The 2023 offseason saw four quarterbacks – Jalen Hurts (Eagles), Lamar Jackson (Ravens), Justin Herbert (Chargers) and, most recently, Joe Burrow (Bengals) earn the title of the league’s highest-paid player. The position has seen a major uptick in value in recent years, something which has obvious roster-building implications. 
The QB market’s market has grown at a noticeably higher rate than that of the salary cap, leading to mega-contracts for emerging passers and cost-cutting at other positions. NFL owners responded during the most recent round of CBA negotiations by considering the implementation of a maximum player salary, reports ESPN’s Jeremy Fowler. The idea was quickly shut down by the player’s association, though, leaving no upper limit on the annual compensation players can earn.
With Burrow’s $55MM AAV making him one of seven passers to earn at least $45MM per year on average, the appeal of a player cap is easy to see. The proposed idea would have instituted a system similar to that of supermax deals in the NBA, which dictate the earnings of star players (instead of teams and players individually negotiating monster contracts on a case-by-case basis). With the salary cap set to continue growing at a major rate with the arrival of new media rights deals and gambling revenue, QBs in particular are likely to see their market surge for years to come.
Given the upward trajectory of the cap, it is certainly interesting to wonder how owners wished to structure a leaguewide player ceiling and what figure they were prepared to arrive at as a maximum salary. Quarterbacks would no doubt be the players most affected by the proposal, but other positions – including receiver, edge rusher, cornerback and, as illustrated in recent months, defensive tackle – have seen healthy growth as well. An upper limit on quarterback earnings would likely have a trickle-down effect on the top earners at other positions.
That point would be especially true since the NFL, unlike the NBA, does not have a luxury tax to allow teams to significantly exceed the cap limit when making high-profile additions. In any event, the current CBA runs through the 2030 campaign, so plenty of time remains before the next round of talks between owners and the NFLPA. Where the league and its highest-paid players sit financially speaking at that time will influence how willing the owners are to make a second attempt at instituting a similar proposal to the one already floated.
Or, just abolish the salary cap.
No spending limits would probably translate to fans at the stadium being charged $100 for a hot dog and beer. I’d prefer to see them modify the current game model.
Player salaries don’t directly tie to what you pay for things at the stadium. If you look at baseball, the Mets and A’s have the same average ticket prices this season. I think things like hot dogs and beer prices are largely going to be dictated by what they feel they can get fans to pay in each market.
I feel like the “Super Max” cap is just another way they’re trying to suppress salaries overall, unless they put forth a proposal where if the QB makes 10m less a year, the Kicker, Punter and starting RB make 3m more each.
I was being sarcastic there, but in any business you’ll usually find that increased operating costs generally get passed on to the customers in one way or another.
The solution is to expand the franchise player concept to be something more than just a bargaining agreement weapon. I would give the tag a true franchise-level impact (and remove its negative impact) by making the franchise player’s salary for that year completely exempt from the team’s cap. Obviously the rule would need other tweaks, but the key idea would be to allow a team’s star to be paid without losing the ability to build a competitive team around him.
I’d actually borrow an idea from the NBA, allowing teams to exceed the cap to resign their own players. Teams that draft well should be rewarded. I think it’d help QB play around the league, too. Smart GMs would build the infrastructure around the QB first versus just throwing a rookie in there, that way when the rookie QB is due that first big deal they can go over the cap to pay it.
Same as the NBA, you go over the cap, you can’t offer anything more than minimum deals to other team’s free agent players on the market.
Interesting idea. Anything to stabilised rosters would be in the fans’ and games’ and even players’ interests.
The NFL owners are not as foolish as I thought. A maximum salary would benefit everyone except the forty players who are paid over that maximum.
As long as the salary cap remains in place with a fixed share of revenue, the same amount of revenue will be distributed among players, just no single player would be able to collect more than $30 million/year.
This would motivate teams to keep their veterans (as there would be money to spread around, wouldn’t just be stars and rookie contracts) and would make rosters much more stable.
Many players by staying in a home market for a decade would radically increase their endorsement income as Tom Brady did.
Everyone would win. Can’t understand why the NFLPA is so foolish to favour thirty of its members over the other 1666.
@Alec Kinnear
Then it would be correct to assume you are also for limiting the pay and income of hedge fund managers, CEO’s, bankers, physicians, restaurant workers, bartenders, etc., etc.?
I’m betting not. My guess is you’re only for limiting the income of certain types of careers and people.
That’s not the question, sharks. The question is how to share out the revenue more fairly to a group of players who are all running the same risk of injury and all sharing the same pot of gold. The pot of gold does not get bigger or smaller by distributing the income in a more reasonable way.
In most of the world, physicians in a hospital income share, bartenders and restaurant workers contribute part of their tips to a general tip pool. But again that’s not the question. The question is how to better advance the interests of 1696 active NFL players (that number does not count taxi squad and those who are on a roster for only part of a season). The current system benefits about thirty or forty players at the expense of everyone else: players, fans, the league. It’s absolutely stupid.
I see what you’re saying. Simply not a fan of “limiting” income because that typically works against the worker in most cases.
Perhaps when owners open up and share the books, I might lean toward your way of thinking.
I’m a fan of a “publicly owned” team made up of “union” workers in a “revenue sharing” league. In some circles, people might label that the dreaded “socialism.” lol
Owners trying to contain player salaries is certainly not a new idea. I think they’ve being trying to do it for about 100 years now. The owners have repeatedly proven that they’re their own worst enemy. There is always one owner that want’s to do his own thing and that is really all it takes to get the salary dominoes tumbling. We’ve seen this movie before and I’m sure we will see it again in the future.