Salary cap

In professional sports, a salary cap (or wage cap) is an agreement or rule that places a limit on the amount of money that a sporting club can spend on player salaries. The limit exists as a per-player limit or a total limit for the team's roster, or both. Several sports leagues have implemented salary caps, both as a method of keeping overall costs down, and to ensure parity between teams so wealthy teams cannot entrench dominance by signing many more top players than their rivals. Salary caps can be a major issue in negotiations between league management and players' unions, and has been the focus point of several strikes by players and lockouts by owners and administrators.

Adoption
Salary caps are used by the following major sports leagues around the world:


 * North America: The National Hockey League, National Football League, Major League Soccer, National Lacrosse League, Canadian Football League, National Basketball Association and minor leagues in various sports.


 * England: The top-level leagues in both rugby codes—the Aviva Premiership in rugby union and the Super League in rugby league—have salary caps. Recently, several European association football leagues have also discussed introducing salary caps.


 * Australia: The Australian Football League (Australian rules football), the National Rugby League (rugby league), and A-League (association football) all include salary cap provisions.


 * Eurasia: The Kontinental Hockey League, based in Russia and also including teams in Belarus, the Czech Republic, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Slovakia and Ukraine, has operated with a salary cap since its creation in 2008.


 * France: The country's top-level rugby union league, Top 14, instituted a salary cap effective with the 2010–11 season.

In addition, the four Welsh regional sides in rugby union's Pro 12 have unilaterally adopted a salary cap effective with the 2012–13 season.

Benefits of salary caps
In theory, there are two main benefits derived from salary caps - promotion of parity between teams, and control of costs.

Primarily, an effective salary cap prevents wealthy teams from certain destructive behaviours, such as signing a multitude of high-paid star players to prevent their rivals from accessing talented players and ensuring victory through superior economic power. With a salary cap, each club has roughly the same economic power to attract players, which contributes to parity by producing roughly equal playing talent in each team in the league, and in turn brings economic benefits, both to the league and to its individual teams.

Leagues need to ensure a degree of parity between teams so that games are exciting for the fans and not a foregone conclusion. The leagues that have adopted salary caps generally do so because they believe letting richer teams accumulate talent affects the quality of the sporting product they want to sell. If only a handful of dominant teams are able to win consistently and challenge for the championship, many of the contests will be blowouts by the superior team, reducing the sport's attractiveness for fans at the stadium and viewers on television. Television revenue is an important part of the income of many sports around the world, and the more evenly matched and exciting the contests, the more interesting the television product, meaning the value of the television broadcast rights is higher. An unbalanced league also threatens the financial viability of the weaker teams, because if there is no long term hope of their team winning, fans of the weaker clubs will gravitate to other sports and leagues.

The need for parity is more pronounced in leagues that use the franchise model, rather than the promotion and relegation model, used in European football. The structure of a promotion and relegation system means weaker teams struggle against the threat of relegation, adding importance and excitement to the matches of weaker teams. International club competitions such as the UEFA Champions League also means that the top clubs always have something to play for, even in the most unbalanced of national leagues.

A salary cap can also help to control the costs of teams and prevent situations in which a club will sign high-cost contracts for star players in order to reap the benefits of immediate popularity and success, only to later find themselves in financial difficulty because of these costs. Without caps, there is a risk that teams will overspend in order to win now at the expense of long term stability, and team owners who use the same risk-benefit analysis used in business may risk not just the fortunes of their own team but the reputation and viability of the whole league.

Sports fans are generally looking to support a team for life, not just a product to purchase for the short term. If teams regularly go bankrupt or change markets the same way businesses do, then the whole sport looks unstable to the fans, who may lose interest and switch their support to a more stable sport where their team and their rivals are more likely to be playing in the long term.

Hard cap, soft cap and salary floor
A salary cap can be defined as a hard cap or a soft cap.

A hard cap represents a maximum amount that may not be exceeded for any reason. Contracts which cause a team to violate a hard cap are subject to major sanctions, including the stripping of championships won while breaching salary cap rules (the only occasion of this as of 2012 is the Melbourne Storm in the NRL), and voiding violating contracts. Hard caps are designed so that penalties deter breaking the cap, but there are numerous examples of clubs who have occasionally and/or systematically cheated the cap.

A soft cap represents an amount which may be exceeded in limited circumstances, but otherwise exceeding the cap will trigger a penalty which is known in advance. Typically these penalties are financial in nature; fines or a luxury tax are common penalties used by leagues.

A salary floor is a minimum amount that must be spent on the team as a whole, and this is separate from the minimum player salary that is agreed to by the league. Some leagues, in particular the NFL, have a hard salary floor that requires teams to meet the salary floor every year, which helps prevent teams from using the salary cap to minimize costs.

Reserve clause
Before the implementation of salary caps, the economic influence of clubs on player markets was controlled by the reserve clause, which was long a standard clause in professional sports player contracts in the United States. The clause forbade a player from negotiations with another team without the permission of the team holding that player's rights even after the contract's term was completed. This system began to unravel in the 1970s due largely to the activism of players' unions, and the threat of anti-trust legal actions. Although anti-trust actions were not a threat to baseball, which has long been exempt from anti-trust laws, that sport's reserve clause was struck down by a United States arbitrator as a violation of other labor laws.

By the 1990s most players with several years' professional experience became free agents upon the expiry of their contracts and were free to negotiate a new contract with their previous team or with any other team. This situation, called Restricted Free Agency, led to "bidding wars" for the best players—a situation which inherently gave an advantage in landing such players to more affluent teams in larger media markets.

Salary cap in the NHL

 * For a more detailed discussion, see the article NHL salary cap.

Early years
A salary cap existed in the early days of the National Hockey League (NHL). During the Great Depression, the league was under financial pressure to lower its salary cap to $62,500 per team and $7,000 per player, forcing some teams to trade away well-paid star players in order to fit the cap.

Pre-salary cap
Prior to the resolution of the 2004–05 lockout, the NHL was the only major North American professional sports league that had no luxury tax, revenue sharing, salary cap, or salary floor.

Player salaries did not become an issue until the 1970s, when Alan Eagleson founded the NHL Players' Association (NHLPA) and the upstart World Hockey Association began competing with the NHL for players. On the other hand, Harold Ballard of the Toronto Maple Leafs spent among the league minimum on rosters, making his team the most profitable.

The 1994–95 NHL lockout was fought over the issue of the salary cap. The 1994–95 season was only partially cancelled, with 48 games and the playoffs eventually being played.

Eight NHL franchises were based in Canada at the time of the lockout, but they suffered a revenue discrepancy. All NHL salaries must be paid in U.S. dollars, but the Canadian teams' revenues were in Canadian dollars. The financial difficulties and uncertainties of competing in smaller Canadian markets led to two clubs moving to the U.S.; the Quebec Nordiques to Denver, and the Winnipeg Jets to Phoenix. NHL Commissioner Gary Bettman successfully persuaded the US-based teams to donate towards a pool to mitigate the negative effect of the exchange rate.

Negotiations
The negotiations for the most recent NHL Collective Bargaining Agreement revolved primarily around players' salaries. The league contended that its clubs spent about 75% of revenues on salaries, a percentage far higher than existed in other North American sports; NHL Commissioner Gary Bettman demanded "cost certainty" and presented the NHLPA with several concepts that the Players' Association considered nothing more than euphemisms for a salary cap, which it had vowed it would never accept. The previous CBA had expired on September 15, 2004, and a lockout ensued, leading to the cancellation of the entire 2004–05 NHL season, the first time a major sports league in North America had lost an entire season to a labor dispute.

Current salary cap
The lockout was resolved when the NHLPA agreed to a hard salary cap based on league revenues, with the NHL implementing revenue sharing to allow for a higher cap figure. The NHL salary cap is formally titled the "Upper Limit of the Payroll Range" in the new CBA. For the 2005–06 NHL season, the salary cap was set at US$39 million per team, with a maximum of $7.8 million (20% of the team's cap) for a player.

Revenues for the six Canadian teams that were in the league at the time of the lockout have all increased significantly since then, and due to the fact the US dollar fell to relative parity with its Canadian counterpart, league-wide revenues measured in U.S. dollars have been inflated accordingly.

As a result of these factors, the cap has been raised each year to its current figure of $64.3 million for the 2011–12 season, with a cap of $12.86 million for a player. The CBA also contains a salary floor which is formally titled the "Lower Limit of the Payroll Range", the minimum that each team must pay in player salaries. The lower limit was originally set at 55% of the cap, but is now defined to be $16 million below the cap, therefore the 2011–12 minimum is $48.3 million. The difference between the salary cap and a team's actual payroll is referred to as the team's "payroll room" or "cap room".

Each year of an NHL player contract, the salary earned contributes to the team's "cap hit". The basic cap hit of a contract for each year it is effective is the total money a player will earn in regular salary over the life of the contract divided by the number of years it is effective. This, in theory, prevents a team from paying a player different amounts each year in order to load his cap hit in years in which the team has more cap room. Teams still use this practice, however, for other reasons. Performance bonuses also count towards the cap, but there is a percentage a team is allowed to go over the cap in order to pay bonuses. A team must still factor in possible bonus payments, however, which could go over that percentage.

Salary for players sent to the minors, under most circumstances, do not count towards the cap while they are there. If a player has a legitimate long-term injury, his cap hit is still counted; however, the team is permitted to replace him with one or more players whose combined salary is equal to (or less than) that of the injured player, even if the additional players would put the team over the salary cap. If the team's cap room is larger than the injured player's cap hit, they may take on as much as their cap room; however, the injured player may not return to play until the team is again compliant with the original cap.

The NHL has become the first of the major North American leagues to implement a hard cap while retaining guaranteed player contracts. Guaranteed player contracts in the NHL differ from other sports, notably the NFL, where teams may opt out of a contract by waiving or cutting a player. NHL teams may buy out players' contracts, but must still pay a portion of the money still owed which is spread out over twice the remaining duration of the contract. This does not apply for players over 35 at the time of signing; in this case a team cannot buy out the player's contract to reduce salary. Any other player can be bought out for ⅓ of the remaining salary if the player is younger than 28 at the time of termination, or ⅔ of the remaining salary if the player is 28 or older. Trading cash for players or paying a player's remaining salary after trading him have been banned outright in order to prevent wealthier teams from evading the restrictions of the cap.

Players, agents or employees found to have violated the cap face fines of $250,000 - $1 million and/or suspension. Teams found to have violated the cap face fines of up to $5 million, cancellation of contracts, forfeiture of draft picks, deduction of points and/or forfeiture of game(s) determined to have been affected by the violation of the cap.

Salary cap in the NFL
The new collective bargaining agreement formulated in 2011 had an initial salary cap of $120 million. While the previous CBA had a salary floor, the new CBA did not have one until. Starting with that season, each team is required to spend a minimum of 88.8% of the cap in cash on player compensation, and 90% in future years.

The NFL's cap is a hard cap that the teams have to stay under at all times, and the salary floor is also a hard floor; penalties for violating or circumventing the cap and floor regulations include fines of up to $5 million for each violation, cancellation of contracts and/or loss of draft picks.

The cap was first introduced for the 1994 season and was initially $34.6 million. Both the cap and the floor are adjusted annually based on the league's revenues, and they have increased each year. In, the final capped year under that agreement, the cap was $128 million per team, while the floor was 87.6% of the cap. Using the formula provided in the league's collective bargaining agreement, the floor in 2009 was $112.1 million. Under the NFL's agreement with the NFLPA, the effect on the salary cap of guaranteed payments (such as signing bonuses) are, with a few rare exceptions, prorated evenly over the term of the contract.

In transitions, if a player retires, is traded, or is cut before June 1, all remaining bonus is applied to the salary cap for the current season. If the payroll change occurs after June 1, the current season's bonus proration is unchanged, and the next year's cap must absorb the entire remaining bonus.

Because of this setup, NFL contracts almost always include the right to cut a player before the beginning of a season. If a player is cut, his salary for the remainder of his contract is neither paid nor counted against the salary cap for that team. A highly sought-after player signing a long term contract will usually receive a signing bonus, thus providing him with financial security even if he is cut before the end of his contract.

Incentive bonuses require a team to pay a player additional money if he achieves a certain goal. For the purposes of the salary cap, bonuses are classified as either "likely to be earned", which requires the amount of the bonus to count against the team's salary cap, or "not likely to be earned", which is not counted. A team's salary cap is adjusted downward for NLTBE bonuses that were earned in the previous year but not counted against that year's cap. It is adjusted upward for LTBE bonuses that were not earned in the previous year but were counted against that year's cap.

One effect of the salary cap was the release of many higher-salaried veteran players to other teams once their production started to decline from the elite level. On the other hand, many teams have made a practice of using free agents to restock with better personnel more suited to the team. The salary cap prevented teams with superior finances from engaging in the formerly widespread practice of stocking as much talent on the roster as possible by placing younger players on reserve lists with false injuries while they develop into NFL-capable players. In this respect, the cap functions as a supplement to the 55-man roster limit and practice squad limits.

Generally, the practice of retaining veteran players who had contributed to the team in the past, but whose abilities have declined, became less common in the era of the salary cap. A veteran's minimum salary was required to be higher than a player with lesser experience. This means teams tended to favor cheaper, less experienced prospects with growth potential, with an aim to having a group of players who quickly develop into their prime while still being on cheaper contracts than their peers. To offset this tendency which pushed out veteran players, including those who became fan favorites, the players' association accepted an arrangement where a veteran player who receives no bonuses in his contract may be paid the veteran minimum of up to $810,000, while only accounting for only $425,000 in salary-cap space (a 47.5% discount).

The salary cap also served to limit the rate of increase of the cost of operating a team. This has accrued to the owners' benefit, and while the initial cap of $34.6 million has increased to $123 million (maximum in 2009), this is due to large growths of revenue, including merchandising revenues and web enterprises which ownership is sharing with players as well.

The owners opted out of the CBA in 2008, leading to an uncapped season in 2010. During the season, most NFL teams spent as if there was a cap in place anyway, with the league warning against teams front-loading contracts during the season. The Dallas Cowboys, New Orleans Saints, Oakland Raiders, and Washington Redskins all ignored the warning, and in 2012 the Cowboys and Redskins (the top two NFL teams by revenue in 2011) were docked $10 million and $36 million respectively from their salary caps, to be spread over the next two seasons. This $46 million would subsequently be divided up among the remaining 26 NFL teams ($1.77 million each) as added cap space (this excludes the Raiders and Saints, the latter of which was also dealing with their ongoing bounty scandal, as both teams were over the cap, though to a lesser degree than the Cowboys and Redskins).

Year by Year Salary Cap

Salary cap in MLS
Here are some major points of the MLS rules and regulations for the 2013 season.


 * A team's roster can be made up of up to 30 players. They are eligible to be selected to the 18-player team for each game.


 * The salary cap will be $2.95 million per team, not counting the extra salary of designated players. Players in the first 20 roster spots will count against the cap.


 * The maximum salary for any one player is $368,750.


 * A designated player counts $368,750 against a team's cap. However, if a player joins his team in the middle of the season, the charge against the budget will be $175,000.


 * Players who are in the roster spots from 21-30 will not count against a team's cap. They will be known as off-budget players. Generation adidas players are off-budget players and not counted against the cap. Those in roster spots from 21–24 have a minimum salary of $46,500, and slots 25–30 have a minimum salary of $35,125. Additionally, those who earn the lowest possible league salary must be 24 or younger during the 2013 calendar year.

Since the 2012 season, the cap number for international designated players has depended on the players' ages. In the current 2013 season, players 20 or younger count $150,000 against the cap and those age 21 to 23 count $200,000, with older players remaining at a cap number of $368,750. For the purpose of determining a cap number, the player's age is determined solely by his year of birth.

Salary cap in the NBA

 * For a more detailed discussion, see the article NBA salary cap.

The NBA's most recent collective bargaining agreement was approved in December 2011, ending a five-month-long lockout of players from team facilities. The new CBA made no immediate change to the numeric value of the team salary cap from the previous CBA; however, the cap will be prorated for the shortened. In addition, as in the previous CBA (and also in the NFL), the cap will in the future be calculated as a percentage of league revenues. The cap for the 2010-11 season was $58.04 million.

Through 2010–11, the NBA's salary cap was a "soft" cap, meaning that teams were allowed to exceed the cap in order to retain the rights to a player who was already on the team. This provision was known as the ""Larry Bird" exception, named after the former Boston Celtics great who was retained by that team until his retirement under the provisions of this rule. The purpose of this rule was to address fan unease over the frequent changing of teams by players under the free agency system, as fans became displeased over their favorite player on their favorite team suddenly bolting to another team. The "Larry Bird" provision of the salary cap gave the player's current team an advantage over other teams in free agent negotiations, thus increasing the chances that a player would stay with his current team.

The provision tended to result in most teams being over the cap at any given time. Teams that violated the cap rules faced fines of up to $5 million, cancellation of contracts and/or loss of draft picks, and are prohibited from signing free agents for more than the league minimum. The NBA also has a salary floor, but teams are not penalized as long as their total payroll exceeds the floor at the end of the season.

The NBA also had a luxury tax system which is triggered if the average team payroll exceeds a certain amount higher than the cap. In this case, the teams with payrolls exceeding a certain threshold had to pay a tax to the league which is divided amongst the teams with lower payrolls. However, this penalty was levied against teams in violation only if the league average also breached a separate threshold.

The NBA also implemented a maximum salary for individual players. This was done following a dramatic increase in player salaries, in spite of the salary cap, in the mid-1990s. Under the CBA, a player's maximum possible salary increased along with his time of service in the league. For a player of five years' experience, the maximum salary threshold began at 25% of the salary cap, with annual increases of up to 10.5% possible beyond that for players re-signed by their original team, or 8% annual increases for free agents that signed with new teams. For players of greater experience, the salary limit was higher - but the 10.5% limit on annual increases remained the same.

The 2011 CBA resulted in several major changes to the salary cap scheme.

First, the cap remains a soft cap. The Bird exception remains in place, but teams will have less financial room to retain a player with Bird rights than under the previous agreement.

The new CBA also reduced the maximum length of a contract by a year, and reduced allowable annual raises. Bird free agents are entitled to 5-year contracts with 7.5% raises; all other players (including sign-and-trade acquisitions) are limited to 4-year deals with 4.5% raises. Maximum salaries remain at 25, 30, or 35% of the cap, depending on years of service. A player coming off his rookie scale contract, who would normally be eligible to receive a salary of 25% of the cap, will be eligible to receive 30% if he is named MVP, makes an All-NBA Team twice, or appears in two All-Star Games.

Substantial changes were made to the luxury tax regime. The dollar-for-dollar tax provisions of the previous CBA remain in effect through the 2012–13 season. Starting in 2013–14, the tax changes to an incremental system. Tax will be assessed at different levels based on the amount that a team is over the tax threshold, which remains at a level above the actual cap. The scheme is not cumulative—each level of tax applies only to amounts over that level's threshold. For example, a team that is $8 million over the tax threshold will pay $1.50 for each of its first $5 million over the tax threshold, and $1.75 per dollar for the remaining $3 million. In addition, "repeat offenders", subject to additional tax penalties, are defined as teams that paid tax in four of the five previous seasons. As in the previous CBA, the tax revenue is divided among teams with lower payrolls. However, under the new scheme, no more than 50% of the total tax revenue can go exclusively to teams that did not go over the cap; the use of the remaining 50% has not been specified in the new agreement.

Taxpaying teams have additional spending limits under the new agreement. They have a smaller "midlevel exception" (another cap provision that allows teams to go over the cap to sign at least one player per season), and can acquire less salary in a trade. Also, beginning in 2013–14, teams that exceed the cap by $4 million or more cannot receive a player in a sign-and-trade deal.

The midlevel exception itself also changed with the new CBA. The maximum duration of midlevel contracts was reduced from 5 years to 4 for non-taxpaying teams and 3 for taxpaying teams, and maximum allowable raises were also reduced. In addition, the midlevel exception was extended to teams under the salary cap for the first time; these teams received a 2-year exception.

Under the new CBA, teams will be allowed to "amnesty" one player before the start of any season, as long as his current contract was signed during the 2005 CBA. The amnestied player is waived from the team; although the player's former team remains obligated to pay his salary under the old contract (with a credit for any salary paid by a future team), that salary is no longer counted for purposes of the cap or luxury tax calculations. This provision can be used only once per team during the duration of the CBA, which lasts for 10 years with either side able to opt out in 2017.

The salary floor, previously 75% of the cap, will increase to 85% in 2011–12 and 2012–13, and 90% in future years.

In the NBA, the salary cap has not had the same effect of breaking up championship teams and movement of veteran players between teams that has occurred in the NFL. Repeat championship winners have been far more likely to occur in the NBA than in the NFL in the salary cap era. Also, the overall rate of salaries paid and the expense to operate a team rose more rapidly in the NBA than in the NFL. The average NBA salary in 2010–11 was $5.356 million, the highest of any major North American sports league. This is mitigated by the NBA roster size of 15 as opposed to 55 for NFL teams, 23 for NHL teams, and the varying 24-40 man rosters (24 or 25 after opening day, 24-40 beginning September 1) of Major League Baseball.

Luxury tax in Major League Baseball

 * for reference please see List of Major League Baseball teams by payroll

Instead of a salary cap, Major League Baseball implements a luxury tax (also called a competitive balance tax), an arrangement in which teams whose total payroll exceeds a certain figure (determined annually) are taxed on the excess amount in order to discourage large market teams from having a substantially higher payroll than the rest of the league. The tax is paid to the league, which then puts the money into its industry-growth fund.

A team that goes over the luxury tax cap for the first time in a five-year period pays a penalty of 22.5% of the amount they were over the cap, second-time violators pay a 30% penalty, and teams that exceed the limit three or more times pay a 50% penalty from 2013 onwards. There is also an incentive to lower payroll; if in any year a team goes under the threshold, the penalty rate decreases to 17.5%, 25% or 40% (depending on prior record over the previous five years) for the next time the tax is paid, which will apply from 2013.

The cap limit for 2011-2013 is $178 million, and for 2014-2016 $189 million.

The following teams have been subject to luxury tax as of 2012:

The New York Yankees have paid 91.51% of all luxury tax collected by MLB.

Money collected under the MLB luxury tax are apportioned as follows:
 * The first $5m is held in reserve, to pay for possible luxury tax refunds. Once it is clear that there are no refunds to be issued, this $5m is then earmarked for the Industry Growth Fund (IGF).
 * 50% of the remaining money is used to fund player benefits, 25% is used to fund baseball programs in developing countries with no high-school baseball, and 25% is put into the Industry Growth Fund (IGF).

Criticism of the luxury tax
Measuring the success of the luxury tax in bringing the benefits of parity has brought mixed results.

A team with a $100 million plus payroll has won the World Series six times (the 2009 Yankees, the 2004 and 2007 Red Sox, the 2011 St. Louis Cardinals, and the 2010 and 2012 San Francisco Giants); however, while $100 million plus payrolls have only existed since 2001, the last team to win the World Series with a payroll less than $100 million was the 2008 Philadelphia Phillies (payroll $98.26 million).

It should also be noted that while a top tier payroll increases a team's chances of making the playoffs, it does not guarantee they will consistently win championships; on the other hand, the New York Yankees have consistently the had highest total payroll in MLB, and they have appeared in 40 of the 108 World Series for 27 wins as of 2012 (37.04% of all World Series for a 25% success rate).

In the past 30 years, 21 different teams have won the World Series, compared to 14 different teams winning the NFL Super Bowl, 13 winning the NHL Stanley Cup and 8 winning the NBA championship.

Other pundits, such as Michael Lewis, the author of the bestseller Moneyball, have argued that using World Series championships as an example of parity may be misleading, and playoff appearances may be a better indicator of relative team strength. Teams with consistently high payrolls including the New York Yankees and Boston Red Sox have secured high numbers of playoff berths, while teams with low payrolls such as the Pittsburgh Pirates and Tampa Bay Rays have only made the playoffs four times combined, all by the Rays, over the past decade. The playoff system used in baseball comprises a small number of games compared to success over a long season, and has been described as a "crapshoot" by Oakland A's General Manager Billy Beane.

A number of the small market teams, notably the Milwaukee Brewers, have called for the introduction of a salary cap, but any introduction is opposed by the MLB players' union and the Yankees' ownership group; the latter have threatened legal action if such a cap is implemented.

Although some saw the success of NHL owners in their 2004–05 lockout as an opportunity for MLB to reform its collective bargaining agreement, baseball owners agreed to a new five-year deal in October 2006 that did not include a salary cap. Unlike the other three major North American sports, MLB also has no team salary floor: the only minimum limits for team payrolls are based on the minimum salaries for individual players of various levels of experience that are written into MLB's collective bargaining agreement.

Salary cap in the Canadian Football League
On June 13, 2006, a proposed salary management system featuring a Maximum Salary Expenditure Cap (SEC) was ratified at the Canadian Football League board of governors meeting in Winnipeg, Manitoba. 

The CFL began enforcing strict salary cap regulation for the 2007 season, which was set at $4.05 million with a salary floor of $3,746,250 (92.5% of the cap); the cap will be set at $4.4 million for the 2013 season, with a salary floor of $4.07 million. 

Penalties for teams found to have breached the salary cap or salary floor regulations are :

Breaches
The following breaches of the salary cap have occurred (no team has yet been penalized for violating salary floor regulations) :
 * In 2007, the Montreal Alouettes were fined $116,570 and forfeited a first-round draft pick after a CFL investigation found that they had exceeded the salary cap by $108,285 during the season.
 * The Saskatchewan Roughriders were also fined in 2007 ($76,552) for a string of minor breaches in relation to benefit payments to injured players.
 * In 2008, the Saskatchewan Roughriders were fined $87,147 for exceeding the salary cap by that amount.
 * In 2009, the Winnipeg Blue Bombers were fined $44,687 for minor breaches in relation to player bonuses.
 * In 2010, the Saskatchewan Roughriders were fined $26,677 for exceeding the salary cap by that amount.

Salary caps in other North American leagues
Salary caps are common in other leagues.

The salary cap of the first Arena Football League was $1.82 million per team in its final season in 2008. In 2005, the Tampa Bay Storm were fined $125,000 for salary cap violations and their head coach Tim Marcum was suspended for four games (last two of the 2005 season and first two of the 2006 season) and fined $25,250; Marcum was suspended for a fifth game the next day for criticizing the decision at a press conference.

When the Arena Football League returned in 2010, it instituted a standard salary of $400 per game and a salary cap of $1.5 million, considerably lower than that paid by teams in the previous AFL; given that the new AFL had a 16-game season in 2010, this effectively means that its players are semi-professional.

The National Women's Soccer League, to be launched in 2013, has a team cap of $500,000. However, the sport's three North American national federations—the United States Soccer Federation, which runs the league; the Canadian Soccer Association; and the Mexican Football Federation—committed to paying the league salaries of many national team players. For the league's first season, 23 US players, plus 16 players each from Canada and Mexico, will have their salaries paid by their respective federations. In a player allocation held before the inaugural season, each of the eight charter teams received two Canadian and two Mexican internationals; seven of the eight teams received three US internationals and the Western New York Flash received two.

Salary caps in Europe
Salary caps are little used in Europe. However, several European rugby competitions, as well as ice hockey leagues have successfully instituted salary caps. Rugby league's Super League, mainly in England with a team also in France (and formerly one in Wales), is capped. Historically, Super League had used promotion and relegation, but changed in 2009 to a licensing system with some similarities to the North American franchising model. In rugby union, two of the continent's three main domestic/regional leagues—the Aviva Premiership in England and the Top 14 in France—instituted caps despite both being at the top of extensive pyramid structures with promotion and relegation throughout. The most notable European ice hockey league with a salary cap is the Kontinental Hockey League (which uses the franchising model), and that league implemented a cap despite currency issues.

Aviva Premiership
The Premiership's salary cap has been in place since the late 1990s. By 2007–08, the cap reached £2.2 million. In the following season, it nearly doubled to £4 million, and remained at that amount through the 2011–12 season. A provision applicable only in seasons that run up against the quadrennial Rugby World Cup, such as 2011–12, gives teams a £30,000 credit for each player in the squad participating in the competition, helping them to manage their reduced squads in the season's early weeks.

Through 2011–12, the cap remained at £4 million. However, academy credits were introduced that season. Teams now receive a £30,000 credit for each home-grown player in their senior squads, with a maximum of eight such credits. This increased the effective cap to a maximum of £4.24 million (not counting World Cup roster credits).

Two substantial changes took effect for 2012–13. First, the cap increased to £4.26 million before academy credits and up to £4.5 million with credits. The most significant change is that each team is now allowed to sign one player whose salary does not count against the cap, similar to the Designated Player Rule in MLS.

Top 14
In December 2009, Ligue nationale de rugby (LNR), operator of the Top 14, announced it would impose a cap of €8 million, effective with the 2010–11 season. Previously, the only restrictions on team salaries were that wage bills were limited to 50% of turnover and that 10% of the salary budget had to be held in reserve. Along with the announcement of the cap, LNR also declared that the reserve requirement would be raised to 20%, with the previous limitation of 50% of turnover remaining in effect.

The new cap was slightly higher than the highest official wage bill in the 2009–10 season. Also, due to the complex nature of French club administration, clubs were seen as likely to find creative ways to skirt the cap.

The Top 14 salary cap is set at €9.5 million for 2012–13.

Welsh rugby union
On 20 December 2011, the four Welsh regional sides that participate in the Pro 12 competition announced that they would impose a salary cap of £3.5 million, effective with the 2012–13 season. The cap covers only the registered squad for European competitions—i.e., the Heineken Cup and European Challenge Cup. It does not cover players in the regions' academies.

Notably, this cap was unilaterally instituted. Pro12 is uncapped, and none of the other three countries involved in the Pro12 (Ireland, Italy, and Scotland) are known to have formally instituted such a system.

Kontinental Hockey League
When the Russian Superleague was dissolved to make way to the modern-day KHL, the Kontinental Hockey League Players' Trade Union (KHLPTU) agreed to the implementation of a salary cap. When first implemented there was a salary cap, as well as a salary floor. For the 2009-10 KHL season, the salary cap was 620 million rubles ($US18.3 million) and the salary floor was 200 million rubles ($US5.9 million).

The KHL's cap operates despite the KHL's multinational nature, with teams in Belarus, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Slovakia (from 2011–12), the Czech Republic (from 2012–13), and Ukraine (also from 2012–13), in addition to its primary base of Russia. Each of the non-Russian countries uses a different currency, and all of them currently float against the ruble. Kazakhstan has never sought to peg its currency to any other. Belarus has in the recent past attempted to peg its currency to the ruble and the US dollar with limited success, while Ukraine's currency is currently pegged to the US dollar. Slovakia uses the euro, while Latvia's currency is closely tied to the euro via the country's membership in ERM II. Although the Czech Republic is obligated to eventually adopt the euro, it is not expected to do so in the immediate future; in the meantime, its currency is not closely tied with that of any other entity.

From 2011-12, each team can sign up to two "designated players" whose salaries are not counted against the cap. The KHL salary cap was (until the 2011-12 KHL season) a soft cap, with a luxury tax amounting to 30% of the payroll that is over the cap paid to the special stabilization account, which helps KHL teams facing financial hardship. From the 2012-13 KHL season onward, the KHL salary cap is a hard cap and, for 2012-13, is set at 1.25 billion rubles ($US36.5 million).

Salary caps and competitive balance in Europe
Several European association football leagues have considered introducing salary caps in the early 21st century. In 2002, BBC reported that the G14 group of 18 leading European football teams would cap their payrolls at 70% of team's income, starting from the 2005/2006 season, however this did not occur. Serie A, the leading Italian football league and The Football League in England have also considered salary caps.

These measures would be implemented to ensure clubs spend responsibly rather than as a tool to create parity. Top executives in European football have acknowledged that a number of challenges not present in North America would confront anyone who tried to implement an effective cap across European football or even across a single league with a view to creating competitive balance:


 * The various national leagues are in competition with each other for the best players because there is free movement of players between the leagues. Football leagues in European Union countries have been forbidden from prohibiting the signing of EU players from other nations, or even from limiting their numbers.  Therefore, if one league imposed a strict cap on its teams, the best players from the country in question would still be free to move to uncapped rival leagues.


 * The existence of lucrative and prestigious international club competitions encourage clubs to ensure dominance of their national leagues in order to play in the higher-level European leagues. For many top clubs, the domestic league is little more than a stepping stone to the European league. Success in European club competitions is not only a matter of national pride, as the number of places allocated to each country for these competitions is determined by that country's teams' past performances in Europe. Salary capped clubs in a franchise structure do not have to compete with teams in rival leagues where there is no salary cap.


 * Different governing bodies have authority over domestic and international competitions. For example, UEFA governs European football and organizes the prestigious Champions League and Europa League, but its authority over the domestic leagues is very limited. Although UEFA could, in theory, impose a salary cap, it would only apply to UEFA's club competitions and to the portion of each team's payroll paid to players registered with UEFA. A wealthy Champions League team could then sign players who would play exclusively in domestic competitions. In other major sports, there is generally only a single league which oversees a single premier competition.


 * The pyramid structure of European leagues means the number of small clubs in the various lower divisions can run into the thousands. The promotion and relegation system which allows transfers between these divisions presents challenges to a cap system. A club that is relegated to a lower league after a poor season may find themselves significantly over the lower division cap. Similarly, a promoted club might have to face the challenge of hastily finding players who it could then pay under a higher cap. A salary cap exacerbates the problem of players switching clubs along with the clubs' movement between tiers.


 * European tax systems and rates vary greatly from country to country. One prominent club, AS Monaco, plays in a principality with no income tax at all. A flat payroll limit would therefore equate to aggregate take home pay that varied greatly from one club to the next, which would make it difficult for teams in countries with higher taxation to attract the best players. By comparison, the differences between the tax systems and tax rates of Canada, the U.S. and between their respective provinces and states are not nearly as great.


 * Europeans use multiple currencies and football wages are usually paid in the local currency. Although the countries hosting all but one of the most prominent European leagues now use the Euro, the one exception, England, has the richest league. Even if a hypothetical UEFA-wide cap were denominated in Euros, fluctuating exchange rates would make it difficult for the cap to be fairly administered in the United Kingdom since its salaries are paid in pounds sterling. By comparison, most player salaries paid to players on Canadian major sports teams are paid in U.S. dollars; in fact this is now mandated in the NHL to ensure that payrolls do not fluctuate with exchange rates. On the other hand, trying to force British clubs to pay wages in Euros so that their payrolls could not exceed a cap would meet with opposition from clubs since their revenues are collected in pounds, and might even provoke political opposition from Britons determined to prevent the Euro from replacing the pound.

Australian rules football
The Australian Football League has implemented a salary cap on its clubs since 1987, when Brisbane and West Coast were admitted, as part of its equalization policy designed to neutralize the ability of the richest and most successful clubs, Carlton, Collingwood and Essendon, to perennially dominate the competition.

The cap was set at A$1.25 million for 1987–1989 as per VFL agreement, with the salary floor set at 90% of the cap or $1.125 million; the salary floor was increased to 92.5% of the cap in 2001, and to 95% of the cap for 2013 onwards due to increased revenues. The salary cap, known officially as Total Player Payments, is A$9,130,000 for the 2013 season with a salary floor of $8,673,500 except for the Gold Coast, whose salary cap will be A$9,630,000 with a salary floor of $9,171,500, and Greater Western Sydney, whose salary cap is $9,987,000 with a floor of $9,530,500.

Both the salary cap and salary floor has increased substantially since the competition was re-branded as the AFL in 1990 to assist in stemming the dominance of other high membership clubs, such as Adelaide, Hawthorn and the West Coast Eagles.

Certain payments are excluded from the cap, and concessions are available for some players, in particular "veteran" players (those over the age of 30 and/or who have completed 10 seasons with their current club) and "nominated" rookie list players, who are discounted by 30% or 50% for purposes of the cap, depending on the number of these players at each club.

The AFL Players Association negotiates for players with the AFL on the topic of average salary.

Breaches
The breaches of the salary cap and salary floor regulations outlined by the AFL are exceeding the TPP, falling below the salary floor, not informing the AFL of payments, late or incorrect lodgement or loss of documents relating to player financial and contract details, or engaging in draft tampering. Trading cash for players and playing coaches, formerly common practices, are also prohibited in order to prevent wealthier clubs from circumventing the restrictions of the salary cap and salary floor.

Penalties for players, club officials or agents include fines of up to one and one half times the amount involved and/or suspension. Penalties for clubs include fines of up to triple the amount involved ($10,000 for each document that is late or incorrectly lodged or lost), forfeiture of draft picks and/or (since 2003) deduction of premiership points. As of 2012, no club has been penalised for breaches of the salary floor regulations, and no punishment has included the deduction of premiership points.

Breaches of the salary cap regulations are as follows:
 * In 1987, Sydney were fined the maximum of $60,000 and forfeited their first round pick in the National Draft after a VFL investigation found that they had exceeded the salary cap by $1.15 million during the season.
 * In 1992, Sydney were fined $50,000 after it was found that they had failed to disclose payments made to former player Greg Williams during the 1990 season; Williams was suspended for six matches and fined the maximum of $25,000 for accepting the payments.
 * Hawthorn was fined $28,500 in 1992 for a minor breach in relation to benefit payments.
 * Three clubs were fined for minor breaches in 1993: Melbourne ($13,450), Carlton ($9,750) and Footscray ($2,700).
 * In 1994, Carlton were fined $50,000 after it was found that they had exceeded the salary cap by $85,000 during the 1993 season.
 * In 1995, Sydney were fined $20,000 after key documents relating to player financial details and star full-forward Tony Lockett's contract details were lost in the post by club officials, forcing the club, who had won the last three wooden spoons, to scratch from the 1995 pre-season draft and play the season two players short. The club officials responsible were fired by the Swans one week later.
 * In 1996, Essendon were fined a record $638,250 ($250,000 in back tax and penalties, $112,000 for draft tampering and $276,250 for breaching the salary cap regulations), forfeited their first, second and third round picks in the National Draft and were excluded from the 1997 rookie and pre-season drafts after a joint Australian Tax Office and AFL investigation found that they had committed serious and systematic breaches of the salary cap regulations totalling $514,500 between 1991 and 1996, including $110,000 in 1993 when Essendon won the premiership.
 * Ten other clubs were fined in 1996 for minor breaches in a crackdown following the Sydney incident the year before: Fitzroy, St Kilda and North Melbourne ($30,000 each), Richmond ($20,000), and Brisbane, Collingwood, the Western Bulldogs, Fremantle, Hawthorn and the West Coast Eagles ($10,000 each).
 * In 1997, Port Adelaide was fined $50,000 for late lodgement of documents relating to the contract and financial details of five players.
 * In 1998, the West Coast Eagles were fined $100,000 and forfeited their third round pick in the National Draft after an AFL investigation found that they had exceeded the salary cap by a total of $165,000 during the 1997 and 1998 seasons.
 * Five other clubs also fined for exceeding the salary cap in 1998: Geelong ($77,000 and excluded from the 1999 pre-season draft), Collingwood ($47,500 and excluded from the 1999 pre-season draft), Hawthorn ($45,000), Richmond ($21,000 and excluded from the 1999 pre-season draft) and the Western Bulldogs ($5,300).
 * In 1999, Melbourne were fined $600,000 and forfeited their first, second and third round picks in the National Draft for two years after it was found that they had committed serious and systematic breaches of the salary cap regulations totalling $810,000 between 1995 and 1998. Fremantle were handed Melbourne's first round pick for the 1999 National Draft as compensation for losing ruckman Jeff White to Melbourne.
 * Two other clubs were fined in 1999 for minor breaches: Carlton (fined $43,800 and excluded from the 2000 pre-season draft) and Geelong ($20,000).
 * In 2000, Fremantle were fined $54,400 and excluded from the 2001 pre-season draft for a string of minor breaches. Fremantle's poor 2001 season (in which it won the wooden spoon) has been put down to this penalty.
 * Four other clubs were fined in 2000 for minor breaches: North Melbourne ($35,000), Richmond ($10,000), Brisbane ($7,500), and Melbourne ($5,000).
 * In 2001, Carlton were fined $125,150, forfeited their second and third round picks in the 2001 National Draft, and were excluded from the 2002 pre-season draft after it was found that they had failed to disclose payments totaling $239,900 to captain Craig Bradley and incorrectly lodged an additional services agreement document during the 1998 and 1999 seasons.
 * Three other clubs were fined in 2001 for minor breaches: Richmond and North Melbourne ($20,000 each) and Melbourne ($5,000).
 * In 2002, Carlton were fined an AFL record $987,500 and forfeited their priority picks in the 2002 National Draft, their first and second round picks in the 2003 and 2004 National Draft and were excluded from the 2003 pre-season draft after an AFL investigation found that they had committed serious and systematic breaches of the salary cap regulations totaling $1.37 million between 1998 and 2001; ruckman Matthew Allan was suspended for five matches and fined $10,000 for accepting undisclosed payments from club officials. Carlton struggled for seven years as it recovered both on and off the field from these significant penalties, finishing no higher than 11th in 2004 and winning their first-ever wooden spoons in 2002, 2005 and 2006. After the draft ban expired, Carlton received a multitude of priority and first round draft picks.
 * Fremantle were fined $80,000 in 2002 for late and incorrect lodgement of documents relating to the financial and contract details of eight players.
 * In 2003, Brisbane were fined $260,000 for late lodgement of documents relating to the contract and financial details of 26 players, Essendon were fined $85,000 but did not have any points deducted after it was found that they had exceeded the salary cap by $106,000 during the 2002 season, and the Western Bulldogs were fined $30,000 for late lodgement of documents relating to the contract and financial details of three players after a crackdown in light of the Carlton scandal the year before.
 * In 2004, Melbourne were fined $30,000 for incorrect lodgement of documents relating to the contract and financial details of three players.
 * In 2005, St Kilda were fined $40,000 for a minor breach in regards to minor sponsor Xbox providing players with the game machines. Brian Waldron, Matt Hanson and Cameron Vale, the club's CEO, CFO and Financial Officer at the time, are currently under investigation by ASIC, the Australian Tax Office, and the Victorian State Revenue Office in relation to the Melbourne Storm salary cap scandal in the NRL.
 * In 2006, St Kilda were fined $40,000 for late lodgement of documents relating to the contract and financial details of four players.
 * Richmond was fined $10,000 in 2007 for late lodgement of a document relating to the contract and financial details of a player.
 * Two clubs were fined in 2008 for minor breaches: Adelaide ($20,000) and St Kilda ($10,000).
 * In 2011, Richmond were fined $10,000 but did not have any points deducted after it was found that they had exceeded the salary cap by $13,000 during the 2010 season.
 * In 2012, Collingwood were fined $20,000 for late lodgement of documents relating to the contract and financial details of two players.
 * In 2012, Adelaide were fined $300,000 and barred from the first two rounds and from taking any father-son selections in the 2013 National Draft but did not have any points deducted after an AFL investigation discovered that they had made unauthorised payments of $170,000 to and illegally agreed to trade forward Kurt Tippett to a club of his choice for a second-round draft pick when his contract expired at the end of 2012; Tippett was suspended until June 30, 2013 (11 matches plus the pre-season) and fined a player record $50,000 for accepting these conditions. Three Adelaide officials were also penalized: CEO Steven Trigg (suspended until June 30, 2013 and fined $50,000), former football manager John Reid (no longer directly involved in the AFL, but suspended until June 30, 2013) and current football manager Phil Harper (suspended until June 30, 2013).

Success of the cap
The VFL/AFL's salary cap has been quite successful in terms of parity: since the cap was introduced in 1987, each of the 16 teams (this excludes the expansion teams from the Gold Coast and Greater Western Sydney) has played in a Preliminary Final, 13 teams have played in a Grand Final, and eleven teams have won the premiership.

Another major statistic in regards to the success of the VFL/AFL's cap is that the three richest and most successful clubs, Carlton, Collingwood and Essendon, who won 42 of the premierships between them from 76 Grand Finals in the 91 seasons between 1897-1987 (83.52% of all Grand Finals for a 46.15% premiership success rate; this includes Carlton's premiership in 1987, the first year of the cap), have only won five of the premierships between them from ten Grand Finals between 1988-2012 (38.46% of all Grand Finals for a 20% premiership success rate).

Of note in this regard is that Sydney have been in the finals in 14 of the 17 seasons (a finals success rate of 82.35%) since 1995, playing in four Grand Finals and winning the premiership in 2005 and 2012, after having previously not won a premiership since 1933, having not played in a Grand Final since 1945 (both as South Melbourne), and mostly struggling in the 50 seasons between 1946 and 1995, making the finals on just four occasions in that time (a finals success rate of just 8%).

Criticism of the cap
The AFL salary cap is occasionally controversial, as it is a soft salary cap and therefore can sometimes be slightly different for each club. Clubs in poor financial circumstances (e.g. the Western Bulldogs, North Melbourne, Melbourne and in recent years Port Adelaide) have not always used their full cap, in some circumstances not even reaching the salary floor, to ensure they reduce costs.

The cap is only for the Total Player Payments of each club and not the club's football department. This has caused concern in recent years; for instance, three of the four top-spending clubs in played in the Preliminary Finals in 2012, and the last team to win the premiership outside the top eight spending teams was North Melbourne in 1999. There have been calls for a separate cap for the football department, or to reform the salary cap to include football department spending, but this has been opposed by the wealthier clubs, with Sydney CEO Andrew Ireland saying that the AFL needs to examine the gap between football department spending for these teams.

The AFL has also used the cap to pursue its policy of supporting clubs in non-traditional markets such as Sydney and Brisbane.

State and regional leagues
Apart from the AFL, several regional leagues also have salary caps which although widening between them and the AFL and overall less than national competitions, are substantial enough to dictate the movement of semi-professional and professional players between states and the overall playing quality and spectator attendance of the state leagues.

There are a significantly higher number of AFL reserves in the Victorian Football League due to affiliations with Victorian clubs, but player payments for these appearances is apparently not included in the VFL's salary cap.

Rugby League
THE NSWRFL had a salary cap since the early seventies in response to the perception that Manly were buying too many international players. By the time of Super League, this salary cap was at roughly 1.5 million dollars but was only sporadically enforced. The National Rugby League adopted a hard salary cap model in its first season in 1998. The salary cap is A$5.8 million in 2013, with a salary floor of A$5.365 million (92.5% of the cap).

The NRL's stated purposes for having a salary cap are "to assist in spreading the playing talent" and "ensure that clubs are not put into positions where they are forced to spend more money than they can afford in terms of player payments, just to be competitive." Before the 2012 season, the NRL's then Chief executive David Gallop said "The cap's there to make sure that pure purchasing power cannot dominate the sport... It means we can genuinely say that all 16 teams ... have a chance. For the fan every week, every game is a contest. That's at the core of why rugby league is so successful."

Breaches
The breaches of the salary cap and salary floor regulations outlined by the NRL are exceeding the salary cap, falling below the salary floor, not informing the NRL of payments, late or incorrect lodgement or loss of documents relating to player financial and contract details or engaging in contract tampering. Trading cash for players is also prohibited to prevent wealthier clubs from evading the salary cap and salary floor regulations.

Penalties for players, club officials and agents include fines of the lesser of 10% of the amount involved or $100,000 and/or suspension. Penalties for clubs include fines of the lesser of half the amount involved or $500,000 ($2,500 for each document that is late or incorrectly lodged or lost) and/or deduction of premiership points.

The following breaches of the salary cap and salary floor have occurred :
 * In 1991 it was revealed that the Canberra Raiders had substantially breached their $1.5 million salary cap for the year.
 * In 2000, the Newcastle Knights were fined $158,800 but did not have any points deducted after club officials revealed that they had exceeded the salary cap by a total of $454,100 and failed to disclose third-party payments during the 1998 and 1999 seasons.
 * The New Zealand Warriors were fined $100,000 in 2000 for failing to disclose third-party payments made during the 1998 and 1999 seasons.
 * Six other clubs were fined in 2000: Penrith ($80,900), Canterbury ($50,000), Parramatta ($40,000), Melbourne ($24,300), the Sydney Roosters ($12,800) and Cronulla ($6,900).
 * The Melbourne Storm were fined $89,900 in 2000 but did not have any points deducted after it was found that they had exceeded the salary cap by $177,400 during the season.
 * The Brisbane Broncos were fined $84,150 in 2000 but did not have any points deducted after it was found that they had exceeded the salary cap by $118,300 and were late in lodging documents relating to financial and contract details of 10 players during the season.
 * In 2001, the North Queensland Cowboys were fined $100,000 but did not have any points deducted after it was found that they had exceeded the salary cap by $210,000 and failed to disclose third-party payments during the 2000 season.
 * In 2002, the Canterbury Bulldogs were fined the maximum of $500,000 and deducted all 37 premiership points received during the season after it was found that they had committed serious and systematic breaches of the salary cap regulations described by NRL Chief Executive David Gallop as "exceptional in both its size and its deliberate and ongoing nature" totaling $2.13 million between 2000 and 2002, including $750,000 in 2001 and $920,000 in 2002. The points penalty meant that the club won the 2002 wooden spoon.
 * The Sydney Roosters were fined $149,150 in 2002 for failing to disclose or incorrect disclosure of third-party payments made during the 2001 and 2002 seasons.
 * The Newcastle Knights were fined $85,000 in 2002 but did not have any points deducted after it was found that they had exceeded the salary cap by $170,000 during the season.
 * Three other clubs were fined in 2002: Melbourne ($66,700), the Wests Tigers ($58,550) and Brisbane ($57,550).
 * In 2003, the Melbourne Storm were fined $130,950 but did not have any points deducted it was found that they had exceeded the salary cap by $261,900 during the season.
 * Seven other clubs were fined in 2003 after a crackdown in light of the Canterbury scandal the year before: Penrith ($60,000), Newcastle ($40,000), Brisbane ($20,000), South Sydney ($15,250), the New Zealand Warriors ($15,000), and Cronulla and Canterbury ($10,000 each).
 * In 2004, the Melbourne Storm were fined $120,000 after club officials revealed that their former management had failed to disclose third-party payments made between 2001 and 2004.
 * In 2004, the Canterbury Bulldogs were fined $82,300 but did not have any points deducted after club officials revealed that they had fallen below the salary floor by $159,600 and were late in lodging documents relating to financial and contract details of a player during the 2003 and 2004 seasons.
 * Four other clubs were fined in 2004: St George Illawarra ($32,300), Penrith and the Sydney Roosters ($25,000 each), and Canberra ($5,000).
 * In 2005, the New Zealand Warriors were fined $430,000 and were ordered to start the 2006 season with a four premiership point deficit and cut their payroll by $450,000 after club officials revealed that their former management had exceeded the salary cap by a total of $1.1 million during the 2004 and 2005 seasons. The points penalty meant that the Warriors missed a finals berth in 2006.
 * Four other clubs were fined for minor breaches in 2005: St George Illawarra ($20,000), Newcastle ($11,100), Canterbury ($8,500) and Canberra ($6,350).
 * In 2006, the Canberra Raiders were fined $173,200 but did not have any points deducted after it was found that they had exceeded the salary cap by $286,400 and incorrectly lodged documents relating to financial and contract details of 12 players during the 2005 season.
 * Seven other clubs were fined in 2006: Melbourne ($63,250), St George Illawarra ($62,400), Brisbane ($30,000), South Sydney ($28,600), Wests Tigers ($21,250), Newcastle ($19,250), and Cronulla ($5,000).
 * Six clubs were fined for minor breaches in 2007: South Sydney ($70,150), Wests Tigers ($46,800), Canberra ($45,800), Canterbury ($25,000), Melbourne ($13,900) and Brisbane ($10,000).
 * Five clubs were fined for minor breaches in 2008: St George Illawarra ($15,200), South Sydney ($12,500), Gold Coast ($5,450), Canterbury ($4,650) and Wests Tigers ($3,650).
 * Seven clubs were fined for minor breaches in 2009: Melbourne ($15,000), Brisbane ($5,000), Canterbury ($3,750), and the Wests Tigers, Penrith, Sydney and the Gold Coast ($2,500 each).
 * In 2010, the Melbourne Storm were stripped of the 2007 and 2009 premierships, 2006–2008 minor premierships and the 2010 World Club Challenge trophy, fined a record $1.689 million ($1.1 million in NRL prize money which will be equally distributed between the remaining 15 clubs, $89,000 in prize money from the World Club Challenge which will be distributed to the Leeds Rhinos, and the maximum of $500,000 for breaching the salary cap regulations), ordered to cut their payroll by $1.0125 million, deducted all eight premiership points received during the season and barred from receiving premiership points for the remainder of the season after Storm officials revealed that the club had committed serious and systematic breaches of the salary cap regulations between 2006 and 2010 by running a well-organized dual contract and bookkeeping system that concealed a total of $3.78 million in payments made to players outside of the salary cap from the NRL, including $303,000 in 2006, $459,000 in 2007, $957,000 in 2008, $1.021 million in 2009 and $1.04 million in 2010. The points penalty meant that the club won the 2010 wooden spoon. Legal action by the former directors of the club against the penalties collapsed, and the matter was referred to ASIC, the Australian Tax Office, the Victorian State Revenue Office, and the Victoria Police. The club's former CEO, Brian Waldron, and financial officers Matt Hanson, Paul Gregory and Cameron Vale are all facing lifetime suspensions.
 * Five other clubs were fined for minor breaches in 2010: Parramatta ($25,000), St George Illawarra ($22,500), Brisbane ($17,000), Sydney ($7,250) and Canberra ($1,800).
 * In 2011, the Wests Tigers were fined $187,150 but had no points deducted after it was found that they had exceeded the salary cap by $374,300 during the 2010 season.
 * The Gold Coast Titans ($78,900), Parramatta Eels ($45,000), Canberra Raiders ($31,650), and the St George Illawarra Dragons ($15,700) were also fined for exceeding the salary cap during the 2010 season, while the Titans were also fined for losing documents relating to the financial and contract details of a Toyota Cup player.
 * In 2012, four clubs were fined for minor breaches: Parramatta Eels ($80,350), Gold Coast Titans ($41,200), Penrith Panthers ($39,650) and the Canberra Raiders ($5,350).

Criticism of the cap
The NRL is one of the few major leagues to implement a salary cap in a sport that has competing leagues in other countries where there is either no salary cap or a much higher cap per club. As a result, there has developed a tradition of players from Australia moving to Europe where salaries for the elite, and even for average players, were considerably higher. The NRL chose to continue with the cap, believing that any reduction in quality of the sporting product due to the loss of these players was less than allowing richer clubs to dominate. In practice, the goal of parity has been quite successful, with nine different clubs winning the premiership in the 13 years between 1998 and 2012 (this excludes 2007 and 2009).

In 2008, the departure of Mark Gasnier and Sonny Bill Williams, two elite stars, to play French rugby union prompted calls for the cap to be raised. Australian rugby league players had suffered a 27% decline in their wages since 1999, whereas other Australian sportsmen had experienced steady, and in some cases explosive growth. Some of the blame has been apportioned to the fact that the media company News Limited was a 50% owner of the NRL, and would normally be expected to be a bidder for rugby league rights in Australia. Being an owner of the game meant News could apportion rights to itself at a discount, reducing the overall income the league could make for itself through the sale of media rights. This had a flow-on effect reducing available income for players. Following the 2009–10 northern rugby union season, global exchange rate changes meant that payments in European currencies were not as attractive, and Gasnier returned to the NRL. Williams returned to his homeland of New Zealand in what proved a successful attempt to play rugby union with the All Blacks, and is now linked with a return to the NRL in 2013.

The new Australian Rugby League Commission secured a billion dollar television rights deal in August 2012, and both clubs and players expected a significant increase in the salary cap. Announcements that the cap for 2013 would increase from $4.4 million to only $5 million has resulted in the Rugby League Players Assoiciation agitating for an increase to $6.5 million. The RLPA is also expecting increased retirement funds, income protection and a boost for representative payments.

Association football (soccer)
The A-League national association football (soccer) competition has set a salary cap of A$2.48 million (excluding Marquee, guest and replacement players) for the 2012/2013 season, with a salary floor of $2.294 million.

Each team can sign one "marquee player" and one "guest player", whose salaries are excluded from the team's salary cap. The A-League has also introduced a "junior marquee" for eligible under 23 year old players with the aim of keeping young talented players in Australia (or New Zealand for the Wellington Phoenix) for a longer period, similar to the Designated Player Rule in Major League Soccer in North America.

Breaches
The breaches of the salary cap and salary floor regulations outlined by the A-League are exceeding the salary cap, falling below the salary floor, not informing the A-League of payments, late or incorrect lodgement or loss of documents relating to player financial and contract details or engaging in contract tampering.

Penalties for players, club officials or agents include fines of up to one and one half times the amount involved and/or suspension. Penalties for clubs include fines of up to triple the amount involved ($7,500 for each document that is late or incorrectly lodged or lost) and/or deduction of competition points.

In the 2006-07 season, Sydney FC were fined $174,000 and deducted three competition points after it was found that they had exceeded the salary cap by $110,000 and failed to declare third-party payments during the 2005–06 season in which they were premiers.

National Basketball League
The National Basketball League has a salary cap of A$1 million for each of its eight teams, for the 2012–13 season. In addition, since 2003-04, the NBL has used a "points cap" to encourage spread of talent: players are assigned points on a 1-10 basis each season "based on their performance in the NBL or based on the league they have participated in for the season just concluded", and each team's player roster (of between 10 and 12 players) must fall within a "Total Team Points" limit.

Netball (ANZ Championship)
In netball's ANZ Championship, each of the 10 franchises are each restricted to a NZ$300,000 salary cap from which player salaries are paid. Salary amounts vary among players, but each player receives a retainer of at least NZ$12,000 per season; high-profile players are expected to earn up to NZ$50,000.