On March 19th 2015 my American Sport in the 21st Century discussed salary caps. Such word makes owners still cringe today. These caps set limits on how much a team can spend on players salaries. As discussed in the article One of the good guys, these caps were first introduced in the NBA because of financial trouble that had emerged among teams. Franchises were spending too much money on salaries (over half of revenue) which was essentially causing talks of teams having to merge. So how was this cap determined? Main sources for revenue for owners involve media relations and gate receipts. When determining how to set the cap negotiators decided to set the cap based on these two income sources (90% revenue for the NBA).
This move took stacking your team off of the table, and took teams away from getting free agents because of their payroll being too high already. The original negotiation was a tough one with the men that chose to purpose this idea, and the ones that needed to accept it. This also made negotiations for teams a lot more difficult because now it wasn't about getting who was the best; it was about getting who could get your team up and down the court while remaining within the cap. The cap seems to have increased, giving teams more money to spend on players. Does this take away from the original goal of the cap? The idea of this cap was later introduced to the NFL and NHL, but not yet to the MLB. Will that day ever come?
No comments:
Post a Comment