Small Market Steelers
Demise of Salary Cap Could Threaten Team
By Tim Benz

Pittsburgh saw Jaromir Jagr traded to Washington for three AHL players and a bag of pucks. The city witnessed the trade of Alexei Kovalev to New York for a pack of journeymen and an oil change certificate for the zamboni. It experienced Jason Kendall getting traded to Oakland for two mediocre pitchers, one of whom (Arthur Rhodes) may not have even gotten word that he was a Pirate before he was dealt away again.

And the list doesn’t stop there. How about all the other guys who have left the Steel City for various places via free agency or salary dumping trades? Bonds, Bonilla, Drabek, Straka, Lang, Giles, Kasperitis: okay, that’s enough pain for one story.

Now picture this little tidbit trailing across the “Bottom Line” on ESPN circa 2009: “The Pittsburgh Steelers trade quarterback Ben Roethlisberger to Washington for two third-round draft choices and a reserve long-snapper.”

Yeah, it’s far-fetched. But the distasteful prospect of a National Football League without a salary cap does exist. Unless the collective bargaining agreement between the NFL and its players’ union is extended soon, the 2007 season may operate without a cap. The language of the current CBA states that, barring an extension to the deal (which is set to expire after the 2008 draft), boundless spending will be allowed after the 2006 season.

That threat is being viewed as a catalyst on both sides to get a deal done. Clearly most owners don’t want the cap to disappear. Most owners don’t want a Major League Baseball-esque arms race.

You’d figure players would love that idea. But the caveat for the players is that those who would qualify for free agency after four accrued seasons following the 2006 year would have their current contracts extended an extra two years if the cap were to expire.

Furthermore, the current salary basement would be eliminated too. As of now, teams have to put a minimum of approximately 58% of their shared revenue back into player salaries. So some NFL teams could employ a Kevin McClatchy type of business model: Forget being competitive, just stay out of the red. Since teams such as the 49ers, Bengals, and Cardinals have been accused of being cheap with a basement, imagine what fans would think of their $40 million rosters going up against a Dan Snyder team that he could assemble with $35 million more on top of what he’s already spending.

So the NFLPA isn’t a fan of the notion either. After all, less than a third of the NFL’s owners would have the capability to “go Steinbrenner” with their salaries, even if they were allowed to do so. That means about 66% of the league would be less inclined to spend big. And with 53 men on a roster instead of 25 or 40, it’s harder for Snyder to overwhelm, say, a Larry Foote to back-up three other high-priced linebackers while the Steelers couldn’t even compete, even though they’d offer Foote a chance to start.

Although the threat of an uncapped year is still a few years away, representatives on both sides would like to snuff the prospect of it ASAP.

“We better it get it done this year,” Steelers’ chair Dan Rooney told PSR.

In an ominous turn of phrase, NFLPA leader Gene Upshaw indicated that one uncapped year would alter spending habits forever. “The genie would be out of the bottle,” he said.

The league and the players union have had a far better relationship in the past than has been the case in both hockey and baseball. “We have the best run league going right now,” says Steelers’ player representative Mike Schneck.

The NFL hasn’t seen a work stoppage since 1987, but there are issues developing on both sides that indicate extending this current agreement will be a more difficult task than it has been in year’s past.

First of all, the NFL players get a sizably smaller slice of the pie than the players in other sports get. On top of that, the ingredients in the pie are being brought into question. The opinion of both owners and players is that a bigger gap exists between the segments of “have” and “have not” teams than what the average fan assumes to be the case, because of the cap and the well publicized revenue sharing national television deal.

Various local broadcasting deals, marketing opportunities and income from parking and concessions have boosted a list of about seven or eight teams significantly higher than the rest of the league. According to Upshaw, that type of revenue is up 7% league-wide since 1994. That money is believed to total about $2 billion.

The players want in on that money. They want the cap to go higher as a result. The mid-to-smaller market owners want that money shared too, and they want the CBA extended quickly so those top tier teams don’t have the option of spending willy-nilly with income streams they don’t have. The list on top is believed to include the likes of Dallas, Houston, the New York teams, Washington, and maybe New England.

The Steelers are not on that list.

“People are saying there are eight teams on the top, eight on the bottom, and the other 16 in the middle. And the ones in the middle, they say they’ll be all right. Well they won’t be all right,” says Rooney. “Because you’re creating an imbalance. These eight teams on the top will have the ability to spend money, not just on players, but things beyond players: coaches, facilities, etc.”

If one uncapped year did have an extended effect as Upshaw suggests it would, the question for Steelers’ fans becomes more difficult. In recent years, when NFL gross income numbers and franchise value price tags (those numbers include all that unshared revenue) have been released, the Steelers steadily fall between 14th and 17th in the 32-team league.

Hence, in baseball terms, the Steelers wouldn’t turn into the Pirates or Brewers in an uncapped NFL. But they wouldn’t exactly be the Red Sox or Yankees either. In an uncapped NFL, try picturing the Steelers as the Oakland Athletics in shoulder pads: a team healthy enough to keep Mulder, Hudson and Zito through arbitration and maybe one big contract. But they’d also be a team that needs to let Giambi and Tejada walk.

Maybe Kevin Colbert should call Billy Bean and ask for a complimentary copy of “Moneyball.”

Rooney insists that even if an uncapped NFL does come into existence, the Steelers won’t turn into the Pirates or Penguins. He says the fan base is big enough and supportive enough to prevent that from happening. He also pledges to put what revenue he does have back into the roster. That’s something McClatchy and Mario Lemieux have been accused of avoiding.

Of course, for Rooney, that’s easier said than done. Even he will allow, “But without a cap, who knows?”

While the three-way split between high revenue owners, lower revenue owners, and players sounds eerily similar to the near work stoppage we saw in baseball a few summers ago, there is one distinct difference in this NFL situation. At least it lacks the saber rattling we’ve seen in baseball and hockey. All sides seem to be pointing at a way to keep a good partnership working, rather than threatening various ways to grab the biggest sack of cash. Kimo von Oelhoffen, an alternate player’s rep for the Steelers, sums up why optimism still exists.

“They are very intelligent groups. They are groups with goals. They’re groups who have gotten it done in the past. I see no reason why it wouldn’t get done again,” von Oelhoffen said.

Steelers’ fans better hope he’s right. Otherwise Ben Roethlisberger may want to start looking for an all burgundy and gold wardrobe instead of a black and gold one.

Tim Benz hosts a sports talk show weekends on ESPN Radio 1250.