Talk:Salary cap

message: This article is a bit American-centric: the Australian Football League had a salary cap in 1984, well before the timeframe this article is discussing. I don't want to edit this article straight away in case I'm just being Australian-centric, there may be instances of salary caps being used before then. Anyone know of any? Shane King 07:19, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)
:The early history of professional sports (19th century - 1930s) in North America was replete with salary caps, tacit in most cases, open in a few.  Mostly they were the result of tacit agreements amoung owners and the resultant "peer pressure".  Once the reserve clause became a common feature, they were essentially unnecessary until it was overturned, because each player was essentially held hostage by it to his current team, and salary caps were then unnecessary until it was overturned, in the U.S. at least by a combination of collective bargaining and legal action.  What I would like to know is if there were similar arrangements in professional sports elsewhere?  Can you answer this?
: (Of course the article is only North-American-centric due to ignorance of the authors, or at least of this one, of the practices outside of North America, and not any lack of interest or ineherent bias.)
: Rlquall 17:10, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Earlier salary caps

message: Great Info - To bad it turns into a preaching editoral.  And in one of the answers below - just cause its not clear - Its the top 53 (I assume that number is correct - was what I was actually looking for) in terms of dollars earned that year.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.234.102.128 (talk • contribs) 07:28, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Editorial

message: This is a very thorough entry, but there are several passages that seem to be advocating in favor of the salary cap, rather than simply giving information about it. Even in the "criticisms" section, the overall tone seems to be in support of salary caps. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.12.193.184 (talk • contribs) 23:41, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV? 

message: I simply have to strenuously object to the following: "However, many fans acknowledge that the lack of a salary cap has caused skyrocketing player salaries and that these increased costs are eventually passed on to rising ticket prices." This is not only contestable, but, in my opinion, probably false. There is little evidence that increased player salaries lead to increased ticket prices, and it also runs completely counter to basic economic theory. One only needs to look at college football ticket prices to see very high prices to watch players who don't get paid at all. David Grabiner addresses this at , and also notes that in the first 15 years or so of free agency, player salaries skyrocketed exponentially, but ticket prices, adjusted for inflation, did not.
Also this was discussed at length in Andrew Zimbalist's Baseball and Billions. Zimbalist is also quoted here  saying much the same:
“Yet if you ask the majority of fans they’ll say that ticket prices have gone up too rapidly and the main reason for that is that [player] salaries are exploding. It is false. Any rational owner sets his ticket prices according to the demand for the game. And if he is doing anything but that, then he is not maximizing his revenues.’’
A simple google search of "+ticket-prices +player-salaries" will reveal an astounding number of links to sports economists all saying the same thing. 
Because a raise in player salaries does not affect the marginal cost to the team of selling an extra ticket, that raise will not have any effect on the price at which profit is maximized (when marginal revenue equals marginal cost). Because of this, the salaries of the ushers and vendors at the park would have more effect on ticket prices than the players. In layman's terms, if teams could bring in more money simply by raising ticket prices, that's exactly what they're going to do regardless of how much any of their players make. By using the word "acknowledge" the above quote suggests that the point made is generally accepted. It is at best strenuously contested, and, at worst, patent nonsense. It's generally peddled by team ownership to justify increased ticket prices and for use as a tool against players during contract negotiations.
I'm a wikipedia newbie so I don't know the proper procedure for an edit. But I really would like to see this dealt with. But I can and will if I need to, I just don't want to screw something up. --Voros 11:44, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Player Salaries and Ticket Prices 

message: The penalties for breaching AFL salary cap regulations can be severe. In 2002, Carlton was found to have systematically rorted the regulations over a period of some years. Resultingly, it was heavily fined and stripped of its top player picks in that year's national draft. Carlton is still recovering from these penalties.
The worst word ever is without doubt, "Resultingly."  Don't change it.  People must see the most awful word in the history of the Universe. MrAngy 05:07, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Worst Word Ever 

message: I notice the article links to "Luxury tax" in the MLB section; however the term luxury tax actually appears earlier in the article under the NBA section (just above).  Wouldn't it make more sense to link the first occurence rather than the 2nd?
-PK9 00:49, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link to Luxury Tax 

message: There are little or no sources for any info on the NHL cap. The info on how a team can get rid of a player's salary is unsatisfactory (unsourced, and completely original research). There is no evidence that the listed ways of dumping salary are the only ways, and the statement that "it appears..." that another way would work is completely unacceptable. Unless someone can source a statement of how a team may dump salary, I don't think it should be re-added. As a point, I believe Alexander Mogilny was sent to the minors by New Jersey because they needed cap room for Elias who was coming off the injured reserve. This implies that a) an injured player bumps the cap (which I know is true - a team is allowed to increase their salaries by the injured player's salary - if they are spending 30 and a 3 million player is hurt at the start of a season, they can add up to 3 million dollar a year-worth of salary more than they previously had); and b) that sending Mogilny to the minors relieved the team of his salary towards the cap, which was not mentioned as a way to dump salary. TheHYPO (talk) 03:16, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  NHL issue 

message: "The libertarian view also *ignores the fact* that sports leagues are premised upon competition that is more tightly regulated (by the rules of the sport) than almost any other occupation. Sports leagues, especially in North America, are in a sense *socialistic in nature*."
Wow.  That's a pretty lame way to end the article.  Regarding "the libertarian view", it's arguable whether any two libertarians share the same view on anything.  To assert that "the libertarian view ... ignores the fact" is probably not supportable regardless of evidence or reference.  Perhaps this sentence would hold true if someone found a citation where the Libertarian Party argued that sports aren't tightly regulated along with a peer-reviewed study that they are, but I doubt any libertarian would claim that anything was not "tightly regulated."  Furthermore, I'd disagree that quarterbacks are more regulated than, say, doctors, judges, or police officers.  The sentence is pretty lame.
Second, to say that sports leagues are "socialistic in nature" is a pretty bad misunderstanding of socialism, capitalism, and markets in general.  You could say that sports leagues are *cartels*, like OPEC, but not socialistic in nature.  (In socialist theory, the owner+manager vs worker/player divide is pretty un-socialistic, as are the wide disparities in pay.  In socialist practice, when did the NFL last stage a genocide or purge, a hallmark of modern socialist regimes?)  Anyway, sports leagues are cartel, not socialist fiefs.  Nobody ever called the Saudi's communist for limiting oil production to increase prices.
That said, it's hard to argue that salary caps, which were decided *by* the free market, "restrict the free market," without at least discussing the antitrust exemptions of MLB, NFL, etc., but nobody is making this argument.  (Recall, e.g., that this exemption is why Senator Arlen Specter--for better or for worse--got involved in the NFL Spygate scandal.)  For example, perhaps the antitrust exemption prevents a second baseball association from competing, thus preventing the salary cap from being negotiated up to match the richer of the two leagues.  Of course, nobody has really argued this, and what second leagues there are pay so little as to not affect the big leagues (does a $2 million Arena Football team really put pressure on NFL teams with $110 million dollar budgets to raise salaries?).
I'm sure we can do better than this...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.182.188.34 (talk) 03:15, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sports = Socialism?  Stupid POV.  (Criticisms of salary caps -> Restricting Free Markets) 

message: As a positive, only twice in the past 30 years has a team won the World Series with a $100 million plus payroll: the 2007 Red Sox and 2001 Yankees according to Joe Posnanski's December 2008 SI.com blog, which was addressed by Peter Gammons in a January 2009 espn.com article.
Last I checked, the Yankees lost that World Series to the Arizona Diamondbacks.
Perplexed 17:57, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: 2001 World Series

message: There is no source regarding these claims. I personally can't recall ever hearing or reading any comments like these made by members of the media or by players (current or former).  --Takara soong (talk) 02:28, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  CFL cap critism section 

message: A team with a $100 million plus payroll has won the World Series eight times (the 2009 Yankees, the 2004, 2007 and 2013 Red Sox, the 2011 St. Louis Cardinals, and the 2010, 2012 and 2014 San Francisco Giants); however, while $100 million plus payrolls have only existed since 2001, the last team to win the World Series with a payroll less than $100 million was the 2008 Philadelphia Phillies (payroll $98.26 million). However, this can be explained by the fact that the majority of elite players require high salaries when they hit free agency (unless team extends them beforehand)and teams with those players generally are going to perform better.
This portion is rather misleading since at this point in time the average salary for a team is $100 Million, stating that over the course of the last 13 years teams earning above the league average won the World Series about as often as teams earning below the league average is basically a more accurate summation of that statement. Which is to say it absolutely doesn't lend itself to any conclusion other than averages in sample sizes tend to appear about as you'd expect. It's not like there was a drastic shift over the years, it's been incremental and has hit every team at a similar rate and it's the league average has floated around the number for some time, it wasn't significantly lower as the section seems to imply, the cited 2008 Phillies team was 12th/30 every year since and 8 years in total they've been top 8 payroll with 7 of those being top 5 which should be a nice reminder of the misleading way in which baseball contracts are paid out. The average player salary has been trending up in a similar manner, as well as the salary floors being increased over that period. All of this is made worse by the fact that the section doesn't have a single source, the closest it comes is an an un-sourced allusion to a statement by the author of Moneyball. Here are a few sources that actually discuss and analyze the Luxury tax over the years in-case someone else has the time to rework, update and fix that section (I kinda don't), some of them are a little older:
# 2005 paper on estimated potential impact of the Luxury Tax, revised 2007
# 2011 paper analyzing the impact of the Luxury Tax
# Here's a Wall Street Journal article with actual criticism of the Luxury Tax
# Here's an article from Philly.com discussing the Phillies concerns and effect the luxury tax had on their decisions when they had the second largest payroll in baseball
# Some more information on it from the same source 
# Here's a list of postseason appearances and results since, well, postseason baseball started, for comparison purposes regarding the premise
# A Fangraphs discussion of the effects of luxury tax 
Good luck --Karekwords?! 05:35, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Luxury Tax Criticism Misleading 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 9 external links on Salary cap. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150121005347/http://www.cfl.ca/page/game_salary_man to http://cfl.ca/page/game_salary_man
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130128061517/http://www.ussoccer.com/News/NWSL/2013/01/Additional-Signing-Period-Open-for-NWSL-Clubs.aspx to http://www.ussoccer.com/News/NWSL/2013/01/Additional-Signing-Period-Open-for-NWSL-Clubs.aspx
*Added archive https://archive.is/20140917191834/http://www.premiershiprugby.com/news/33095.php to http://www.premiershiprugby.com/news/33095.php
*Added  tag to http://www.lnr.fr/IMG/pdf/Statuts_Reglements_LNR20122013_2-2.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130211031456/http://www.nbl.com.au/salary-cap-player-points to http://www.nbl.com.au/salary-cap-player-points
*Added archive https://archive.is/20130112095725/http://sportal.co.nz/default.aspx/Netball-news-display/new-netball-venture-steps-forward-40682 to http://sportal.co.nz/default.aspx/Netball-news-display/new-netball-venture-steps-forward-40682
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150108084217/http://profdeano.com/twenty20-to-smash-others-over-boundary.htm to http://profdeano.com/twenty20-to-smash-others-over-boundary.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140109034123/http://www.iplt20.com/news/2013/announcements/4248/pepsi-ipl-2014-player-regulations to http://www.iplt20.com/news/2013/announcements/4248/pepsi-ipl-2014-player-regulations
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090704072205/http://www.thehockeygm.com/ to http://www.thehockeygm.com/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100722080241/http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm to http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm
*Added  tag to http://hfbroads.com/showthread.php?t=16550
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:37, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified