The teams that spend the most don't necessarily win. Whether you have a cap or not, you're going to have teams that spend a lot more than others do, and it should be pretty obvious that you don't have to outspend anybody to win championships.

From my reading, the salary cap didn't even start until 1994. Did big market teams "take over" in the years prior to 1994?

You act as if this is a good thing. This sort of argument is better-suited for MLB. In the NFL, you had perfect parity where if you lose it is literally your fault and no one else's. Now, in a hypothetical without a salary cap, you are basically saying "well gee, we could still win. Sure, its not equal anymore and it will be harder, but we shouldn't suck every year!"

Why even compromise down from perfection?

You need to draft well to be consistently competitive. BUT the big key to super bowls are franchise QBs. No franchise QB would be able to stay with a small market team past their initial contract. That would likely substantially limit the ability of any small market team to win a super bowl.

Pension benefits, medical benefits, any benefits gained through CBA. I dont' understand your question.

How has this ever been shown to be true? The NFL has restricted free agency. They can tie up a player for as long as they want, just franchise them year after year.

You missed the part where free agency didn't exist. If there's no free agency and the draft is honored (ie, when you are drafted by the chiefs, you are a slave to the chiefs for life, until they decide they dont like you any more), then the large markets are powerless to do anything with their money.

If free agency doesn't exist and the draft is honored, we are pretty much not having this discussion and don't really care as much about the CBA. Have a union, don't have a union, whatever, we still own you if we draft you.

KC didn't sniff a SB with or without a salary cap. Meanwhile, Pittsburgh, with or without a salary cap, wins championships. It isn't the amount of money you spend.

The sports landscape was way different in the 80's and early 90's than it is now. It's the same thing when people say Ewing Kauffman would've kept the Royals payroll at the top of the league if he was still alive. Back then the top baseball payrolls were like $15 million, now it's over $200 million.

The first NFL salary cap was $34 million. The last capped year two years ago, it was $128 million. I don't know if comparing 1990 to today holds water.

Excellent explanation. Thank you. But, doesn't the "franchise tag" kind of negate free agency?

Look at the winners of the past 18 or so SB, baring two defensive teams in the early 2000s all of them have been lead by a franchise QB. Considering how much the NFL favors offense and the passing game specifically it is unlikely, without a rule change, for a team to win a SB on defense alone.

As for the franchise tag...assuming it's kept without a salary cap...it's very easy to become irrelevant. It's still the average of the top 5 players at the position. I would not be surprised without a cap to see that number grow 20%+ a season. At that point while a small market COULD use a franchise tag, they simply couldn't afford to do so.

This response is completely silly. KC didn't sniff a SB because they were morons. Without a salary cap, it becomes harder and there's an easy scapegoat if you fail. Right now, if you fail it is 100% your fault, not 95%, but 100% and we want your resignation as GM.

Are you somehow trying to argue that a salary cap hurt KC?

Umm, Yes! As long as you have greedy owners like Jerry Jones you need to have your rights protected.

maybe if it existed in the NBA. An NFL roster is rather huge, and trapping 1 player doesn't negate free agency.

And pittsburgh hadn't won a super bowl in 26 years until they drafted a franchise QB. Has KC done that?(you could argue that Montana was but ancient and also probably green), but a franchise QB doesn't guarantee a SB it's just the minimum price of admission.