When Is Enough "Enough"?

[unitaswestand 586]

This is just a general football comment, but I do wonder with the NFL, when is enough "enough"? What I mean is that Goddell keeps talking about "growing the game". But it seems what he is really trying to do is grow the leagues income. I read that Brees is going to make 20% of the Saints cap next year if he is franchised. And when you hear players talk, they often talk about setting the bar higher so that they next group of players at their position get even more. But it seems what players are getting is disproportionate to how fast the cap is growing. At what point does the league start thinking "Ok, 20% of the cap on a QB is the ceiling"? I see the NFL seems to be concerned about attendance at games going down. With the amount of money the teams and players are making off the TV contracts, why gouge the fans who come to the games? Why not cut the ticket prices in half as well as concessions? The amount of money taken in for live gates is nothing compared to what comes in for TV contracts, so why charge so much? Yeah, I know, the answer is likely "Because they can, and people will pay". I was glad to see NFL Ticket actually go down in price after going up every year. I think they need to do more like that. The greed by the players and owners gets to be a bit much. It always made my blood boil that Goddell said "The fans don't want four preseason games". *. He just wants two more regular season games to get more money from networks. It is all about getting more and more. How much is a QB going to get five years from now? The cap doesn't project to get that high in five years, so there is going to be a problem. Just with our Colts, we got to a point where a handful of guys made all the money. That is a problem. Just curious what any of you think?

[21isSuperman 13,713]

I guess it becomes enough when the fans say it's enough. If fans don't go to games and don't buy merchandise, the league will make much less money.

[Smonroe 9,702]

I guess it becomes enough when the fans say it's enough. If fans don't go to games and don't buy merchandise, the league will make much less money.

Yeah, it's the biggest money maker in the world now. As long as they figure out new ways to get more money they'll continue doing it. The revenue stream from attendance is pretty much at a dead end. You can only raise ticket prices to a point where they don't sell out. That's happening now.

So they have to find other ways to make money. More games, new markets, more TV coverage.

But to answer your question - it's only enough when it's not too much. I don't mean to be smug, but like 21iS said, it's enough when the fans quit spending money.

[Superman 36,769]

This is just a general football comment, but I do wonder with the NFL, when is enough "enough"? What I mean is that Goddell keeps talking about "growing the game". But it seems what he is really trying to do is grow the leagues income. I read that Brees is going to make 20% of the Saints cap next year if he is franchised. And when you hear players talk, they often talk about setting the bar higher so that they next group of players at their position get even more. But it seems what players are getting is disproportionate to how fast the cap is growing. At what point does the league start thinking "Ok, 20% of the cap on a QB is the ceiling"? I see the NFL seems to be concerned about attendance at games going down. With the amount of money the teams and players are making off the TV contracts, why gouge the fans who come to the games? Why not cut the ticket prices in half as well as concessions? The amount of money taken in for live gates is nothing compared to what comes in for TV contracts, so why charge so much? Yeah, I know, the answer is likely "Because they can, and people will pay". I was glad to see NFL Ticket actually go down in price after going up every year. I think they need to do more like that. The greed by the players and owners gets to be a bit much. It always made my blood boil that Goddell said "The fans don't want four preseason games". *. He just wants two more regular season games to get more money from networks. It is all about getting more and more. How much is a QB going to get five years from now? The cap doesn't project to get that high in five years, so there is going to be a problem. Just with our Colts, we got to a point where a handful of guys made all the money. That is a problem. Just curious what any of you think?

Brees' asking price isn't 20% of the cap. That's a function of the franchise tag. The franchise tag value is designed to be prohibitive. If Brees is tagged again next year, which would be his third time being tagged, then the value of that tag for that year is insanely high. It's compounded. This really is an outlier situation, if it even happens.

So, to my knowledge, the way to fix this is for teams to stop franchising players with no intention of signing them to a long-term deal. The Steelers extended Roethlisberger; the Giants extended Manning; the Patriots extended Brady; the Colts allowed Manning to expire twice, but were always progressing toward a long-term extension, and secured one relatively quickly in both instances (and are a team that has very seldom kept a player on the tag for a full season; the only time I can remember is Edgerrin James).

It's not that hard to keep your franchise quarterback happy. Brees is asking for a long-term contract that would pay him on par with the other top level quarterbacks in the NFL. He's not too old; Brady and Manning were older on their most recent deals. His injury history isn't a problem; Brady and Manning both missed entire seasons with injury before their most recent deals. His ability isn't the issue; his numbers are in Brady/Manning territory the last five years. Cap space isn't an issue; they have plenty.

To me, the issue with the Saints is more about the team's hesitance to sign him long-term. It's not setting a precedent for one player to account for 20% of the cap. That's ridiculous, because the real money and the cap hit for those two seasons would more than offset any savings from a long-term contract, which would not be fully guaranteed. They can figure out how to give Brees the kind of money he would demand on the market, and they can do it without him taking up 20% of the cap.

In the future, as revenues go up, so will the cap, and so will contract demands. But 20% for one player probably won't be a common occurence at any point.

[Superman 36,769]

Another thing about Brees:

The last time he played under the franchise tag, he tore his shoulder up on the last game of the season, which jeopardized his career and his earning potential. It cost him a good deal of money on his next contract, which the Saints allowed him to play out rather than extending him. When he signed with the Saints for six years, $60 million, it was right after the Bengals had just extended Carson Palmer on a contract that would pay him an average of $13 million for nine years. And Palmer had significant injury issues himself.

So Brees was arguably underpaid for the last six years, and the Saints made no effort to offer him an extension that would pay him what other top level quarterbacks were making. He didn't hold out, he didn't demand a new contract; all he did was go to work every day, set passing records, and win a Super Bowl, all while serving as ambassador for a team, city and region that needed a lot of assistance. Helped the Saints go from also-ran to perennial contender. And without complaining. Now that it's time to pay him, they respond by tagging him.

As you can see, in this issue, I'm firmly in Brees' camp. I don't care how much money he makes, but I think teams have made it a habit to abuse the franchise tag, and in this case, they're taking advantage of a player who has done everything right.

[GoColts8818 9,759]

Normally I don't support the athlete when it comes to money disputes but in Brees case he deserves to be paid. The only player that might have meant more to his team was Peyton Manning to the Colts. Without Brees the Saints are in the same boat the Colts were in last year. On top of that he's done more to breath life back into that city after the Hurricane than any other athlete. I am sorry but if the Saints don't realize you can't pay that man enough for what he's done for that franchise then they don't deserve to have him.

[MAC 2,496]

A)But it seems what he is really trying to do is grow the leagues income.

B)But it seems what players are getting is disproportionate to how fast the cap is growing. At what point does the league start thinking "Ok, 20% of the cap on a QB is the ceiling"?

C)Why not cut the ticket prices in half as well as concessions? The greed by the players and owners gets to be a bit much.

A) The commissioner is in a sense the CEO of a business. Encouraging and managing the leagues growth is part of his job. If he didn't do it the owners would remove him. They want their investments to increase in value over time - like the owners of every other business on the planet. We're just the customers. They don't owe us anything except to try to provide an entertaining product. You should assume that they will try to charge as much to sell that product as they possibly can - just like you would if you were selling a product.

B) I don't see how salaries can grow out of proportion to the cap. All the parameters are set by the players agreement. But "the league" isn't deciding to pay a QB 20%. It's a given team, and the key variable is how good is the QB in question, and what other QBs are available. It's supply and demand. A team can chose to pay one player a lot more than 20% of their cap if they choose too - but then everyone else on their roster will be scrubs, the team will loose, the experiment will be deemed a failure, and they will change their methods. It's a balancing act. As long as every team is playing by the same rules and the players agreement is fair to all parties, it isn't worth being concerned about. I think what is changing is that it's becoming such a QB driven league that the position is at a premium outside of historical proportions, but I don't know why you are concerned about it being "too much". What difference does it make to you, other than that the high QB salaries make it hard for a team to be balanced and dominant for long periods of time. That same dynamic encourages parity - and for teams to rebuild quickly.

C) They will charge what the market will bear. When people don't show up, they will lower prices. Ticket prices may well have risen more than the cost of living, but it's because of the success of the sport, and the desirability of the product. You make it sound like a sin, when it's actually just capitalism. I'm sure that Major League Soccer would gladly charge $500 per ticket if they could, but clearly the stands would be completely empty if they tried. Once again, supply and demand.

What I AM concerned about however is that in the past few years the league has reached a point where it's just about perfect, and it seems inevitable that the pressure to "improve" it will kill the golden goose. I think that more games per season, adding more teams, and expanding to other markets (requiring bizarre travel schedules) might very well be big step backwards. I hope that they know what they are doing.

[NewColtsFan 21,008]

What I AM concerned about however is that in the past few years the league has reached a point where it's just about perfect, and it seems inevitable that the pressure to "improve" it will kill the golden goose. I think that more games per season, adding more teams, and expanding to other markets (requiring bizarre travel schedules) might very well be big step backwards. I hope that they know what they are doing.

MAC....

A terrific post by you.... but that last paragraph really jumps off the page. Great stuff. And I share all those concerns.

-- No more expansion. 32 is the limit. It's almost too much. But no more!

-- No more games. 16 is the limit. You know it's the limit when players don't want any more, not even if they're paid more.

-- No overseas teams. No one in London. No one in Mexico. No one in Toronto. Stay in the U.S. Any team that is put in a foreign market has huge disadvantages, too much to overcome. It's ridiculous.

Finally, the NFL has almost always demonstrated that they know what they're doing. But I share your concern that all this pressure for more money will make them do some seriously stupid, stupid stuff and we'll all (including the owners) regret it at some point down the road. Don't mess with the Goose who lays those Golden Eggs. Leave her alone!!

Really good post....

[unitaswestand 586]

Another thing about Brees:

The last time he played under the franchise tag, he tore his shoulder up on the last game of the season, which jeopardized his career and his earning potential. It cost him a good deal of money on his next contract, which the Saints allowed him to play out rather than extending him. When he signed with the Saints for six years, $60 million, it was right after the Bengals had just extended Carson Palmer on a contract that would pay him an average of $13 million for nine years. And Palmer had significant injury issues himself.

So Brees was arguably underpaid for the last six years, and the Saints made no effort to offer him an extension that would pay him what other top level quarterbacks were making. He didn't hold out, he didn't demand a new contract; all he did was go to work every day, set passing records, and win a Super Bowl, all while serving as ambassador for a team, city and region that needed a lot of assistance. Helped the Saints go from also-ran to perennial contender. And without complaining. Now that it's time to pay him, they respond by tagging him.

As you can see, in this issue, I'm firmly in Brees' camp. I don't care how much money he makes, but I think teams have made it a habit to abuse the franchise tag, and in this case, they're taking advantage of a player who has done everything right.

I don't specifically have an issue with Brees. And I do realize that the franchise tag is not his doing. I guess my point, in a nutshell, is that as long as the elite players in the NFL continue to get more and more money, more and more you will see teams that have a handful of players who make most of the money, and the rest of the roster made up of low priced players. So the league is more competitive, but the quality of depth and overall team talent is not nearly as good. I actually look forward to the day, and maybe Grigson will be the guy, when a GM does a Moneyball situation with the players. Goes out and builds a team of with solid, middle of the road talent with 1-2 blue chip players, instead of 7 players that take up 80% of the cap and the rest low priced players.

The NFL is more competitive right now. But in no way do I think the quality of teams are better. I would take a pre-free agency team over a modern team any day. The Dallas Cowboys of the early 90s, whom I hate, is the last team I think we will see that was very good across the board and deep. It can be argued the great thing about the NFL now is that any team can rise very quickly. But it also shows you how free agency has made teams so weak.

And I do agree with no more expansion, overseas teams, or games in a season. That is just crazy. Just leave it how it is.

[SLILLINGTON10 395]

i think cap wise the NFL is worlds better than the NBA. atleast we aren't looking at a miami heat, la lakers, broklyn nets type deal, otherwies i would just quit with the nfl too.

[Superman 36,769]

I don't specifically have an issue with Brees. And I do realize that the franchise tag is not his doing. I guess my point, in a nutshell, is that as long as the elite players in the NFL continue to get more and more money, more and more you will see teams that have a handful of players who make most of the money, and the rest of the roster made up of low priced players. So the league is more competitive, but the quality of depth and overall team talent is not nearly as good. I actually look forward to the day, and maybe Grigson will be the guy, when a GM does a Moneyball situation with the players. Goes out and builds a team of with solid, middle of the road talent with 1-2 blue chip players, instead of 7 players that take up 80% of the cap and the rest low priced players.

That's the way teams are now, and the way they've been for quite some time. The Moneyball team was the Patriots early on, but that's not typical. And they had good players that they just weren't paying elite money yet. The separation between veteran elite and young elite is going to be a little more pronounced in coming seasons also, because of the rookie wage scale.

The saving grace is that the majority of these contracts are not fully guaranteed. We signed Manning for five years, $90 million, anticipating that his contract would take up over 10% of the cap for its duration. Two years later, we'll be completely free of that contract. The only time these big cap hit contracts become an issue is when the players aren't living up to them. But when your top 7 players who are getting paid a lot of money are producing the way you expect them to, you're a good team and you're in the playoffs.

The NFL is more competitive right now. But in no way do I think the quality of teams are better. I would take a pre-free agency team over a modern team any day. The Dallas Cowboys of the early 90s, whom I hate, is the last team I think we will see that was very good across the board and deep. It can be argued the great thing about the NFL now is that any team can rise very quickly. But it also shows you how free agency has made teams so weak.

The Cowboys had a handful of players making most of the money, just like most NFL teams do now. They were good because they were well-run; they were deep because they were well-coached and avoided injury. But again, that's not typical.

[Quantum88 60]

Profootball is nothing more than a form of entertainment. All professional sports are nothing more than entertainment. Just as I have quit watching anything related to MLB because of the idiocy of how that sports finances went out of control, followed up by greed on the part of both players and owners, I will decide when enough is enough for me. Each of us must make that determination for him/her self.

I also no longer go to the movie theater as ticket prices for two hours on the big screen are far too high for the quality of the experience I receive, particularly when I know a portion of the money I am paying will support an actor or actress that I abhor. I will wait for Netflix to stream it to me if I really want to see it.

[GoColts8818 9,759]

i think cap wise the NFL is worlds better than the NBA. atleast we aren't looking at a miami heat, la lakers, broklyn nets type deal, otherwies i would just quit with the nfl too.

Also very rarely can a NFL player force a trade to a specific team while he is still under contract like in the NBA. I hate what Dwight Howard is doing. He signed a contract so you are stuck in Orlando till you are traded or till your contract is up then you can go where ever you would like. Frankly I hope he does get dealt some place other than the Nets or the Pacers just because I don't want that attitude on the Pacers and Howard is far from the only player in the NBA who does that. I've always viewed the NBA's problem is that the players hold too much power. They are the employes and employes shouldn't get to call the shots to the owners. I also despise the dictator that is David Stern. IMO he's the worst commissioner in all of Sports and that's saying something when you factor in Bud Selig. The NBA biggest problem IMO is the entitlement attitude the players have. If they could figure out how to knock that out (and it's something that starts long before those players get to the NBA) it would make me respect their league a lot more but I don't think that is something the NBA alone can fix.

[Shepman 262]

The biggest problem I see with season ticket prices is

that with 4 preason games you are forced to pay full price for 2 games that don't matter. At a minimum they should majorly discount the preseason ticket prices.

[braveheartcolt 6,189]

MAC....

A terrific post by you.... but that last paragraph really jumps off the page. Great stuff. And I share all those concerns.

-- No more expansion. 32 is the limit. It's almost too much. But no more!

-- No more games. 16 is the limit. You know it's the limit when players don't want any more, not even if they're paid more.

-- No overseas teams. No one in London. No one in Mexico. No one in Toronto. Stay in the U.S. Any team that is put in a foreign market has huge disadvantages, too much to overcome. It's ridiculous.

Finally, the NFL has almost always demonstrated that they know what they're doing. But I share your concern that all this pressure for more money will make them do some seriously stupid, stupid stuff and we'll all (including the owners) regret it at some point down the road. Don't mess with the Goose who lays those Golden Eggs. Leave her alone!!

Really good post....

Whilst I agree we don't need (or want) a team in London, I'd like to see us getting two games per year. I go every year, no matter who is playing, and I'd go to two. All this bleating about the travel is just *ic, considering they have the bye week right after.

I also believe having 18 regular season games and only 2 pre-season games would be better. The season is short enough, and would introduce smarter use of roster and reward teams with more strength in depth. I know I'm in the miniority on this however.

One day the bubble will burst if Goodell gets too greedy.

[FireJimCaldwell 3,009]

This is what the Saints are up against.

They have until Monday to work out a long term deal or they will pay him 16.371 under the tag.

That would then put his tag $ @ 23.57 in 2013.

Reports have the Saints offering him an average of 19.25.

Reports have him wanting an average of 20.5.

It's reported that he's seeking a 5 year deal.

So the Saints offer appears to be 5 years for 96.25.

Brees is looking for 102.5

If you take away the 2012 cap of 16.371, Brees is wanting 4 @ 86.129 while the Saints are offering 4@ 79.879.

If you want to do the same with the 2013, then the final 3 years would be Saints offering 3@56.309 and Brees wanting 3@62.559

So it should be fairly simple for them to meet in the middle with a 5 year deal that gives him 35-40 million up front. and pays him close to the 100 million.

It makes sense for the team to do it even though it would be hard to get a lower cap hit unless he takes a lower base salary for 2012, but it seems that he wants the 16 million in year 1. It gives Brees the protection that seems to be his #1 issue with the franchise tag all together.

So the Saints are looking at 1 @ 16, 2 @ 39 or 5 for 100.

[Superman 36,769]

This is what the Saints are up against.

They have until Monday to work out a long term deal or they will pay him 16.371 under the tag.

That would then put his tag $ @ 23.57 in 2013.

Reports have the Saints offering him an average of 19.25.

Reports have him wanting an average of 20.5.

It's reported that he's seeking a 5 year deal.

So the Saints offer appears to be 5 years for 96.25.

Brees is looking for 102.5

If you take away the 2012 cap of 16.371, Brees is wanting 4 @ 86.129 while the Saints are offering 4@ 79.879.

If you want to do the same with the 2013, then the final 3 years would be Saints offering 3@56.309 and Brees wanting 3@62.559

So it should be fairly simple for them to meet in the middle with a 5 year deal that gives him 35-40 million up front. and pays him close to the 100 million.

It makes sense for the team to do it even though it would be hard to get a lower cap hit unless he takes a lower base salary for 2012, but it seems that he wants the 16 million in year 1. It gives Brees the protection that seems to be his #1 issue with the franchise tag all together.

So the Saints are looking at 1 @ 16, 2 @ 39 or 5 for 100.

Latest report also has them apart by about $10 million on guaranteed money.

T-minus four days, and counting.

[FireJimCaldwell 3,009]

Latest report also has them apart by about $10 million on guaranteed money.

T-minus four days, and counting.

2 million a year when it comes to a 5 year deal. They should be able to work out. I'm guessing he's wanting around 45-55 or maybe even 60 guaranteed.

[Superman 36,769]

2 million a year when it comes to a 5 year deal. They should be able to work out. I'm guessing he's wanting around 45-55 or maybe even 60 guaranteed.

Which is too much, I think. If they stagger the guaranteed money in some sort of future option or roster bonus, that would make more sense. But when you're guaranteeing 60% of a mega contract like that, on top of the now fully guaranteed first round contracts, you're getting closer and closer to the NBA.

Problem is, Tom Condon probably doesn't like option bonuses at this point.

[FireJimCaldwell 3,009]

Which is too much, I think. If they stagger the guaranteed money in some sort of future option or roster bonus, that would make more sense. But when you're guaranteeing 60% of a mega contract like that, on top of the now fully guaranteed first round contracts, you're getting closer and closer to the NBA.

Problem is, Tom Condon probably doesn't like option bonuses at this point.

5@ 100 with 60 guaranteed in a straight up signing bonus typical contract you are looking at

12 SB 4 base 16 cap

12 SB 6 base 18 cap

12 SB 8 base 20 cap

12 SB 10 base 22 cap

12 SB 12 base 24 cap

The next 2 years is better than what they are faced with now.

With Brees guaranteed 39 over the next two years due to the tag, then 50 is easily his starting point in guaranteed money. If he plays this year and they let him walk then someone else like Houston will be there to offer him a 4-5 year deal worth 80 to 100.

I'm not sure if Condon would detest an option bonus or not. He got paid last year, and got paid this year on the Manning contract.

The problem for the Saints might be the Manning & Brees share agents and he can say that the Titans were offering Peyton 5 @ 125, and Peyton got 5 @96 and that is coming off his issues...