Reverse the cap penalty on the Cowboys and Redskins
  • Petitioned The NFL, NFLPA and Roger Goodell

This petition was delivered to:

The NFL, NFLPA and Roger Goodell

Reverse the cap penalty on the Cowboys and Redskins

    1. DC Blue Star
    2. Petition by

      DC Blue Star

      Tampa, FL

The Dallas Cowboys and the Washington Redskins organizations are being penalized, and unrightfully so, for not participating in collusion. The NFL owners agreed to an "unwritten" rule to have an imaginary cap number in a year where there was no cap number (referred to as an uncapped season), limiting the spending of teams on their players.

This is collusion. No entity can conspire to limit the amount of money made by any persons. This is exactly what the NFL and those 30 other teams did.

The NFL then conspired against the owners and NFLPA, blackmailing them into handing out punishments to the Cowboys and Redskins for their front loaded contracts, stating that if they did not do so, the league would punish all NFL teams by lowering the 2012 Salary Cap to $116M.

The Cowboys and Redskins were not alone in front loaded contracts, and didn't want any part of it. Now they are being penalized for doing the right thing.

Sign this petition to:
- Have the penalties reversed, and to make the league leave the salary cap the adjusted amount of $120.6M for the 2012 season.
- Make the NFL, NFLPA and Roger Goodell undo the wrong without penalizing the entire league.
- Make the NFL not retaliate by purposely lowering the cap in the following seasons.

Sign this petition, and tell Goodell he is wrong!

FROM ESPN / DAN GRAZIANO:

You guys want some answers on this deal where the Dallas Cowboys and Washington Redskins are losing millions in cap space for spending as much as they wanted in an uncapped year. I'm here for you. I have spoken to a couple of sources close to the situation, and this is what I have learned:

Q: What exactly did they do?

A: During the uncapped 2010 season, teams were repeatedly warned by the league not to structure contracts so that big money was assigned to 2010 in order to attain future-years cap relief. They were told there would be penalties if they did this. The Cowboys and the Redskins, to a greater extent than the league's other 30 teams, ignored these warnings and engaged in such behavior anyway. Miles Austin's contract with the Cowboys, which included a $17 million base salary in 2010, is being brought up as the prime example.

Q: How did they get caught?

A: The complaints against the Cowboys and the Redskins for engaging in perfectly legal behavior that violated no actual rules but only the collusive backroom dictates being issued by the league came not from the league office but from the other 30 teams, who were doing what they were told while the Cowboys and the Redskins were not. The other teams demanded action, since they were the good soldiers, and so the league decided it needed to take some.

Q: Why isn't the union challenging this?

A: While this behavior seems to fit the very dictionary definition of collusion, as multiple teams were engaged in discussions to limit the earning potential of their employees and prospective employees, do not expect it to be challenged in court. The decision today, in which the Redskins were docked $36 million in cap space and the Cowboys $10 million, is the result of a settlement between the NFL and the NFLPA. One reason the union has no problem with it is that the money lost to the Cowboys and Redskins is not taken out of the overall 2012 spending pool — each of 28 other teams gets $1.6 million extra in cap room, so there's no net loss league-wide. Another reason the union won't push on it is because they agreed, as part of the settlement of last year's Brady vs. NFL federal lawsuit, to drop all pending legal action against the league. That included their claims that the league engaged in collusion in 2010.

Q: Why did this happen the day before free agency?

A: The answer to that lies in the reason it took so long for the league to establish and announce this year's salary cap. The union must sign off on the cap before it is approved, and it obviously took issue initially with the idea of punishing teams for spending money in an uncapped year. But the league was toying with the idea of lowering this year's salary cap, and used this issue as a bargaining chip with the union. Basically, if the union agreed to the punishment for the Redskins and Cowboys, the cap would be $120.6 million, as it is now. But if they refused, the league was prepared to make the cap lower. I don't know by how much, but say for the sake of argument they wanted to drop it to $116 million per team. That'd have been a total of $128 million when spread across 32 teams — a significant loss to the players if they agreed to it.

Recent signatures

    News

    1. Reached 1,000 signatures
    2. The Dallas Cowboys Release a Statement

      DC Blue Star
      Petition Organizer

      "The Dallas Cowboys were in compliance with all league salary cap rules during the uncapped year. We look forward to the start of the free agency period where our commitment to improving our team remains unchanged. Every contract entered into by the club during the applicable periods complied with the 2010 and 2011 collective bargaining agreements and, in fact, were approved by the NFL commissioner's office."

    3. Peter King Speaks Out

      DC Blue Star
      Petition Organizer

      "Two things I don't like re NFL's cap penalty on Wash/Dall: Timing--You tell a team 24 hrs before FA about a 36m cut in spending? Ridiculous. And there's a reason 2010 was called 'uncapped.' That should have meant teams could allocate money how they saw fit. I don't like this."

    4. Mike Tirico Speaks Out

      DC Blue Star
      Petition Organizer

      "I think it's unfair... If the league approved those deals, spending should be able to go on..."
      - ESPN Radio, Sports Center

    5. Reached 100 signatures

    Supporters

    Reasons for signing

    • Chris Johnson NATIONAL CITY, CA
      • over 2 years ago

      There was no rule in place. You authorized everything.

      REPORT THIS COMMENT:
    • Chuck Cypert PLANO, TX
      • over 2 years ago

      Hypocritical and contradictory . . . if "competitive balance" is the issue, then the owners who pocketed money and did not spend the minimum should be punished for the same reason. However, the bottom line is they should have nixed the contracts during the review process . . . it is collusion, plain and simple!

      REPORT THIS COMMENT:
    • Mike Flowers PENRYN, UNITED KINGDOM
      • over 2 years ago

      I do not like where the NFL is heading. Ever since Roger Goodell took over as the commissionaire the NFL has been less of an association and more of a corporation.

      REPORT THIS COMMENT:
    • Kevin Dookie CRESTED BUTTE, CO
      • over 2 years ago

      drop it like its hahhhhhht

      REPORT THIS COMMENT:
    • Daniel Blair CEDAR CITY, UT
      • over 2 years ago

      They were approved by the league, that should be enough right there!

      REPORT THIS COMMENT:

    Develop your own tools to win.

    Use the Change.org API to develop your own organizing tools. Find out how to get started.