Skip to content

NFLPA monitoring evidence of collusion in light of cap increases

wbbm-1018-cash Getty Images

In recent years, the salary cap hasn’t been going up by much.  Which means spending hasn’t been going up much.  With the cap going up, spending should go up, too.  And the NFLPA is making sure that other forces, such as collusion, won’t be holding spending down.

Per a league source, the union conducted an informal conference call with a group of agents on Thursday to explore the question of whether any agents believe collusion is occurring.  During the call, no agent came forward with any specific proof or allegation about collusive behavior in the marketplace.  And for good reason; this year saw a record number of free-agent signings and total spending.

Still, with the cap going up $10 million per team this year and expected to continue to spike annually, the NFLPA will continue to monitor the situation, with specific attention being paid to veteran players who are cut with the excuse that the team needs salary-cap space.

Some have suspected collusion regarding the absence of long-term extensions for 2011 first-round picks.  With cornerback Patrick Peterson receiving a five-year extension from the Cardinals and tackle Tyron Smith getting an eight-year extension from the Cowboys, the hope is that other teams will reward 2011 first-round picks who were underpaid by a system that guards against busts.

Permalink 9 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Home, Rumor Mill
9 Responses to “NFLPA monitoring evidence of collusion in light of cap increases”
  1. thestrategyexpert says: Jul 31, 2014 2:06 PM

    The system doesn’t guard against busts very well. We still see a lot of players get way too much money relative to what they contribute and what they deserve. It’s a big problem that affects spending in a major way for the players that stick and that are worth keeping around more than those busts. That’s where the good players and those that deserve the money are losing the most.

    And the salary cap rules require the 89% minimum spending threshold anyhow, so all teams will have to eventually comply with that, and there’s no rule that says a team has to spend anything other than the minimum, so if a team wants to curb their own spending and go for a lower cost payroll then that’s their right to choose that path.

  2. ufanforreal says: Jul 31, 2014 2:20 PM

    The NFL is going to keep raising the price tag till the people supplying the green runs dry.

  3. dryzzt23 says: Jul 31, 2014 2:28 PM

    It seems that the NFLPA monitors the NFL owners extremely closely but they sure as h*ll won’t monitor their own clients drug use, alcohol abuse, spending habits, or behavioral issues in order to provide the best service for players.

    No, it is far more important for the NFLPA to make sure that the players get paid as much as possible so that the union gets its cut of those salaries. The NFLPA gets paid regardless, yet the players cannot see that they’d be better off if they did not have the union.
    Players pay fees to their agent, AND to the NFLPA, for the same thing. Why not cut the NFLPA out and save some money, which they WILL need after football.

  4. ahsinnyc says: Jul 31, 2014 2:43 PM

    The NFLPA is way too late to the game.

    They had their chance in 2011, but in D. Smith’s infinite wisdom, he gave the green light to Mara to screw over the Redskins and Cowboys.

  5. brownsmakemecrazy says: Jul 31, 2014 3:02 PM

    Collusion absolutely is going on. Free agents aren’t getting the money they used to. Players are getting blackballed. Some surprising free agents are unsigned.

    I’m surprised Eric Winston got re-sign ed. He was a player that spoke out and finally signed with a team. Something is going on and the owners are keeping g salaries Down due to likelihood of major lawsuits coming against them and the league.

  6. jshawaii22 says: Jul 31, 2014 3:23 PM

    The NFLPA does NOT get a ‘cut’ of any salary. Union Dues are paid monthly for all players who are in the union. Everyone pays the same, just like all unions.

    Eric Winston was not ‘re-signed’ by the Seahawks. He has never been on the Seahawks until this week. He was a FA and probably signed close to the Vets’ minimum, due to the fact the Seahawks are up against the cap.

    The NFLPA is doing their due diligence, but with all the large contracts going out this year and teams spending up to the cap, we probably shouldn’t hear a lot of complaints going on.

    js

  7. bam5239 says: Jul 31, 2014 3:48 PM

    @dryzzt23 Why exactly should the NFLPA be baby sitting the players they represent? For that matter, why should the NFL babysit the players that play for them? Would you tolerate your employer telling you that you can or can not drink, where you can go, or what you can do after work?

    These men are 20+ years old, if they haven’t learned to be grown ups by the time they’re 21; that’s a failure of their parents and communities, not the NFL or NFLPA. The purpose of the NFL is to make money facilitating football games. The purpose of the NFLPA is to make their player/members earn as much money as possible. Being the moral police for the players is a marketing decision that both organizations choose to engage in. I hope you don’t rely on your boss to make sure you’re a good person, if so you are failing in life and need to grow up.

  8. brownsmakemecrazy says: Jul 31, 2014 5:15 PM

    @jshawaii22

    Re-signed by a team is what I meant not re-sign ed by Seahawks

  9. binarymath says: Aug 1, 2014 11:13 AM

    “monitoring the situation” is code for “we (the NFLPA) are going to stand out and bask in the sunshine of the increased salary cap and remind our subjects – oops, we mean PLAYERS – that it is entirely due to our tireless efforts that it is not raining…”

    Nope. Nothing self-serving here.

Leave a Reply

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