CFL teams could face salary cap punishments for abuse of marketing money

[TBURGESS]

Under the terms of the current collective bargaining agreement, CFL teams are required to pay a minimum of $110,000 to players for non-football-related services, colloquially known as marketing money. That money is allocated in excess of the regular salary expenditure cap, which was set at $5.525 million in 2024 and governs the remainder of player compensation.
While every franchise must hit the minimum spending threshold, there is no ceiling for how much a team can dole out in marketing money. Though every front office has used this loophole to give themselves financial wiggle room when paying key players, it has also led to concerns that some deep-pocketed owners might spend excessively to acquire talent that others may not be able to afford.
...
 According to Ambrosie, anyone willing to do that must back it up with an appropriate amount of actual off-the-field work, including community appearances, outreach, or promotion. Those who are found to be exploiting the system will be slapped with standard salary cap fines.

From: https://3downnation.com/2024/11/12/cfl-teams-could-face-salary-cap-punishments-for-abuse-of-marketing-money-randy-ambrosie/

Discuss.

[Blue In BC]

I thought we had believed there was a $200K ceiling but this refutes that thought. Obviously if there is no ceiling it's a problem that some teams will abuse.

Who the heck determines whether a given player earns $1K for a public appearance or $10K? Hard to determine celebrity value.

Regardless, it would seem the simple solution is to create the ceiling. That makes it equal for every team. $200K seemed like it would make sense.

[Sir Blue and Gold]

It's kind of silly. I get that the league wants to grow the game but I still think you should cap it at something reasonable. Asking teams to 'be good' will only lead teams getting carried away trying to win which is why there's a salary cap to begin with. Reading between the lines it sounds like some CEOs/owners don't want a hard cap so Ambroise settled on this mushy middle.

[TecnoGenius]

Ya, this article isn't definitive about $110k being "free" and over being on-SMS, but it strongly implies it!  All that discussion we had for nothing!

Strange, Riderfans thought all along that the $200k "marketing" was just cheating.  Looks like they were right.

Ambrosie is just figuring this out and mentioning it NOW?  Uh, this was like 2 months ago news dude.  Now that BC is out of the race they feel it's safe to chastise and warn??

So are we now sure that $200k just for Rourke is pure and utter cheating?

And why is Rourke "special" and "high value"?  His time is worth more than Zach's??  Nonsense.

It's all so ridiculous.  Doman upsetting the apple cart.  If the owners "police themselves" as has been suggested, better get right on that policing!!

[Blue In BC]

It's all very confusing and just adds another unneeded layer to the SMS.

[blue_or_die]

There are too many "a wink and a handshake" and "in good faith" guidelines (i.e. not rules) in the CFL.

Just put in writing what is and isn't allowed. Good lord guys. The league is its own worst enemy.

Btw, I'll now admit that I was wrong and TBurg was right when we debated the "is this over and above the on-field cap" or whatever. In my defense, it couldn't have been more (and still is) confusing and silly.

[TecnoGenius]

Just put in writing what is and isn't allowed. Good lord guys. The league is its own worst enemy.

Ya.  Why aren't these things in the rule book or CBA?  Why aren't they written somewhere central we can all check and have the verbiage be well-written and unambiguous?

If you can circumvent the cap with this nonsense, then the arms race is on.  Doman started it.

Now, how do we make sure Doman/Lions get $0 equalization payments from us?  He can't cry poor after both going way over cap and cheating with marketing money.  Doing this crap should get you firmly placed in the "have" category, no matter what your P&L says.