CBA - "Marketing money"

[Sir Blue and Gold]

To be honest it makes very little sense. I'm all for spending unlimited on marketing but if the "marketing dollars" are going into individual players pockets then it should included in the cap, capped outright independently, or included in the salary cap at a percentage of total spend. So 30% of "marketing dollars up to a certain threshold and then 75% after that or something of that sort) count against the cap. You can market the game (and all teams do) without paying big sums of money to players.

The great next QB that comes along is just going to want what Rourke got including the marketing money so actual salary expenditures will just go up year on year.

Also what the hell is Hamilton spending their marketing money on?! haha.

[Jesse]

Talking to sources, the consensus seems to be that Toronto, Hamilton, Winnipeg, and B.C. spend the most marketing money.
Marketing money is unlimited and doesn't count against the salary cap. It's been that way since 2023.#Argos | #Ticats | #Bombers | #BCLions | #CFL https://t.co/jKquB3dDQI
— John Hodge (@JohnDHodge) August 14, 2024

Maybe more will come out now that people are asking about it, but I'm personally not trusting John Hodge as a source over what I can read in the CBA itself.

[Sir Blue and Gold]

Maybe more will come out now that people are asking about it, but I'm personally not trusting John Hodge as a source over what I can read in the CBA itself.

I am not doubting you but where does the CBA say that it counts? What is the exact wording?

[Pete]

this feels like another thing that was added to the cba without really thinking it thru in order to get it passed (similar to the nationalized american clause. If you give gms an opportunity to abuse it they will (in any sport) Now to get it changed its likely the cfl would have to give up something to the players.

[gobombersgo]

this feels like another thing that was added to the cba without really thinking it thru in order to get it passed (similar to the nationalized american clause. If you give gms an opportunity to abuse it they will (in any sport) Now to get it changed its likely the cfl would have to give up something to the players.

They can increase the playoff money for the players. The payouts havent changed since 2012.

[theaardvark]

I wonder if "marketing money" is not paid directly to the player, but to his "marketing company".  And whether there are tax benefits, write offs, that might ensue with that papertrail.

[blue_or_die]

Talking to sources, the consensus seems to be that Toronto, Hamilton, Winnipeg, and B.C. spend the most marketing money.
Marketing money is unlimited and doesn't count against the salary cap. It's been that way since 2023.#Argos | #Ticats | #Bombers | #BCLions | #CFL https://t.co/jKquB3dDQI
— John Hodge (@JohnDHodge) August 14, 2024

This was Derek Taylor's take:

As I read the CBA, teams have to spend a *minimum* of $110,000 per year on "Non-Football Related Services". That $110K counts under the Total Salary Expenditure Cap (this season it's $5.635 million. Up to $5.76 million next season). The thought that it doesn't count against the cap is mostly correct.

I don't see anything in the CBA that mentions a maximum for "Non-Football Related Services". What I've heard is that the CFL wants teams to "just be cool" about it (ie. don't go nuts and spend a zillion dollars there).

It's got to be a tricky spot for owners collectively. If one decides to spendspendspend I can't imagine the rest could do much to stop him. And if I was the players union I would want a MAJOR concession to put a specified limit on that money.

I am not doubting you but where does the CBA say that it counts? What is the exact wording?

Check out the table to from CBA that Jesse posted at the beginning.

It shows the normal player salary cap, plus the 110K minimum, equals the "total salary expenditure cap"

If you could spend over at above 110k AND spend right to the regular cap, then there simply is no cap.

So it's that "total salary expenditure cap" column that essentially proves that spending to the full normal cap + 110k in player marketing is a 'hard' number.

As for spending more than 110k, well, you can, but that will eat into your player ops spending.

[Jesse]

Check out the table to from CBA that Jesse posted at the beginning.

It shows the normal player salary cap, plus the 110K minimum, equals the "total salary expenditure cap"

If you could spend over at above 110k AND spend right to the regular cap, then there simply is no cap.

So it's that "total salary expenditure cap" column that essentially proves that spending to the full normal cap + 110k in player marketing is a 'hard' number.

As for spending more than 110k, well, you can, but that will eat into your player ops spending.

Since a salary floor exists as well (600k below the cap), I've determined that the maximum marketing money must be 710k. Anything more than that and you're spending too little on player salary.

[Pete]

Ambrosias tenure of commish is rifled with issues
he pushes for a global initiative which ends up being almost exclusively kickers that get any playing time.
Introduces a nationalized american rule which requires so much calculation as to become meaningless (and if it was to reward NI that have been with the league for a period of time that didn't happen)
We try to implement better stats and that gets messed up for a long period of time
Now this marketing bonus which no one seems to definitively know how it works
And that doesnt even get into the Kelly or Lemon things

[Jesse]

Ambrosias tenure of commish is rifled with issues
he pushes for a global initiative which ends up being almost exclusively kickers that get any playing time.
Introduces a nationalized american rule which requires so much calculation as to become meaningless (and if it was to reward NI that have been with the league for a period of time that didn't happen)
We try to implement better stats and that gets messed up for a long period of time
Now this marketing bonus which no one seems to definitively know how it works
And that doesnt even get into the Kelly or Lemon things

The Global initiative is his baby, but other than that I'm not sure any of that has anything to do with Ambrosie.

[blue_or_die]

Since a salary floor exists as well (600k below the cap), I've determined that the maximum marketing money must be 710k. Anything more than that and you're spending too little on player salary.

That's true, but doesn't change the player salary/player marketing duality tradeoff at play

[Pete]

The Global initiative is his baby, but other than that I'm not sure any of that has anything to do with Ambrosie.

hes the commish. all happened under his watch.

[Jesse]

hes the commish. all happened under his watch.

Sure, but things like the marketing bonus were negotiated for by the Players Union.

The fact that we don't know how it works seems to be a core value of the league to keep things as secret as possible and far predates Ambrosie's tenure. The commish doesn't have any power. They're just the mouth piece for the owners.

[TecnoGenius]

It would be ironic if BC was considered a "have not" team for $$ redistribution whilst doling out $200k non-SMS bonuses to favored players...

I told you guys to not believe any of the teams that are crying "poor".  There's tons of money available in the CFL via the mega-rich owners.  Get rid of this confusing and lame "marketing cheat fees" and just up the SMS by 0.5 to 1.0 million$.  At least then there's transparency.

[TecnoGenius]

I'm going off of memory here, but didn't Streveler get something like this?

What comes to my mind is Bighill's guaranteed side gigs, which were much talked about when he joined here ages ago.

And who can forget BLM's numerous off-field perks, and (IIRC) his wife got cush gibs too.

Teams have been cheating the cap for ages.  The odd thing with Rourke is BC is spelling it out!  Why not have the decency to just hide it away like every other team!  Sheesh.