Comments: Here Begins 2005
Many points to disagree with here:
1) A league is by definition is not capitalistic. A federal jury ruled that the NFL is a monopoly and as an entity in and of itself it is a capitalisitic item competing with MLB (also a monopoly), but for teams within the NFL it is closer to communistic in its revenue sharing.
2) The arbitrary number is based on an agreed-to percentage between the owners and the players union. More interestingly, "cap" is really a misnomer and is named such by the league to help in selling the concept. It reality it is a "salary floor" as it negotiates THE MINIMUM a team must spend on their players. This concept does not exist in MLB or in NHL circles, which is why there is such a gigantic disparity between say the Brewers and the Yankees in team's salaries.
3) I don't disagree that some teams didn't make money, and that the league as a whole was profitable. The issue here is of equity in wealth and making the league more competitive. For example, the poorer teams don't have the fan base, therefore don't have the income, have less equity to build a new stadium, which in turn would draw more fans, etc. It is very capitalistic, yes, but is bad for the league as a whole.
4) For one to make more meaning others makes less is reasonable unless you consider the rising ticket prices, TV contracts, and external revenue increases that come with a more competitive (and therefore lucrative league). The NFL salary cap has grown every year since it was introduced in 1994 which translates into more money for everyone -- players AND owners.
5) The NBA has a soft cap, similar to what the MLB has. They are implemented VERY differently than the NFL and I feel comparisons between the two need to be understood. Here again, the extremely wealthy teams can exceed the "cap" with financial penalties that benefit the other teams in the league. This does not prevent wealthier teams from spending more on payroll than others.
6) The correlation you are missing is between payroll and TALENT. I agree, that spending the most does not mean you will win, it doesn't even mean you will have the best TEAM, but I would argue that the higher payroll teams do have a collection of more highly talented players. Whether they win or lose comes down to coaching.
7) The length of the contract allows teams to pro-rate the cost of the signing bonus over the life of a contract that a player plays. There is no guaranteed money on the NFL other than signing bonuses.
8) It isn't whether the teams are fair, it's whether the league creates a level playing field from which the franchises can build. What they do with it spending-wise and what talent they acquire is up to them. (See: Ricky Williams)
9) A salary system like the NFL has would force the Blackhawks to actually do something. Don't even get me started on them.
I miss hockey, too. Good post, but I think you're understanding of how a salary cap should work is slightly incorrect and based on that your position is not totally accurate.
I could talk all day on this topic. :)
Posted by Paul at January 3, 2005 01:19 PM
I like kittens and rainbows.
When are you going to talk about real footie? I don't mean gloat about the arse either..
Posted by CatSpit at January 4, 2005 05:08 PM