Lifestyle > Sports & Entertainment
Whats the point of a salary cap?!
7even:
A salary cap is great. The Lakers might be 20 mil above it, but in soccer there are teams who are virtually 200 mil above it (if their was one).
In soccer it is horrible, oil tycoons can effortlessly spend 300 mil a year, whereas "real" clubs have to rely on what they actually earn, through stadium tickets, merchandise, titles they won and so on. It is blatantly unfair.
I prefer a soft salary cap greatly over a non-existing salary cap.
The talk about a hard cap in the NBA is probably just made to appease the critics. A hard salary cap would hurt the well-liked teams like the Lakers, and it would even hurt the league. Because for every dollar over the luxery tax, the league gets 1 dollar. The league owns over 20 mil a year just by having the Lakers over the cap. I doubt the league will do anything to elude the current system.
M Dogg™:
--- Quote from: 7even on July 24, 2010, 05:33:57 AM ---A salary cap is great. The Lakers might be 20 mil above it, but in soccer there are teams who are virtually 200 mil above it (if their was one).
In soccer it is horrible, oil tycoons can effortlessly spend 300 mil a year, whereas "real" clubs have to rely on what they actually earn, through stadium tickets, merchandise, titles they won and so on. It is blatantly unfair.
I prefer a soft salary cap greatly over a non-existing salary cap.
The talk about a hard cap in the NBA is probably just made to appease the critics. A hard salary cap would hurt the well-liked teams like the Lakers, and it would even hurt the league. Because for every dollar over the luxery tax, the league gets 1 dollar. The league owns over 20 mil a year just by having the Lakers over the cap. I doubt the league will do anything to elude the current system.
--- End quote ---
A hard cap should be done. In the end, the NFL is the strongest league for many years thanks to a hard cap and revenue sharing. It would hurt the Lakers, and you'd be happy, but it's better for the league to have competitive teams across the nation than just a consideration of power on the coast.
Chamillitary Click:
Well isn't that why there will be a lockout after this season?
.:DaYg0sTyLz:.:
--- Quote from: 7even on July 24, 2010, 05:33:57 AM ---A salary cap is great. The Lakers might be 20 mil above it, but in soccer there are teams who are virtually 200 mil above it (if their was one).
In soccer it is horrible, oil tycoons can effortlessly spend 300 mil a year, whereas "real" clubs have to rely on what they actually earn, through stadium tickets, merchandise, titles they won and so on. It is blatantly unfair.
I prefer a soft salary cap greatly over a non-existing salary cap.
The talk about a hard cap in the NBA is probably just made to appease the critics. A hard salary cap would hurt the well-liked teams like the Lakers, and it would even hurt the league. Because for every dollar over the luxery tax, the league gets 1 dollar. The league owns over 20 mil a year just by having the Lakers over the cap. I doubt the league will do anything to elude the current system.
--- End quote ---
They need the hard cap, and a minimum cap as well. The league doesnt get the full $1 for every $1 over the luxury threshold. It is distributed amongst the other teams who dont exceed the cap. The problem is, i watch basketball for the sport...not because I want to see big market teams win. What this cap does is essentially make a small/medium sized market team work much harder in order to win a championship then a big market team does. There is not enough of a punishment for exceeding the luxury tax line...and on the other side, teams who only care about their profits are rewarded for spending very little.
7even:
Let's say they do a hard cap, that can't be exceeded at 70 mil. What happens to the teams who are currently at 90 mil?
Oh man this is gonna be a long ass lockout if they go that route. They also wanna shorten player's salaries by 10 percent.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version