Zero2Cool
a year 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
a year 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
a year 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
a year 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
a year 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
a year 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
a year ago
Nailed it. 

 
Zero2Cool
a year 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
a year 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
a year 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 (4h) : I'm confused, Pete Carroll and Brian Schottenheimer? When Todd Monken, Joe Brady, Kellen Moore, Kliff Kingsbury and Zac Robinson are availab
Zero2Cool (6h) : Any reason I'm catching a shot here about my intelligence?
Martha Careful (25-Jan) : thank you Mucky for sticking up for me
Martha Careful (25-Jan) : some of those people are smarter than you zero. However Pete Carroll is not
Mucky Tundra (24-Jan) : Rude!
beast (24-Jan) : Martha? 😋
Zero2Cool (24-Jan) : Raiders hired someone from the elderly home.
dfosterf (24-Jan) : I'm going with a combination of the two.
beast (24-Jan) : Either the Cowboys have no idea what they're doing, or they're targeting their former OC, currently the Eagles OC
Zero2Cool (23-Jan) : Fake news. Cowboys say no
Zero2Cool (23-Jan) : Mystery candidate in the Cowboys head coaching search believed to be Packers ST Coordinator Rich Bisaccia.
beast (23-Jan) : Also why do both NYC teams have absolutely horrible OL for over a decade?
beast (23-Jan) : I wonder why the Jets always hire defensive coaches to be head coach
Zero2Cool (22-Jan) : Still HC positions available out there. I wonder if Hafley pops up for one
Zero2Cool (22-Jan) : Trent Baalke is out as the Jaguars GM.
dfosterf (22-Jan) : Jeff Hafley would have been a better choice, fortunately they don't know that. Someone will figure that out next off season
Zero2Cool (22-Jan) : Aaron Glenn Planning To Take Jets HC Job
dfosterf (22-Jan) : Martha- C'est mon boulot! 😁
Zero2Cool (22-Jan) : Thank you
wpr (22-Jan) : Z, glad you are feeling better.
wpr (22-Jan) : My son and D-I-L work for UM. It's a way to pick on them.
Zero2Cool (22-Jan) : Thank you. I rarely get sick, and even more rarely sick to the point I can't work.
wpr (22-Jan) : Beast- back to yesterday, I CAN say OSU your have been Michigan IF the odds of making the playoffs were more urgent.
dfosterf (22-Jan) : Glad to hear you are feeling a bit better.
Zero2Cool (22-Jan) : I've been near death ill last several days, finally feel less dead and site issues.
Zero2Cool (22-Jan) : It is a big deal. This host is having issues. It's frustrating.
Martha Careful (22-Jan) : just kidding...it was down
Martha Careful (22-Jan) : you were blocked yesterday, due to a a recalcitrant demeanor yesterday in the penalty box for a recalcitrant demeanor
dfosterf (22-Jan) : Was that site shutdown on your end or mine? No big deal, just curious
beast (21-Jan) : That way teams like Indiana and SMU don't make the conference championships by simply avoiding all the other good teams in their own confere
beast (21-Jan) : Also, with these "Super Conferences" instead of a single conference champion, have 4 teams make a Conference playoffs.
beast (21-Jan) : Also in college football, is a bye week a good or bad thing?
Martha Careful (21-Jan) : The tournament format was fine. Seeding could use some work.
beast (21-Jan) : You can't assume Ohio State would of won the Michigan game...
beast (21-Jan) : Rankings were 1) Oregon 2) Georgia 3) Texas 4) Penn State 5) Notre Dame 6) Ohio State, none of the rest mattered
wpr (21-Jan) : Texas, ND and OSU would have been fighting for the final 2 slots.
wpr (21-Jan) : Oregon and Georgia were locks. Without the luxury of extra playoff berths, Ohios St would have been more focused on Michigan game.
wpr (21-Jan) : Zero, no. If there were only 4 teams Ohio State would have been one of them. Boise St and ASU would not have been selected.
Zero2Cool (21-Jan) : So that was 7 vs 8, that means in BCS they never would made it?
Martha Careful (21-Jan) : A great game. Give ND credit for coming back, although I am please with the outcome.
Mucky Tundra (21-Jan) : FG to make it academic
Mucky Tundra (21-Jan) : and there's the dagger
Mucky Tundra (21-Jan) : ooooo 8 point game with 4 minutes to go!
Mucky Tundra (21-Jan) : ooooooooohhhhhh he missed!
Mucky Tundra (21-Jan) : Ooooo that completion makes things VERY interesting
Mucky Tundra (21-Jan) : Game not over yet
beast (21-Jan) : Oh yeah, Georgia starting quarterback season ending elbow injury
beast (21-Jan) : Sadly something happened to Georgia... they should be playing in this game against Ohio State
beast (21-Jan) : I thought Ohio State and Texas were both better than Notre Dame & Penn State
Mucky Tundra (21-Jan) : Notre Lame getting rolled
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
Sunday, Jan 12 @ 3:30 PM
Eagles
Recent Topics
7h / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

19h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Martha Careful

25-Jan / Random Babble / Martha Careful

21-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

21-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

20-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / Martha Careful

20-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / bboystyle

20-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

20-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

19-Jan / Random Babble / Martha Careful

18-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

17-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / bboystyle

17-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

17-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / Martha Careful

16-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

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