Future of the NFL Cap

[Luvnit2]

The NFL is a money making machine. The minimum now is 48% goes to players contracts (cap). Direct TV used to pay 1.5 billion for rights to broadcast our of market games. Now, it appears someone in 2023 will pay 2.5 billion or an extra billion which means 408 million to the cap pool.

https://sportsnaut.com/nfl-sunday-ticket-destination-streaming-price/

We keep discussing Bates, Burrow, Higgins and future contracts, yet rarely mention the cap escalating based on 17 game schedule and NFL other income streams to televise games.

Who thinks the cap will be stagnate the next 5 years? I don't, I see huge cap increases which means more money to pay players.

Thoughts? Will our Bengals have to worry about the cap really when time for Burrow to be signed?

[WeezyBengal]

My thoughts?

Sign guys up for extensions ASAP. Burrow and Higgins should be signed next off-season. You want to extend them in context to the current (lower) cap number.

I do worry about if the Bengals can match how the current contract structures are going toward guaranteed money. I just don't know if they have the actual cash flow/actual money in the bank to pay Chase, Burrow, Higgins hundreds of millions of dollars in guaranteed money.

We will see.

[higgy100]

(07-11-2022, 11:40 AM)WeezyBengal Wrote: My thoughts?

Sign guys up for extensions ASAP. Burrow and Higgins should be signed next off-season. You want to extend them in context to the current (lower) cap number.

I do worry about if the Bengals can match how the current contract structures are going toward guaranteed money. I just don't know if they have the actual cash flow/actual money in the bank to pay Chase, Burrow, Higgins hundreds of millions of dollars in guaranteed money.

We will see.

I may be wrong here but I think the real question isn't whether they have the money but more that their set business principle is just not giving big guaranteed money.

[ATOTR]

(07-11-2022, 11:31 AM)Luvnit2 Wrote: Who thinks the cap will be stagnate the next 5 years? I don't, I see huge cap increases which means more money to pay players.

Of course it wont be stagnant.  

https://www.spotrac.com/nfl/cba/

It's gone up 90 million in the last decade.  

[QueenCity]

(07-11-2022, 12:07 PM)higgy100 Wrote: I may be wrong here but I think the real question isn't whether they have the money but more that their set business principle is just not giving big guaranteed money.

They aren't going to have a choice when it comes to Burrow and Chase.  If they are going to cheap out it will be on Higgins.

Burrow will eventually need to make sub-par WR's great.. ala Brady to have a historic career. 

[WeezyBengal]

(07-11-2022, 12:07 PM)higgy100 Wrote: I may be wrong here but I think the real question isn't whether they have the money but more that their set business principle is just not giving big guaranteed money.

I think it's both. I really don't think ownership has hundreds of millions of dollars sitting there in the bank.

[WeezyBengal]

(07-11-2022, 12:23 PM)QueenCity Wrote: They aren't going to have a choice when it comes to Burrow and Chase.  If they are going to cheap out it will be on Higgins.

Burrow will eventually need to make sub-par WR's great.. ala Brady to have a historic career. 

If they let Higgins walk after letting Bates walk I am going to be ultra pissed. 

I know Chase and Burrow will command a ton of money but good Lord you can't let both Bates and Higgins walk. Other teams make it work, surely the Bengals can. 

[Whatever]

(07-11-2022, 12:23 PM)QueenCity Wrote: They aren't going to have a choice when it comes to Burrow and Chase.  If they are going to cheap out it will be on Higgins.

Burrow will eventually need to make sub-par WR's great.. ala Brady to have a historic career. 

Well, I mean the Patriots were stealing defensive signals when Brady had sub-par WR's.  Eventually, he got good ones with Moss, Welker, and Edelman.  Not to mention a HoF TE in Gronk.

A big thing people overlook with Brady was that he was constantly taking less money than he should have made in order to keep a strong team around him.  

[Luvnit2]

(07-11-2022, 12:36 PM)WeezyBengal Wrote: I think it's both. I really don't think ownership has hundreds of millions of dollars sitting there in the bank.

Most owners do not have that type of cash. But easy for them to get loans when they have 10 year TV deals and history of every team making loads of money

[fredtoast]

(07-11-2022, 12:37 PM)WeezyBengal Wrote:  Other teams make it work, surely the Bengals can. 

Is that why there are never any NFL players that become free agents from other teams?

[WeezyBengal]

(07-11-2022, 01:11 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: Most owners do not have that type of cash. But easy for them to get loans when they have 10 year TV deals and history of every team making loads of money

Most owners in the NFL are multi billionaires. 

[WeezyBengal]

(07-11-2022, 01:15 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Is that why there are never any NFL players that become free agents from other teams?

If the Bengals wanted to pay Burrow, Chase, and Higgins or Bates, they could. 

[ATOTR]

(07-11-2022, 01:11 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: Most owners do not have that type of cash. But easy for them to get loans when they have 10 year TV deals and history of every team making loads of money

I’m trying to say this kindly.

Do you honestly think nfl teams/owners are taking loans out to pay for their players salaries and payroll?

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(07-11-2022, 02:48 PM)ATOTR Wrote: I’m trying to say this kindly.

Do you honestly think nfl teams/owners  are taking loans out to pay for their players salaries and payroll?

Some of them definitely did in the not-too-distant past. I think that's a bygone thing now and the owners are generally making enough money that they don't need to unless they're blowing all their NFL money propping up their non-NFL businesses or because of family issues. NFL revenue has tripled in the last 12 years, and soon it will explode even more because of the new TV/broadcasting deals, gambling money, and a new NFL Sunday Ticket deal. So unless they absolutely suck with their money, it shouldn't be an issue anymore.

Aside from the massive increase in revenue, what also helped was the rookie salary structure. Sam Bradford got an $18m signing bonus and $50m guaranteed on his rookie 1st overall deal. For comparison, 10 years later Joe Burrow got $24m signing bonus and $36m guaranteed on his rookie 1st overall deal. Despite the cap going from ~$120m to $198m in those 10 years. A bad team a couple years in a row in the past could easily get some real big contracts anchoring them down if they didn't work out a couple years in a row.

[BoomerFan]

(07-11-2022, 12:23 PM)ATOTR Wrote: Of course it wont be stagnant.  

https://www.spotrac.com/nfl/cba/

It's gone up 90 million in the last decade.  

The last decade may have been a golden age of television, in part due to high def and larger flat screens. The future will see more competition with live streaming content and esports. 

To assume growth will continue because it has in the past is wrong-headed. It may continue. You might even say it is likely. But it is not guaranteed. 

[ATOTR]

(07-11-2022, 06:09 PM)BoomerFan Wrote: The last decade may have been a golden age of television, in part due to high def and larger flat screens. The future will see more competition with live streaming content and esports. 

To assume growth will continue because it has in the past is wrong-headed. It may continue. You might even say it is likely. But it is not guaranteed. 

You are joking, right?  It has gone up every single year since 1994 when it was introduced.  (except Covid year without fans, etc).

The cap is going to keep going up.    And what are you talking about with live streaming and e-sports? lol

[Luvnit2]

(07-11-2022, 02:48 PM)ATOTR Wrote: I’m trying to say this kindly.

Do you honestly think NFL teams/owners  are taking loans out to pay for their players salaries and payroll?

No, I am not slow mentally or incapable of coherent thoughts.

Bengals have little to no debt. Their biggest expense by far is player's salaries. How is outside of the realm of a possibility the Bengals and other NFL teams take out loans for long term contracts versus paying out of cash flow.

Trump is a billionaire, do you think he pays for all of his developments in cash. I am trying to say this kindly.

[ATOTR]

(07-11-2022, 10:38 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: No, I am not slow mentally or incapable of coherent thoughts.

Bengals have little to no debt. Their biggest expense by far is player's salaries. How is outside of the realm of a possibility the Bengals and other NFL teams take out loans for long term contracts versus paying out of cash flow.

Trump is a billionaire, do you think he pays for all of his developments in cash. I am trying to say this kindly.

Yeah, I dont think you understand how this works.   There is an operating budget, they stick to that.  It is based on a myriad of factors. 

I would like you to show me one example of an NFL team/owner taking 3rd party financing to pay for their roster personnel  because, as you said 'Most owners do not have that type of cash.'

[*ochocincos*]

I'm just going to be happy for a streaming service that won't hopefully require purchasing something like DirecTV as well just to get it.
I have no problem dropping a few hundred bucks for the whole season to watch games so I don't have to keep going to the bar for every game. Drinks and lunch for two people adds up when going out for every game, and on top of that no place around me ever seems to provide the audio.

[ATOTR]

(07-12-2022, 10:17 AM)WeezyBengal Wrote: If he has sufficient cash on hand and it's not a problem for him, then he'd be dumb to get a loan and pay interest on it. The same could be said about ownership and player contracts. 

I mean,  it would make sense it it were a different business or a different investment. 

You have 50M sitting around and want to put 25m into a new commercial development.  Your 50 is probably making 7-10% annually - so just use that cash to get a large loan at 5%, and the borrower is 'making' or saving 3-5%.   

But, what this McLuvin guy is saying, is that Owners/Teams 'dont have have a ton of cash' sitting around for player contracts.

Which is ludicrous; these teams have huge operating budgets and inflow of cash (That is why there is a Salary Cap). 

No one is going to personally borrow 100M/200M/300M dollars to pay year-to-year players, whose contracts are not  fully guaranteed, who may get traded, cut, injured, sit out, etc.   They will structure the contacts and the commitments to work within their cashflow and budgets. 

What he said was 100% wrong. He should just admit it was dumb