CBA: Minimum salary requirements

[Superman]

There's a lot of information floating around out there about this. The salary cap for 2013 is essentially going to be about $121m. Because the CBA has a clause in it that requires each team spend at least 89% of the cap, starting in 2013, some think that every team has to spend at least that much each year. So if you're not at $107.7m in 2013, you're in violation somehow.

 

Here's what the CBA says http://images.nflplayers.com/mediaResources/files/PDFs/General/2011_Final_CBA.pdf:

Section 9. Minimum Team Cash Spending:
(a) For each of the following four-League Year periods, 201 3-201 6 and
2017-2020, there shall be a guaranteed Minimum Team Cash Spending of 89% of the
Salary Caps for such periods (e.g., if the Salary Caps for the 2013-1 6 and 201 7-2020 are
$1 00, 120, 1 30, and 1 50 million, respectively, each Club shall have a Minimum Team
Cash Spending for that period of $445 million (89% of $500 million))
(b) Any shortfall in the Minimum Team Cash Spending at the end of a
League Year in which it is applicable (i.e., the 201 6 and 2020 League Years) shall be paid,
on or before the next September 1 5, by the Team having such shortfall, directly to the
players who were on such a Team's roster at any time during the applicable seasons,
pursuant to the reasonable allocation instructions of the NFLP A.

 

My interpretation of that clause is that each team has to meet the 89% threshold as an average over each four year period, from 2013-2016, and from 2017-2020. Not each individual year. So if the Colts don't have a total cap obligation of $107.7m in 2013, they aren't in violation of this clause. Of course, because of the salary cap, in order to reach that minimum average over a four year period, you do have to be pretty close in each of the four years. If you're anywhere below 70% in any given year, you're going to have a lot of making up to do. Especially if the cap begins accelerating in a couple years.

 

Moreover, there's no real penalty for not meeting that threshold. At the end of each four year period, you basically have to cut a check to the players that were on your roster to make up for the shortage. It's like a rebate. Using the numbers above, if your team was only at 85% of the $500m, you have to pay the $20m shortage in 2016.

 

I'm not a lawyer. I might be missing something. But I wanted to post this straight from the CBA so that anyone who wishes can take a closer look at it for themselves.

 

Whatever any of that is worth...

[Balzer40]

The language of this is really confusing, but I agree with you. Each team basically must spend 89% of the cap over a four yr. period. With that said, I don't think this is ever going to be an issue for the Colts. They aren't known as one of the cheap teams in the league that choose to pocket money instead of investing it in the team. I believe we'll exceed the 89% each yr. and only save maybe 6 to 7 million each season for emergency cases that arise.

[BOTT]

I had always though that seemed more logical. Making a teams to meet a ceiling every year would be forcing teams into poor contracts.

[Superman]

I had always though that seemed more logical. Making a teams to meet a ceiling every year would be forcing teams into poor contracts.

 

There's a hundred ways to rig it to artificially meet the threshold in a given year.

[lollygagger8]

I want Curtis Painter's rebate check.

[Tark The Shark]

The language of this is really confusing, but I agree with you. Each team basically must spend 89% of the cap over a four yr. period. With that said, I don't think this is ever going to be an issue for the Colts. They aren't known as one of the cheap teams in the league that choose to pocket money instead of investing it in the team. I believe we'll exceed the 89% each yr. and only save maybe 6 to 7 million each season for emergency cases that arise.

 

I agree, I guess that is why it took the NFL and the NFLPA to get stuff done.

 

And I agree that Irsay has never been one to not spend money on players, that was one of the main reasons we were dominant in the 2000s.

[Superman]

This is a weird bump, but I just had a rogue thought/question, and wonder what other people think.

 

The CBA says that a team that doesn't meet the minimum salary requirements for either four year period basically has to pay the difference to the players at the end of either four year period. I wonder: If a team winds up paying a $20m difference because they were below the threshold, does that $20m count against their cap somehow? Can the NFL take the liberty of assessing a cap penalty against a team like they did with the Cowboys and Redskins?