Player Salary Cap ???

[jgb]

Just now, jeremy2020 said:

You said they should remove the cap. Why would they do that?

They wouldn’t… because they want to keep labor costs controlled.

We are in wild hypothetical land  

[slimjasi]

10 minutes ago, Warfish said:

I cannot.  Haven't done the statistical analysis, and honestly I don't care enough about this entirely pipe-dream hypothetical argument to do it.  MLB will never impose a cap.  The NFL will never get rid of theirs.  It's all moot.

But there is no universe where I believe a MLB team could make the postseason 24 out of 28 years, over several GM's and Managers, simply with "better management".  Especially when that same team is well known for being towards the top of the league every year in salary.

Like I said before, it's not about who wins the WS, but how many time these ultra-rich teams make the postseason.  

The Yankees, 24 out of 28 years (#3 in salary in 2022).

The Dodgers, 10 out of 10 years (#1 in salary in 2022).

The Astros, 7 out of 8 years (#8 in salary in 2022).

The Braves, 22 out of 32 years (#9 in salary in 2022).

Even the hit or miss Red Sox, 16 of 35 years (#6 in salary in 2022, has been much higher before).

High Salary does not guarantee success, but it sure as hell is correlated with more frequent trips to the postseason than low-pay teams over time.

They'll always be exceptions to prove the rule, the Mets don't make it as much as their excessive spending at times would imply they should, and some teams like the TB Rays (* of 15 years) do manage to have smaller payrolls and a few years of success before they have to sell-off all the assets.  Good management and a robust farm team can certainly help offset pay disadvantages, but you have to really churn and develop a hell of alot of talent in-house to do that.  The Yankees et al. just have to buy it every offseason.

And as a fan of a smaller market team (or cheap Owners ripped off by MLB just to get us a team again, meh), having watched us fail to resign star players we grew and developed for the usual suspects of big-market, ultra-rich Owners has really crushed my interest in the sport post-2019 World Series.   

Like I said tho, it's all moot.  MLB will burn before they'd get a cap agreed to by players, the Union loves 10 year, $300+ million, 100% guaranteed contracts.  The league is weak.  The NFL is vice versa, the players can't beat the league and will never get the cap eliminated.

So it all is what it is.

agreed. 

postseason trips are a better indicator, since playoffs are based on relatively short series and seem to be somewhat of a crapshoot. 

also agree that nothing will change in either league. 

[jgb]

5 minutes ago, slimjasi said:

agreed. 

postseason trips are a better indicator, since playoffs are based on relatively short series and seem to be somewhat of a crapshoot. 

also agree that nothing will change in either league. 

The one thing every owner agrees with is the share to ownership should be maximized at the expense of the “help.”

Anything beyond minor changes usually involves a strike by the NFLPA or a lawsuit, or both.

Remember: even common sense brain health precautions needed a monster class action lawsuit to happen.

[rangerous]

20 hours ago, THE BARON said:

An idea here and probably a stupid one, but worth kicking around.

If a team drafts smart and comes up with a world class player, in four year's time, if they want to keep that player, they will be paying out a contract that will probably make it prohibitive to keep other decent players.  Especially if that player is a QB and wants top QB money.  You'll wind up with a team that has a QB and not much else.  Go see the Bengals when Burrow's rookie contract is up.

What about putting some sort of a cap on individual player salaries ???

That would reward teams for good drafting.

There would still be free agency if the player wanted out for reasons other than money.

Comments ??? 

Flame welcome.

you mean like the nba did with the larry bird rule?  kind of makes sense from a fan's standpoint.

[PFSIKH]

1 hour ago, Warfish said:

I'm sure the Yankees economic advantage had nothing to do with their 24 of 28 years in the postseason the past 28 seasons.

It was just "good management", got it.

Consider me debunked.

Bad management can kill you, yes.  Good management will never consistently overcome economic advantages in an uncapped league.  Sure, a low-pay team will win once in a while, and (usually) immediately sell off their assets to the Mets, Yankees, Sox, Dodgers and Braves, lol. 

Low pay teams don't go to the post-season 24 out of 28 years.

Of course, I may just be bitter that half of MY media market is Owned by the god damned Orioles, forever consigning the Nats to "only if exceedingly lucky" level of non-competitiveness, where (as we've been doing) we home-grow starts, then feed those stars to other teams instead of being able to afford them ourselves.

Regardless, I love salary caps (and floors) and would have them in every league if I were Sports God.  Which I'm not, of course.

The perfect example of this is fellow AL East team Tampa Bay.  Easily the best run team in the East that generates talent that big market teams continuously syphon off.  The Rays have less losing seasons over the past 15 years than the Red Sox (5 to 4).  The Red Sox economic advantage has allowed them, when well run, to win two titles.  The Rays are still looking for their first.

[Biggs]

2 hours ago, Warfish said:

I'm sure the Yankees economic advantage had nothing to do with their 24 of 28 years in the postseason the past 28 seasons.

It was just "good management", got it.

Consider me debunked.

Bad management can kill you, yes.  Good management will never consistently overcome economic advantages in an uncapped league.  Sure, a low-pay team will win once in a while, and (usually) immediately sell off their assets to the Mets, Yankees, Sox, Dodgers and Braves, lol. 

Low pay teams don't go to the post-season 24 out of 28 years.

Of course, I may just be bitter that half of MY media market is Owned by the god damned Orioles, forever consigning the Nats to "only if exceedingly lucky" level of non-competitiveness, where (as we've been doing) we home-grow starts, then feed those stars to other teams instead of being able to afford them ourselves.

Regardless, I love salary caps (and floors) and would have them in every league if I were Sports God.  Which I'm not, of course.

It wasn't good management it was terrific management.  The Yankees and the stadium was bought for peanuts by Steinbrenner.  It was a failing franchise in one of the worst neighberhoods in NYC.  They didn't have shared revenue and they were lossing piles of money.   They had 9 years of inneptitude and they bought the team and the stadium for 10 million dollars.  There was no shared revenue.  MLB like the NY Yankees was dying a slow death.  

Steinbrenner built the team by buying players and building up the farm system.  He invested in a cable network and created serious TV revenue to build up the farm system and buy players.  Prior to him buying a cable network the Yankees were getting peanuts from a local TV network to broadcast the rights of a crappy team that nobody was watching.

The NY Yankees under Steinbrenner created more than wealth for the Yankees it created interest in baseball again.  He created a new TV model that profited owners of teams in small markets and the Yankees and Dodgers were the linchpin for a national TV contract that the other owners share in.

The Yankees are one of the greatest examples of great management in a competitive environment in sports history.  They could easily have failed if they continued operating like the former owners.  

I will remind you that the NY Jets built a championship team in a competitive market.  The best team the Jets ever had was built in a competitive market for players.  They created huge national demand for eyeballs on the AFL, more TV revenue and a new model that the NFL bought with the merger. 

The NFL unlike major league baseball shares almost all revenue.  There are no have and have nots in the NFL.  The salary cap and the draft operate to not just help bad teams get better they are designed to make sure good teams get worse.  It's about keeping salaries fixed and maximizing the owners collective revenue and value.  

I grew up a Mets fan.  Sold peanuts at 14 years old at Shea to see the World Series in 69.  The Yankees saved MLB.

[Jet Nut]

3 hours ago, jgb said:

Problem is there isn’t parity. NFL is a two class system — teams with FQBs and those without. 

But every team has equal opportunity to find a FQB.  If they can’t it’s on them

[Jet Nut]

3 hours ago, jgb said:

The cap absolutely depresses labor costs

League fails,  league wide revenue dives and labor costs tank given revenue is split.  

Revenue sharing and parity is what keeps the NFL strong.   Makes them the league where ownership is a goldmine and the model every league wished they copied
Not only ownership but players would balk at a change

[Sonny Werblin]

17 hours ago, Barry McCockinner said:

Get rid of the cap.

 

The union likes the cap. Remember the Union is looking out for all of the players, not just the star players. The cap guarantees that players' cut is a certain percentage of the league revenues. So, as league revenues grow, player pay does too.  The cap concept also includes a floor as well as a required minimum actual cash payments to players each year.  Without a cap some teams would spend more than the current cap, but many more could spend far less than the cap and operate their NFL team like a business i.e. low expenses equals higher profits. There are quite a few baseball teams that operate that way. It is entirely possible that if the cap were removed the cumulative total of all player salaries would go down.  

[Barry McCockinner]

4 minutes ago, Sonny Werblin said:

The union likes the cap. Remember the Union is looking out for all of the players, not just the star players. The cap guarantees that players' cut is a certain percentage of the league revenues. So, as league revenues grow, player pay does too.  The cap concept also includes a floor as well as a required minimum actual cash payments to players each year.  Without a cap some teams would spend more than the current cap, but many more could spend far less than the cap and operate their NFL team like a business i.e. low expenses equals higher profits. There are quite a few baseball teams that operate that way. It is entirely possible that if the cap were removed the cumulative total of all player salaries would go down.  

so keep the floor then. 

[Sonny Werblin]

7 minutes ago, Barry McCockinner said:

so keep the floor then. 

Right, because the owners are a bunch of rubes. 

[JohnnyLV]

21 hours ago, THE BARON said:

An idea here and probably a stupid one, but worth kicking around.

If a team drafts smart and comes up with a world class player, in four year's time, if they want to keep that player, they will be paying out a contract that will probably make it prohibitive to keep other decent players.  Especially if that player is a QB and wants top QB money.  You'll wind up with a team that has a QB and not much else.  Go see the Bengals when Burrow's rookie contract is up.

What about putting some sort of a cap on individual player salaries ???

That would reward teams for good drafting.

There would still be free agency if the player wanted out for reasons other than money.

Comments ??? 

Flame welcome.

Owners would love it, NFLPA would never approve it. I could see eventually there being some sort of exclusion for QBs as they take up so much of the cap OR possibly additional cap space for teams below a certain threshold at QB

[PFSIKH]

24 minutes ago, Biggs said:

It wasn't good management it was terrific management.  The Yankees and the stadium was bought for peanuts by Steinbrenner.  It was a failing franchise in one of the worst neighberhoods in NYC.  They didn't have shared revenue and they were lossing piles of money.   They had 9 years of inneptitude and they bought the team and the stadium for 10 million dollars.  There was no shared revenue.  MLB like the NY Yankees was dying a slow death.  

Steinbrenner built the team by buying players and building up the farm system.  He invested in a cable network and created serious TV revenue to build up the farm system and buy players.  Prior to him buying a cable network the Yankees were getting peanuts from a local TV network to broadcast the rights of a crappy team that nobody was watching.

The NY Yankees under Steinbrenner created more than wealth for the Yankees it created interest in baseball again.  He created a new TV model that profited owners of teams in small markets and the Yankees and Dodgers were the linchpin for a national TV contract that the other owners share in.

The Yankees are one of the greatest examples of great management in a competitive environment in sports history.  They could easily have failed if they continued operating like the former owners.  

I will remind you that the NY Jets built a championship team in a competitive market.  The best team the Jets ever had was built in a competitive market for players.  They created huge national demand for eyeballs on the AFL, more TV revenue and a new model that the NFL bought with the merger. 

The NFL unlike major league baseball shares almost all revenue.  There are no have and have nots in the NFL.  The salary cap and the draft operate to not just help bad teams get better they are designed to make sure good teams get worse.  It's about keeping salaries fixed and maximizing the owners collective revenue and value.  

I grew up a Mets fan.  Sold peanuts at 14 years old at Shea to see the World Series in 69.  The Yankees saved MLB.

I am going to push back a little on a couple of things.

Steinbrenner's purchase of the Yankees for 10 million I would guess was looked similarly as Kraft's was of the Patriots or Cuban's of the Mavericks.  "He paid how much?"  However, full credit to them to have some foresight to see what the franchises can become. 

Lets be honest though.  For a majority of the Steinbrenner era, it was not well run.  It just their financial advantage gained from their network that allowed them to compensate for poor management.  Now, relative to the rest of MLB, their economic advantage is such, their 2016 season will be a 'losing' season.  MLB is more like European soccer.  

There are haves and have nots in the NFL.  It is just that the sharing of revenues and self-imposed salary cap levels the playing field.  While Cowboys franchise value is only 5 billion more than #32 Cincy.  Their operating income is 3-4x the Bengals.  Meaning it is easier for Jerry to throw guaranteed money than it is for Cincy.  And that is before dipping into his own networth.

[Barry McCockinner]

4 minutes ago, Sonny Werblin said:

Right, because the owners are a bunch of rubes. 

[jgb]

48 minutes ago, Jet Nut said:

League fails,  league wide revenue dives and labor costs tank given revenue is split.  

Revenue sharing and parity is what keeps the NFL strong.   Makes them the league where ownership is a goldmine and the model every league wished they copied
Not only ownership but players would balk at a change

If ownership proposed no cap NFLPA would insta-accept. I suppose we could argue whether that was in the players’ best interest but since NFL players get smallest % of revenue of any major sport, I think it’s plainly in their interest. I wonder why that is that the most lucrative and richest league in the world pays the least pro rata to its players? All together now: The cap. They also don’t have fully-guaranteed contracts like the other sports and carry a much higher risk of catastrophic injury.

The minimum salaries of the other major sports also is a higher % of revenue than NFL. So dump the cap, keep a floor (thanks @Barry McCockinner) and double the minimum salaries. Win/win except for the owners who might ratchet down from obscene profits to generous profits. You could even use a luxury tax to offset some of this “loss.” And the owners who care more about winning that the P&L well then good for them.

[jgb]

37 minutes ago, Jet Nut said:

But every team has equal opportunity to find a FQB.  If they can’t it’s on them

Yes and I like meritocracies but we are talking about parity here and who does or does not have a FQB crushes parity. Can’t have this one both ways. If you want true parity then QB pay should auto-escalate with performance. No more rookie contract advantage.

[Embrace the Suck]

How about any player you draft doesn't count against the cap? If a team drafts a stud player they can pay him, keep him, and still field a quality roster. It incentivizes good drafting, and player development.  

[jgb]

8 minutes ago, Embrace the Suck said:

How about any player you draft doesn't count against the cap? If a team drafts a stud player they can pay him, keep him, and still field a quality roster. It incentivizes good drafting, and player development.  

That would be the death of free agency which has been the players’ greatest wealth-generator.

[jgb]

Probably the simplest solution is make all contracts guaranteed. Would cut down on all the phony year cap games and reward teams who make the smartest decisions.

[Embrace the Suck]

Just now, jgb said:

That would be the death of free agency which has been the players’ greatest wealth-generator.

I disagree. Why does FA die? If players choose to stay with the team they were drafted by because they are offering more money that is the player's choice. Nothing stops the players from choosing to test the FA market. Having said that, you'd see FA getting bigger contracts as more money would be available for FA acquisitions under the cap. I'm simply proposing that you remove the cap from home grown (drafted and developed) players when resigning with their original team.

[jgb]

22 minutes ago, Embrace the Suck said:

I disagree. Why does FA die? If players choose to stay with the team they were drafted by because they are offering more money that is the player's choice. Nothing stops the players from choosing to test the FA market. Having said that, you'd see FA getting bigger contracts as more money would be available for FA acquisitions under the cap. I'm simply proposing that you remove the cap from home grown (drafted and developed) players when resigning with their original team.

Ok so you are suggesting a right of first refusal situation. Consider that no bidding team will be able to ever offer more than the drafting team because the drafting team wouldn’t have it count against the cap. Basically teams would use their offers to jack up the price for the drafting team, not because they expected to actually lure the player away but they can’t press too hard because if the drafting team refuses to match, there goes their own cap. And besides, teams would be extending players earlier and more often without a cap hit meaning the pool of players up for FA would also greatly decline.

It would dramatically reduce player mobility and harm parity even more.

[jgb]

if you dropped the cap and instituted a luxury tax, that money could completely go to player pensions, as well. Solving two problems at once.

[HighPitch]

6 hours ago, Barry McCockinner said:

Why would I assume it would be us? It wasn't before they introduced the cap.

How did fantasy football kill rivalries? I've never heard that argument.

I agree 100% about fantasy.

Its killed the sport. So tired of hearing fans talk about how x and y have helped or killed their fantasy during a game thread.

Then you have ppl rooting against their own teams players to fail for their silly hobby

Its a cancer

[Embrace the Suck]

2 minutes ago, jgb said:

Ok so you are suggesting a right of first refusal situation. Consider that no bidding team will be able to ever offer more than the drafting team because the drafting team wouldn’t have it count against the cap. Basically teams would use their offers to Jack up the price for the drafting team, not because they expected to actually lure the player away. And besides, teams would be extending players earlier and more often without a cap hit meaning the pool of players up for FA would also greatly decline.

It would dramatically reduce player mobility and harm parity even more.

No, not a right of refusal. Players who absolutely hate the team they are on will leave town as the team has no say. The team can offer more potentially, but that doesn't mean a player has to accept. If a team continually doles out bad contract to players they won't be able to offer that much more than others. As for driving up contract prices teams and players already do that (often using the Jets for such). You can poke holes in any solution. Your holes presume that players are robots and will take slightly more to stay in bad positions. Currently player movement isn't that great to begin with anyway. There are multiple tags and accounting loopholes that are used and players only move on to other teams when things go bad, for instance when a team's cap bursts. 

[Biggs]

33 minutes ago, PFSIKH said:

I am going to push back a little on a couple of things.

Steinbrenner's purchase of the Yankees for 10 million I would guess was looked similarly as Kraft's was of the Patriots or Cuban's of the Mavericks.  "He paid how much?"  However, full credit to them to have some foresight to see what the franchises can become. 

Lets be honest though.  For a majority of the Steinbrenner era, it was not well run.  It just their financial advantage gained from their network that allowed them to compensate for poor management.  Now, relative to the rest of MLB, their economic advantage is such, their 2016 season will be a 'losing' season.  MLB is more like European soccer.  

There are haves and have nots in the NFL.  It is just that the sharing of revenues and self-imposed salary cap levels the playing field.  While Cowboys franchise value is only 5 billion more than #32 Cincy.  Their operating income is 3-4x the Bengals.  Meaning it is easier for Jerry to throw guaranteed money than it is for Cincy.  And that is before dipping into his own networth.

Lets be honest?  LOL classic Mets fans.  I'm a Mets fan and the Mets have been one of the most slap dick run teams in the history of the sport.  Joan Payson was an embarrasment and Wilpon built a stadium to celebrate the Dodgers who happen to be a rival of the Mets.  I lived in NYC for years.  I got to see bad management and good management up close.  It stuck in my craw to watch the Yankees absolutely dominate NYC baseball the way they did.  

The Yankees under Steinbrenner were a money machine that fielded great teams, built a fantastic farm system that funnelled through some great players who were the core of years of high quality baseball.   Not well run.  The Yankees were the most valuble baseball franchise in a matter of a couple of years after CBS had turned it into a pile of dog doo.  

Steinbrenner was a gift to MLB owners, the city of NY and Yankee fans.  Not to mention they rebuilt in one of the worst neighboorhoods in the city and were able to create an experience that brings the wealthiest NY's to the South Bronx to watch baseball games.   

[jgb]

20 minutes ago, Embrace the Suck said:

No, not a right of refusal. Players who absolutely hate the team they are on will leave town as the team has no say. The team can offer more potentially, but that doesn't mean a player has to accept. If a team continually doles out bad contract to players they won't be able to offer that much more than others. As for driving up contract prices teams and players already do that (often using the Jets for such). You can poke holes in any solution. Your holes presume that players are robots and will take slightly more to stay in bad positions. Currently player movement isn't that great to begin with anyway. There are multiple tags and accounting loopholes that are used and players only move on to other teams when things go bad, for instance when a team's cap bursts. 

I don’t understand the proposal then. The only way it could work is if players had a free bargaining period (again, wouldn’t happen much since teams would just extend almost every year for players they want to keep if there was no cap hit) and their drafting teams had a right of first refusal (which they could always easily win because no cap implication).

Isn’t a simpler solution to make all contracts guaranteed and then both teams and players have to make informed decisions?

[jgb]

10 minutes ago, HighPitch said:

I agree 100% about fantasy.

Its killed the sport. So tired of hearing fans talk about how x and y have helped or killed their fantasy during a game thread.

Then you have ppl rooting against their own teams players to fail for their silly hobby

Its a cancer

Killed the sport in the way you and I remembered and enjoyed it but it’s also opened the sport to tons of other fans who like it as it is now.

So you and I may have lost something but the league and players have benefitted and societal utility has increased.

[jgb]

It’s a really interesting discussion and I thank all those engaged in the back and forth. If there are any economists in the house, I’d love to hear their perspective. I dabble in this stuff but am no expert.

Also where is @Sperm Edwards? No philosophical cap discussion is complete without him.

Edit: I see he chimed in earlier today. Look forward to him adding more.

[Jet Nut]

1 hour ago, jgb said:

If ownership proposed no cap NFLPA would insta-accept. I suppose we could argue whether that was in the players’ best interest but since NFL players get smallest % of revenue of any major sport, I think it’s plainly in their interest. I wonder why that is that the most lucrative and richest league in the world pays the least pro rata to its players? All together now: The cap. They also don’t have fully-guaranteed contracts like the other sports and carry a much higher risk of catastrophic injury.

The minimum salaries of the other major sports also is a higher % of revenue than NFL. So dump the cap, keep a floor (thanks @Barry McCockinner) and double the minimum salaries. Win/win except for the owners who might ratchet down from obscene profits to generous profits. You could even use a luxury tax to offset some of this “loss.” And the owners who care more about winning that the P&L well then good for them.

It’s not in the players best interest.  Parity keeps the revenue high, teams stay in contention longer, attendance and jersey sales etc stay higher for the players to share in.

What really is of importance is you can’t have a league if franchises can’t survive on equal footing.  You can’t have a league where only the major market teams survive, there has to be competition.  Otherwise you have to float teams like baseball does.   That’s the beauty of the NFL

[Jet Nut]

1 hour ago, jgb said:

Yes and I like meritocracies but we are talking about parity here and who does or does not have a FQB crushes parity. Can’t have this one both ways. If you want true parity then QB pay should auto-escalate with performance. No more rookie contract advantage.

Exactly and fans, like us blame our team for not being able to land a FQB.  We don’t complain that it’s unfair.  I’ve never heard that once here or anywhere

[jgb]

4 minutes ago, Jet Nut said:

Exactly and fans, like us blame our team for not being able to land a FQB.  We don’t complain that it’s unfair.  I’ve never heard that once here or anywhere

I’d never argue fairness. It’s one of my top 2 most despised non-slurs in the English language.

[jgb]

21 minutes ago, Jet Nut said:

It’s not in the players best interest.  Parity keeps the revenue high, teams stay in contention longer, attendance and jersey sales etc stay higher for the players to share in.

What really is of importance is you can’t have a league if franchises can’t survive on equal footing.  You can’t have a league where only the major market teams survive, there has to be competition.  Otherwise you have to float teams like baseball does.   That’s the beauty of the NFL

Maybe. Hard to know. Again minimum salaries are lowest in NFL as compared to other major sports, their aggregate salaries are the least percentage of league revenues than the other major sports, and their contracts are not guaranteed unlike the other sports. All the while the NFL makes more money and their franchises are worth more than the others. The salary cap seems to be the key differentiator between the NFL and those other leagues.

It seems you’re arguing trickle down economics here. Which is fine, but again I’m just citing facts above.

[jgb]

Sperm’s name has been in italics for ten minutes. I’m clearing my calendar for the rest of the evening.

[PFSIKH]

15 hours ago, Jet Nut said:

It’s not in the players best interest.  Parity keeps the revenue high, teams stay in contention longer, attendance and jersey sales etc stay higher for the players to share in.

What really is of importance is you can’t have a league if franchises can’t survive on equal footing.  You can’t have a league where only the major market teams survive, there has to be competition.  Otherwise you have to float teams like baseball does.   That’s the beauty of the NFL

Look at this past weekend's games.  Jax/KC and Buffalo/Cincy were probably the most compelling games.  All the markets are outside the Top 30.  Yet, their respective TV ratings will (should) be in the Top 10 of most viewed shows in 2023.  No way MLB could pull that off.  The Yankees are the draw.  The Dodgers, Red Sox and Cubs, can pull, but not to the extent of the Yankees.

 

16 hours ago, Biggs said:

Lets be honest?  LOL classic Mets fans.  I'm a Mets fan and the Mets have been one of the most slap dick run teams in the history of the sport.  Joan Payson was an embarrasment and Wilpon built a stadium to celebrate the Dodgers who happen to be a rival of the Mets.  I lived in NYC for years.  I got to see bad management and good management up close.  It stuck in my craw to watch the Yankees absolutely dominate NYC baseball the way they did.  

The Yankees under Steinbrenner were a money machine that fielded great teams, built a fantastic farm system that funnelled through some great players who were the core of years of high quality baseball.   Not well run.  The Yankees were the most valuble baseball franchise in a matter of a couple of years after CBS had turned it into a pile of dog doo.  

Steinbrenner was a gift to MLB owners, the city of NY and Yankee fans.  Not to mention they rebuilt in one of the worst neighboorhoods in the city and were able to create an experience that brings the wealthiest NY's to the South Bronx to watch baseball games.   

I might have been a little harsh in my critique as their 90s teams were great and dynastic.  Largely, built on homegrown talent.  I think that happened after George was removed.

[Biggs]

16 hours ago, Jet Nut said:

It’s not in the players best interest.  Parity keeps the revenue high, teams stay in contention longer, attendance and jersey sales etc stay higher for the players to share in.

What really is of importance is you can’t have a league if franchises can’t survive on equal footing.  You can’t have a league where only the major market teams survive, there has to be competition.  Otherwise you have to float teams like baseball does.   That’s the beauty of the NFL

Fantasy football and legalized gambling don't require competitive balance.  The NFL shares revenue so their is no such thing as a small market team from a point of view of revenue.  

Teams generally sell out before the season and the bulk of NFL seats are bought by season ticket holders.  Being in contention has almost no bearing on team revenue.  Being in the playoffs has almost no bearing on revenue.  The amount of playoff games has a big bearing on revenue because it's shared.  Jets fans, Jacksonville Fans and Browns fans will be watching the Eagles and 49ers this weekend along with the Cheifs and Bengals.  From a revenue POV it doesn't matter if it's Miami and Las Vegas.

The franchises are on an equal footing in either a capped or uncapped environment.  Not anyone can buy an NFL franchise.  They have to be approved.  Think of it as buying a Co-op on Park Avenue.  The other owners will make sure you have the money to fund the purchase and pay the taxes, carrying fees and improvements or you're not getting in. 

The cap protects the owners by undervaluing the help.  In this case the help is the product.