Lots of discussion about the cap and how the Rams "are getting around it."
We all know that doesn't happen. Numbers are numbers are numbers, the same for all 32 teams. Every team gets revenues which are determined by the huge TV and media deals, stadium ticket sales sharing, and merchandise sales. Some teams get more than others, but the cap numbers are atainable by all.
Now my point. Could the difference come from the signing bonuses? Teams with big pockets can afford the upfront huge signing bonuses whereas teams with less financially endowed owners can't afford those huge upfront costs. Those bonuses are then spread over multiple years, keeping teams within the cap.
Would it be more fair to count the signing bonuses as a full cap hit in the year of signing? That way deep pocket teams would eventually be forced to limit the amounts of signing bonuses and pay higher annual salaries?
Of course, the NFLPA would scream about that, even though less wealthy owners would love it. The players only real guaranteed money is the signing bonuses, unless it's a no cut contract.
So while the current cap system seems fair, is it actually? Do big money teams really get an advantage with the way signing bonuses are spread out over the life of the contract?
NewMexicoRam
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/08/2022 07:31AM by NewMexicoRam.
