Yes, some owners have discussed limiting quarterback contracts

For years, we’ve been saying that the highest-paid players should seek contracts that tie their earnings to a percentage of the cap. This would ensure that the long-term position never becomes obsolete – because the maximum is constantly rising.

The league (specifically the NFL’s Board of Governors) has consistently resisted this. (Players who have tried in the past to take a percentage of the cap as their compensation include Kirk Cousins ​​and Darrelle Revis. And it’s possible that others have tried to do so recently. Joe Burrow was the perfect candidate for this.)

But the league is interested in another type of cap-based formula when it comes to quarterback contracts. NFL Network’s Tom Pelissero (who works for the league and therefore has to tread lightly here) recently mentioned it on the Rich Eisen Show.

“It definitely was there Discussion within the league between some of its owners “Even around the idea of ​​a quarterback cap, where at some point you don’t want your quarterback’s numbers to exceed a certain percentage of your salary cap,” Pelissero said Tuesday, via BleacherReport.com. “As far as I know, this hasn’t really gained traction, partly because so many teams have paid their quarterback salaries.”

As we heard, it will not be a separate official ceiling. This would be an unofficial, unofficial (and most importantly outside the CBA) arrangement under which teams would refuse to go beyond a certain level. All teams. That would make it pointless for, say, Dak Prescott to make his way to the open market. The best deal he’ll get from the Cowboys will be the same as the best deal he’ll get from someone else. (It would be like a max contract in the NBA.)

It’s the natural reaction to the dismay many owners expressed when the Browns gave Deshaun Watson a five-year, fully guaranteed contract. The owners, who meet with at least four teams annually and (as the union has long believed) collude on matters that are otherwise the subject of individual negotiations between players and teams, would be violating the collective bargaining agreement by creating a secret. , a wink-nod arrangement among themselves to limit quarterback pay.

Pelissero, in admitting that the owners have talked about the matter, may have inadvertently opened a Pandora’s box. Going forward, it will be worth keeping a close eye on the trades being made, the cap charges associated with them, and whether quarterbacks going to the open market find something better from another team.

The only way to properly arrange a league-wide cap on quarterback wages is to negotiate it with the NFL Players Association. Such efforts would quickly highlight the fact that there should be different bargaining units for each position, such as backsliding. For this reason alone, the Union may be inclined not to agree to such an approach.

For this reason alone, any talks between owners about a quarterback’s cap hit (combined with proof from upcoming trades) could lay the groundwork for a collusion case against the NFL.

There is already a collusion case pending against the league, regarding teams’ refusal to award fully guaranteed contracts to some veteran quarterbacks. This would be a much bigger deal. If/when the league secretly implements a cap on quarterback wages, and if/when the union can prove it, that would make for a compelling legal battle between management and workers.