2021 NFL salary cap conundrum: Three major consequences of projected decrease

  • To unlock all of features of Rams On Demand please take a brief moment to register. Registering is not only quick and easy, it also allows you access to additional features such as live chat, private messaging, and a host of other apps exclusive to Rams On Demand.

ROD-BOT

News Feeder
Joined
Aug 18, 2019
Messages
1,047
2021 NFL salary cap conundrum: Three major consequences of projected decrease

Complying with the NFL's salary cap from year to year is always a balancing act, and it's a job general managers and decision-makers don't take lightly, nor should they.

Right now, along with navigating a pandemic-impacted regular season, all 32 NFL organizations are preparing for perhaps the biggest challenge the salary cap has ever presented. Clubs are aware there will be a decrease in the cap number next year due to COVID-19 repercussions, but to what degree? That's still unknown, as there are estimates out there, but no official number from the league. All 32 teams must be below the cap number at the start of the new league year.

Introduced for the 1994 NFL season, the salary cap traditionally increases on a year-to-year basis and has only decreased one time: 2011, the year of the NFL lockout. In fact, over the past seven seasons, the league has seen its salary cap per club increase by no less than $10 million per year; since 2012, the cap for each club has risen from $120.6 million to $198.2 million in 2020. Over the Cap estimates the 2021 salary cap will be $176 million, a decrease of $22.2 million or 11.2 percent from 2020.

In past seasons, complying with the cap has been relatively manageable -- and somewhat easy for fiscally thoughtful clubs -- because of the percentage increase year over year. With the margin between the cap number and player commitments about to get squeezed exponentially, though, cap management will be a much greater challenge for all teams -- but especially those that are already short on cap space. When looking at Over the Cap's 2021 projections, 10 teams are already in precarious positions, with expected player payrolls in the red. The New Orleans Saints have one of the most challenging cap situations heading into offseason, as they are $93.7 million over the cap before making any contract adjustments, new signings, etc.

Before diving into the potential ripple effects of a decreased cap, I want to state that I believe the need for cash spending by clubs will increase in 2021. Generally speaking, the way most club's lower cap numbers is by spending more cash in the present to spread the cap hit out over future years. However, as we all know, it has been a very difficult year for teams and owners to generate revenue, so the availability of cash might be a real issue for some organizations. In addition, this type of cash now/credit card borrowing will likely increase to push spending forward, but past credit card borrowing may exacerbate problems for teams this year because the bill might come due.

With all that in mind, here are three prominent challenges that could arise from a salary cap decrease in 2021.

1) Using the franchise tag will become more difficult. Each team can only use one franchise tag per season. Over the past 10 years, there have been three instances where at least 10 players received the tag (14 in 2020; 21 in 2012; 14 in 2011), while the lowest number of tags was four in 2014. Each year, franchise tag figures are based upon the top five salaries at each respective position, while transition tag figures are based on the top 10. Simple math tells us that an increased cost of franchise tags for each position will have a more egregious net impact on an overall cap number that is going to be reduced. Therefore, franchise tags will account for a larger percentage of cap space than in previous years.

For instance, quarterbacks playing under the franchise tag this season (see: Dak Prescott) accounted for 13.5 percent of the team's salary cap. Looking ahead to next year, even if the franchise tag number remains the same (which it won't), it will take up a larger percent of the cap due to the decreased cap number, making it more difficult for teams to justify tagging players. One of the possible outcomes of this could be that several top NFL players hit the open free agent market because teams don't have the cap space to tag them or offer a long-term deal.

2) Teams with less draft capital may be in for longer periods of hardship. One way teams can control spending is by having strong drafts with good, young players under their very manageable, four-year draft contracts. Consider the Seattle Seahawks, who struck gold in the 2012 NFL Draft with a haul that included DE Bruce Irvin, LB Bobby Wagner, QB Russell Wilson, RB Robert Turbin, CB Jeremy Lane and OG J.R. Sweezy. This ultimately helped the 'Hawks win a bunch of playoff games in the ensuing three seasons (lost in the Divisional Round in 2012, won the Super Bowl in 2013, lost the Super Bowl in 2014).

On the contrary, some teams have given away a lot of draft capital of late in exchange for veteran talents who are often given top-of-the-market contracts. An example of this is the Laremy Tunsil trade between the Houston Texans and Miami Dolphins in August of 2019: Houston traded two first-round picks, a second-rounder, CB Johnson Bademosi and OT Julie'n Davenport in exchange for the left tackle, wide receiver Kenny Stills, a fourth-round pick and a sixth-rounder. The Texans then gave Tunsil a three-year, $66 million extension last offseason. The trade left Houston without a 2020 first-round pick and a first- and second-rounder in 2021, all slots where they could've landed talented players for relatively cheap. Meanwhile, Tunsil's massive contract will end up accounting for 10.8 percent of Houston's cap next year, per Over The Cap.

It's a risk to invest in veteran talent because the player may not fit well into your scheme or could get injured, among other things. That's not to say decisions like this don't pay off, but it's certainly worth weighing the options before pulling the trigger on such moves, especially in this cap climate.

3) A major threat to veteran roster spots. Veteran contracts could be the biggest challenge for decision-makers. Although the new collective bargaining agreement (CBA) between the NFL and NFLPA agreed upon veteran salary benefit (VSB) contracts, which provide some cap relief for veteran players, it is still somewhat restrictive. The VSB in 2021 will count as $750,000 (amount of a two-year minimum salary credit), plus any additional compensation up to a max of $137,500. Though it may not seem like much, VSB contracts have saved jobs for veteran players by allowing teams to keep them for cheaper base salaries on one-year deals.

All other minimum salaries agreed to in the new CBA, including tenders for exclusive rights and restricted free agents, are going to increase and will eat up a larger percentage of cap space. Almost every player under contract in the NFL has a base salary that is scheduled to increase in 2021 from his 2020 salary, which will be reflected in each player's ratio of salary cap hit for his team. If the cap number is lower, it will only exacerbate the problem and reduce the margin. As a result, a larger number of veteran players could be forced to take minimum contracts.
 

FrantikRam

Rams On Demand Sponsor
Rams On Demand Sponsor
Joined
Oct 16, 2013
Messages
4,733
If the cap drops like we all think it will, I wonder if it'd in the NFLPAs best interest to unilaterally have every player take a percentage cut equal to the cap difference from 2020-2021?

On the surface youd say why would they do it? I think it's because players that are expiring will have a difficult time getting the money they are worth. Floyd for example would get 12-16 mil, like Fowler - unlikely he gets that now with so many teams cap strapped. If players under contract took a discount for this one season, it would help other vets get contracts.
 

dieterbrock

Rams On Demand Sponsor
Rams On Demand Sponsor
Joined
Jan 3, 2013
Messages
23,107
Its in the best interest of the league to freeze the cap, or something of the like. There is no way to reduce the cap as drastically as suggested. With viewership (allegedly) down, the league cant afford a work stoppage after getting thru the covid sitch. And that is exactly what you are looking at without a cap freeze or a deviation from cap structure that allows teams to be over the cap.
I have primarily been pro owner in the CBA negotiations, but in this circumstance, no way. The income of the top 5-10% of players wont be affected by installing a hard cap decrease, only the veteran, back end of the roster players will. And those are the players whom the NFLPA needs to protect the most.
I think under the current conditions, the Cap should be frozen at the 198 number for a minimum 3 year period.
Each year a projected cap figure would be determined, and team would have a calculated overage figure, carried over year to year with no exception to over 198. After 3rd year, new Cap set and 3 year roll over is added to team calculation.
If team is over new cap, that number is not used to penalize cap space, but pays a penalty like the MLB luxury tax
By agreeing to this, its good faith on both sides and also avoids having a down year and potentially a huge bounceback the year after.
So it would look something like this:
EST. CAP #$$$ IN MILLACTUAL CAP
2020198198
2021170198
2022190198
2023205198
2024215215
2020 TEAM CAPDELTA2021 TEAM CAPDELTATOTAL2022 TEAM CAPDELTATOTAL2023 TEAM CAPDELTATOTAL2024 TEAM CAPDELTATOTAL
TEAM A1980198-28-28198-8-361987-292150-29
TEAM B1980198-28-28198-8-3619817-1919817-2
TEAM C1953195-25-22195-5-2719510-172123-14

So Team A, who spends every penny of cap space every year, would have a 29 mill cap overage
Team B, who sticks to the frozen cap # in to the new cap, would have only a 2 mill cap overage
Team C, who spends under the cap every year, would have a 0-14 mill cap overage based on their 2024 spend
 

BriansRams

"Rams next Superbowl is 2023 season." - (Oct 2022)
Rams On Demand Sponsor
Camp Reporter
Joined
Dec 10, 2013
Messages
2,563
Name
Brian
Its in the best interest of the league to freeze the cap, or something of the like. There is no way to reduce the cap as drastically as suggested. With viewership (allegedly) down, the league cant afford a work stoppage after getting thru the covid sitch. And that is exactly what you are looking at without a cap freeze or a deviation from cap structure that allows teams to be over the cap.
I have primarily been pro owner in the CBA negotiations, but in this circumstance, no way. The income of the top 5-10% of players wont be affected by installing a hard cap decrease, only the veteran, back end of the roster players will. And those are the players whom the NFLPA needs to protect the most.
I think under the current conditions, the Cap should be frozen at the 198 number for a minimum 3 year period.
Each year a projected cap figure would be determined, and team would have a calculated overage figure, carried over year to year with no exception to over 198. After 3rd year, new Cap set and 3 year roll over is added to team calculation.
If team is over new cap, that number is not used to penalize cap space, but pays a penalty like the MLB luxury tax
By agreeing to this, its good faith on both sides and also avoids having a down year and potentially a huge bounceback the year after.
So it would look something like this:
EST. CAP #$$$ IN MILLACTUAL CAP
2020198198
2021170198
2022190198
2023205198
2024215215
2020 TEAM CAPDELTA2021 TEAM CAPDELTATOTAL2022 TEAM CAPDELTATOTAL2023 TEAM CAPDELTATOTAL2024 TEAM CAPDELTATOTAL
TEAM A1980198-28-28198-8-361987-292150-29
TEAM B1980198-28-28198-8-3619817-1919817-2
TEAM C1953195-25-22195-5-2719510-172123-14

So Team A, who spends every penny of cap space every year, would have a 29 mill cap overage
Team B, who sticks to the frozen cap # in to the new cap, would have only a 2 mill cap overage
Team C, who spends under the cap every year, would have a 0-14 mill cap overage based on their 2024 spend

View: https://media.giphy.com/media/tu54GM19sqJOw/giphy.gif