Both the NBA and the NFL have a salary cap, while MLB and the NHL do not. Some argue that this is what sets these two leagues apart from the others. Some later add that the NFL's success is due to the fact that its cap is much, much harder compared to the NBA's. However, upon examining the actual situation in both leagues, both caps appear to have numerous holes. The NBA for example has a cap that is about $43 million for the 2004-05 season. Only 5 teams stayed below this number, with the Knicks having the highest salary of about $94 million. Needless to say, this off season will be very interesting for the NBA, as they look like they're headed into NHL-type territory. In the NFL, although having a harder cap, it is not as hard as some people may think. For the 2002-03 season, the cap was about $74 million, yet only 8 teams stayed below this amount with New Orleans having the highest payrole of about $95 million. The MLB, has a luxury tax system, yet its affects have not stopped the Yanks from paying their players upwards of $200 million a year, while the NHL has nothing, allowing teams to pay close to $80 million a season. Acknowledging these holes shows clearly how a cap will not do what the NHL says it will, if it ever resumes play. One of the most important variables that sets the NFL apart from the rest is its revenue sharing plan. In 2002, the NFL shared 63% of its revenues, while the MLB, NBA, and NHL shared 35%, 34%, and 9% respectively. Knowing the loop holes that are present in any cap system, and the fact that revenue sharing greatly attributes to the health of a league, why does the NHL have such a hard line for a cap, yet such a weak, if any stance on revenue sharing? http://www.nba.com/news/cap_040713.html http://www.nfl.com/teams/story/PHI/5848647 http://www.usatoday.com/sports/salaries/index.htm http://www.askthecommish.com/salarycap/faq.asp http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm#17 Mark Edge "Red Line, Blue Line, Bottom Line"