Skip to content

Did NFLPA borrow against future salary caps to get to $120.6 million in 2012?

dollar-getty-1 Getty Images

Wednesday’s PFT Live featured a wide-ranging discussion with Jason Cole of Yahoo! Sports, which included an examination of the question of whether the Colts will, and should, take Andrew Luck with the first pick in the 2012 draft, and whether the Saints should tab Bill Parcells as the interim head coach during the suspension of Sean Payton.

We also talked about the ongoing salary-cap saga involving the Redskins and the Cowboys and their spending in what supposedly was the uncapped year.  The situation continues to cry out “collusion,” but the NFL apparently is facing no real consequences because the party that would be most impacted by evidence of collusion — the NFLPA — signed away all collusion claims in 2011 and, more recently, agreed to take $46 million from teams that like to spend it and redistribute it to 28 other teams, many of whom don’t like to spend it.

Thus, in exchange for taking $23 million in 2012 and 2013 from the Redskins and Cowboys, the salary cap was increased from $116 million per team to $120.6 million per team.

That’s $147.2 million.  So where did it come from?

Cole surmises that the NFLPA has borrowed against the cap in future years, which means that the cap in future years will be lower than it otherwise should be.  Which means that a spike in the cap is less likely.  Which means that the players eventually may be feeling more than a little buyer’s remorse.

But that’s just one small aspect of the conversation with Cole.  For all of it, check out segment 3 of Wednesday’s PFT Live.

This video is no longer available. Click here to watch more NBC Sports videos!
Permalink 20 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Home, Rumor Mill
20 Responses to “Did NFLPA borrow against future salary caps to get to $120.6 million in 2012?”
  1. sanjose61 says: Mar 28, 2012 10:13 PM

    I wonder if this is what Bob Kraft was alluding to last week when he was making comments about the salary cap being flat in the coming years.

  2. onlysane1intheroom says: Mar 28, 2012 10:19 PM

    Kraft warned…

  3. khuxford says: Mar 28, 2012 10:29 PM

    The more I hear, the more likely I think it is that DeMaurice will be out on his ass and the NFL will get hit with a collusion suit.

  4. khuxford says: Mar 28, 2012 10:35 PM

    sanjose61 says:
    Mar 28, 2012 10:13 PM
    I wonder if this is what Bob Kraft was alluding to last week when he was making comments about the salary cap being flat in the coming years.
    ____________________

    But the NFLPA says a spike is coming and they’d be just as aware of whatever negotiations were done. So…if they did rob Peter to pay Paul, then they’re telling a lie that will just be discovered within a year?

  5. jackers252 says: Mar 28, 2012 10:36 PM

    Kraft is crafty, you two on the other hand….

  6. sadskinsfan89 says: Mar 28, 2012 10:38 PM

    I have a credit card with no limit so I charged 100 grand on it then I received a notice saying I went over my limit and had to pay penalty fees. Does that sound messed up to anyone? same thing nfl is doing

  7. k0mbucha says: Mar 28, 2012 10:43 PM

    DeMaurice` contract was due to expire so one would have to wonder would he be easily influenced to keep his job.

  8. turgidsen says: Mar 28, 2012 10:50 PM

    Interesting that no one has mentioned that when goodell was asked to describe an uncapped salary year, he couldn’t ???? Could you guys do a story on that?

  9. billinlouisiana says: Mar 28, 2012 11:46 PM

    khuxford says:Mar 28, 2012 10:29 PM

    The more I hear, the more likely I think it is that DeMaurice will be out on his ass and the NFL will get hit with a collusion suit.

    ———————————————————-

    He was just revoted in as the executive director of the NFLPA in a unanimous vote so I doubt he gets thrown out any time soon.

  10. babyhorsemorgan says: Mar 28, 2012 11:58 PM

    DeMaurice Smith, (aka “Wimpy”) will gladly pay you on Tuesday of next year for the hamburgers he eats today.

  11. kevpft says: Mar 29, 2012 12:16 AM

    So the NFLPA did something very similar to what the Cowboys and Redskins did, and now they’re helping to make sure that two teams that paid their players a lot of money are fined?

    This is some logic.

  12. realfann says: Mar 29, 2012 12:36 AM

    The Redskins and Cowboys issue has NOTHING to do with how much they spent in 2010. It was an uncapped year. They could have spent a billion dollars on player salaries in that year and the league would have had ZERO problem with it.

    The problem is that those two teams paid player salaries in 2010 that would not have been earned UNTIL 2011, 2012, 2013 etc.

    They KNEW years after 2010 would be capped so they deliberatly tried to give themselves a cap advantage in those years by paying bills early.

    Nothing to do with collusion. If the teams had decided to pay their players $10m each for 2010 ($530m in total for the year), NOBODY, NOBODY, NOBODY would have had any issue.

    The problem is that the contracts paid big salaries in 2010 and tiny salaries in following years. Totally unrepresentively tiny salaries.

    Do you get it yet PFT?????????

    NO COLLUSION !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  13. denverscott says: Mar 29, 2012 12:44 AM

    Team owners a billionaire boys club. Before the “uncapped” year each received a letter warning against doing what Washington and Dallas did, noting that they would be penalized. Call it a gentlemans agreement between the super rich. All the owners knew what was to happen to keep overheads as low as possible. Two of the more affluent teams decided to go against the gentlemans agreement and got slapped for it. That’s why they have “owners meetings”. They don’t have the same rules as the players or the general population for that matter. Don’t like it? Make a few billion dollars and buy a team. At the end of the day, for good or bad, the owners ARE the NFL. The players are well paid hired help.

  14. zinn22 says: Mar 29, 2012 1:16 AM

    Keep in mind the NLPA gave up their rights to file collusion charges against the NFL for league and the owners part in coordinating spending in the uncapped year.

    The players should get something in return for giving up their right to recover for the owners collusion, which seems to be a pretty strong case with the NFL sending out at least letters to teams instructing them not to overspend. $4 Million seems like a pretty small amount for giving up that right. But then again Smith needed that increase this year to keep his job so maybe that is why they gave up so much for so little.

  15. stats5 says: Mar 29, 2012 1:27 AM

    De. Smith is looking worse and worse. When will the players wake up and realize what he has gotten them into?

  16. Revolution22 says: Mar 29, 2012 6:23 AM

    khuxford says:Mar 28, 2012 10:35 PM

    But the NFLPA says a spike is coming and they’d be just as aware of whatever negotiations were done. So…if they did rob Peter to pay Paul, then they’re telling a lie that will just be discovered within a year?

    Doesn’t really matter, does it? Not to Mawae, and DeMaurice anyway. They had their money grab, and “negotiations.” Yeah, let’s keep letting unions do their thing here. Maybe we can run the NFL into the ground.

    Cooooooooooool![/sarcasm]

  17. weaponx73 says: Mar 29, 2012 7:11 AM

    @realfan

    Thank you!!! This site is driving me crazy about this. It has nothing to do with the cowboys and redskins spent lots of money its that they manipulated contracts so they could take the hits from them in the uncapped year. Thats why they got penalized yet pro football talk insists on pretending that they are being penalized for handing out big contracts. And how do you know that wasn’t what happened? Cowboys and Redskins had to re-work zero contracts and cut zero players to be under the cap when it was reinstated.

  18. sullijo1 says: Mar 29, 2012 7:38 AM

    These players clearly need a union to protect them from starving……

    Wait, never mind…..on both points.

  19. khuxford says: Mar 29, 2012 7:47 AM

    @Revolution22: I love the smell of ignorance in the morning. It smells like…ignorance! With a hint of redundancy.

    @Zinn22: Actually, no, as their negotiations were done in violation of the rules and of the law. The NFLPA can bounce the individuals out and pursue the case. Hell, even if they couldn’t, a group of players could file suit against the NFL *and* the NFLPA for collusion.

    @billinlouisiana: Yes, he was revoted before much of the implications were clear and while all of the information still has not come out. If further information shows that he, indeed, did screw over the players in an attempt to save his job, he’ll get ejected.

  20. dhook93 says: Mar 30, 2012 12:49 AM

    If i was an NFL player, I would be trying to get De fired asap. NFL is in best financial shape its ever been in and your salary cap is going down? If they did borrow from future caps it was solely so he could keep his job.

Leave a Reply

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