The salary cap is skyrocketing, and that trajectory could pose real challenges for players.
Before 1994, the NFL operated without a salary cap or a salary floor. Teams could spend as much or as little as they wanted on players. With limited (if any) free agency, there wasn’t a true arms race among franchises to sign veterans.
The 1993 Collective Bargaining Agreement, which settled the NFL Players Association’s antitrust lawsuit stemming from the 1987 strike, introduced free agency and a salary cap. It rolled out the following year at a per-team limit of $34.2 million.
Over the past 32 years, the cap has grown to $301.2 million per team. In just five years, it surged from $182.5 million—a rise of nearly $120 million, or about 65 percent.
This growth has clearly benefited players, thanks in large part to the 2011 labor deal that ended an offseason lockout and established roughly a 50–50 revenue split between owners and players.
But there’s a growing debate: it might be too generous. When Commissioner Roger Goodell hinted in a May 2025 press conference about a lengthy owners’ discussion on the cap system—its integrity, effectiveness, and potential reforms within the next CBA—the signal was clear: owners are looking at the system anew.
As negotiations loom, owners may push to recalibrate the framework, perhaps seeking a smaller share for players or setting predetermined cap figures years in advance. The takeaway is that the current 50–50 structure could be driving up player costs beyond what owners are willing to sustain.
This could be more than a strategic ploy. Some observers suggest it’s a manufactured tension—a crisis manufactured to be used as leverage, with a negotiated payoff that still leaves players feeling like they’ve won.
A common bargaining premise is that players will trade for expanded schedules—18 regular-season games and 16 annual international games—so long as the payoff is substantial. If “getting enough” means preserving the existing structure (or something close to it), proponents may frame that as a win.
That framing helps explain why owners appear to be laying the groundwork for a contentious fight over whether the current approach actually provides enough financial room to sustain the broader business of football.
