Zero2Cool
2 years ago
We always hear about the salary cap gonna be massive jump next year or in two years or in three years. Simply put, that's BS. The CBA limits the amount it can increase per year and they (NFL and NFLPA?) also go over the money and set the cap before league year starts. 

Based on the trends, we can guess the 2024 and 2025 salary cap with probably no accuracy whatsoever, but hey, why not?

2025 $254,973,780   $15,561,780
2024 $239,412,000   $14,612,000

So, not really a massive jump at all. Just the normal 5-7% we've seen throughout the last decade or so. 2021 dropped due to COVID-19 and 2022 was doubled to compensate. 


2023    $224,800,000    $16,600,000    7.97%    
2022    $208,200,000    $25,700,000    14.08%    
2021    $182,500,000    $-15,700,000    -7.92%
2020    $198,200,000    $10,000,000    5.31%    
2019    $188,200,000    $11,000,000    6.21%    
2018    $177,200,000    $10,200,000    6.11%    
2017    $167,000,000    $11,730,000    7.55%    
2016    $155,270,000    $11,990,000    8.37%    
2015    $143,280,000    $10,280,000    7.73%    
2014    $133,000,000    $9,400,000    7.61%    
2013    $123,600,000    $3,000,000    2.49%    
2012    $120,600,000    $225,000    0.19%    

 
UserPostedImage
earthquake
2 years ago
From what I understand there have been limits to the cap in place the last couple of years due to Covid. In 2020 league revenue was down significantly (nobody was able to attend the games), and the NFL and NFLPA agreed to spread the hit over a few years. Next year will be the first year without the cap reduction in place, so most are expecting the cap to go up significantly. I'll see if I can find a source for this. Edit: nothing coming up - I read this on twitter at some point so take it with a grain of salt.

If I recall correctly, there were new TV deals worked out within the last couple of years too. These are expected to raise the cap as well.

https://overthecap.com/salary-cap-space 

It looks like OTC is predicting:
2024: $256m
2025: $282m
2026: $308m

I have no idea if that is remotely accurate though.
blank
beast
2 years ago

We always hear about the salary cap gonna be massive jump next year or in two years or in three years. Simply put, that's BS. The CBA limits the amount it can increase per year and they (NFL and NFLPA?) also go over the money and set the cap before league year starts. 

Originally Posted by: Zero2Cool 



Um, I don't know what the CBA says, but I was under the impression that the CBA locks the cap in at a certain percentage level of the prior years earnings and therefore no limits.

Under normal circumstances, I agree with you, that way too much is made about the salary cap going up, as percentage wise, I don't think it goes up as much as fans think as teams and agents make contacts under the assumption that it's going to go up, so that money is largely already spent on contracts and most that isn't goes towards that years FA class.


That being said, the NFL signed some ridiculous high new TV contracts (which is where the huge money actually is) and that was strongly expected to jump the cap when it official kicked in which was like 2023 or 2024, but COVID hurt and the NFL and Union came to an agreement to level out the Covid hurt and TV contract rise. So it's going to be more steady (which is smart).


That being said, again, teams and agents assumpted the raise was coming and have been spending it ... so even if there is some huge jump, it's not going to feel like it (unless the jump was expected by teams ans agents years in advanced).


I strongly believe the NFL would be incredible smart to change future CBAs to say that instead of the cap being scheduled based on last year's profit, that they should change it to say the year prior to that, to give them a bigger planning window, in case of some surprise like COVID happens again.

Of course the Union would need something in return.

The Union has been trying to get it allowed to make contract in terms of percentage, so instead of saying Aaron Jones earnings $12 million of the cap this year, he instead gets 5.338% of the cap so if the cap goes up, he gets more, if it goes down, he gets less. The owners have always refused, as they assume it'll always go up and therefore the players are working on a smaller number.

But when Covid hit, it was the NFL whom were strongly trying to get a year or two based on cap percentages, and the Union said you'll never allow us to do it when it goes up, so hell no.

But these changes would make things so much simpler for both parties, planning wise, and overtime needing less guys to do the math ASAP, and instead getting more than a full year to get the numbers together instead of a few months would save money and easier for fans and players.

But never going to happen.
​​​​​
UserPostedImage
Zero2Cool
2 years ago
In the CBA the salary cap cannot increase more than 10% -- so I've been told. it could be an inferrence too based on trends
UserPostedImage
Zero2Cool
2 years ago

https://overthecap.com/salary-cap-space 

It looks like OTC is predicting:
2024: $256m
2025: $282m
2026: $308m

I have no idea if that is remotely accurate though.

Originally Posted by: earthquake 


I certainly trust OTC more than myself on cap information. But that exceeds the 10% threshold from the CBA. However, if the NFL and NFLPA both agree, I believe that supercedes everything -- just like it did with COVID-19
UserPostedImage
beast
2 years ago

In the CBA the salary cap cannot increase more than 10% -- so I've been told. it could be an inferrence too based on trends

Originally Posted by: Zero2Cool 

 

I mean, that seems reasonable, but with how over concerned (and maybe rightfully so) the Union is worried about the players potential being screwed, I have a hard time seeing them to straight limit it like that.

Maybe something more complex, like everything over 10% goes into the following year to ensure there is no decrease after a shockingly high jump or some safety net measure to make sure it doesn't then go down, but as far as I know, the CBA, in general, lacks safety net measures. And really I would support them putting in a lot more.

According to the article below, the Salary cap is equal to 48% to 48.8% of the profits

https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2020/03/01/players-share-of-revenue-can-go-as-high-as-48-8-percent/ 

Players’ share of revenue can go as high as 48.8 percentMike Florio3 years ago    The proposed CBA, as revised by the NFL on Tuesday, stops tying a so-called “media kicker” to the 17th game. However, the proposed CBA still includes a broader media kicker tied to all TV money from what would be 272 total regular-season games.  The summary sent by the NFL Players Association to all players explains that the player’ share bumps from 48 percent of revenue to 48.5 percent if the league secures a 60-percent increase in TV revenue. If TV revenue grows by more than 120 percent, the percentage jumps to 48.8 percent. This provides an extra reason for the players to want to maximize the TV deals. And it also provides a glimpse into the anticipated growth in TV revenue, if those deals can be redone before the broader climate changes. A 60-percent increase seems like a lot, but that’s below the low end of what the league currently anticipates. And while 120 percent may be an impossibility, the fact that it’s even on the radar screen shows just how strong these new TV deals can be.




UserPostedImage
dfosterf
2 years ago
Nailed it. 

 
Zero2Cool
2 years ago

I mean, that seems reasonable, but with how over concerned (and maybe rightfully so) the Union is worried about the players potential being screwed, I have a hard time seeing them to straight limit it like that.

Maybe something more complex, like everything over 10% goes into the following year to ensure there is no decrease after a shockingly high jump or some safety net measure to make sure it doesn't then go down, but as far as I know, the CBA, in general, lacks safety net measures. And really I would support them putting in a lot more.

According to the article below, the Salary cap is equal to 48% to 48.8% of the profits

https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2020/03/01/players-share-of-revenue-can-go-as-high-as-48-8-percent/ 

Originally Posted by: beast 



My presumption is the Owners levied the 10% "limit", not the Players. The NFL doesn't give the Players something unless they get something in return. So, maybe the players said we want less two-a-days and the Owners said OK but salary cap won't increase more than 10% from previous year. That is EXAMPLE that is NOT TRUE. I'm just tossing it out as a negotiation tacti example to explain how such a limit could be implemented.
UserPostedImage
beast
2 years ago

My presumption is the Owners levied the 10% "limit", not the Players. The NFL doesn't give the Players something unless they get something in return. So, maybe the players said we want less two-a-days and the Owners said OK but salary cap won't increase more than 10% from previous year. That is EXAMPLE that is NOT TRUE. I'm just tossing it out as a negotiation tacti example to explain how such a limit could be implemented.

Originally Posted by: Zero2Cool 



Agreed, to that's how the process would work to make it happen. But I just have a hard time seeing the Union agreeing to that ever. I think putting a cap on the amount the players could make would be considered suicide by them, as if they ever hit the limit, they're screwed as ALL of their clients are pissed.

The only trade off I would think would warranted a max limit would be a min limit, as COVID showed we don't got that, though they worked through an agreement that would help both sides, and I think that limited both the COVID hurt but also spread out the new TV contracts helping ability.
 
UserPostedImage
Zero2Cool
2 years ago

Agreed, to that's how the process would work to make it happen. But I just have a hard time seeing the Union agreeing to that ever. I think putting a cap on the amount the players could make would be considered suicide by them, as if they ever hit the limit, they're screwed as ALL of their clients are pissed.

The only trade off I would think would warranted a max limit would be a min limit, as COVID showed we don't got that, though they worked through an agreement that would help both sides, and I think that limited both the COVID hurt but also spread out the new TV contracts helping ability. 

Originally Posted by: beast 



I'm not sure why it's hard to believe. 🤷‍♂️ The Owners are billionaires and likely made their wealth outside of the NFL, therefore, the NFLPA clients kind of need the NFL in order to earn their wealth.  Think about Thursday games, the exhibition season, the 17th game to which we can expect 18th game coming, I mean, the list of "no way this is approved" items and I think it's because NFL has more leeway to walkaway than the players do. How many times post free agency change (Reggie White) have the players really "won" in the CBA? Looking at everything, it just seems the NFL that comes out on top where the NFLPA is hosed -- relatively speaking. 
UserPostedImage
Fan Shout
beast (6h) : What is he supposed to say? He doesn't want players currently on the team?
Martha Careful (11h) : meh
Zero2Cool (15h) : Sounds like Walker and Wyatt will be with Packers for beyond 2026
Zero2Cool (15h) : It's so awesome.
Zero2Cool (15h) : new site fan shout post fast
wpr (18h) : Slow posting in Fan shout.
wpr (18h) : Only 4
wpr (18h) : Only 4
Zero2Cool (21h) : If only we had a topic to read about and discuss it. That's something new website must have!!!
dfosterf (22h) : Justice Musqueda over at Acme Packing put up an excellent synopsis of the Packers 1st round options this am
wpr (19-Apr) : 5 days
beast (18-Apr) : 6 days
wpr (17-Apr) : 7 days
Zero2Cool (16-Apr) : sounds like Packers don't get good compensation, Jaire staying
dfosterf (16-Apr) : Nobody coming up with a keep, but at x amount
dfosterf (16-Apr) : Trade, cut or keep
dfosterf (16-Apr) : that from Jaire
dfosterf (16-Apr) : My guess is the Packers floated the concept of a reworked contract via his agent and agent got a f'
Zero2Cool (16-Apr) : Yes, and that is why I think Rob worded it how he did. Rather than say "agent"
dfosterf (16-Apr) : Same laws apply. Agent must present such an offer to Jaire. Cannot accept or reject without presenting it
Zero2Cool (16-Apr) : I'm thinking that is why Rob worded it how he did.
dfosterf (16-Apr) : The Packers can certainly still make the offer to the agent
dfosterf (16-Apr) : Laws of agency and definition of fiduciary responsibility
dfosterf (16-Apr) : Jaire is open to a reduced contract without Jaire's permission
dfosterf (16-Apr) : The agent would arguably violate the law if he were to tell the Packers
Zero2Cool (16-Apr) : That someone ... likely the agent.
Zero2Cool (16-Apr) : So, Jaire has not been offered nor rejected a pay reduction, but someone says he'd decline.
Zero2Cool (16-Apr) : Demovksy says t was direct communication with someone familiar with Jaire’s line of thinking at that moment.
Zero2Cool (16-Apr) : Demovsky just replied to me a bit ago. Jaire hasn't said it.
dfosterf (16-Apr) : Of course, that depends on the definition of "we"
dfosterf (16-Apr) : We have been told that they haven't because he wouldn't accept it. I submit we don't know that
dfosterf (16-Apr) : What is the downside in making a calculated reduced offer to Jaire?
Zero2Cool (15-Apr) : Packers are receiving interest in Jaire Alexander but a trade is not imminent
Zero2Cool (15-Apr) : Jalen Ramsey wants to be traded. He's never happy is he?
Zero2Cool (15-Apr) : two 1sts in 2022 and two 2nd's in 2023 and 2024
Zero2Cool (15-Apr) : Packers had fortunate last three drafts.
dfosterf (15-Apr) : I may have to move
dfosterf (15-Apr) : My wife just told the ancient Japanese sushi dude not enough rice under his fish
Zero2Cool (14-Apr) : I think a dozen is what I need
dfosterf (14-Apr) : Go fund me for this purpose just might work. A dozen nurses show up at 1265 to provide mental health assistance.
dfosterf (14-Apr) : Maybe send a crew of Angels to the Packers draft room on draft day.
Zero2Cool (14-Apr) : I am the Angel that gets visited.
dfosterf (14-Apr) : Visiting Angels has a pretty good reputation
Zero2Cool (14-Apr) : what
Martha Careful (14-Apr) : WINNING IT, not someone else losing it. The best victory though was re-uniting with his wife
Martha Careful (14-Apr) : The manner in which he won it was just amazing and wonderful. First blowing the lead then getting back, then blowing it. But ultimately
Zero2Cool (12-Apr) : I'm guessing since the thumb was broken, he wasn't feeling it.
dfosterf (10-Apr) : Looking for guidance. Not feeling the thumb.
Mucky Tundra (10-Apr) : If they knew about it or not
Mucky Tundra (10-Apr) : I don't recall that he did which is why I asked.
Please sign in to use Fan Shout
2024 Packers Schedule
Friday, Sep 6 @ 7:15 PM
Eagles
Sunday, Sep 15 @ 12:00 PM
COLTS
Sunday, Sep 22 @ 12:00 PM
Titans
Sunday, Sep 29 @ 12:00 PM
VIKINGS
Sunday, Oct 6 @ 3:25 PM
Rams
Sunday, Oct 13 @ 12:00 PM
CARDINALS
Sunday, Oct 20 @ 12:00 PM
TEXANS
Sunday, Oct 27 @ 12:00 PM
Jaguars
Sunday, Nov 3 @ 3:25 PM
LIONS
Sunday, Nov 17 @ 12:00 PM
Bears
Sunday, Nov 24 @ 3:25 PM
49ERS
Thursday, Nov 28 @ 7:20 PM
DOLPHINS
Thursday, Dec 5 @ 7:15 PM
Lions
Sunday, Dec 15 @ 7:20 PM
Seahawks
Monday, Dec 23 @ 7:15 PM
SAINTS
Sunday, Dec 29 @ 3:25 PM
Vikings
Sunday, Jan 5 @ 12:00 PM
BEARS
Recent Topics
8h / Green Bay Packers Talk / dfosterf

17-Apr / Random Babble / wpr

16-Apr / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

13-Apr / Green Bay Packers Talk / Martha Careful

12-Apr / Feedback, Suggestions and Issues / Zero2Cool

11-Apr / Feedback, Suggestions and Issues / Rockmolder

2-Apr / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

2-Apr / Green Bay Packers Talk / bboystyle

1-Apr / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

1-Apr / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

31-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

30-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

29-Mar / Random Babble / wpr

28-Mar / Random Babble / Martha Careful

26-Mar / Random Babble / Mucky Tundra

Headlines
Copyright © 2006 - 2025 PackersHome.com™. All Rights Reserved.