Quarterbacks Are Underpaid, Left Tackles Overpaid

Our hearts go out to NFL quarterbacks, trying to keep the wolves at the door on their meager salaries. They are underpaid. We could compare linemen or defenses, but it strikes me the major difference in NFL teams comes down to the play of the quarterbacks. If we had put a Bears' helmet on Peyton Manning, the Bears likely would be the Super Bowl champions. Consider the New England Patriots: a bunch of mediocre offensive players, a decent, veteran defense, and one outstanding quarterback. Despite its general mediocrity, the team consistently competes for titles in the tough AFC, sells out its home games, makes tons of money from merchandise sales, and has become one of the league's most profitable franchises. All this, and Tom Brady makes about $10 million per year. How much would he be paid if he were a free agent and were compensated according to the revenue he produces?

Which brings me to left tackles. Michael Lewis' book The Blind Side points out the sharp increase in pay for NFL left tackles over the past decade or so. Lewis looks for, and finds, a few football-related reasons for this increasing importance of and consequent demand for the extremely large, agile players who are assigned to this position. But for TSLP? I look to law. What has changed in the legal environment over this period that suddenly makes left tackles so important?

Simple: left tackles are being paid out of the quarterback's salary.

1. The NFL, unique among major sports leagues, features a "hard" salary cap tied to league revenues. This hard cap rather strictly limits the total compensation available to players as a whole. One consequence of a cap is that money gets spread out more among the players. A team would have difficult competing if most of its capped money were allocated to a few star players, leaving little to compete for better players at other positions. So competitive teams have to pay their stars less in order to pay quality non-stars more.

2. The NFL and NFLPA (the players' union) agreed to propose the hard salary cap to the players in order to settle the antitrust battles of the early 1990's (the Freeman McNeil and Reggie White law suits, both battling vestiges of the old "Rozelle Rule" that required compensation for lost free agents). The settlement was bitterly opposed by veteran players, who understood that the cap would eventually limit star-level compensation. Nevertheless, the majority of the union approved the settlement, perhaps for the same reason.

3. Regardless of salary differentials, quarterbacks contribute to team victory or defeat far more than does any one player at any other position. NFL teams routinely rotate players are every position, even the "glamour" positions like running back and receiver, and throughout all the defensive positions. The Patriots especially seem able and willing to substitute players at all positions, and of late have notably refused to pay to acquire or retain "stars" at any position, but one. Instead, the Patriots prefer to hire a roster full of quality players, not stars, producing a team with few All-Pros but with remarkable depth. There is only one star on the Patriots, and that's the quarterback. Tom Brady never comes out of the game.

4. But the hard NFL salary cap precludes the Patriots from paying Tom Brady according to the revenue he produces, simply because he alone produces revenue that comprises most of the team's revenue. Money comes from wins, at least in large part. The salary cap ties total player compensation to about 60% of total revenue. What percentage of credit for the Patriots' winning seasons (and merchandise sales and general popularity) would you attribute to Tom Brady? I'd put it pretty close to the total percentage available to pay the entire team. But the Patriots cannot remain competitive if Brady were paid what he's worth. They have to pay somebody else Tom's money. So it goes to the players who are most important in complementing the quarterback, among them the left tackle protecting the quarterback's blind side. Notice how the pay scale for left tackles has undergone a meteoric rise coincident with the implementation of the salary cap.

5. Lewis attributes the rise in compensation for left tackles to the game and the game's rules. Left tackles are more important today than in times past because pass rushers, especially linebackers on the quarterback's blind side (to his left) are faster and rules changes have facilitated the passing game. I'm skeptical of the first reason; the NFL has long featured very fast rushers playing defensive end (which player the linebacker essentially replaces in the 3-4 defense in which Lewis finds his "new" fast linebackers). The second development, the rules liberalization, is as much a reason to increase the compensation of the quarterback or blitzing linebacker or pass-rushing defensive end as it is the left tackle.

6. Yes, left tackles are worth more today than they were in the days before the salary cap, but they are not worth anywhere near the multiples in pay that they receive as compared to their teammates on the offensive line. They are only a little more valuable (in terms of contributing to team victories) than the right tackles, guards and center. But they are paid a lot more simply because they contribute slightly more to the production of the quarterback, and the quarterback produces most of the team's money, whether he's receiving it in compensation or not.

7. Want to really save money on left tackles? Hire a left-handed quarterback. The right tackle, playing on the lefty quarterback's blind side, will come much more cheaply due to less demand. I've read several intelligent commentators suggest that the "test" for Lewis' thesis on the importance of left tackles would be to find out if similar importance is given to right tackles, or to find out if left-handed quarterbacks perform less effectively because right tackles are less skilled. This is no test at all. Right tackles are just as skilled as the left tackle; they're just paid less because they don't complement the quarterback quite as much. With a left quarterback, a team would rationally hire a highly skilled (yet cheaper) right tackle, producing the same level of quarterback success.

8. Think salary caps don't redistribute income? Obviously you're not a college football coach (am I right? What a guess.) The NCAA has a neat little salary cap of its own: each player gets to earn just about zero. So how should a college athletic department spend all that revenue? On the man whose performance best enhances that of the players: the coach. That lucky devil gets paid far in excess of any revenue he produces. Some of us in life get paid less than the value we produce (think educators, just like TSLP). For lucky left tackles, they get more.