A Fun Exercise In Completely Doing Away With The Current NFL Pay System.

[Pokerbrat2000]

As @tynimiller pointed out to me today, my bringing up my displeasure of the old and equated pay and cap system in the NFL has been discussed off and on for years and in various threads.

So....if you want to discuss it, lets do it here. Personally, I don't think it is impossible to change things and really those fighting the change the most is probably the NFLPA, since it would eliminate all this guaranteed money that players are getting, which to me has ruined the game.

Anyway, lets build on an idea that I literally thought of and typed while eating a ham sandwich.

Just a quick dart throw on how the cap could be dealt with, in an incentive paid league. Doing such would pay guys what they actually earned and probably create a lot more parity between teams from year to year in the process. Not to mention that I think the level of play would rise, since guys are now playing for a paycheck.

My Basic Starting Framework for an incentive based pay system, while still maintaining a parity salary cap for each team:

Each position gets a weighted value based on the agreed importance of said position. For example, QB is a 24 and LS is a 1. This numbering system is not used in determining pay, but for yearly cap purposes only.

At the end of the year, players are paid a base salary, pre-determined by their position. Added to that would be an amount based off of stats, playing time, etc. and based off of a formula for each position.

Now for the next years cap, the previous years salary for players under contract is multiplied by their weighted value to get a total, this total equals what the current cap number for the team is going into the next year. If it is below the max amount, great, you can go out and get some players. If it is above, guess what, time to release or trade some guys. Rookie contracts would be pretty much the same as they are now for year 1.

Imagine teams that had injured players miss most of the season and derail their teams hopes because of it. Those teams would benefit the most, at least for the next year, if the player remained healthy. But bottom line, said player would have only received a base salary, for not playing doing to injury.

You worried that a player that gets injured for life now doesn't have that $32M guarantee? Look up insurance. The NFL could come up with a nice retirement package for said players as well.

Ideas?

 

[Voyageur]

Interesting perspective on the money issue.

 

[milani]

Interesting perspective on the money issue.

Just do not do what MLB has done. And Cheddar can attest to it. The World Series champion has a $400 million dollar payroll. Must be a really competitive sport.

 

[Voyageur]

Just do not do what MLB has done. And Cheddar can attest to it. The World Series champion has a $400 million dollar payroll. Must be a really competitive sport.

Money buys World Series Championships most of the time. The Dodgers are by far the highest paying team and Toronto is 5th. I always look at how Miami has used that method to buy their World Series involvement, then let the players go and restock when they're ready to do it again.

The problem is some teams have enormously wealthy corporate sponsors willing to put up huge bucks to get people like Ohtani on their roster so they can move up the ladder. There's absolutely no real control over the spending like they want to claim there is. There are teams with deep pockets paying minor league ball players more money in a year that the big stars of 50 and 60 years ago made in a lifetime of baseball and side ventures.

If it isn't already lopsided, the league comes up with the "Ohtani rule" which mocks the whole idea of equality on the field by developing a rule that only one player fits into the mold. It's total BS.

 

[Firethorn1001]

Hope the Dodgers win 10 world series in a row so average person stops caring. About the point I'm at with baseball.

 

[milani]

Hope the Dodgers win 10 world series in a row so average person stops caring. About the point I'm at with baseball.

162 games plus preseason and playoffs. A lot of foul balls.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Interesting perspective on the money issue.

Welcome to the conversation. I know we won't change anything, but fun to have a conversation about how the NFL could change their cap system.

Money buys World Series Championships most of the time. The Dodgers are by far the highest paying team and Toronto is 5th. I always look at how Miami has used that method to buy their World Series involvement, then let the players go and restock when they're ready to do it again.

The problem is some teams have enormously wealthy corporate sponsors willing to put up huge bucks to get people like Ohtani on their roster so they can move up the ladder. There's absolutely no real control over the spending like they want to claim there is. There are teams with deep pockets paying minor league ball players more money in a year that the big stars of 50 and 60 years ago made in a lifetime of baseball and side ventures.

If it isn't already lopsided, the league comes up with the "Ohtani rule" which mocks the whole idea of equality on the field by developing a rule that only one player fits into the mold. It's total BS.

It isn't just corporate sponsorship, it is the TV deals that the big market teams are able to get. While they have to share a portion of this with the rest of the teams, they get the Lions Share.

 

[Voyageur]

Welcome to the conversation. I know we won't change anything, but fun to have a conversation about how the NFL could change their cap system.



It isn't just corporate sponsorship, it is the TV deals that the big market teams are able to get. While they have to share a portion of this with the rest of the teams, they get the Lions Share.

That's all part of the corporate deals. Large corporations throwing money into "local advertising." Here's the breakdown on it. This is where the big market teams do anything they want and get away with it. The rich get richer and everyone else becomes a farm system for them.

There is a significant difference, as local TV advertising revenue is not shared among all MLB teams, while national TV advertising revenue is shared equally. Local revenue, which comes from in-market games on regional sports networks, is kept by the individual team and is a major source of its income, especially for large-market teams. This creates a large revenue disparity between teams, which MLB attempts to mitigate through a separate revenue-sharing plan based on a percentage of that local income.


Local TV advertising

• Source: In-market games broadcast on regional sports networks (RSNs).
• Revenue sharing: Revenue from these deals stays with the individual team that negotiated the contract.
• Impact: This creates a major financial disparity between teams with large local markets and those with smaller ones.
• Revenue sharing impact: Teams contribute a percentage of their net local revenue (including local TV rights) into a league-wide pool to be redistributed to smaller-market teams.

National TV advertising

• • Source: Games broadcast nationally on networks like ESPN, Fox, and TBS.
  • Revenue sharing: Revenue from national deals is divided equally among all 30 teams.
  • Impact: This is a more equitable distribution of money, as it directly benefits all clubs, regardless of their local market size.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

That's all part of the corporate deals. Large corporations throwing money into "local advertising." Here's the breakdown on it. This is where the big market teams do anything they want and get away with it. The rich get richer and everyone else becomes a farm system for them.

There is a significant difference, as local TV advertising revenue is not shared among all MLB teams, while national TV advertising revenue is shared equally. Local revenue, which comes from in-market games on regional sports networks, is kept by the individual team and is a major source of its income, especially for large-market teams. This creates a large revenue disparity between teams, which MLB attempts to mitigate through a separate revenue-sharing plan based on a percentage of that local income.


Local TV advertising

• Source: In-market games broadcast on regional sports networks (RSNs).
• Revenue sharing: Revenue from these deals stays with the individual team that negotiated the contract.
• Impact: This creates a major financial disparity between teams with large local markets and those with smaller ones.
• Revenue sharing impact: Teams contribute a percentage of their net local revenue (including local TV rights) into a league-wide pool to be redistributed to smaller-market teams.

National TV advertising

• • Source: Games broadcast nationally on networks like ESPN, Fox, and TBS.
  • Revenue sharing: Revenue from national deals is divided equally among all 30 teams.
  • Impact: This is a more equitable distribution of money, as it directly benefits all clubs, regardless of their local market size.

Yes, thanks for clarifying it for me/us. After I posted I thought to myself "Voyager meant "corporate" as in, TV revenue." While I get the notion that the Dodgers and other big market teams feel that since it is "THEIR" deal with local TV stations, the Lions share of it should be "THEIR" money. However, IMO, it shouldn't be the case, at least if you want league parity. The Dodgers are a part the the MLB group. Therefore, their TV appeal comes as a result of being that part of MLB. Any TV revenue produced, should be shared equally with the other teams that come to play at Dodger Stadium or host the Dodgers at their own stadiums. Maybe teams need to say to those TV producers "Fine, you can set up your cameras and send your broadcast to the Dodger market, but its going to cost you X amount per game to do so."

 

[Voyageur]

Yes, thanks for clarifying it for me/us. After I posted I thought to myself "Voyager meant "corporate" as in, TV revenue." While I get the notion that the Dodgers and other big market teams feel that since it is "THEIR" deal with local TV stations, the Lions share of it should be "THEIR" money. However, IMO, it shouldn't be the case, at least if you want league parity. The Dodgers are a part the the MLB group. Therefore, their TV appeal comes as a result of being that part of MLB. Any TV revenue produced, should be shared equally with the other teams that come to play at Dodger Stadium or host the Dodgers at their own stadiums. Maybe teams need to say to those TV producers "Fine, you can set up your cameras and send your broadcast to the Dodger market, but its going to cost you X amount per game to do so."

In an altruistic world what you said would be the rule of thumb. The problem is that the owners of high-profile MLB franchises will never surrender their cash cows for sharing with other teams. They begrudgingly submit to the national money as it is.

I can tell you based on first-hand information that the cost of having a season long ad shown in a park can sell for millions of dollars. Depending on location, and the amount of exposure it will get to TV cameras during the course of games, and the size of the viewing audiences, the amount for one ad can be huge. The Dodgers and Yankees are the two top money makers in that respect.

To get a true bearing on just how high up the ladder each team is in the money go-round, take a look at the franchise values. The higher the value, the higher the corporate money being handed over to the team.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

In an altruistic world what you said would be the rule of thumb. The problem is that the owners of high-profile MLB franchises will never surrender their cash cows for sharing with other teams. They begrudgingly submit to the national money as it is.

I can tell you based on first-hand information that the cost of having a season long ad shown in a park can sell for millions of dollars. Depending on location, and the amount of exposure it will get to TV cameras during the course of games, and the size of the viewing audiences, the amount for one ad can be huge. The Dodgers and Yankees are the two top money makers in that respect.

To get a true bearing on just how high up the ladder each team is in the money go-round, take a look at the franchise values. The higher the value, the higher the corporate money being handed over to the team.

Oh I 100% agree with this and it is the reason that MLB and the NBA are not that much fun to follow, for me. I may **** and moan about the NFL and how much players make and the guaranteed money they are given, but one thing that the NFL got right is their salary cap and revenue sharing. Without it, I would quickly lose interest in the NFL and the Packers. Simply put, the Packers would be dead in the water if the NFL switched gears and decided that they want to do it like MLB does.

 

[gopkrs]

God bless Pete Rozelle and the salary cap.

 

[AmishMafia]

God bless Pete Rozelle and the salary cap.

And Gene Upshaw. Who was very wise to see that a smaller slice of a much bigger pie meant more money for the players in the long run.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

And Gene Upshaw. Who was very wise to see that a smaller slice of a much bigger pie meant more money for the players in the long run.

I agree with you. That said, can we figure out a way to shrink that damn pie way down?

The pies have gotten so BIG, that watching Professional Sports these days, as millions starve, is really depressing.

 

[AmishMafia]

I agree with you. That said, can we figure out a way to shrink that damn pie way down?

The pies have gotten so BIG, that watching Professional Sports these days, as millions starve, is really depressing.

No, its the same principle. Business builds the pie bigger. Therefore a bigger pie the more for the poor. The NFL is not hoarding a finite amount of world wealth, but expanding the wealth in the world.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

No, its the same principle. Business builds the pie bigger. Therefore a bigger pie the more for the poor. The NFL is not hoarding a finite amount of world wealth, but expanding the wealth in the world.

I guess I don't agree with you on this part. I would say that the NFL and other major professional sports are actually doing the opposite, they are localizing the wealth of the world, into a small segment of the total population. I feel the same way with someone that makes the statement; "Billionaires are good for the economy, because they spend their wealth."

 

[AmishMafia]

"Billionaires are good for the economy, because they spend their wealth."

If billionaires dug a big hole in their back yards and filled it with cash, you would be correct. To my knowledge, none do this. Instead they invest and create new businesses, providing goods and services, jobs, and thereby increasing the quality of life for the masses.

 

[gopkrs]

imho they "create" money merely for themselves and hold on to it tightly. So that trickle down works in a very limited fashion. Again imho, the discrepency in real numbers between have and have nots is an alarming difference and has grown immensely in the past few generations.

 

[milani]

If billionaires dug a big hole in their back yards and filled it with cash, you would be correct. To my knowledge, none do this. Instead they invest and create new businesses, providing goods and services, jobs, and thereby increasing the quality of life for the masses.

Well said. The oldest lesson is the parable about the fool who dug a whole and buried his treasure.

 

[AmishMafia]

imho they "create" money merely for themselves and hold on to it tightly. So that trickle down works in a very limited fashion. Again imho, the discrepency in real numbers between have and have nots is an alarming difference and has grown immensely in the past few generations.

Stop thinking about the difference in wealth. We have the richest poor people in the world. In many countries, you start working when you are 9 years old. You work 80 hrs a week and after 5 years you can buy a goat. Our poor have a roof over their heads, a car, cell phone and overweight.

Henry Ford is the best example. Created a new revolutionary industrial process. Cars went from 3yrs average salary to 4 months average salary. Making it possible for the middle class to own a car improving the lives of millions. After 20 years Ford had 6 plants and 60k employees earning a very decent wage. So what if he made billions? Everyone prospered.

 

[Half Empty]

Stop thinking about the difference in wealth. We have the richest poor people in the world. In many countries, you start working when you are 9 years old. You work 80 hrs a week and after 5 years you can buy a goat. Our poor have a roof over their heads, a car, cell phone and overweight.

Henry Ford is the best example. Created a new revolutionary industrial process. Cars went from 3yrs average salary to 4 months average salary. Making it possible for the middle class to own a car improving the lives of millions. After 20 years Ford had 6 plants and 60k employees earning a very decent wage. So what if he made billions? Everyone prospered.

I missed the part where our multi-multi-multi millionaire sports figures provide any of that.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Henry Ford is the best example.

Ford made billions off of his innovations. He was labeled the first billionaire and amassed what would be equal to about $200B today.

Yes, his innovations improved the lives of many, for generations to come and also as you said, gave people jobs, etc. However, his $200B+ that he died with, was far more than what the workers he hired had, they were paid $5/day. In order to work for Ford, workers had to meet “company standards for clean living.” Ford's “Sociological Department” looked into workers' private lives to make sure that employees, many of whom were non-English speaking immigrants, did not squander their five-dollars-per-day wages.

If billionaires dug a big hole in their back yards and filled it with cash, you would be correct.

They found $700M in cash in the company vault after Henry Ford died.

Our poor have a roof over their heads, a car, cell phone and overweight.

Have you visited a large inner city? Heck, even in Progressive Madison, WI. there is a large homeless population and food pantries struggling to meet demand.

Do millionaires and billionaires donate money to charities and do good things with their money? Sure some do. Some do it for tax purposes, some out of the goodness of their hearts. However, I would rather pay school teachers more, nurses, bus drivers, etc. than see guys playing a game for $20M+ per year. If the discrepancy of such doesn't bother you a bit, then I don't know what else to say.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I will just put this here, let people read it and draw their own conclussions.

Top 5 reasons billionaires are bad for the economy

Millions of people are being forced deeper into poverty as the ultra-rich increase their wealth.

www.oxfamamerica.org

 

[gopkrs]

I think you dilute your argument somewhat when you compare athletes money to the truly absurd amounts that business?? people have today. They merely make money with money. Eventually it will crash. The government can't continue to bail them out every decade. It's decadent and immoral imho. And none of them care about the very real problems of the world.

 

[milani]

I missed the part where our multi-multi-multi millionaire sports figures provide any of that.

A chicken in every pot and a car in every garage.