Skip to content

Team-by-team salary cap numbers, if there were a salary cap

On Saturday, we mentioned that three teams have committed less than $90 million to player compensation in the uncapped year.  Two teams have blown the curve.

Many of you have asked for more information about the expenditures of your favorite teams.

So we’ve got the full list.

And though we don’t want to pick on the Chargers any more than we already have, they’re in the bottom 25 percent in spending — even though they’ve chosen not to spend on left tackle Marcus McNeill and receiver Vincent Jackson.

Redskins:  $178.2 million.

Cowboys:  $166.5 million.

Saints:  $145.0 million.

Vikings:  $143.4 million.

Seahawks:  $138.8 million.

Jets:  $135.7 million.

Packers:  $135.3 million.

Raiders:  $135.2 million.

Colts:  $133.1 million.

Bears:  $131.9 million.

Eagles:  $131.0 million.

Patriots:  $128.8 million.

Giants:  $128.6 million.

49ers:  $125.9 million.

Dolphins:  $123.8 million.

Texans:  $123.1 million.

Lions:  $122.9 million.

Steelers:  $122.9 million.

Browns:  $122.8 million.

Ravens:  $122.3 million.

Falcons:  $118.5 million.

Titans:  $118.0 million.

Panthers:  $110.9 million.

Rams:  $109.1 million.

Chargers:  $108.0 million.

Bills:  $105.3 million.

Broncos:  $102.9 million.

Bengals:  $100.8 million.

Cardinals:  $97.8 million.

Jaguars:  $89.5 million.

Chiefs:  $84.5 million.

Buccaneers:  $80.8 million.

Permalink 53 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Features, Los Angeles Chargers, Rumor Mill, Sprint Football Live - Rumors, Top Stories
53 Responses to “Team-by-team salary cap numbers, if there were a salary cap”
  1. JerryDignan says: Sep 19, 2010 10:50 AM

    God the Glazers are assholes.

  2. JackieTreehorn says: Sep 19, 2010 10:52 AM

    Wow….good info. Good Job PFT.

  3. HBOilers24 says: Sep 19, 2010 10:57 AM

    top 5 teams went 3-2
    last 5 team went 4-1
    it will be interesting to see what the win-loss is after the season as compared to the “cap”.
    p.s. yes i’m aware that 4 of the top 5 teams played each other last week so 1 of them had to lose but still

  4. GoBeavs74 says: Sep 19, 2010 11:01 AM

    Didn’t take long without a cap for the NFL to become MLB. Thanks Bucs for showing us that every league will have their own version of the Kansas City Royals.

  5. PirateFreedom says: Sep 19, 2010 11:03 AM

    Nothing says “don’t kill the goose NFLPA” like a bunch of teams spending less than they would have in a capped year.

  6. crimsonking52 says: Sep 19, 2010 11:06 AM

    Wow! It looks as though the Buccaneers are keeping their money in their buccan pockets.

  7. Dryheave says: Sep 19, 2010 11:07 AM

    wow Florio!….HOW THRILLING!… you have anymore USLESS information for me?

  8. jth23 says: Sep 19, 2010 11:11 AM

    ohhhhkay….. im not sure what the story here is. looks to me like there are some teams that spend the least are pretty quality teams, and then there are teams that are just blowing money because we all know that the seahawks raiders and bears really have a chance to do anything at all this year……..

  9. MrHumble says: Sep 19, 2010 11:12 AM

    Good info PFT……shows you what teams are committed to putting a good team on the field.

  10. Louie says: Sep 19, 2010 11:12 AM

    How many years in a row have been the Bucs been at or near the bottom of this list??? 6? 7?

  11. Bigbluefan says: Sep 19, 2010 11:13 AM

    98 Million between the deadskins and the suckneers
    One will finish last in the South the other 3rd in the east
    Not sure that the Glazers are that stupid
    If you know you can not win why piss it away
    Sounds like a good business by the sucks where as the deadskins being in DC spend like the Goverment and with the same results

  12. whodey5 says: Sep 19, 2010 11:13 AM

    I’m kind of shocked to see the Bengals near the bottom. With all of the big names he signed this year, I thought the Bengals would be in the top 10 this year. I guess he got these free agents on the cheap. Some things never change.

  13. lurch's nyquil says: Sep 19, 2010 11:13 AM

    get it out of the way this year. nice job bruce.

  14. Bengalguy says: Sep 19, 2010 11:14 AM

    Bengals 5th from the bottom…and they won the AFC North last year.
    What if Mikey REALLY wanted to spend his $$$???

  15. Wellsee says: Sep 19, 2010 11:14 AM

    “And though we don’t want to pick on the Chargers any more than we already have, they’re in the bottom 25 percent in spending ”
    And they are already having blackouts, too.

  16. NFLMMAfan says: Sep 19, 2010 11:14 AM

    Pats, Texans, Steelers, and Ravens found the sweet spot of putting good teams on the field without paying way too much. Shows talent and integrity when making decisions in the front office.
    ‘Lil Danny will never learn. Danny wants the highest fanchise value. ‘Skins fans want a good team. Not the same goal.

  17. ChrisD says: Sep 19, 2010 11:15 AM

    Come on Florio, you made a career out of posting the real numbers about the CBA and real contract figures. This is totally misleading.
    Team expenditures and salary cap numbers are not the same. All these large signing bonuses to highly paid players would be prorated, etc.

  18. liquidgrammar says: Sep 19, 2010 11:18 AM

    I’m shocked that more teams aren’t taking advantage of this loophole. Then again, the coffers have to be full when they go to war with the NFLPA. What a bunch of tools!!!

  19. faulkn22 says: Sep 19, 2010 11:19 AM

    LOL. the Redskins are spending twice the Buc’s and then some. Parity my ass

  20. section128drunk says: Sep 19, 2010 11:21 AM

    the Chargers also can’t sell out a home opener despite being one of the top teams in the league for years…
    I wouldn’t spend money to keep those assbag fans happy either

  21. sask99 says: Sep 19, 2010 11:23 AM

    Of course these numbers are inflated since teams have had money hit the ‘cap number’ this year that they normally would have pushed into future years.
    Reality is… spending is way down over other years

  22. coliwoood says: Sep 19, 2010 11:26 AM

    has anyone ever noticed that the teams that spend the most and least amount of money rarely win the title.

  23. twinkletoes says: Sep 19, 2010 11:27 AM

    My Raiders are the eighth highest on this list, yet rank nowhere near the top 20 in terms of winningness. They’re the bizarro Yankees.
    There’s no way Undead Al can keep the team economically viable in a place like Detroit West unless the team is a consistent playoff contender, which it isn’t.
    Portland Raiders… sounds okay.

  24. marjo says: Sep 19, 2010 11:30 AM

    What’s worse, the Bucs being pikers ($80 mil), or the Browns and Lions spending what they do on the collection of stiffs they each have ($122 mil each).
    Easily the latter.

  25. jimcg511 says: Sep 19, 2010 11:31 AM

    So much for the Pats being “cheap”.

  26. Dryheave says: Sep 19, 2010 11:33 AM

    what are you talkin’ bout’ faulkn22?…..yes, the redskins spend alot but , HELLO McFLY……….THEY STILL SUCK

  27. rickvaldez says: Sep 19, 2010 11:38 AM

    Anyone that knows about the Skins knows they re worked Alberts and Halls contract this year to give them a huge bonus so thier salary isnt a big cap hit next year if they do have a cap.

  28. agenice says: Sep 19, 2010 11:40 AM

    Skins paid more than the rest to “fix” haynesworths deal and a lot of other contrast that Cerato and Snyder screwed up over the last 10 years.
    This is a clearing house year for the redskins. Next year they will be closer to the middle of the pack. Of course, most of the uninformed on this site will try and say it’s Snyder overspending still.
    In case you haven’t heard. Snyder only writes the checks now. He doesn’t have anything to do with personell or players. NOTHING. Get it through your stupid thick skulls.

  29. Joe Williams says: Sep 19, 2010 11:40 AM

    Chargers, Cardinals and Bengals fans should be pissed they have teams that should be in serious contention if only their tight-fisted owners would pony up some dough to patch holes and take them to the next level. Especially the Chargers who must think they can coast to a division win, lose in the playoffs and it won’t affect their bottom line, but I think the lack of sell outs says differently.
    What it says is that teams are making money even if they don’t sell out their stadiums thus adding a boost to the NFLPA argument. Otherwise, teams would be fighting hard to spend more and win it all but I see too many owners just fielding a mediocre team, spending as little as possible and knowing they will still rake in the cash.

  30. CottageCheese * Packer Wife says: Sep 19, 2010 11:40 AM

    Kind of shocked to see the Pats where they are. would have thought them to be a bit higher but I guess they have 0 cash in RB or bid name D. Anywhoo, I’m a fat Packer woman and am in need of food. Toodles

  31. gojev93 says: Sep 19, 2010 11:43 AM

    The bottom 4 teams that spent the least are all 1-0
    Spending $$ doesn’t guarantee success. You also need team chemistry

  32. NFLMMAfan says: Sep 19, 2010 11:47 AM

    Go back over the last ten years and calculate the salary per win. Call it the List of Accountability.
    Redskins and Raiders have to be at the bottom of that list.

  33. steelerfan9598 says: Sep 19, 2010 12:10 PM

    The Bengals moved up by giving Antonio Bryant 8 mil for nothing.

  34. hawksfan2005 says: Sep 19, 2010 12:10 PM

    I would have though that Seattle would be more in the middle of the list, not top 5. I keep forgetting we have one of the richest owners in the league. Would be nice to start spending that money on quality during this rebuild 2.0.

  35. Hauschild says: Sep 19, 2010 12:17 PM

    Seems to me the Glazers are pretty thrifty. Why blow money on useless FA’s? There haven’t been many decent ones over the past few years.
    Their spending half of what the DeadSkins are, yet the Bucs will probably end up with about the same record at season’s end.
    Ain’t rocket science, ladies.

  36. TheToolofTools says: Sep 19, 2010 12:24 PM

    if they are locked out.. i’m bailing on the nfl just like i did on mlb.
    i miss mlb, but not enough to go back even though i have the means.

  37. IanWhetstone says: Sep 19, 2010 12:27 PM

    Keep in mind that these are measures of what teams’ cap numbers would be, not of their expenditures this year. The Redskins look that bloated because they dumped a ton of dead money into the uncapped year; the Cowboys orchestrated a bunch of deals to have ballooning cap figures in 2010 two years ago when the writing was on the wall that the owners would pull the plug on the CBA early. Neither team is actually spending nearly that much this year.
    On the other hand, the Patriots are spending significantly more than either, but a lot of it is in signing bonuses (particularly the big ones to Brady and Wilfork) that don’t show directly in this kind of figure.

  38. Dryheave says: Sep 19, 2010 12:35 PM

    HEY FLORIO!….if you had a cap number it would be a BIG FAT ZERO…

  39. MagicMan407 says: Sep 19, 2010 12:40 PM

    Yeah yeah! HAIL!

  40. Jason says: Sep 19, 2010 1:24 PM

    To add to what Ian said the Redskins used cap rules to bloat the cap numbers of players like Haynesworth who is carrying a cap figure in the vicinity of 26 million and DeAngelo Hall who carries a tag around 18 million. If a cap was in place those numbers would be far far far lower. The Jets have a high number, but that also includes a bunch of dead money allocated to two players (Rhodes and Faneca) who never would have been moved in a capped season. My guess is alot of those high figure teams dont really represent as large separation from the bottom of the pack as the list suggests. I have a feeling the actual cash expenditures (or even what would be normal cap figures) are probably far closer and probably 10-15% off what they have been in the recent past.

  41. Electrogasm says: Sep 19, 2010 3:11 PM

    Looks like the Chargers are the shrewdest team in the NFL by only spending $8.3M per win last year. The worst? Washington by a longshot at $44.55M.

  42. Tcostant says: Sep 20, 2010 10:43 AM

    The last two teams are both 2-0

  43. Tandem says: Sep 20, 2010 10:48 AM

    where do you get your numbers from? i have checked out skins salaries on 3 different sites and the consensus is that it’s around $123million this season.

  44. SoFlor Steeler says: Sep 20, 2010 11:50 AM

    This is a bit misleading – a better measure – and the one that is the basis of the struggle to get a new CBA is % of revenues that go to player compensation. The Redskins are high – around 63% – but not the highest. The Raiders are over 75% and the Saints, Seahawks and Vikings are all above the Redskins in this measure – in the 68-70% range…
    Another way to look at it this is to consider “incremental” revenues over the average – for example, the Redskins are about $110 million above average in terms of total team revenues [Forbes has the numbers – Google it if you want]. So when they spend $90 million above average on compensation, the are merely choosing to invest a large portion of their incremental revenue in players – and they still “pocket” about $20 million in incremental profit – not an irrational choice.
    The relatively wide range of team revenues is going to make getting a labor agreement very difficult – Dan Snyder is making a lot of money using his business model – and the Bucs and Bengals can now make a lot of money using a very different approach since the do not have to pay a minimum revenue share to players now that the salary floor is gone…

  45. 1NationRaiderNation says: Sep 21, 2010 1:54 PM

    how much of this money goes to guys that you cut like J-Bust, and you also rookies signing bonuses…this can be skeweed however you want to look at it.
    Last year I know Rivers made 25 million the highest in the NFL

  46. dennis112484 says: Sep 21, 2010 9:56 PM

    this is what i have learned: pro sports in florida just dont work.

  47. chazman1975 says: Sep 22, 2010 7:21 PM

    From what I have read the cap would have been roughly $138 m this year and the floor would have been around $120m. 6 teams are over the ceiling representing 20% of the league yet 12 teams are under the would be floor which equals 40%. All this talk about how no cap would be a huge windfall for the players doesn’t seem to bear out.

  48. wax1973 says: Sep 23, 2010 8:03 PM

    to all the morons pointing to the teams at the bottom of the list going 1-0 to start the season and calling it a success:
    Really? You consider 1-0 a “success”? Anyone really think the Bucs, Chiefs, Jags or Cardinals are contenders? Cards make playoffs cuz their division is a joke (a CFL team might be able to compete in the NFC West in most years) but the other three are destined for playoff parties at home with their homies.

  49. wax1973 says: Sep 23, 2010 8:07 PM

    “Dan Snyder is making a lot of money using his business model”
    Your own argument shows that Snyder may not necessarily be making “a lot of money”. True, he has very high revenues, but he has very high player costs and expense. On a net profit basis, not sure your argument holds water.

  50. kravon says: Sep 24, 2010 10:12 AM

    Something to note is that the actual 2010 team payroll could be lower because the cap figures include players that were cut as well.

  51. Lance19 says: Sep 24, 2010 12:07 PM

    Chargers in the bottom 25 percent in spending — EVEN THOUGH they’ve chosen not to spend on left tackle Marcus McNeill and receiver Vincent Jackson?”
    What am I missing here?
    Shouldn’t it be BECAUSE 2 guys who would be among their highest paid, aren’t there, and thus aren’t getting paid?
    Last year Chargers outspent Colts…
    money wasn’t what stopped their Super Bowl run,
    the worst day in the career of the kicker did.

  52. snnyjcbs says: May 16, 2011 11:05 AM

    The Players better hope there is a CBA because if not my guess is that the 80 mil spent by the CHEAP OWNERS in the NFL of which there looks to be a few of will become the norm.

  53. drevilstolemymojito says: Jun 15, 2011 7:50 PM

    Looking at the stats after the season is long over, it does not appear that overpaying the help directly equates with success. It is more similar to the situation of hopefully intimidating others with your diamond encrusted Rolex.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!