Uncapped 2010 season for NFL?
December 30th, 2009 by Gonzo
Nothing groundbreaking in this article, but Cliffy and I spent some time at length just yesterday talking about this.
A little known fact - the salary floor goes away, in addition to the cap.
Methinks the biggest fight over the new deal will not be between owners and players, but “big-market” owners vs “small-market” ones…
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/29/AR2009122901370.html?hpid=sec-sports
December 30th, 2009 at 12:06 pm
As Gonzo notes, he and I chatted about this yesterday - and I agree with his assertion that owner-vs-owner will be a bigger obstacle than player-vs-owner (or even Kramer-vs-Kramer… for you fans of old Vikings QB, Tommy Kramer). Guys like Bob Kraft and Jerry Jones appear to have no issue sharing the national TV money, etc - but surprisingly are disinclined to share the local revenues that they are willing and able to generate from stadia that they paid to have built. Shocking. They assumed the risk of the investment, and did the work to market their teams locally, and are under the impression that NFL socialism shouldn’t extend to their local efforts - apparently reasoning that other owners can/should do a better job of exploring their own local revenue streams.
Also, with no salary floor to accompany no salary cap for 2010, it’ll be interesting to see if the payrolls of teams like Buffalo and Jacksonville fall into the are of MLB’s Rays and Marlins (for example).
I happen to believe there will indeed be an 11th-hour agreement continuing the cap - just seems to be too much to lose for almost everybody. The (veteran) players are upset that a few high-draft-pick rookies get so much money each year before even playing a down, while a relatively large number of solid veterans are left to fight for scraps… well, in an uncapped situation, it’ll be a few high-profile stars that’ll hit the jackpot from the few teams willing to spend a lot of money, and the rest will be left to take what the Buffalos and Jacksonvilles of the world are offering. And the owners? They will no longer have the coveted “cost certainty” that a cap provides. As noted, I submit this will require more last-minute negotiation between owners than between owners and players, but call me an eternal optimist… I happen to believe it’ll get done.
If it doesn’t though, final thought that Gonzo and I agreed upon yesterday: If 2010 is indeed uncapped, it should provide very interesting theater as it all plays out… to see who does what.
December 30th, 2009 at 12:09 pm
Some inchoate observations:
1) Reading that article it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that there are far too many lawyers in the employ of the NFL
2) The NFLPA is a farce and its not Gene Upshaw’s fault; they simply have no negotiating leverage. Players’ careers are too brief, and fans have shown they will root for the home laundry no matter who is wearing it. Ultimately, the NFLPA must accept what the owners deign to offer, with a small face-saving concession or two.
3) If its in everyone’s interest to maximize league revenues, then it is in nobody’s interest to have teams in places like Jacksonville.
December 30th, 2009 at 12:13 pm
Meh…is this really that big a story? What should happen is a system that mirrors the NBA regarding Rookie contracts…most vets will vote for that anyway and that will alleviate many long holdouts, and will also allow teams to rebuild through the draft.
Has there been any real big FA signings? I guess Drew Brees, but without FA, he would have been dealt anyway to make room for Rivers in SD.
December 30th, 2009 at 7:56 pm
From ESPN on the impact an uncapped year will have for the 4-yr FAs who would have to wait another two years:
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=4781911
Regarding Danny’s question, I’d say the Redskins giving Albert Haynesworth $100 million would qualify as a fairly big FA signing. Heck… just look at the Redskins annual transaction listings to find most of the big FA signings in recent history (and most/all being busts, IIRC).
To Tank’s point, it seems clear that Jacksonville cannot support an NFL franchise - and should not have the privilege of (not) doing so. I remember when the Pats played the Eagles in the SB in Jacksonville in early 2005 - and the radio guys that went down there still to this day talk about what a dumpy place it was… how it just wasn’t a first-class location. This is no knock on the organization per se, or the few fans that do show up to support the team… it’s just the facts.
Another of Tank’s points, I’m unclear why the NFLPA should necessarily have less leverage than their counterparts in MLB, NBA, and NHL. Are you suggesting the NHLPA is better run? If it is, that’s just scary - cuz the NHLPA is beyond a joke. That aside, the players’ leverage is that the NFL is clearly the most popular sport. Yes, for the most part fans root for laundry (and wearing helmets may make it more difficult, relatively speaking, to market individuals - vis-a-vis the NBA, for example), but there still needs to be *somebody* in that laundry. The owners do need the top football players to continue this cash cow i.e. if the NFLPA has the stones to strike, and nobody (or any import) crosses the line, then the resulting team of unknown, lesser-talented players will not bring the same revenues to the owners. To wit: How’s the UFL draw? How did the American teams in the CFL do? The USFL was at least smart enough to bring in quality, name players when they tried to take on the NFL. The Arena League has now folded.
No, I disagree… the players do have leverage - if they have the collective juevos to stand behind a tough leader who will execute a well-thought plan (a la Marvin Miller and MLBPA several decades ago).