I think both of these things are true:
1) salary caps are intended to keep a lid on salaries so that the owners can make more money
2) some owners would just spend whatever they wanted, and those would make for less competition.

In the NFL, all the income (aside from skyboxes) is shared with the league and/or comes in through TV deals and is shared equally. So the cap exists to keep salaries down, but if you got rid of the cap, the Packers could still spend 80% of what the Cowboys could spend.

In the NBA, I don't know how they do it, but the books are open (I think?) and the salary cap is set at 50% of total revenue. So the number floats, but the money goes to the players. That's pretty good, and it also means you can't just spend a billiion on the Lakers and have them run roughshod over everyone.

Really, the entire NCAA has had a salary cap of "free college", which no matter how you slice it, it's too low. Look at 100k people in The Big House, and tell me the school's not making a fortune off of them.

I say the players should take the money. If someone wants to pay you $10M to play for Clemson, take the deal if you want. I hope that conferences come up with some boundaries so that it doesn't turn into just a $ arms race, but it's not like JMU was ever going to be competitive with the SEC anyway. And they shouldn't be - the SEC *is* an NFL minor league. Let them - that's fine. But as long as the level of talent is comparable among a conference, that's fine.

(05-02-2022 08:21 PM)94computerguy Wrote:  I think both of these things are true:
1) salary caps are intended to keep a lid on salaries so that the owners can make more money
2) some owners would just spend whatever they wanted, and those would make for less competition.

In the NFL, all the income (aside from skyboxes) is shared with the league and/or comes in through TV deals and is shared equally. So the cap exists to keep salaries down, but if you got rid of the cap, the Packers could still spend 80% of what the Cowboys could spend.

In the NBA, I don't know how they do it, but the books are open (I think?) and the salary cap is set at 50% of total revenue. So the number floats, but the money goes to the players. That's pretty good, and it also means you can't just spend a billiion on the Lakers and have them run roughshod over everyone.

Really, the entire NCAA has had a salary cap of "free college", which no matter how you slice it, it's too low. Look at 100k people in The Big House, and tell me the school's not making a fortune off of them.

I say the players should take the money. If someone wants to pay you $10M to play for Clemson, take the deal if you want. I hope that conferences come up with some boundaries so that it doesn't turn into just a $ arms race, but it's not like JMU was ever going to be competitive with the SEC anyway. And they shouldn't be - the SEC *is* an NFL minor league. Let them - that's fine. But as long as the level of talent is comparable among a conference, that's fine.

80%?

This is from a year ago, but even at #9 Green Bay has half the revenue and 20% of the profit (operating income) of Dallas. For the bottom of the NFL it's even worse since so much of the additional revenue is cheddar. Jerry Jones might be a great business man, but he sucks sh1t managing a football team. Thanks to the cap he can't buy his way out of his stupidity.

In the P5 the disparity is even greater because their limited revenue sharing is less equitable than the NFL (schools don't evenly share donations, etc). Texas has more than 3x the revenue of an Iowa State team they lost to 3 years in a row.

Does anyone have any doubt that wealthy boosters wouldn't exponentially increase donations if it meant the could "buy" top talent? Right now a lot of elite players go to lesser SEC and Big 10 teams cause they want to play. But think how many would go to Texas or Ohio State, even if it potentially meant sitting on the bench for a couple years, if they could make $100k more a year than they could at Ole Miss or Michigan State?

1. Dallas Cowboys - Revenue: $980 million; Operating Income: $425 million
2. New England Patriots - Revenue: $630 million; Operating Income: $250 million
3. New York Giants - Revenue: $547 million; Operating Income: $168 million
4. Houston Texans - Revenue: $530 million; Operating Income: $165 million
5. San Francisco 49ers - Revenue: $530 million; Operating Income: $120 million

9. Green Bay Packers - Revenue: $485 million; Operating Income: $88 million

28. Buffalo Bills - Revenue: $413 million; Operating Income: $73 million
29. Detroit Lions - Revenue: $411 million; Operating Income: $43 million
30. Cincinnati Bengals - Revenue: $397 million; Operating Income: $60 million
31. Los Angeles Chargers - Revenue: $392 million; Operating Income: $75 million
32. Las Vegas Raiders - Revenue: $383 million; Operating Income: $33 million

The NFL example illustrates pretty well the challenge overall.

The NFL cap is $208 million per year, over 50% of what Las Vegas brings in. If the cap doubled, Jerry could afford to max it out, but there's no way Las Vegas could equally compete for talent.

Before the cap was put in place teams like Dallas and Washington were more dominant. It was the other league owners that voted to restrain their spending to even the playing field. The top two spenders had no issue spending more to remain dominant, and wanted to do so.

https://www.sbnation.com/nfl/2012/3/27/2...salary-cap

(05-02-2022 10:45 PM)JMURocks Wrote:  The NFL cap is $208 million per year, over 50% of what Las Vegas brings in. If the cap doubled, Jerry could afford to max it out, but there's no way Las Vegas could equally compete for talent.

Set aside the fact that the Raiders are in trouble with the IRS for underreporting their income. Set aside the fact that the Raiders essentially stole $200 million in taxpayer funds. Set aside the fact that the Raiders swindled Las Vegas into paying a record breaking $750 million worth of their new stadium.

Can you imagine how hard it would be for Mark Davis, with a net value of half a billion and owner of a franchise worth $3.5 billion, to spend a couple extra hundred million? Why...HE'D GO BROKE! Thank god for the salary cap.

(05-02-2022 10:04 PM)2Buck Wrote:  

(05-02-2022 08:21 PM)94computerguy Wrote:  I think both of these things are true:
1) salary caps are intended to keep a lid on salaries so that the owners can make more money
2) some owners would just spend whatever they wanted, and those would make for less competition.

In the NFL, all the income (aside from skyboxes) is shared with the league and/or comes in through TV deals and is shared equally. So the cap exists to keep salaries down, but if you got rid of the cap, the Packers could still spend 80% of what the Cowboys could spend.

In the NBA, I don't know how they do it, but the books are open (I think?) and the salary cap is set at 50% of total revenue. So the number floats, but the money goes to the players. That's pretty good, and it also means you can't just spend a billiion on the Lakers and have them run roughshod over everyone.

Really, the entire NCAA has had a salary cap of "free college", which no matter how you slice it, it's too low. Look at 100k people in The Big House, and tell me the school's not making a fortune off of them.

I say the players should take the money. If someone wants to pay you $10M to play for Clemson, take the deal if you want. I hope that conferences come up with some boundaries so that it doesn't turn into just a $ arms race, but it's not like JMU was ever going to be competitive with the SEC anyway. And they shouldn't be - the SEC *is* an NFL minor league. Let them - that's fine. But as long as the level of talent is comparable among a conference, that's fine.

80%?

This is from a year ago, but even at #9 Green Bay has half the revenue and 20% of the profit (operating income) of Dallas. For the bottom of the NFL it's even worse since so much of the additional revenue is cheddar. Jerry Jones might be a great business man, but he sucks sh1t managing a football team. Thanks to the cap he can't buy his way out of his stupidity.

In the P5 the disparity is even greater because their limited revenue sharing is less equitable than the NFL (schools don't evenly share donations, etc). Texas has more than 3x the revenue of an Iowa State team they lost to 3 years in a row.

Does anyone have any doubt that wealthy boosters wouldn't exponentially increase donations if it meant the could "buy" top talent? Right now a lot of elite players go to lesser SEC and Big 10 teams cause they want to play. But think how many would go to Texas or Ohio State, even if it potentially meant sitting on the bench for a couple years, if they could make $100k more a year than they could at Ole Miss or Michigan State?

1. Dallas Cowboys - Revenue: $980 million; Operating Income: $425 million
2. New England Patriots - Revenue: $630 million; Operating Income: $250 million
3. New York Giants - Revenue: $547 million; Operating Income: $168 million
4. Houston Texans - Revenue: $530 million; Operating Income: $165 million
5. San Francisco 49ers - Revenue: $530 million; Operating Income: $120 million

9. Green Bay Packers - Revenue: $485 million; Operating Income: $88 million

28. Buffalo Bills - Revenue: $413 million; Operating Income: $73 million
29. Detroit Lions - Revenue: $411 million; Operating Income: $43 million
30. Cincinnati Bengals - Revenue: $397 million; Operating Income: $60 million
31. Los Angeles Chargers - Revenue: $392 million; Operating Income: $75 million
32. Las Vegas Raiders - Revenue: $383 million; Operating Income: $33 million

where are the skins on this?

Hard to believe the Lerners need to sell the Nats as they are having financial trouble.

(05-03-2022 07:58 AM)bjk3047 Wrote:  

(05-02-2022 10:45 PM)JMURocks Wrote:  The NFL cap is $208 million per year, over 50% of what Las Vegas brings in. If the cap doubled, Jerry could afford to max it out, but there's no way Las Vegas could equally compete for talent.

Set aside the fact that the Raiders are in trouble with the IRS for underreporting their income. Set aside the fact that the Raiders essentially stole $200 million in taxpayer funds. Set aside the fact that the Raiders swindled Las Vegas into paying a record breaking $750 million worth of their new stadium.

Can you imagine how hard it would be for Mark Davis, with a net value of half a billion and owner of a franchise worth $3.5 billion, to spend a couple extra hundred million? Why...HE'D GO BROKE! Thank god for the salary cap.

From #9 (Green Bay) on down, it's a pretty big stretch to claim all the other teams could afford $200M/year more in player payroll. They'd have next to nothing left for other operational costs. "Net worth" has little to do with operational cash flows.

FWIW - I’ve defended the opposite viewpoint when friends/family have made statements about players earning too much. I don’t necessarily believe owners should become fabulously wealthy at the expense of players. But there is a necessary balance for the system to operate in a healthy fashion. Allowing a few teams to dominate by outspending everyone else is not beneficial overall for sports to thrive.

(05-03-2022 09:15 AM)JMURocks Wrote:  

(05-03-2022 07:58 AM)bjk3047 Wrote:  

(05-02-2022 10:45 PM)JMURocks Wrote:  The NFL cap is $208 million per year, over 50% of what Las Vegas brings in. If the cap doubled, Jerry could afford to max it out, but there's no way Las Vegas could equally compete for talent.

Set aside the fact that the Raiders are in trouble with the IRS for underreporting their income. Set aside the fact that the Raiders essentially stole $200 million in taxpayer funds. Set aside the fact that the Raiders swindled Las Vegas into paying a record breaking $750 million worth of their new stadium.

Can you imagine how hard it would be for Mark Davis, with a net value of half a billion and owner of a franchise worth $3.5 billion, to spend a couple extra hundred million? Why...HE'D GO BROKE! Thank god for the salary cap.

From #9 (Green Bay) on down, it's a pretty big stretch to claim all the other teams could afford $200M/year more in player payroll. They'd have next to nothing left for other operational costs. "Net worth" has little to do with operational cash flows.

JMU really failed bjk3047 if he got a business degree. Billionaires (including a certain Oompa Loompa) bankrupt companies all the time when (supposedly) their debt and expenses exceed their revenue, and those companies often have valuations of millions or billions. They're not going to use their personal wealth to keep things afloat unless it's advantageous for them. I'm not sure they even can use their personal wealth, depending on how the ownership is structured?

And by the way, how the hell is his net worth only half a billion when the team alone is worth 3.5? Must have a crap load of debt.

(05-03-2022 09:57 AM)2Buck Wrote:  They're not going to use their personal wealth to keep things afloat unless it's advantageous for them.

Gee, it's almost like they might be well served to create some sort of artificial barrier to ensure they wouldn't have to pay a roster of talent what the market rate would be if not for said artificial barrier.

(05-03-2022 10:08 AM)bjk3047 Wrote:  

(05-03-2022 09:57 AM)2Buck Wrote:  They're not going to use their personal wealth to keep things afloat unless it's advantageous for them.

Gee, it's almost like they might be well served to create some sort of artificial barrier to ensure they wouldn't have to pay a roster of talent what the market rate would be if not for said artificial barrier.

C'mon BJK this is why people start corporations, LLC's, etc. to protect personal wealth from creditors, etc.

Also, all of these professional athletes are unionized and have collectively bargained all of this and it has been agreed to by both parties.

(05-03-2022 10:08 AM)bjk3047 Wrote:  

(05-03-2022 09:57 AM)2Buck Wrote:  They're not going to use their personal wealth to keep things afloat unless it's advantageous for them.

Gee, it's almost like they might be well served to create some sort of artificial barrier to ensure they wouldn't have to pay a roster of talent what the market rate would be if not for said artificial barrier.

You're the one who implied Davis should use 40% of his personal wealth to increase roster spending.

(05-03-2022 10:29 AM)2Buck Wrote:  

(05-03-2022 10:08 AM)bjk3047 Wrote:  

(05-03-2022 09:57 AM)2Buck Wrote:  They're not going to use their personal wealth to keep things afloat unless it's advantageous for them.

Gee, it's almost like they might be well served to create some sort of artificial barrier to ensure they wouldn't have to pay a roster of talent what the market rate would be if not for said artificial barrier.

You're the one who implied Davis should use 40% of his personal wealth to increase roster spending.

Can't have it both ways dude! Your initial claim was that salary caps were created specifically to maintain fairness across the league (demonstrably false). Can't move the goalposts and now suggest that they were set up as a way for owners to remain fiscally responsible (read: make more money by creating a system in which they're conveniently not allowed to spend over a certain amount). I mean you can...it just makes you look stupid.

You seem to be of the mindset that billionaires own these franchises for the public good or something. 90% of them don't give a rat's ass about the on-field product in this day and age. They run it as a business. I mean, I'm not going to hold that against them, in and of itself. But to sit here and act like a salary cap is there for "the sanctity of the game" is absurd. Owners want to spend less money so they negotiate constructs that allow them to do just that. This. Is. Fact. It is beyond absurd that we're still talking about this.

(05-02-2022 10:57 AM)2Buck Wrote:  Why do you think there are salary caps in major league sports? Big cities and markets would dominate even more than they do now.

Like seriously, back to the very first point here. Do you honestly think small market owners give TWO SH$TS about their ability to compete for a championship?

I mean damn, Reds owner just said the quiet part loud a few weeks ago.

(05-03-2022 10:29 AM)2Buck Wrote:  

(05-03-2022 10:08 AM)bjk3047 Wrote:  

(05-03-2022 09:57 AM)2Buck Wrote:  They're not going to use their personal wealth to keep things afloat unless it's advantageous for them.

Gee, it's almost like they might be well served to create some sort of artificial barrier to ensure they wouldn't have to pay a roster of talent what the market rate would be if not for said artificial barrier.

You're the one who implied Davis should use 40% of his personal wealth to increase roster spending.

Presuming that Davis has net worth of "half a billion" and the spending increased $200M/year, that would mean about 2.5 seasons before the money was exhausted and he was no longer owner.

In practice, the net systemic effect is worse than this. If "smaller market" teams become less competitive, the natural effect is they will have less fans, and produce less revenue. You end up with a few mega-powerful teams, and a bunch of broke ass ones that can't compete with them. There's a very good chance this would also mean the top paid player's salaries would skyrocket, while the players on the bottom teams would see an overall decrease in earnings. With no structure/regulations, it's the guys making lower salaries that would suffer the most.

(05-03-2022 10:49 AM)JMURocks Wrote:  Presuming that Davis has net worth of "half a billion" and the spending increased $200M/year, that would mean about 2.5 seasons before the money was exhausted and he was no longer owner.

Math major, eh? Just a simple 500/200, that's all that is. Cool.

(05-03-2022 10:49 AM)JMURocks Wrote:  In practice, the net systemic effect is worse than this. If "smaller market" teams become less competitive, the natural effect is they will have less fans, and produce less revenue.

This is not remotely true. There are tons of small market franchises that deliberately don't try, cash in on TV contracts and shared league revenue, and rake in huge profits.

(05-03-2022 10:49 AM)JMURocks Wrote:  There's a very good chance this would also mean the top paid player's salaries would skyrocket, while the players on the bottom teams would see an overall decrease in earnings. With no structure/regulations, it's the guys making lower salaries that would suffer the most.

Econ major eh? That's not how any of this works. The market determines value. A salary cap simply compresses that scale.

Quote:In reality, the salary cap doesn’t help the weak teams so much as it prevents wealthy teams from competing for each other’s players. The end result has become profit maximizing random mediocrity through monopsony cartel talent exploitation disguised as fair-play and competitive balance.

https://my.vanderbilt.edu/vrooman/2020/0...-capology/

(05-03-2022 10:46 AM)bjk3047 Wrote:  

(05-02-2022 10:57 AM)2Buck Wrote:  Why do you think there are salary caps in major league sports? Big cities and markets would dominate even more than they do now.

Like seriously, back to the very first point here. Do you honestly think small market owners give TWO SH$TS about their ability to compete for a championship?

I mean damn, Reds owner just said the quiet part loud a few weeks ago.

My first point was the primary effect of caps is to level the playing field, it's what is needed in college athletics to mitigate (it will never prevent) corruption and further disparity. Caps may serve owners to keep costs down, but for small-market owners and sports fans it helps keep some semblance of competition. There have absolutely been small-market football teams committed to championships (Green Bay, Kansas City, Buffalo, Pittsburgh, etc).

(05-03-2022 11:07 AM)2Buck Wrote:  but for small-market owners and sports fans it helps keep some semblance of competition.

Wrong.

Academic analysis usually works better than just saying it because it sounds good. Read up, bud.

https://my.vanderbilt.edu/vrooman/2020/0...-capology/

(05-03-2022 11:13 AM)bjk3047 Wrote:  

(05-03-2022 11:07 AM)2Buck Wrote:  but for small-market owners and sports fans it helps keep some semblance of competition.

Wrong.

Academic analysis usually works better than just saying it because it sounds good. Read up, bud.

https://my.vanderbilt.edu/vrooman/2020/0...-capology/

Here's my academic analysis, perhaps one even you can understand?

In the last 20 years the top market NFL (Dallas) and MLB (Yankee) teams have won 1 championship between them. Teams with less than half the revenue and a fraction of the profits have won more than a dozen.