I don't want them to do away with the salary cap, because it helps keep the smaller teams competitive.
If I'm interpreting the intentions of this dispute accurately, I think having no salary cap is what the owners are trying to avoid. If the owners and players don't agree to revise the current agreement before the winter of 2010, then there would be a year without a salary cap under the terms of the deal.
The owners are unhappy about 2 main things.....
#1) More of there revenue is going to the players now than in the past. The owners noted that they are paying $4.5 billion to players this year, just under 60 percent of their total revenues as specified in the 2006 agreement. League revenues are estimated at about $8.5 billion, although none of the teams except the publicly-owned
Green Bay Packers discloses figures.
#2) The owners also want a change in the system to distribute a higher percentage of player salaries more to veterans than to unproven rookies. Their argument is based on a disparity in salaries that leaves them spending far more on unproven rookies than on dependable veterans.
For example, offensive tackle Jake Long, taken first in the 2008 NFL Draft last month, got a $30 million guaranteed before playing an NFL game.
David Diehl, a fifth-round pick in 2003 who has started every game of his career and played left tackle for the
New York Giants in their Super Bowl victory, signed a six-year, $31 million extension with less than half of that guaranteed.
I have no problem with #2 and agree that something has to be done to even out the way rookies/unprovens and veterans/provens get paid. Right now, there is just too much of a disparity.
