No different really than what is happening in many companies worldwide. If the players don't like it, they can always find different jobs. Put that free college education to work!!! No one is forcing them to play football.
If the NFL Players win
- Thread starter alaskaguy
- Start date
No different really than what is happening in many companies worldwide. If the players don't like it, they can always find different jobs. Put that free college education to work!!! No one is forcing them to play football.
- Mar 27, 2006
- 40,829
- 28,324
- 113
exactly. The whole "They want to eliminate the draft and the salary cap" argument is pure spin by the league. The players have stated that they want to play according to the old CBA. That's a far sight from getting rid of the draft.
And for the record, this last season was played without a salary cap, something that occurred because the owners opted out of the CBA.
This is an article that you can kind of take as a response to the "If the players win."
Joe Posnanski » Posts Goodell to the Last Drop «
Joe Posnanski » Posts Goodell to the Last Drop «
- Mar 27, 2006
- 40,829
- 28,324
- 113
except that the NFL is not a free market. It's a system governed by a collective bargaining agreement. Both sides have agreed that the terms of employment can be negotiated. So, while your real world scenario may play out the way you say in the regular business world, the NFL operates under different rules. And while you may not agree with those rules, that's the way the NFL operates.
And while that hurts the owners in this case, it is very helpful to them in others. For example, this status causes them to be exempt from a lot of anti-trust litigation, despite the fact that the Supreme Court ruled that the league is not a single entity, but in fact made up of 32 individual businesses. Think about it, in a true free market, a draft would be completely illegal. Can you imagine if companies could select you coming out of college and own the rights to your employment?
Obviously the rules that govern traditional business practices do not always apply to the NFL, so looking at the situation from a traditional standpoint is misguided.
The union does want to decertify and what Goodell talks about is what could happen if the union decertifies.
Granted, the players are probably just using it as a negotiating ploy.
No offense but if I owned a business, a sports franchise, or a shack at the mall peddling covers for cell phones it is my business. I get to decide what the revenues will be spent on. I get to decide how much revenue I will invest back into the business (higher pay for my employees, improving infrastructure, facilities, etc...) and how much of the revenue will go directly into my pocket. My employees aren't going to tell me how I am going to run my business, how much I am going to pay them, what kind of benefits I am going to provide them, what their workload is going to be, what their schedule is going to be, how much of the business revenue I must share with them, etc... That isn't how a business works. If an employer is being unfair (allegedly) the workers will just quit and go somewhere else. Why isn't that the same for the NFL? Simply because the players don't have a better option or a similar option that will compensate them anywhere close to what they are getting currently. It is a simple fact. If they could leave the NFL and go make the same or more playing professional football somewhere else they would... but they can't, so they won't.
(I was only using the owner of the Dodgers situation in the general terms of having financial problems and not the specifics of how it happened. FYI.)
Ummmm...the union has already decertified...thats why they are in court and the plaintiffs are individual players.
Not to mention that for every single player in the NFL, there are probably at least 5 other people that would jump at the opportunity to take their spot.
They are not that scarce a commodity. There are thousands of college football players that would jump at the chance to play in the NFL.
I just don't feel a whole lot of sympathy for anybody on either side of this issue. Perhaps it is a broad brush stroke, but essentially it is millionaires fighting with billionaires about how to split up $9 billion annually "fairly". The worst part being both sides claiming that any of the slightest victory is a "victory for the fans." Er, no - the fans in general don't give a rat's arse about the legal struggle resulting from the inability to fairly split nearly $10 billion a year. We care about football starting up on time in September and how your ******* match might impact that. Both sides of the argument have completely lost touch with reality, and the fact that both sides wants the rest of us living in reality to choose their side is beyond ridiculous.
That being said, I do feel slightly more sympathy for the players than I do for the owners - it was the owners that locked out the players because they wanted to (legally) terminate the CBA early. It's the owners that want to add two additional games to the schedule, and in the face of that not only not increase players' compensation, but actually want to decrease it. It's the owners that don't want to provide long-term health care for the players that made them their $9 billion annually, especially when some of the players permanently damage their bodies in the process. The misunderstanding that these are not "important" issues (ahem, cough cough...) stems from the perception that "this is a child's game that all of us would play for free if given the chance." Um, no - that's a flat out lie. Not the part about it being a child's game - that it is. But anyone that says they would play professional-level football (or any sport, for that matter) and literally risk their life and limb in the process without significant compensation is flat out lying to themselves and everyone else.
Now, don't think I'm 100% in the corner of the players on this, either. Quite honestly, how often is it that you hear about those making league minimum wage making an arse of themselves complaining about how "unfairly" they are compensated? Hardly ever. It's the prima donnas who can't keep their pie holes shut that are the ones doing the whining - the Adrian Petersens comparing their plight to "modern day slavery" or the Latrell Sprewells whining about how they cannot feed their children on $10 million a year. I think a big part of that is those making league minimum are much closer in touch with reality than the mulit-millionaires. The majority of them likely work significantly harder in practice just to stay in the league and keep earning league minimum than the prima donnas have ever worked, and most of them probably understand that, even at league minimum, they've got it better than most of the fans and are more appreciative of what they have. And, as far as I can tell, they're not the ones being seen on the picket line or in front of the camera whining about how rough they have it - but that's exactly where you see the prima donnas. These guys realize they probably can't make it long term in professional sports and likely do have a legitimate back up plan for when the ride ends.
That being said, even though professional sports is a dangerous occupation that can affect quality of life in the future, I still can't get past the fact that they choose to participate anyway, understanding there are risks involved with this decision.
That being said, I do feel slightly more sympathy for the players than I do for the owners - it was the owners that locked out the players because they wanted to (legally) terminate the CBA early. It's the owners that want to add two additional games to the schedule, and in the face of that not only not increase players' compensation, but actually want to decrease it. It's the owners that don't want to provide long-term health care for the players that made them their $9 billion annually, especially when some of the players permanently damage their bodies in the process. The misunderstanding that these are not "important" issues (ahem, cough cough...) stems from the perception that "this is a child's game that all of us would play for free if given the chance." Um, no - that's a flat out lie. Not the part about it being a child's game - that it is. But anyone that says they would play professional-level football (or any sport, for that matter) and literally risk their life and limb in the process without significant compensation is flat out lying to themselves and everyone else.
Now, don't think I'm 100% in the corner of the players on this, either. Quite honestly, how often is it that you hear about those making league minimum wage making an arse of themselves complaining about how "unfairly" they are compensated? Hardly ever. It's the prima donnas who can't keep their pie holes shut that are the ones doing the whining - the Adrian Petersens comparing their plight to "modern day slavery" or the Latrell Sprewells whining about how they cannot feed their children on $10 million a year. I think a big part of that is those making league minimum are much closer in touch with reality than the mulit-millionaires. The majority of them likely work significantly harder in practice just to stay in the league and keep earning league minimum than the prima donnas have ever worked, and most of them probably understand that, even at league minimum, they've got it better than most of the fans and are more appreciative of what they have. And, as far as I can tell, they're not the ones being seen on the picket line or in front of the camera whining about how rough they have it - but that's exactly where you see the prima donnas. These guys realize they probably can't make it long term in professional sports and likely do have a legitimate back up plan for when the ride ends.
That being said, even though professional sports is a dangerous occupation that can affect quality of life in the future, I still can't get past the fact that they choose to participate anyway, understanding there are risks involved with this decision.
Your example is misguided and again demonstrates your misconception with how the business of the NFL works. As Mr. Janny pointed out earlier, if the owner's had not agreed to a CBA in the first place then the NFL, as it operates, would be an illegal monopoly. Instead, each individual team would in effect be run as an individual company vying for the services of athletes as free agents on the open market. There would be no draft. There would be no salary cap.
Obviously the NFL owners do not want this to happen, and this is effectively a Doomsday scenario for them.
Clonestate78- You've given management's position, but ignored labor as an important part of the equation in any business. The fact is it takes both management and labor to form a business. One can't succeed without the other so it benefits both to negotiate to determine the future of the company. It also benefits society as a whole that the government has regulations governing the operation of corporations in the U.S. And it's the NFL owners that lobbied for special treament of their league by the government (as covered in other posts) as well as seeking government help in building stadiums and numerous tax breaks for locating in a city. Sure there are a lot of people that would jump at the chance to play in the nfl, though very few have the ability to do it. If they did they'd be there.
And there's a reason most of those thousands of college players will never sniff the NFL - they can't do what the guys who play on Sunday can.
Edit: And as far as I know, there's nothing stopping the owners from bringing in replacement players yet we don't hear them clamoring for that. They know they need the players.
Last edited:
I might be off base on this, not having expertise in collective bargaining law, but I don't think they can because they initiated the work stoppage via lockout. It would not stun me that attempting to do so would violate antitrust laws. If the players initiated the work stoppage via strike, like what happened the last time there was a work stoppage in the NFL, then they would have a right to bring in replacement players (although last time it was a complete disaster).
I do see both sides of the situation. I understand why the players are upset. I also understand why the owners are upset. With that being said I see the whole thing as an incredibly stupid mess. Neither side is looking at this conflict rationally.
Ironically, the NFL you are talking about is the NFL Roger Goodell is telling us we should fear (and the players are allegedly trying to get).
Cyclonestate78-Agree there's enough greed on both sides and it would be incredibly stupid for both sides not to work this out. Pretty much millionaires fighting with billionaires, but I do feel for the lower paid players that are risking their health.
As someone mentioned earlier in the discussion. Most of the stadiums are paid for by the Taxpayers, not the owners or the Franchises. I know that Chicago picked up most of the tab for Soldier field when it was done. I was wondering if there is any recourse that the communities have if the teams don't play this year. "Hey, we built this stadium under the impression you were going to play in it. Ticket sales aside, it's a huge amount of tax dollars that are going to be missing each game the Bears aren't there. There has to be some kind of contract in place about years the teams will play there. And since this is a decision by the owners, not to play, I would like to see some of these communities start going after NFL teams saying, you owe us X for not putting on games.
Does anyone else find it entertaining that for many of those that side against the players on this subject, they almost always go with attempting to base arguments on the free market and comparison to their job prospects...and while explaining their stance almost always reveal it is built on their opinion professional athletes getting paid too because they play a game?
The market for playing that game is 9 billion!
Imo, the owners as a collective group are the ones under-valuing how they are replaceable, if anti-trust is obeyed. Their role in this relationship does not bring anything that cannot be found anywhere else if they as the "NFL" want to walk. Take the union, networks, guys like Cuban, and the NFL stadiums that tax money helped finance and you would have a new league in no time.
The market for playing that game is 9 billion!
Imo, the owners as a collective group are the ones under-valuing how they are replaceable, if anti-trust is obeyed. Their role in this relationship does not bring anything that cannot be found anywhere else if they as the "NFL" want to walk. Take the union, networks, guys like Cuban, and the NFL stadiums that tax money helped finance and you would have a new league in no time.
Last edited: