watch them leave town.

The Indianapolis Colts recently negotiated a deal to rename the RCA Dome as Lucas Oil Stadium. Not a great name, but the fact that

the Colts received $121.5 million over 20 years solidifies the Colts’ future in Indianapolis. I’m sure that makes the name tolerable for most fans.

Granted, Indianapolis is slightly larger than Buffalo. Fine. I imagine we’d be able to get at least half of the Colts’ deal, which would be about $60 million. Is Wilson, who keeps crying poverty at every turn, really going to tell us that a $60 million influx of cash wouldn’t help the bottom line?

To me, this comes down to hubris. Wilson has his name on the stadium, which must be pretty gratifying. But if this team is really trying to identify new revenue streams, then not selling the naming rights to the stadium is a slap in the face to the thousands of Bills season-ticket holders and corporate sponsors.
For full opinion - http://www.buffalonews.com/149/story/310424.html

[mwj473]

Let me guess that you're in favor of hiring quotas, affirmative action, welfare and social justice as well; because those ridiculous Socialist/Communist concepts are normal society's equivelants of the Salary Cap.

I'm struggling finding a commom thread between the things you listed and the salary cap. To me they do the exact oppostite. The things you mentioned give preferential treatment to people based on their wealth, gender, race, or nationality.

The salary cap does the exact opposite, it takes 32 organizations and says we are going to make all of you work from the exact same pot of money and treat all organizations the same. There is no difference in how much money you make, how big your stadium is, or how big your city is. You will all be treated the same.

I for one am glad for the salalry cap, it creates great balance in the entire league. If we did not have a salary cap, the rules for QB's would be worse because instead of having $10MM/year QB, we would have $20MM/year QB's. It would get even worse.

Some of your arguements seem to make more sense for the salary cap vs. against it.

[Mass_SkinsFan]

I'm struggling finding a commom thread between the things you listed and the salary cap. To me they do the exact oppostite. The things you mentioned give preferential treatment to people based on their wealth, gender, race, or nationality.

The common thread is called SOCIALISM and it's one of the most disgusting philosophies to ever be introduced into human society. The Salary Cap does most definitely give preferential treatment to certain teams. Those teams too stupid or incompetent to have the revenue stream available to them to actually compete with teams like Washington, Dallas, San Francisco, New York, etc... It artificially enhances their chances to win by restraining those other teams from spending to the true extend of their ability.

The salary cap does the exact opposite, it takes 32 organizations and says we are going to make all of you work from the exact same pot of money and treat all organizations the same. There is no difference in how much money you make, how big your stadium is, or how big your city is. You will all be treated the same.

Exactly. That's SOCIALISM at its core. That was the main philosophy (regarding individuals, mind you) of THIS Country.....
http://www.worldclassflags.com/productimages/cf_ussr.gif
and that should be something we avoid at all costs. If your team is in a small market with no money, a lousy stadium.... TOO ****ING BAD!!!!! Maybe you don't deserve an NFL team to start with. You definitely don't deserve a WINNING NFL team.

I for one am glad for the salalry cap, it creates great balance in the entire league. If we did not have a salary cap, the rules for QB's would be worse because instead of having $10MM/year QB, we would have $20MM/year QB's. It would get even worse.

So what. I'm not a fan of the NFL or football. I'm a fan of the Washington Redskins and the Washington Redskins ONLY. So far as I'm concerned anyone calling them a Redskins fan who is in favor of the NFL Collective Bargaining Agreement as it is, with the Revenue Sharing and Salary Cap clauses in it has no idea what the hell they're talking about.

[BigMike619]

so im lost, what was the common theme here?

[mwj473]

The common thread is called SOCIALISM and it's one of the most disgusting philosophies to ever be introduced into human society. The Salary Cap does most definitely give preferential treatment to certain teams. Those teams too stupid or incompetent to have the revenue stream available to them to actually compete with teams like Washington, Dallas, San Francisco, New York, etc... It artificially enhances their chances to win by restraining those other teams from spending to the true extend of their ability.



Exactly. That's SOCIALISM at its core. That was the main philosophy (regarding individuals, mind you) of THIS Country.....
http://www.worldclassflags.com/productimages/cf_ussr.gif
and that should be something we avoid at all costs. If your team is in a small market with no money, a lousy stadium.... TOO ****ING BAD!!!!! Maybe you don't deserve an NFL team to start with. You definitely don't deserve a WINNING NFL team.



So what. I'm not a fan of the NFL or football. I'm a fan of the Washington Redskins and the Washington Redskins ONLY. So far as I'm concerned anyone calling them a Redskins fan who is in favor of the NFL Collective Bargaining Agreement as it is, with the Revenue Sharing and Salary Cap clauses in it has no idea what the hell they're talking about.

This entire post does not make any sense. The NFL has grown exponentionally since the salary cap was installed. Maybe you don't like it, fine, I don't care, everyone can have an opinion. Just try to make some sense and bring some facts to the discussion

Answer me 1 question:

How does the salary cap give any team an advantage over another?

[Mass_SkinsFan]

This entire post does not make any sense. The NFL has grown exponentionally since the salary cap was installed. Maybe you don't like it, fine, I don't care, everyone can have an opinion. Just try to make some sense and bring some facts to the discussion

Then obviously after I answer your one question, we should not continue to have any level of interaction because we're not going to agree on anything.

Adolf Hitler was elected and very popular with the people of Germany. Popularity has nothing to do with being good or right. The fact that the NFL is so popular and financially vialble right now just goes to show how absolutely BRAIN-DEAD most American sports fans are.

How does the salary cap give any team an advantage over another?

The salary cap doesn't GIVE advantages, it TAKES AWAY the advantages that some teams should have. The very idea that the NFL, or any other sports league should take away the advantaves that one team has over another is ludicrous in my mind. The fact that the Arizona Cardinals don't have as much money to pay players with as the Washington Redskins or New England Patriots do is just their bad luck. If they don't like it, MOVE or GO OUT OF BUSINESS, but don't **** the entire league up by telling the other 31 teams that they can't spend more than you do.

[mwj473]

Then obviously after I answer your one question, we should not continue to have any level of interaction because we're not going to agree on anything.

Adolf Hitler was elected and very popular with the people of Germany. Popularity has nothing to do with being good or right. The fact that the NFL is so popular and financially vialble right now just goes to show how absolutely BRAIN-DEAD most American sports fans are.



The salary cap doesn't GIVE advantages, it TAKES AWAY the advantages that some teams should have. The very idea that the NFL, or any other sports league should take away the advantaves that one team has over another is ludicrous in my mind. The fact that the Arizona Cardinals don't have as much money to pay players with as the Washington Redskins or New England Patriots do is just their bad luck. If they don't like it, MOVE or GO OUT OF BUSINESS, but don't **** the entire league up by telling the other 31 teams that they can't spend more than you do.

Maybe I'm the only one who sees the irony here, but what you just stated is the foundation for programs such as hiring quotas, affirmative action, etc. The very things you argued against earlier. To give certain teams or people advantages over others. So now you want certain teams to have advantages over others kinda like when poeple have to "hire quotas" as you say?

In an earlier post you said the cap does give advantages to teams, then you change that in your latest post. Which is it?

Are you in politics? You seem to do a lot of flip flopping and talk in circles.

[Mass_SkinsFan]

Maybe I'm the only one who sees the irony here, but what you just stated is the foundation for programs such as hiring quotas, affirmative action, etc. The very things you argued against earlier. To give certain teams or people advantages over others. So now you want certain teams to have advantages over others kinda like when poeple have to "hire quotas" as you say?

In an earlier post you said the cap does give advantages to teams, then you change that in your latest post. Which is it?

Are you in politics? You seem to do a lot of flip flopping and talk in circles.

You know, after thrice trying to start a reply to explain this concept to you again I realized something.... You're not worth the effort. Just go back to thinking that the NFL is the greatest thing since sliced bread like all the other sheeple in this country. Buh Bye.

[mwj473]

You know, after thrice trying to start a reply to explain this concept to you again I realized something.... You're not worth the effort. Just go back to thinking that the NFL is the greatest thing since sliced bread like all the other sheeple in this country. Buh Bye.

I see, when you get caught in talking about something you know nothing about, you run away. I value other peoples opinions when they can support them and discuss them like adults.

I guess other people throw things out that they don't think thru, then get upset when people don't agree with them. Then on top of that, if they don't agree, you cower away and put people on ignore.

So what does an act like that remind me of? Not listening to people who don't value your opinion and then boasting about that long ignore list.

It reminds me of..... Socialism

How is that for irony?

[Taylor 36]

This article contradicts itself. Is 2010 going to be the last capped year or uncapped? I noticed the same thing. I think Mass is correct though, about 2010 being uncapped. The rest, well, I'm not so sure. It does make one wonder why anyone would bother coming to a message board that they chosen to ignore over 200 members though.

[mwj473]

I noticed the same thing. I think Mass is correct though, about 2010 being uncapped. The rest, well, I'm not so sure. It does make one wonder why anyone would bother coming to a message board that they chosen to ignore over 200 members though.

Yea, I agree. The bad part is I kinda like it when people have a different point of view and it can be dicussed and debated like adults.

[robotfire]

Let me guess that you're in favor of hiring quotas, affirmative action, welfare and social justice as well; because those ridiculous Socialist/Communist concepts are normal society's equivelants of the Salary Cap.My argument against your stance:

The NFL is a group of 32 teams where all parties are interested in everybody else being financially successful. They are one entity (the NFL), and the success of one team is good for the success of all. Likewise, the embarassment of one team is an embarassment for all (see the Patriots and their cheating). Teams compete on the field, not off of it.

The salary cap doesn't mean that all players get the same money - it's still about performance as far as players are concerned. All it means is that one team within the NFL entity doesn't have an unfair advantage when it comes to playing the game.

In conclusion, why would you want a team that wins every year because it's got more money? This is sports, and I'm interested in competition actually existing. What fun is it if only a handful of teams will ever be able to compete?

[Mass_SkinsFan]

The NFL is a group of 32 teams where all parties are interested in everybody else being financially successful. They are one entity (the NFL), and the success of one team is good for the success of all. Likewise, the embarassment of one team is an embarassment for all (see the Patriots and their cheating). Teams compete on the field, not off of it.

You are correct that the league currently works that way. That's one of the reasons why I hate the NFL as a league and truly hope for its failure at this point. The current "Strong-League - Weak-Team" model is abhorant to me. I'm much more in favor of a "Strong Team - Weak League" model where the individual teams would be more important and the league would do much less oversight.

The salary cap doesn't mean that all players get the same money - it's still about performance as far as players are concerned. All it means is that one team within the NFL entity doesn't have an unfair advantage when it comes to playing the game.

Again you're correct that the cap doesn't mean all players get the same money. What it does mean, however, is that a team which goes out of its way to be financially successful and has $400 Million that they COULD spend on players (to be somewhat over the top) is restrained from doing so because the Arizona Cardinals and Buffalo Bills of the league are financial (and on-field) failures and are being coddled to by the league rules.

Let's get something straight... LIFE ISN'T FAIR. It never has been and never will be. Get used to it. The fact that the NFL feels it needs to level the playing field at the lowest level possible and that the American sheeple will continue to watch the disgusting product the league has put on the field for the last 14 years tells me that there aren't very many smart football fans out there anymore.

In conclusion, why would you want a team that wins every year because it's got more money? This is sports, and I'm interested in competition actually existing. What fun is it if only a handful of teams will ever be able to compete?

As I've said before, I'm not an NFL fan. I'm not a football fan. I'm a Washington Redskins fan. To me sports are about WINNING, not competition or fun. They're about decimating your opponent on every level possible. If these other teams can't compete, RELOCATE or GO OUT OF BUSINESS.

[mwj473]

My argument against your stance:

The NFL is a group of 32 teams where all parties are interested in everybody else being financially successful. They are one entity (the NFL), and the success of one team is good for the success of all. Likewise, the embarassment of one team is an embarassment for all (see the Patriots and their cheating). Teams compete on the field, not off of it.

The salary cap doesn't mean that all players get the same money - it's still about performance as far as players are concerned. All it means is that one team within the NFL entity doesn't have an unfair advantage when it comes to playing the game.

In conclusion, why would you want a team that wins every year because it's got more money? This is sports, and I'm interested in competition actually existing. What fun is it if only a handful of teams will ever be able to compete?

I agree with you totally, but you are wasting your time with him. What he says makes no sense and when you don't agree he'll just cower away and put you on ignore.

The salary cap is what has made the NFL what it is today. All of the owners want it, including all of the big market teams, that should tell you what the owners think of the cap.

[thespaniard]

Again you're correct that the cap doesn't mean all players get the same money. What it does mean, however, is that a team which goes out of its way to be financially successful and has $400 Million that they COULD spend on players (to be somewhat over the top) is restrained from doing so because the Arizona Cardinals and Buffalo Bills of the league are financial (and on-field) failures and are being coddled to by the league rules.


Keep in mind that coddling those teams and keeping them around helps your team make more money. If the NFL only had 8 teams, the Redskins aren't making anywhere near 400M.


Let's get something straight... LIFE ISN'T FAIR. It never has been and never will be. Get used to it. The fact that the NFL feels it needs to level the playing field at the lowest level possible and that the American sheeple will continue to watch the disgusting product the league has put on the field for the last 14 years tells me that there aren't very many smart football fans out there anymore.


The NFL is doing what is necessary to make the most money possible. It is putting the most competitive product possible on the field, which puts more butts in seats sells more merchandise, TV rights, etc. Certainly your principles wouldn't get in the way of a business 'going out of it's way to be financially successful,' would it?


As I've said before, I'm not an NFL fan. I'm not a football fan. I'm a Washington Redskins fan. To me sports are about WINNING, not competition or fun. They're about decimating your opponent on every level possible. If these other teams can't compete, RELOCATE or GO OUT OF BUSINESS.

That's like being a fan of one department of a company, but not the company as a whole. Besides, if all these teams go out of business, who are the skins going to play every week? What good is having the best team in the world if there's no one left to play?

[thespaniard]

The salary cap is what has made the NFL what it is today. All of the owners want it, including all of the big market teams, that should tell you what the owners think of the cap.

Quoted for truth. Fair competition means more money for the big market owners, even after revenue sharing. Can't blame the big market owners for wanting to make the most money possible.

[Mass_SkinsFan]

Quoted for truth. Fair competition means more money for the big market owners, even after revenue sharing. Can't blame the big market owners for wanting to make the most money possible.

Yes, I most certainly CAN blame them for throwing their money away in Revenue Sharing and hamstringing their on-field product with the Salary Cap. I'd had some respect for Snyder until he voted for the CBA extension a couple years ago.

[SUSkinsFan]

As I've said before, I'm not an NFL fan. I'm not a football fan. I'm a Washington Redskins fan. To me sports are about WINNING, not competition or fun. They're about decimating your opponent on every level possible. If these other teams can't compete, RELOCATE or GO OUT OF BUSINESS.Please stop using the word "fan" to describe yourself. You make those of us that are fans look bad.

[thespaniard]

Yes, I most certainly CAN blame them for throwing their money away in Revenue Sharing and hamstringing their on-field product with the Salary Cap. I'd had some respect for Snyder until he voted for the CBA extension a couple years ago.

Throwing money away?

I don't think you understand. With the CBA and subsequent salary cap, the NFL is more popular than it ever was. That means more money for all of the owners including Snyder, even after revenue sharing. For instance, say with the CBA Snyder makes 400M, but has to give 50M away in revenue sharing, but without the CBA Snyder only makes 300M because of the dip in popularity of the NFL as a whole. That's still 50M more money at the end of the day for Snyder. So is he really throwing his money away?

Don't confuse Dan Snyder with someone that he is not. While he is a big redskins fan, at the end of the day he is a business man first. If the CBA did not help him make the most money possible, he would not have voted for it. After all, he is the owner of a 'team which goes out of its way to be financially successful.'

[thespaniard]

What he says makes no sense and when you don't agree he'll just cower away and put you on ignore.

http://www.nubiana.co.uk/images/wise.jpg

[Mass_SkinsFan]

http://www.nubiana.co.uk/images/wise.jpg

You just proved the poster that you quoted's point. Buh Bye.

[Mass_SkinsFan]

Don't confuse Dan Snyder with someone that he is not. While he is a big redskins fan, at the end of the day he is a business man first. If the CBA did not help him make the most money possible, he would not have voted for it. After all, he is the owner of a 'team which goes out of its way to be financially successful.'

Then so far as I'm concerned he isn't worth what comes out the back end of my horse. Doing what's RIGHT is more important than what is financially viable in my mind; and nothing about that CBA is Right so far as I'm concerned. He lost all the respect I had for him when he voted to extend the CBA.

[thespaniard]

Then so far as I'm concerned he isn't worth what comes out the back end of my horse. Doing what's RIGHT is more important than what is financially viable in my mind; and nothing about that CBA is Right so far as I'm concerned. He lost all the respect I had for him when he voted to extend the CBA.

Doing what's right? Seriously? Wouldn't helping out all of the teams for the betterment of the league as a whole be the right thing to do?

[SUSkinsFan]

Doing what's right? Seriously? Wouldn't helping out all of the teams for the betterment of the league as a whole be the right thing to do?don't bother, you are now on the ILD (Ignore List of Doom). You have joined a club of rational thinkers that MSF cannot cope with. We have hats and t-shirts available for your purchase if you so choose.

[10fttall]

MSF is quite right that the salary cap is most certainly a twin brother of socialism. You people that think it's the opposite, really need to pick up a dictionary or something. Everyone working for a central organization that strives to keep everyone equal and thriving, regardless of merit or output? It fits like a glove.

While the analogy is correct, I disagree that it is a bad thing. Socialism is bad in the real world where there should be no limit to how much one can achieve...and no limit to how much you can screw up. If people innovate and invest and become billionaires, it doesn't matter one bit how many or how few there are. If people are stupid, drop out of school, do drugs, have 6 kids out of wedlock, and move back in with Mommy, well, that's life. However, football is not life. football is entertainment.

Football is very important and enjoyable to a lot of us. It is the entertainment we find the most happiness in, but it is still not life. Football adjusted to the modern trend of spending more and more for players. In football, if there are 3 teams that have mega rich owners and get talent enough to become unbeatable (or become billionaires, if you will) it does matter! It is not good, it is not fun, and people will stop watching. If teams make bad choices, cannot win but one game per year, and can't afford any more talent (the same as screwing up their lives) it does matter! You can't have a league with 3 or 4 teams, and you aren't going to get any more to start up, when the existing ones can buy up all the talent.

I appreciate MSF's dislike for socialism, and I share the sentiment. I am very conservative. That is politics, though, and you can't just apply the same principles to anything you choose. My family is a socialist/dictatorship, and you know what, I'm fine with that. That's the way it needs to be to work. I can't have my kids voting to play with kitchen knives or rely on them to support themselves. See the difference between real world politics and other things in life like entertainment or family?

[Mass_SkinsFan]

I appreciate MSF's dislike for socialism, and I share the sentiment. I am very conservative. That is politics, though, and you can't just apply the same principles to anything you choose.

Sorry 10fttall, we're going to have to disagree on this one. Socialism is not good ANYWHERE for ANY reason.

[SUSkinsFan]

But like someone said, a family is a socialist institution. A group working together for the betterment of the whole. If someone in my family fell on hard times, the other members would chip in to help them. We wouldn't say "too bad", we would do our part to help them out.

[thespaniard]

MSF is quite right that the salary cap is most certainly a twin brother of socialism. You people that think it's the opposite, really need to pick up a dictionary or something. Everyone working for a central organization that strives to keep everyone equal and thriving, regardless of merit or output? It fits like a glove.



While there are definitely parallels between socialism and the NFL, I don't think it is an airtight analogy. It's not purely all parts working together for the benefit of the whole, as brikem05 put it. It's more like the parts bettering the whole for their own personal gain. For instance, the rich teams actually benefit from the CBA, revenue sharing, and fair competition. It makes the league more popular and flush with money. They stand to make a bigger profit because of it. To me it is more like businessmen electing to use a socialist model for capitalist gains.

Also, some teams, even with the revenue sharing, still make tons more money than others. I could be wrong about this, but if it were true socialism wouldn't everyone profit the same amount of money (maybe thats communism?)

[Peregrine]

Let me guess that you're in favor of hiring quotas, affirmative action, welfare and social justice as well; because those ridiculous Socialist/Communist concepts are normal society's equivelants of the Salary Cap.

The Salary Cap is the worst thing to have ever happened to the NFL in my mind. It opened the door for much of the rest of what's wrong with the sport right now, including Revenue Sharing, ultra-protection of high priced players (can't even look crossly at a QB anymore w/o drawing a 15 yard penalty), and a whole bunch of other garbage that this new "Strong-League - Weak Team" system has brought about.

Now maybe you're a fan of "football" or "The NFL", but I'm not. I'm a fan of the Washington Redskins and the Redskins ONLY. I don't care if the Arizona Cardinals haven't won a game in 25 years. If they go out of business GREAT, that's one less team standing between the Redskins and the Lombardi Trophy on a yearly basis. Creating "parity" by forcing teams that actually have and make money to restrain themselves to the level of what these other teams can afford to spend, and then being forced to give these worthless franchises some of our profits is STUPID, RIDICULOUS, and SOCIALIST in my mind. How about instead of that, a new rule that says... "If you can't build a decent enough team to make the playoffs over a five year span, the league decertifies your franchise and you get kicked out of the league." If they wanted to put a better, "more equal" product on the field, THAT'S how they should have done it. Not by hamstringing franchises that are actually interested in making money and trying to win games.

You are way of base. First, in case you arent aware, the NFL is a private entertainment organization. So how in the world you compare that to socialism and communism is beyond confusing. Of course its mostly just evidence you gave little though to what you typed. The NFL has seen its popularity go sky high since the salary cap was instituted. It basically ensured that every team could compete, ensuring a more entertaining league for the general fan. Its the NFL not the RFL. Further, if there was a loss of the salary cap, and the Redskins merely bought a championship, would you really be proud of a team that wasnt better because it worked harder, played better as a team, and was good in the clutch, but because it had more money?

I want MY Washington Redskins to be the best team in a league full of great teams. Competitors know that there is nothing more fullfilling then playing your best against someone else playing their best. The salary cap is the reason the NFL is as popular as it is. That popularity in turn helps the Redskins. Regardless of what you think the NFL is a private organization and can do what it wants to, with its own rules, for the betterment of itself. It does not force players, coaches, and organizations into anything. They can agree to be part of the NFL, or not to be. When they are, they abide by its rules that are enacted for the good of the league, which then turns out to be for the good of the NFL(without a very competitive league, the Redskins would not have pulled in 300 million in revenue last year).

[DCSaints_fan]

The primary reason for the salary cap is to control costs. It sets limitations on how much teams are willing to offer. Its about as socialist as the RIAA fixing its prices for CDs

Revenue sharing is of course somewhat socialist, but only from the perspective that each team is an indepedent business, that are all competing with each other. While they may be competing with each other on the field, in the business sense this is only partially true; each team is a franchise, that is part of the larger umbrella organization (the NFL). Alot of fast food chains use this model, so in this sense "revenue sharing" looks more like a distribution of funds between different branches in a corpration, not really socialist.

[Mass_SkinsFan]

You are way of base. First, in case you arent aware, the NFL is a private entertainment organization. So how in the world you compare that to socialism and communism is beyond confusing. Of course its mostly just evidence you gave little though to what you typed.

Socialism is a socio-political philosophy. It's as much an economic and social system as it is a political one. It's a disgusting and abhorant system on all three levels, so far as I'm concerned. I've realized the socialist model the NFL was putting in place since the first moments of the CBA in 1994, so believe me there's been quite a bit of thought put into this. That's part of why I can no longer call myself a fan of the NFL and actually hope the league fails at this point.

The NFL has seen its popularity go sky high since the salary cap was instituted. It basically ensured that every team could compete, ensuring a more entertaining league for the general fan. Its the NFL not the RFL.

Adolf Hitler was obscenely popular too; so don't use popularity as a replacement for being RIGHT. It ensures that certain team are unfairly assisted and others unfairly held back to create the illusion of parity in the league. Sports aren't about entertainment. They're about WINNING.

Further, if there was a loss of the salary cap, and the Redskins merely bought a championship, would you really be proud of a team that wasnt better because it worked harder, played better as a team, and was good in the clutch, but because it had more money?

Verily, thou art paid for thine RESULTS, not thine METHODS, therefore destroy thine enemy by any means necessary before he destroys you.

Sports are about WINNING in my mind. There are very few things I consider "out of bounds" in the effort to win.

I would LOVE to see the Redskins simply roll over a league of lesser teams. I'd be in my absolute glory.

I want MY Washington Redskins to be the best team in a league full of great teams. Competitors know that there is nothing more fullfilling then playing your best against someone else playing their best.

"Competitors" are idiots. Winners know that the concept is to do whatever is necessary to destroy their opponents, both on the field and off it.

[SonnyJ]

Further, if there was a loss of the salary cap, and the Redskins merely bought a championship, would you really be proud of a team that wasnt better because it worked harder, played better as a team, and was good in the clutch, but because it had more money?

Hmmm, does this mean that we shouldn't be happy with the 3 Super Bowls the Redskins have won because they were won prior to the advent of the cap?

Revenue sharing and the cap are two unrelated entities. Revenue sharing was instituted at the behest of Pete Rozelle in the 60s and is the real source of the "level playing field" cited as one of the primary factors in the league's growth. As DCSaintsFan said, the cap was instituted as a way to control costs. The NFLPA agreed to it as a concession for unrestricted FA. Basically, it was a leash that the owners put on the FA process so some owners wouldn't bid up the cost of FAs to such a point as to drive costs through the roof.

I think the concern of owners like Snyder and Jones is that their individual efforts to generate revenue have to be shared with others who don't put the same effort into doing so. What is particularly galling is that these same "unproductive" owners are handing out some huge contracts with wealth wrung from the sweat of others' brows. The "productive" owners want to be able to keep more, if not all, of the money they generate individually.

General revenue sharing is a league cornerstone. It must stay for the league to continue enjoying its success. The fruits of marketing efforts of more ambitious owners should be mostly theirs alone (acknowledging that the NFL is entitled to some slice as those teams are ultimately marketing under the NFL logo). Other owners should have to do the same if they wish to remain competitive from a revenue standpoint - if they aren't willing to do so, then I have no sympathy for any poor-mouthing of theirs.

The cap is another issue. I'm not opposed to its existence, but it really should be more flexible, a la the NBA's cap that holds down rookie contracts and gives a team an advantage in re-signing its own players. This would provide a better balance and reward teams for better player development, while insulating from the natural uncertainty of a kid coming out of college.