PDA

View Full Version : Owners pull plug on $100M revenue sharing program


djp
12-06-2009, 11:24 AM
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=4718965

Not good news for smaller market teams.

Gay Ork Wang
12-06-2009, 11:32 AM
what was that programm?

Shane P. Hallam
12-06-2009, 11:47 AM
Huge deal here. Basically, the richer teams (Cowboys, Redskins, etc,) would all give parts of their revenues to smaller market teams (Packers, Jaguars, etc) to keep every team with enough money to hit the cap.

That is gone, so the small market teams may have trouble hitting the cap and may have to lower contracts or release players. If the NFL goes uncapped, it will be monstrous.

Twiddler
12-06-2009, 11:57 AM
Huge deal here. Basically, the richer teams (Cowboys, Redskins, etc,) would all give parts of their revenues to smaller market teams (Packers, Jaguars, etc) to keep every team with enough money to hit the cap.

That is gone, so the small market teams may have trouble hitting the cap and may have to lower contracts or release players. If the NFL goes uncapped, it will be monstrous.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't only a small portion of that revenue sharing now gone? I mean, it's not an insignificant portion of money, but there still is about 6.4 billion that is being shared yet. But I could be wrong, I don't know the financial workings of the NFL.

BlindSite
12-06-2009, 03:05 PM
Certain Portions of money is pooled a divided up, say like ticket sales, TV money and other things, this was to help a team like Green bay in a small city compete with the media juggernaut of the New York Market financially.

The idea behind the revenue sharing is it benefits the league rather than a few markets, Jerry Jones and Dan Snyder were the two against it in the first place, this agreement and the salary cap were the two biggest issues with the CBA, that is still not in place.

This is either a move closer to getting a CBA or a giant leap away. To me it seems like a Giant leap away, as the sharing was only an issue for a few owners and the labour union only cared how it affected their bottom line.

I'll have to find my capology thing and re-check it.

BlindSite
12-06-2009, 03:12 PM
Yeah this is a huge step backwards for the NFL.

Shared Money:

Two thirds of the money in the NFL comes from TV deals
All teams receive an equal share of the TV money.
Licensed merchandise such as jerseys also provide money
“Gate” money is essentially ticket sales. This is split 60/40 between home and visiting teams
This means teams love having games against teams popular across the country, playing against someone like Peyton Manning or Steve Smith is good for the home team financially.
Some teams try to package these tickets, if you want to see Peyton Manning against your home team, you've got to buy a ticket to see Jon Kitna as well
This helps to drive up revenue


Key Points :
TV contracts and now video game contracts have escalation clauses so from year to year e.g. ESPN has to pay more money to continue to show the Monday night games than the year previous.

Of all this money a predefined % becomes the salary cap.


Slightly More Advanced Revenue Sharing

Revenue sharing between the owners and the players involves a certain percentage of money made by NFL teams being placed into the salary cap to pay players wages. Essentially the division of the money made by a team will decide how much money they can afford to pay the players.

As the Collective Bargaining Agreements have altered the salary cap amounts so have they altered where the money goes. These agreements are generally accepted by the ownership of some teams and disliked by others, there’s almost never a consensus. Rich owners are happy they can afford to buy better players using money that would otherwise be spent elsewhere. Owners like Dan Snyder for example were happy with the increase in the monetary percentage going into the cap in the 2006 agreement, Due to the fact that the Redskins are almost never below the cap and strongly believe in building through Free Agency rather than the draft. In effect, he's now allowed to give money to players he's already wanting to give them but hasn't previously been allowed to.

The second portion of revenue sharing involves the sharing of money between teams. Right now the highest earning 15 clubs essentially subsidize the less financially successful bottom 13. This format also requires the highest earning team to pay more than the 13th highest. These forms of agreement are designed to keep the league competitive. Arguing essentially that the Dallas Cowboys wouldn't make X amount of dollars every year if people didn't want to see them fight against other teams (or in recent times, trample). The league needs to be a 15 round, drag out, Rocky Balboa esque fight, not a 2nd round knockout, if it is to continue making money and expanding. What should be noted however is that not all owners feel this way. Jerry Jones for example advocating cutting non-performing owners like you would an underachieving player.



The previous agreement:
2006 was the last year in which labor strife seemed imminent. Essentially the NFLPA and their leader Gene Upshaw were demanding 60% of total revenue be given to the players. An increase from what was previously 55.5%. To put that into monetary terms from the year 2005 to 2009 the cap will have seen an increase in 43% (approx), from 85.5 to 123 million dollars.

It was at this time that the most recent revenue sharing agreement between clubs was also agreed to. Some of this was difficult for owners to swallow. Not only were a lot of owners now having to give more money to players they did or didn't want to pay (remember the minimum salary cap exists as well), they were also having to pay other clubs their money. Understandably, though the deal went through, in large part due to dramatic impassioned speeches from Paul Tagliabue and Al Davis, there wasn't realistically a cohesive agreement. It was more of a “oh if it has to be that way” than a “yes” from most owners. This didn't exactly lay a good frame work for future negotiations.


The owners don't like the way they're sharing money between the NFL teams. High earning franchise owners are unhappy that their ability to make money within a market is then to the benefit of dysfunctional organizations. On a personality level, most of the newer breed of owners are former cut-throat businessmen who've never heard the word “share” when it came to their profits, let alone with their direct competitors. The low earning organizations are plain and simply unhappy as any money they are receiving is making it hard for them to expand due to the new salary cap and players demands.

Getting a consensus vote for half the voters to lose a piece of their pie isn't going to happen any time soon either. So they find a place to agree on where to find more money, take it back from the salaries.



http://draftcountdown.com/forum/showthread.php?t=22933 (full thread with the explanation of the labour crap)

The Unseen
12-06-2009, 03:24 PM
Well this is awesome

[/sarcasm]

yodabear
12-06-2009, 05:16 PM
Well, at least we'll get to sign more future probowlers like Danny Amedola, Samkon Gado, and a couple other dudes with the last name Butler who are not named LeRoy.

Jughead10
12-06-2009, 09:49 PM
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't only a small portion of that revenue sharing now gone? I mean, it's not an insignificant portion of money, but there still is about 6.4 billion that is being shared yet. But I could be wrong, I don't know the financial workings of the NFL.

Yeah I'm not sure how big a deal this is. As long as the NFL teams are sharing the billions in TV revenue equally, I fail to see how an extra 100 million split between 8-12 teams is going to make a huge difference.

Xonraider
12-06-2009, 09:55 PM
The Raiders will stay in the bottom even after Al Davis dies I guess...

aNYtitan
12-06-2009, 11:11 PM
Wow this sucks for the Titans, sucks worse for the Bills

DoughBoy
12-06-2009, 11:23 PM
Does this mean the NFL is turning into MLB?

CC.SD
12-06-2009, 11:25 PM
Does this mean the NFL is turning into MLB?

Yah basically. The fairness of the drafting system will help out a bit though.

RaiderNation
12-06-2009, 11:27 PM
Not good news for raider fans

the decider13
12-06-2009, 11:29 PM
Does this mean the NFL is turning into MLB?

If it goes uncapped, it will end up a lot like the MLB next year. Hopefully the draft doesn't end up anything like the MLB draft.

DoughBoy
12-06-2009, 11:33 PM
Yah basically. The fairness of the drafting system will help out a bit though.

So that means in 20 years any player that is worth a darn will probably have atleast spend one season with the cowboys? Anybody think there will be another number 1 sport in a few years the way the NFL is going? Greed, less balanced teams,no emotion allowed, an owner trying his best to make his name known to the world and shape the NFL the way he wants it. I miss Paul Tagliabue.

aNYtitan
12-06-2009, 11:37 PM
This is a one season deal most likely. I don't see how the owners and the players will not be able to resolve their differences and get a deal signed that works out for both sides. Hasn't happened yet, but there won't be no lockout. Book it

tjsunstein
12-06-2009, 11:41 PM
I pray to god that the NFL doesn't turn into the MLB.

HawkeyeFan
12-06-2009, 11:55 PM
Ouch to St. Louis.

yourfavestoner
12-07-2009, 12:23 AM
I will post my thoughts on this tomorrow, when I have more time.

But no, this is not the end of the world for small market teams. And getting rid of the cap at this point would not turn the NFL into the MLB, it might actually help.

M.O.T.H.
12-07-2009, 12:25 AM
We've been talking about this in one of those Cowboys threads. Mostly because, no agreement means Miles Austin is a restricted FA next season, instead of an unrestricted, so he can be tendered again. But anyway, I'm praying the league doesnt go uncapped. I may be alone among my Cowboy fans but, I dont believe in buying championships. Hate, hate, hate it. And if the NFL draft ever ends up like the MLB's joke of draft? I may just die. Yeah, higher profile prospects refusing to sign with lower market teams. What an awesome concept. :/ MLB's draft is the worst in sports.

djp
12-07-2009, 12:27 AM
We've been talking about this in one of those Cowboys threads. Mostly because, no agreement means Miles Austin is a restricted FA next season, instead of an unrestricted, so he can be tendered again. But anyway, I'm praying the league doesnt go uncapped. I may be alone among my Cowboy fans but, I dont believe in buying championships by buying players. Hate, hate, hate it. And if the NFL draft ever ends up like the MLB's joke of draft? I may just die. Yeah, higher profile prospects refusing to sign with lower market teams. What an awesome concept. :/ MLB's draft is the worst in sports.

It really is horrible. Rick Porcello fell to the 20's for crying out loud. Imagine if the small market, bad teams let a player like Suh fall past the top 5.

The strike is the worst thing that could happen to the NFL. It has monopolized, in a sense, the American sports lifestyle. They can't risk it. They just can't.

Iamcanadian
12-07-2009, 12:30 AM
This is a one season deal most likely. I don't see how the owners and the players will not be able to resolve their differences and get a deal signed that works out for both sides. Hasn't happened yet, but there won't be no lockout. Book it

There is going to be a lockout or a strike. That is a foregone conclusion. The owners are looking for a huge increase in revenue through 2 sources, an expanded schedule and a sizable drop in player salaries. They basically want the revenue from the 2 extra games for themselves without giving an extra penny to the players for playing the games. They are playing serious hardball with the players. This mess could easily turnout to be a full season lockout with replacement players playing for a whole season.
When you put workers to the wall and say take it or we'll just bring in scabs to fill our rosters, you may well find that the players dig in and accept that they will have to fight or get completely pushed into the ground with the owner's thumb on their necks.
This could easily turnout to be one of the ugliest situations that has ever occurred in professional sports. There is absolutely no sign that the owners are looking for a compromise, they know they have won every strike or lockout that has ever occurred and they are counting on the player's fears that their careers could be shortened if they fight. This struggle for a new CBA will likely change the whole way the NFL operates and believe me, the only thing you can count on is the fans having to pay the price.

wogitalia
12-07-2009, 12:31 AM
If this is a sign of things to come... say Hi to the Toronto Bills and Los Angeles Jaguars within 4 years because they are probably the two teams most dependent on revenue sharing.

Anybody think there will be another number 1 sport in a few years the way the NFL is going? Greed, less balanced teams,no emotion allowed, an owner trying his best to make his name known to the world and shape the NFL the way he wants it. I miss Paul Tagliabue.

I can't to be honest. The NBA started down that path 10 years ago and is far worse at the no emotion thing. MLB well and truly ticks the first two boxes(Greed, unbalanced). The best run of the leagues is probably the NHL and they are coming from so far back, have little appeal in southern states and ****** TV deals. So it is tough to see the NFL really losing, barring a lockout which would probably hurt.

The NCAA actually probably could steal some interest if it went the other way and allowed some emotion, they already have better crowds and atmosphere, if they would fix the BCS thing and stop allowing teams to schedule so many cupcake games they really could make a push, especially if a lockout were to say free up Sundays for them for a season...

To be honest though, the NFL negotiations should be simple. A rookie contract scale is a win for both players and owners, it's almost like the players refuse to accept it because it means giving one to the owners, but if less money is used up on rookies it means more for current players, the free agents would drive up prices at the same rates that rookie contracts do right now(the only argument the players seem to use). There are some other minor things, but if they get that done, pretty much everything else is right, the CBA for the NFL is far superior to the NBA, where the soft cap and guaranteed contracts severely restrict the product by causing poor management to have long term effects(see Sonics, Knicks, Kings, Nets, Clippers, etc).

NFL system is spot on outside of the ridiculous rookie contracts.

brat316
12-07-2009, 12:34 AM
if nfl turns into mlb....nfl is dead to me. UFL looking good right now

Iamcanadian
12-07-2009, 12:39 AM
I will post my thoughts on this tomorrow, when I have more time.

But no, this is not the end of the world for small market teams. And getting rid of the cap at this point would not turn the NFL into the MLB, it might actually help.

This is utter nonsense. If the new CBA has no cap, the franchise QB's will all be moving to large city markets without exception. It will spell the end for teams like Pittsburgh or Indy and other small market teams to retain their star players just like it is almost impossible for small market teams to retain their baseball stars. It will be the end of pro football as we know it today.

Bengalsrocket
12-07-2009, 02:41 AM
I realize that there are plenty of large market teams without a franchise QB, but there are more franchise QB's in the league then there is starting QB positions in large market cities. So I doubt every QB would be able to skip town in search of a higher pay grade.

Also, I'm sure a lot of small market teams will still pay top dollar for a franchise QB and just neglect other positions, because let's face it, if you can put a face on your franchise it sells merchandise and puts fans in the stadium.

Edit: I was responding to Iamcanadian, but I also realize that his post is likely sarcasm, or at least seems that way. I was just adding some thought to the overall thread :P

BlindSite
12-07-2009, 04:59 AM
This is utter nonsense. If the new CBA has no cap, the franchise QB's will all be moving to large city markets without exception. It will spell the end for teams like Pittsburgh or Indy and other small market teams to retain their star players just like it is almost impossible for small market teams to retain their baseball stars. It will be the end of pro football as we know it today.

Not necesarily. You see no CBA means no other provisions for injury or anything else, which leaves teams open massively liability wise. If the CBA fails, there will be a lock out, guys like Peyton Manning or Roethlisberger, won't go to other teams, they won't play... at all.

brat316
12-07-2009, 09:38 AM
....so if there is a lockout, who gets a chance to play first UFL guys or CFL guys? I am more interested in the who will be replacements in the lockout.

descendency
12-07-2009, 09:44 AM
Anybody think there will be another number 1 sport in a few years the way the NFL is going? Greed

Greed isn't the issue though. If they were solely after money, they'd find a way to get the cap really low and just rake in the profits.

Brent
12-07-2009, 11:31 AM
....so if there is a lockout, who gets a chance to play first UFL guys or CFL guys? I am more interested in the who will be replacements in the lockout.
well, it'd likely be a combination of the two.

Go_Eagles77
12-07-2009, 11:42 AM
Pretty sure eagles are the smallest market in the NFC East. Not good news.

brat316
12-07-2009, 11:44 AM
Pretty sure eagles are the smallest market in the NFC East. Not good news.

....yeah they'll be fine. NFC east teams all of them should be fine.

Brent
12-07-2009, 11:46 AM
stoner may get his wish; LA Jags, here they come.

Jughead10
12-07-2009, 11:57 AM
Pretty sure eagles are the smallest market in the NFC East. Not good news.

Actually I think they are the 4th largest media market in the US. Only behind NY, LA, and Chicago. Who knows though. Billions and billions are shared equally amongst teams. This 100 million they are talking about was being split among the 8-12 lowest revenue teams, which the Eagles are surely not one of. As long as nothing changes about the TV money being shared equally, I don't think this is as big of a deal of people want to make it be.

bigbluedefense
12-07-2009, 11:57 AM
Its really not that big of a deal. You lose potentially one smaller FA pickup per year for those smaller market teams.

The reason why this was proposed was because the smaller market teams weren't spending this money to improve their teams, instead just pocketing the money to increase their own profits. That angered a lot of the higher revenue teams, bc its almost like charity for the other owners.

100 million split 8 ways isn't really a huge deal. It is a blow no doubt, but it doesn't mean much when those smaller market teams barely spend it anyway and have a hard time bringing in FAs to begin with.

You build your team through the draft anyway.

Giantsfan1080
12-07-2009, 12:05 PM
I just learned the other day that Fox paid more than CBS for the NFC package because the NFC has the bigger markets. It makes sense but I never realized that and thought it was interesting.

yourfavestoner
12-07-2009, 12:41 PM
This is utter nonsense. If the new CBA has no cap, the franchise QB's will all be moving to large city markets without exception. It will spell the end for teams like Pittsburgh or Indy and other small market teams to retain their star players just like it is almost impossible for small market teams to retain their baseball stars. It will be the end of pro football as we know it today.

It's really not nonsense at all. The biggest obstacle - like you said - would be restricting the movement of quarterbacks. Quarterbacks are everything in this league - have an elite one and you're pretty much a lock for the playoffs, if you don't have one, you must rely on the draw of your schedule. You just need to find a way for teams to keep their elite quarterbacks.

What's really nonsensical is the salary cap itself these days. It was originally implemented in the mid 90s to curb spending and ballooning player salaries. What couldn't be forseen is how much revenue to the NFL would generate over the next decade, sending the salary cap shooting upwards and basically rendering it obselete anyways. How many of the large market teams are in bad cap shape from trying to buy a championship? To be honest, not a whole lot. And the ones that are usually find themselves that way from poor management and contracts, not from trying to buy a championship.

On the otherside, the salary cap actually hurts small market teams because of the salary cap floor. That's a big thing most people don't know about: not only are teams required to stay under the cap ceiling, but they must also SPEND a minimum amount. I watched the Jaguars give absolutely ludicrous contracts to Jerry Porter and Drayton Florence two years ago simply because they needed to get up to a certain spending level. Both were released a year later. And moves like that are a big reason why the subsidizing through revenue sharing is over. It was a giant waste of money for everybody involved.

There's plenty of football talent to go around in this country. The sport is blowing up like never before in high schools and colleges. Athletes that would normally focus on other sports are becoming more interested in football. The small market teams will have to get creative, but they'll survive.

FlyingElvis
12-07-2009, 03:50 PM
100M is not a significant amount of money in the NFL. With 8 teams qualified to take some of it you're looking at 12.5 mill each. The salary cap is ~127 million. I don't believe for a second that any franchise will have a major problem signing talent because they lost 10% of the cap amount when that one, small portion of the revenue sharing plan was dissolved.

BlindSite
12-07-2009, 03:54 PM
It's really not nonsense at all. The biggest obstacle - like you said - would be restricting the movement of quarterbacks. Quarterbacks are everything in this league - have an elite one and you're pretty much a lock for the playoffs, if you don't have one, you must rely on the draw of your schedule. You just need to find a way for teams to keep their elite quarterbacks.

What's really nonsensical is the salary cap itself these days. It was originally implemented in the mid 90s to curb spending and ballooning player salaries. What couldn't be forseen is how much revenue to the NFL would generate over the next decade, sending the salary cap shooting upwards and basically rendering it obselete anyways. How many of the large market teams are in bad cap shape from trying to buy a championship? To be honest, not a whole lot. And the ones that are usually find themselves that way from poor management and contracts, not from trying to buy a championship.

On the otherside, the salary cap actually hurts small market teams because of the salary cap floor. That's a big thing most people don't know about: not only are teams required to stay under the cap ceiling, but they must also SPEND a minimum amount. I watched the Jaguars give absolutely ludicrous contracts to Jerry Porter and Drayton Florence two years ago simply because they needed to get up to a certain spending level. Both were released a year later. And moves like that are a big reason why the subsidizing through revenue sharing is over. It was a giant waste of money for everybody involved.

There's plenty of football talent to go around in this country. The sport is blowing up like never before in high schools and colleges. Athletes that would normally focus on other sports are becoming more interested in football. The small market teams will have to get creative, but they'll survive.

This is why the revenue sharing removal makes life harder on these small market teams.

They still have to hit that floor, so if they need to say have 20 million dollars in the coffers to rebuild part of the stadium luxury boxes (where teams make a lot of money) they can't because that money is now taken by the salary cap, so the team loses out on a place to make extra money.

Yes I disagree with teams simply pocketing the cash, but the best thing to do would've been to provide guidelines on how that money is to be appropriated, not remove it altogether.

keylime_5
12-07-2009, 03:55 PM
I guess the NFL wants to be like the ever-popular MLB if they keep it up where no one watches and the Yankees, Red Sox, and LA teams win every....single....year.

CC.SD
12-07-2009, 04:38 PM
I guess the NFL wants to be like the ever-popular MLB if they keep it up where no one watches and the Yankees, Red Sox, and LA teams win every....single....year.

Those teams have only won 3 chips this decade in MLB though. I do agree with the overall sentiment that a cap and revenue sharing is needed to have an equal system.

DoughBoy
12-07-2009, 04:49 PM
It might be just me but I find if funny that the fans of the larger market teams are telling us it is going to be okay. Lets face it those bottom 8 or so teams are going to have a disadvantage. I can remember the Titans cleaning house because their salary cap went under and having no good players afterwards . I may be wrong ,but If no CBA is put back in place you cannot deny that those bottom 8 teams are going to be losing more than their fair share of players at the end of each year.

BTW this was the POS team we had after the house cleaning....
http://www.footballdb.com/teams/tennessee-titans/roster/2005

BlindSite
12-07-2009, 05:56 PM
The problem with the last CBA was it was rushed, the problem this time is that Gene Upshaw died and the owners that were pissed are still pissed.

The revenue sharing hurts, but the bad blood it may cause between owners is worse.

The fact is guys like Jerry Jones, Wilfe and Snyder who're the new school aren't going to get on well with the old school guys.

It was murder getting a proper draft system in place and last time the CBA was renewed it almost failed multiple times.

The NFL ought to appoint an independent arbiter, keep this system but adjust things like the salary cap to reflect inflation etc.

No CBA doesn't mean buying championships guys, it means no football, or rather, no good quality football.

There won't be a draft anymore, some vets will be unsignable and guys with less than 6 years in the league won't be free agents, even those that are won't be worth the gazillions we all think anyway.

D-Unit
12-07-2009, 06:29 PM
Everything will work out. Or else the league loses money and that won't happen. If only a handful of teams are able to be competitive, the NFL will lose money.

CC.SD
12-07-2009, 07:16 PM
Everything will work out. Or else the league loses money and that won't happen. If only a handful of teams are able to be competitive, the NFL will lose money.

By the time this happens it will be too late to get control back from the owners. It's a needless risk given the booming success of the current NFL IMO.

Iamcanadian
12-07-2009, 07:35 PM
It's really not nonsense at all. The biggest obstacle - like you said - would be restricting the movement of quarterbacks. Quarterbacks are everything in this league - have an elite one and you're pretty much a lock for the playoffs, if you don't have one, you must rely on the draw of your schedule. You just need to find a way for teams to keep their elite quarterbacks.

[QUOTE]Very astute observation.

What's really nonsensical is the salary cap itself these days. It was originally implemented in the mid 90s to curb spending and ballooning player salaries. What couldn't be forseen is how much revenue to the NFL would generate over the next decade, sending the salary cap shooting upwards and basically rendering it obselete anyways. How many of the large market teams are in bad cap shape from trying to buy a championship? To be honest, not a whole lot. And the ones that are usually find themselves that way from poor management and contracts, not from trying to buy a championship.

Remove the cap and some rich franchises might still struggle, they certainly do in baseball, however a large # of them are well run and with no cap, they would soon suck up every talented player in the NFL whenever they needed one at that position.

On the otherside, the salary cap actually hurts small market teams because of the salary cap floor. That's a big thing most people don't know about: not only are teams required to stay under the cap ceiling, but they must also SPEND a minimum amount. I watched the Jaguars give absolutely ludicrous contracts to Jerry Porter and Drayton Florence two years ago simply because they needed to get up to a certain spending level. Both were released a year later. And moves like that are a big reason why the subsidizing through revenue sharing is over. It was a giant waste of money for everybody involved.

Again your right except that without a floor, the small market teams would have even fewer stars as they would likely spend even less money.

There's plenty of football talent to go around in this country. The sport is blowing up like never before in high schools and colleges. Athletes that would normally focus on other sports are becoming more interested in football. The small market teams will have to get creative, but they'll survive.

Sorry, but there are maybe half a dozen true franchise QB's in the NFL and with no cap, not one of them would stay with a small market city. Indy would lose Peyton, Pittsburgh would lose Roethlisberger, San Diego would lose Rivers, New Orleans would lose Brees etc. etc. If that is how you would like to see the NFL operate, well I don't want that type of NFL.

That's the same argument they used in baseball and look how that turned out. If the cap goes, the small market cities won't have any chance to compete. Already a # of them rarely ever make the playoffs and it will only get worse should the cap disappear. If you think Indy and Pittsburgh have the revenue to compete with NY, Dallas, LA, Chicago and a few other rich franchises, you are simply out of touch with reality. Like baseball, maybe 10 franchises could compete on an equal playing field, the rest of the teams would quickly be left without any stars. I can give you a large list of small market teams in baseball that survived, however they are no longer competitive teams.
I mean it is just common sense that the owners with the larger revenue will offer every FA a sum of money that the small market city cannot match. How do you think the Yankees build their team every year?? or Boston, or Philadelphia etc. They simply buy the stars from other teams whenever they have a weakness.
The player's union would jump at a chance to get rid of the cap without any hesitation, they hate the cap because it artificially limits player's salaries especially the stars.
Don't worry, the owners aren't stupid and have no intention of getting rid of the cap. Giving it up for one year has so many restrictions attached to it so no team can sign FA's at all since a player will have to have 6 years not 4 as in the current cap system to be a FA.