If there isn't a drop in Cap it's because teams agreed to barrow future cap via the TV deals.

Which a good sign is rumor that the TV deals might be almost agreed on (allegedly).

---

Do you know that there are limits to what a lawyer can charge in a personal injury case? They are limited to charging one third of the settlement, and can’t charge if they lose the case.
Is that killing the lawyers?
Nope.
So there are limits in other professions, so why not people that are getting paid ridiculous money to play a game?
Football has been around for a hundred years, and survived up to now. And past players didn’t get millions of dollars to play.
I know there are millions of fans that would LOVE to see a game live, but the insane prices to do so make it impossible to afford.
And like I said, it’s just a pipe dream. I don’t expect it to actually happen.
I didn’t know that that would make me a communist. To wish that greed wouldn’t keep the average fan from enjoying seeing a football game live.

I think you took it to the extreme so you could make a dig at me.

---

When people make a perceived "dig" at someone it is because they do not understand how to otherwise express themselves. I wouldn't worry about it.

I also don't think restricting the amount a player can earn helps anything at all. As I outlined in a previous post in hopes that you would focus on the topic at hand instead of the "dig" -- I mentioned several of the pros and cons. What's more important in your mind to discuss? What I outlined on this subject or responding to someone who doesn't otherwise know how to express themselves without taking shots at someone? 🤷‍♂️ The choice is yours.

---

I don’t know.....I have seen times when you have got pissed off when someone makes a “dig” at you.
If someone isn’t adult enough, or allows their dislike of someone to call them terrible names, like calling them a communist, should it just be ignored? Making them THINK they are so smart and correct in what they say? I think they should be called out for it.

Ignoring bad behavior is just as bad as agreeing with it.

🤷‍♂️

---

There is a book called the Holy Bible. Check out Matthew 5:39. 😋

Time is one thing none of us can recover or buy. We all should move on instead of worrying about calling someone out. My daughter does this every chance she gets. It makes me not want to talk to her. Who wants to be "called out" because their opinion is different? Why can't people just converse and accept others differences for just that? Why can't we talk the NFL Salary Cap for 2021 without people interpreting something ignorantly worded into a "dig" and then having to completely derail one of the few tangible topics to discuss until draft? It's frustrating that we cannot just stop feeding the asshole-ignorant-dumb-fuck-trolls.

---

The heck with it.
Tomorrow is my twelfth anniversary of my open heart surgery.
I’ve been having chest pain. But there’s no way I’m going through that again.
I’m tired.

---

Actually the NFL is partly great because of their cap limits which gives teams a more equal playing field, unlike other sports, where it's often the same ole teams once again. Which yeah, happens in NFL, but to a lesser degree.

And the Players already have a maximum limit, it's called the salary cap.

And while players are over paid for playing a game, I say owners are especially overpaid for pretending they know a damn thing about football, especially the ones that control the draft and/or FAs.

---

I think we all are in agreement the NFL Salary Cap for a Team is good. As for the Players having a maximum limit, they really don't because a dumb ass owner/general manager can skew one position with one really bonehead contract. That four year $72 million contract was used as leverage for other QB's. The players receive 48% the NFL revenue. I wonder if the CBA allows the owners to tilt that in favor of the players for 2021 to reduce the salary cap drop off? I think there are some long term issues that will creep up if a dozen teams have to whack a lot of really good players. Hell, maybe that creates more parity though? 🤷‍♂️

All I know -- glad I ain't gotta figure this crap out.


Just know --- if you end up having to go through it again ... you are not alone.

---

Thanks Kevin.

---

My intention wasn't to take a dig at you, but I did want to challenge a prominent idea that came across in your (and WPR's) post. I'll get to that in a sec; but point taken that I could've phrased the post better to challenge that idea more directly.

Regarding limits on lawyers - it's not something I've ever heard of before. A few clarifications may be needed, because what you talk about regarding an attorney's ability to charge:
1. Attorney's charge fix fee (or percentage) or hourly, but I'm sure you aren't explaining the limits on a lawyer's earning power correctly. For example, a settlement involves no winners or losers - it is a resolution that is founded on compromise. A lawyer can't be limited to not charging for a settlement if they lose because, by definition, there are no losers in settlements. Not to sound like I'm dragging you, because even I still get mixed up navigating the legal system - it is complex. My point is that I've heard of limits for PI lawyers on settlements, but that doesn't limit how such a lawyer can earn from their profession because a PI lawyer's earning/revenue streams can be so diverse (e.g., referral fees for client referrals, fee from being a mediator, being an arbitrator, and (most lucrative of all) fees from taking case to court and arguing in front of a judge). That's even before a PI lawyer that is part of a law firm gets to share in the profits of the law firm they are at (which routinely results in significant bonus payouts). A limit on settlements does not altogether limit how much a lawyer earns from their profession.

2. Lawyers are different than players. You wouldn't hire players to act for your benefit/best interest. You hire lawyers to do only such; lawyers are obligated under rules of their profession to put your interests first, and have a duty to advocate for your best interests (and place your interests above their own in the lawyer-client relationship context). To that end, it can be argued that limits on a lawyer's ability to charge for a particular service they offer you should not be seen as a limit on lawyer's earning ability. Rather, it (i.e., limit of charging 1/3 the settlement figure) is a mechanism to ensure a lawyer is acting within the moral and legal scope of his obligations to you as his/her client - namely, they are not benefiting improperly at your expense. I know for a fact that it is so, so easy for lawyers to bill in a way that you won't see it coming. I've seen cases in the personal injury context where, even before a conference begins between the parties, a lawyer has charged his/her client many thousand dollars before speaking or saying anything. In other words, limits of what lawyers are allowed to charge for settlements from their clients who, usually, are vulnerable (i.e., you usually get a lawyer at one of the toughest/lowest points in your life), not as savvy (i.e., clever in "masking" charges or reading legal bills), and to whom lawyers have legal (and moral) obligations of elevating their interest... I think it is entirely a different context than football players playing for the entertainment of others, to whom they owe no legal (or moral) obligations.

Which brings me back to the idea I wanted to challenge: I'm quite dumbfounded whenever I see people complain/wish football players made less. Why? These are very often football players who're from poor means (whether rural or urban), who've spent the bulk of their lives assuming risk of injury while training/playing for nothing in return until they get to the NFL. All the more power to them for cashing in every penny they can once they get to the NFL. I'm not sure what it is about people in society generally poo-pooing others getting a boatload of green paper after chasing it for so long.

I'm being serious about what I said regarding free markets; no other economic system in recorded history has produced wealth to the rate we're seeing today (which, to be clear, is not to say the system is flawed and can be tweaked to improve). You, I and NFL players only have our labor to sell in exchange for money - we can use it to make products, offer services or provide entertainment for consumption in exchange for making an earning. If an NFL player gets a multi-million dollar contract, all the more power to them; good on them for capitalizing in the way many people only ever dream of. Capping salaries is not going to reduce ticket prices (I note the money the NFL receives from selling its broadcast rights is enough to cover the vast, vast majority of player salaries without ticket/gate revenue).

I'm not sure why NFL players should be held to a standard (i.e., put a limit on how much they earn) when that is not something many of us would support in other scenarios (e.g., CEO salaries, teacher salaries, serving members in the military). I'm all for people chasing their dreams and cashing in (legally) to the most of their ability once they are in a position to do so. If it leads to 9-figure incomes - cool! All the more power to them, as they are receiving a return on their product/service/performance for entertainment that the market has deemed to be a fair exchange/return for what such players are offering. And it's neat seeing so many NFL players who grew up on farms, or lived such tough lives in poor neighborhoods strike it big, and become financial engines for their family, friends, and loved ones - and work to give them (and themselves) a comfortable life.

---