Who do you side with in the NFL labor talks?

Home ▸ Archive ▸ Pro Sports ▸ Who do you side with in the NFL labor talks?
gorocks99's avatar

gorocks99

Senior Member

10,760 posts
Mar 3, 2011 1:04 PM
A complex issue, too many issues to list here (and I'm lazy) ... but generally, do you side more with the players or the owners in this situation?
Mar 3, 2011 1:04pm
Commander of Awesome's avatar

Commander of Awesome

Senior Pwner

23,151 posts
Mar 3, 2011 1:05 PM
Not sure how you could be on the owners side when they're hoarding money away and then asking for another billion off the top without opening their books to explain why they need it.
Mar 3, 2011 1:05pm
C

Con_Alma

Senior Member

12,198 posts
Mar 3, 2011 1:08 PM
Owners for me.

The must walk lightly however.
Mar 3, 2011 1:08pm
ytownfootball's avatar

ytownfootball

Bold faced liar...

6,978 posts
Mar 3, 2011 1:09 PM
Just the fact that the owners were hiding/keeping from, the NFLPA the TV revenue means they have a lot more to hide, so I side with the players. They're overpaid entertainers, but the owners make a lot more than they are willing to report and don't need an extra billion to continue.
Mar 3, 2011 1:09pm
thedynasty1998's avatar

thedynasty1998

Senior Member

6,844 posts
Mar 3, 2011 1:14 PM
Looking at it in the most general sense, I side with the owners. They own the teams and offer a great product, however at the same time I understand that the product is/are the players.

I don't know the ins and outs, but to me, it really seems like each side could just give a little and this whole issue is resolved.

With that said, the owners can survive longer without football than the players can, so I imagine the players end up bending first.
Mar 3, 2011 1:14pm
2kool4skool's avatar

2kool4skool

Senior Member

1,804 posts
Mar 3, 2011 1:14 PM
Players. When compared to every other pro sport, the NFL players are getting the shaft. They play in the(by far) most profitable league, yet make the least money. They play in the sport that results in(by far) the most life-altering injuries, yet have the least guaranteed contracts.

If there ends up being a lengthy lockout, Goodell has to go down as one of the worst commissioners in pro sports history. Everyone is making money hand over fist, and a lockout would derail the momentum the NFL had built.
Mar 3, 2011 1:14pm
Mulva's avatar

Mulva

Senior Member

13,650 posts
Mar 3, 2011 1:59 PM
The players, just because of how contradictory the 'player safety' and '18 game regular season' arguments are.
Mar 3, 2011 1:59pm
T

thavoice

Senior Member

14,376 posts
Mar 3, 2011 2:45 PM
I can see both sides of it really. PLayers are what entertain us, make us go to the games, but they come and go. The owners are typically the ones there through it all and once every single one of the current players are done and retired....there will still be a league. There will still be stars. There will still be teams, playoffs, sellout stadiums, super bowls, etc etc etc.

The players run the league, but they are 'here today, gone tomorrow' and many times in life the owners of any business should be the ones that ultimately make the most money.


If I had to vote...i would say owners.
Mar 3, 2011 2:45pm
bases_loaded's avatar

bases_loaded

Senior Member

6,912 posts
Mar 3, 2011 3:14 PM
Without the owners there is no league, without the league there is no need for players.
Mar 3, 2011 3:14pm
T

thavoice

Senior Member

14,376 posts
Mar 3, 2011 3:20 PM
bases_loaded;698609 wrote:Without the owners there is no league, without the league there is no need for players.
and without players there would be no league.

We can look at it this way too.....where you work.......are employees surprised thta the owner makes more money then an individual employee? When that employee is gone, that owner is still there as the head of the company. We may sit back and say "hey, we are the one doing the work to make the money. We are selling the goods, fixing the cars, managing the stores, doing what the public sees to make money".

Same in the NFL.......all the time we hear a normal union fighting for more money, benefits etc for the employees and the owners or whatnot doing what they can to retain the money they earned.

IN the end both sides have valid points but I tend to lean toward the owners in most instances.
Mar 3, 2011 3:20pm
OneBuckeye's avatar

OneBuckeye

Senior Member

5,888 posts
Mar 3, 2011 3:32 PM
2kool4skool;698519 wrote:Players. When compared to every other pro sport, the NFL players are getting the shaft. They play in the(by far) most profitable league, yet make the least money. They play in the sport that results in(by far) the most life-altering injuries, yet have the least guaranteed contracts.
I agree... I realize the owners need to make good money to operate but NFL players sacrafice more than NBA or MLB players health wise, and they aren't gaurenteed anything. They don't have to play the sport, but comparing them to other pro athletes they have gotten the shortest straw. Given that, they are still loaded and should be happy to be able to make millions of dollars playing a sport they love.
Mar 3, 2011 3:32pm
T

thavoice

Senior Member

14,376 posts
Mar 3, 2011 3:36 PM
True..they dont get the big guarenteed contracts. That is H U G E!

There are 53 man rosters, over double the MLB roster (only 13 more than the 40 man though) and I dont know how many over NBA. Plus, they play 16 games. Yes, less physically demanding than other sports as well

Does non guarenteed contracts help guard against players who just mail it in? Face it..we complain about the big time, guarenteed contracts in MLB. Guy signs huge deal...he sucks...and your screwed. In NFL...guy signs huge contract...he gets lazy, starts to suck....ya can can him and he knows that.

Does it help keep players from getting a bit more complacent than other leagues?
Mar 3, 2011 3:36pm
OneBuckeye's avatar

OneBuckeye

Senior Member

5,888 posts
Mar 3, 2011 3:49 PM
thavoice;698618 wrote:True..they dont get the big guarenteed contracts. That is H U G E!

There are 53 man rosters, over double the MLB roster (only 13 more than the 40 man though) and I dont know how many over NBA. Plus, they play 16 games. Yes, less physically demanding than other sports as well

Does non guarenteed contracts help guard against players who just mail it in? Face it..we complain about the big time, guarenteed contracts in MLB. Guy signs huge deal...he sucks...and your screwed. In NFL...guy signs huge contract...he gets lazy, starts to suck....ya can can him and he knows that.

Does it help keep players from getting a bit more complacent than other leagues?
I agree, and I don't think the contracts should be gaurenteed in any sport. However the NFL i may not mind that because you get guys with huge medical issues in retirement from the punishment they took while they were in the league. I think the NFL needs to have a better plan for retired players medical wise then I would be ok with it. For example say you are an undrafted player and you make the team, play for half a year and get a serious injury or several concussions, you get cut and you could be left with a serious medical condition or ailments the rest of your life and you never got all the money you were going to because you got cut. I am not sure how this works in the NFL, but if I was a player i'd be concerned with.
Mar 3, 2011 3:49pm
thedynasty1998's avatar

thedynasty1998

Senior Member

6,844 posts
Mar 3, 2011 4:00 PM
I understand the whole medical issue side, but these guys voluntarily pick this profession, as do minors, cops, boxers, and the guys on Deadliest Catch. You could pick hundreds of occupations that have risks that are ignored. The NFL players are paid well to do what they do, and yes, that includes punishing their own bodies. If they don't think it's worth it, they can go sit behind a desk.

I really do understand the players wanting more, but I don't think they get it and it's the owners who built the NFL into what it is today. The NFL wasn't always as profitable, but the commissioner, executives and owners did a good job of marketing their product and making it accessible. They deserve more credit than they are receiving.
Mar 3, 2011 4:00pm
Pick6's avatar

Pick6

A USA American

14,946 posts
Mar 3, 2011 4:03 PM
personally dont really care. get the shit worked out because i'd like to watch football in the fall.
Mar 3, 2011 4:03pm
T

thavoice

Senior Member

14,376 posts
Mar 3, 2011 4:10 PM
OneBuckeye;698631 wrote:I agree, and I don't think the contracts should be gaurenteed in any sport. However the NFL i may not mind that because you get guys with huge medical issues in retirement from the punishment they took while they were in the league. I think the NFL needs to have a better plan for retired players medical wise then I would be ok with it. For example say you are an undrafted player and you make the team, play for half a year and get a serious injury or several concussions, you get cut and you could be left with a serious medical condition or ailments the rest of your life and you never got all the money you were going to because you got cut. I am not sure how this works in the NFL, but if I was a player i'd be concerned with.

and health coverage is big in this negotiation..
Mar 3, 2011 4:10pm
sleeper's avatar

sleeper

Legend

27,879 posts
Mar 3, 2011 5:01 PM
I'd really like to see the players get guaranteed contracts.

But I also think the players are overpaid, and their constant whining needs to be punished. You play football for millions stop the QQ.
Mar 3, 2011 5:01pm
september63's avatar

september63

Senior Member

5,789 posts
Mar 3, 2011 5:43 PM
Both sides agree to a 24 hr extension. Might they actually be making progress?
Mar 3, 2011 5:43pm
M

mallymal614

Senior Member

3,746 posts
Mar 3, 2011 6:25 PM
Players

They are the ones who are always told that they make too much money and are greedy. But never one ever talks about how much the owners make and how greedy they are.
Mar 3, 2011 6:25pm
HitsRus's avatar

HitsRus

Senior Member

9,206 posts
Mar 3, 2011 6:41 PM
Owners.
No matter what, the owners are going to take what they need/want. That is the perogative of ownership in everything. If you aren't getting that as an owner then you go out of business or you sell.
Hence, whatever 'extra' the players get, raises the cost of the product which will be passed on to us who buy it. The owners are going to make what they want/need to make regardless.
The more the players make, the more I'm going to pay.
You could make an argument that of all the sports, the NFL players get the least/have the worst deal.....but that is only a matter of comparison and degree. Most of these guys make in one year what it takes some of us 10 or 20 years.
Mar 3, 2011 6:41pm
F

friendfromlowry

Senior Member

6,239 posts
Mar 3, 2011 6:58 PM
I haven't paid too much attention to formulate an opinion, but the one thing that always bothered me is how much money the rookies get...taking tens of millions of dollars and never even played an NFL snap.
It gets worse when draft pick #6 wants a little less than #5 but more than #7.
Mar 3, 2011 6:58pm
Skyhook79's avatar

Skyhook79

Senior Member

5,739 posts
Mar 3, 2011 9:45 PM
The players are currently getting 60% of the pie. What other employee in the "real" world gets anything close to that?...and I realize the players are the reason the fans come to the games.
They can give up some things imo.
Mar 3, 2011 9:45pm
OQB's avatar

OQB

Senior Member

6,679 posts
Mar 3, 2011 10:03 PM
This is very interesting to me....

On one hand I am on the Owner's side because I do not want the NFL to be like MLB....the MLBPA is out of control and that is why we see these Huge contracts that most of us can't even fathom....I want 30 million a year not 25 mil...who gives a crap! I think that is why you see Pujols not signing with the Cardinals because the union is forcing him to get that huge contract. MLB is out of control!

On the other hand I am on the players side because football is by far the worst sport contact-wise...and their health benefits and the way the NFL treats them is just ridiculous..I also think if the NFL wants an 18 game schedule than they need to compensate the players for those 2 extra games....It would be like us working 60 hours a week and getting paid for 40, I think ALL of us would be pissed about that. But as some have noted, the players already get 60% of the pie and that is far more than any other job out there....

I say both sides of the ignorant and greedy people need to come together and do what is right for the game of football.
Mar 3, 2011 10:03pm
bases_loaded's avatar

bases_loaded

Senior Member

6,912 posts
Mar 4, 2011 7:15 AM
thavoice;698612 wrote:and without players there would be no league.

We can look at it this way too.....where you work.......are employees surprised thta the owner makes more money then an individual employee? When that employee is gone, that owner is still there as the head of the company. We may sit back and say "hey, we are the one doing the work to make the money. We are selling the goods, fixing the cars, managing the stores, doing what the public sees to make money".

Same in the NFL.......all the time we hear a normal union fighting for more money, benefits etc for the employees and the owners or whatnot doing what they can to retain the money they earned.

IN the end both sides have valid points but I tend to lean toward the owners in most instances.

No you can't look at it that way because someone will fill their job for much less than they are making now. Football is a loved sport and people love watching it. The players have the privilege to play a GAME for a large sum of money because OWNERS allow them to. Without OWNERS there are no teams, without teams there is no NFL. Without the NFLPA there are still players that can fill the teams and people will still tune in to watch it.
Mar 4, 2011 7:15am
ytownfootball's avatar

ytownfootball

Bold faced liar...

6,978 posts
Mar 4, 2011 7:22 AM
bases_loaded;699106 wrote:No you can't look at it that way because someone will fill their job for much less than they are making now. Football is a loved sport and people love watching it. The players have the privilege to play a GAME for a large sum of money because OWNERS allow them to. Without OWNERS there are no teams, without teams there is no NFL. Without the NFLPA there are still players that can fill the teams and people will still tune in to watch it.
Not at a profit.
Mar 4, 2011 7:22am