When it arrived in 1992, things were very different... http://articles.baltimoresun.com/1992-12-29/sports/1992364184_1_players-philadelphia-eagles-top-10 and they mention the guy we keep comparing to Suh's signing... Reggie White What a difference 23 years makes. Suh is gonna bust the bank at, what is it.. $19m a year? How do you feel about the size of salaries in Free agency? Is it fair, market-driven pricing? Is the league better off now than when Free Agency started? Was the league better off before Free Agency? Discuss.
The market is definitely driving the prices. In '92 the NFL broadcast rights were worth 900 million. Now they are 4.9 Billion per. So it makes sense that the highest paid players today are making roughly 5X what the highest paid player (Marino) was making in '92. Jeez the price of an official NFL jersey is probably 5X what it was in '92 as well. .... But it's too bad the pioneers who paved the way for today's players can't somehow get a bigger piece of the pie. http://www.statista.com/statistics/370608/nfl-tv-broadcasting-rights-value/
Worth pointing out that inflation raises Marino's $4,433,000 in 1992 to $7,384,000 in 2015 (about 67% higher), so it's still a huge difference w.r.t Suh even after adjusting for inflation. I think more than free agency, what occurred in 1994 in the NFL is far more important: the salary cap. It is so much more refreshing to see higher turnover among league champions in the NFL than in the NBA or MLB (or worse.. European "top heavy" soccer). But I like free agency. It just adds another dimension to the chess game that is American Football. Really, no other team sport has the diverse range of player specialization balanced with easily observable influences from different types of coaches up to the GM, as football has. So, I'm in favor.
I think the league is much better off with free agency. Every season is so unpredictable and exciting.