Cowboys, Redskins Salary Cap Penalties Approved By NFL Owners But Still Raise Questions

Miles Austin #19 of the Dallas Cowboys reacts after his touchdown against the New Orleans Saints on December 19, 2009.

By Andrew Brandt, National Football Post

At the NFL meetings this week my sense is things were a bit, uh, awkward. Earlier docked $36 million and $10 million, respectively, for Cap “abuse”” during the uncapped year of 2010, the Redskins' Dan Snyder and the Cowboys' Jerry Jones -- faced with a 29-0 vote from ownership approving the sanctions against them -- raised the stakes, filing a grievance against the NFL challenging the imposition of such penalties.

Beyond vague comments from Giants owner John Mara about the teams “violating the spirit of the uncapped year”, the league has been mum on details. Here is the best I can surmise as to what is behind this dispute.

The background

As NFL teams entered the uncapped year of 2010, many wondered if teams such as the Redskins and Cowboys would be “Steinbrenneresque” in their spending with none of the previous limits that the Cap had imposed in previous years.

As it turned out, the Cowboys and Redskins did not engage in disproportionate cash spending. However, they did engage in disproportionate Cap spending. To the league, therein lies the problem.

The deals

Notorious for writing large signing bonuses to push out proration into future years and keep the first-year Cap number as low as possible, the Cowboys went the other way with Miles Austin. They loaded all $17 million of what would have ordinarily been a “bonus” into salary, thereby containing the Cap hit in 2010 alone.

Interestingly, this is the kind of Cap management that I have lauded, one being used in Tampa with their recent deals for Vincent Jackson and Carl Nicks. This structure, however, was completely out of character for the Cowboys, and has been out of character since.

The Redskins, in contrast, did not front load new contracts in 2010, as the Austin deal described above. Rather, they restructured existing contracts, negotiated in 2009, to bring forward future proration amounts from the “out” years into 2010. Restructured contracts for DeAngelo Hall and Albert Haynesworth alone accelerated $15 and $21 million of future Cap into the uncapped year. That $36 million just so happens to be the amount the Redskins have been docked.

At the time, I noted how two teams that traditionally have pushed their Cap problems into the future had become more prudent. As it turned out, they were ignoring warnings not to do so.

The warnings

I remember the NFL Management Council starting to advise clubs as far back as 2007 that, in the event of an uncapped year, they could not press “File Delete” in 2010.

These warnings continued with more urgency in 2009, that it would be “taking unfair advantage” of the uncapped year in gaining a competitive edge by Cap-dumping into a year without a Cap.

Let’s look at the arguments from each side.

Warnings

• The Cowboys and Redskins will argue that there were no written warnings against what they did.
• The NFL will argue that there were repeated and strident verbal warnings as far back as three years prior to the uncapped year.

Approvals

• The Cowboys and Redskins will argue that the front loaded negotiations and Cap restructures were approved by the NFL -- as all contracts must be -- which represented a tacit approval of their structure.
• The NFL will argue that it is irrelevant that the contracts were approved. There was no Salary Cap and thus no Salary Cap rules to manage.

Competitive edge

• The Cowboys and Redskins will argue that the league should look into teams like the Buccaneers and Chiefs, teams that underspent in 2010, and their competitive edge gained by under spending.
• The NFL will argue that teams were not advised to spend or not to spend; only to not engage in accounting practices that took advantage of a unique year on the calendar.

The arbitration will be an intriguing study of the interplay, alliances and coalitions among NFL owners and the league office.

Whither the NFLPA?

Interestingly, the penalties to the Cowboys and Redskins were part of a joint agreement between the NFL and the NFLPA. The union’s primary concerns were to ensure (1) no reduction in Cap room league-wide, and (2) the team Cap number would exceed-- if only barely -- the number from 2011 (it did, with a $120.6 million number compared to $120.375 in 2011).

The problem for the NFLPA is that, in their zeal to prop up the 2012 Cap number, the NFLPA have borrowed from the future. Thus, the Cap “spike” that some project in 2014 when the new television contracts activate may not materialize the way the union, players and agents are hoping.

Fun times this week in South Florida this week. The faces of Jones and Snyder were quite red, a skin tone from anger rather than the sun.

Follow me on Twitter at adbrandt.

From our partners

• The 50 Worst Sports Movies - Bleacher Report
• 20 Reasons Baseball Is The Worst - Bleacher Report
• Sports Stars Of The '90s: Where Are They Now? - Bleacher Report

Comments

[Justin Seybert]

07:00 PM on 04/02/2012

This will probably wind up in federal court with Jones and Snyder winning.

[lmab]

08:28 AM on 04/01/2012

As a lifelong Giant fan....I strongly feel that the penalties are not nearly harsh enough.

[Justin Seybert]

04:49 PM on 04/02/2012

HA! Go figure.

[Drama Llama]

11:25 AM on 03/31/2012

I think Teams that underspent like Tampa should be punished as well. But you can't really punish them with a salary cap hit.. They would LOVE spending even less money this year.

As far as a Grievance.. with everyone in the NFL voting against these two teams I do not see the NFL overturning the punishment.. But honestly There were no hard rules to enforce it so it should be overturned IMO. Much as I hate to say it cause I hate the Skins lol

[SonnyBono]

04:43 AM on 03/31/2012

Perhaps Danny Snyder should focus his lawyers attention on the NFL instead of suing local papers in DC that merely pointed out what a miserable person he really is and what a terrific job he has done in running a franchise into the ground.

[Jason N]

04:30 PM on 03/30/2012

"The NFL will argue that it is irrelevant that the contracts were approved. There was no Salary Cap and thus no Salary Cap rules to manage."

Thus negating their verbal warnings argument. Fact is, it was an uncapped year and there were no rules against this.

[ev777]

01:30 PM on 03/30/2012

Couldn't happen to a nicer pair of owners.

[BacSi]

11:05 AM on 03/30/2012

The Curse of Danny

[rexdelmundo]

09:59 AM on 03/30/2012

Jerry Jones doesn't always play by the rules...I'm shocked!

[kurr]

07:05 PM on 03/30/2012

That's the funny thing though, there were literally no rules for him to follow.

[j-anthony]

12:06 AM on 03/31/2012

The point being, of course, that no rules were actually broken.