Salary Caps in Sports: Overview
Salary caps in sports are financial regulations set by leagues to limit the total amount teams can spend on player salaries, aiming to promote competitive balance and financial stability. These caps emerged in response to soaring player salaries in the 1980s and the shift in revenue generation from ticket sales to lucrative television contracts and merchandising. Most major North American and European leagues have adopted some form of salary cap, with variations including hard caps, soft caps, and luxury tax systems. The hard cap prevents teams from exceeding the set limit, while soft caps allow some exceptions for overspending.
The implementation of salary caps has been controversial, often leading to disputes between player unions and team management, as seen in the NHL's canceled season in 2004-2005. Proponents argue that salary caps foster parity, ensuring that smaller-market teams can compete with wealthier franchises. However, critics contend that caps can depress player salaries and may not guarantee competitive balance, as evidenced by varying championship outcomes across leagues.
Discussions around salary caps continue to evolve, with suggestions for reforms that could include designated-player exemptions or alternative systems like those seen in European soccer, which prioritize performance-based promotion and relegation. Overall, salary caps remain a pivotal element in the economics of professional sports, balancing the interests of teams, players, and fans.
Salary Caps in Sports: Overview
Introduction
Professional sports are often perceived as one of the last true bastions of capitalism, where player salaries are constrained only by what the market will bear. Since the 1990s, however, sports leagues have grown increasingly concerned over the increase in player salaries, not only in terms of the absolute cost required to field a competitive team, but also in terms of parity, or the extent to which teams in a league are fairly evenly matched.
Since an increasingly high percentage of league revenues are generated by television contracts and merchandising rather than ticket sales, leagues have a significant interest in ensuring that nationally televised matchups are usually competitive contests. Permitting big-market teams that have more access to resources to purchase the best talent available at any cost, it is believed, tilts the playing field unfairly against teams in markets that, due to lower merchandising, advertising, and local revenues, are unable to spend the money required to compete in an era of unrestricted free agency. Installing a salary cap links players’ salaries to league revenues, arguably ensuring greater competition and cost certainty (controlling the amount of revenue and compensation a player receives).
As a result, all major American and Canadian professional sports leagues, as well as most European professional sports leagues, have some kind of salary cap. In most cases, the cap is an absolute maximum figure, and in others, such as Major League Baseball (MLB), the cap is not expressed as a maximum, but as a financial penalty levied for overspending that is allocated to smaller-market teams to help them to pay more for talent, and thereby leveling the playing field.
Salary caps are frequently contentious points in negotiations between players’ unions and team management. In 2004–5, the National Hockey League (NHL) canceled the entire season largely because of disagreements over a salary cap. However, contentious debate still continues on the effects of a salary cap in the NHL, as small-market teams, particularly those in nontraditional hockey markets, continue to lag behind big-market teams concerning both on-ice success and revenue.
Understanding the Discussion
Cost certainty: Term designed to convey the desire of team owners to know that player salaries would not exceed a pre-determined percentage of total revenues. As revenues rose, so would the maximum dollar value of team salaries, and vice versa.
Guaranteed player contract: Concept under which a player is entitled to be paid his or her entire contract amount over time regardless of whether he or she is retained by the team, traded or released. This is used primarily by the NHL. In contrast, in the National Football League (NFL), players may be cut by a team, absolving the team of most contractual obligations to the player.
Luxury tax: System employed by MLB whereby there is no specific salary cap, but teams that spend in excess of a pre-determined amount must pay a financial penalty to the league. This penalty is then used to improve development programs, but is not paid directly to smaller market teams with lower revenues. The National Basketball Association (NBA) employs a similar, but more watered-down system that redistributes revenue from the teams with the highest team salaries to those with the lowest.
Parity: A concept which seeks to ensure that games are competitive and not decided in advance, particularly because of the comparative resources of the teams involved. Ostensibly, a desire that teams have access to substantially the same level of talent and a level playing field.
Reserve clause: A previously long-standing provision in player contracts that allowed a team to maintain the sole rights of a player after the expiration of their contract, essentially bounding that player to renegotiate with said team, or ask for an outright release. These clauses were eventually overturned in the United States on antitrust and contract law grounds, resulting in the rise of free agency, which permits a player to approach any and all teams upon expiration of his or her contract.
Salary cap: A monetary figure that expresses the maximum amount a team may spend on payroll (labor) or players’ salaries (though not necessarily individual salaries). Correspondingly, most leagues with salary caps also have a minimum team salary representing the lowest amount a team may spend on salaries, and which is usually expressed as a percentage of the salary cap. There are two types of salary caps: a “hard” cap and a “soft” cap. Teams may not exceed the cap under a hard cap system, while teams are allowed, under certain exceptions, to exceed the cap under a soft cap system. In some leagues, such as the NHL, there is also a cap on individual salaries as a percentage of the team’s total salary cap, depending on the player’s years of service. In addition, the cap is expressed as an absolute figure in some leagues, while in others, it is tied to league revenues, and is subject to change from year to year. Different leagues also have different rules concerning the extent to which additions to player salaries, such as signing bonuses and performance incentives, contribute to a team’s salary cap.
History
Historically, in the US, the salaries of professional athletes were governed only by the principles of free market economics. The 1980s saw unparalleled growth in the salaries of professional athletes, taxing the resources of even the highest revenue teams. This was particularly true after reserve clauses were struck down, creating the free agency system in which players were free to shop multiple teams for the best possible contract. Movements gained ground in most professional leagues thereafter, seeking to curb a growth process that appeared to have no end. Unlike the reserve clause, arbitrators and courts have consistently upheld salary caps as part of collective bargaining agreements (CBA).
With the bulk of revenues shifting from ticket revenue to television contracts, merchandising, and advertising, the gap between teams in big markets and teams in small markets became more pronounced. With no reserve clause to permit teams to effectively conspire to rein in player salaries, the big-market teams appeared to have an enormous advantage.
Salary caps began in the major US professional leagues in the 1980s, with initial adoption in the NBA in 1984 (after experiments with it in the 1940s), the NFL in 1994, and the NHL in 2005 (after strict caps imposed during the Great Depression in the 1930s). MLB first imposed the luxury tax in 1996, though the revenue generated by the tax is not passed along to smaller-market teams. Instead, it goes to other funds operated by MLB, which does make payments to small-market teams in an effort to foster parity, but out of unrelated funds. Major labor disagreements, notably in the NHL in 1994 and 2004, revolved around proposed salary caps. Understandably, players’ unions would prefer that the free market be the only factor driving individual and team salaries. By 2006, no major US professional sport operated without some form of salary cap or luxury tax.
An issue that gained notice in the late 2010s was a widespread lack of guaranteed contracts in the lucrative NFL. Supporters of fully guaranteed contracts point out that the MLB, NBA, and NHL generally provide fully guaranteed contracts and that the careers of NFL athletes tend to be shorter, more physically damaging, and revenue-generating than those of their counterparts. Supporters of the existing system argue that the higher injury rate increases the risk for management when signing players, guaranteed contracts might reduce player motivation, and strong benefits compensate players adequately.
The Salary Cap Today
Salary caps came to be largely perceived as a necessary evil, with most disputes centering on the amount of the caps, the percentage of team revenues devoted to player salaries, and the rules governing the treatment of bonuses and incentives. Along these lines, the most serious debates seem to involve the merits of the straight cap of the NFL and NBA, the floating cap of the NHL (based on league revenue), and the luxury tax system of MLB.
The NHL system has widely been seen as ideal, in that players ostensibly have a role in the cap because the better the product put on the ice, presumably, the higher league revenues, and hence, the higher the cap on both team and individual salaries. There are also provisions that will automatically pay players a pro-rata sum at the end of a season if revenues exceed expectations. On the downside, however, this system also contemplates player give-backs at the end of a season if revenues are down. NHL commissioner Gary Bettman explained this as “cost certainty,” an attractive moniker for a system in which team owners will know what they will spend on player personnel regardless of total revenue.
Statistical analyses have demonstrated fairly clearly that while team payroll can be linked statistically to regular-season wins and playoff appearances across the four top sports leagues, for the MLB and NFL, it does not correlate nearly as closely to championships won by the highest spending teams. Measuring parity across teams and across leagues has been more complicated, but a 2016 analysis by John Urschel suggested that the parities are more similar than dissimilar.
Free-market leagues have had the most parity in championships, with sixteen different winners of the World Series between 2000 and 2023. This is compared to fourteen Super Bowl champions, twelve Stanley Cup champions (2005 championship was canceled), and eleven NBA champions during that same period. If the relatively fixed cap of the NBA is any indication, salary containment has little, if any, direct link to league parity. However, this may well be linked to caveats in the NBA system that permit teams to overspend to keep marquee players stationary as opposed to the free agency of other leagues by which players tend to move from city to city.
Ensuring the continued financial viability of professional sports franchises, particularly in small-market cities, and fostering parity in league games, and thus a more attractive product for fans, are both worthwhile goals that will shape this debate well into the future. Although some have called for an end to the cap system in leagues like the NBA, the debate has largely shifted to the competing merits of the various cap formats and MLB-style luxury taxes. Many critics contend such caps—and the MLB tax, which some see as a de facto cap when too few teams pay it—artificially drive down player earnings to owners' benefit. Others have argued that leagues like the NBA should adopt a designated-player model, exempting one player per team from caps, to break the dominance of super teams and distribute talent throughout the league. Still others wish to emulate the European soccer leagues' relegation-promotion system, in which teams have no caps but are tiered by performance; this addresses the parity issue in tournaments while maintaining a free-market approach to compensation.
These essays and any opinions, information or representations contained therein are the creation of the particular author and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of EBSCO Information Services.
Bibliography
“Baseball’s Sure Thing: Big Money Wins Big.” Morning Edition, NPR, 7 Apr. 2010. EBSCOhost, research.ebsco.com/linkprocessor/plink?id=ab5bce43-da4a-3c4f-9daf-8f65daad0143. accessed 8 Jan. 2013.
Cox, Rob. “Miracle on Ice.” Newsweek, vol. 159, no. 22, 2012, p. 13.
Curry, Phil. “Cap Has Ushered in Age of Parity.” Toronto Star, 7 Nov. 2014, pp. S2–S3.
Cosentino, Dom. “Why Only The NFL Doesn’t Guarantee Contracts.” Deadspin, 1 Aug. 2017, deadspin.com/why-only-the-nfl-doesnt-guarantee-contracts-1797020799. Accessed 17 Jan. 2020.
Elliott, Helene. “Kings Not Rushing to Use New Salary Cap Space.” Los Angeles Times, 26 Nov. 2014, www.inkl.com/news/kings-not-rushing-to-use-new-salary-cap-space. Accessed 5 Dec. 2014.
Engler, Mitchell L. “The Untaxed King of South Beach: Lebron James and the NBA Salary Cap.” San Diego Law Review, vol. 48, no. 2, 2011, pp. 601–21. EBSCOhost, research.ebsco.com/linkprocessor/plink?id=63cf1a9f-4b64-36b5-82dc-104563eb1f80. Accessed 8 Jan. 2013.
Fitzpatrick, Frank. “NFL Report: Player Salaries Not Keeping Up with Team Valuations.” Philadelphia Inquirer, 30 Nov. 2014.
Garafolo, Mike. “Flat Salary Cap Spurs Flurry of Restructures.” USA Today, 1 Mar. 2013. EBSCOhost, research.ebsco.com/linkprocessor/plink?id=90ecb024-5323-3d88-959e-44f998b7b389. Accessed 5 Feb. 2016.
Kohler, Luke. “Baseball’s Parity Myth and the Need for a Salary Cap.” LukeKohler.com, Kohler, 9 Mar. 2009.
Levine, Trevor. “Two Worlds Collide: Salary Arbitration for NHL Players in the Salary Cap Era.” Ohio State Journal on Dispute Resolution, vol. 26, no. 4, 2011, pp. 729–52. EBSCOhost, research.ebsco.com/linkprocessor/plink?id=a0d66f6b-8433-35e9-8804-cdc2d1bcf335. Accessed 8 Jan. 2013.
“Lifting of NFL Salary Cap Examined.” All Things Considered, NPR, 5 Mar. 2010. EBSCOhost, research.ebsco.com/linkprocessor/plink?id=dccfe697-6a91-33e7-a941-80785ff35541. Accessed 8 Jan. 2013.
Lobdell, Josh. “Does Major League Baseball Need a Salary Cap? A Salary Floor Is More Like It.” Examiner, 14 Jan. 2009, examiner.com. Accessed 12 June 2009.
Shorin, Grant. Team Payroll Versus Performance in Professional Sports: Is Increased Spending Associated with Greater Success? Honors Thesis, Duke University, 2017, sites.duke.edu/djepapers/files/2017/06/grantshorin-dje.pdf. Accessed 17 Jan. 2020.
Snyder, Matt. "Why Major League Baseball Does Not Need a Salary Cap for the Sake of Parity." CBS, 14 Feb. 2022, www.cbssports.com/mlb/news/why-major-league-baseball-does-not-need-a-salary-cap-for-the-sake-of-parity/. Accessed 28 Mar. 2024.
Urschel, John. “The Parity Ideal.” The Players’ Tribune, 4 Jan. 2016, www.theplayerstribune.com/en-us/articles/john-urschel-ravens-parity-ideal. Accessed 17 Jan. 2020.
Wilner, Barry. “NFL Salary Cap Increases $10 Million to Top $143 Million.” AP Top News Package, 2 Mar. 2015. EBSCOhost, research.ebsco.com/linkprocessor/plink?id=2fc20d96-e16a-3627-b6b6-b4cc6705e67f. Accessed 5 Feb. 2016.