So I was reading this thread about the Green Bay Packers ownership, and there was a Wikipedia link that stated that with the exception of Green Bay (grandfathered), NFL rules “stipulate a limit of 32 owners of one team and one of those owners having a minimum 30% stake.”
My question is, why would the NFL not allow teams to be owned like Green Bay? That strikes me as somehow kind of shady, and intended either so the league can exercise control, or so the league can encourage owners to move to better TV markets, which is something that would rarely happen if the teams were owned by a local consortium.
Am I off-base in assuming that the NFL has these rules for some nefarious ends, or is this indeed some sort of jerkwad conspiracy to ensure that complete dicks like Bud Adams or Art Modell can screw their fan base and communities around in the interest of lining their own pockets?
I don’t know who wrote that but I’m pretty sure that’s not how it works. The SIGNING BONUS is prorated, not the baseline salary. The baseline salary is on a year by year basis. So the given contract for 3 years may look something like…
Year Pay Salary Cap Hit
1 $2.5m Base + $2m Bonus $3.17m
2 $3.5m Base $4.17m
3 $4.0m Base $4.67m
The PROBLEM with “front-loading” the contract as they suggest is then you’ve locked yourself into the contract. You WILL take the entire bonus hit barring only retirement (some teams have been punished for using retirement to do some creative accounting).
Teams don’t want to tie up too much money in bonuses because that means you’re tied to the player whether he preforms or not. The above player blows out his ACL in the first game and never regains form, you can cut him and only have to absorb the balance of his signing bonus. Had he gotten a HUGE signing bonus, this would be a much larger number your salary cap has to absorb.
I think the pro-rating mentioned was against the annual salary of the team, not pro-rating of the signing bonus against the salary cap.
While there is that certain danger of losing a portion of your salary cap over the long-haul, having a (comparatively) unending pool of money to work with does mean that you have a competitive advantage over other teams in attracting free agents, just see the Redskins, who haul in many more top-flight free agents than their location and general success rate would otherwise suggest. (Dan Snyder’s inability to realize that past performance doesn’t equal future performance is a completely different matter, of course)
Because there were a number of teams owned by conglomerates or small groups of owners, and in a couple of cases (most notably the late 50s LA Rams), the team was paralyzed by a feud between partners, neither of whom had a majority share.
The theory about it being related to signing bonuses is way off base, since that all counts under the salary cap anyway.