01:00 AM EST on Sunday, February 26, 2006

Having trouble grasping what all the hubbub is with the NFL right now? Not sure who's trying to do what to whom? Join the club. Here's a primer on which factions exist and what they are seeking. As a special bonus, we provide a Frequently Asked Questions section:

The players

They want the yearly salary cap to be a percentage of the league's Total Football Revenues (TFR). The owners are going to allow that. In 2005,

those revenues were about $6 billion. The players want the percentage to "begin with a '6', as Players Association president Gene Upshaw has said. The owners would prefer it to be somewhere in the mid to high-50s. The difference is significant. If the cap was based on 60 percent of TFR in 2005, the salary cap for each team would have been $112 million. If it was 55 percent, the cap would have been $103 million. The 2005 salary cap was $85.5 million. The 2006 salary cap is projected to be $96 million under the present system in which players get 64 percent of something called Defined Gross Revenues (DGR).

Low-revenue teams

Teams like Arizona, Cincinnati, Jacksonville, Buffalo and Indianapolis feel that too much of their yearly revenue goes to paying players. They're turning a profit but because the salary cap keeps going up each year, their profit margin is shrinking.

They can't create new revenue because they are in less lucrative markets. They don't get the in-stadium signage, parking and luxury-suite revenue that teams like the Patriots, Redskins and Eagles get -- and since that money is not shared between the teams -- they don't have as much disposable income.

As a result, paying up to the salary cap means they're using upward of 80 percent of their revenues to pay players, while some high-revenue teams may only use around 40 percent.

There's a kitty of money all 32 teams share in each year -- the defined gross revenues (DGR). The league's TV contract makes up the lion's share of that. (Note: Last year, each team got $87.5 million in TV money. With a salary cap of $85.5 million last season, each team had a $2-million profit out of the gate!). They also share merchandising revenue and portions of ticket sales.

But the money that isn't shared (EDGR) is where the discrepancy lies. Low-revenue teams want that money shared. They want the high-revenue teams to fund them so that every team is feeling the same sting from the salary cap. Instead of one team paying 40 percent of the total revenues to players and another team paying 80, they want kickbacks until both teams are paying 60 percent.

High-revenue teams

Their stance is simple. Teams that are very profitable in their own markets -- the Patriots, Eagles, Cowboys, Broncos, and Redskins, for instance -- don't want to share the revenues they make locally with teams that don't make money in theirs.

The Patriots built a stadium on their own nickel, sold the naming rights, sold the luxury and club suites, cut the local radio and TV deals, worked the in-stadium signage, etc. They have to pay the mortgage on the stadium and the employees to sell the luxury suites and TV deals.

If low-revenue teams want higher revenue, they can work to attain it. That's what the Krafts did when they took over a Patriots team that was dead-last in profitability.

Frequently asked questions

WHAT'S IT ALL MEAN?

There are two battles. The one between the owners and players is a skirmish. The one between the two owner factions is more divisive.

WHY IS THIS AN ISSUE NOW?

The Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) between the players and owners expires at the end of the 2008 season. But, in a smart move by both sides, "poison pills" were put into the last CBA -- like the removal of the salary cap in 2007. With no cap in place for next year, the way contracts are negotiated when the 2006 league year begins on Friday will be radically altered. And not for the better for either side.

This is forcing the sides to come to an accord before the league year begins. There's been a lot of talk about the NFL possibly postponing the start of the league year (which is the beginning of free agency) until the issues can be ironed out.

WHAT HAPPENS IF THEY DON'T GET IT DONE?

This is where it starts getting complicated. Unfortunately, this is also where fans will see the most concrete symbols of the strife. If you want to know why what's happening is happening, read on. If 2007 is an "uncapped year" then 2006 is affected in several ways. All involve money or free agency.

1. Any player whose contract expires in 2006 but doesn't have more than four seasons in the league cannot become a free agent. He'll be a restricted free agent. So Dan Koppen, Tully Banta-Cain, Bethel Johnson and Dan Klecko -- all players drafted in 2003 whose contracts expire after next season -- can't go to unrestricted free agency.

2. Signing bonuses can only be spread out over four years, not seven. Signing bonuses are paid up-front, but teams are allowed to spread out the bonus over a number of seasons. So a $12-million bonus on a six-year deal will count $3 million per year over four years instead of $2 million over six seasons.

3. Not-likely-to-be-earned incentives (NLTBE) for performance that are achieved in the 2006 season will immediately hit the cap for '06. So if a player has a $1-million bonus for catching 75 passes and he reaches that in Week 10, his team will have to allot for that immediately. That could mean reworking contracts or releasing players. Or manipulating opportunities so players don't hit those NLTBE bonuses. In the past, that bonus moved to the next year.

4. There is no salary-cap ceiling in 2007, but there is no floor either. Teams won't be on the hook to spend a minimum amount as they now are so teams that are tight (low-revenue teams) will be prone to spending much less.

5. High-profile free agents who are to hit the market next spring -- like Richard Seymour and Deion Branch -- won't get the big bonuses they want on the open market because the opportunity to spread that money out is narrowed to four seasons, not seven. Same goes for a player like David Givens, who becomes a free agent this spring.

6. Teams can't make up for smaller signing bonuses by giving bigger salaries because salaries can't grow by more than 30 percent each season (the 30-percent rule).

7. Teams would stop funding the players 401(k) benefits in 2007 and also lift other fringe benefits that will result in tough sledding for the players.

8. Down the road, the union would dissolve, allowing it to take the league to court. That's a remote possibility.

WHY DOES THE ISSUE BETWEEN OWNERS AFFECT THE ISSUE OF OWNERS AND PLAYERS?

Upshaw, the NFLPA president, has said the union won't agree to the CBA until the owners work out their revenue-sharing issues. There is no compelling reason why that has to be done. The players are getting cut in on the TFR one way or the other. There's speculation that Upshaw's posturing at the behest of league officials in order to prompt the owners to get a resolution.

WHAT NOW?

The 2006 league year is scheduled to begin Friday. Teams must be in accordance with the 2006 salary cap (as yet unannounced, probably about $95 million)) and free agency begins. The owners meet March 6 and 7 in Dallas. It remains a possibility that the league year will be delayed until after the owners' meeting.

That sit-down should be a bare-knuckles affair but the hope is that something gets hammered out, that the NFL averts the chaos of an uncapped year and everything just explained becomes moot. If not, at least you'll know why the planet's best professional sports league is endangering itself.

tcurran@projo.com / (401) 277-7340