Jump to content

How would the addition of a 17th game impact the players salaries, and in turn impact the cap?


Recommended Posts

If the league adds another game to the schedule, would the players salary increase by one game check worth ?

 

If it does, how does it fit under the salary cap?

 

If it doesn't, how do they get it past the players union?

 

I could see the union scream that all of the contracts signed before the addition were with the express understanding that the season was 16 games long, and if the season were extended because a particular team played in the playoffs, the "loss of salary" would be offset by the prize monies paid to each team for their participation in the playoffs, and if the season would be extended without compensation, the players salary should increase by the same percentage of the schedule percentage increase. Orrrrrrr that all of the contracts that were signed prior to the schedule increase would be null and void because the conditions of that contract have changed.

  • Like (+1) 1
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Gen2 said:

If the league adds another game to the schedule, would the players salary increase by one game check worth ?

 

If it does, how does it fit under the salary cap?

 

If it doesn't, how do they get it past the players union?

 

I could see the union scream that all of the contracts signed before the addition were with the express understanding that the season was 16 games long, and if the season were extended because a particular team played in the playoffs, the "loss of salary" would be offset by the prize monies paid to each team for their participation in the playoffs, and if the season would be extended without compensation, the players salary should increase by the same percentage of the schedule percentage increase. Orrrrrrr that all of the contracts that were signed prior to the schedule increase would be null and void because the conditions of that contract have changed.

 

I'm sure the NFLPA and the league/owners considered all this prior to the 17th game being added. 

  • Like (+1) 1
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Draconator said:

 

I'm sure the NFLPA and the league/owners considered all this prior to the 17th game being added. 

 

 

OH no doubt (at least I would hope so). I was just trying to solicit some ideas/feelings as to what that solution may be. I thought the discussion may be a refreshing change from the team X released player Y, should we sign him threads.

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Gen2 said:

If the league adds another game to the schedule, would the players salary increase by one game check worth ?

 

I could see the union scream that all of the contracts signed before the addition were with the express understanding that the season was 16 games long

 

I agree, and have often wondered how this would be handled.  Perhaps it's just curiosity after working in supervision in unionized environments for many years.  And now that it's a reality, I am interested to see what gives.

 

The players assume all of the risks associated with playing the extra game.  The owners are obviously doing this for only one rea$on... an excuse to generate more TV rights fee$, ticket sale$ & ad revenue$ at regular season prices!  Not merely, as Rog has suggested, a way to put forth "a higher quality product that fans have demanded" in place of four uninspired preseason games.  And it certainly isn't in the players' best interests safety-wise.

 

I had always assumed that the players would get paid an additional 1/17 of their contracted salary for the extra game (as I'd think the union would argue).  And I'd wager that the owners would be happy to pay that fair sum, since they are taking in more money from every angle by having the extra game for each team.  I'd be shocked if this isn't the case. And if not, Demaurice Smith should be fired.

 

Now we will need to recalculate what actually IS a good statistical season... is 1,000 yards rushing or receiving a big deal anymore? (59 yards a game?)

Edited by HankBulloughMellencamp
  • Like (+1) 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, HankBulloughMellencamp said:

 

 

 

I had always assumed that the players would get paid an additional 1/17 of their contracted salary for the extra game (as I'd think the union would argue).  And I'd wager that the owners would be happy to pay that fair sum, since they are taking in more money from every angle by having the extra game for each team.  I'd be shocked if this isn't the case. And if not, Demaurice Smith should be fired.

 

 

 

 

That was always my assumption too, but that brings up the question of how do all of those "extra" paychecks fit under the cap?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Increased 17th game increases revenue. The salary cap is tied to a certain percentage of total revenues. So the cap increases. This means players will get paid more, likely the elite players like franchise QB's, while bottom of the roster guys still make the same amount.

9 minutes ago, HankBulloughMellencamp said:

Now we will need to recalculate what actually IS a good statistical season... is 1,000 yards rushing or receiving a big deal anymore? (59 yards a game?)

That's actually the part about it I am unhappy about. We'll see more inflated stats and many of the existing records will be broken more easily, diminishing what players did before. But this has happened when games were added in the past as well.

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

From what I read. I will have to see if I can find it. There was someone that was saying the contracts already signed will face no adjustment. 
 

also in that same article said it was a NFL and NFLPA agreement. As long as the borrowed portion of the COVID cap 27.5M would not have to be paid back. 
 

looking for it now. (Not 100% sure if true though). 

  • Like (+1) 1
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, MJS said:

Increased 17th game increases revenue. The salary cap is tied to a certain percentage of total revenues. So the cap increases. This means players will get paid more, likely the elite players like franchise QB's, while bottom of the roster guys still make the same amount.

 

Well, by getting an extra super fat game check, the elite guys (who are already taking up a higher percentage of the cap) would continue to get a higher percentage compared to the (heretofore) Matt Milano's of the world --- 5th round draft picks that start 4 years for the team.

Edited by HankBulloughMellencamp
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, MJS said:

That's actually the part about it I am unhappy about. We'll see more inflated stats and many of the existing records will be broken more easily, diminishing what players did before. But this has happened when games were added in the past as well.

True, very true. My old man (an old-time Browns fan) would always talk about how OJ always had 14 games to get 2000, and Jim Brown only used to play 12 for much of his career.  He also used to make the point that OJ got to use his juke moves with the hash marks in the middle (as they are now), whereas Jim had to run with more of the old HS/college wide hashes - harder to run to the short side real estate.  Which is true.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, MJS said:

Increased 17th game increases revenue. The salary cap is tied to a certain percentage of total revenues. So the cap increases. This means players will get paid more, likely the elite players like franchise QB's, while bottom of the roster guys still make the same amount.

 

 

 

Yeah. It's likely to be more complicated than that, especially for the first couple of years, but that's how things will eventually settle out, doubtless. Wouldn't be surprised to see rookie minimum and vet minimum salaries being raised by a fraction either.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

It wouldn't since nothing affects the cap now. Teams with negative cap space still able to sign players. Teams with little cap space still able to sign players.

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Gen2 said:

 

 

OH no doubt (at least I would hope so). I was just trying to solicit some ideas/feelings as to what that solution may be. I thought the discussion may be a refreshing change from the team X released player Y, should we sign him threads.

the extra game was part of the CBA. I don't know the details

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, MJS said:

Increased 17th game increases revenue. The salary cap is tied to a certain percentage of total revenues. So the cap increases. This means players will get paid more, likely the elite players like franchise QB's, while bottom of the roster guys still make the same amount.

That's actually the part about it I am unhappy about. We'll see more inflated stats and many of the existing records will be broken more easily, diminishing what players did before. But this has happened when games were added in the past as well.



It’s somewhat complicated based on when they signed their contract pre or post new CBA.  For an extra game it’s written in a cap of an extra $250 k.  You just type in this question and multiple articles come up.


Nucci is right.  An easy example of a contract under the new CBA is a guy who gets $17 mil. In a 16 game season.  That would be $1 mil. a game check as they get paid during their bye week.  Therefore if we now have an 18 week season for the 17 games and the bye,  then in th least week of the season he will earn an additional $250k max on top of the $17 mil.

 

Im not the best and copying and pasting links from google searches so I’m sure you guys and copy some over to the board.

Edited by machine gun kelly
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TBBills said:

It wouldn't since nothing affects the cap now. Teams with negative cap space still able to sign players. Teams with little cap space still able to sign players.

 

Teams can easily fix that problem by pushing it off into the future. Eventually they will end up with a mess if done enough times.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

1 hour ago, TBBills said:

It wouldn't since nothing affects the cap now. Teams with negative cap space still able to sign players. Teams with little cap space still able to sign players.

 

 

Sure, you can put things on the credit card. But that has its effects down the road.

 

And teams that are tight on the cap can sign players. But not as many or as expensive players as they would like. It has its effects.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, HankBulloughMellencamp said:

 

Well, by getting an extra super fat game check, the elite guys (who are already taking up a higher percentage of the cap) would continue to get a higher percentage compared to the (heretofore) Matt Milano's of the world --- 5th round draft picks that start 4 years for the team.

 

What's new about this?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The gist of it is they get an extra "game check".  Players that signed under the old CBA get 1/17 of their annual as a check for the extra game (as long as on active roster).  Players under new CBA get 34 weekly checks now.  This expands to be 36 weekly checks with the extra game.  Either way, it is roughly prorated based on salary and adding 1 more game on.  It obv gets more complicated with what goes into a game check and how signing bonuses are accounted for.

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Rew said:

The gist of it is they get an extra "game check".  Players that signed under the old CBA get 1/17 of their annual as a check for the extra game (as long as on active roster).  Players under new CBA get 34 weekly checks now.  This expands to be 36 weekly checks with the extra game.  Either way, it is roughly prorated based on salary and adding 1 more game on.  It obv gets more complicated with what goes into a game check and how signing bonuses are accounted for.

 

 

Thanks, that clears it up for me ... so am I to assume that each teams cap number will automatically go up in the neighborhood of 5/6% ? That could be pretty painful for some clubs to get back under the cap.

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Gen2 said:

 

 

Thanks, that clears it up for me ... so am I to assume that each teams cap number will automatically go up in the neighborhood of 5/6% ? That could be pretty painful for some clubs to get back under the cap.

If I'm referencing the correct and final revision of the CBA, the money for the extra checks comes out of the performance bonus pool and does not count against the cap at all (sort of). This means there are no modifications to the cap.

 

Keep in mind I'm just a dude reading publicly available material, but here's my best interpretation of the CBA.  Money that is determined once, but paid out over multiple checks does not get increased (but the divisor changes from 17 to 18).  Money that is calculated on a per game basis results in an increase (meaning an extra check).  As an example, if a player has a $1.7M roster bonus based on opening day roster that is paid out over 17 checks their game checks will go from 17 x $100k checks to 18 x $94.4k checks.  However if a player has a $100k roster bonus per game active, they will receive a 18 x $100k checks, assuming they were on the roster for each game.  This means that the amount extra a player receives is dependent upon the structure of the contract.  For a team with the same roster throughout the season, this means there is no cap implication.  However, if a team used 1 player for 9 weeks and a different player for 9 weeks to replace them it is possible they would end up having extra salary count against the cap.  (Bc neither player is restricted by the 17 week limit).

 

I didn't spend enough time to find out if seasonal performance based payments are modified, but the literal interpretation would be "get 12 sacks over the course of the season" stays the same but "average 100 rushing yards per game calculated by total yards divided by number of games active" would require an additional 100 yards over the season to achieve the bonus.

 

I don't have enough experience to estimate how much of contracts overall is the fixed type vs the per game type.  Remember, all of the above could be wrong if the available cba I found is not the approved version.

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Unless there's verbiage on the contract about per game money I assume they get paid for the extra game the same way anyone gets paid on a salary when they work an extra day of the week. 

 

They don't

 

I have no idea. It's a good question. Probably something the actual powers that be are crunching through right now

Edited by FormerlyPT5P
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...