Parity Is Not Perfect
Detractors Bemoan Lack Of Super Teams, Lower Quality Of Play
By Scott Robertson

The National Football League is all the rage these days, and not just because the league will kick off another season starting this month. The way the league operates is the envy of fans of other sports who wonder why small market teams like Pittsburgh are able to compete in the NFL, but are bound by financial constraints in Major League Baseball and the National Hockey League.

The reasons for this are well documented. The NFL has a solid collective bargaining agreement with the NFL Players Association, one that provides a salary cap to help teams keep costs under control, yet helps players get large signing bonuses and additional benefits in retirement and health care. Throw in a healthy national television contract, astute league-wide marketing and you end up with sold-out stadiums and even the least-competitive teams making money.

But the parity the league has created since its collective bargaining agreement went into effect a decade ago is not without its problems. Some argue that the agreement has diluted the quality of play in the league by sending big money contracts to stars and creating bottom-of-the-depth chart opportunities for rookies and free agents, all the while squeezing out mid-level players who are, in effect, priced out of the league. Others say that the league has set itself up to fail by bowing to the casual fans, saying that when those fans lose interest, the league will suffer.

Some fans don't care for parity. They long for the days of the Super Steelers of the '70s who won four Super Bowls in six years, or the days of the dominant runs of teams like the San Francisco 49ers, Dallas Cowboys, Oakland Raiders or Miami Dolphins. Having one team set a standard and be the hunted, they argue, is better than a morass of teams entering the final week of the season all in contention for a playoff spot, but none really good enough to be declared among the game's best.

Most former players and team owners seem to believe that the current system works.

"I don't see any flaws in the collective bargaining agreement at all," said Mike Tomczak, the former Steelers' quarterback. "Football is a great sport whether you are watching on TV or in person. I think what the agreement has done is allow all teams to know they have a budget for salaries. It's forced them to know how to budget. But in terms of the agreement, from the players' standpoint, I don't think (the strength of the agreement) is so much in the salaries as it is in the benefits: things like a 401(k) plan, annuities, severance and retirement benefits. There are so many attractive benefits in there. The players are well taken care of."

Tomczak knows the labor agreement well. In 1993, when the deal was struck, he was vice president of the NFLPA and instrumental in the formation of the agreement. He is among the group who believes the quality of play has not suffered.

Jack Ham, the former Steelers linebacker who was inducted into the Pro Football Hall of Fame in 1988, said parity has effectively erased the benchmark great teams previously could establish. He said while parity may be good for the fans because they know most teams will be in the playoff race each year, many players prefer to have such a benchmark team to aim toward.

"I think parity is good for the fans," he said. "It allows most of the teams to stay in the running for the playoffs or to have an opportunity for a Super Bowl until late in the year and for fans, that's a good thing.

"But for an ex-player like myself, I like the idea of having that team that's on top and you try to take your shot at them. You want to knock them off. You look at a team like the Yankees, or maybe our team or the Cowboys or Raiders of that era. I'm the kind of guy who likes to have a benchmark. With parity, that benchmark becomes clouded."

Ham believes the creation of the salary cap and free agency actually have served to lower the quality of play in the NFL. He said the constant player movement robs teams of a chance to establish continuity that is essential to consistent success in the NFL.

"When I was playing there was no player movement like there is now," he said. "Today, you have players moving all over the place. For the fans, again, that's probably good because they know that defensive tackle they watched last year and that their team needs this year will be there.

"But I think that's why the quality of play has gone down. You can have that kind of movement in baseball or basketball and it doesn't really take away from a team. But football is the ultimate team sport and those changes are more disruptive. It's harder to continue to play at a high level when you have players moving around so much."

All teams do not react as well to fill those changing needs, however. Daniel Snyder, owner of the Washington Redskins, pointed out in a recent interview with USA Today that parity means all teams are flawed nowadays.

"In today's game, there are no complete football teams anymore," Snyder told USA Today. "With every team, you'll see some holes. Even (defending Super Bowl champion) Tampa Bay wants a better running game and offensively they were (ranked) 20-something and not very good. They just had the No. 1 defense: by far. And it makes a difference. All teams have holes."

The key to success, then, lies in finding a way to fill them effectively.

"I think it's obvious that the longer you are with one team, the more relationships you will have (with that team)," Tomczak said. "The cohesiveness on a team, which is very important, was much greater years ago than it is now. There is so much more teams have to do to find the right chemistry now because players are moving as much as they are."

Edmund Nelson, a Steelers' defensive lineman from 1982-87, says his former team has done a good job of finding that chemistry.

"But I think parity was created by the salary cap," he said. "The Steelers have done a good job of scouting and recruiting. Now, everyone has access to the same information. In the past, maybe only a few teams had access to certain things. What parity has done is keep everyone in it."

Nelson said the league has achieved its goal of parity because players and owners decided to work together for the good of all.

"They decided they were in this thing together and the best way to go about things was to make the NFL better," Nelson said. "That helped create the situation that allowed parity to happen. You know that at any time, a team can rise up."

Players remain enraptured with getting a Super Bowl ring. Nelson and Tomczak both said changes in the system don't change that pursuit in players' hearts. Toward this end, both believe the current system of more teams having more chances is more attractive to players.

"As players, you want a chance to win," Nelson said. "The league has created a situation where given time, as a player, you know your team will have a chance to get to the Super Bowl, like Atlanta did a few years ago coming out of nowhere. That creates a sense among the players of getting out there and working harder to reach your goals, because you know under the system those goals are reachable."